Plotting the war curve

[Broken Glass Can]

Plotting the war curve (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050325-083716-9631r.htm)

At a recent White House press conference, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller called Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, President Bush's nominee for president of the World Bank, "a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history."

"One of the most unpopular wars in our history"? Hmmm, sounds like another editorial masquerading as a question. To the history books.

• Revolutionary War: Founding Father John Adams estimated one-third of Americans opposed independence, one-third were indifferent or vacillated, and only one-third supported the War of Indepen-dence. In other words, two-thirds of Americans were not in favor of the Revolutionary War. Pro-British Loyalists, called Tories by the American patriots, opposed the war. The Loyalists came from all social classes and occupations. While they tended to be foreign-born and Anglican, Loyalists included large landowners, small farmers and royal officeholders, with a many engaged in commerce and other professions. The Loyalists were strongest in the far Southern Colonies and the Middle Atlantic Colonies, especially New York and Pennsylvania, where fighting became a bitter civil war of raids and reprisals.

• War of 1812: While supported by frontiersmen's desire for free land, Southerners who wanted West Florida, and Western militants who wanted the British out of Canada, the war was voted against by every Federalist member of Congress. The humiliating defeats suffered by American troops made the fight so unpopular that the New England states — which never favored the war — considered seceding.

• Mexican-American War: Northern abolitionists and Whig members of Congress widely opposed this 1846 war. The opposition included then-Rep. Abraham Lincoln, and they called the war an "unnecessary and unconstitutional" war of "conquest." In fact, when the war ended, Congress censured President James Polk for starting the hostilities.

• Civil War: Both sides expected the war to last no more than a few months. The Civil War necessitated conscription of able-bodied males by the Union, and prompted nationwide, violent mob protest. In New York City, large-scale, bloody riots raged for four days, causing 1,000 casualties. The so-called "copperheads" opposed the Civil War, and staged some of the largest riots in American history. Widespread Northern antiwar sentiment made President Lincoln pessimistic about his prospects for re-election in 1864. Indeed, a leading copperhead (or "peace Democrat") wrote that year's Democratic Party platform. Ultimately, Lincoln won re-election when public sentiment turned around after the Union Army took Atlanta.

• Spanish-American War: The press heatedly debated this 1898 war, and the war declaration passed with a margin of only seven votes in the Senate. Popular support for the relatively easy fight evaporated over the controversial annexing of Spain's colonies, such as the Philippines. In 1900, Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign.

• World War I: In 1916, two years after the war began in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election as a peace candidate who "kept us out of war." Critics pounded Wilson after the U.S. entered the conflict. Opponents of America's involvement in World War I filled Madison Square Garden with protest meetings. War opponents included many Irish- and German-Americans, trade unions, socialists, pacifists and progressive members of vocal radical groups. During this period those groups saw a substantial rise in membership, giving them an even more powerful voice against the war. Wilson considered existing laws insufficient to handle antiwar sentiment, and his administration used various legal tools to deal with the "problem" of disloyalty — including censorship and imprisonment. More than 250 people were convicted under the Espionage Act in less than a year.

• Korean War: U.S. military involvement began in the spring of 1950 with popular support. By January 1951, however, 49 percent of Americans believed sending troops to Korea was a mistake, and 66 percent wanted us to pull out. The war's unpopularity played an important role in the election of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who pledged to end the war.

• Vietnam War: In a 1971 public opinion poll, 71 percent called the Vietnam War a mistake, and 58 percent called it immoral.

• World War II: This is the sole major U.S. military conflict with no organized block of dissenters after America entered the war. This, of course, happened only after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the United States.

This brings us to the "unpopular" Iraqi War. Mr. Bush obtained a resolution from Congress (which passed the House 296 to 133, and the Senate 77 to 23) authorizing use of force. At the time of America's entry into Iraq in 2003, a CBS/New York Times poll found 76 percent of Americans approved of the U.S. military action against Iraq. Even now, the majority of Americans want us to stay the course.

Aside from that, the New York Times reporter pretty much nailed it.

[Zeno]

Interesting post with a reasonable perspective and generally accurate. Good Job.

