I think this video clip pretty well sums up the frustration the hawks have with the anti-war demonstrators.
For those without a broadband connection, this was a guy who went to interview some of the protestors in New York. At first he simply asked, "How would you solve the problem?"
Some answers:
I don't know. I just know that war isn't the answer.
Uh....umm....
That's the government's job to figure out
Then he asked some hard questions about using the U.N. to police Iraq. The answers were about the same.
Quite telling.
Anti-media rant
rafael on 2003-02-26T09:27:11
Journalists should really stop this annoying habit of asking the man in the street about everything. How can Joe Random, surprised by a camera, possibly come up with a well-constructed opinion ? Moreover, how can his opinion be representative of anything ? Do you like doughnuts ? -- uh, I dunno, that's for the TV ? uh, yeah, yeah. -- Conclusion: The Man In The Street likes doughnuts.Re:Anti-media rant
jordan on 2003-02-26T14:10:01
- How can Joe Random, surprised by a camera, possibly come up with a well-constructed opinion ? Moreover, how can his opinion be representative of anything ?
A corollary to this is that just because a million people march, it doesn't mean that any of them have thought out opinions, or that their opinions, whatever they happen to be, are representative of anything.Re:Anti-media rant
vek on 2003-02-26T15:36:55
A corollary to this is that just because a million people march, it doesn't mean that any of them have thought out opinions, or that their opinions, whatever they happen to be, are representative of anything.
And just because you hear of people supporting war doesn't mean that they have thought out opinions either. It's very easy to blindly agree with everything you see & hear on CNN.
You can also ask pro-war advocates why they think war is the answer and you will still get the Joe Random crowd with their "er, er, well President Bush says Iraq is evil."Re:Anti-media rant
petdance on 2003-02-26T16:37:58
How can Joe Random, surprised by a camera, possibly come up with a well-constructed opinion ?Because in this case, Joe Random is at an anti-war rally saying that war is not the solution to this problem.
If someone is going to go out and say "I disagree with this position" then I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask for their thoughts on the alternative.
I'd have a lot more respect for the protestors if, instead of "BUCK FUSH" and "BUSH = NUCLEAR TERRORIST", their placards read "Disarm Saddam by doing [X]".
The worst guy is the one who says "It's the government's job to come up with the answer." They did come up with an answer, and you don't like it, so what else do you suggest, bonehead?
Re:Anti-media rant
autarch on 2003-02-26T17:36:08
If someone is going to go out and say "I disagree with this position" then I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask for their thoughts on the alternative.
Woah, this has a big assumption built-in, which is that their is a problem to be solved. I'm really not sure that is the case, since I have yet to see any proof that Iraq is actually a real threat to the US. It might be a threat to its neighbors, but I'm not so sure about that either, since at this point Hussein knows that any aggression on his part would be met with an immediate response by the US and Western Europe.
I do agree that suggesting that it's the government's job to come up with an alternative to war is pretty ridiculous. But this is just one person out of many, many millions demonstrating against war, so all this proves is that this one person is not good when asked questions on the spot.Re:Anti-media rant
petdance on 2003-02-26T19:02:39
Woah, this has a big assumption built-in, which is that their is a problem to be solved.Understood, and the protestors' rhetoric should have addressed this. Where are the placards that say, for example "Saddam is no threat to the US"? I sure haven't seen any. I saw a lot of name-calling Bush-bashing, though.
I think a lot of the protesters just don't like Bush, the government, the Establishment, whatever, and get off on bitching about it.
Re:Anti-media rant
autarch on 2003-02-26T19:18:59
Where did you see this? Were you at a demonstration, or is this just something you saw on TV or in the paper? At the demonstration I went to I saw lots of signs, some of them addressing serious issues, like "How many lives per gallon?", and some of them a bit more tongue-in-cheek, "Duct tape Bush". And of course, some of them were just outright anti-Bush. I don't really see a problem with that, since I think the man is evil, and opposing him on principle is generally a good position.
But is it any surprise that the media would focus on the most provocative/amusing/silly? No, of course not. That does not mean that there weren't other things to see, but the media often ignores the serious things in favor of spectacle.
