Anti War Protestors: As visible in Iraq I?

Started by Amber, Nov 22, 2003, 10:09 PM

previous topic - next topic

When were anti war protestors most visible?

Iraq I
0 (0%)
Iraq II
3 (100%)
Same
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Voting closed: Nov 22, 2003, 10:09 PM

Go Down

Amber

I don't know much about Iraq War I.  When we went to war because Saddam was invading other countries - our oil supply.  I believe that was the gist of it; it doesn't matter right now.  

Anyway, I don't know much about the culture, reactions, or leftist reaction to this war.  I was only 10 when it happened.

However, it is obvious the anti war protestors for this war are alive and well.  They even exist as senators and governors.

So, my question to people who were more cognizant during the early 90s is:  were the anti war protestors as alive and well then?  I'm adding a poll question mostly because I am poll happy lately.  :D

The reason why I ask is because, besides one variable, it seems the two wars have all the same variables.  All the same variables, anyway, that should enrage typical anti war protestors.  We are going to the war for oil (true or not, it doesnt' matter), we are acting as our own force, innocents will die ... bla bla bla.

The only variable that makes Iraq II REALLY different than Iraq I is that it is unequivocally tied to the *war on terror*.  So, it is interesting that in Iraq II, when the US security is likely at further risk, that the anti war protestors are so much more angry.

If my hypothesis is correct, it would be proof that they are not so much anti war as they are in favor of allowing those groups that wish to destroy the United States exist.
he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

Nichov

I dont think they were, which is ironic seeing as how Iraq 1 was only 10 years after the 70's which were still writhe with hippies.

But, Iraq 1 had more clear purposes, and more moral ones at that.  We were not invading a country, we stopped at the iraq border (on land that is though we bombed them for 10-odd years afterward) we were fighting to keep a small country free, and we were fighting to keep the oil fields in democratic hands, which was ok because we weren't invading another country to do it.  Also, it was the most one-sided US victory at that time, to an unprecidented degree.  Also, we had not just come out of 8 years of propsperity and peace under a democratic president, we had come out of 50 years of cold war, which was finally won by a republican president.
Society does not have the right to discriminate against victims of domestic violence because of their gender."  - www.amen.ie

Go Up