PDA

View Full Version : Where is the anti-war movement?



bigfatjerk
8/10/2011, 06:56 AM
http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/08/obama-gets-a-blank-check-for-e

Obama Gets a Blank Check for Endless War
Record numbers of U.S. troops are dying under Obama, but the anti-war movement is nowhere to be found.
Ira Stoll | August 8, 2011

The Obama administration is on pace to have more American soldiers killed in casualties related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than the George W. Bush administration did in its first term.

Already, hundreds more American troops have been killed in Afghanistan during the less than three years of the Obama administration than during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. According to the iCasualties.org Web site, whose count more or less tracks that of other sites devoted to these statistics, 630 American soldiers died in the Afghanistan operation in the years 2001 through 2008, when Mr. Bush was president, while 1097 American soldiers have died in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011. Even if you allocate the 30 or so American soldiers killed in January 2009 entirely to Mr. Bush, who was president until the January 20 inauguration, it is quite a record.

Include Iraq, and the comparison tells a similar story: about 1,300 Americans killed in operations related to Iraq and Afghanistan combined during the first two and a half or so years we’ve had of the Obama administration, versus less than 600 American casualties in the first full three years of the George W. Bush administration.

It all raises at least two related questions. First, where are the antiwar protests? And second, where is the press?

In a phone interview, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, which organized some of the largest antiwar protests during the Bush administration, Michael McPhearson, said part of the explanation is political partisanship. A lot of the antiwar protesters, he said, were Democrats. “Once Obama got into office, they kind of demobilized themselves,” he said.

“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”

Mr. McPhearson says antiwar protests of the sort that drew hundreds of thousands of people during the George W. Bush administration now draw 20,000 at best. He said his group’s strategy now is to emphasize the cost of the wars and the Pentagon amid Washington’s focus on trimming the deficit.

As for the press, a New York Times article on the helicopter downed over the weekend in Afghanistan included the sentence, “Although the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan has steadily risen in the past year, with a 15 percent increase in the first half of 2011 over the same period last year, NATO deaths had been declining — decreasing nearly 20 percent in the first six months of 2011 compared with 2010.” Why compare it to 2010? Why not to 2009, or to 2008? A Chicago Tribune news article, by contrast, declared that the helicopter downing “comes at a time of growing unease about the increasingly unpopular and costly war.”

By the standards of American history, the deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are small, a mere fraction of those suffered in World War II or the Civil War or even Vietnam or Korea. And there are measures of success or failure in war other than American casualties. It doesn’t only matter how many Americans die; it also matters how many enemy soldiers die, and whether America is achieving its war aims.

The approaching tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, is a sober time to weigh these issues for those of us New Yorkers and other Americans who supported the wars in part out of hope that they would decrease the chances of major terrorist attacks here at home. Mr. Obama can make the case here, as he does with the economy, that he is merely cleaning up and winding down the bad situation he was left by his predecessor. With the war as with the economy though, eventually even Mr. Obama will have to take ownership, or have it assigned to him by the voters.

Mr. Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.

I find that bolded statement to be appalling. It shouldn't matter what party he's in if you have a principle that war is an evil thing, which it reall is. I'm all for going to war if we have a shot at winning. But these counter insertions, getting involved with endless civil war type things are just wrong.

MR2-Sooner86
8/10/2011, 07:19 AM
It's coverage was bumped in favor of covering the Tea Party.

There is still an anti-war movement out there but you have to search a little bit to find it. In the world of politics, those who were anti-war were just toeing the party line. They weren't so much anti-war as they were anti-Bush. Of course, those who are now anti-war on Libya/Afghanistan were screaming a few years earlier that those who didn't support Iraq were, "wanting to help the terrorist win!"

tcrb
8/10/2011, 07:52 AM
The liberal backed anti-war movement dissolved when Bush left office and Barry became Commander-in-Chief and it then became acceptable to become involved in conflicts that were none of our business. War is only a bad thing when a Republican is POTUS.

KantoSooner
8/10/2011, 08:13 AM
It may be that the vast majority of the people opposed to the war(s) are conscientious and honest in their opinions. Those organizing, funding and advertising their cause, however, are partisan hacks.

Paul Begala would be one classic example. Opposed 'war', backs 'conflict'.

delhalew
8/10/2011, 08:43 AM
The trick of false perception is the greatest trick Democrats ever pulled off. That Dems aren't war hawks, is right up there with party of minorities and the working man.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/10/2011, 09:07 AM
But, he means well when he's bombing those Afghan huts.

NormanPride
8/10/2011, 09:12 AM
But I thought these were all police actions or whatever. Not wars.

Caboose
8/10/2011, 09:15 AM
There was no "anti-war" movement... only an "anti-Bush" movement... the people involved didnt give two sh*ts about war and its casualties... they were only using it to bludgeon Bush.

This is what is most despicable about the political Left. At least with the Right they believe in what they say they believe in.

KantoSooner
8/10/2011, 09:15 AM
The trick of false perception is the greatest trick Democrats ever pulled off. That Dems aren't war hawks, is right up there with party of minorities and the working man.

