Thread: What Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

I think most people are still extremely anti war. I think the problem however, is what people consider war. Support for invading Iran is practically nonexistent, and the government can't seem to get any support for it at all and they been trying for years. There is pretty much no support for a full scale war any where.

However, for some reason people don't see other military actions as war. For example, the president just goes out and starts bombing countries and most people don't seem to care because they don't think bombing people counts as war. Flying drones over the country and shooting people isn't war. Horrible sanctions and blockades are not war. Giving weapons to people is not war.

Clearly all those actions are war, but for some reason people in the US don't seem to understand that, or they don't care. As long as troops are not on the ground, they seem to believe it isn't really war.

Because war hasn't been declared. IIRC, the last time war was truly declared was WWII.

That's interesting because it still involves the stuff that anti-war Americans have historically criticized about war.

There were very large protests against out actions in Iraq for a big part of last decade. The protests against our actions in Afghanistan have always been pretty miniscule, but Iraq protest fever was enormous for a while. The things they said against the war-- killing innocents, sovereign nation, America the bully, inspiring terrorism, etc.-- apply to the war in Afghanistan and to the drone attacks. War protests need to make a comeback.

Isn't this really obvious? The anti-war movement was mostly made up of democrats. A democrat is now in office. Hence, they turn a blind eye. All you have now is libertarians and Ron Paul people, mostly. That's only a very small percentage of the early 2000's anti-war crowd.

I agree with you. I really asked a rhetorical question. The anti-war movement pretty much died in January of 2009. I think the truth about it is so obvious that I didn't even have to state it.

Click to enlarge:

obama hypocrisy.jpg

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I went through an anti-war phase after 9/11, and it lasted a long time.

Uh, correction... I went through a pro-war phase after 9/11. I'm back to where I was in the late 80's and early 90's now.

They are really similar because they are both a war. Saying all these conflicts are not war is like saying the Vietnam war wasn't a war because it wasn't declare. Personally I would go a step further and even say embargo and harsh sanctions can be acts of war, especially since some are extremely brutal and are meant to cause mass starvation in countries. That is a favorite of the US, we often try to starve a country and hope the people get so upset they revolt against their government.

These are all wars, and we shouldn't be involved in my opinion.

Click to enlarge:

obama peace prize.jpg

Well, it looks like we might be going to war with Syria any minute now, but it is not certain from the American public's perspective. What should we do?

Russia Compares Syria War Drums to Iraq Invasion, Warns of Consequences of Intervention - ABC News

war syria.jpg

Why's it always gotta be about scoring points against 'the left'? Come on man... how are left and right wings even relevant here? Eschewing serious political discourse in favour of these tribal dichotomies is pretty much the major problem in American politics and perhaps even all of American culture right now.

My attack was on the Democratic Party, not the true left. Supporting preemptive wars in the Middle East is not liberal/left, but it is very Democrat when a Democrat is the president. That's the answer to the title question. If you disagree, what do you think the answer is?

I think there are probably plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who are sceptical about involvement in Syria, and plenty also who take the opposite view. I'm not an American and was pretty young in 2001 so I don't really know what the extent of anti-war protest was, but at the very least there seem to be major differences between the two situations. I don't see at all how Syria can accurately be described as a "pre-emptive war". The country is in the middle of a revolution and chemical weapons have just been deployed; this is about a military retaliation to stop a humanitarian crisis. I don't know what is supposed to be being "pre-empted". Obviously Syria is not interested in attacking the US.

Our concern is that the chemical weapons used in Syria might have come from the government and the weapons might get into the wrong hands and result in an attack against us. That was our main concern about Saddam Hussein. We believed Hussein had chemical weapons and other WMD's, and we attacked his government although they had not attacked us. The attack against the Hussein regime was therefore preemptive, as an attack on the Syrian government would be. Beyond that, there are differences, but the anti-war Democrats were rabidly outspoken about the factors I just described.

I was a big Iraq War supporter back then, but I have changed my mind about how to handle these situations. I don't agree with my 2003 position any more. I have seen the results ten years down the road.

The Iraq War was protested by hundreds of thousands of Americans. They had enormous demonstrations, and they did things like block up NYC traffic. They called Bush a terrorist, said we didn't have enough evidence that Hussein had WMD's, went off about how Iraq is a sovereign nation, said that preemptive attacks are unjustified, argued that a preemptive war will result in more terrorists, spoke out about civilian casualties, and said we are bullies. I am wondering what happened to that philosophy. All of that applies to war with Syria also. I seriously doubt the majority of the Democratic Party changed their minds like I did. I don't think we switched places. I really think that most of them were being insincere the whole time.