-Zeno

[Matty]

Funny how you use a different, usually subjective measurement of U.S. support for each war.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=502
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

And who's to say she was referring to domestic support? I don't think anything has been protested as much worldwide as this Iraq war. But that doesn't really get much airtime in the U.S.

[Voltron87]

If you consider world opinion I don't think it is a stretch to call it "one of the most unpopular wars in our history". If you consider US opinion, probably Vietnam.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
If you consider world opinion I don't think it is a stretch to call it "one of the most unpopular wars in our history". If you consider US opinion, probably Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

They say "one of" not "the". Surely thats not a stretch. That said I have no idea of how popular this was is on the ground in Yankland.

Virtualy no one right or left supports it in the UK.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Even now, the majority of Americans want us to stay the course.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite. The polls show about 50% support for keeping any troops in Iraq, with a majority supporting withdrawal. By significant majorities over time, Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, think the U.S. is worse off because of the war, don't believe the war was worth fighting, don't believe the U.S. has a good plan to end it, believe the number of U.S. casualties is unacceptable. These figures are astonishing given the relatively small number of casualties and the widespread perception by a substantial plurality that the U.S. won.

Popular support for the war was predicated on the widespread perception, trumpeted from every corner of the propaganda machine, that Bush would only go to war for purposes of self-defense. When this rationale utterly collapsed by October 2003, majority support for the war died. Incredibly, a most Americans still believe that WMD were found in Iraq and that Iraq directly supported al Qaeda. But since this perception is only held by a bare majority, instead of the 70-80% figures immediately preceding the war, the war has become the second most unpopular one in U.S. history, after Vietnam. IN short, support for the war was predicated on the success of the fraudulent purposes set forth by the White House. This isn't really "support" given that people thought they were supporting something other than what they were.

As for popular hatred of the war, Iraq was unprecedented in every fashion. No war in U.S. history has been met with such articulate, committed and visible opposition prior to its initiation.

Internationally, the U.S. war against Iraq is about as popular as Hitler's invasion of Poland, and for good reason. The whole world sees our slaughter of Iraqis, installation of dictatorship and military occupation, arbitrary arrest, detention and torture at best as a dangerous example of the extremes of delusional granduer and at worst an act of mass sadism.

[BillUCF]

All Bush has done was enforce the UN resolutions. Kofi Annan couldn't do this, he was too busy screwing the US for oil kickbacks.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
All Bush has done was enforce the UN resolutions. Kofi Annan couldn't do this, he was too busy screwing the US for oil kickbacks.

[/ QUOTE ]He attacked Israel? Holy [censored] I missed that.

[zaxx19]

Internationally, the U.S. war against Iraq is about as popular as Hitler's invasion of Poland,

LOL this makes a conservatives point pretty easily...

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL this makes a conservatives point pretty easily...

[/ QUOTE ]And what would that be? That liberals are educated, and conservatives are not? Global approval for the war is somewhere around 28%. It is most likely the most protested event in human history.

But take heart- you're not alone on this one like you were when you were giving out Middle East History lessons without knowing what Iran-Contra was: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
All Bush has done was enforce the UN resolutions

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I mean by delusional. No UN resolution authorized any act of military force by the U.S. or any other country. The UN resolutions at issue had been substantively complied with by Iraq. All outstanding issues regarding all UN resolutilons could have been resolved without war. The U.S. does not act to enforce UN resolutions but instead is the world's leader, at least in recent decades, in blocking their enforcement.

You're 100% wrong on the plain facts. One would think that when the stakes amount to killing tens of thousands, Americans should be willing to do a few minutes of homework.

[zaxx19]

That liberals are educated, and conservatives are not?

Yup. Rumsfeld, Cheney...your certainly right.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how you use a different, usually subjective measurement of U.S. support for each war.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=502
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

And who's to say she was referring to domestic support? I don't think anything has been protested as much worldwide as this Iraq war. But that doesn't really get much airtime in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your polls are bull [censored]. The Vietnam war, when it started HAD the support of the people. But, due to the effective treason of the media (EXACTLY like what is happening today) that support was lost.

