Skip

Are there others?
August 19, 2005 7:38 AM   Subscribe

The St. Patrick's Four haven't received the media attention of Cindy Sheehan. Are small pockets of anti-war protests on the rise?
posted by bluesky43 (18 comments total)

 
I suspect so. We're organizing a protest in South Carolina to mark the 2000th US soldier killed in Iraq. At this rate, it looks like it'll happen late September.

Personally, though, I think we're too late. If we stay in Iraq, it's quagmire. If we leave, civil war. There's no good solution anymore.
posted by LordSludge at 7:53 AM on August 19, 2005


"There's no good solution anymore."

But, there are worse solutions.. We need to continue to support any and all legitimate efforts to bring our participation in this war to an end.
Might there be civil war in Iraq, certainly....but, that would be no more our business than the atrocities committed by Sadam were... we had no business in starting this war, but, having started it, we can't use that for an excuse to continue it.
posted by HuronBob at 7:59 AM on August 19, 2005


Um, perhaps, but the protest in the FPP occured several years ago, before Iraq was even invaded.
posted by OmieWise at 8:09 AM on August 19, 2005


Don't tell me friends in Ithaca, but I think that pouring blood in a public place is squarely at the intersection of "dumb" and "dramatic", scoring negative thirty-seven on my sympathy meter.

Not only is it gross and dangerous, but it's as illuminating as flashlight at noon.
posted by paul_smatatoes at 8:11 AM on August 19, 2005


HuronBob, a Civil War in Iraq wouldn't be the US' business? How do you figure. Assuming the US does run now, they would have been the one who instigated the whole thing, seeing as how they entered the country by force, destabilized it, and then left the country in a mess.
posted by chunking express at 8:12 AM on August 19, 2005


but, that would be no more our business than the atrocities committed by Sadam were

Don't get me wrong, I think this war was a bad idea, but we should ignore atrocities because they "aren't our business?" I'm not too keen on that mode of thought either.
posted by jonmc at 8:13 AM on August 19, 2005


Well, Dermott appears to be a professional asshole. 17 prior arrests and 2 misdemeanors suggest less than honorable intentions. Two of the other three also have arrest records so I wouldn't categorize the St. Pat 4 as good candidates for the anti-war movement. Sheehan was at first - at least until she started opening her mouth.

If these are the small pockets on the rise, we're doomed.
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:17 AM on August 19, 2005


We need to continue to support any and all legitimate efforts to bring our participation in this war to an end.

you did have a chance, just one: on Election Day 2004. it's a tragedy when you only have one shot and you miss, I know. but you need to be realistic. Cindy Sheehan, the St Patrick Four, not even Jesus himself coming back from wherever he is now to protest the war in Crawford could provoke a pullout from Iraq now.
now there's no way it'll ever happen, not with this administration.

I'm convinced that anti-war people should at this point concentrate on the midterm elections, try to reduce the GOP's stronghold in Congress. and hope that a viable candidate (ie, not a windsurfing Senator from New England) emerges from the fogs of the Democratic Party. one thought: as of late, the draft-dodger beats the war veteran in Presidential elections: Clinton beat veterans twice (Bush Father and Dole), Bush Son beat veterans twice (Gore and Kerry). so there's no need to run necessarily a Wesley Clark.

as I said, all factors indicate that US presence in Iraq is there to stay until Bush (or Cheney, or Hastert) is President.
and I'm not even sure the first act of a Democratic President in January 2009 will be the immediate pullout from Iraq (the US is not Spain, for so many reasons).

a cynical, realistic anti-war American, in my opinion, should just hope that the GOP congressmen and senators really start getting afraid for their jobs -- Bush isn't afraid of losing reelection, since he cannot run again, unlike his congressional manservants/rubber-stampers. it's already beginning -- a small, tiny congressional GOP revolt. if things in Iraq don't improve, and they cannot improve given Bush's stubborness to correct his many mistakes, the congressional revolt will probably grow. then interesting things could happen, especially if the GOP loses bad the midterm elections.


oh, and liberals in general could learn a thing or two looking at how irrelevant they made themselves in today's Democratic Party and instead how the Christian Right (a group generally much more extreme than the average liberal) took over the GOP. hint: they didn't vote for spoiler candidates like Robertson or Roy Moore.
Nader-loving liberals, on the other hand...

_____________

I'm not too keen on that mode of thought either.

