Does anyone really believe this "helps" their cause?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_re_us/iraq_war_protest

Okay, so people poured into the streets and rallied against the Iraq War. Does anyone really belive that this helps their cause?

Mostly, the only thing that these people accomplish is blocking traffic, littering, creating a public nuisance, and inconveniencing people to the point of probably jading their opinions AGAINST the cause they're protesting rather than gaining support.

This isn't the 19th or early 20th century, when an angry mob actually posed a threat. Do these people really think that the politicians are sitting in Washington, thinking "Oh My! The people are protesting! We better do as they say!"?

Seriously?

surlygurl,
Thanks for answering. I understand the 'intent' behind the protesting. I understand that it is representative of a dissatisfied group of people voicing their discontent. That wasn't the question. The question was, as you seemed to agree, whether or not the protest actually accomplished what it intended, or if it "fell on deaf ears," and basically was counterproductive to the aim by turning other people against the views of the protesters. Let's face it: the government doesn't need an organized protest to know that people are unhappy with the war. they hear it on the news every day. A protest just seems to hamper the lives of people that are unconcerned, possibly turning them against the protesters' side of things.

gortamor,
Thanks for answering. Yes, the Civil Rights and anti-war protests of the 60's and 70's did make a difference, but that was an entirely time, and those protests WERE a threat as there were many instances of civil unrest and rioting. Newark, New Jersey

which is not far from where I live, was very violent for a period of time as a result of those protests. The legitimate threat of violence in America was much more real in those protests, and local, state, and the federal government had to be wary of how those protests could turn if the situations were not handled carefully. I'd like to say it's the same thing, but it's not. These are different times, and there is no real reason for the government to see a protest march or rally as any reason to change their political or social agendas.

Mr Chops,
Thanks for answering. Indeed, the protests in the Philippines were very effective, but also had an added element to them: the threat of outright anarchy and rebellion.

Overall,
Thanks to everyone that has answered. I think the point is that the war in Iraq is something that isn't going to be decided by the "will of the American people," because, in truth, the American people don't really know enough about it to formulate an opinion ...

that the people in power would listen to. There's much more involved in this than Al Qaeda, the Iraqis, and civilian deaths. This war has international ramifications that a vast majority of the people just wouldn't understand and will never know everything about. The war in Iraq will be decided in Iraq, and it will only be decided when Iraq has been stabilized and is under the control of a coalition-friendly government. That's just the simple truth.

No matter what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, or ANY other candidate for President says, not a single one of them is going to prematurely withdrawal troops from Iraq, and they all know it. To do so would be catastrophic, destabilizing the Middle East (even more than it is), and essentially sentencing Israel to annihilation, which the US government does not want to see happen.

I don't think the protest accomplished anything 'positive' except, as it was mentioned, to give the people a chance to vent their frustrations.

gortamor,
While the liberal media, which unfortunately writes much of history now, may have -blamed- the military and the police for inciting violence, my understanding from many was that such was not truly the case. Many instances were started by the protesters themselves, or instigated by protesters that simply would not obey the law. When two hundred policemen are being threatened by and even assaulted by two thousand protesters, I think that a violent response can easily be warranted. Of course, some will believe that the police and military may never use force unless force is used explicitly against them first, but I think that when civil disobedience of the law persists, taking additional measures to enfoce the rule of law is legitimate.

Overall,
I'm not for one minute suggesting that the American people should not protest when they disagree with the government. Far from it, as I believe that the Freedom Of Speech is essential to a democracy. What I'm questioning is the MANNER of the protest itself, and if the effort, steeped in tradition as it may be, actually justifies or is justified by the cause itself.
Gathering in the streets, toting cardboard picket signs, and chanting folksy catchphrases is not making a difference to the people it's intended to send the message to. All it's doing is serving as an obstacle to the daily lives of those that are uninvolved.
If the manner of the protest is ineffective, as it has proven to be since the outset of the conflict and in thousands of other instances worldwide, then isn't it possibly a good idea to reconsider how to protest a government's activities and decisions? With all the technological and scientific advances, with how globally-connected people have become, ...

