The Anti-war movement in the Us & Success of Camp Casey

I have been very dissapointed as of late with the anti-war movement in the U.S. There have been rallys in New York's Union Square Park. There have been sporatic protests here and there. There have even been some co-ordinated efforts to organize a movement.

But what I have wanted to really see is the spirit of the 60's. When people really put themselves on the line in protest of what they saw as unacceptable. I havne't really seen that surrounding the war in Iraq...until now.

Camp Casey is a victory in my eyes. It is the true spirit of protest and it exposes a lot about the current administration.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19492

 

I'm not sure what you want to discuss here.

Generally, one needs more substance than simply repeating a single link in order to start a new thread in the Senate. Additionally, Mrs Sheehan has already been debated in the Iraqi war thread.

What exactly did you want to examine?

 

What I specifically want to discuss is the current state of the anti-war movement in the United States. In comparison to the movements in the 60's and with Camp Casey as an example of what I feel can be a stronger protest model than what we have seen.

Is that more clear Mr44?

 

Then describe that comparison in your opening post, instead of simply supplying an op-ed piece. External examples are almost required in the Senate, and are encouraged, but they shouldn't comprise your entire post.

We are interested in your views and how they relate to a larger discussion.

 

I thought I did?

I live in NY. On an almost daily basis I see anti-war protesters in Union Square park that rally and speak out against the war. They show pictures and talk down the administration. Sometimes they even get creative. One day they had a pair of boots for each solider in the area that had died in Iraq.

I think that's cool, but that isn't going to cut it. Have you even seen the footage from the 60's where the protesters went up to solidiers and put flowers in their guns. Back then that was very risky. That was putting it on the line. You risked death, arrest, dogs, hoses etc.

What I like about what I see in Texas at Camp Casey is that she is taking it to the "man" so to speak. She has actually put the President on the spot. Every day she is out there and grabbing the attention of the media, it is actually the President who is in the hot seat. He will ignore her of course, but that's kind of her point. She has put it all on the line out there. Now I know that wackos from every corner will just go down there to tag on to her protest but to me that is irrelevant. Her point is being made, and in strong fashion. And it gets stronger with each passing minute.

If she takes it to washington after the 31st it will get even better. This war warrants a mass march on Washington for those who oppose it. Yes, marches on Washington are common place now, but they still send a strong message.

"Where is the outrage?".

 

And so you want mass protests,"60's style"? I'm sure there are a lot of advocacy groups willing to organize such things. There was a snippet of that during the RNC convention. OK, then what?

 

Well, the thing about the 60's is...it didn't work, did it? I mean, the war waged on. Nixon even expanded the scope of the war. The war ended when they felt like ending it.

Bush's ratings are dropping and the war isn't going well. Sure, as long as we are there we will not be defeated, but that's not winning, is it.

America doesn't like long wars.

 

Oh I disagree cal. I was here in NY during the RNC convention. Protesters were quickly rounded up and held at "guantanamo on the hudson" There is still a lot of litigaton around what happened during that period. There was supposed to be Anarchy and acting up during the RNC but no. All protests were quickly shut down using the NYPD. It was very disturbing actually.

I hear that there are little Camp Casey's springing up everywhere. "Camp Casey Philidelphia" etc.

We are at war. A war that many people in this country strongly disagree with. It is time for mass organized protest. It's time to really put up a stink if you want to be heard in a way that may have slightly more effect than the latest poll.

Don't get me wrong. I am not an anarchist. But I am a big supporter of the type of thing that Martin Luther King Jr. did. He didn't take the safe easy road. He put it all on the line and took it right to the people who were causing the problem. And he got results.

 

You have every right to peaceful, civil disobedience. No riots=no problem.

 

I know the war in Iraq isn't going well. I'm disappointed in how it has been handled. But I still feel that we went there for a good reason: liberating the Iraqi people from Sadamm Hussein.

People cry about how their relatives, whoare soldiers, are dying. Don't get me wrong, it is sad. But guess what? They CHOSE to be in the military. Nobody forces you into it anymore. They knew, or should have known, that joining the military could very possibly lead to death.

The Soldiers CHOSE to put themselves in a situation in which they can DIE, just by joining the military. IF they didn't want to die, they shoiuldn't have signed up. They are responsible for their deaths, and no one else.

 

Father_time! Because they "choose" to be in the military, does that mean that the President can be irresponsible with their lives and we can't say anything about it?

We were told we wen't to this "war" because of WMD's. Guess, what? That clearly wasn't true. And now we can't ask what our loves ones are dying for? What kind of crap is that?

This woman is right to demand an answer. And guess what?

She deserves and answer from this President.

 

I happen to agree with the President: we cannot leave Iraq now. Leaving ultimately would probably kill more Iraqis than staying.

