Where Is The Anti-War MyLotters?

gewcew Interesting. Anti-war what exactly is it? Am I right in saying that is a lobby against war full stop? Am I also right in saying that it is more prevalent BEFORE war and GOING INTO WAR for exactly the reasons the protestor is opposed? But once a stubborn nation goes to war, and it does not go plan, does it not create a mess? Not to mention the countless thousands of HUMAN lives regardless of race, nation, occupation or gender. When this mess is created, and the protestors are silenced, then what else can be done? The protestors will say, well we warned you? Who is listening? Specifically, 1 million + marched in the streets of London against the Iraq war, what was Tony Blair's response, '1million people on streets of London will not be comparable to Saddam Hussein if we let him carry on...'. He joined forces with Bush creating mayhem and disorder in these countries and fueled the cycle of hate which subsequently resulted in the London and Madrid bombings. But the mess of Afghanistan and Iraq are before us, and we also have the Israel issue. This was inherited by Obama and not necessarily the making of Bush. But a mess is mess, it has to be cleaned up. But I am not sure America is capable of cleaning it up whoever is in charge. America does not understand one thing - ALL avenues of peace must be exhausted before contemplation of war is even considered. America should be bigger with intent of peace and should not be so gunho about some small groups trying to attack with meagre cowardly tactics. I must ask all Americans, when a few twisted individuals carry out cowardly attacks, why are Americans wasting so much money and time, risking their own soldiers for mere gnat attacks for which their military superiority can literally destroy the world? Slaves are made in such ways, but if peace is the desire then Americans must marginilise the terrorists by reaching out to all peace lovers. Even in Pakistan, where terrorist bombs are a normality now, many Pakistani's see Hilary Clinton's visit as self defeating. They see the Americans as the cause rather than the solution. Why is that?? Americans must also ask, why many countries' populations are against American 'help'.. once these questions are answered and moves to change US likability in the world, then the hardcore groups will dwindle to insignificant idiots. Sympathy would shift to the American cause, but America has to very non-arrogant to be able to accept such sympathy - but it is crucial for world peace and security for the WHOLE world, not just America.

Because they were never against the war. This proves it. THey were against Bush. Now that Obama is in office...war is fine. If they were truely against the war...then they would be protesting Obama now like they protested Bush then.

It's a tired subject. Now that there isn't a republican in the office, no one has anything to complain about. Its the nature of talking politics on the internet. It may also have something to do with the quality of posts going down...

You may be right. Now it's Obama's war, and it's all good. I've posted my thoughts on some conservative blogs (several of Breitbart's sites) on keeping the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least as long as we've kept troops in Germany and Japan, and I get shot down with gusto. Now that Obama's in office, it seems more conservatives are against the war now than liberals. Personally, I think the troops need to win in both countries. Build some solid allies in a traditionally anti-American locale--it would be good for our safety here.

Well I think with the passing of the Bush presidency, much of the anger against the wars has gone, at least for now - particularly as those opposed to the wars are prepared to give Obama some time to sort out things. Him declaring that he will pull out of Iraq by end 2011 has no doubt taken the political sting out of things, but in my view that is a very extended withdrawal timetable that could leave Obama hostage to fortune - the stability brought about by the 2007 surge could easily be reversed as we have seen this week, it would be better to leave now whilst the US can claim to be ahead - wait too long and things might easily turn for the worse once more. On Afghanistan I supported the reasons for going to war at the time. One of the reasons why I opposed the Iraq war however is that is unnecessarily opened up a second front: the result was that as America concentrated its resources on sorting out the Iraqi fallout, Afghanistan was left to fester. The result is now clear for all to see. Obama is right to refocus US effort on Afghanistan, where it should always have been in the first place. The problem he now faces however is that 1) the Taliban are now resurgent and have used the opportunity of the Iraqi distraction to rebuild their strength and 2) the US public is war - weary and therefore is chary of committing more troops and money to Afghanistan. And a third difficulty he now has is that Karzai and the Afghan politicans are making a right mess of things - one cannot have military success without political stability as well. In my view, Afghanistan is similar to what Iraq was in early 2007, when I supported the surge back then as a last chance saloon to sort that mess out (being against a war does not mean agreeing to pulling out irresponsibly, I ascribe to the view that if you go to war and break the china shop, you then own that shop and it is your duty to fix it unless it becomes clear that it is impossible to succeed - only then do you withdraw and not before). Therefore, however unpalatable, Obama is going to have to face down his own party and order increased troop levels to try and sort things out. The political instability in Afghanistan hasn't helped things as Obama is wary to commit extra troops without clarification of the Afghani political situation. Nevertheless, he will have to come round to a surge soon, by the end of the year at the latest. But what he should also do at the political level, and this is critical, is split the enemy - isolate Al-Quaida from the Taliban and split the Taliban between the unreconcilables on the one hand and the more 'moderate' Taleban on the other (ie those Taleban who just want US troops off Afghani soil and don't want a world-wide Islamic Caliphate like the Al-Quaida crowd). If he does this, then there is a chance, no more than that, that some form of political stability will return to Afghanistan as it did to Iraq in 2008. Having said all this, any surge in Afghanistan, coupled with a 'divide and rule' strategy as far as the Taliban/Al-Quaida are concerned, has only a limited timeframe, probably 2 years, within which to succeed.

I think it is because they (for the most part) were more against Bush than the war. Not all mind you, just for the most part.

Unfortunately, to all who respond to this, the discusser has already a forgone conclusion - mylotters can only have a war-like attitude - pathetic for a facilitator.

Hmmm... I am a pacifist and constantly express my "anti-war" beliefs here on mylot. I don't think that Obama is going to eliminate war, but I do think that his approach to diplomacy is on the right track and that his efforts to strengthen the peace corps are commendable. On the same note, he certainly didn't deserve the nobel peace prize, and the blood of many innocent people will be on his administration.