[jaxmike]

You have no clue what you are talking about. This much is crystal clear.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All Bush has done was enforce the UN resolutions

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I mean by delusional. No UN resolution authorized any act of military force by the U.S. or any other country. The UN resolutions at issue had been substantively complied with by Iraq. All outstanding issues regarding all UN resolutilons could have been resolved without war. The U.S. does not act to enforce UN resolutions but instead is the world's leader, at least in recent decades, in blocking their enforcement.

You're 100% wrong on the plain facts. One would think that when the stakes amount to killing tens of thousands, Americans should be willing to do a few minutes of homework.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is 100% wrong. How can you say this. It's a pure lie.


From resolution 678.... 1990
You are totally and completely delusional if you think we were not authorized under UN resolutions to CONTINUE hostilities with Iraq.
Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of
Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as
set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area

In resolution 686, the cease fire resolution

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms that all twelve resolutions noted above continue to have full
force and effect;

2. Demands that Iraq implement its acceptance of all twelve resolutions
noted above and in particular that Iraq:

This section 2 of this is what clearly and completely gave the US the right to RESUME hostilities with IRAQ.



YOU ARE AN UTTER AND COMPLETE FOOL IF YOU DON'T THINK THE US WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO RESUME HOSTILITIES WITH IRAQ.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
And what would that be? That liberals are educated, and conservatives are not? Global approval for the war is somewhere around 28%. It is most likely the most protested event in human history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I better send back my Yale diploma if I want to stay a conservative, you arrogant jerk...

The Iraq war might be the most protested event in history, but if it is, it's only because the people protesting it are shockingly ignorant and stupid. Assume Iraq was an illegal war to set up a puppet government to give us oil, and accompanied by horrendous atrocities:

Things more worthy of protest:
1. The Rwandan Genocide. 800,000+ dead Tutsis. Read about French support for the Hutu Power government, Operation Turcoise, and their complicity in protecting the actual genocidaires from advancing rebel armies. And the extensive UN "refugee" support for the Hutu fugitive murderers. (As an example of the stunning arrogance of the international community and the UN, when the Rwandan government protested that the tribunal established to try leading genocidaires was not empowered to mete out the death penalty, the UN had the gall to recommend that Rwanda consider abolishing it themselves... Read Philip Gourevitch's book on the subject, moving and shocking)

2. China's efforts to bully the democratic government of Taiwan. Can anyone think of a reason why the Reds should have the right to overturn the legitimate Taiwanese gov't of Formosa, which was never ruled by the PRC? (Formosa was under Japanese control until the end of the war, when it was transferred to the Nationalists, who held it until the present. Indeed, there's little to suggest that Formosa should be considered an organic part of the mainland.)

EDIT: had to run for a minute there...

3. Darfur. According to the geniuses at the UN, only isolated "acts of genocide" are being committed, it's not a genocide overall, so it's OK for the international community to sit on their thumbs while these people are massacred.

4. The Cambodian auto-genocide. This was a while ago, but it still should've been protested more than the Iraq war.

5. Obviously, Hitler's invasion of Poland was more protested, since most other countries declared war on Germany, rather than joining in.

6. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As many as 1 million Afghani deaths over a decade or so.

7. Genocide and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia.

These are just a few of the worse things that have happened in the last 30 years, let alone the whole of human history. So if this thesis is true, the more interesting question is WHY all these people are protesting something relatively trivial like the Iraq war, and not the massive atrocities. Question 2 is why we care what all these unemployed university students have to say when they have a demonstrably poor sense of proportion and reality.

(As to the legal basis of the war, I've always thought that the systematic SAM attacks on US planes patrolling the no-fly zone would be a legitimate justification for the war, but you never hear anyone say that... thoughts?)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the legal basis of the war, I've always thought that the systematic SAM attacks on US planes patrolling the no-fly zone would be a legitimate justification for the war, but you never hear anyone say that... thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive made that point several times in here and am told that those firings "were in response to US aggression". Funny huh?

[dr_venkman]

With the exception of the Vietnam conflict, I can't think of any of these examples of wars that carried more fraud, deception, bullsh*t and cronyism then the Iraq invasion under GW Bush.

Pulbic opinion doesn't matter, they've all been duped. Their motivations for supporting the war are are all based on fabrications and misleadings. It's a completly unscientific poll.

