Where Has the Anti-War Movement Gone?

With Obama in office, the anti-war movement has disappeared. Even though something that looks just like a war is occurring in Libya, there's no protesters to be found. Imagine that!

Funny, isn't it? Especially when you consider who was one of the most active organizing forces behind the many protest marches during Bush's terms as President.

Who?

TexasBlue wrote:Who?

It was the various socialist organizations who were sponsoring and organizing these marches, but this was never reported on by the mainstream media - and their marchers and their signs were always suppressed by the mainstream media.

This is true. Opposition to Iraq also dried up after Obama stepped in. I noted this at the time.

kronos wrote:This is true. Opposition to Iraq also dried up after Obama stepped in. I noted this at the time.

Don't you find that hypocritical? That's not to say that right wingers aren't hypocritical on things. But still, it was a huge thing during the Bush admin, those protests.

kronos wrote:This is true. Opposition to Iraq also dried up after Obama stepped in. I noted this at the time.

Yeah, because Obama was taking steps to leave Iraq, there's no more need to protest against it when the US is already withdrawing troops.
And you can't compare this no-fly zone in Libya with the Iraq war, there are just too many differences. That would also be why there's no anti-war movement.

BubbleBliss wrote:

kronos wrote:This is true. Opposition to Iraq also dried up after Obama stepped in. I noted this at the time.

Yeah, because Obama was taking steps to leave Iraq, there's no more need to protest against it when the US is already withdrawing troops.
And you can't compare this no-fly zone in Libya with the Iraq war, there are just too many differences. That would also be why there's no anti-war movement.

That's not true. The steps to leave Iraq were in place long before Obama's rear-end warmed the Oval office's chair. And let us not forget, Bush got authorization for the war in Iraq, and he was only making good on President Clinton's officially declared policy of regime change in Iraq. And not to put too fine a point on it, but we still have military personnel fighting and dying in Iraq - we are still at war there, two years into Obama's term in office. And yet, nary a peep from the anti-war "get out now" crowd.

Obama, on the other hand, did not get authorization from Congress for this military campaign in Libya (which is required under our constitution) - he took his lead from the vehemently anti-American United Nations.

Yet Obama was the one who actually pushed it through as fast as he could.
As for the rest, that has nothing to do with the comparison between this "war" in Libya and the Iraq war. The situation is Libya is completely different, because the international community is standing behind a rebel force and doesn't put boots on the ground to topple Ghaddafi themselves. Also, the US did not break international law by not getting authorization from the UN to invade a country.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yet Obama was the one who actually pushed it through as fast as he could.

Pushed what through? We're still in Iraq!

BubbleBliss wrote:As for the rest, that has nothing to do with the comparison between this "war" in Libya and the Iraq war. The situation is Libya is completely different, because the international community is standing behind a rebel force and doesn't put boots on the ground to topple Ghaddafi themselves. Also, the US did not break international law by not getting authorization from the UN to invade a country.

No, the President simply ignored OUR constitution, violating our own law, and turned to the UN and the Arab League for his lead to go to war with Libya. And make no mistake about it, this is war! We are bombing a "sovereign" nation and killing their soldiers. We are flying our aircraft over their country and taking out targets on the ground. We've already lost one aircraft in this war. Trying to put a happy-face on this conflict because we don't have "boots on the ground" is a meaningless distinction to those who are being bombed! I can assure you that those people see this for what it is, war.

And let us not forget, since too many find it necessary to bow down at the alter of the UN, it was the UN who appointed Libya to chair their "Human Rights Council." What even marginally sane organization would appoint a brutal dictator with a proven record of committing terrorist acts to their "Human Rights Council???" How anyone can justify giving the UN any degree of deference is beyond my comprehension.

Well you can't just leave Iraq fully, I think we all know that. Think about how long American troops were stationed in Germany and other European countries!

The question isn't whether it was illegal or whether it's war or not, it's why people don't protest against this war anymore. And that's because it is supporting rebel forces that asked for international military aid and because it is toppling a dictator, that has been using military force against his own people.

BubbleBliss wrote:Well you can't just leave Iraq fully, I think we all know that. Think about how long American troops were stationed in Germany and other European countries!

According to Obama, we can. That's what he campaigned on.

