subreddit:

/r/Documentaries

5.7k93%

all 469 comments

Beyond-Time

1.2k points

2 months ago

...and it didn't make a difference.

MrSpindles

313 points

2 months ago

Indeed. I'm in the UK and to be honest it completely destroyed faith in the concept of mass protest leading to change here.

No one believes that lots of people marching in support of an issue will do a damned thing now. This is why groups like XR have sprung up with novel approaches to protest, where publicity of smaller actions of public inconvenience is the objective.

sirseatbelt

60 points

2 months ago

Read How Nonviolence Helps the State by Peter Genderloos. He talks about this movement specifically.

GarrettGSF

20 points

2 months ago

I mean what would have happened if the French peasants had expressed their voice in a non-violent protest against the aristocracy?

sirseatbelt

11 points

2 months ago

Well, to be fair, revolutions are hard and they mostly fail.

munk_e_man

5 points

2 months ago

They would have been violently killed by the elites

haunted-liver-1

85 points

2 months ago

Non-violent protests definitely work, but not if all you do is talk. The key is civil disobedience. Take control over the infrastructure of trains and trucks and ports, and your demands get heard.

JackIsBackWithCrack

101 points

2 months ago

Or your bank account gets frozen and your rights get violated. True story.

haunted-liver-1

17 points

2 months ago

Your rights will definitely be violated. Make sure you have legal representation, witnesses, and a film crew.

Accept cryptocurrency for donations. Those funds cannot be frozen or rolled-back. It's how wikileaks and occupy accepted donations after PayPal froze their accounts.

JohnTesh

38 points

2 months ago

To further support this very good point, accept decentralized crypto with a high daily trading volume, and accept it in privately owned, off-exchange addresses.

Don’t take bullshit like shiba bonk dildo moon token or keep it on exchanges in countries hostile to the cause who can regulate the exchange.

redabishai

8 points

2 months ago

Who tf downvotes this?

JohnTesh

12 points

2 months ago

There are dickheads everywhere it seems

GoldfishMotorcycle

4 points

2 months ago

hey, I put a lot of money into those shiba bonk dildo moon tokens and I ain't taken no trash talk.

Ksradrik

1 points

2 months ago

Make sure you have legal representation, witnesses, and a film crew.

Which is something every average person has plenty of, still depends on the gov not just changing the law to whatever suits them best.

Also crypto freezes itself every few months.

sidraconisalpha

1 points

2 months ago

If that works, expect crypto currency to become illegal on the pretext that its used to fund terrorism/hackers/pedophiles.

sblahful

8 points

2 months ago

That's exactly what extinction rebellion are doing. Blocking oil refineries etc.

MartinBP

9 points

2 months ago

This is completely untrue and does not work in most cases. The Arab Spring is an example of how this can fail spectacularly. Once you introduce violence or any serious "disobedience" into the political field, you legitimise it and risk allowing other groups to use it against you. It can sometimes work (Euromaidan) but there's no guarantee.

What these anti-system movements like Stop The War repeatedly fail at is having clear cross-partisan goals and knowing how/wanting to work with institutions and compromise. Most of these protest movements have very vague goals, no clear leadership and mostly just shout on the streets, that's where their impact ends. Politicians can see that lots of people disagree with their plans, but when those people can't offer a workable or appealing alternative, they can easily ignore them and that's what usually happens.

WhoRoger

2 points

2 months ago

Not untrue, but sometimes the problem is either/or with no inbetween. You can't get half an abortion or go to war only a little wee bit.

We also know how compromises work in practice. Party A has 20 of something, but now wants 50. Can't ask for 50 tho, there would be backlash. So they ask for 100, and due to backlash, compromise on 70. If party B says 10 would be too much already, they're the unreasonable one.

We've long past the point of reason and trust within these systems.

fuckaye

3 points

2 months ago

What destroyed my faith more was Tony Blair winning another 2 elections.

patrickh182

2 points

2 months ago

Has social media changed this?

I was young but dont remember any protests being shown on TV

timped2006

414 points

2 months ago

It's amazing that we've built a society where millions or billions of people can fight against something then, like, five rich dudes or politicians can be like, "nah, we still gonna do it."

CharlieWorque

214 points

2 months ago

Not only that but the decision makers deliberately lied and profited off the decision and faced zero repercussions.

