What did the anti-war movement accomplish?

[pax]

Well no I didnt mean the lower military casualties are also due entirely to the peace movement. Maybe a little but its moslty technonolgical there tho I did see serious improvement in Russias treatment of its troops after soviet system fell and freedom permitted scrutiny of the military. Russia military stargtegy for a long time was to throw numbers at a situation... now they are becoming more like western forces. Professional and with the strategy to reduce losses at least for its forces...

Still I think you have slightly rose colored glasses there covermye. I dont credit the peace movement with everything but I thnk they deserve some credit for the evolution of more careful gov and management overall of military campaigns. Somalia had indeed few if any protesters. This shows that when a war is seriously legitimate even the most ardent pacifists, and I think I am one of them, sees the need for interventions.

I fully supported that intervention. I hoped at the time it would have led to more and safe interventions but instead it led to no more interventions in places like that that need it the most...

 

[Ilfirin]

Jock itch is never good.

I don't know about you, but if I were to get Jock itch I would take some pre-emptive measures to make sure I didn't get it again.

 

[Tahir2]

LOL
Ok was watching a debate on TV just now and the anti-war movement did force a vote in Parliament in the UK.

This has got to be a good thing, no?

 

[nutball]

It would be, had it been a relevant vote in Parliament.

 

[covermye]

Somalia wasn't all that long ago. I don't remember seeing one "pacifist" speak out against the military action there. But look at the lengths we went to to not hurt the innocents there. Look at the lengths we went to to not leave any of our own behind.

Eh? Which movie did you watch that in? A whole lot of civilians died in Somalia during "Black Hawk Down". A whole lot.

What I was getting at, Russ, is that we didn't retreat and blow the town up with WMD's, which is the mentality pax seems to be implying some (many?) in our leadership have.

 

[Pete]

And those who are taking part in the peace movement are enjoying their right to such politics even with the clearly abusive counter reactionary movement Ive seen expressed in so many newsgroups...

Give me a fucking break. Ppl marching with "Bush = Hitler" and "Israelis = Nazis" signs enjoy nothing but a common idiocy, and clearly don't seek to encourage a useful dialogue. And peace activists now wanting us to pull out of the current power vacuum in Iraq are making an even more illogical request than their previous one to leave Saddam in power for the sake of the innocent Iraqi civilians.

 

[pax]

And those who are taking part in the peace movement are enjoying their right to such politics even with the clearly abusive counter reactionary movement Ive seen expressed in so many newsgroups...

Give me a fucking break. Ppl marching with "Bush = Hitler" and "Israelis = Nazis" signs enjoy nothing but a common idiocy, and clearly don't seek to encourage a useful dialogue. And peace activists now wanting us to pull out of the current power vacuum in Iraq are making an even more illogical request than their previous one to leave Saddam in power for the sake of the innocent Iraqi civilians.

Thats the problem they arent all like that. You're only watching coverage by the likes of foxnews and getting a distorted view of the anti war movement. I never demonized any individual members of the current admin or any high ranking officers. This is the first major war after Vietnam that involved invading another fairly big nation. Kuwait was a modest campaign as well and a very small country... There was legitimate concern about the consequences of the war especially if wmds were used by Iraq which thankfully werent but who could have promised they wouldnt have before the war?

I never said I think the current leadership would be evil without the anti war movement. I think we ahev good leadership because in part the amnti war movement has exerted politicla pressure for the last 40 odd years for the politically involved to have better credentials before they come into power.

We saw for ex the Marine corps almost abandoned in the 1970's because of several scandals. Its clear that better leadership has made the corps a lot more professional today than it was before.

If you guys could watch a little more BBc and maybe even CBC you would have seen several anti war leaders give very cogent argumenst against the war... many sent chills down my spine... and I still dont sleep well thinking some terrorist out there has a suitcase of something we dont know about... yet...

 

[covermye]

Thats the problem they arent all like that. You're only watching coverage by the likes of foxnews and getting a distorted view of the anti war movement.

How do you have any idea what I watch or where I get my news information? Please don't make such elementary assumptions...

I never demonized any individual members of the current admin or any high ranking officers.

Well if you're only talking about a few people that you've chatted with on instant messenger that think we should have just nuked the whole country of Iraq, why are you even making the argument then? There will always be people who hold opinions of both extremes to any argument. The FACT remains, though, that these people aren't members of our military and government leadership, so it really doesn't matter. Originally, you refered to our country having its "own little Saddams". If you weren't refering to military/government leadership, I don't know why you even brought it up. Every country's general population will always have it's "own little Saddams", "own little Hitlers", "own little Barbara Streisands", "own little Brad Pitts", etc... etc... I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that the "huge pacifist movement" that I contend isn't huge at all, hasn't had any affect on the way we fight our wars in the context of the safety of our own military's safety OR the safety of civilians. It's been technology driven, pure and simple. These aren't rose colored glasses I'm typing with... it's just common sense. The alternative means I have to assume that if it weren't for the pacifists, we'd be recklessly killing every Iraqi citizen we saw on the streets or even suspected of being a "Saddam sympathizer", or worse, would consider dropping some of those big-assed 20,000 lb bombs all over the cities of Iraq. That's just silly.