Also, we were in Europe because of the Soviet threat. You're way too young to remember all of that. Reading about it and living it is two different things.

BubbleBliss wrote:The question isn't whether it was illegal or whether it's war or not, it's why people don't protest against this war anymore. And that's because it is supporting rebel forces that asked for international military aid and because it is toppling a dictator, that has been using military force against his own people.

They don't protest because Obama is president. I guarantee you that if a Repub were in office instead of Obama, it would be different. You can say it wouldn't be all you want. It would be different.

Tex is right on the money on both counts.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Well you can't just leave Iraq fully, I think we all know that. Think about how long American troops were stationed in Germany and other European countries!

According to Obama, we can. That's what he campaigned on.

Also, we were in Europe because of the Soviet threat. You're way too young to remember all of that. Reading about it and living it is two different things.

BubbleBliss wrote:The question isn't whether it was illegal or whether it's war or not, it's why people don't protest against this war anymore. And that's because it is supporting rebel forces that asked for international military aid and because it is toppling a dictator, that has been using military force against his own people.

They don't protest because Obama is president. I guarantee you that if a Repub were in office instead of Obama, it would be different. You can say it wouldn't be all you want. It would be different.

No, he never promised to pull completely out of Iraq, every one knows that would be impossible.

Bullshit. The Iraq war is completely different than this war, that's why they don't protest-

BubbleBliss wrote:No, he never promised to pull completely out of Iraq, every one knows that would be impossible.

Really?

In Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats
and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.” The quote appears on the
campaign’s Web site.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 first Presidential debate Sep 26, 2008

BubbleBliss wrote:Bullshit. The Iraq war is completely different than this war, that's why they don't protest-

Bullshit. War is war. We have no interest in Libya. None. If it's humanitarian there, then it was also humanitarian in Iraq. You can't have it both ways. If this had been McCain/Palin doing Libya, the anti-war folks would be running wild with McCain lied, people died and all that stuff. The anti-war people are anti-war. Period.

I disagree. This is UN and NATO backed. The whole point of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan war movement was the lack of international mandate for action.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I disagree. This is UN and NATO backed. The whole point of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan war movement was the lack of international mandate for action.

True, but it also happened without congressional approval. Let a Repub do that and the shit would fly into the fan.

I still say that the anti-war people in this country would be up in arms over this if it were the other way around.

Key word in that paragraph would be COMBAT. What's left in Iraq are troops to support Iraqi Police and Army in cases of emergency, security troops and humanitarian troops. NO combat troops are left in Iraq.

War may be war, but the reasons differ. No, it was not humanitarian in Iraq. The US is now supporting a rebel force along other members of the international community that actively ASKED for support.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I disagree. This is UN and NATO backed. The whole point of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan war movement was the lack of international mandate for action.

I disagree with the allegation that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq lacked an international mandate. The following are the nations that participated in both wars - listed by war:

War in Afghanistan

NATO – ISAF (132,203)
United States – 90,000
United Kingdom – 9,500
Germany – 4,909
France – 3,979
Italy – 3,815
Canada – 2,900
Poland – 2,527
Turkey – 1,799
Romania – 1,726
Australia – 1,550
Spain – 1,499
Albania – 257
Belgium – 528
Bulgaria – 608
Croatia – 315
Czech Republic – 463
Denmark – 748
Estonia – 158
Greece – 132
Hungary – 483
Iceland – 2
Latvia – 136
Lithuania – 188
Luxembourg – 9
Norway – 413
Portugal – 114
Slovakia – 296
Slovenia – 79

Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) nations
Armenia – 40
Austria – 3
Azerbaijan – 94
Bosnia and Herzegovina – 45
Finland – 165
Georgia – 924
Ireland – 7
Macedonia – 163
Montenegro – 36
Sweden – 500
Ukraine – 20

Non-NATO and non-EAPC nations
Afghanistan – ?
Australia – 1,550
Republic of Korea – 426
Malaysia – 30
Mongolia – 62
New Zealand – 236
Singapore – 48
Tonga – 55
United Arab Emirates – 35

War in Iraq

NATO: A contingent of around 150 advisers under the separate command NATO Training Mission - Iraq
United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak-112,000 (12/09)
Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)
Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 11/08)
Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 10/08)
Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05-withdrawn 10/08)
Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 09/08)
Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/08)
Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03-withdrawn 08/07)
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/06)
Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 8/06)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03-withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 4/04)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 2/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03-withdrawal date unknown)

How does such massive participation get taken for a "lack of international mandate for action?" What, because the UN wasn't onboard?

