What did the anti-war movement accomplish?

[RussSchultz]

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

The super lefty would say "because the US told him it was OK".

The not so super lefty would say it was because those bastards in Kuwait were "transverse" drilling into oil fields in Iraq.

The centrists would say Iraq has always seen Kuwait as a wayward state, plus there was economic interests at heart over the disputed oil fields.

The not quite fascist right would say its because Saddam was evil, and wanted Kuwait for the Oil, and perhaps had eyes on Saudi Arabia.

The fascist right would say it was so Saddam could throw babies from incubators.

Hopefully I covered the possibilities.

 

[Tahir2]

Well there is one other that was explained by Naom Chomsky et al and it had something to do with debts that the Iran-Iraq war created and the financial market (a recession) and the demands of paying back the loans by Kuwait...deja vu anyone?

 

[RussSchultz]

Wow. He's sounding more and more like Hitler every day. =)(

 

[Crusher]

One explanation I heard was that Kuwait and other neighboring countries were lowering the price of oil too much and debt-ridden Iraq was forced to do something to prevent the loss of income. I don't see how this holds water though, since waging war would only increase their debt, and they could have easily increased their oil production to cover the loss from the lower price. It's not as if people wouldn't have bought more oil.

 

[Sabastian]

Well to answer the question "What did the anti-war movement accomplish?". It really is not that clear what has been managed by this movement at all. It has shown a vastly more organized approach in Europe and North America but to say that these protest organized in the mid eastern countries are coming from the same page is ridiculous. There is no connection in reality between the groups that protested in the mid east and the west both are protesting for different reasons. There is the precept ion though that these groups were able to put some pressure on the governments of some democratic countries. This only gives more credence to the vertues of democracy in the west.

But in reality the protestors had little effect on the decision of the US and UK to enter into the conflict. This is a good thing. Polls in the US and UK before the war did not favor the action but after the decision to remove Saddam was made official there was a clear change in attitudes. While one cannot argue that protests of hundreds of thousands against the war would not effect polls. Watching the news average people see these throngs of people protesting and it certainly seems like the thing to support. But polls show clear support of the actions afterwards and this is far more important because it says that their are a vast majority whom do not attend the protests .... the silent majority. There is no question the people whom were protesting the war were involved in the protest for a variety of reasons. Many were Catholics simply following the Popes lead, a great many of the protests were actually organized by loosely associated left wing groups hence the preponderance of the pacifists, some were just going with the flow etc but there were likely a large majority whom had little good reason to protest and mostly their motivations were born of ignorance.

http://homepage.mac.com/evancm/brain-terminal/peace-protest-hq.wmv

http://homepage.mac.com/evancm/brain-terminal/video/sf-2003-03-15/sf-2003-03-15-hq.wmv

Very provolking video and it speaks volumes about many of the protestors and their motives. Really a sad truth of what is driving the anti-war movement. You only have to look a little deeper past the videos of massive protests to see what is the most driving force behind the movements and it is mostly ignorance.

What we are seeing though is the liberation of a state from tyranny and the people whom have been liberated are happy about that. The irony that many of the peace loving protestors are having to face the fact that they did not really support this liberation. As I have said before there really must be plenty of people whom are thinking in retrospect of their protest with allot of .... regret. They became involved with the political process via these protest and from what I can see their fears are and have been proven to be unfounded. Next time around I wouldn't expect to see as many willing to disapprove of the actions of the US and allied countries as in this instance they really have been made fools of and it was the wisdom of the US and UK governments to have the foresight that this indeed would be the case and pressed on with the action. Kudos to them I say.

While the anti-war/left wing activist may have become more organized on the global level I really think their protesting of this war may have set back whatever political agenda they had... substantially. The next time there is a war and protest are held many will regard these people with contempt and disregard I believe. So in the end I really do think that this was a major set back for the anti-war movement.

 

[pax]

My non military perspective was enhanced by statements of those who do have such qualities including countless specialists in bio warfare including the cia and state dept who all warned of the possible consequences.

Again I never disputed the moral reasons to take out Saddam. And neither did most in the anti war movement. The fact you guys keep bringing it up shows you cant argue the real points about why the anti war movement opposed the war.

Hitler had virtually no serious wmds in 39... the gas used in death camps was not a wmd... It was only useful in closed areas...