Something that is really tripping me out is that this anti-war crowd of the previous decade helped bring Barack Obama to popularity. Obama spoke about having a strong anti-war position on Iraq and said he wanted to bring an end to the Patriot Act and invasive surveillance. Then he got into office and kept the Iraq War going for his first term, expanded the war in Afghanistan, signed a bill for the continuation of the Patriot Act, signed the NDAA, and expanded the NSA's surveillance program. Now he is ready for war with Syria over WMD's we aren't even sure the government has. The Democratic Party is not saying anything against any of this. Honestly, it is the strangest political phenomenon I have ever come across.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Our concern is that the chemical weapons used in Syria might have come from the government and the weapons might get into the wrong hands and result in an attack against us. That was our main concern about Saddam Hussein. We believed Hussein had chemical weapons and other WMD's, and we attacked his government although they had not attacked us. The attack against the Hussein regime was therefore preemptive, as an attack on the Syrian government would be. Beyond that, there are differences, but the anti-war Democrats were rabidly outspoken about the factors I just described.

Saddam was attacked because (ostensibly) the US thought he might use WMDs on them. Unless your media over there is seriously off kilter, nobody is suggesting that the Syrian government is going to use WMDs on America... indeed, that will only become a serious contingency in the case that the Syrian government loses power and becomes replaced by radical Islamists. The idea that this attack is to prevent Syria attacking America makes no sense and certainly isn't present in the UK media, nor in what I've heard from American diplomats. Any attack would (ostensibly) be to prevent a humanitarian crisis inflicted by the Syrian government upon its own populace - very different from the chief reason we were given for invading Iraq.

The Iraq War was protested by hundreds of thousands of Americans. They had enormous demonstrations, and they did things like block up NYC traffic.

When, though? Obama hasn't given any statement as to his intentions yet. Were there massive anti-war demonstrations before Bush actually said he wanted to go to war?

The issue is about the fact that the Syrian government may have used chemical weapons and about the fact that they even have them. That concern is about the threat of future WMD terrorism against the United States. There is also the humanitarian issue of how a government treats its people. All of those were rationales for the Iraq War. However, the list of reasons for the Iraq War was much longer than that. It was much more justified than attacking Syria this week would be.

There were demonstrations when there was only talk of war against the Hussein regime, but they got much bigger once the war started. If we go to war with Syria, there will not be mass demonstrations, though there might be a few small ones. If a Republican were president, protesting would be on the edge of skyrocketing. It's about politics, not true principle.

When I spoke to Syrians in late 2011, more than anything they wanted the world to bear witness. It was important to them that major news media actually covers their plight. Like all of Arab Spring, they weren't necessarily asking for American-government intervention, but for the whole world to witness the truth.

When these corrupt governments, militaries or police forces attack their own people, they also try to hide their crimes with media blackouts. That's what made Arab Spring so historically important, were this the 80s the media blackout would have been successful. Thanks to cell phones, internet, hackers, youtube and facebook they couldn't hide arab spring. In late 2011 you could see horrifying videos of what was really going down in Syria. Children being slaughtered and it was all there for the world to see on youtube. But did the major news outlets show those horrifying videos?

In 2011 thats what Syrians were asking of Americans - to bear witness the truth of these horrible crimes.

When the whole world witnesses it places immense political pressure. Not just political pressure on the Syrian 'government' - but every government in the world that has ever considered it legit. Do I want americans to go in there and intervene? No. Because I don't think our military is capable of saving lives. Look what it did in Iraq, bomb Baghdad? And then we had the balls to try to tell the people of Iraq we were there to liberate them from oppression? WTF

But I spoke to those Syrians in 2011. Its been a long time already, Syrians only wanted peaceful non-violent demonstrations for liberty and democracy. Its gone beyond non-violent. If the Syrians ask of their global community for intervention then I am down for it. I am against the idea of AMERICAN intervention. Send them medical aid, supplies. But please, please, lets send a more competent military that can do better than just blow up innocent people.

But at the end of the day the best thing that we foreign civilians can do for Syrians is to place political pressure on our governments to declare the government-military-whatever of Syria illegitimate. At the Syrian rally I witnessed they were already declaring their revolution a victory, that's the mentality I believe they want all of us to carry. To believe in the people of Syria.

(PS, this was in dallas on the memorial day of JFKs death)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If we go to war with Syria, there will not be mass demonstrations, though there might be a few small ones. If a Republican were president, protesting would be on the edge of skyrocketing. It's about politics, not true principle.

It seems to me a bit harsh to be criticizing left wingers for not attending protests which haven't happened yet, and for attending protests against Presidents who do not exist.

I'm glad the UK is winding back on the rhetoric. Cameron today admitted we do not know for sure who carried out the attack. To be honest I have no idea what the evidence was in the first place... it seems to me a lot of politicians have been talking about "the evidence" without actually caring to mention what this evidence was. What is vital is that we are measured about this and don't rush into anything before properly investigating what's happened. If it is proven that the Syrian regime is committing war crimes against its own populace... I am on the fence about what should happen after that. But the one thing that should definitely not happen is a premature attack. Making that mistake again so soon after Iraq would be inane.

