Posted on 02/19/2023 2:18:36 PM PST by nickcarraway
On Feb. 15, 2003, in hundreds of cities across the world, some 10 million people demonstrated against the United States’ impending invasion of Iraq. By many accounts, it was the largest single day of anti-war protest in history. New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler wrote that the huge anti-war demonstrations were indications of “two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.”
Yet this vast mobilization was unable to halt the march to war. Some believe the protests had no influence, but this is shortsighted. The movement in fact had significant impacts in the U.S. and internationally, prompting politically motivated decisions that undermined the military mission and contributed to what the U.S. Army termed “strategic failure.”
The George W. Bush administration manipulated post-9/11 fears to gain support for the use of force by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. As critics countered the WMD deception, public support for attacking Iraq began to erode.
The White House was frustrated by the lack of international support. In Germany, Turkey, Canada and elsewhere, political leaders faced public pressure to reject the U.S. entreaties for participation. Bush’s only significant ally was British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who faced criticism for being Bush’s “poodle.” To assuage the skeptics in his government, Blair persuaded a reluctant White House to seek authorization from the United Nations. When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the Security Council, however, he was decisively rebuffed. The U.S. was only able to muster the votes of the UK, Bulgaria and Spain. Rather than face humiliation, the White House withdrew the proposed resolution and proceeded with the attack.
The international rejection of the U.S.-led war was significant. It was the first time since the UN’s founding that the United States could not get full Security Council approval on a national priority.
A creative dialectic developed between the Security Council and global civil society: The stronger the anti-war movement in other countries became, the greater the determination to resist U.S. pressure at the UN. And the stronger the objections at the UN became, the greater was the legitimacy and impact of the anti-war movement.
The ways in which protest influences policy are not always apparent. While the anti-war movement did not prevent the invasion of Iraq, it helped set the terms of the debate by insisting on UN approval for the use of force and by convincing key governments to refuse to participate, thereby shaping the war’s eventual outcome.
The same is true today for the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. A new global anti-war movement is needed now with the same message as 20 years ago: “No to war.” Pursue peace by aiding Ukrainian victims, supporting Russians who reject the war, and demanding international negotiations for the withdrawal of Russian troops.
DAVID CORTRIGHT is the author of A Peaceful Superpower: Lessons From the World’s Largest Antiwar Movement.
“It wasn’t ‘hip’ to protest Clinton’s wars.” - Janeane Garofalo
Hmmm, maybe the anti-war movement is damaged by people like this. Were Iraq and Ukraine the only wars? His cherry picking leaves him with no credibility. He wasn’t against Kosovo, Afghanistan, Obama re-invading Afghanistan, Obama’s Yemen war, Obama’s drone war, etc.
Cindy Sheehan sure found that out.
He also demands negotiations with a predetermined outcome. No matter what your opinion of the war is that is not how negotiations are done.
The United States and other coalition countries still have their flags planted in Iraq’s soil... So no... It doesn’t matter and they never did matter. The sole purpose of that entire movement was to defeat Bush in 2004 and to ensure that his replacement was a left of center fool in the form of McCain.
I remember that on Bill O’Reilly.
No, no, no, NATO bombing Serbs to help Muslims is good!
And NATO is a defensive charter that protects NATO members until they decide to change it to help Clinton and Obama on Libya!!!
And Ukraine is “sovereign” to join NATO and get western military bases if they want to but Solomon Islands isn’t “sovereign” to decide to get to have a Chinese military base built on it.
And Bolsonaro bad, Orban bad, but globohomo/EU/WEF is good.
Protests against NATO will rarely be televised by globalist media but protests in Russia, China, etc, will be!
And Russia was, is, and always will be communist!
Don’t you know the neocon/neolib rules and talking points yet?
/sarcasm off.
So you are pro-war and pro-globalism?
The back-and-forth on Twitter on this thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1627001461858045953
“Corrupt Republicans side with Putin over USA’s interest & the interests of the American people!”
Reply:
“Fellow Americans, you are a Putin-lover if you don’t sacrifice your entire country and the future security of your children for Ukraine.”
Counter-reply:
“Fellow Americans: you are a “Putin lover” when are in agreement with Putin on US-Ukraine policy. We see genuine GOP-Russia collusion now. Own it all.”
Counter, counter reply:
“right...and the anti-war people against the Iraq war were pro Sadaam, which is what the GOP threatened too! It’s the playbook of EVERY WAR...”if you are against the war, you MUST be pro-boogyman”
Yo know how you can tell that Russia is no longer Communist? The Democrats don’t support them any more.
Same bigots will clamor about US needing to fund the ukranians against evil nazi putin
Saddam was par for the course in the Middle East, plus he kept the Iranians in check. Iran was the big winner of that stupid war.
Does it? Where is it? I didn’t hear from them when Obama led from behind into Libya. I don’t hear it now that its Biden flushing our money down the toilet in Ukraine....while simultaneously provoking the country with the most nuclear weapons on earth.
Gosh, where did the anti war Left go? They must have gone to the same place the pro free speech Left went....or the distrustful of federal intelligence agencies Left went.
So you clearly don’t understand sarcasm?
Here, try this one as it’s more bite sized for your brain to handle that I already gave to another but you might not have seen it yet:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1627001461858045953
Back-and-forth on Twitter yesterday:
“Corrupt Republicans side with Putin over USA’s interest & the interests of the American people!”
Reply:
“Fellow Americans, you are a Putin-lover if you don’t sacrifice your entire country and the future security of your children for Ukraine.”
Counter-reply:
“Fellow Americans: you are a “Putin lover” when are in agreement with Putin on US-Ukraine policy. We see genuine GOP-Russia collusion now. Own it all.”
Counter, counter reply:
“right...and the anti-war people against the Iraq war were pro Sadaam, which is what the GOP threatened too! It’s the playbook of EVERY WAR...”if you are against the war, you MUST be pro-boogyman”
Being anti-Iraq war doesn’t make a person leftist or even pro-Saddam, but you can be anti-neocon in doing so.
Anti-war movement has been commie leftist since forever.
Part of The Movement, The Revolution.
Always a new permutation on some new manufactured fad cause.
Test Ban Treaty. Nuclear Freeze. etc ad nauseum.
Same as RCP, antifa, blm etc…ad nauseum behind it.
Began being planned and disseminated from Moscow almost 100 years ago now.
Gained de facto control of US government in Obama years.
.
Just regurgitating the old Leftist talking points. That information was around long before George W. Bush showed up and every major intelligence agency in the world had information stating that he did.
There is also zero doubt he was a state sponsor and harborer of terrorists, something else this author quite conveniently leaves out.
There is nothing to indicate the government of Ukraine was harboring terrorists or attacking Russia, etc. Putin simply wants more territory to restore the glory days of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, as he has made no secret of this desire. Hardly the same MO as the war on terror - whether in hindsight it was a wise decision to go to war with Iraq or not.
Indeed, at one time liberal to leftist newspapers spoke of the wonders of then-Communist Russia (it no longer is except to neocons) under Stalin, FDR’s administration spoke of how there were ideas implemented by them needing to be implemented here, and some even went so far as to say under them you can’t make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.
That is until Trotsky was cracked by Stalin, and then it seemed much of the libtard media turned on Stalin.
Trotsky was one who advocated injecting race into the discussion, wanting to add it to the “class struggle” to supposedly advocate for the racially downtrodden.
No such thing as “Anti-War”, just folks who think we are fighting for the wrong side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.