The risk of taking out hitler in 39 were less than with saddam today. If you had some understanding of modern bio weapons you wouldnt be saying this. Early 20th century chemical weapons are nowhere as dangerous as those today and those today dont pose enough of a risk in my opinion to taking out saddam. Hitler had a modest conventional army in 39 in fact. His generals tried to delay the war another 2 years in order to have serious effective force in place... But then the allies were also rearming...

What do I doubt about the military intelligence? Its Bush who doubted it after CIA warned him of the risks not me.

Bio weapons and not just nukes are the line we cant cross. As much as Id like to think that the military is capable today to handle such things the reality is they cant. The biggest argument to go to war was the biggest argument to NOT goto war with Iraq. We had strong suspicions of weaponized small pox and other equally lethal anti cattle and plant bio wmds and others, yet we still went ahead...

The time to take out Saddam was 15 years ago. But then he was our bud and we were HELPING the fucker get biological precursors, tech and knowhow to build an arsenal. All because of Iran. As if our own military couldnt take care of Iran if it had become agressive... We had no reason to arm a brute like him.

I can resume my stance as this: You cant compare some biological weapons to mere chemical and especially old chemical weapons like mustard and chlorine gas available in WW2...

If in a few weeks some fanatic releases a few hundred pounds of dry weaponized small pox in some large US city, thats even slightly genetically modified, then not only can you expect a true cataclysm to hit the US in terms of people who die and fall sick. But it also will destroy a large part of the US economy which is the engine of the worlds economy. This in itself could send millions if not hundreds of millions into poverty and early death from want of basic things... it will make saddams brutal rule seem pitiful by example...

When Iraq was invaded there is every reason to think Saddam considered himself condemned. Especially after the US refused amnesty after a certain point. Men who think they are condemned have little to be afraid of. And in Saddams situation hed have every reason to hit back with a terrible weapon that would make him go down in muslim history as some twisted hero who had the last laugh on the 'imperialistic west'

NOW do you get it???

 

[Sabastian]

My non military perspective was enhanced by statements of those who do have such qualities including countless specialists in bio warfare including the cia and state dept who all warned of the possible consequences.

What of the consequences of leaving the mad man and his objectives unchecked? What about the warnings that we have seen come from this blood craving terrorist movement? Warn all you like about the possible consequences of the military action it doesn't change the fact that this terrorism already had designs of them sorts with or without any sort of confrontation. The simple fact is the dangers have not increased IMO they are the same or less.

Again I never disputed the moral reasons to take out Saddam. And neither did most in the anti war movement. The fact you guys keep bringing it up shows you cant argue the real points about why the anti war movement opposed the war.

Just what are the real points behind the anti war movement, I thought it was about innocent lives and so on. Pacifism for pacifisms sake or whatever. There really isn't much in the way of moral ground for the anti war movement at this point nor are there many "real points", please elaborate on this and educate everyone.

Hitler had virtually no serious wmds in 39... the gas used in death camps was not a wmd... It was only useful in closed areas... If youd read my post covermye I wouldnt have to keep repeating myself...

The risk of taking out hitler in 39 were less than with saddma today. If you had some understanding of modern bio weapons you wouldnt be saying this. Early 20th cnetury chemical weapons are nowhere as danbgerous as those today and those today dont pose enough of a risk in my opinion to taking out saddam. Hitler had a modest conventional amrjy in 39 in fact. His generals tried to delay the war another 2 years in order to have serious effective force in place... But then the allies were also rearming...

What does Iraq have to do with Hitler outside of wishing for the same outcome of the Jewish people? There really is no argument that a biological weapon is more deadly then say mustard gas and the like.

What do I doubt about the mnilitary intelligence? Its Bush who doubted it after CIA warned him of the risks not me.

Looks like whatever the matter Bush was right.

Bio weapons and not just nukes are the line we cant cross. As much as Id like to think that the military is capable today to handle such things the reality is they cant. The biggest argument to go to war was the biggest argument to NOT goto war with Iraq. We had strong suspicions of weaponized small pox and other equally lethal anti cattle and plant bio wmds yet we still went ahead...