Edit: the UK parliament has just surprised the media by firmly rejecting current military action. I'm heartened by that... turns out politicians do have long term memory.

Oh, it's not just that Democrats are not attending protests. The vast majority of them are not saying a word. They don't give a happy damn. They used to, so they said.

I'm glad your politicians are against military action. I used to support the world police position of the U.S. and Britain, but now I see the disasters the Iraq and Afghanistan situations are in 2013, and my country's economy is on the edge of collapse partly because of this world police stuff increasing the debt and driving down the value of the dollar. We need to stay away from the Middle East entirely. Our actions keep resulting in the problems we are supposed to be there to solve. It's like trying to put out a fire with a hose the sprays a stream of water and a stream of gasoline.

Obama doesn't seem to have much of a clue what he's doing.

Originally Posted by Xei

Obama doesn't seem to have much of a clue what he's doing.

I've been saying that since he was inaugurated!

Looks like the US is going to take action on Syria. But, in a shocking turn of events, Obama is asking for congressional approval first*.

The next thing to look forward to is whether Congress will approve of the military strikes. And if they don't, whether Obama will go ahead and bomb the place anyway.

*He originally planned to move forward w/o approval, but changed his mind last night.

Perhaps it's a reaction to British events. Cameron didn't have to ask Parliament, either, but doing it on his own authority alone in post-Iraq culture would have been a bad move. It was a major political event; a Prime Minister hasn't failed to gain support for military action in at least 150 years.

In other news, it's rare that I agree so strongly with Putin:

BBC News - Russia's Vladimir Putin challenges US on Syria claims

Couldn't have put that much better myself.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Looks like the US is going to take action on Syria. But, in a shocking turn of events, Obama is asking for congressional approval first*.

The next thing to look forward to is whether Congress will approve of the military strikes. And if they don't, whether Obama will go ahead and bomb the place anyway.

*He originally planned to move forward w/o approval, but changed his mind last night.

I think it might be Obama's way out without saying he was wrong. If so, that's awesome. I don't think Congress will approve the war. They know that most of the country doesn't want it. Obama might be counting on Congressional disapproval so he can walk away from the issue and sound like he thinks he was right the whole time. I hope that's what it is.

Originally Posted by Xei

Perhaps it's a reaction to British events. Cameron didn't have to ask Parliament, either, but doing it on his own authority alone in post-Iraq culture would have been a bad move. It was a major political event; a Prime Minister hasn't failed to gain support for military action in at least 150 years.

In other news, it's rare that I agree so strongly with Putin:

BBC News - Russia's Vladimir Putin challenges US on Syria claims

Couldn't have put that much better myself.

I've agreed with Putin on two recent major issues. I never dreamed I would agree with a Russian president over a U.S. president when I was a kid during the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I went through an anti-war phase after 9/11, and it lasted a long time.

That sentence, literally (figuratively), made my head explode. I am so glad you made the correction, afterward. Lol.

I think we are in an interesting time, right now. I truly believe that we are at a time where the Military Industrial Complex (and like factions) is understanding the power that the internet gives to the people who might be in opposition to them. So, propaganda - while still effective - is nowhere near as easy to pull off as it used to be. However, it is still amazingly effective, because it is not all about psy-ops and "telling us one thing, when they mean the other". It is more than that. Propaganda is woven into our way of being. It manifests itself in the 'creature comforts' that we have and celebrate in our daily lives. War is always billed as this 'necessary evil', and it's always billed as a way to protect these perceived 'freedoms' that we have. Well, think about it; how easy is it for an idea like that to be manipulated?

What do you instantly think of, when you think of anti-war protesters? If you're like me (who I consider to be mindful, worldly, understanding and intelligent), you're probably thinking of someone with a unabashedly-hippie image, a stereotypically anti-government disposition, and a treehugger's mentality that is obviously so much more emotional than it is logical. Funny, how that works, right? I honestly thing that that is part of the psy-op, itself. We aren't supposed to take these people seriously. We are supposed to go with the 'popular' ideology, which is the one professed to us nightly, by Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, and the rest of the talking heads on TV who are designed to tell us what to think, as opposed to simply reporting on what is happening.

This isn't a Liberal or Democrat thing. One can say that the anti-war movement is being quiet because there is a Democrat in office...but where was the anti-war movement in 2003? They were STILL a minority, as they are now, because we were collectively SOLD the idea of a war being for 'the greater good' - albeit it by an opposite party. The anti-war movement is still here, but it has been pounded into near-unconsciousness. The whistle-blowers are traitors now, remember? But, how can we be anti-war, when 'too much dissent' amounts to treason? Get me?

Originally Posted by Xei

Obama doesn't seem to have much of a clue what he's doing.

I think it's more about Obama likely butting heads with the people who Actually Run This Country.

Hint: Those people 'Don't Want' congressional oversight, on issues like this.