However, I blame the President for launching an illegal war in the first place. His unpardonable breach of his fiduciary duty to the people of the United States is all but certain to go unpunished.

This is the dilemma that silences a lot of would-be protesters. Why protest simply to declare that George Bush is the worst thing that has happened to the United States in three decades? He has personally done more damage to our country than a thousand 9/11 Saudi Arabian suicide bomber hijackers could possibly have done. But so what?

What is the goal of an anti-war protest?

As said, an immediate pullout from Iraq would spark a humanitarian disaster of bigger proportions than the one already caused by the U.S. invasion. Do the anti-war protestors really want that?

Some of them, including Casey herself, seem to believe that Iraq would peacefully resolve its problems in the absence of the destabilizing presence of U.S. troops. Personally I think they're kidding themselves. Others may simply not care about the cost in Iraqi lives and merely want to avoid more U.S. casualties.

We killed tens of thousands of Iraqis by invading, and have killed tens of thousands more by staying. We'll kill hundreds of thousands by leaving early. But that's just my view.

Still other people believe that all we can do is put off an Iraqi civil war and utter geopolitical collapse of that country, that unless we commit to staying for decades, the power vacuum left by our departure will be immediately filled by massive bloodshed, with the best possible outcome being the rapid installation of another Saddam Hussein, only this time one who creates a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy instead of secular totalitarian regime.

Face it, in ten years we could be enforcing no fly zones over Kurdish Iraq, just like the good ol' days.

If true, we might as well leave now.

Anyway, I don't see the point in protesting without a clear objective and a clear understanding of what it means if we unilaterally and rapidly withdraw from Iraq.

 

But what I have wanted to really see is the spirit of the 60's. When people really put themselves on the line in protest of what they saw as unacceptable. I havne't really seen that surrounding the war in Iraq...until now.

That's because there aren't as many people upset about Iraq as there were about 'Nam. You're trying to draw a comparisome between over 58,000 dead and missing and 1,800. Between a war that we weren't there to win, and one that we are.

And what makes you think things are going badly? Elections last year, a new Constitution in a few days, more elections coming this year for the permanate government, a constantly improving military and infrastructure.

You must be getting your news from the Associated Press, who has admitted to giving a more complete picture to the negative side of Iraq than to the positive side.

 

Elections, no change, constitution, no change. I'd like to be positive, but I can't be.

More on-topic. Dissent is growing, J-Rod so don't be so sure not a lot of people disagree with it. And even though I don't believe she's handling her son's death properly I think this may be one catalyst that makes the dissenters grow stronger.

BTW, 1,800 or 58,000 it doesn't matter. Those are unacceptable losses in two wars that were fought for stupid reasons.

 

Since, theoretically, we're in Iraq to help the Iraqis, you need to factor in the cost in Iraqi lives too, J-Rod. Also, consider the much higher number of American soldiers who have been permanently disabled - a number at least ten times as high as the number of dead.

My mom can draft an Iraqi constitution. The trick is to build a viable government. The U.S. hasn't in any way proved that it can prod Iraqis into creating a government that will outlast the U.S. occupation by more than a few minutes.

But again this doesn't have a lot to do with protesting the war. My question to the anti-war protestors is, what do you really think will happen to Iraq after the occupation ends, and do you care?

 

BTW, 1,800 or 58,000 it doesn't matter.

I dunno, to me it matters. If the number was up to 20,000 dead at this point, I'd also be asking the same questions some of you are.

 

And what makes you think things are going badly? Elections last year, a new Constitution in a few days, more elections coming this year for the permanate government, a constantly improving military and infrastructure.


Lets see:
Five American soldiers dead this week:

Joshua Dingler, Spc. - Army Ntl. Grd.
Jose Ruiz, Spc. - Infantry
Paul Saylor, Sgt. - Army Ntl. Grd.
Michael Stokely, Spc. - Army Ntl. Grd.
Thomas Strickland, Sgt. - Army Ntl. Grd.
Total so far: 1852 in three and a half years
Over 10,000 maimed

Also:
A total of 80 Iraqi civilians killed in two bombings this week.
Unknown total fatality number since the war began but estimated at over 125,000.

Also:
A draft of the new Iraqi constitution based on Shia law that will basically enslave the female population of the country.


Things are going badly over there Rod. Of course a comparison to Vietnam would be premature at this point but Ill play the Devils Advocate and say that this war is strikingly similar to Vietnam in many ways. And of course it is also different then Vietnam in many ways, but lets not assume what makes it different automatically makes it " better ". By the way, infra-structure isnt getting as better as your making it sound by any stretch of the imagination and there are many reports that alot of " trained " Iraqis are actually taking their training and joining the insurgency.


