Anti-War or Anti-U.S.?

[andyfox]

I checked out the links. Certainly when group left of center are involved in something, those far left are part to be involved. The same is true on the right: for example, if, as happened, the KKK or the John Birch Society lobbies against civil rights laws, and some senators are also against passing those laws, it would not be right to assume that the primary reason for opposition to those laws was to further the agenda of the KKK or the John Birch Society. Polls show a large portion of the American elctorate opposed to the upcoming war in Iraq. I don't think the opposition is Maoist or Stalinist inspired. And neither are the protests.

[brad]

youre right theyre trying to change own gov, not change others

[B-Man]

Actually Brad, the article was referring in large part to protests in Europe, not the U.S. (both in the past and currently)

[IrishHand]

Protests in this country are "anti-American" by definition, so long as by "American" you're referring to the actions and policies of the current US government. "Protests" are nothing more than a bunch of people getting together in the hopes that their message or beliefs will be heard by their government.

What exactly would be the point of Americans protesting the actions of another government? My response, which you took exception to, points out that Americans protesting Saddam's invasion of Kuwait would have been utterly pointless, since the US came out firmly against that action.

In the German ICBM example, the same principle holds. Protesting our missiles in West Germany served a purpose, since our government put them there and the protesters could (vainly) hope that the administration might take note of their objections. Protesting the missiles in East Germany would have been pointless, since our government was already opposed to them and was alternately (a) increasing the military presence to oppose the Soviet nukes, and (b) negotiating a reduction of the respective nuclear weaponry

You protest in the hopes that your efforts might affect the offending government. If you know that won't happen, there's no point in protesting.

[brad]

screw them our tanks rolled across them 4 a reason

[B-Man]

The article mainly referred to protests in Europe (specifically mentioned London and France); it never referred to protests in the U.S.

[MMMMMM]

You make valid points. However there is, in my mind at least, a special significance if the primary organizers of major events or movements happen to be KKK'ers--or Maoists.

I just read a poll yesterday: 71% of the American public now in favor of the war. I'll see if I can find it, but I read probably 100 pages on the Internet yesterday from at least 25 sources, so I might not be able to.

I'll bet a poll of Iraqis (if it could be genuinely conducted) would be much higher. Not that that matters much to the anti-war activists: who cares if essentially all 4 million Iraqi exiles are in favor of Saddam being removed by force? Surely we know better than they.

[andyfox]

Surely there are ways to remove Saddam by force short of war. Surely we are the experts in this, as another poster recently pointed out. Surely we dont know better than they; thus my hesitancy to get involved in the absence of compelling evidence that the things the administration says are either logical or true.

[MMMMMM]

"Surely there are ways to remove Saddam by force short of war."

Maybe, just maybe, but I doubt it very much. Saddams, Pol Pots, Hitlers and Stalins don't just cede power--force or death seem the only means to remove the very worst tyrants.

"Surely we are the experts in this, as another poster recently pointed out."

?


"Surely we dont know better than they; thus my hesitancy to get involved in the absence of compelling evidence that the things the administration says are either logical or true."

I respect your view, but please consider this when you (reasonably) doubt the administration's position: Saddam's position is obviously more untrue and more illogical than is the administration's position (however dubious the administration's position may seem). We're dealing with a choice here.

Add to that the desperate pleas of the Iraqis themselves and I think it all adds up to one thing.

[andyfox]

Force or death are possible without war; we've removed plenty of tyrants (and untyrants) before without resorting to war.

No one doubts that Saddam is a less congenial figure than our leaders. But the choice you imply is war or he stays in power. Surely there are other options: assassination, coup, exile, revolution (or psedu-revolution), and resignation come to mind. I'm not saying I approve or disapprove of these things, just that the space between Saddam continuing to be Saddam as we know him, and war with Iraq, could surely be filled with other choices.