Now consider the numbers excluding everyone who skews the percentage because they were lied to, and you'll find something like only %0.0003 of the American public supported the invasion of Iraq. Namely, the people who work in the Bush Administration.

[Chris Alger]

Well said. A couple of points about Vietnam, which I regard about the worst thing we've done since slavery.

No one can seriously dispute that Vietnam entailed enormous amounts of deception by officials and the press, beginning with the treatment of the Geneva Accords. The human toll of Vietnam dwarfs that of Iraq.

On the other hand, Vietnam involved factors that, while they don't excuse, arguably mitigate the culpability of war supporters, at least during the early years. To cite the most obvious, Iraq was post-Vietnam and post-Central America. Vietnam also was in part the culmination of more than a decade of continuous anticommunist fear and hate propaganda. Most of the main arguments about Iraq at least appeared in press before the war was launched, certainly enough to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of those inclined toward elementary moral thought. There was next to no visible argument or protest against Vietnam until 1965, after causualties were well into the tens of thousands. Hardly any prominent intellectuals dared speak out against Vietnam until it was too late. This wasn't the case in Iraq.

Moreover, the who circus atmosphere of Iraq war propaganda was so transparently fabricated that it's hard to accept how anyone with half a heart or a quarter of a brain could have fallen for it. If Vietnam was about deception by the man behind the curtain, Iraq deception required no curtain at all.

There comes a point where people run out of excuses and have to admit that they prefer war and killing as ends in themselves, and the rest of us have to respond accordingly.

[Chris Alger]

More insanity from you. UNSCR 660 required Iraq to "withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990." UNSCR 678, which you contend "clearly and completely gave the US the right to RESUME hostilities with IRAQ," says nothing about "resuming" anything. 678 authorized member states to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Iraq was long gone from Kuwait and Iraq was at peace with its neighbors. (You might be thinking of UNSCR 687, discussed below, rather than 678).

According to your interpretation, if Iraq had completely withdrawn from Kuwat as 660 and 678 required and the Gulf War never occurred, the U.S. and every other member state in the world would have still retained an roving, infinite mandate to invade Iraq any time it wanted for any reason, or indeed for no reason at all.

This is the sort of tortured logic that one has to entertain to argue that the war was in anything but an outrageous violation of the UN Charter. This is the reason the U.S. worked so hard, including reversion to skullduggery, to obtain a new Security Council resolution, but failed.

Indeed, U.S. military action in Iraq was foreclosed by the terms of UNSCR 687 itself, as the following (http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/sect_5.html) explains: <ul type="square"> The Gulf War came to an end with a cease-fire in May 1991. An examination of the terms of the cease-fire leads to the conclusion that, with one possible exception, the authority for military action given by the November Resolution (678) terminated when the cease-fire took effect.

The terms of the cease-fire are set forth in the April Resolution (687).[20] They included an arrangement for a demilitarized zone and some very detailed requirements calling for inspection and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (The current controversy between Iraq and the UN centres on these requirements.) The resolution calls for Iraq to agree to all these arrangements, after which a cease-fire will be considered to be in effect. Soon after the April Resolution (687) was adopted, Iraq notified the Secretary-General that it was accepting the resolution in full,[21] and a short while later the Secretary General notified the Security Council that


. . . the conditions established in paragraph 33 of Resolution 687 (1991) have been met and that the formal cease-fire referred to in paragraph 33 of that resolution is therefore effective.[22]
A vital component of the cease-fire dealt with the withdrawal from Iraqi territory of the coalition forces. (These are the forces referred to in paragraph 2 of the November Resolution (678) as the forces of the "Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait.") Paragraph 6 of the April Resolution (687) sets out the conditions for the withdrawal of these forces:


6. [The Security Council . . . acting under Chapter VII] . . . notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with Resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with Resolution 686 (1991);

An explanation may be needed of the term "United Nations observer unit" as used in this paragraph. The unit referred to in paragraph 6 is the unit referred to in the previous paragraph (5), which called for the deployment of a multinational unit to monitor activities in the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait. The Secretary-General later designated this unit as "UNIKOM" (UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission).[23] The conditions referred in paragraph 6 relating to the withdrawal of the coalition forces were met on 9 May 1991 when the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council:

UNIKOM's deployment was completed on 6 May.[24]
With the giving of this notice to the Security Council, the effect of paragraph 6 was to terminate the mandate given in the November Resolution (678) to use military force.

