Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?

This topic contains 83 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by rus rus 3 years, 2 months ago.

Tagged

whitey

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 84 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #86243
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    This post from BuckeyeShadow reminded me of something I read on NPR the other day:

    http://www.npr.org/2011/04/15/135391188/whatever-happened-to-the-anti-war-movement

    Quote:
    Instead, Heaney continued, “attendance at anti-war rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement have dissipated. The election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the anti-war movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions.”

    Instead of saying Republicans “alienate, spite and/or malign” the anti-war movement, it seems they cause it to exist.

    Democrats pursue effectively the same strategy of foreign military intervention, claiming American exceptionalism, etc. of the Republicans yet public protests dwindle.

    In other words, the American anti-war movement seems less anti-war than it does anti-republican.

    #441576
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    War is a-ok when there is a “black” democrat president.

    #441577
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Snarf wrote >>
    War is a-ok when there is a “black” democrat president.

    Apparently so.

    #441578

    MichaelC
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    The anti-war movement was related to President Bush’s decision to beat the drums for invading a country unrelated to 9/11 based on a fictitious tie between Iraq and the war on terrorism. Once it became clear toward the end of the Bush Administration and through the Obama Administration that the U.S. involvement in Iraq was on the wane–and as the number of American casualties dropped precipitously–the anti-war rhetoricians stood down.

    But go ahead and blame it on Obama being a black democrat.

    #441579
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    MichaelC wrote >>
    The anti-war movement was related to President Bush’s decision to beat the drums for invading a country unrelated to 9/11 based on a fictitious tie between Iraq and the war on terrorism. Once it became clear toward the end of the Bush Administration and through the Obama Administration that the U.S. involvement in Iraq was on the wane–and as the number of American casualties dropped precipitously–the anti-war rhetoricians stood down.
    But go ahead and blame it on Obama being a black democrat.

    From the linked article:

    “As president, Obama has maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan,” Heaney, an assistant professor of organizational studies and political science, said in a news release. “The anti-war movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity.”

    That didn’t happen, though.

    #441580
    lazyfish
    lazyfish
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Don’t you have real work to be doing at the Buckeye Institute?

    Vietnam was started by Dems…remember hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?

    Columbus Oh-ho-ho played a huge role in stopping Bubba Clinton from invading Iraq.

    Many of us see a difference between wars of aggression (Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam) and humanitarian/peacekeeping ( Libya, Kosovo )
    i believe that Obama as an anti-war politician has set withdrawl timeframes even though your side was beating people about the head for doing so.

    #441581

    Brant
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    No draft = no anti-war movement.

    #441582
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    lazyfish wrote >>
    Don’t you have real work to be doing at the Buckeye Institute?

    No… funding cuts for the death squads. Don’t worry, I’ll get to you :-P

    And since when is Libya not about regime change?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html?_r=1

    Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.

    Not remove Qaddafi by force, but there’s no way he’s staying in power… right… so why are we involved?

    However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Qaddafi must go and go for good.

    Oh. Regime change.

    #441583

    RoundTowner
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Obama = War monger

    #441584
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Brant wrote >>
    No draft = no anti-war movement.

    That’s very likely a factor as well, but there was also no draft during the Bush years. Doesn’t explain the drop off in the anti-war movement.

    #441585
    sixby9is42
    sixby9is42
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    rus wrote >>

    MichaelC wrote >>
    The anti-war movement was related to President Bush’s decision to beat the drums for invading a country unrelated to 9/11 based on a fictitious tie between Iraq and the war on terrorism. Once it became clear toward the end of the Bush Administration and through the Obama Administration that the U.S. involvement in Iraq was on the wane–and as the number of American casualties dropped precipitously–the anti-war rhetoricians stood down.
    But go ahead and blame it on Obama being a black democrat.

    From the linked article:

    “As president, Obama has maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan,” Heaney, an assistant professor of organizational studies and political science, said in a news release. “The anti-war movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity.”

    That didn’t happen, though.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy

    On February 27, 2009, President Obama announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq.

    By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end and Iraqi Security Forces will have full responsibility for major combat missions. After August 31, 2010, the mission of United States forces in Iraq will fundamentally change. Our forces will have three tasks: train, equip, and advise the Iraqi Security Forces; conduct targeted counterterrorism operations; and provide force protection for military and civilian personnel. The President intends to keep our commitment under the Status of Forces Agreement to remove all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/army-chief-dempsey-willing-to-keep-u-s-troops-in-iraq-past-2011.html

    April 13, 2011: The U.S. Army’s new chief of staff said he would support keeping American troops in Iraq beyond December if requested by Iraqi leaders.

    The U.S. has about 47,000 troops there, mostly advising and assisting Iraqi security forces. The U.S. troops are scheduled to leave by the end of the year.

    #441586

    pedex
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    broke people without jobs don’t care

    #441587
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    With ~50,000 US forces in country, plus contractors… yeah, not exactly ending US involvement.

    #441588
    rustbelt
    rustbelt
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    No draft = no anti-war movement.

    That’s definitely a big part of it.

    And because the media so rarely carries combat footage, images of people dead/dying, etc it translates to less concern among citizens. The Pentagon learned that lesson during Vietnam. It’s no mistake why the feds work so hard to prohibit such things as photos of military caskets.

    This is also the Internet age, where people think more about activism via computer than getting in the streets (SB 5 opponents & tea partiers being two recent exceptions).

    And, as already pointed out, we have a Democrat president leading the charge in 3 obvious wars & several less obvious military actions. Democrats, as well as Republicans, are more than happy to abandon what are obviously inch-deep principles when “their guy” is in office. Obama’s War on Terror not only adopted all of Bush’s but has gone further. Not a peep from Democrats, though.

    That Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize is one of the cruelest jokes in modern American political history.

    #441589
    lazyfish
    lazyfish
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    So you are faulting Obama for using your playbook. Shouldn’t your strident title really be “Why can’t Republicans man up and support the Commander in Chief”, you lesbian whale hugging anti-christ pinko commie fools.

    Fav. Republican coups/regime change moments in history

    Iran 1953 Eisenhower
    Guatemala 1954
    Congo
    Chile 1973
    Angola 1970′s w/ South African help
    Nicaragua 1980′s addition
    El Salvador decades of activity
    Grenada, freeking Grenada?
    Lebanon or as W used to pronounce it Lebanebanedanon
    Panama
    Black Hawk down Somalia
    Venezuela- still trying
    Iraq

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 84 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?