Oh, but the elected goverment of Iraq didnt forget their priorities when they reinstated their death penalty laws from the Bathist regime - hanging for civilians and firing squad for the military. Yeah, were really stabilizing things over there.

 

Alright sev, pick an American war that went well and tell me how any of what you've mentioned is different in that war...

Also, who's gonna be the first to try to blame this on Karl Rove.

 

Well, for starters how about the war you fought in Rod. You know there ARE some people that actually thought the first Bush was extremely brilliant in handling that War and that number is growing in hindsight. I cant actually see where you could draw reasonable comparisons to WWII since we were attacked by a sovreign nation that was a known to be part of the Axis power. You couldnt hold mainstream America back from enlisting in one form or another to that war. Thats absolutely NOT the case with Vietnam OR the War in Iraq.



The major similarity of Vietnam and The War in Iraq is the disconnect between the civilian population and the goverment. Ill submit that in this war its even WORSE than Vietnam because almost nobody cares about whats going on over there. Do we really need a Tet-like scenario to rattle the country? Or will it take another bombing in America by a non-Iraqi? When those are your only two options for having the entire country invested in a war, then you know what? Someone screwed up, big time. Either that or its worse - and thats that that " someone " I spoke of in the last sentence could care less about us over there or us over here.

 

But wasn't there a draft in the 60's? That fact alone would most probably inspire a more vigorous anti war movement because there is more at stake than simply disagreeing with US foreign policy.

 

Well, for starters how about the war you fought in Rod.

Let's be hyper-critical there, too...

Over 2/3 of the American casualties were from friendly fire. Hardly a success.

And the resulting cease-fire agreement was never honored by the loosing nation and arguably not enforced by the UN security council. That made that war pointless and obviously unnesseccary.

If, of course you hold that war to the same standards as this war...

 

But wasn't there a draft in the 60's? That fact alone would most probably inspire a more vigorous anti war movement because there is more at stake than simply disagreeing with US foreign policy.



The draft was a requirement of all male citizenery for two years of service in the military from WWII until it was ended whether we were at war or not so what your saying is actually the proof in the pudding - that it actually WAS the citizens of the U.S. simply becoming increasingly disenfranchised with its goverments foreign policy that caused a strong anti-war movement. In WWII the draft was very nearly obselete because of the numbers of volunteers after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The worst thing about WWII was that we became the ultimate warrior of the world and the buisness minded saw the futures markets that went hand and hand with that. There are powerful people in this country that utilize this ideology and spin WWII in a way that I couldnt even explain.

 

Yeah..but there's a big difference between military service in peace time and being drafted into the front lines of a shooting war.

If Bush suddenly brought back a draft tomorrow I think you'd see 60's style demonstrations every day ..that is the point.

 

I can not believe I am actually goign to agree with Father Time on something but hey, the world is a changin' place. AS stated immediately above, there was a draft int he 60's. Boys were being conscripted and forced to go and serve in the armed forces. Reminds me of the line in stripes where the guy says "I figured I better join before I get drafted" to which he is informed that there is no draft anymore.

Men and women serving in the armed forced made a conscious choice and decision to serve this country. Their had was not coerced to sign the dotted line, unless of course you think that adding a Godsmack song to a recruitment ad is a form of brainwashing. They knew the dangers going in, thus the word "armed" in armed forces. If we were attacked by Turkmenistan and they were forced to fight would there be such an outcry for the dead and mained? I am not trying to justify the war itself, cause basically I don't believe it is justified, but when they signed up they know that they were potentially putting themselves in harms way. Regardless of the reasons they knew they would be taking their orders, like them or not from their superiors all the way up the chain to the Commander In Chief. The way the military is set up is if someone over you says jump, you say how high. Not, I disagree with you I would rather crouch. Don't get me wrong I have the utmost respect for those in the service, and putting your life on the line for others is the most nobelist of all deads, you just can not change your mind at the last minute.

But what I have wanted to really see is the spirit of the 60's.
Go rent Woodstock, or better yet, Born on the Fourth of July. I would hope that we as a civilized society have not only sobered up chemically from the 60's but also on a political level as well. This is an entirely different age, protest takes on different forms. Bummer, The Age of Aquarius is Dead, Man!

BTW, 1,800 or 58,000 it doesn't matter. Those are unacceptable losses in two wars that were fought for stupid reasons.
Sorry I would argue that All wars are fought for stupid reasons but don't want to derail the thread.

One million dead its a number, One dead its a tragedy.(Marilyn Manson I think)

 

If Bush suddenly brought back a draft tomorrow I think you'd see 60's style demonstrations every day ..that is the point.

Thats true - but that doesnt speak too well about what our " morals " are and what we actually " value " does it?