A Remnant of Authority?

It could be argued that paragraph 6 does not completely foreclose all use of military force. The reference to the ending of any "military presence in Iraq" might be taken to mean that the military mandate was still valid to the extent that military force can be used without involving a military presence in Iraq. It is pointed out that the Security Council obviously intended the naval blockade to continue in effect. The blockade was originally authorized in August 1990,[25] shortly before the invasion of Kuwait, for the purpose of enforcing the sanctions imposed by Resolution 660 (1990). Indeed, the reference in paragraph 6 to ending military presence in Iraq would leave this arrangement intact, since naval operations can be conducted without involving a military presence.

But it could be argued that, in addition to naval operations, there are other types of military activity that could be undertaken without involving a military presence in Iraq. For instance, could it be said that the launching of missiles from ships or neighbouring countries was possible without involving a military presence on the territory of Iraq? Could the same be said for bombing raids? It may be asked therefore whether the Security Council, while terminating most of the existing mandate for using military force, left intact a remnant of authority broad enough to include not only naval operations but also externally launched missile and bombing attacks.

Many would dispute this line of reasoning. Nevertheless, unlike other questions posed in this paper, the question whether the Security Council, in adopting paragraph 6, left a remnant of authority that can still be validly used cannot be answered definitively.

It is important to understand, however, that this remnant of authority, if it exists, is a residual part of the authority given by paragraph 2 of the November Resolution (678). It is not based on other resolutions, as is the case with the naval blockade. Accordingly, this residual authority, if it exists, can only be exercised within the parameters of paragraph 2. In other words, any particular military action would be authorized under this residual authority only if its purposes were within those delineated in paragraph 2.

An analysis of the purposes contained in paragraph 2 of the November Resolution (678) is presented in Section VII of this paper. The conclusion reached in that section is that the purposes of the operation currently being contemplated are not to be found among the purposes delineated in paragraph 2. Accordingly, the remnant of authority, if it exists, could not be used to justify the operation.

The answer to the question posed in the heading of this section must therefore be: most, but not necessarily all, the authority under the November Resolution (678) terminated with the cease-fire; the Security Council left it uncertain as to whether or not military operations involving no military presence on Iraqi territory are permitted, but if they are, they must be for purposes delineated in paragraph 2 of the November Resolution (678). [/list]

[zaxx19]

Well said. A couple of points about Vietnam, which I regard about the worst thing we've done since slavery.

I similiarly regard it as such....perhaps our actions in the Phillipines merit a little comment also...

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"Assume Iraq was an illegal war to set up a puppet government to give us oil, and accompanied by horrendous atrocities. [There are] things more worthy of protest:
[e.g., the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970's, Cambodia in the 1970's, Hitler's invasion of Poland, etc., which are] "just a few of the worse things that have happened in the last 30 years, let alone the whole of human history"

[/ QUOTE ]
You should not only send back your diploma (if you really have one) but sue Yale for failing to teach you the elements of reasoning.

You contend that people should refrain from protesting bad acts by their government unless those acts rank among the worst things done by any government during "the last 30 years" and perhaps "the whole of human history." Choosing to protest acts by one's own government in the here and now instead of atrocities by other governments in history reflects a preference for the "relatively trivial." You contend that this applies even when the people protesting current events bear responsibility for the object of their protest (because it's their government doing the bad thing) and have some chance of influencing events, or at least more chance than they have of changing prior history. As long as other earlier things elsewhere were worse, people should protest old history instead, regardless of their responsibility for or ability to affect the events they find repugnant.

The sheer stupidity of this is chilling. Several things follow:

1. Those responsible or capable of preventing the bad acts that you deem worthy of protest should also not protest them unless they too rank among the worst things done by any government during "the last 30 years, let alone the whole of human history." If Cambodia is worst than Afghanistan, then people opposed to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan should protest Cambodia instead (assuming that Cambodia is indeed among the worst things within the last 30 years, which would take us back to the last months of the Nazi death camps). The things you assume should be better protested will themselves often fall below your own criteria for legitimate protest.