This is the first major war after Vietnam that involved invading another fairly big nation. Kuwait was a modest campaign as well and a very small country...

You wouldn't call it a "modest campaign" if you had participated in it. The ground forces involved on both sides were substantially larger than this war, mind you.

There was legitimate concern about the consequences of the war especially if wmds were used by Iraq which thankfully werent but who could have promised they wouldnt have before the war?

Nobody could have. Perhaps it was influence from the "huge pacifist movement" that compelled Saddam to not use WMD's in this war...

If you guys could watch a little more BBc and maybe even CBC you would have seen several anti war leaders give very cogent argumenst against the war... many sent chills down my spine...

Again, please don't assume that I don't, because I do. Your assumption that eveyone who watches BBC would side with you and everyone that doesn't side with you must only get their new from FOX is a little simple-minded, don't you think?

and I still dont sleep well thinking some terrorist out there has a suitcase of something we dont know about... yet...

Neither do I. That's why I'm fully behind our leadership and its determination to find these guys that may have these suitcases. Flushing them out of Iraq was one part of the "war on terror" that needed to be done, IMO.

 

[RussSchultz]

To weigh in: Precision munitions, which are a boon to winning the military war, do have a "side effect" of not doing as much collateral damage. That isn't WHY the precision guided munitions exist, of course.

I think, however, that public pressure (not necessarily "the peace movement") has demanded that technology be applied to lowering civilian casualties. For example, the current war could not have been fought with carpet bombing, or ballistically aimed missiles. The civilian casualties would have been too high to convince the average joe that it was a "good thing". This pressure on the military has guided them to create smaller, bombs that kill only their target, instead of putting all of their eggs into super cluster bombs, or a bunch of MOAB type munitions. (Both which would have won the military war more quickly)

 

[pax]

I dont see how much more simple minded you can get by saying a large cultural movement like the pacifist can be totally ignored in a democracy. You assume its small but its not just thse who protest who are the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Anti war sentiment in polls has run regularly in the 30% or one in 3 americans.

If you still think thats irrelevant I dont know what else to tell ya. Im glad you can admit that not all our compatriots are well minded individuals and no I dont mean only seeing 'little saddams' in icq or newsgroups. Quite a few politicians made some very disturbing declarations which were well publicized over the winter. I do know that most politicians seems to be decent tho. Leaders largely reflect the poeple the represent in a democracy. The healthier the pacifist movement the better the leadership.

If we were only warrior minded Im not so sure the technological evolution of things would have been as applied to the battlefield as wed like to think.

 

[Humus]

Not saying the anti war movement is the only factor in the careful planning and execution of this war but if you say it had no effect at all I think its a pretty generalizing silly statement of its own.

It had no effect at all. If you think there is a high-ranking military official that values innocent civilian and U.S. Troop lives less than your "average pacifist", you're completely wrong.

No effect at all it really stretching it. Do you think Bush and Blair completely ignores that millions are protesting on the streets? It's obvious they didn't, especially Blair who had serious problems with public opionion. Everyone is most likely considering it, and the political rhetoric most definitely showed this. Had this war not been so impopular I don't even think they would have chosen the name "operation Iraqi freedom", but probably something closer to "dessert storm" in 91, a cool name rather than a name appealing the public.

In the end, everyone is affected by what's around them. People fighting the war too. Say a group of soldiers come under attack, there are some enemy soldiers hiding in a house, but they also think that there may be some civilians in there too. What do they do? They can either blast the building immediately removing the treat, or they can try to just take out those who are shooting at them, potentially at the risk of getting killed or injured themself in the operation. With the public opionion about this war, and with all the buzz-words around it, I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make that the soldiers are more likely to go the careful route and not blast the building until they can make it 100% sure there are no innocent people in there than if the war had not been widely protested.

 

[Legion]

Show us how many people without a job (or a life) there is in this world

How about we start with the number of Human Shields they are and go from there

 

[Legion]

Fred without useful idiots where would the liberals be?

 

[Legion]

Covermye: You've got it all wrong! IT was all the protesting that by the tenderness of Saddam's heart moved him to not use wmd! Just like all that protesting slowed Germany's waltzing through their backyard....err western europe.

Pax the pacisfist/profacist (to quote Orwell) movement did about as much good as french protests did against Nazi invation.

 

[pax]

I dont care about Orwell paranoid view of things. To call someone pro something just because hes anti something else is the lousiest form of argumentation you can find... Again the anti war mobvement isnt always anti war. There was virtually no anti war movement in the late 30's in europe and especially the French who proposed invading Germany in 1939 but the brits and the americans refused to participate. There also was no anti war movement of note when somalia was invaded... I was for somalia and kosovo but not for Iraq for the most obvious reasons the pro war movement consistently chooses to ignore...