I can't believe that the best means by which to protest a government is still considered to be standing in the streets in large groups and shouting your discontent. There simply HAS to be something more effective in this day and age.
I don't 'support' the war (but I do support the soldiers), but I don't rally against it either, because while I am arrogant, I'm not so blindly-arrogant as to believe that I actually know everything the war is about. I don't, and neither does any other 'common Joe.' I've paid some fairly close attention to the politicians that are using the war's unpopularity, and Bush's unpopularity, as rallying cries for "change," and while these politicians are quick to condemn "Bush's war" and call it an "illegal war," none of them are saying anything as to what the war is really about, or providing any shred of evidence to support claims that it's a "war for oil."

I mean, if it was a "war for oil," with as many enemies as Bush and Cheney have, surely SOMEONE would've come up with SOMETHING to prove it and have both of those men removed. Nothing. I believe that those in power in Washington, including all the senators and representatives that rail against Bush and his "illegal war," the very same people that voted to allow the use of military force in the first place, know much more about the war that they are not, and will not, tell the American public. War is a VERY unpopular proposition, and yet Congress voted OVERHWELMINGLY to take military action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Why?
What did they know, and what do they know now, that they aren't saying?
I'll agree with gortamor to an extent and I'll look to the facts as far as the war is concerned, and the foreign policy that has followed:

* Israel has received more money from the United States in 'Foreign Aid' in the last fifty years than the United States has given the entire rest of the world combined in that time.
* If the initial reason for invasion of Iraq was the development and possession of 'weapons of mass destruction," which I believe was at least partially- accurate, then one has to ask who was threatened the most by Iraq having those weapons? Again, the answer is Israel. Let's face it, the United Nations stalled and delayed action against Iraq long enough for Iraq to remove those weapons. Hell, they had enough time to remove the entire population if they wanted to.
* Which two nations most-prominently opposed the invasion of Iraq by coalition forces? Russia and Germany, two nations that harbor no love for Israel or the Hebrews.

* Iran is now facing a potential showdown with the United States over the development of nuclear weapons, and Iran has only one real intended target for war, and it isn't the United States. Care to guess who it is?
* Is it just me, or does anyone else find it suspect that America will condemn any other nation in the world for human rights offenses and press every other government for a democratic government, and yet the USA says nothing to Israel, a close ally, about the fact that Israel REQUIRES every capable member of it's population to serve a minimum term in the Israeli military?

I think it's inarguably obvious that if Israel didn't have the United States shielding and defending it, it wouldn't still be there right now. There is a great deal of lingering resentment in the Middle East over Israel being given to the Jewish following World War 2, and I don't think it will ever go away until Israel is wiped clean of the Hebrews by the Muslim nations that surround it.
I'm not sure what's going on in Washington (I'm not sure anyone IS sure anymore), but I think that Israel has a lot more influence over American foreign policy than most realize, and to assert so openly is to be branded an anti-Semite. There's something at play here that the government isn't telling the people, and it must be pretty powerful to keep even those that claim to oppose the war quiet about the absolute truth of it all.

I think that protesting is good, but it has to be effective or it's worthless. I think that the first protest should be to change the way the American government works, because it's not about the American people anymore, and hasn't been for a long time.

Answer 1

NO ARGUMENT HERE, JUST DISCUSSION...
The question really is, "Currently, what role do American citizens play in the decision to go to war with Iraq (or elsewhere) or not?" The answer is that the decision to attack an enemy or go to war and how the war is strategized is not in the hands of the American people. Never has and never will. It may have appeared so, but there were other intervening situations.

Agree or not, war MUST be in the hands of qualified, experienced, well educated and responsible Military Strategists. I agree strongly that you made a great many wise points.

However, the RIGHT to express oneself is open due to the Constitution and so there are going to be protests. Much has changed since the 60's, when demonstrators flooded Central Park in NY and other major cities. We now have the Internet and this gives us an outlet to express ourselves.

Does anyone really believe this "helps" their cause?

