Will someone please tell me why the one person who could stop this war, Saddam Hussein, was not subjected to protests in his country, and why those protests in other countries failed to direct their opposition towards him?
Bunny,
I believe the War of 1812 was a terrible mistake, and should never have been fought. The war with Mexico in 1846 probably could have been avoided, though Mexico must share much of the blame for it. Mexico was well compensated for territorial concessions, though the United States could have paid nothing at all. I think that the United States behaved shamefully in its dealings with the Indian tribes as it expanded westward. During the latter part of the 19th century, American troops were used to advance the interests of business in Latin America. I think that was wrong. The United States was propelled into the Spanish-American War by the Yellow Press, and in retrospect was not justified. Teddy's seizure of the Philippine Islands was wrong, though I think in the long run the Philippine people benefited from their association with the United States. It follows that I'm not a fan of the Army's operations against the Philippine Insurrection. General Pershing's pursuit of Pancho Villa through northern Mexico could have probably been handled better. I'd say that there are a lot of American wars that I would have opposed in the past, and that I would oppose similar wars in the future.
I publicly opposed the war in Vietnam as early as 1962. Only later was I convinced that our involvement was necessary and justified. As I came to see the larger picture it became evident to me that Vietnam was merely a campaign in a larger and far more serious a war. The struggle for world domination between two ideological groups extended from at least 1948, until 1992 was in fact the Third World War. The Cold War was not fought by large uniformed armies of clearly delineated powers, but rather was a slow, simmering struggle for control of areas on the edge. Communist aggression in Korea and Vietnam had to be resisted. Not to resist would have caused unaligned countries would have shift their allegiance to the Communists, the side appearing most likely to prevail in the end. When the United States did leave Vietnam, that's exactly what happened. Many third world nations became clients of the USSR, and "National Liberation" movements armed and supported by Russia and China increased dramatically around the world. America after Vietnam was almost paralyzed, avoided any foreign military involvement, and was increasingly unwilling to support its clients around the world. Russia, China, and Vietnam rapidly expanded and were emboldened to undertake military adventures. I still believe the Vietnam campaign was mismanaged, and remains largely misunderstood - even by people who should know better.
maxsdadeo
Simple because at the moment we are holding the gun. People are not adverse to seeing Iraq controlled and corralled. They feel that is being done by the present inspection regime and no fly zones. I should note that Saddam short of abdicating has been acquiescing in the UN demands. Reluctantly but nevertheless he has given in whenever pushed. conversely Bush has been operating on a straight line to war. There seems to be no one or nothing to deter him. It has become a crusade to rid the world of evil. The question is shall we fight evil with greater evil?
Walter,
BTW, I also applaud the demonstrations as an expression of a system strong enough that it isn't threatened by free speech.
You're quite right, demonstrations were not invented by the United States. Roman citizens caused quite a stir when the bread ships from North Africa were delayed and the Gadiatorial games had to be postponed. Religious demonstrations were common during the Reformation, and often led to bloodshed. British bullets at demonstration on the Boston Commons, and at Lexington started one of the longest and most difficult wars ever involving Americans. Large peace rallies all over Europe and America were common before WWI and WWII. German demonstrations between Communist and Nazi factions were common between the wars and helped elect Herr Hitler. No, demonstrations were not invented in America.
On the other hand dictatorships of all stripes forbid any demonstration against their interests, and kill folks who demonstrate anyway. There are demonstrations in Pyong-Yang, they are nice orderly affairs where everyone is in step, properly uniformed and waving neatly lettered signs. An sanctioned demonstration in Peking brought us a picture of a lone man standing before a line of tanks -- he was later reported shot. Baghdad has lately been the scene of demonstrations expressing the same sentiments as those seen across Europe and America. Those Iraqi demonstrators, do you think they could have demonstrated demanding that Saddam honor his promises and comply finally after 12 years with UN demands that he divest himself of certain aggressive weapons?
Frolic,
It isn't necessary for the demonstrators to like Saddam, or support his nefarious policies for them to serve his purposes. If everyone in every demonstration regarded Saddam as evil incarnate and wished him dead, it would not matter in the least to him so long as he achieves his end -- survival and the glory of being able to claim a victory over those who are dedicated to ridding the world of him.
Will we be heard, indeed!?
Why didn't Bush, Howard & Blair CONSULT us before getting us into this mess?
