Opinion | May 08, 2011 | 23 comments

Shall we get back to the anti-war movement now?

Image
mspray11
I do actually think it would be smart political strategy if Obama ended at least ONE of the three wars we are in before the GOP primary election is over. I am a Kucinich/Weiner/Sanders/Wellstone style Democrat so I never get to vote for my #1 choice, not even in the caucuses because by the time my state gets to vote, the rest of the country has already taken out all but two of the options for DFL endorsed candidates. Maybe I should move to New Hampshire so my vote is more counted during the primaries. Bin Laden is dead. Mission should be considered accomplished. As for Iraq, I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why we are still there or why we ever were in the first place. And reducing troops doesn't mean "war over", it just means less troops. So really, even ending one of those two wars would be smart political strategy. Why? Because oddly enough candidates like Ron Paul are gaining popularity amongst the GOP. I disagree with Ron Paul on many many MANY things but obviously I do agree with his views on ending some of these wars. If he ends up surprising us all and being the GOP candidate, there will be Democrats switching parties just on the basis of opposition to war. I really would like to have things like social/human services, funding for the arts, putting people before banks, etc. None of that would happen with Ron Paul of course. I would hate to have the country go down the tubes even further just because some Democrats either switched parties or stayed home on election day. In the 2008 election, Obama was less of a war president than McCain who wanted to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran while his running mate wanted to drill baby drill with her view of Russia from her home. And Obama did say he would increase troops in Afghanistan and try to find Bin Laden so it's not like he lied during his campaign. Now he has accomplished that goal and campaign promise. Most Americans are relieved. A few are treating it like a hockey game. A few more are coming up with conspiracy theories that he already died or never died. A very small number of people think killing him was wrong. But most of us are relieved and that goes for both parties. So yeah, I agree it's time to end at least one of the three wars. BUT...the other thing we as liberal citizens need to be responsible for is NOT being apathetic (ie: forgetting to vote in 2010 and handing the country over to the Tea Party or forgetting to organize protests to let Obama know we want to end the wars). We have THREE branches of government and we need to hold all three accountable and continue voting for candidates in the two branches we get to vote in. We need to stop bickering within our own party, get off the couch, march in the streets, make phone calls, send letters, send real letters and not just emails, meet personally with our leaders, and not stop until the wars end. If we keep on keeping on EVENTUALLY the powers that be have no choice but to listen. Why did Obama release his long form birth certificate even though all of us with brain cells knew he was born in Hawaii? Because a small group of extremists wouldn't shut up about it until he did something to shut them up. Going to ONE march a year or every six months posting something on Twitter about Iraq won't end a war.
  1. groups:
    Opinion
  2. tags:
    War Iraq War Afghanistan War Anti-War
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

23 comments // Shall we get back to the anti-war movement now?

  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • The sad irony is that the killing of who the man Obama Administration claims was OBL has only re-awakened the bloodlust for war and terror that they felt on the day of 9/11.

      People are once again, blinded by their emotions and nearly all critical thinking processes have ceased to function, if they were ever there to begin with. We're about to re-live the war on terror all over again, only with new evils to fight such as Syria and Iran.

      Notice how all of the criminals who started these wars are crawling out from their thinktanks to tell us that we still need to bomb more Arab Muslims and Christinas because they can still get us over here if we don't get them over there. We still need to torture because, even though Obama said that his administration doesn't torture, that's how we got the intelligence that led us to bin Laden,

      And not only do we still need TSA groping people to prove they are not Al Qaeda, we might even have to have TSA at shopping malls and football games groping, feeling, scanning and harrassing to make sure America is kept safe.

    • 1 year ago
  • extracrazykiwi2008
  • GENERALNATTY
    • +2
      GENERALNATTY  
    • I think before people get back on their high horse best to see what terrain we're on and where we stand , sending bin laden out to become shark food has an impact the likes of which we have not been able to ascertain yet.

      In the meantime every few months iraq troop numbers continue to drop , from a peak 350k too somewhere in the 40k range now so some progress is being made even while we assess the situation.

    • 1 year ago
  • mspray11
  • mrtraffic
  • Vierotchka
  • stupidamericanz
    • -4
      stupidamericanz  
    • Americanz love to kill people most of time not white people except ww1 n 2 they have bloody history and present many people in many countries live in fear of americanz everyday being killed while americanz watch tv and play video games while eating crap food and drinking poison americanz kill and dont care most americanz they are disgusting animals and do not belong in human race

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
    • +1
      August_K  
    • stupidamericanz:

      It's not "Americanz" who like war.......it's always the war monger politicians and their defense contractor friends and bankers (who finance all wars) and everyone else who stands to make a profit from war that keep getting us into war.

      The PEOPLE do not like war.

      I would love to see the day come when two idiot rulers declare war against each other and the People say to them, here's a gun and knife, now go fight your own fuckin' battle, just you and the other idiot.

    • 1 year ago
  • scooter3282
    • +5
      scooter3282  
    • The anti-war movement will not regain traction until the 18-24 age group are once again subjected to a draft. The US government has learned that if they keep the bulk of the American public insulated from the realities of war, there won't be an organized movement to stop them. The American public sees a basically small group of young men and women who are willing to fight these perpetual wars after having been duped into believing that military service is a patriotic thing. It is a cynical trick that has been played on the service personnel of this country and the truth has been neatly kept from them. Pat Tillman had figured out the truth and he had to be silenced. The whistleblowers who have been brave enough to release facts of the lie have been ostracized and jailed. Does this sound like America anymore?

