ChatterBank1 min ago
Anti-War Protesting - International
This is a genuine question, rather than a statement of opinion. Why are other countries, e.g. South African, protesting against the Iraq war. In what way does it affect them.
This applies to other countries. Once again this is a question, not intended to be taken as my opinion. :-)
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Nelli. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Other countries are entitled to protest at what they see as an illegal invasion (not necessarily my own opinion) . If no-one protests, it could be the thin end of the wedge & the U.S. could march into anywhere that suits them (not that I'm naive enough to think the protests would stop them). Unfortunately a lot the people who are protesting cannot be taken seriously as they have shown no prior inclination to protest against other countries' wars/human rights abuses etc etc....
A couple of points based on RCP's post:
-
"(not that I'm naive enough to think the protests would stop them)" Nor are the protestors, in the majority of cases. However, they do feel that their demonstration will be taken as an indicator of public will. In the UK, one written letter is taken to represent the views of seven voters (Don't ask me why 7 and not 10 - that's just what it is for some reason). Someone going on a march represents about double that number. You will have noticed Tony Blair's rhetoric changing in tone to a more concilliatory one, with even more references to Saddam's crimes against humanity mentioned than before, after the 2million people anti-war march (though his actions remained the same).
-
"A lot the people who are protesting cannot be taken seriously as they have shown no prior inclination to protest against other countries' wars/human rights abuses etc etc...." I'm sorry but this is just illogical! It's like the old, can't get a job without experience at doing it type arguements. Apart from anything else, who else's wars get the degree of exposure that this one has had? Moreover, many people in many third world countries who fear (with some justification) that America is an imperial power (even US commentators have been talking about the US's Imperial benificence and other such guff) that bullies its way across the world, and wish to protest that. For a lot of people in the west it may be hard to see the US in such a role, but for many other's it's all to plausible. Try reading the currently available best seller, 'Why do people hate America?' or Noam Chomsky's 'Dettering Democracy' or some of his other works detailing US foriegn policy. For others, it's a case of protesting the illegality of the war (and yes, that is, as you mention, contentious) and the bypassing of international law.
Waldo - Good points well made. I must admit I threw the last comment in as I have been increasingly irritated by the more extreme elements of the anti-war faction as they seem to be protesting against the U.S. rather than the war. These seem to be the same people who are anti-globalisation without really knowing what it means. Sorry for the sweeping generalisations but it's a bit difficult to summarise in a couple of paragraphs. As an analogy I can only liken it to people who protested against apartheid in South Africa but ignored Russia's invasion of Afghanistan (when it was still impossible for the far left to see anything wrong with a communist dictatorship).
Or perhaps, RCP, they are like people who support the USA's stance against Iraq, which the US accused of ignoring 14 UN resolutions, while ignoring the USA's support for Israel which has ignored 61 such resolutions. Frankly, a lot of people who are opposed to this war ARE opposed to the USA and for very good reasons, so don't patronise us by suggesting we don't really understand the arguments. How arrogant. Just because we take a different view from you, it does not mean that is because we don't understand.
Incidentally RCP, I would take issue with your comment that some anti-war protesters 'cannot be taken seriously because they have not previously protested'. I would suggest the very opposite; that because these people are not seasoned campaigners, Socialist Workers, rent-a-mob, etc, but are instead 'ordinary' citizens, then that is all the more reason to take them seriously. If people who are not generally politically active get moved to protest in this fashion then it suggests a groundswell of opinion far more powerful than that produced by the 'regular' campaigners. It means that people are being politicised and their views need to be taken more seriously, not less, as a result. Any politician who ignores that does so at his or her peril.
Waldo inadvertently draws attention to US imperialism when he says that people 'wish to protest that'. Until a couple of years ago any British person would have said 'protest AGAINST that', but now we all slavishly follow American English. The British Forces Spokesperson, Wing Cdr (I think that's his title) Al Lockwood even says eye-raq instead of Iraq. OK, much less serious than killing people, but just another subtle and invidious way in which the Americans are coming to dominate the world, imposing their culture on others, and why they are increasingly being seen by many as imperialists.
Onlyme - "Just because we take a different view from you".
If you actually read my posts you will find that I haven't actually stated my view, only my problem with some of the protesters. In fact, I was against the invasion from the start. You say you are against the USA for very good reasons. I'm sorry, but there are many more countries in the world committing far worse acts than the U.S. (incidentally, just because I say this does not make me pro-U.S.. Stating an opinion does not automatically mean that you believe the polar opposite you know!).
Spellmaster, you have surpassed yourself.
A quick note to Spellmaster. (In doing so can I stress that I think his monotonous efforts to get us all speling and righting proper are misguided at best and certainly out of place here; arguments about US cultural hegemony are valid and relevant to the war - but not in this thread):
Group Captain Al Lockwood -- he of "eye-raq" fame -- is actually a New Zealander. You're trying to get him to talk with an English accent. So who's the linguistic imperialist now?
1 to 11 of 11
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.