How will the AntiIraq War movement be remembered?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
The last major antiwar movement followed the pattern of "getting a movement together/education" (1964-66) Protesting (1966-67) Radicalization (1968-1969) and finally (1970 onward) the move away from politics and activism into the Me Decade, where people started reading books about new age stuff and pulling away from politics.
The anti Iraq war "movement" quotes intended, is unique indeed. There really wasnt the need to spend years and years educating folks and getting a mass movement involved, as even before the war began, you had millions of folks against the war already, resulting in the largest single day turnout of antiwar folks in human history. Yet, as we all know, it didnt make a bit of difference. The war went on as planned and still rages, even the new president is ignorant to the majority opinion of folks who want to end the war.
I went to protests against the war from 2001- until 2006 and every single one, had a good turnout, but followed the tried and true method of the sign and speech tactic that has been around for decades. There was a smattering of young folks, but by and large the people who turned out were old people, old hippies. Parents and grandparents.
So my question is, how will this antiwar movement be remembered? It is unique in that usually movements start out as minority opinion, and maybe in 2001 it was odd to be antiwar, but certainly not in 2003 when the war began.
So what happened? Why has the antiwar movement been a complete dud? Why are those who run the organizations so unwilling to try new tactics to force those in power to change?
I think the movement would have been more effective had they refused to align with politicians to end the war and instead focused solely on ending the war. I also think new tactics should have been tried, ala Fight club or Monkey Wrench Gang type actions.
I myself went from a radical activist to a non activist person during that time period, in large part out of frustration for the slow pace of change and the unwillingness of activist organizations to move beyond the "walk on street with sign and chant" mode of protest. My personal growth and change mirrors the changes of the activists of the 60's, but do you think it also mirrors those political active folks in our own generation?
Were alot of young folks activists in 2001 and slowly but surely they turned more inward and turned their backs on politics? Or were they not into politics from the start?
The anti Iraq war "movement" quotes intended, is unique indeed. There really wasnt the need to spend years and years educating folks and getting a mass movement involved, as even before the war began, you had millions of folks against the war already, resulting in the largest single day turnout of antiwar folks in human history. Yet, as we all know, it didnt make a bit of difference. The war went on as planned and still rages, even the new president is ignorant to the majority opinion of folks who want to end the war.
I went to protests against the war from 2001- until 2006 and every single one, had a good turnout, but followed the tried and true method of the sign and speech tactic that has been around for decades. There was a smattering of young folks, but by and large the people who turned out were old people, old hippies. Parents and grandparents.
So my question is, how will this antiwar movement be remembered? It is unique in that usually movements start out as minority opinion, and maybe in 2001 it was odd to be antiwar, but certainly not in 2003 when the war began.
So what happened? Why has the antiwar movement been a complete dud? Why are those who run the organizations so unwilling to try new tactics to force those in power to change?
I think the movement would have been more effective had they refused to align with politicians to end the war and instead focused solely on ending the war. I also think new tactics should have been tried, ala Fight club or Monkey Wrench Gang type actions.
I myself went from a radical activist to a non activist person during that time period, in large part out of frustration for the slow pace of change and the unwillingness of activist organizations to move beyond the "walk on street with sign and chant" mode of protest. My personal growth and change mirrors the changes of the activists of the 60's, but do you think it also mirrors those political active folks in our own generation?
Were alot of young folks activists in 2001 and slowly but surely they turned more inward and turned their backs on politics? Or were they not into politics from the start?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Its ineffectiveness may have been due in large part to how it was handled by the authorities, including the media. More time was spent on administration lies than was on covering the millions of people trying to stop the needless violence. On things like "the smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud" and other lies. As a result, enough people were for the invasion that the Bush administration was able to ignore the protesters.
They are evolving in how they deal with mass public protests, we need adjust tactics accordingly. I think stopping labor is the most effective way to get the point across. General strikes nation wide, could shut the country down. If no one shows up to work they aren't running anything, the country doesn't exist. They would have no choice but to listen.