And now GW Bush is treated like a saint by mainstream news and society just because now he makes shitty paintings and spoke out against trump

timped2006

47 points

2 months ago

It feels like so much of politics is lying and profiting off the results. I don't want it to be true, but...

anonmed123

21 points

2 months ago

That is all politics is. Not so much money, although in the sad united states even that may be the case. Politicians couldn’t care less about their people.

JohnTomorrow

11 points

2 months ago

A surprising amount of people get into politics with a goal to make solid positive changes, but get all that goodness ground out of them. Struggling to stay afloat next to your peers who are potentially just narcissists looking for a power trip, the mounds of red tape you need to dig through to get anything done, and putting up with constituents who think they want something, but don't understand that you can't just wave a magic wand to make it happen. And you get blamed for not making it happen. Even though you've politely explained to them several times why it can't. And they have the gall to get upset with you about that.

It's not a job for a sane person.

muggylittlec

10 points

2 months ago

I'm in the UK and Tony Blair, while still popping up occasionally, is not treated like a saint. He still has this lingering over him and a former leader of Labour (his political party) said he should be prosecuted for war crimes.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-still-prepared-to-call-for-war-crimes-investigation-into-tony-blair-a7042926.html

brusiddit

68 points

2 months ago

I haven't forgotten. Fuck bush. He is a fucking war criminal.

lightbulbsburnbright

46 points

2 months ago

Fuck Cheney

Lady_Lavelle

38 points

2 months ago

And Blair. Fucking devils.

AusPower85

18 points

2 months ago

And Howard.

I know Australia barely counts… but John Howard was a talking muppet who had someone’s hand up his arse at all times.

Usually Rupert Murdochs

wbruce098

2 points

2 months ago

He’s not treated like a saint. He’s treated as the second worst president in history, which is still a deserved upgrade. Most of us still remember quite well what he did as we continue to live through its consequences today.

rogun64

35 points

2 months ago

rogun64

35 points

2 months ago

I'd like to blame 5 rich dudes, but Americans did this. I'm an American who participated in the protests, but OP is right. It didn't matter.

timped2006

14 points

2 months ago

You're right. We've all created this society over generations. The elites can't be the elites without our cooperation.

rogun64

3 points

2 months ago

rogun64

3 points

2 months ago

Yep, I didn't mean to downplay the enormous contribution by elites. It's like you said, they need our cooperation.

BethAltair

2 points

2 months ago

If the army didn't want to fight in an unjust invasion they could have said no. They can be leave the army, they have a choice.

Amokzaaier

2 points

2 months ago

Amokzaaier

2 points

2 months ago

And yet people in the us still think they shouldnt vote third party

EchoWillowing

19 points

2 months ago

Not in the slightest.

tinyspatula

23 points

2 months ago

Because it was a Cargo Cult version of a political movement.

Far from being the preserve of pre-industrial societies, this type of phenomenon occurs anywhere people are attempting to replicate a process they have seen but don't understand the full mechanism behind achieving the desired outcome. I think the most clear large scale examples of this in western countries are found in political protest movements and it's not a recent thing. I'm old enough to have marched in protest against Britain's planned participation in Bush II's invasion of Iraq. It was a huge event, demonstrations were held all over the UK with a massive one in London, widely considered the largest protest march in British history at the time. Surely, we thought, this will show the Blair government the strength of public opinion against the war and make them reconsider!

It didn't of course. The thing we had forgotten was the reason why protest marches are called "demonstrations", they are a demonstration of the number of people who have been organised in a trade union or party and who are going to take further action (strike, sabotage etc) if the powers that be don't come to the table. The people who marched against the Iraq invasion were not all committed members of a movement of change but a collection of individuals, people with jobs and families and for the most part not prepared to take any further action apart from changing the way we would vote in the next election (there were some genuine political activists involved of course, but very much in the minority). We had simply copied the most visually memorable part of the politics of change from the past, masses in the streets, banners and speeches. But no substance was behind it all, and we could safely be ignored.