Here's another good one: 'The Rich don't pay their 'fair' share'


When the bottom 50% of society, in effect, pays no (as in zero, zilch, nada) in taxes.
I was watching Axelrod on Face the Nation or somesuch last weekend and he reminded me of Josef Goebbels, just hammering the Big Lie over and over.

tommieharris91
8/10/2011, 09:24 AM
Obama should get a primary challenge from an actual progressive. He sure hasn't governed like one.

Bring on the bar charts and bedowngraders.

REDREX
8/10/2011, 09:29 AM
Barack has sure changed from ending the wars and winning the Nobel Peace prize to starting his own war and sending out kill squads

Position Limit
8/10/2011, 09:32 AM
you dopes are getting the circle jerk started early today. is this what it looks like when the atom splits?

JohnnyMack
8/10/2011, 09:34 AM
Here's another good one: 'The Rich don't pay their 'fair' share'


When the bottom 50% of society, in effect, pays no (as in zero, zilch, nada) in taxes.
I was watching Axelrod on Face the Nation or somesuch last weekend and he reminded me of Josef Goebbels, just hammering the Big Lie over and over.

Another fun one is that Republicans are for smaller government.

KantoSooner
8/10/2011, 09:38 AM
Another fun one is that Republicans are for smaller government.

yes, it would be nice if we could somehow resurrect Barry Goldwater or another real Republican instead of the group of wannabe preachers we have today.

NormanPride
8/10/2011, 09:40 AM
The sad fact is that the majority of the US is for war, entitlements, and big business. There are many more idiots out there than smart people.

Sooner98
8/10/2011, 09:41 AM
“Because he’s a Democrat, they don’t want to oppose him in the same way as they opposed Bush,” said Mr. McPhearson, who is also a former executive director of Veterans for Peace, and who said he voted for President Obama in 2008. “The politics of it allows him more breathing room when it comes to the wars.”

Absolutely disgusting to take advantage of the deaths of thousands of troops to serve a political agenda, but does it really surprise anyone that many on the left would do things like this? That this person is now admitting what their cause was really all about, shouldn't be news to anyone.

bigfatjerk
8/10/2011, 09:42 AM
Another fun one is that Republicans are for smaller government.

There's Ron Paul, Rand Paul and a few others but that's about it.

JohnnyMack
8/10/2011, 09:49 AM
The sad fact is that the majority of the US is for war, entitlements, and big business. There are many more idiots out there than smart people.

War IS big business baby.

Position Limit
8/10/2011, 09:51 AM
War IS big business baby.

and business has been booming.

SoonerProphet
8/10/2011, 09:54 AM
The sad fact is that the majority of the US is for war, entitlements, and big business. There are many more idiots out there than smart people.

This. Plus the fact that partisan hackery and conflict go back to the stoneages.

Plenty of folks, especially readers of Reason and other like minded material, still see it as just another government ponzi scheme.

CrimsonKel
8/10/2011, 10:28 AM
People aren't as mad about the wars because the performance of the leadership improved after Secretary Rumsfeld was replaced. Part of the anger over the wars was the incompetent and ridiculous way they were being handled by the Bush Administration. Also, non wingnuts came to the realization that the war in Iraq wasn't in our interests and was unncessary and that the reasons presented for it were not legitimate.

So the anger lessened after Secretary Gates took over because it seemed like the performance of our leadership improved. Also the war in Iraq has been drawn down somewhat.

I think most people feel that the war in Afghanistan is in our interests and don't want Afghanistan to be a terrorist safe haven like it had been.

soonercruiser
8/10/2011, 10:35 AM
Seems like the libs here came up with their own circle jerk!
:pop:

How's that "Hope & Change" doing?
Let's see - the deficit will be cut in half by the time the next election comes around - I PROMISE! Right!

hawaii 5-0
8/10/2011, 10:45 AM
Just the other day I found a Weapon of Mass Destruction in my backyard.

I bet there's still a few thousand in Iraq. I bet if we spend another trillion we can find em.

I bet $00.05


5-0


Trump/ G Dubya 2012

soonercruiser
8/10/2011, 11:41 AM
duplicate

soonercruiser
8/10/2011, 11:42 AM
Just the other day I found a Weapon of Mass Destruction in my backyard.

I bet there's still a few thousand in Iraq. I bet if we spend another trillion we can find em.

I bet $00.05


5-0


Trump/ G Dubya 2012

Yup! That's what the CIA, experts, and a whole lot of high profile Dems said!

BTW- where's the WMDs in Libya?

picasso
8/10/2011, 08:26 PM
The All Souls Unitarian church on Peoria used to organize a war protest walk through Brookside quite often when Bushie was at the helm.

I haven't seen **** from them since the newest Prez hit the scene.

soonercruiser
8/10/2011, 08:35 PM
How's the war in Libya going?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/10/2011, 08:38 PM
People aren't as mad about the wars because the performance of the leadership improved after Secretary Rumsfeld was replaced. Part of the anger over the wars was the incompetent and ridiculous way they were being handled by the Bush Administration. Also, non wingnuts came to the realization that the war in Iraq wasn't in our interests and was unncessary and that the reasons presented for it were not legitimate.

