Whatever Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

Even Babble doesn't have a topic forum for Anti-war activism. There is LGBTO, anti-racism, feminism, sex workers, aboriginal, labour and youth plus "activism" under the heading "Walk the Walk".

Canadians need wars, good wars. Soon the poppy will bloom on every politicians jacket. That's Canada. We've made a pro-war poem, "In Flanders' Fields" our national ode.

For our population, our soldiers have killed and been killed more than the USA (except Civil War) or most other countries. Still the lie is repeated than Canada was saved from German invasion twice, by their sacrifice. (They died that we might live).

I observed that many of the former anti-war people, like Project Ploughshares, are now R2Pers (Responsibilty to Protect), humanitarian (military) interventionists. Witness two new books: Exporting Democracy by Bob Rae, and Intervene by Frank Chalk and Romeo Dallaire, our favourite warrier.

Don't miss the G&M's series on our military future, especially last Friday's front page.

Amen, Fidel.

Here are some answers, some very good answers, to this question:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/5028-bipartisan...

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/10/28/anti-interventionism-then-...

I have a question.

I hope I do not offend anyone.

It is not my intention to offend.

I have very little knowledge of Canadian history:

Does Canada have a rich "Canada First", anti-interventionist, antiwar tradition?

Did Canada's Founding Fathers pass this wisdom down the ages?

Canadians have had a rich anti-interventionist history, but our political leaders have not.  Our politicians were part of the British commonwealth command structure and so were always eager to assist the Brits in their wars.  Since our leaders became quasi-independent from the UK, they've been more than eager to send our young men and women to die for one cause or another as dictated by our PM and his hawkish cabinet.  Jean Cretien was thrilled to be able to assist Bush with the invasion of Afghanastan.  He would have helped in Iraq, too, if Bush had not told him to go take a hike and focus on Kandahar. 

Oh yes, Canadian leaders love war (Canadians hate it, but that doesn't matter).  They've sent soliders to the Congo, to Haiti, to Sudan, to Lebanon, Korea.  And I'm sure Harper is chomping at the bit to launch some other invasion in one country or another.  Maybe Pakistan or Iran is next?

Jingles wrote:

Quote:

It died when the ITT world arrived, and twenty-somethings could sit on their arse and write about it, instead of participating...in anything.

Whaddya mean? Didn't the twenty-somethings elect the "peace" candidate, constitutional scholar, and community organizing dynamo to the White House? Isn't that enough? I mean, who needs a movement when you can vote Democratic?

I think you're joking (right?)  I presume you are referring to the Nobel Peace Prize winning Prez of the US, the very guy who sent 30,000 more troops into Afghanastan in the name of, um, peace?  The same guy who has commanded the use of Predator drones to kill hundreds of individuals in Pakistan?  Right.  Nothing worth fighting for here.  Move along :)

George Victor wrote:

It died when the ITT world arrived, and twenty-somethings could sit on their arse and write about it, instead of participating...in anything. 

I don't know about that.  The internet was pretty useful to mobilise us to get out and march against the invasion of Iraq.

A depressing memory of those marches is hearing the older folks alongside us hesitantly start singing "We Shall Overcome," as if they were either reliving their salad days, or doing what they thought they should be doing at a protest because they saw it on TV.

Iwant Liberty wrote:

Canadians have had a rich anti-interventionist history, but our political leaders have not.  Our politicians were part of the British commonwealth command structure and so were always eager to assist the Brits in their wars.  Since our leaders became quasi-independent from the UK, they've been more than eager to send our young men and women to die for one cause or another as dictated by our PM and his hawkish cabinet.  Jean Cretien was thrilled to be able to assist Bush with the invasion of Afghanastan.  He would have helped in Iraq, too, if Bush had not told him to go take a hike and focus on Kandahar. 

Oh yes, Canadian leaders love war (Canadians hate it, but that doesn't matter).  They've sent soliders to the Congo, to Haiti, to Sudan, to Lebanon, Korea.  And I'm sure Harper is chomping at the bit to launch some other invasion in one country or another.  Maybe Pakistan or Iran is next?

Bloody right there's a need to "get personal" with crap like this appearing on babble.

Iwant Liberty wrote:

Canadians have had a rich anti-interventionist history, but our political leaders have not.  Our politicians were part of the British commonwealth command structure and so were always eager to assist the Brits in their wars.  Since our leaders became quasi-independent from the UK, they've been more than eager to send our young men and women to die for one cause or another as dictated by our PM and his hawkish cabinet.

Oh yes, Canadian leaders love war (Canadians hate it, but that doesn't matter).  They've sent soliders to... Korea.

Now wait a minute.

Iwant Liberty might have a point here.

The U.S.A. first got into the empire business in the Spanish American War.

Canada fought in a war at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century (the same time as the Spanish American War), the Boer War (1898-1902.)

The Boer War was Britain's last colonial war. It was fought at the zenith of the British Empire.

Canadian governments from the past have referred to Canada as having two distinct cultures and languages; English and French.

If this is the case, then did Quebecers resist/oppose/speak out against the Boer War?

Did Quebecers "buy into" the First World, the Second World and the Korean Wars?

Could this be the basis of Canada's anti-interventionist, antiwar tradition, or did I enter an intellectual deadend culdesac that leads to nowhere?