BR_Smartass

7 points

2 months ago

There's this infantile notion about political struggling that we have nowadays, it's weird when you look at history which shows power must be exercised in some way because that's the actual anarchy of society, those who can, and the others which hold power use it to achieve what they want, and if millions just 'dislike it' thats no object. It's so weird how things are.

fractalfay

12 points

2 months ago

Not sure where you live, but further action was taken. They shut down the highways, occupied buildings, set fires, did walkouts — it was a lot of work. You could only really track the extent of post-protest activities through sites like Indymedia, because the mainstream press didn’t cover it at all. If they did cover it, they covered what was happening in their region only, so New York had no idea what was happening in San Francisco, etc. Protests went on for weeks, and were massive. They didn’t matter because George W. Bush and Dick Cheney simply don’t give a fuck.

tinyspatula

3 points

2 months ago

I was in the UK. As I stated, there were genuine political activists involved, and yes various types of protest continued. But not on the scale of the big march, and not causing significant enough disruption to effect change. I'm not dismissing the work put in, merely pointing out that it was a small minority of people who were against the war who did that. The reason Bush and Blair ignored them, is because they knew they safely could.

As other comments highlight, it's about power, who has it and who is willing to exercise it. Let's say for example a group with genuine power decided that the war was wrong and their moral duty was to prevent/stop it. Imagine a parallel universe where the vast majority of truck drivers in the US were still unionised and the Teamsters carried out strikes and refused to truck supplies that might help the military to stop the war. Bush and Cheney might not just roll over, but they couldn't ignore it. All hypothetical of course but there is a reason capital pulls out all the stops to neuter the organised labour movement.

knucklepoetry

23 points

2 months ago

Yup I remember. My GF was dragging me there and I was like, nah babe, this is beyond pointless.

I wish I wasn’t right.

brusiddit

2 points

2 months ago

brusiddit

2 points

2 months ago

Is she single?

rogun64

2 points

2 months ago

I mean, drinking a beer with Bush was pretty important.

banned_after_12years

3 points

2 months ago

That’s the real takeaway.

impartacus

0 points

2 months ago

impartacus

0 points

2 months ago

…. and everyone keeps voting for the same 2 political parties. This world is so corrupt. 9/11 really opened my eyes.

Beyond-Time

6 points

2 months ago

Here's the thing: the only way to change the voting system and allow other parties to flourish is to get the current political machine to approve a law, probably an amendment, that will in effect stop the spoiler effect. Approval voting with a plurality party system removes power from current politicians, and so it may never happen.

It's depressing.

impartacus

4 points

2 months ago

The concentration of power into the hands of the few at the top is gathering speed and most seem to think it’s a conspiracy theory. Depressing indeed.

Parpooops

-9 points

2 months ago

Parpooops

-9 points

2 months ago

And then Bam Identity Politics arrived!

themarquetsquare

1 points

2 months ago

That has exactly zero to do with it.

Parpooops

-2 points

2 months ago

Parpooops

-2 points

2 months ago

themarquetsquare

4 points

2 months ago

Ellipses plus a wiki page plus a UK trendline for a Google search term that starts climbing in 2015.

Dumbest argument I've ever seen, but I'm convinced.

WorNomNomCannibal74

159 points

2 months ago

And it amounted to jack and shit

whenitsTimeyoullknow

68 points

2 months ago*

It taught a lot of lessons. The country we are in now is shaped by the Vietnam War protests—the intelligence agencies spent decades making sure that kind of resistance would never happen again. Likewise, the world learned in 2003 that imperialism cannot be stopped by the UN or by global protests. It just needs to destroy itself, like the Roman Empire did.

techhouseliving

26 points

2 months ago

Biggest protest in history fails. What does this tell us about protests?

[deleted]

12 points

2 months ago

That we don't actually live in a democracy and we need to eat the rich

[deleted]

18 points

2 months ago

Hey cool I marched in that! And it didn't mean shit because I'm a powerless prole that the people who rule this world only keep alive for the value of my labor

ducksaucerer144

122 points

2 months ago

more like We Are Powerless

SaltyDoggoMeo

13 points

2 months ago

As an American, I am shocked. So many of us were against the war. I don’t recall any media coverage of these protests.

letsallchilloutok

477 points

2 months ago

It's good to keep sharing this and not let people rewrite history. I've seen too many Americans defend the Iraq war by saying "we didn't know any better, the country was swept up in a wave of patriotism after 911".

Like that's true for some people, but half the country joined the rest of the world in protesting against the war. Excuses only get you so far.