 

[Legion]

I dont care about Orwell paranoid view of things. To call someone pro something just because hes anti something else is the lousiest form of argumentation you can find...

Actually its quite a valid argument and its reinforced by history . Pacisive forms of protest 9/10 times won't work historically . This is do to the nature of the rulers in power. By making peaceful protests you are assuming the ruling powers care about the senseless loss of life. Any one can see Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Polpot, Saddam, Oda Nobunaga, the Shogunates of Japan, the dynasties of China don't give two shakes of a rat's @ss about how peacefully protestors protest. To them you are the enemy. This of course is not to say peaceful protests don't work but one should employ some common sense before running with civil disobedience.

What Orwell was referring to in his statement was simply as i have stated; protesting a fascist dictator 9/10 times won't enable you to achieve your goals. In fact it will more than likely enable the dictator to achieve his goals.

To say you don't care about Orwell's thoughts says nothing about their relevancy.

Again the anti war mobvement isnt always anti war. There was virtually no anti war movement in the late 30's in europe and especially the French who proposed invading Germany in 1939 but the brits and the americans refused to participate.

The first part is a paradox.

So you can see exactly what Orwell was referring to? This is a prime example. Simply ignoring the problem won't make it go away. I would consider this as silent disagreement with Hitler's actions.

all things aside i don't think the US had a moral obligation to stop Hitler at the time.

There also was no anti war movement of note when somalia was invaded... I was for somalia and kosovo but not for Iraq for the most obvious reasons the pro war movement consistently chooses to ignore...

The point of Orwell still stands. he didn't seperate protestors from silent objectors.

furthermore 12 years of peaceful sanctions didn't do much for the Iraqi people.

 

[pax]

I understand the moral reasons for taking out saddam but not the practical ones. The risks taken were immense. We pretty much knew what Hitler was about in 39. I think we all had a moral obligation to take him out. And this was in the age before wmds (there were some chemical weapons but they were primitive compared to today... and no bio or nukes were yet on the scene of course).

I think Orwell is overused today... of course he had some points which many humanists and in the anti war movement believe (and so do I in some scenarios like somalia\rwanda ect...) but the case in Iraq wasnt exactly 1984.

Why would we have had less of a moral obligation to take out Hitler than saddam?... Hitler was pretty much an antagonist for years as saddam has been... 12 years of Saddams antagonism vs about 6 for Hitler but still Hitler was way worse...

 

[Legion]

I understand the moral reasons for taking out saddam but not the practical ones.

. What is not pragmatic about doing the right thing?

The risks taken were immense.

From your nonmilitary perspective of course. The risks in fighting hitler were far greater yet you do not complain.

We pretty much knew what Hitler was about in 39.

And that makes fighting him less then a risk? Do you doubt our military intellegence now?

I think we all had a moral obligation to take him out. And this was in the age before wmds (there were some chemical weapons but they were primitive compared to today... and no bio or nukes were yet on the scene of course).

the age before WMD? Lol. Chlorine gas was used in WWI. Are you trying to assert our military is not equiped to cope with WMD? Are you trying to tell me the threat of WMD is greater then the threat of Hitler's army? Should we avoid "doing the right thing" when challenged by the use of WMD?

I think Orwell is overused today... of course he had some points which many humanists and in the anti war movement believe (and so do I in some scenarios like somalia\rwanda ect...) but the case in Iraq wasnt exactly 1984.

How so? We have a murderous dictator responsible for killing thousands of Kurds, Iranians and his own people. I hardly see a difference!

Why would we have had less of a moral obligation to take out Hitler than saddam?... Hitler was pretty much an antagonist for years as saddam has been... 12 years of Saddams antagonism vs about 6 for Hitler but still Hitler was way worse...

 

[covermye]

We pretty much knew what Hitler was about in 39. I think we all had a moral obligation to take him out

And we don't pretty much know what Saddam is (was?) about? How many lives would have been saved if the world would have been more pro-active with Hitler?

And this was in the age before wmds (there were some chemical weapons but they were primitive compared to today... and no bio or nukes were yet on the scene of course).

No nukes... but Hitler had WMD's: Just ask the Jews that ended up in gas chambers... or worse...

12 years of Saddams antagonism vs about 6 for Hitler but still Hitler was way worse...

Hitler was way worse because nobody did anything about him until it was almost too late. The similarities between the mentalities of these two are very strong... Was it Uday's notes that were found where he had written that Saddam saw a plan for a "greater Iraq" that included taking Kuwait, Jordan, and others, and that Kuwait was judged to be easiest so that's where they went first? Screw this "imperialist Americans" crap... that's the freakin' definition of an imperialist there, man! It's exactly what Hitler was doing... we just didn't let Saddam get as far.

If we had allowed him to take Kuwait, then Jordan and part of Iran... maybe parts of Turkey, Syria, and the Palestinian land, would you THEN have been beind a war with Saddam? What sense does it make to go that far when you're sure of what Saddam would have turned into at this point anyway?

 

[Tahir2]

You have to try and put things in context too. For example do you know why Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait?