298,144,215 Decide to Not Protest War in D.C. This Weekend

Antiwar Protesters Target Congress - Christian Science Monitor.

Quote:

---

Organizers expect more than 300,000 people to converge in Washington this weekend seeking more than resolutions.

When thousands of Iraq war protesters gather in Washington Saturday, their chants and amplified speeches are likely to be heard inside the secure grounds of the White House where the commander in chief has made his case for sending more troops into combat.

But the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue -- the Capitol and the Democratic-led Congress -- is where they most aim their message.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the main political target. War protesters want something tougher than nonbinding resolutions opposing the "surge" in additional US forces. Some want hearings on the controversial basis for the war itself, perhaps leading to the impeachment of President Bush...

---

When I saw the thread title, I figured this was another Onion link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWCAdmin

When I saw the thread title, I figured this was another Onion link.

---

I'm right there with you on that.

the Tehran Gazette

As of this posting the AP preferred headline is Tens of Thousands in D.C. Protest War

Quote:

---

The sixth-grader from Harvard, Mass., the youngest speaker on the National Mall stage, organized a petition drive at her school against the war. "I encourage the youth of America to rise up and tell our government, 'Changes have to be made,'" she said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Culpeper

As of this posting the AP preferred headline is Tens of Thousands in D.C. Protest War

---

... and she has good company. Of course all of those listed at the link have no ulterior motives - just give peace a chance... And oh, free Mumia too...

Tell me if I'm incorrect but it seems to me the anti-war movement on the ground is not that large and is inflated by the press. Why, I don't know. It serves no purpose, time and time again, to inflate expected outcome only to fall drastically short. To take an adage from economics, when the invisible hand of free press is left alone it will take care of itself. In this case, pie in the face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Culpeper

the anti-war movement on the ground is not that large and is inflated by the press. Why, I don't know. It serves no purpose, time and time again, to inflate expected outcome only to fall drastically short. .

---

Simple - repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Deny the truth often enough, and it becomes an official lie.

Orwell was right.

Speaking as someone who was heavily involved with questioning the original invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- I spoke at the big antiwar protest in October 02 -- I can say what you're seeing with the people still protesting is a complete disconnect from reality. On both sides of the political battle people circle the wagons, reading news only from people who already agree with them, so they tend to get further and further from the truth because their only sources are extremists. Too many people are still quoting to me the idea that if we just leave, the Iraqis will make up and establish a nice peaceful country in our absense.

It's the same folks who use the term "resistence fighters" instead of "terrorists." For my part, once you start blowing up civilians in markets and executing barbers, you've gone way beyond the level of a "resistance fighter."

Downplaying peace demonstrrations is interesting ... but somewhat not so substantial as long as you cannot point at some pro-war demonstrations of larger size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Culpeper

Tell me if I'm incorrect but it seems to me the anti-war movement on the ground is not that large and is inflated by the press. Why, I don't know. It serves no purpose, time and time again, to inflate expected outcome only to fall drastically short. To take an adage from economics, when the invisible hand of free press is left alone it will take care of itself. In this case, pie in the face.

---

Something along the same lines that I find interesting is how muted it is on most college campuses. I gave a talk (along with Charles Pena) at Bowdoin College this spring and expected to take a lot of crap. There were very thoughtful, concerned questions, but not of the sort of Cindy Sheehanism I was expecting.

Speaking of insubstantial...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lastdingo

Downplaying peace demonstrrations is interesting ... but somewhat not so substantial as long as you cannot point at some pro-war demonstrations of larger size.

---

Pro-war is largely silly. If it were to evolve into the theoretical fantasy counterpoint of the bulk of the anti-war crowd, I would not want to be anywhere near those folks. Similar to dealing with the Pro-Kill-Babies faction instead of Pro-Choice.

Whenever I see one of those stupid "War is not the answer" bumper stickers, I know that this is a sheltered person who is not living in the real world. What is the question that war is not the answer to? War is never a good answer. But sometimes it is the least bad one.

I hope and think that no one here downplays the serious anti-war contingent, their message, and the limitations of the use of force. But that is a sophisticated argument that is not the one that most protesters chant and get some press coverage about. This is not about elementary school platitudes and text book morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWCAdmin

Speaking of insubstantial...

Pro-war is largely silly. If it were to evolve into the theoretical fantasy counterpoint of the bulk of the anti-war crowd, I would not want to be anywhere near those folks. Similar to dealing with the Pro-Kill-Babies faction instead of Pro-Choice.

Whenever I see one of those stupid "War is not the answer" bumper stickers, I know that this is a sheltered person who is not living in the real world. What is the question that war is not the answer to? War is never a good answer. But sometimes it is the least bad one.

I hope and think that no one here downplays the serious anti-war contingent, their message, and the limitations of the use of force. But that is a sophisticated argument that is not the one that most protesters chant and get some press coverage about. This is not about elementary school platitudes and text book morality.

---

I agree with you. The concept of being "pro war" is morally repugnant. But the idea of heaping punishment on ourselves for strategic mistakes made five years ago, which seems to be the gist of the Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore line, is simply wrong.

The whole issue pivots on whether one believes the strategic costs of continued engagement in Iraq outweigh the strategic costs of immediate or quick disengagement. If I were emperor of the world for a day, I'd find a way to get a fair poll of the Iraqi people and I'd ask the opinion of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. I'd use those results to decide whether to begin some sort of disengagement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMetz

The whole issue pivots on whether one believes the strategic costs of continued engagement in Iraq outweigh the strategic costs of immediate or quick disengagement.