TexasBlue wrote:With Obama in office, the anti-war movement has disappeared. Even though something that looks just like a war is occurring in Libya, there's no protesters to be found. Imagine that!

Maybe it's disappeared from the corporate media you watch, but there are plenty of anti-war protests going on. Your corporate media also holds stock in the military industrial complex. They WANT a 3rd war. More welfare checks for them.

Cookie Parker wrote:Maybe it's disappeared from the corporate media you watch, but there are plenty of anti-war protests going on. Your corporate media also holds stock in the military industrial complex. They WANT a 3rd war. More welfare checks for them.

That would apply to your mainstream media. I watch it, much to your dismay. They don't cover it. Why? No protests, no news.

Cookie Parker wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:With Obama in office, the anti-war movement has disappeared. Even though something that looks just like a war is occurring in Libya, there's no protesters to be found. Imagine that!

Maybe it's disappeared from the corporate media you watch, but there are plenty of anti-war protests going on. Your corporate media also holds stock in the military industrial complex. They WANT a 3rd war. More welfare checks for them.

Do you have evidence of these anti-war protests?

I'm not saying it's not true, but I'll be needing something more than just a claim.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I disagree. This is UN and NATO backed. The whole point of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan war movement was the lack of international mandate for action.

I disagree with the allegation that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq lacked an international mandate. The following are the nations that participated in both wars - listed by war:

As your lists states, many of these countries involved were not part of the initial invasions and only came in later to help clear up the mess that Bush and Blair created (well gee, you'd think considering they were on an officially mandated "Mission from God" they would have made a better job of it).

Besides, all I was doing was trying to put myself in the shoes of the anti-war movement. Your belief that their silence is because "their guy" is now President is unfounded and based on nothing more than your and Tex's prejudices about the left wing.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Your belief that their silence is because "their guy" is now President is unfounded and based on nothing more than your and Tex's prejudices about the left wing.

It ain't so much prejudice as pointing out hypocrisy. I'm not a supporter of either Iraq or Afghanistan. I want us out of both places completely.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I disagree. This is UN and NATO backed. The whole point of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan war movement was the lack of international mandate for action.

I disagree with the allegation that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq lacked an international mandate. The following are the nations that participated in both wars - listed by war:

As your lists states, many of these countries involved were not part of the initial invasions and only came in later to help clear up the mess that Bush and Blair created (well gee, you'd think considering they were on an officially mandated "Mission from God" they would have made a better job of it).

Besides, all I was doing was trying to put myself in the shoes of the anti-war movement. Your belief that their silence is because "their guy" is now President is unfounded and based on nothing more than your and Tex's prejudices about the left wing.

Again, I would respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the reason that countries beyond the US and UK joined in the fight. First, you will note that a vast majority of those other countries got involved within the first year of that conflict, some within a few months of the initiation of hostilities. This could hardly be characterized as coming "in later to help clear up the mess that Bush and Blair created." We weren't talking about a "mess" or a "quagmire" (the mainstream media's favorite Vietnam-era oldie-but-goldie) until about 3 or more years into the war.

And yes, I believe that their (particularly the mainstream media) silence is because their guy is in office. And while I cannot point to an article or statement from the left that says "yes, we are silent because our guy is in office" - I nonetheless assert that their very silence - coupled with more than adequate proof that the mainstream media are biased to the left (I have presented in the past university studies proving this, as well as voter registration and party contribution records showing that the mainstream media overwhelming support Democrats over Republicans) - is proof enough that this assertion is true.

So I would not say that my or Tex's assertions are unfounded or based solely on our prejudices against the left. I believe the studies and records showing the mainstream media's bias to the left (again presented here many times in the past) and their utter silence and lack of attacks on Obama concerning the wars (including this new one with Libya).

My or Tex's prejudices aside, the lack of a critical mainstream media record or coverage of masses of protesters in the streets I think speaks for itself.

Of course, I'm willing to entertain any substantiated or corroborated thesis to the contrary.

But so far, none have been forthcoming.