So the anger lessened after Secretary Gates took over because it seemed like the performance of our leadership improved. Also the war in Iraq has been drawn down somewhat.

I think most people feel that the war in Afghanistan is in our interests and don't want Afghanistan to be a terrorist safe haven like it had been.Hoo-boy! haha

TitoMorelli
8/10/2011, 09:35 PM
People aren't as mad about the wars because the performance of the leadership improved after Secretary Rumsfeld was replaced. Part of the anger over the wars was the incompetent and ridiculous way they were being handled by the Bush Administration. Also, non wingnuts came to the realization that the war in Iraq wasn't in our interests and was unncessary and that the reasons presented for it were not legitimate.

So the anger lessened after Secretary Gates took over because it seemed like the performance of our leadership improved. Also the war in Iraq has been drawn down somewhat.

I think most people feel that the war in Afghanistan is in our interests and don't want Afghanistan to be a terrorist safe haven like it had been.

Of course, before the drawing down of troop numbers came the surge, which happened shortly after Gates took over at Defense - and perhaps more important than Gates was the nomination of Petraeus.

There's little question, though, that the same Democrats who constantly fueled the fires of anti-war sentiment and directed them against Pres. Bush have been loyal little toadies with their lips zipped shut during the Obama presidency. When's the last time the word "quagmire" was tossed around on Capitol Hill?

diverdog
8/10/2011, 09:59 PM
The liberal backed anti-war movement dissolved when Bush left office and Barry became Commander-in-Chief and it then became acceptable to become involved in conflicts that were none of our business. War is only a bad thing when a Republican is POTUS.

No it is still there. Listen to left radio and they are pissed.

hawaii 5-0
8/10/2011, 10:05 PM
How's the war in Libya going?


Another of Ka-daffy's sons got killed yesterday.

Still no US Ground troops there. The coalition is holding.

I have no problem with supporting the overthrow of Libya with some air support and a few well-placed missles or drones as long as other nations contribute and Libyan rebels are putting their lives on the line for their own country.


I see no reason for us to be in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point.


5-0


Trump/ Fluffer 2012

SoonerNate
8/10/2011, 10:39 PM
Barack has sure changed from ending the wars and winning the Nobel Peace prize to starting his own war and sending out kill squads

And the point of the thread is that all of that is okay unless it's W doing it.

En_Fuego
8/10/2011, 11:55 PM
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/uleryrns/Photoshop/05741295.jpg

En_Fuego
8/11/2011, 12:01 AM
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w87/alohahedone/bush3b.jpg

hawaii 5-0
8/11/2011, 12:14 AM
Around 2008 Bush admitted he didn't know where bin Laden was and really didn't care.


5-0


Trump/ Spud 2012

SoonerStormchaser
8/11/2011, 01:21 AM
But, he means well when he's bombing those Afghan huts.

Trust me bro...I see them a LOT from the air...they ain't huts...more like ****brick block buildings.

diverdog
8/11/2011, 06:06 AM
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w87/alohahedone/bush3b.jpg

I bought a hot dog off that guy yesterday.

47straight
8/11/2011, 09:20 AM
The All Souls Unitarian church on Peoria used to organize a war protest walk through Brookside quite often when Bushie was at the helm.

I haven't seen **** from them since the newest Prez hit the scene.

Well, we must not be at war then!

TUSooner
8/11/2011, 09:23 AM
duplicate

Thanks! Once is one too many. :P :D

The Profit
8/11/2011, 09:35 AM
You really need a draft to have a strong anti-war movement. If we still had a draft, both of these wars would have been over a long time ago.

soonercruiser
8/11/2011, 09:49 AM
Another of Ka-daffy's sons got killed yesterday.

Still no US Ground troops there. The coalition is holding.

I have no problem with supporting the overthrow of Libya with some air support and a few well-placed missles or drones as long as other nations contribute and Libyan rebels are putting their lives on the line for their own country.


I see no reason for us to be in Iraq or Afghanistan at this point.


5-0


Trump/ Fluffer 2012

I see no reason for us to have spent $Billions in Libya so far!
No regime change there yet, I do believe!
So, it is easy to see the difference in ideologies here.

Anyone with a military trained brain can see the difference in the wars and battlefield in Iraq and Libya. Will the Libyan opposition be better than MK??? Good luck with that one!
Will they feel like they owe Europe or the U.S anything after the dust settles???

From a military perspective, drone and missiles would not have overthrown SH and given the Iraqis any chance at freedom; let alone made a dent in their support of terrorism in the region. Whether they take advantage of that is a whole different issue.

You just can't have it both ways!
Neither can I. So I point out the hypocrisy! :rolleyes:

soonercruiser
8/11/2011, 09:51 AM
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w87/alohahedone/bush3b.jpg

Isn't that Johnny Carson?
:eek:

soonercruiser
8/11/2011, 09:54 AM
You really need a draft to have a strong anti-war movement. If we still had a draft, both of these wars would have been over a long time ago.

I feel the draft! :eek:

Antiwar movement or not....I do believe that should still have the draft!
Require some type of service to the country from everyone....including women. That might help reduce unwanted pregnancies - unless they went into the Navy!
:D