2. If people shouldn't criticize bad acts by their officials that fall under your incredibly high threshhold, it follows that officials should never be criticized for anyting they do that falls short of that threshhold. Thus officials responsible for all manner of cruel, irrational, indefensible and illegal actions should remain free from criticism as long as other officials elsewhere in the past have done worse.

3. On the other hand, if the bad things that U.S. officials (to pick a country) are doing are in ostensibly in response to other bad things by foreign officials, but which still not the very worst things in recent memory, then U.S. officials have no more right to protest than those protesting the acts by U.S. officials.

4. All of this reduces to the statement that no one should protest anything being done by anybody unless that thing is pretty much the worst thing we can remember anyone doing. Which is the same as saying: people should be allowed to commit evil with impunity, unless it ranks among the very worst evils, or unless they are tring to prevent evils short of the worst, in which case they have no right to act, but not because what they're doing is evil, but because those that they are acting against aren't evil enough.

You're a real piece of work.

[bobman0330]

(I hope everyone notes the restrained tone of my first point and the relative lack of ad hominem attacks. This post will not be in the same vein.)

Why didn't you just title your post "A Straw Man and My Heroic Fight Against It." Did I ever contend that people shouldn't protest against things they find bad? No. The two points that my post was intended to convey were:
1. The Iraq War being the "most protested event ever" is a distinction of essentially no importance.
2. If Fact #1 is true, it says some very disturbing things about people's priorities, because it's far from being the most protest-worthy event of the recent past.

I worked my way through your rambling, incoherent post (I guess you were too chilled by my stupidity to write well) (It's rarely a good thing to start a numbered list with the heading "Several things follow:") and I've picked out the essentials of the straw man you attribute to me, which I will proceed to distinguish from my actual argument. I will also point out how stupid you are for finding the things you claim to find in what I wrote.

The main fallacy you commit is to suppose that I think protestors should only speak out against things if they meet a certain threshold of awfulness. Learn to read, dumbass. The reason all that stuff about "the whole of human history" was in there is because IT WAS IN THE POST I WAS RESPONDING TO, you idiot. The question I'm asking is not why these people are protesting now, but why they WEREN'T protesting 11 years ago during the Rwandan genocide. My suggestion is that they have ulterior motives for wanting to attack cooperation with the U.S.

You do make one relatively valid point in there, which is that people protesting now are protesting the acts of their own government. By valid, I mean that it's a rational constructive response to the argument I actually advanced. I don't mean it's correct, because it's simple-minded and inaccurate. Firstly, it doesn't relate to the numerous opponents of the war in France, Germany, etc. Secondly, in many of the other instances, notably the cases of genocide, there was a lack of action on any government's part that was protestable. As you almost certainly don't know, because you're stupid (and you probably lack my excellent education), all the major nations of the world are under a legal obligation to prevent genocide, per the 1948 Genocide Convention. Inaction in the face of incontrovertible evidence coming from those places was clearly illegal.

If you want to respond to this post, here are some arguments that might be easier to address than what I actually said: (Several things follow:)
1. Buddha was evil.
2. Domestic violence should be required by law.
3. I hate bunny rabbits.

"I'm a real piece of work"? Go to hell.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Did I ever contend that people shouldn't protest against things they find bad? No.

[/ QUOTE ]
The theme of your post was that people shouldn't be protesting “something relatively trivial like the Iraq war” instead of other “massive atrocities” that you find “more worthy of protest,” including atrocities committed by other countries decades ago. Perhaps you believe Americans should protest against the bad things their government does, as long as those things aren't the war in Iraq, or something similarly incoherent.

As for your claim that “the most protested event ever” is “a distinction of essentially no importance,” you failed to explain how or why this could be the case. If the largest protest is unimportant, then how could any protest be important? It’s much like saying “protest is unimportant.” Nobody believes this, as your above attempt at clarification attests.