Moreover, if you want to seriously learn about why people oppose the war, you don't look at their signs from a protest. You listen to speeches, read articles, etc. Demonstrations are not really about communicating an in-depth point, they're about showing that X number of people support or oppose some particular thing. If you're just looking for a reason to dismiss them, then you focus on trivialities like what a few signs said.Re:Anti-media rant
petdance on 2003-02-26T20:26:45
Please note that I am not pro- or anti-Bush. I just would like to hear the sides involved state their cases meaningfully, especially since I'm pretty undecided on how I feel about the impending invasion.Demonstrations are not really about communicating an in-depth point, they're about showing that X number of people support or oppose some particular thing.
Showing that a mob of people support something. I could just read the Neilsen summaries or Billboard charts and follow that if the unwashed masses with nothing to say counted for anything. If you're just looking for a reason to dismiss them, then you focus on trivialities like what a few signs said.
Reality says that what their signs say is not "trivial". The anti-war guys oughta learn from the abortion folks. Now that's a lot of people who have their thumbnail rhetoric down.
It's not a matter of soundbites. It's a matter of effectively summarizing your points. "Bush = Nuclear Terrorist" is meaningless hyperbole. For that matter, so is "Bush is evil", as you claim.
- "US out of my uterus"
- "It's a child, not a choice"
- "Abortion stops a beating heart"
- "I'm pro-(life|choice) and I vote"
Re:Anti-media rant
autarch on 2003-02-26T21:47:38
Showing that a mob of people support something. I could just read the Neilsen summaries or Billboard charts and follow that if the unwashed masses with nothing to say counted for anything.
It counts to people who need their votes. I don't think the general public is the sole target of mass demonstrations, though it's a useful secondary target. In the particular case of the recent anti-war demonstrations, targetting the public is definitely not the point, given that the majority in most countries which had demos already oppose the war. Unfortunately, their "democratically" elected leaders don't seem to be listening. That's who the target was in the latest demos.
Reality says that what their signs say is not "trivial". The anti-war guys oughta learn from the abortion folks. Now that's a lot of people who have their thumbnail rhetoric down.
Honestly, I'd rather see 500,00 people turn out, bad signs and all, then one hundred people with really good signs. Anti-abortion activists have good signs because they are a small minority with a lot of dedication, and lots of time and money (relative to the size of the movement), but they don't have numbers. They've also had years to refine their message.
Again, if you want to learn more about why people oppose the war, you need to do some reading, and I'd be happy to recommend some good sources.Re:Anti-media rant
cogent on 2003-02-27T01:57:37
Again, if you want to learn more about why people oppose the war, you need to do some reading, and I'd be happy to recommend some good sources.But I'm not interested in learning more about why people oppose the war. I have my own theories: nihilism, envy of the United States, ignorance, desire for rebellion, desire for coolness.
What I'm interested in is why I should oppose the war. By extension, why the United States should oppose the war. And that calls not for generalities of why the United States is motivated by oil, or why its citizens are evil, or why its politicians are worse than any politicans elsewhere. I've read those; I don't buy them, and they don't apply.
What is needed are reasons why no attack is necessary. The pro-war camp has made its point: Saddam is a too-powerful enemy of the West and of his neighbors. Appeasement of such men is historically a very bad choice. Peaceful means only go so far against men with guns who won't listen to your impassioned plea. The anti-war camp has basically ignored these points.
Re:Anti-media rant
autarch on 2003-02-27T03:49:46
But I'm not interested in learning more about why people oppose the war. I have my own theories: nihilism, envy of the United States, ignorance, desire for rebellion, desire for coolness.
Those are some pretty poor theories, since they all boil down to "people against the war are immature, stupid, or just jerks." I really don't think the million plus people who marched in London are all envious of the US, or ignorant, or nihilistic, or rebelliousness, or want to be as cool as you. Or the two million in Spain. Or the millions in France, Italy, the US, and around the world.
Maybe, just maybe, some of these people have some good reasons
to oppose war.Re:Quite telling of what?
jordan on 2003-02-26T16:35:28
- It's not incumbent on people with that position to come up with an answer "answer", particularly since this whole goddamn war is a based on the idea that Iraq is a danger to the US, and that's hardly been proved at all.
I think you'll find that this war never ended in 1991. A peace agreement was never signed, only an armistice. Iraq hasn't lived up to the conditions of that armistice. That's what it's 'based on'.
The war has been 'sold' using the fact that Iraq is a danger to the US. I think this is true. He's certainly a danger to his neighbors, otherwise why does he insist on developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (or failing irrefutable proof that he does, why does he play games with the UNMOVIC inspectors)?