It seems that you are so fearful of Biological weapons that you would simply let any whom have these weapons do whatever they would like. Rather then stand up and condemn them for what they do and what they stand for, that is a sad statement. While I would not argue that the consequences of the use of a Biological weapon would not be a danger what is worse is to let them use that fear to control and stay in power. A cowards argument in the end.

The time to take out Saddam was 15 years ago. But then he was our bud and we were HELPING the fucker get biological precursors, tech and knowhow to build an arsenal. All because of Iran. As if your own military couldnt take care of Iran if it had become agressive...

I agree entirely he should have been removed then but the political opposition in the coalition would have been there then as well. If you think that the US was the only state to help Saddam with chemical weapons and the fight with Iran you are sadly mistaken many other countries supplied a variety of weapons and intel to Iraq.

I can resume my stance as this: You cant compare some biological weapons to mere chemical and especially old chemical wepaons like mustard and chlorine gas available in WW2....

If this is your only argument then truely you must be regretting your stance on the war as there has been no use of this weaponry. Also it is clearly evident that you would not use the argument that Iraq has no WMD as it seems obvious that you strongly believe that they do, so much so that you are fearful of an attack using a Biological weapon.

If in a few weeks some fanatic releases a few hundred pounds of dry weaponized in some large US city, small pox thats even slightly genetically modified, then not only can you expect a true cataclysm to hit the US in terms of people who die and fall sick. But it also will destroy a large part of the US economy which is the engine of the worlds economy. This in itself could send millions if not hundreds of millions into poverty and early death from want of basic things... it will make saddams brutal rule seem pitiful by example....

Dear lord man, doom and gloom. While it is possible I believe that terrorist may have biological weapons why did they not release these weapons as of yet? Surely you are doing some flip flop argument for the anti war movement as first they wanted evidence that indeed there were WMD now it seems you have moved to this advanced argument in their case where they always had them and now it is simply a matter of time before we are exposed to them. I don't recall this being a "real point" of the anti war movement at all.

When Iraq was invaded there is every reason to think Saddam considered himself condemned. Especially after the US refused amnesty after a certain point. Men who think they are condemned have little to be afraid of. And in Saddams situation hed have every reason to hit back with a terrible weapon that would make him go down in muslim history as some twisted hero who had the last laugh on the 'imperialistic west'

NOW do you get it???

Yes you have made it clear now. I am just waiting for the doom and gloom to kik in. Any day now.... waiting and waiting to see the folly of our ways when Saddam unleashes this massively deadly biological weapon... on and on. Don't hold your breath man.

 

[pax]

You assume anyone who has wmds will use them without provocation. Bush wasnt right he was lucky. And only lucky so far. We still have no firm knowledge of what Iraq had or what may be in the pipe heading our way. The idea any state or regime would commit suicide against us when it probably had these weapons for years already and didnt act is madness...

It is indeed sad that we went so far to develop those wmds during the cold war. We had plenty deterrence with nukes but we had to also dev bio and new chems... The arms race was insane in its scope and developpement. It was the US who pioneered bio weapons and then stop its developpemt in the 60's for the simple reason it was too easy to make. The US then coined the phrase to describe it "the poor man's atom bomb".

Were they innevitable developpements of our modern society? Yes but the cold war accelerated some technologies that might still not have seen the light of day yet had it not been for that time.

Also inevitable is the fact we will have many small countries with significant detterrents with wmds in the near future if not now already secretly. We cant conquer that part of the world... Not safely or easily. We need to help the world democratize as peacefully as possible. Intervene militarily in those dictatorships who do not have those weapons but by no means will all dictators come to an end militarily. In fact I think most will go the way of the dodo by simple evolutionary process of people wanting democracy...


Never said the US was the only nation to help Iraq in the 80's. Never did use the argument that Iraq had no wmds as part of an arguement. We have been lucky no wmds were used on the troops or Israel. Its as simple as that. We are lucky SO FAR wmds havent been used by terrorists on us in the west...

I dont think either you or I know the time or place such a wepaon will be used. Terrorists are hunted people. They dont have the pleasure of time and place to act. Time will allay fears of me and virtually the WHOLE CIA but I think that will mean a year or 2 of significant risk at least espcially if in depth interviews reveal the existence of serious but missing bio weapons... Those interviews cant happen soon enough.