[ QUOTE ]
The question I'm asking is not why these people are protesting now, but why they WEREN'T protesting 11 years ago during the Rwandan genocide. My suggestion is that they have ulterior motives for wanting to attack cooperation with the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, why are people protesting Iraq instead of a series of massacres they didn’t know about until after they happened? The demonstrations over Iraq required many weeks of organization and planning. Unlike Iraq, preceded by months of highly visible planning by the U.S., the Rwandan genocide erupted without warning in April 1990. Within a few weeks, the major massacres were a fait accompli.

Apparently realizing this, you are clumsily trying to equate protest of the genocide with protest over the deficiencies of the process by which the perpetrators have been brought to justice. The analogy is inapt because no such process is even being contemplated for the architects of the Iraq disaster.

Moreover, it was far from clear that the war in Iraq wouldn’t lead to events even worse than Rwanda if people remained silent. It was and still is being argued among American conservatives, including people visible in the media and close to the government, that the U.S. should variously wage war against Syria, Iran, North Korea and much of the Arab and Muslim world (a guest editorial in America’s most prominent business journal even advocated military action against Saudi Arabia; newspapers are full of letters advocated all-out war against “them”). The terrorist blowback alone by America’s new adventurism could make Rwanda look tame, and still can. The “triviality” you associate with the war in Iraq is just your own myopic perspective, not even after-the-fact, given that the war continues and the body count is increasing (about 20,000 civilians to date).

[ QUOTE ]
You do make one relatively valid point in there, which is that people protesting now are protesting the acts of their own government. By valid, I mean that it's a rational constructive response to the argument I actually advanced. I don't mean it's correct, because it's simple-minded and inaccurate. Firstly, it doesn't relate to the numerous opponents of the war in France, Germany, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
The citizens of other countries that protested the war invariably were demanding that their countries refused to participate or cooperate, and often that their governments do what they could to prevent it. So they were directly appealing to their own countries. The states of the U.K., France, Germany and Italy were all obviously major players in this process. Moreover, Spain and other countries have suffered as a result of their association with the U.S. war. And even if they didn’t, Europeans have as much right to protest and war by America as Americans have to protest a war by the Hutus or Soviets, protests which you contend are worthwhile.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, in many of the other instances, notably the cases of genocide, there was a lack of action on any government's part that was protestable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You still can’t jettison your dead end argument that protest is suspect if something else is “protestable.” Here’s the short answer: every government in the world recognizes the events in Rwanda and Darfur as at regrettable, more often expressing outrage, and most countries have demanded action to mitigate the suffering and bring perpetrators to justice.

Those circumstances doesn’t apply to Iraq. The ubiquitous consensus among U.S. officials and their supporters is that the war was and remains a necessary and noble cause. The UN Security Council has ratified the occupation. Try naming any government or organization that has heaped similar glory upon the events in Darfur or Rwanda.

[ QUOTE ]
As you almost certainly don't know, because you're stupid (and you probably lack my excellent education), all the major nations of the world are under a legal obligation to prevent genocide, per the 1948 Genocide Convention. Inaction in the face of incontrovertible evidence coming from those places was clearly illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn’t. Article 3’s list of “punishable acts” says nothing about requiring action to prevent genocide. Article 8 provides how countries shall “undertake to prevent and punish” genocide under the convention: “Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.”

[bobman0330]

I'm in class, so I'll respond further this evening, but I would like to point out a couple of things:
1. Thanks for not heaping gratuitous ad hominem insults on me in this post. You're a real class act.
2. Your selective quotation from the Genocide Convention is very misleading. Article 1: "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."

[Chris Alger]

"which they undertake to prevent and to punish"

-- which hardly implies that failing to intervene to prevent or stop genocide is "illegal" under the Genocide Convention, particularly when the language that addressing third-party enforcement is permissible.

[bobman0330]

On the Genocide Convention, I disagree with your interpretation. Had the language said, "we undertake not to do x," doing x would clearly be illegal. Under Article 1, failing to take reasonable measures to prevent a genocide is likewise illegal. The specific degree of obligation isn't particularly important though. Some degree of legal responsibility was there. And don't believe that the Rwandan genocide was a bolt from the blue. The commander of UNAMIR (the UN force overseeing the Rwandan ceasefire) had specific intelligence pointing to the impending massacres. Furthermore, the world was aware of the horrendous crimes virtually as soon as they started. Any major nation could have organized an expedition to halt the violence in less than 2 weeks, had they desired. Finally, consider that the violence was only halted by the victory of the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Had their revolt been less successful, the genocide could have proceeded unfettered.

