Why are people marching?

[asterix404]

I am totally against the war and I have been since we invaided Iraq. 60% of the US didn't agree with me... now 60% do. But in hte begining of the war before we were there... rememeber... yea that far back... there was a heuge demonstation all over hte world and millions of people protested. It didn't make a difference... people have been protesting for years against this war... doesn't seem to make a difference. Why do people still do it? I mean I deem it a lesson in feutility, I don't want to feal that way but I hate doing soemthing if there is no result at the end. No one seems to listen and no one seems to care, esp about how americans feal... why bother?

[Scribbler1]

I believe people still protest because that's about all that's left available for people to do. And before anyone says we still have the vote there are too many unanswered questions surrounding the last two elections for anyone to ABSOLUTELY say (with proof) that there has been no funny business there.

[Compugasm]

Think how many jobs protesting creates. It's only futile if it doesn't make news. Once you get that far, it's fair game for every "illuminati, left/right agenda, counter-culture, god-fearing, etc...." group to argue and point fingers at. I find it all sickening. Turn off your TV.

[asterix404]

But I never hear about that... all I read about and see is like 300k or 100k people in an anti war protest... but i don't see anything come from it.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: asterix404 But I never hear about that... all I read about and see is like 300k or 100k people in an anti war protest... but i don't see anything come from it.

Anything that comes as a result of a protest (march, sit-in, letter writing campaign, etc.) will be subtle at best. Remember protests are generally aimed at people in power, and those people don't want to do what the protesters want.
The most a protest will generate is a groundswell of support, like Cindy Sheehan's cause, and that takes time, for two reasons. One, you don't mobilize public opinion overnight and two, once the handwriting is on the wall TPTB need time to make it look like it was their idea all along.

[bishop]

protesting doesn't make a difference so long as the protestors are in the minority.

[Scribbler1]

I think the protesters (against ANYTHING) will always be in the minority. It's when you start to convince the mainstream Americans to side with you is when you get things done.

Way back when, I knew in my heart that the Vietnam war was on the way out when my WW2 vet Father said he was against it. I figured when you had guys like him convinced the war was wrong it was time for Nixon to turn out the lights and go home.. THAT is the legacy of a protest.

[asterix404]

But even now 60% of americans think that the war in iraq is wrong... All I hear any polotican, dem or GOP talk about is why we should be there... and how great spreading democracy is... and how freedom isn't free... see I would love to be able to protest, and I suport anyone who does... I am really just looking for a reason to...

[Sonart]

Quote by: asterix But in hte begining of the war before we were there... rememeber... yea that far back... there was a huge demonstation all over the world and millions of people protested. It didn't make a difference.

I think it's fairly simply, asterix. Domestically, there were protests, but I think it soon became apparent that the vast majority of Americans supported Bush. Likewise internationally... millions of people protested, but it soon became apparent that the U.S. administration, and it's supporters, didn't give a rat's patoot what "them foreigners" thought. Once the war began, I think a certain resignation set in that the war was a fact and no amount of protests were going to stop it.

Plus, domestically, I think even Americans opposed to the war figured that, like it or not, we were in it and it was best to support our troops and hope for the best. Now that it's becoming obvious that the best ain't gonna happen, a lot of people are thinking maybe it's time to cut our loses and fold a bad hand.

.

[bishop]

there are some politicians talking about how we should withdraw.. a decent amount actually..

the problem is: when they begin to talk about withdrawing, people begin to wonder what could happen if iraq were to descend into chaos. and, i think damn near everyone knows that iraq will completely disintegrate if we were to leave. and then you have other people who also rightly say that we can't win this shit and that we should just cut our losses and leave.

the problem is that we're in a quagmire and there's no real way out and no real way to succeed. how do you weigh the risk that a power vaccuum in iraq would present (where al qaeda would have a new home) versus the reality that we can't win this occupation?

perhaps we'll see a candidate in 2008 with the balls to advocate withdrawing from iraq.. but given the names that are being floated around, i doubt it - unless some 3rd party wins and that ain't gonna happen.

[rmnunez]

I'd guess most people demonstrating against the war do it because they are pacifists or just don't approve of military force. Some specifically disapprove of intervention in Iraq because there were no WMDs, don't perceive any terrorist threat there or find the risk of either too low.

There must be a lot protesting because they don't like Bush and oppose his policies. A variety of socialistic organizations probably involved their members motivated by their specific labour, feminist, environmental or other agendas, presumably under the expectation moneys now devoted to intervention could be used instead for whatever they are promoting.

[asterix404]

Yes, I know that... but what good does protesting do?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Bishop the problem is: when they begin to talk about withdrawing, people begin to wonder what could happen if iraq were to descend into chaos. and, i think damn near everyone knows that iraq will completely disintegrate if we were to leave. and then you have other people who also rightly say that we can't win this shit and that we should just cut our losses and leave.

There it is, Bishop. There's an alarming, and growing, suspicion that Iraq is on the course to civil war and chaos, whether we stay or not.

Saddam's Revenge, Joe Klein, TIME, Sep. 26, 2005

Can US, Britain 'win' in Iraq?, Tom Regan, Christian Science Monitor, July 25, 2005

For a long time now I was convinced that, as opposed as I was to the war in the first place, we should stick it out and hope for the best. I am becoming more and more convinced that it really won't matter, that sooner or later, with or without us, Iraq is going to collapse into civil war and give us no choice but to leave.

It's like a poker hand. At what point do we conclude that we're holding a losing hand, grit our teeth, suck in our pride, cut our loses and fold. Yeah, we've already thrown in a lot of chips, but do we really want to continue throwing in more if the results are going to be the same?