But what's important to get out of the anti-war movement regarding Iraq, is as you said. People stood up to the authorities BEFORE the invasion, a first in history. No longer will the usual pretexts from Washington be taken on faith...people are starting to realize the truth. If we can drive that point home the next time Washington has its sights set on some third world defenseless country, maybe lives can be saved.
But it made no difference. Bush and his cronies and for that matter all the dems who acted in lockstep with bush, didnt give a damn about the protests.
Thats the whole point. It doesnt matter that their was a huge massive protest before the war. It didnt stop all our troops from being slaughtered and it didnt stop all those Iraqis from being killed from our bombs.
Obama isnt dumb. He knows the majority of americans want troops out of iraq. Yet he also seems ignorant to how troops will react to being taken out of iraq and not being sent home, but rather being sent to a new battlefield: Afghanistan.
Has the protest movement forced Bush or obama to end the war?
The answer is crystal clear
additionally, you may know more about the activist scene currently than I do. But when I was an activist, the organizations that were antiwar or for social justice, nationally and locally, were unwilling to do protest actions outside what I mentioned above, "signs and chanting". What makes you, or anyone think they are going to change or willing to change? I havent seen them come out and say they are changing protest tactics. Its the same old story, meanwhile, troops remain in iraq...
I'm dying to know how you propose to end a war without any involvement with the people holding elected office that have the actual power to end it? By beating each other up in some underground club stolen from a mediocre movie?
"need to adjust" being the key phrase.
the motivation is there. like i mentioned, for the first time in history people stood up before an invasion. In Europe as well.
And lazy Americans might not be able to understand the power of protesting, or how to use that power, but Europeans do. They've had a few more centuries to practice.
I would hope we end it here at home before they force their governments to take action.
Humanity tends to progress over time. And I believe it will rise above all of this, before it is too late.
you ever read palahniuk? Its clear to me he wasnt just writing a book about people beating each other up in some underground club. None of his books are about simple things like that. The answers for what needs to be done are shown in the movie and in the book and are discussed by palahniuk extensively.
Yes. Choke was a pile of dogshit, and I caught the "answers" in Fight Club from the movie quite easily. How lame and trendy of him. This review sums him up perfectly:
"He's the kid who buys his NIN and Marilyn Manson shirts at Hot Topic, and then sneers at the bourgeoisie bastards going into J.C Penny's. His writing is somewhere between emo and frat, and I can't stand it. Palahniuk is a joke."
If he was such a revolutionary, he'd be out there doing that Fight Club crap, not making millions by suckering people like you into buying his books and making him rich. He's not about to actually DO anything. No, he can just tell others that they should be doing something.
we could probably use some Europeans over here to show us how its done, they've a had a few extra centuries of practice.
The protests failed to stop the war yes, but they were significant. Very significant.
If people had given up after the first couple of strikes at the turn of the last century, we would have no workers rights. Those guys went up against the National Guard, and many paid for those rights with their lives.
Or minority rights. They were beaten and had dogs put on them and they were killed and lynched, but they pressed on. They didn't say, well that sit-in with 30 people was ignored, it didn't work, fuck i quit. They came back the next week with with 100 friends, and a thousand friends the next. And they won.
Or women's right to vote. The mentality, that women were subservient, I can't imagine how ingrained that mentality must have been, after centuries. They won the right to vote.
All accomplished with mass popular protests. We should be so lucky we only have to deal with tear gas and batons and rubber bullets (all fucking illegal by the way, the fucking fascists. we have right to protest). Maybe it didn't work THIS time. The message was still spread -worldwide-to the Arab world especially. Imagine the impact that must have had, for them to see rich lazy selfish arrogant Americans by the millions voicing their dissent in the streets. Maybe the US gov't doesn't represent the will of the American people after all?
People have the power. I wouldn't count us out just yet.
I wanna believe it happened that way, but I think any such message was lost and overshadowed by the fact that we reelected Dubya. I think the election of Obama has done more to restore our credibility than any protests did.
good point.