Anyways, all of this is beside my point, which you continue to misunderstand. It's been contended that these massive protests are massively important. What I'm pointing out is that these protesters were silent in a number of other cases where we would expect them to have been even more infuriated. I don't think any of your attempts to distinguish these cases are persuasive. So the question becomes, why? In the absence of a convincing answer, it's impossible to have much respect for the positions advocated by these protesters merely because so many people advocate them.

(At 20,000 civilian dead, we should be able to liberate another 30 nations before we get to the level of a Rwanda or an Afghanistan)

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
On the Genocide Convention, I disagree with your interpretation. Had the language said, "we undertake not to do x," doing x would clearly be illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then avoid law school because this is untenable. Article 8 does not authorize, much less require, any country to act unilaterally to prevent genocide. Conventional rules of statutory construction make this easy. Precise, specific terms supercedes general or ambiguous terms describing the same duty. The provision in article 8 stating that member states "may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action" etc. means that no member state is legally compelled to take action. The term "undertake to prevent" could mean nothing more than the undertaking of ratification. Hardly a requirement that all signatories intervene, much less unilaterally as you suggest.

Nothing in Article 1 mandates "reasonable measures" to do anything. This phrase doesn't even exist in the Convention, so it can't be "clearly illegal" under the Convention to not do it.

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm pointing out is that these protesters were silent in a number of other cases where we would expect them to have been even more infuriated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly. You've just thrown together a list of events, dating over decades, consisting of (1) past history, (2) unpreventable events, (3) events in different countries, (4) events over which there is near-unanimous outrage already and (5) events that can hardly be deemed worse. (China's "bullying" of Taiwan is worse than the massive use of military force and the killing of tens of thousands? That's just weird). You haven't provided a single example of Iraq war protestors remaining silent about an unprovoked military attack by one country against another where the policies of their own countries were relevant, or discussed any other factors unique to Iraq.

Your assumption that Iraq war protestors remained silent in the face of all other evils is unsupportable, as many of them have been active in a variety of similar causes. What you really mean to do is discredit the whole protest movement because you find it disporportionately large or loud in relation to the problem. If the protests were more scaled more appropriately to your taste, you wouldn't have an argument at all. Which means you're engaging in a lot of silly hair-splitting.

Moreover, all of this is absurdly beside the point. The Iraq protest movement is driven by visible and oft-repeated arguments. Rather than refute or even address them, war apologists like you prefer to invoke thin analogies to other, completely different events to argue that (1) those protesting the Iraq war should demonstrate greater concern for other evils, therefore (2) nothing that they say, regardless of what that is, can be worth considering, can be "important." It's a strenuous if transparent effort to evade the real topics.

[bobman0330]

Ironically, I am in fact in law school, but first year courses don't really involve much statutory interpretation, so I obviously know less about it then you do. If the entire point of the treaty (in terms of prevention) is to say that any nation can request the U.N. do something, it seems pretty toothless, which is hardly consonant with the atmosphere and intentions surrounding its adoption.

If you want to talk about the actual arguments for and against the Iraq War, be my guest (although I can't see the point in hijacking this gentleman's thread even further). The relevant point I wanted to contribute to this discussion is that the record of international protest in reliably identifying and prioritizing problems is so faulty that I'm not willing to accept its massed verdict over my own opinion. If you want to convince me, give me a reason (rhetoric and insults do not equal reasons), don't just tell me how many French are mad at the U.S.

(And if you aren't disturbed by a nation of over a billion people isolating a liberal democracy from diplomatic support through trade incentives and threatening its independence with the world's largest army and a large stockpile of nuclear weapons, you should be. Indeed, if China makes good on its threats, you would have an exact replica of the Iraq situation, except without justifications or bloodthirsty dictators. I wouldn't equate it with a genocide, but it was very topical at the time I made my original post.)

[jaxmike]

Are you done? You are clearly wrong. You know it. Give up. The war was justified.