As long as he's a danger to his neighbors, he's a danger to the US as the US stands between him and his aim of regional domination. If he has to ally himself with Religious Islamic Terrorists for a time to overcome the US and it's allies, he might.
Even if you consider this possiblity remote. The slightest chance of this, and the fact that we have all the justification we need based on Iraq's failure to follow the demands of the armistice, is enough for me.
The only real question
jordan on 2003-02-26T14:17:09
As a "hawk", I'll take this one.
War appeared to be the best and only solution to the "Iraq problem" in 1991, when Iraq had forcibly occupied an oil rich neighbor.
When Iraq was forcibly evicted from Kuwait, certain conditions were set at the time of the armistice. Iraq has not met those conditions and it appears that they will not except by force.
I ask the doves, how are we to solve the Iraq problem short of war? By signing more oil leases with Saddam Hussein so that he can continue to starve and deprive his people at the expense of his weapons programs? That's been the European "solution" so far.
Re:The only real question
modred on 2003-02-26T14:48:57
You didn't answer the question completely.
Ok, so we bomb Iraq. We send in ground troops. Is the solution to obtaining a disarmed Iraq basically an occupying army until such time every square mile of the country is searched for banned weapons and those who would use them? How does war disarm Iraq?Re:The only real question
jordan on 2003-02-26T15:40:06
I'm not so interested in disarmament for disarmaments sake. For example, I'm not in favor of making sure that China and Russia have no Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I am concerned when Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only reason he has them is to threaten his neighbors and the US, through potential terrorist allies.
If we get regime change in Iraq, we go a long way toward making the world a safer place. I would assume that we would insist upon a Government in Iraq that would seriously renounce such weapons and continue to make certain that none remained or were developed within their borders. The fact that there is some possibility that some might exist in Iraq after the War is not a great concern to me as long as there was a serious, credible commitment to eliminate them.
I note that you didn't answer my question, at all. How do we go about enforcing Iraq's commitments under the cease-fire agreement?
Technically, we are still in a state of War with Iraq. A peace agreement has never been signed, just a cease fire. A cease fire under very specific demands to which Iraq has failed to submit. At some point, the International community should enforce its demands, don't you think? We shouldn't allow those who have commercial interests in Saddam Hussein's continued rule of Iraq to obstruct this.
Re:The only real question
modred on 2003-02-26T16:41:59
I never said I had an answer on how to make sure that the commitments are enforced. The hawk argument, as I understand it, is that war is the only answer to enforcing these commitments. I am struggling to see how war can do this.Or I want to see both sides here. Doves when asked how to enforce disarmament don't have an answers, Hawks have the beginning of answer with "Invade Iraq" but don't follow through on how invading iraq will cause disarmament.
I am very much on the very fence with this issue of whether or not military force is the best or only option. It is not something to be entered into lightly and I want to see how the use of force solves the problem. From what I've heard so far, it seems that military force is to be used to cause regime change. However, that does not do anything with the existing weapons which could still end up in undesirables hands.
Also, I am curious to see the evidence that links Iraq to terrorism any more than any of its neighbors.
Re:The only real question
vek on 2003-02-26T16:50:56
Also, I am curious to see the evidence that links Iraq to terrorism any more than any of its neighbors.
You won't see any evidence because no such evidence exists:-) Re:The only real question
pudge on 2003-02-27T04:58:06
Well, I am not sure about that. We have strong evidence linking Iraqi agents to terrorist groups, and we know that Iraq has funded suicide bombers, and we know that Iraq has had terrorist training camps in its borders. MORE than any of its neighbors? Maybe not, I don't know.Re:The only real question
pudge on 2003-02-27T04:56:32
Disarmament will still not come easily, but yes, the basic idea is that the military will do it. More advanced surveillance equipment, proper interviews of scientists unafraid of their families being killed by Hussein, etc.
And, perhaps more importantly, the coalition plans to foster a government that will look favorably on UN resolutions mandating disarmament. I have no idea what form that government will take. Bush gave an excellent speech tonight, and talked about democracy in Iraq, noting that no one thought they could have democracy in Japan, either. But whatever happens, it seems quite likely that the coalition forces would not approve of a government they believe is not committed to disarmament; my hope is that the people of Iraq, existing opposition leaders, etc. are likewise committed to this goal.
Speaking of all this, I had a thought tonight: have any democracies ever been at war with each other (not including civil wars)?