Clinton wasn't really keen on that mode of thought, either. one word: Mogadishu.
posted by matteo at 8:30 AM on August 19, 2005


I knew I would catch some flack for that statement...and that's fine...

Chunking... my (perhaps mistaken) belief is that a civil war in Iraq would probably settle the conflicts there quicker and with less bloodshed than any action we (the United States) could take. I agree, we created this mess, but I do not believe we hold the answer to correcting it. Perhaps if we were not involved the world community would step in/assist in resolving the remaining issues between the factions of the Iraqi people.

And..Jonmc... I understand your point, but I have to believe that if I don't want the Iranians coming into the United States with military force uninvited because they don't like the fact that we have weapons of mass destruction, we don't have a right to unilaterally invade another country because we don't like the way they do business. (I do understand that all the reasons for the invasion were false, but those are the reasons we gave).

And, of course...this is my humble opinion, worth little except to me...
posted by HuronBob at 8:30 AM on August 19, 2005


The planned Nov. 2 protests will either make or break the anti-war protest movement currently on the upswing. If there's widespread turnout, things will change (for a while) in American politics) if not, same shit, different day.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:32 AM on August 19, 2005


Are small pockets of anti-war protests on the rise?

Who knows? Expect nothing big until they reinstitute the draft. (I'm willing to be surprised.)

As to Ms Sheehan, alas, we are in a slow news month, the White House press corps had little else to do in Crawford- is it any wonder she became the focus of their considerable attention?
posted by IndigoJones at 10:24 AM on August 19, 2005


The planned Nov. 2 protests will either make or break the anti-war protest movement currently on the upswing. If there's widespread turnout, things will change (for a while) in American politics) if not, same shit, different day.

We brought out the largest number of demonstrators ever against the war before it started -- and it made no difference. The newspapers barely covered it. The government didn't change their actions one bit.

Plus, the government has changed their tactics dramatically since then. The mass arrests at the RNC, where the police were later proven to have perjured themselves en masse, discouraged a lot of gentle people.

The police were clearly under instructions to make things as nasty as they possibly can for the people who were planning to demonstrate (they arrested nearly all the people *before* they actually demonstrated), and I can imagine that the fact that the rest of the country and the world do not appear to have heard about any of this is going to encourage the police to step up the roughness level.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:36 AM on August 19, 2005


Dear matteo did you not notice that the Democrats ran a Republican in the last election. It was a choice between The Insane Republican and The Normal Republican, there wasn't a Democrat to vote for.

Watch the same choice happen again.
posted by 517 at 10:56 AM on August 19, 2005


There's no good solution anymore.

Yes there is LordSludge.

Put Saddam Hussein back in power. He'll stop the insurgency in a week, keep the country from dissolving into civil war, secure the border with Iran, throw out the terrorists, and keep the Islamic fundamentalists in check.

Just like he was doing before he was so rudely interrupted.

And if Bush is nice to him and gives him a donut, maybe he'll invade Iran again just like he did in the 1980s and save America the trouble.
posted by three blind mice at 11:16 AM on August 19, 2005


three blind mice: "Put Saddam Hussein back in power. He'll stop the insurgency in a week, keep the country from dissolving into civil war, secure the border with Iran, throw out the terrorists, and keep the Islamic fundamentalists in check."

...and not only will we have the luxury of knowing that the deaths (which will continue as they have, at exactly the same rate, for the last ten years or so) were intentional rather than accidental; we'll be able to retire peacefully knowing there'll be no free press to bother us by reporting it.
posted by Viomeda at 11:43 AM on August 19, 2005


"Are small pockets of anti-war protests on the rise?"

Yep. There were oodles of candlelight vigils supporting Sheehan.

More and more people are making contact, discovering the internets, and getting news from sources other than the big four.
I'm not sure what this is going to accomplish really. But y'know.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:31 PM on August 19, 2005


17 prior arrests and 2 misdemeanors suggest less than honorable intentions.

For a professional activist? No, it doesn't. Of course, if you told me that these were arrests for assault, B&E, etc, then ok, I'm with you.
posted by dreamsign at 1:59 PM on August 19, 2005


Maybe I'm missing something here, but what exactly is the rationale behind the conspiracy charge?

Also, as for the FPP question, I know there's a small group in Tucson called the "Anti-War Grandmas" or something like that who, as you may expect, area bunch of 70-year-old women who keep protesting outside a National Guard post or something.

I'll try to find a link.
posted by Target Practice at 4:24 PM on August 19, 2005


« Older Generation Why   |   photaes Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post