Why is their agenda so out of step with those people they "represent"?
Why aren't they listening now?
Australian Prime Minister, John Howard's response to massive peace/anti-war demonstrations here:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/16/1045330468377.html
~
Here's the thing, I think that outside the US and the UK the protests ARE being heard.
The problem is what now! How many of those who protested are going to send messages to the UN urging them to let inspections to continue, how many of them will send messages to the legislators urging them to pass legislation in their countries in support of inspections?
Actually--this has bugged me since the Seattle protests, no attempts to build this into a POLITICAL movement.
Goldie: My dictionary has a different definition for "acquiescing" than what your's apparently has.
Even if the total number of protesters in London was 5 million, this would constitute only less than 10 percent of the overall UK population. In the USA, the corresponding number would exceed 25 million people. Dissent of 10 percent is quite normal, it does not endanger stability of any administration/government, and the protesters' numbers were much lower. Government may conclude that majority supports its policies or keeps neutrality tacitly. Despite this (and it is especially true for Europe) there are not few "professional protesters" that travel from capital to capital and take part in events; these are often being counted two and more times. But, in fact, they are the same ones.
steissd
a. Do you really believe, everyone in the UK, who is against the war, has joined the demonstration?
b. There were hundreds of anti-war rallies throughout the world on that day. Impossible for "professional protestors" to travel from one point of the world to all the others on the same time.
The protests may be caused by indefinite situation: permanent delays, situation of "neither war, nor peace" makes people nervous. When the first victorious news appear in the media, public opinion may change.
Gonna be a bit hard when, at least here in the US, only news of the victories will reach the masses.
To get the rest of the story, one will have to rely on sites like:
http://www.buzzflash.com
http://www.commondreams.org
http://thenextwar.blogspot.com
Well, Bush has said that only he, as the leader, can determine what is best for the security of the nation. He also mentioned it being good that there was a democracy.
As long as Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest can sit heavily upon the press, half of America could take to the streets, and they would be ignored by the WH. This is beginning to look like the French Revolution where the peasants were ignored, until the time came when it was the empire that was trundled off.
There does seem to be some kind of people's revolution going on, although the royal we at te top tries to ignore it. But a noticeable thing is that its numbers are growing. Add this to the fact that for a year Bush has been trying to make Americans (and others) enthusiastic about his plans for Iraq, and instead of gaining fans, more and more are dropping away.
Some photos not presented by Colin Powell to the UN...
http://www.nationalphilistine.com/baghdad/index2.html
blatham: You're a good person to ask this one, it's been puzzling me for sometime and before the hostilities go full tilt, I would really like to get some opines...
so....
When militant extremist Iraqi pregnant women and children suicide bombers attack the US troops in country, will they technically be considered part of the "innocent women and children" that everyone says we can't wait to kill?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A PRESS RELEASE PROVIDED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE WHITE HOUSE
While this nation's pansy assed, love bead wearing liberal media delighted in reporting this weekend's sad spectacle of millions of hippie communists loitering on streets throughout the world to show their support for America-hating terrorists, there is another, more important story that was not reported to the American people. To rectify this intentional oversight, the White House Press office has prepared this "information release" to give heart to all those who love President Bush enough to go along with killing any man, woman and little baby for whom he has a smart-bomb surprise up his sleeve.
Over the weekend, throngs in numbers approaching almost 80 people worldwide took to the streets to provide a poignant counterpoint to the fringe-position presented by over 6,000,000 anti-war protesters. Enjoying a courteous distance from one another that was eschewed by the dense crowd of America-hating cowards that filled the streets, sometimes almost a baker's dozen of counter-protesters gathered on street corners and otherwise desolate gas stations in some of America's larger medium-size towns and villages. They came to taunt the Saddam-loving anti-war vermin with placards that tended to dispense with all the geo-political mumbo-jumbo and cut to the heart of the matter by lobbing personal attacks on the traitors who are rude enough to disagree with our blameless President.
http://www.bettybowers.com/protests.html
A wee bit of hope?
Front page of THE AGE, Melbourne, Oz.
"MARCH TO WAR SLOWS"
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/20/1045638425347.html
~
What a wonderful time to for Bush to really show he is compassionate; but, won't happen.
BillW
Yes, if only! ...<sigh>
Excuse me, I must have been sleeping - you'd never believe what I was dreamin'; but, <sigh> anyway--------------