There is a possibility that getting out there and protesting actually is fodder for our faceless enemy now headquartered in a variety of Mideastern countries. Media available from the Middle East possibly uses these outpourings of feelings as a reason to believe that their cause, whatever it is, is right.

I pray for our soldiers daily and I support the fact that they are giving their all in the name of democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people. Look at how our heroes are treated. They are killed and maimed needlessly and callously by AGAIN a FACELESS enemy.

I am saddened when I see so many young men and others who gave their military careers for us. I am speechless...

Answer 2

Hmmm, does seem to me that your Civil Rights marches of the 60s and your anti-Vietnam protests in the 70s were not angry mobs at all, but people protesting what their government was doing.

And these marches and demonstrations did make a difference.

Edit: Well mate, granted I was not in your country during those times, but was it not the national guard and police that did make the protests turn violent?

Also, does anyone really know why Bush went to Iraq? For oil and for Israel, is what I believe. The American people have a right to decide if they wish to see their blood shed for these things. If they believe no, then they do have a right - a DUTY - to protest. Is what being a citizen of a democracy is all about. The government is there to serve you, not vice-versa.

Answer 3

It's about the event, not the result. I'm especially enamored of those protests against the WTO which purport to care about the world's people and want to save them from the rapacious and evil corporations. A quick review will show few people of color in the gathering.
I'm bothered by the media mentioning that these protests contained Iraqi vets as well as civilians. None of the reporters ever checked out these "vets" to see if any of them had even survived a year in service or gotten any injury more dangerous than a paper cut.
I will agree that assembling to seek redress of wrongs from the government is a long and honorable tradition in this country. But a quick review of the signs being held aloft in these marches shows that even the protestors can't agree on what they are protesting about.

Answer 4

I don't believe that it helps them at all. They just want the attention and want to be on TV. It is a good way for them to let all their frustrations out as well, that's what their psychiatrist would say. I don't think the politicians will stop what they are doing because of people who are against the war. I mean can you imagine President Bush going to Iraq and talking on a loud speaker telling all the American soldiers that "back at home there are Anti-war protesters protesting against the war and we all need to stop killing the terrorists and let them do what ever they want so we can all come home now even though these Anti-war protesters will spit in your faces and call you baby killers, just be proud to be an American." Anti-war protesters just want attention just like Cindy Shehan. Where is she now?

I believe that Michael Savage is right about liberalism. His book is good too called, "Liberalism is a Crazy disorder." Last time I said mental, my answer got deleted, so I put Crazy instead.

Answer 5

You may not understand the purpose of protesting if you think that it is about an angry mob attempting to pose a threat. It is not a question of a show of force suggesting that they are going to try to stage a coup if not listened to. The protest is used in a democratic society to show that at least a segment of the people that the government claims to represent do not believe their views are being taken into account. It is a show of numbers, not of force. You are right, the politicians these days do not take this into account, but in a system where the government did represent the will of the people, a protest could possibly have some influence.

Answer 6

Iraq War is a componant of Plutocratic capitalism. Protesting Iraq War is also a componant of Plutocratic capitalism. Criticizing Iraq War and Iraq War is also componant of Plutocratic capitalism. Answering this question also is -- nothing change for the better, and nothing can change Plutocratic capitalism. Let it be. Find out the direction opposite to Plutocratic capitalism -- and go, go, go away. People here exodus away from Plutocratic capitalism; http://sonyahome.blogspot.com/

Answer 7

Protesting in the streets is about as much good as a chocolate ladder in the western world,,but then again it worked in the Philippines and two presidents have been removed from power

Answer 8

Civil disobedience and the right to lawful assembly. It's the American way! If we don't exercise our rights, what good are they? If people are out protesting in the streets their voices get heard and Uncle Sam gets reminded who's boss.
Don't begrudge Americans their fundamental right to act the fool.

Answer 9

They did?

I didn't notice.

Most Americans support the war, but the media suppresses this fact.

Answer 10

It will embarrass democrats like the Mexican flag waving and badly harm their cause which is a good thing.