    • 1 year ago
  • Leen61
    • +4
      Leen61  
    • I would like to see all the wars ended. But there's a few problems with getting that to happen. First, there are citizens who still protest the wars but the problem is the media doesn't cover protests like they did in the 60's and 70's. Here in WI, we were lucky to just have some media attention at the capitol for the union/labor protests. Media today is all corporate and right wing. Another problem is the media has convinced the young generation to be militaristic. Who were the bulk of the celebrants at Ground Zero and the WH? Young people who really didn't know WHAT they were celebrating. When we went to the May Day event in Bay View, we saw very few young people. They think war IS the answer. Just as long as they don't have to fight it, and without a draft, they won't have to. Our government wants it that way. So they are unaware of the human costs of war. The wars to the young people are White Noise happening else where that they don't have to concern themselves with. Lastly, our government don't want the wars to end because they are profitable for the people that are filling the politicians pockets.

    • 1 year ago
  • dalistuff
  • figgdimension
  • mspray11
  • NotAJoe
  • samthesixth
  • August_K
    • +2
      August_K  
    • It should be interesting to see what happens with Iraq as we get closer to Dec 31st of this year. Apparently Bush signed an agreement that we would leave by then.

      This is just part of the article.

      "Anyone who seriously bet years ago that Washington would pull no punches to edit the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) it signed with Iraq must have reached Wall Street investment banker status by now.

      The SOFA was signed by former president George W Bush in November 2008. According to the text, the whole of the US military, plus their civilian personnel, must exit Iraq by December 31, 2011, at midnight. If Washington does not honor the agreement, the US will be technically at war with Iraq - as in US soldiers illegally deployed without the consent of the US Congress.

      There's absolutely no evidence this SOFA will be amended before the deadline, although Maliki's government, under extreme pressure, could always ask the Barack Obama administration to extend the occupation. But for this, Maliki needs the Sadrists - which are part of the government.

      So Muqtada's message is actually a stern warning to Maliki. And by the way, this is not only about 47,000 US boots off the ground; it's about the end of the Iraq chapter of the US empire of military bases (other rallies went on Saturday near US bases in Kirkuk, Dhi Qar, and al-Asad base in Anbar province).

      No wonder both the Obama administration and the Pentagon are on red alert. Vice President Joe Biden urgently called Maliki after Gates left Iraq to keep up the pressure. Iraqi parliamentarians, for their part, stress any extension would have to be approved by parliament. And Muhammad Salman, from the Sunni Iraqiya party (most Sunnis are Iraqi nationalists who also want the US out) has already talked about a popular referendum.

      The SOFA itself was supposed to be approved by referendum (it never happened). In a nutshell, the only players who want the US to stay are the military in Iraqi Kurdistan - who fear they may be overpowered by Iraqi Arabs."

      Personally I think that there are greater powers than the POTUS and they call the shots. Time will tell who wins out.

      http://www.alternet.org/world/150588/if_the_us_doesn%27t_pull_every_soldier_from...

    • 1 year ago
  • Colin_McCabe
    • +1
      Colin_McCabe  
    • But but but if he is seen as the president who ends wars he'll be attacked for his lack of national security credentials. That statement is counterproductive as engaging in war is a threat to our national security but I didn't say politicians had brains.

    • 1 year ago
  • letsliveinpeace
  • ClassicalGas
    • +4
      ClassicalGas  
    • This interview explains why we are in, and why we will stay in, Iraq.
      http://current.com/news/93209100_hello.htm#93209233

      There is some very big money insuring that the weapons industry does well, and even more big money pumping up the military to keep the oil interests safe while they pillage at will. If it looks like public sentiment is turning against them, there will be another big boogie man cropping up to keep us in a war. Time to re-read Brave New World.

      This is going to take a great deal more than marching. The MIC learned from the 60's, and now they use our system against us. Something is seriously rotten in our republic, and the un-involved public needs to know the name of the demon.

      "We need to stop bickering within our own party, get off the couch, march in the streets, make phone calls, send letters, send real letters and not just emails, meet personally with our leaders, and not stop until the wars end." - Yes, you're right; but we need to be reaching out to Independents and Republicans as well. It's going to take a lot of education and proof to change minds, and it's going to take a lot of voters to effect a change.

      Even then, I have a strong suspicion that an anti-war President would be either brought to heel quickly, or would cease to be a problem. I have to wonder when President Obama was told, in no uncertain terms, exactly what was expected of him - and the consequences if he dared to go against them. We're playing with the big boys now - and they don't play fair.

      That said, keep it going - nothing will happen if we sit on our fat, overstuffed chairs and gritch.

      Sorry for the screed - you hit a button. Well done, mspray11, keep the discussion going! ;-) +^

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
    • +2
      August_K  
    • ClassicalGas:

      "I have to wonder when President Obama was told, in no uncertain terms, exactly what was expected of him - and the consequences if he dared to go against them. We're playing with the big boys now - and they don't play fair."

      I'm of the opinion that he was told what he can and can't do.
      It makes perfect sense when you think about some of the people he appointed that left us all wondering WTF was he thinking.

      Anyone who researches our history and wars in particular will find things that were deliberately left out of our history books.......a president or any head of state is just a tool in the big picture.
      The money powers behind wars are the real rulers and they ultimately call the shots.

      Bush is a perfect example. How much more evidence do we need to see that he was just a convenient puppet and that Cheney and others who'd worked together for years ( and under Bush Sr) were the ones who were really calling all the shots.

    • 1 year ago
  • kennymotown
  • KB723
  • ZiggyStrange
more from Opinion:

top videos