Iwant Liberty wrote:

No need to get personal.  Here is a quote I found from the Global Policy forum, 2003:

"We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing... If there has to be military activity in Iraq, we want it to be approved by the U.N. Security Council."

All Cretien wanted was the "green light" from the U.N. He would have been more than happy to go full-bore and send more Canadian kids to their deaths en masse all in the name of peace.

Are you claiming the quote above in some way substantiates your claim that Chretien would have delighted in sending young Canadians to their death? If so, there's plenty of reason to 'get personal' with you.

I can't believe the shit we put up with around here lately.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Are you claiming the quote above in some way substantiates your claim that Chretien would have delighted in sending young Canadians to their death? If so, there's plenty of reason to 'get personal' with you.

I can't believe the shit we put up with around here lately.

To support our politicians' demands for sending kids to their death in unjustified invasions is hardly progressive.  In my view Cretien's readiness to send-in soldiers was  reprehensible.  I give Jack Layton credit because he was openly opposed to the invasion of Afghanastan & Iraq.  The leaders of the Liberals and Conservatives enjoy war, and history has proven that. 

A previous post stated that the vast majority of Canadians want our soldiers out of Afghanastan, and yet we're still there.  What a travesty.

Objecting to outright lies about the Liberals now constitutes 'support'?

Surprising that no one here has mentioned that the role of the mainstream media. The above poll, if mentioned at all, will be buried in the back pages of your newspaper, and is unlikely to even make it onto a news broadcast. If it does, it will be 'balanced' by a matching-length pro-war piece on that day - and the following day, the next pro-war piece will not require 'balance' by the facts.

Anti-war protests are ignored and belittled. Numbers are consistently under-reported by a huge percentage, and any coverage is guaranteed to be given to the wackiest fringe participants. Mockery is the name of the game, so that the average person does not want to be associated, regardless of their personal beliefs.

The right-wing takeover of our media is a triumph of propaganda, though paradoxically a total business failure.

Quote:

Surprising that no one here has mentioned that the role of the mainstream media.

I don't think it should surprise anyone; the mainstream media have been the enemy since at least the days when they fired up Orangemen to come here and kill Louis Riel.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

The Boer War was Britain's last colonial war. It was fought at the zenith of the British Empire.

 

The British Empire fought in Africa during the Great War (it stole colonies from the Kaiser then) and managed to aquire most of the Levant at the same time. We're still payng for that one.

 

They fought pretty hard in WWII to hang on to Egypt, but not so much for Hong Kong (you could ask vets of the Winnipeg Grenadiers about Canadian involvement in protecting the British Empire) and Singapore. Before leaving chaos behind them, the English kept a running fight with Palestinians and Indians during the 30s and 40s as well.

The additional "colonies" Britain (and France) acquired after WW I were mandates they gave themselves through the League of Nations.

World War I was the end of the Age of Empire, the beginning of the decline of the British (and French) empire(s) and the rise of independence movements in the colonies.

After WW I, it was a case of stymieing independence movements and attempting to hold onto empire. After World War II, Britain, France, Holland, Belgium (and later Portugal in the 1970s) fought neo-colonial wars against independence/nationalist movements where they ended up losing their former colonies and empires.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21766][color=blue]... Anti-war Activism. The "Humanitarian Road" Towards an all out Nuclear War?[/color][/url]

globalresearch.ca wrote:

THE ACTUAL QUOTE:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. ...

Warshington Post promoting war to relieve unemployment and improve US economy.

Thanks for the bump.

I've just read this thread for the first time. The hysterical denunciations of a babbler for daring to suggest that Jean Chretien was not a man of peace are absolutely shameful!

There will be an antiwar mobilization in many cities in North America on April 9. Contact your local organization for details.

http://www.nowar.ca/

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

...and the results are even worse for the colony of the empire run by Stephen Harper.

... and HRM queen Lizzie.

I say throw both the bums out.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

The Boer War was Britain's last colonial war. It was fought at the zenith of the British Empire.

There was also this little event, which I am sure they would be happy to forget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising

For that matter, the Falklands War was a colonial war.

Indeed. Don't forget the Malaya War (1945-1960) and others I'm sure.

The last colonial war fought at the zenith (not decline or after the end of) the British Empire.

These weren't wars to colonize these regions. Kenya and Malaya had already been colonized. These were wars of liberation and independence.

Argentina could have got the Falkland/Maldives too if they had taken their case to the U.N. rather than fought a war over it.

Nothing like a good little (short, not too bloody, costly) victorious imperial war to shore up flagging support for the British crown, huh?

NDPP wrote:

Sorry, the UN is a fixed-game cesspool and the sooner we realize that the better. How many times do you have to watch this organization do the dirty before it sinks in?

That's what happens when the executive branch, the five member Permanent Security Council, makes all the "important" (non-negotiable) decisions, where three of the (permanent) members are the U.S.A., the U.K. and France.

Talk of American exceptionalism.

Without the U.N. and international laws (many under U.N. auspicies) then there probably wouldn't be many laws outlawing wars of aggression and regime change.

Although, sadly, when the U.S. doesn't get its way, it simply ignores the U.N.

At least the potential to hold the U.S.A. accountable, bring some Americans responsible for gross violations of international law to trial and to curb the U.S.A.'s illegal foreign actions, is there.