The anti war movment had many who worried aout this. Not as many as you think, at least not in Canada decried the lack of proof of iraq's wmds... Many I know and saw on bbc and cbc believe as do I they indeed had wmds... Some didint think the wmds were that dangerous and only worried about an expanded war that would have killed millions like vietnam.... some of those worries were valid... some not... US media has make a mockery of only the weakest reps of the anti war movment which is huge and varied. In my mind US media made a mockery of its journalistic professionalism.

Not gonna hold my breath and I am breathing a lot easier now but to say all my worried are gone would be foolish... ask the cia about it and let me know what they tell you.

You argue that deterrence worked during the campaign and none was used on our troops or Israel and that Im only preaching doom and gloom. Yet you wont accept that same argument when it comes to saying saddam wont use them in the future because of our immense deterrence(Im not just thinking the US which is huge by itself but probably most of the whole western and democratic world as whole). How can you come to that kind of reasoning? What could possibly happen in the future that would make saddam have more incentive to make that suicidal choice he wouldnt or couldnt make during the very annhiliation of his regime? How could you find more incentive than that?


And now I think I can use that famous overused emoticon

Not that Im a fan of emoticons if any of you have noticed hhe...

 

[Pete]

pax, would there have been greater risk of Hussein or terrorists aquiring and using WMD now, or in a year, or in five years? War is risky. Taking on Saddam now is the least risky proposition.

And the fringe benefits are substantial (msg to North Korea, democratic spark for Middle East, free Iraq, one less place for terrorists to hide).

BTW, Saddam may have been tempted NOT to use WMD if he figured he cuold somehow ride out the initial American attack, and force them to endure a prolonged war that would lead to American retreat and him still in power, but with greater international and Arab standing.

 

[pax]

One thing Id like to see is the suspected hidden intelligence we had on Saddam that we couldnt know for safety reasons of agents in Iraq or other such. If solid intelligence showed Saddam had no serious wmds other than the liquified anthrax and some chems then I think the invasion was well worth it for humanitarian reasons.

Ill always have a prob with the fact they used a pretty bad argument in the idea that Saddam and many in his regime would give some terrorist a more serious wmd later on as he acquired it like small pox or fission nuke... Its just plain suicidal and I cant see that happening under normal circumstances... No one could do this and expect to survive. Anyone smart enough to get into power would know that doing this on any western nation would bring ruin to any state once it was found out.

Stateless Terrorism I understand is different. Motivated by such things as radical religious ideals its def something that has to be rooted out (tho I think its unlikely to get serious wmds in the near future what with the pitiful efforts at trying to make ricin which is far from really usefull as a wmd.... good for assassination tho... ) but what happened in Iraq was the idea of state sponsored terrorism. There you cant hide as the state can easily be nailed for any serious wrongdoing...

Its the reasoning behind the whole thing that I find odd. If the official arguement was cover for a real one that couldnt be revealed at the time then I hope the time is near for us to get to hear the real thing. If it WAS the real arguement then Im seriously worried about the thinking of those in power in Washington right now.

It certainly would explain Powell's quick turnaround of an opponent to an invasion of Iraq to being a full fledge supporter...

Saddam is certainly the gambler Ill grant you that... He puts Vegas pros to shame...

 

[Legion]

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

The super lefty would say "because the US told him it was OK".

The not so super lefty would say it was because those bastards in Kuwait were "transverse" drilling into oil fields in Iraq.

The centrists would say Iraq has always seen Kuwait as a wayward state, plus there was economic interests at heart over the disputed oil fields.

The not quite fascist right would say its because Saddam was evil, and wanted Kuwait for the Oil, and perhaps had eyes on Saudi Arabia.

The fascist right would say it was so Saddam could throw babies from incubators.

Hopefully I covered the possibilities.

THe realist would say so he could control his oil interests.

 

[Legion]

Sabastian

It seems that you are a terribly uninformed person lacking in citing resources for your thoughts!

 

[Sabastian]

Sabastian

It seems that you are a terribly uninformed person lacking in citing resources for your thoughts!

Err yeah. Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

 

[pax]

I think hes being sarcastic towards me as his posts mirror more the right wing I think in the newgroups here... But your last post didnt have any references, though past posts did have quite a few so I dunno... Legion can you clear your sarcasm up for us?

 

[Legion]

i support the "right wing" therefore i am a pro-war hate monger.