Anti-War Frustration

How fawning can you get?

Activists in the growing movement in the United States against attacking Iraq are expressing frustration at their inability to deflect President Bush from his course.

Of course they are. Their position is completely at odds with the President's. Such is the friction in a free society. I wish I could chance his stance on the War on Drugs and his annyoing tendency to promote religion.

Despite polls showing public misgivings about attacking Iraq, especially without U.N. authorization, and a string of large anti-war demonstrations across the country, Bush has generally ignored the opposition, apparently confident he will pay no political price.

"It's very alarming. The Bush administration is prepared to ignore U.S. sentiment and international sentiment," said Barbara Epstein, an expert of peace movements at the University of California, Santa Cruz and peace activist herself.

The number of people who agree with you does not change the validity of that belief.

"The president and his advisers seem so convinced they are right that they can't seem to imagine that the American people won't support them once the fighting begins," she said.

There are "American people" beyond the ones you surround yourself with everyday, Ms. Epstein. Don't act as if the US has a supermajority of people opposed to war.

Epstein and other activists are elated at their success in drawing hundreds of thousands of people into the streets for anti-war rallies. They also point to the fact that at least 64 city councils across the country, including Detroit, Philadelphia, Seattle, Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco have passed anti-war resolutions.

Among religious groups, the National Council of Churches and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops have also passed resolutions opposing military action against Iraq. Peace activists said the active participation of churches and church-goers has boosted their cause and broadened their movement.

The depth of the variety of people who agree with you does not change the validity of that belief.

All agreed the current anti-war movement was much larger than that which emerged before the 1991 Gulf War, even though congressional opposition to that conflict was stronger.

Probably because the anti-war folks would rather wait to see gratuitous physical harm inflicted upon somone (Kuwait) before they would support war. They want proof of Iraq's "imminent danger" to the US and they want a "smoking gun." As others have said before me, a smoking gun means it has already been fired and if you wait to the point where troops begin marching towards you, you've waited for too long.

Bush rarely refers to the antiwar movement but has said that Americans have the right to express their views. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Thursday that protesting was a democratic and patriotic act.

"We settle our differences in this country through elections and through peaceful protest. And the majority will prevail," he said.

Government through majority decision only means the interests of the majority are protected. I disagree with this reasoning. Action should be based on unwavering rational principles.

Polls to show that support for an attack against Iraq drops below 50 percent if respondents are asked if they would still favor a war without United Nations authorization.

Polls this week showed a slight increase of support for war following Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. on Wednesday. An ABC/Washington Post poll on Thursday found 67 percent in favor of military action, but the figure still dropped to 49 percent when respondents were asked if they would support a war that was opposed by the U.N., while 46 percent said they were against such an attack.

This only shows the disgusting tendency some people show for using the UN as a crutch. The approval of the UN is meaningless regarding how valid a country's actions are, especially when nations like China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and Cuba are given the same recognition as the UK, Germany, Canada, the US, and New Zealand.

Many activists blame the weak and disunited performance of the Democrats for their inability to influence policy. While many Democrats voted against authorizing Bush to attack Iraq last October, all but one of the party's prospective presidential candidates supported the resolution.

"The Democrats are frightened of being on the wrong side of the situation or of being perceived as unpatriotic or soft on terrorism," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic member of Congress who now serves as national director for Win Without War, an umbrella group coordinating opposition to the war.

What is with this near-pathological reliance on and desire for "unity"?

I do think that some politicans have been unfairly criticised as being soft on terrorism, as well as some in the anti-war community. However, you can only oppose some actions against terrorism for so long before you do become soft towards fighting it. I need to spend more time deciding what being "unpatriotic" is before I comment on it further. It's too ambiguous for me at the moment.

Sally Milbury-Steen, who heads Pacem in Terris, a mainly church-based peace group in Wilmington, Delaware said part of the problem was that the mainstream media was ignoring the peace movement and echoing the administration's position.

This is bullshit. Each one of the large anti-war protests was covered and many of them given frontpage status on Yahoo!. The nation has been talking and debating this issue for months and that simply isn't possible unless two sides of the arguement are presented. I think this mindset is mostly driven by the changing beliefs in the mainstream op/ed sections that war my be necessary.

She said Bush's assumption that opposition would melt away once the fighting began as Americans rallied behind their armed forces was wrong.

Oppostition to the governement means the government has to defend it's policies, which is a good thing. But there is useful opposition and useless opposition, valid and invalid. Too many people feel that opposition for opposition's sake, dissenting just to dissent, is a worthwhile activity.

"If we can't prevent the war, we won't disappear. We will work to stop it if it starts and if we can't stop it, we will just be a constant spanner in the works," she said.

Regardless of how it unfolds and it's outcome?

Posted by Drizzten at February 06, 2003 04:17 PM