Theli

People seem very eager to protest against the death of innocents in a time of war, but how many were protesting against the killing conducted by soldiers loyal to Saddam prior to the war?

Just an observation...



Off topic: Damn, this forum has grown in posts lately. All focus on Iraq.

Ice

Perhaps it's more apparent during the war. Given the large number of war-related threads. But I'm sure there were protests before the war. There are too many killings around the world to practically protest against every instance, even if that sounds callous.

Vorkosigan

Numerous Kurds and Shi'ites protested against Hussein, to the point of revolting against him, uprisings that were betrayed by the US and crushed by Hussein.

Numerous Iranians who protested against the US action also protested Hussein's attack on Iran. Likewise, many Saudis who oppose the US invasion of Iraq also opposed Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

I could give other examples, but suffice to say that your "point" is so silly it needs no refuting.

Vorkosigan

Jolimont

Two arguments: Why should I protest somebody else's government? Iraq had nothing to do with me until Bush decided to invade. When my country gets involved then it becomes my business enough that I can express an opinion. Also, as a member of Amnesty International I do indirectly protest abusive goverments and I support opposition to their brutal tactics.

edoggsmooth

At the foundation, people are first and foremost responsible for the consequences of their actions. If our actions in Iraq are killing civilians, then we have an obligation to put a stop to it. This is not to say we can't try and stop bad things that others do, but at the ground level, we must be held accountable for the consequences of our actions.

-ed

Theli

First off, thanks all for replying.

Ice...
I think it's because the presumption that if war kills innocent people and is generally bad, then peace must be the opposite. But, in a way... peace kills to. Many seems to be motivated by an idea that they are supposed to protest war. One of the main arguments brought up by protesters is that innocent dies, as if that was something new the war brought with it.
Not as big as these, and not as spread out over the world.
No, it doesn't sound callous, I mean people do have their own lives to worry about. But the timing does not seem accidental.


Vorkosigan...
Although these were smallscale and local in comparison, I understand your point. Perhaps it's because the suffering and killing that goes on in between the wars just don't get as recognized by the public.
I never said I had a point, and calling it "silly" isn't the best way to refute it either (if I did have one).


Jolimont...
Hello, Jolimont.
Obviously, I wasn't just refering to protesters in America. Sweden is against the war (atlest most of us), and there has been alot of protests here aswell, yet we are neither american or iraqi. And using "death of innocent people" as an argument would still be silly coming from an american.
They didn't invade for your sake, so I don't see why that would motivate them not to. Now, I don't know why you oppose the war, so I'll leave it for now.
You can always express your opinion, and you should as long as you have that freedom.


edoggsmooth...
I would think that in the world as we see it today where countries and peoples aren't cut off from each other, we do have a responsibility (atleast a right) to interveen when a government abuses it's citizens.
And if someone else's actions are killing even more civilians, aren't we under the same rules and beliefs obligated to put a stop to it?
I mean if we don't want to kill civilians out of empathy for them and a will to preserve their lives, then we should also interveen to stop another from doing it.
It's just a question of the greater good. Will the outcome of the war prove to be better for the iraqi people, or will it not?

fando

Betrayed? It's easy and convenient to blame the U.S. for everything. Maybe almost too convenient. In our zealous criticism of U.S. policy, we tend to miss other factors that might have contributed to the problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the harshest critics of GWBush's foreign policy, but I'd rather know facts than propaganda.

I'm inclined to believe that the rest of the Gulf War I Coalition is not blameless for the massacre of the Kurds and the current situation in Iraq. In particular, France and Russia. Let's hear a different account of what happened to the revolts and the Kurds, along with the reasons the U.S. did not get involved:

As soon as Saddam returned to power after Gulf War I, he began to quash the revolts in the south and systematically massacre Kurds in the north in open view of the Coalition air patrols. Not happy with Saddam's resurgence, the U.S. was willing to put an end to his regime, but the coalition partners France and Russia objected to any further action. The reason was supposedly because France and Russia had just made fresh, sweet deals with Saddam's regime and didn't want to endanger these gains. The coalition dissolved from such conflicts of interest, leaving the U.S. to act 'unilaterally' in its effort to contain and remove Saddam. Because the U.S. had not yet adopted Wolfowitz's policy of preemptive military action, a more roundabout approach was taken: Harsher sanctions, stricter rules in the No Fly Zone, and covert support for insurgencies. (For reference, I got this account from a Frontline documentary on the causes of the current conflict.)

Remember, the U.S. isn't the sole power in the world. There are other countries that have no problems with the idea of playing dirty for gain; It would be sheer folly to assume that the motives of nations are altruistic.

Ice

But there is no "peace". There are always "wars" somewhere. I agree - war motivates people to protest. But I would think that better than no motivation at all. War brings a higher profile to deaths and killing, naturally people start protesting it. And it affects the lives of people we "know" and have a closer affinity to, so it gets more personal. I'm not against protests - I'm against the rhetoric they (and the hawks) use.

Certainly not. But people have a tendency to not see further than their borders when they're not involved. Not that I agree with that tendency, but we're humans after all.

No, that I agree. But I still think it's better that, since we have to have a war, people start to realise there are other people in the world who suffer and die under regimes they can't imagine to live under.

Theli

Then why did so many pick this particular one? When I was talking about peace, I wasn't refering to global peace. Obviously, there's always someone fighting or planing a war.
It seems like victims of war are more important for the global opinion and for people in general than victims of a bad government.
My point excacly, people should be allowed to protest as long as it doesn't turn into vandalism or threats. But I question the motives of these protesters.
It seems that the fact that it's america that is doing the "invading", adds further motivation. I mean, I haven't seen many protests against Great Britain even if they play a big part in this conflict. So, what makes america such a convenient target?
I wonder what would happen if the protesters had their way, and the US and GB would call off their attack on Saddam. Would their interest and concern for the iraqi people disappear or decrease along with the war? I fear it would.

Amen-Moses

If people are locked up or executed under the rules and laws of a particular nation then in what way are they "innocents"? For example th eUS executes people regularly but in my country this is not done, does this make these people innocent in some way?

Everyone makes a big fuss about the Kurds and Marsh Arabs in particular, one group would be classed as terorists in any other country (like Chechnians are to Russia or the IRA are to the UK) and the other group have tried to hang on to an ancient way of life whilst their country has been changed for the benefit of the majority (i.e the "draining of the marshes" is a direct consequence of the hundreds of dams and irrigation systems in the north of the country), why doesn't anyone make a fuss about the native merkins whose habitats are being destroyed in similar ways? Compare southern California now to a hundred years ago for example.

In China they are moving well over a million people to other regions in order to create the worlds largest dam which will produce the worlds largest man-made lake, I don't see anyone making a fuss about them!

Amen-Moses