The war on Iraq has spurred millions around the world to protest. A vocal segment of Americans also
joined in on the protests. However, the techniques and messages coming from the protesters
have come under
almost as much criticism as the war itself. Protesters have been accused, among other things, of being anti-American.
Most protesters are uninformed about the issues they're protesting.
As was discussed in the War on Iraq issue page, the decision to go to war
was an extremely
complicated one. There was no easy answer, and there are always many reasons not to go to war. However, how many of
the protesters were really informed on the issues? How many knew the history of Saddam and Iraq? How many
about biological and chemical weapons, or what the daily life of an Iraqi
was like? Even those that were somewhat
informed usually only knew the points on one side of the issue, and if you
brought up a point on the other side of
the issue, they would normally justify, divert, or explain some paranoid conspiracy. If a person has made a solid
analysis of both sides of the issue and still disagrees with the government, they should protest. However, I'm
betting if you gave all protesters a remedial test of the facts surrounding the issues (or a remedial test of
world history), only a very small minority
would be able to pass.
The participants are often taking part in the protests because it's fashionable or trendy rather than
because they really believe in what they're protesting.
Just like during the Vietnam war, protesting has become the "cool" thing to do for a lot of people. You'll notice
that much of the protester makeup was actors/actresses as well as college students, many of whom
were just seeking
social approval or publicity. It's an unwritten rule in Hollywood that you have to be liberal in your political views if you
want to work in that town. When an actor maybe be blacklisted for taking a conservative stance and when all his
or her acting buddies are ultra-liberal, it follows then that he or she is going to speak out against the war. Compare
these protests to those during the Vietnam war. It's debatable how many of the
protesters were sincere. Pop culture
revolved around the war protests. Numerous anti-war songs, TV shows, Vietnam movies, etc. kept the anti-war
movement popular. Nowadays, you can throw in the Internet as another method of promoting trendy or fashionable
things. Protesting in this country is a right, but when it turns into a social event, we have a problem.
Protesters send a message of weakness and indecisiveness to foreigners, thereby
thwarting our causes.
It's ironic that the existence of the peace movement in effect forced us to war. When you have American
leaders saying one thing and media-glorified protesters saying another, it sends a message to all foreign governments
that we're weak and indecisive. Osama bin Laden attacked us (among other reasons) because he perceived us as a
"paper tiger" that couldn't stomach casualties and would always back down easily. It's
became the same thing with
Saddam Hussein. Our only chance of getting Saddam to back down would have been to send a clear message that this
country was united and the international community was united. Obviously, that
didn't happen, so Saddam chose to play games. Although he had no chance to win militarily, he
went ahead with war because he felt he could
inflict enough casualties to further split the international community and to get America to back down.
The current terrorists in Iraq are trying to do the same thing.
Many of the signs and chants attack Bush & America rather than the issues.
As mentioned previously, most protesters are uninformed on the issues surrounding the war. However, even if they
did understand, many protesters use the protests to bash President Bush and America rather than the war effort. Just
take a sampling of signs at any protest to see the truth, "Bush is Hitler", "Stop American Imperialism", "No Blood
for Oil", "Bush Stole the Presidency", "Bush is a Terrorist", "Stop Bush and Enron from Destroying the World".
Do any of these signs reflect the good reasons for not going to war detailed on the
War on Iraq issue page? The Bush administration may turn out to be completely wrong on
it's war policy, but are any of these signs based in reality? One of the most well-known protestors is Cindy
Sheehan, a mother of a soldier killed in the Iraq War. Rather than focus her wrath on the terrorists who killed her
son, she has chosen to focus her campaign on Bush and America. She has met & praised Communist thug Hugo Chavez, called
Bush the "biggest terrorist in the world", and said "America is not worth fighting for" while repeatedly comparing
the Bush administration to the Nazi regime. I guarantee you that if you visit any anti-Iraq War protest, you'll hear
and see a similar round of attacks.
The protests send a negative message to soldiers risking their lives every day.
Young men and women are risking their lives daily to protect their country and the freedom of the people. They are
subjecting themselves to artillery, street gunfire terror, roadside bombs, and mines. Many
will come back dead or wounded, and even if they don't agree with the war, they still have to follow orders to do
their duty. The protests send a message to soldiers that the country doesn't support them and what they're doing is
wrong. Whether or not that is truly the case, that's the message being sent. In fact, these brave men and women
put their lives on line just so people have the freedoms to do things like protest. It's disgusting that we can't
stand behind our soldiers at a time like this!
The vocalness of the protests mislead the world as to the true level of opposition; pro-war advocates rarely protest.
Polls showed varying support for the Iraq War ranging from 45-72 percent of Americans
during the buildup. However, the protests got a lot
more media attention than any polls. This misled the country and the world into thinking the level of dissent in the
U.S. was a lot higher than it was. Pro-war advocates are rarely going to march, and even when they do, the media usually
glances over them without making much of a fuss. Counts of war protesters also come from fantasy land. We hear stories of 500,000
here or a million protesters there. How are they counting these numbers? The media will usually take the word of the
organizers as to the turnout without questioning or checking up on the figures. The San Francisco Chronicle and others that
do independent counts using aerial shots usually demonstrate that peace advocates will take the actual number of people and
double or triple it. But let's assume that these counts are correct (a wild assumption). Even then, the counts
represent less than 1 percent of the population. Does 1 percent of the population truly represent the thinking
of the mainstream public?
Protesters rarely show up to protest Saddam, Kim Jong El, or other atrocious governments.
Noticeably missing in the signs of protesters were signs speaking out against Saddam. Wouldn't it be as appropriate, if not
more so, to say "Stop Saddam's Atrocities", "Saddam Must Comply with U.N. Resolutions", "Stop the Proliferation of WMD",
"Rescue the Iraqi People from Saddam", and so on. The United States have not always been the most moral nation throughout
our history, but our weaknesses and mistakes don't even begin to compare to those of regimes like
those of Iraq and North
Korea. Human rights records of countries throughout the Communist and Arab worlds are atrocious (how soon we forget
what women went through under the Taliban). We should be protesting and correcting these problems before we start