Quote by: rmnunez I'd guess most people demonstrating against the war do it because they are pacifists or just don't approve of military force. Some specifically disapprove of intervention in Iraq because there were no WMDs, don't perceive any terrorist threat there or find the risk of either too low.

Yeah, probably some. I'm not one of them... I fully supported Desert Storm from the gitgo, our altruistic intervention in Somalia -- although it was an abject lesson into the limits of superpower vs. insurgency that Bush should have noted --our intervention in the Balkans, and Bush's invasion of Afghanistan.

It's the war in Iraq in particular that I've always opposed, first and foremost because it was simply a bad idea militarily, a really bad place to pin down the heart of our military, an invitation to quagmire. The fact that Bush launched it by mistake -- there being no WMD -- only compounded the error. I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing other Americans who feel the same joining the protests. They just arrived at the same conclusions about Iraq much later than we did.

Quote by: rmnunez There must be a lot protesting because they don't like Bush and oppose his policies.

Bare in mind, rm, that for the first two years, most Americans still supported Bush's war. As I've said, the significance of Cindy Sheehan and the protests is not her in particular, but her as the canary in the coal mine. She's arrived at the very point at which the majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake.

I also think that it shouldn't be any surprise that the vanguard of the protest movement is the usual suspects -- peaceniks, anti-Bushies, etc. They were always there. What's significant are the mainstream people that have filled their ranks into a serious movement. That's exactly what happened during the Vietnam war. One day the peace demonstrations were just hippies and peaceniks, then suddenly we all looked around and there were hundreds of thousands of protesters including vets and middle class Americans. Sure, the hippies and peaceniks were still there, but the movement had expanded far beyond them to mainstream America, and Cindy Sheehan, whether her personal views reflect it or not, represents mainstream America.

.
.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: asterix404 Yes, I know that... but what good does protesting do?

At this point, if you still ask that question you will probably never get the answer you're looking for.

[RickSp]

To a degree I think you are all missing the point.

In a just world, the peaceful assembly of citizens with a grievance would be taken seriously by the ruling powers. Even if the protest is ignored it is still important as a demonstration that at least 200,000 Americans are angry enough to get on buses, planes and trains and travel to Washington. How many of their fellow Americans are equally angry but lacked the resources, time or inclination to make the cross country trip? The protestors are the proverbial tip of the iceberg toward which the war mongers' Titanic is steaming at flank speed.

The real value of protesting may be that it energizes the protestors themselves. There is a something amazing about seeing such a huge crowd of like minded opponents to the war. The sense of struggling in isolation that so many peace activists have felt can be washed away by the crowds. A protest can be reinvigorating.

The real reason that the march on Washington was ignored was just bad luck. If it had been any other slow news Sunday the press would have been all over it. The press flocks to the lurid and sensational like flies to a fresh cow pat. Even Cindy Sheehan couldn't compete with Rita.

[Osborn F Enready]

People need to recognize when the protest don't do much, and then the next time they attend a protest, bring a rifle, and see how much more of an effect you have.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready People need to recognize when the protest don't do much, and then the next time they attend a protest, bring a rifle, and see how much more of an effect you have.

Thank you Gandhi. Bringing firearms to a peace rally. What a brilliant idea.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready People need to recognize when the protest don't do much, and then the next time they attend a protest, bring a rifle, and see how much more of an effect you have.

Having recently been caught attacking someone who was actually being satirical, I want to be cautious here...

Osborn, are you really serious? Because if you actually are serious, I suspect this is about the damn dumbest idea I've ever heard of. We can get into why if you're actually serious.

.

[Clarence]

Question. the protesters who were arrested have the option of a $50 fine or they can fight it in court. If they were to fight it, could the precedings be used to protest further? Like, could the apperent lie of WMD be proven a lie instead of a mistake, in court, during procedings? Not educated in law very much.

[northtexan]

Quote by: bishop protesting doesn't make a difference so long as the protestors are in the minority.

The problem is that protesting isn't making a difference with the current loonies in power even though the protestors ARE in the majority. And it was Cindy's protest that helped tip public opinion toward its current anti-Iraq-war stance.

As for why protest, it is an attempt to carry out a constitutional right: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That peaceably assembling and petitioning the government for a dedress of grievances does not appear to bear immediate fruit does not diminish the need to assemble and petition.

Quote by: bishop there are some politicians talking about how we should withdraw.. a decent amount actually.. the problem is: when they begin to talk about withdrawing, people begin to wonder what could happen if iraq were to descend into chaos. and, i think damn near everyone knows that iraq will completely disintegrate if we were to leave. and then you have other people who also rightly say that we can't win this shit and that we should just cut our losses and leave. the problem is that we're in a quagmire and there's no real way out and no real way to succeed. how do you weigh the risk that a power vaccuum in iraq would present (where al qaeda would have a new home) versus the reality that we can't win this occupation? perhaps we'll see a candidate in 2008 with the balls to advocate withdrawing from iraq.. but given the names that are being floated around, i doubt it - unless some 3rd party wins and that ain't gonna happen.

Yes, you are right about what happens when we demand withdrawal, the concern for what happens after. Unfortunately, not enough people get concerned with what happens after if we do not withdraw. What happens when Iraq flies apart even though U.S. troops are there? What happens over 20 to 30 years of insurgency with U.S. troops dying in it? It is not clear that the presence of U.S. troops provides in any way for an outcome better than would their absence.