Whatever happened to the (UK) anti-war movement?

Spiked Online ^ | Jan 27, 2006 | Mick Hume

[finnman69]

This is what happened

[epluribus_2]

London subway bombing. Movement goes Poof.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Same thing that happened to the Boston anti-war movement. It died.

[Canard]

I'm not sure I agree with much of this analysis at all. George Galloway was a widespread figure of ridicule before anyway. And Charles Kennedy's tribulations have nothing to do with Iraq.

[wvobiwan]

The anti-war movement never had much support outside of the major media. The media was hoping for another Vietnam, where they thwarted attempts to install democratic government in Souteast Asia.

Now the WMD evidence is clear, the democratic govts. in Afghanistan and Iraq are working, other mid-east countries are moving towards democracy, and the socialist movement has been marginalized to wackos like Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Castro, and China.

Hard to argue for socialism with such shining examples of it's failure...

[Draco]

That sure looks like Fran Drescher there with Galloway. Maybe we should thank her for helping him show himself as a fool.

[Canard]

"The anti-war movement never had much support outside of the major media"

Opinion polls showing 90% of people against invasion without a further UN resolution and a million people marching in central London would tend to suggest otherwise?

[robowombat]

So with the example of the kind of mass mobilization that the CND and the Nuclear Freeze could mount in the UK what happened to the tried and true leftists technique of loud breast beating self righteous mass demonstrations?

[BlueStateDepression]

With a population of 7,172,036 in London, I would offer that far more folks were Not marching than were. Yes this means that 6 to 1 the Anti's were outnumbered.

Hardly 90% eh? Why was Blair re elected? Why was Bush re elected? How about Howard? The anti's lost....get over it.

[Canard]

"I would offer that far more folks were Not marching than were"

Erm clearly. A million people bothering to give up their Saturday (many from further afield than London) is hardly trifling though.

"Hardly 90% eh?"

Based on opinion polls prior to the invasion, as I said.

"Why was Blair re elected?"

Because the election wasn't a referendum on Iraq? Though that certainly cost Labour a number of votes and seats in certain specific constituencies.

"The anti's lost....get over it."

I wasn't aware that I was under it. Just pointing out that portraying the anti-war sentiment as a media manufaction is not factually sustainable.

[BigTom85]

College classes are back in session. They are probably all sitting in school studying karl marx and company. They will survace around april or may when classes are out of session.

[protest1]

The "she" in the picture with George Galloway is actually a man. A homosexual, transvestite, heroin taking pop star from the 80 (used to be one of "Boy George's" boyfriends) he might be off the drugs at present.
That is sure to go down well with his muslim fans.

[BlueStateDepression]

Clearly it is a small minority of people no matter how you cut it up. It always was. Its time to accept that.

Polls are hilarious. Remember now that "polls" said Bush would lose and that Blair would lose and that even Howard may lose. Where is Shroeder again????

Pointing out that the media is the biggest supporter of the anti war sentiment is absolutely proper. All one has to do is take a look at the reporting done by such folks as the AP, Rueters, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc etc. This has been done and what was shown was clear...even if you refuse to see it.

Of course the elections were referendums on the performance of these elected leaders, taking their respective nations to war is obviously a part of that.

IF the numbers were there to support your claims about "polls" none of them would have been re elected. Yet they all were....how do you explain such a thing?

[Paradox]

I dont neccessarily agree with much of this analysis, but he did get one thing right:

Opposing Bush and Blair has become less a political position than an emotional spasm..

[<1/1,000,000th%]

London subway bombing. Movement goes Poof.

That's the first thing I thought.

[Canard]

"Clearly it is a small minority of people no matter how you cut it up"

What is? Are you seriously claiming that a majority of people in the UK supported the idea of invading Iraq? Fine, you don't believe every poll done on the subject, you don't think a march attracting a million people is significant (although I'm sure if a million people were marching in favour of something you supported that wouldn't be your opinion...), you don't believe my personal anectdotal evidence as a UK citizen. What exactly are you basing this on?

"Polls are hilarious."

Maybe so. Pretty much when they consistently say 80 - 90% of respondents take a view, that's fairly statistically significant.

"Remember now that "polls" said.......that Blair would lose"

No they didn't.

" IF the numbers were there to support your claims about "polls" none of them would have been re elected."

No, the election bore out exactly what the polls said. The war was an issue that people were concerned about, but in most cases, not one to change their vote. That's partly that foreign policy does not traditionally factor much into British elections, partly lack of an alternative.

[winner3000]

VERY EYE OPENING:

(President George W Bush and prime minister Tony Blair, are both suffering crises of authority at home as support for their IRAQI ADVENTURE haemorrhages...Liberal Democrats and George Galloway's Respect - are also in crisis. IRAQ LOOKS MORE AND MORE LIKE THE WAR THAT NOBODY HAS WON.)

This is a great inside view in the way leftists think. For them Iraq is not a war, it's something that Bush and Blair just decided to do on a lark. Also, it is something to be used for political purposes. For this writer, Vietnam is a VICTORY for the left eventhough their country lost. Iraqi originally was thought of as either a victory or a defeat for Bush or the Left. Then they tell us not to question their patriotism. What patriotism?

[kaktuskid]

What is that thing in blue? A blow-up love doll?

[BlueStateDepression]

Are you seriously claiming that a majority of people in the UK supported the idea of invading Iraq?

Yup! If a million people were marching for something I agreed with I would look at it exactly the same way I look at it when I do not agree.

I believe that there is a section of people that will refuse to fight even when they are in the process of being hit. I would consider you one of them. To call them a majority or even a substantial minority is simply a false claim. The Majority of people here and in the UK and elswhere understand that it is time to fight back. Accept that for what it is and move on.

I laugh at the claim that 80 to 90 % of Americans OR Brits agree on anything!

If 90% of the people oppose invasion of Iraq and Blairs decision to do so...how exactly did the 10% that agreed with his decision elect him? Are you, in fact, saying that people that disagree with Blair voted for his re election? Think now...before you answer....

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. The polls (you say) show that 90% of the people are opposed to the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam. Blair goes ahead with the invasion and removal of Saddam and stands for reelection, WINS that bid even though he went against what you say, thru polls, is the will of 90% of the people???

Then you claim this is done because you have a lack of alternative and that foreign policy doesn't factor in? A million people march but it doesn't factor in?

What does this say about your country and its people? Seems you are saying that the people in your own country are to lazy or too stupid to vote their true beliefs. Remember now, you said this stuff about them I am just shining a different light on what you have said.

I would offer to you that the majority of people in both of our nations understand that war is a bad thing. That both peoples want an alternative. I would further offer that well over a dozen years of alternatives were offered to Saddam and that reasonable people in both our nations realize this not-so-subtle fact.

The majority in both of our nations understand that W and Blair did the right thing. Regardless of what the media has said and done, both were reelected because most reasonable people agree that they did.