Its funny how people dont read anymore. You can google Bin laden interviews prior to 9/11. You can even buy a book comprised of all his major speeches and essays.
Whats clear is just what Bin laden said before the 2004 elections, the election of Kerry wouldnt do a thing. You should know that commy, as I assume thats Chomsky as an avatar right?
The taliban recognizes what many realized long ago, that parties are meaningless and that elections are really meaningless especially if both parties are pro war.
How is Obama as president giving hope to millions of people in the mideast.
"yippie, those Americans elected a black man as president, things are really changing. As president obama will not bomb us in Iraq, but will bomb us in Afghanistan, and will no doubt keep american presence in Iraq for decades to come. I am so happy!".
Give me a break.
The only thing that will end terrorism is the only thing that will ever end terrorism. The dismantling of civilization. Removal of all troops from every country worldwide. The end of racism, sexism, genrification, homophobia.
Electing of a president has never resulted in social change. To believe it has is naive in the extreme.
yeah.
i've never seen that statement from bin laden.
but yeah, I understand that foreign policy changes very little, whatever party is in power just seems at first glance that re-electing the guy that started the wars might send some kind of signal. (which is what i was referring to above). apparently not.
osama bin laden Oct 29, 2004 days before the 2004 election
The key to ending terrorism has always been explicitly stated by osama from the very start
To quote Ward Churchill
"You dont want us bombing your country, dont bomb our children!"
But what do I know....just my 2 cents.
I've been to an Islamic country in the last month. They LOVE Obama. In the Moroccan post office, they saw us all with postcards marked for the us and were congratulating and shaking our hands about Obama. He HAS made a huge difference for us. Regardless of your agenda, the fact of the matter is that he's expressed willingness to sit down and talk to the Middle East and try to understand them before acting. That's a huge step for us. Some of them do have reservations about US policy staying the same in other areas, but Obama has given them a little bit of optimism that things might be a little different for the next few years.
I also don't give a fuck what Bin Laden said, he clearly does not speak for the entire Islamic world (thank God). Bush was reviled and I'm willing to bet none of those people ever saw protests in the US on tv. They weren't all giddy with glee that Americans were protesting... quit trying to inflate your own self-importance. Nobody really gave a shit. And you can find all the OBL quotes you want, the fact is that after 4 years of disastrous, cavalier destruction in the Middle East, the rest of the world viewed it as a very big "fuck you" when this country still managed to vote Dubya back into office. It seemed to show our true colors to the world... and they were the ugly colors of chickenshit rednecks. Obama is no saint, but his election was a sign to the rest of the world that we pulled our heads out of our asses a little bit.
I'm anti-war myself, but the so-called "movement" didn't do anything at all of substance.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
we've become more and more selfish and the consequences of that selfishness have become further and further distant ...
without dissent, the gov't WILL continue to take our rights, continue to pick on the third world.
the anti-war movement is as relevant than ever.
nothings changed.
"i'm anti war" but the protests were useless.
fuck that.
if you aren't speaking out against the war you are supporting it.
See who cares"
the government rules with our consent-true in any system.
if we don't speak out and show our discontent, they will think they are doing the right thing.
...other than raising awareness on the issue and contributing to bringing about an end to the war and the occupation. You think public opinion changed by itself, or with the help of the mainstream media? It was through the efforts of the Anti-war movement that a consensus began to build, just as it did in the 1960's, and just as it always has.
Seems that some people think change is something that happens overnight.
the media serves the authorities, there's no way in hell they are going to be sowing the seeds of discontent anytime soon.
If we don't speak out against this war, these wars, who will?
I hope you're right about this. Maybe electing Obama has / or will earn us back some of the world's graces, for the time being anyway... It is my belief that if he doesn't deliver big time on changing our policies towards the Middle East, that they will hate him and us even more than they did a few years ago.
At that very point of comprimise between the media and the sponsors most comfortably and profitably reported..
There is really nothing else to be remembered.