---

I'm not sure this is the full range of options.
1a. Stay the course (whatever that means exactly).
1b. "Surge". That word suggests a temporary reinforcement at a rapid pace, but I'm not clear if that really just means higher troop levels in Al Anbar and Baghdad for the remainder of Bush's term of office. "Surge" is not really a military term I've seen in most history books.

2. Immediate or quick disengagement.

There does exist another option, such as a gradual disengagement. Perhaps that is a more feasible option. Not to mention the most likely, no matter what the political rhetoric is.

As to demonstrations, I don't think there is really that much pro-war of anti-war conviction out there amongst most people. Most just go on with their daily routine, the war has zero impact on their lives. It seems to me mainly just rhetoric, coming down to whether or not you support the Administration over a whole range of issues, or not.

The lack of a well-organized Vietnam style protest movement most likely points to the absence of a draft. Start a draft, and trust me, you'll see plenty of demonstrations. As for the most vocal pro-Iraq war crowd around here, I don't see them beating a path to the recruiting stations to either sign up or to urge their sons to sign up.

Quote:

---

Downplaying peace demonstrrations is interesting ... but somewhat not so substantial as long as you cannot point at some pro-war demonstrations of larger size.

---

Uh, isn't that statement, based on its own merit, bordering on nihilism? It is sort of pointless, at least on these forums, to make a nihilistic point to counter what you perceive as an interesting nihilistic point. It falls into the trap that milesce describes above.

As for Orwell. He is known as a novelist and essayist. Steven King writes about the boogie man but that doesn't mean he exists. Orwell wrote against Totalitarianism and Stalinism. That doesn't mean either exists in America.

Is there any big anti-war protests planned for tomorrow? For the most part, America will be celebrating America's indepedence. Which, in itself, was the result of a small war. But anti-war protests of this generation fall way short of the talented folks from the 1960s. "Yeah, I would go but I have to work the night shift at Starbucks and then go by Radio Shack to get that new cell phone". Its America's fault. Everybody has to work or study and don't have enough free time for such things as massive war protests of the scale we saw during the Vietnam Era.

I'm sorry. I grew up next door to the Hell's Angels, Black Panthers, and the Hippies. Today, anyone the same age as them that pretends to measure up to them, right or wrong, are a complete failure. "Turn on, tune in, and drop out", if you got a pair. Until then, we will just have to settle with NGOs convincing the press there will be 250,000 protesters converging on Washington D.C. and one young woman run over by an Israeli tractor made in America. BTW, and I don't mean to sound cruel, but did anyone notice the irony in having a benefit pancake breakfast for this unfortunate and misguided young lady a couple of years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Culpeper

Uh, isn't that statement, based on its own merit, bordering on nihilism?

---

No, I see absolutely no connection to nihilism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lastdingo

No, I see absolutely no connection to nihilism.

---

Exactly, and you won't see a connection and I didn't mean for you to see a connection. If you had seen a connection than I would have been absolutely incorrect in my assumption. A nihilistic remark has no connection. Existence is senseless and useless. How can there be fabricating reports of anti-war protests when there are no fabricated as well as non fabricated pro-war protests to compare them to? Or did you post, "...." by mistake? I was merely pontificating after SWJED's post, which I thought was to the point. A one sentence off-handed remark on these forums is the equivalent of pinning a paper square to your chest. Trust me. I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lastdingo

No, I see absolutely no connection to nihilism.

---

I agree with a lot of Culpepper's post, but I have to concur with you there, Lastdingo. Only after looking it up to make sure I knew what nihilism really was. :o

Rather than saying that neither anti- or pro-war are preferable or true, I took Lastdingo to be saying almost the opposite in that the lack of a pro-war demonstration validated the anti-war demonstration and gave it more virtue. Not to me, it doesn't.

After a little reflection, I will add a clarificaiton that was underlying my prior post but not stated clearly. There is a HUGE gap in my mind between the popular anti-war demonstrations and the significant and substantial anti-war arguments. I find the bulk of the former in practice to be naively idealistic (downplaying :p?). There is a world of difference between anti-all-war moaning, and pragmatic anti-this-war or -that-war-this-way-and-because-of-this reasoning. Unfortunately, the latter are too often confounded with politics, naysaying, and obstructionism to be as compelling as they often should be.

The only real protest that counts is our elections, and America did express discontent for the way the war was being managed. However, when you dive into the large number of folks who don't like the war, you'll probably find a large percentage, while not pro-war (that has an ugly ring to it), are not against fighting for our national interests, and for humanitarian reasons, and Iraq fall under both categories now. Many so called anti-war protesters just want to see an intelligent strategy, they are not for the most part misguided Jane Fondas want a bes, although there is a percentage and of course you find them on certain websites, and make posts here that convey a picture that the sky is falling, but that is far from the truth.

I think we do our fellow country men and women a disservice when we simply divide America into two camps, pro-war and anti-war. It kills any potential intellectual discussion about it.

Tomorrow we celebrate the ideas that make our country great, and one of them is the freedom of speech, so everyone have a Happy 4th of July, especially those of you out there fighting for our freedom. God bless!

To those who serve & have served to pay the bill. We live free because of those men and women who are & were willing to sacrifice their self interests for something greater.

Happy 4th.