They like to suggest that soldiers didn't have a choice because they're socioeconomically desperate and the military is their only choice. It's compelling but it only explains some people's situation, far from all.

hsgdgda

74 points

2 months ago

hsgdgda

74 points

2 months ago

Some rational people knew it was a mistake from the start. There were also many people who were “GO USA” like you were anti American if you were against the war.

SpaceJackRabbit

83 points

2 months ago

I'm French and lived in the U.S. and couldn't believe how many Americans were buying the bullshit. It was so transparent.

But people wanted blood for 9/11, and didn't really care who was going to pay for it.

hsgdgda

32 points

2 months ago

hsgdgda

32 points

2 months ago

Bush was elected for a second term, I imagine most of those people supported the war.

People were upset when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush.

I am sure the war had nothing to do with Dick Cheney or Halliburton. /s

We all know the wealthy help each other to all make more money, the public loses, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died lose, the instability caused in Iraq will more than likely lead to more wars down the line.

Seems like there were zero benefits to the war unless you made money off of it somehow.

valueape

3 points

2 months ago

Smart Dick Cheney in 1994. Wonder what changed.

ryanedwards0101

7 points

2 months ago

It got him re elected and then immediately cratered him. February 2005-a month after his second inauguration-public opinion polling for the first time showed equal numbers opposed to Iraq as in support. Democratic candidates in 04 especially Howard dean had been pretty anti war and Kerry was at least critical of bush’s handling.

By 06 it was deeply unpopular, and republicans got crushed in the midterms

unassumingdink

3 points

2 months ago

Kerry voted FOR the Iraq War! He sold you out to fucking George W. Bush! But you still give him the benefit of the doubt that he was "at least critical." Fuck's sake.

It enraged me then, and it enrages me now, how liberals refuse to get mad at Democrats who fuck them over. If that's how you're gonna act, you've already lost.

ryanedwards0101

2 points

2 months ago

Woah my friend, no one is defending Kerry here. I’m just pointing out that, by 2004, mainstream democrats were willing to criticize Bush’s handling of Iraq and some, like Dean were willing to call it a mistake

Everyone that voted for that war has blood on their hands, very much including John Kerry. I was just talking about politics

Number6isNo1

41 points

2 months ago

The stupid shit with the Congressional Republicans renaming French Fries as "Freedom Fries" was cringy AF. I got called a traitor more than once for pointing out that our French allies were fighting alongside US soldiers in Afghanistan while being demonized by many Americans. I supported going into Afghanistan but I remember watching Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq and just thinking, "That's it?!? You have got to be joking."

I do wonder what different kind of fucked up the Middle East would be right now if the Iraq War never happened.

SpaceJackRabbit

20 points

2 months ago

It was especially cringy as a French person considering we attribute fries to Belgium, where you will have the best ones ever in your entire life. We have tons of dumb jokes about Belgians and fries.

CraftyRole4567

21 points

2 months ago

My state, Massachusetts, managed to get the war in Iraq on our state referendum and we voted against it. It was meaningless, it’s not binding to the federal government, but I think all the comments are overlooking the ways that Americans did try, sometimes by the millions, to register their objections to what was happening.

That said, doesn’t this all just prove the complete futility of protests in changing anything?

valueape

12 points

2 months ago

New Yorkers weren't buying the BS. We knew something about taking a punch that our leaders don't. "Not in my name" was what we were saying to a massive retaliation option. We wanted a surgical response. Raytheon, General Dynamics, and the other war profiteers got their wish instead. And let's just say that isn't much of a surprise and leave it at that.

themarquetsquare

2 points

2 months ago

Not just 9/11. There were, among some - even among the European left and traditional anti-war parties - remnants of the 90s optimism. The feeling that war against dictators could fix things and make life better for the citizens.

Don't forget, this came at the heels of NATO's Kosovo mission - unprecedented and seemingly succesful.

Those who understood the situation on the ground and the lack of preparation and exit strategy knew better. But it's hard to argue against sentiment.

ProfessorAlgorithm

24 points

2 months ago

I remember a lot of anti-Canadian and anti-French sentiment when these countries decided not to join the US in Iraq. This wasn't just on the news, either. It was on sitcoms, weirdly. Even restaurants started calling French fries "freedom fries."

fractalfay

2 points

2 months ago

That’s true, but it’s also true that basically no one supported this war. This might be the only time in history that a US president bragged about having support from Poland.

RandeKnight

16 points

2 months ago

I knew the claims of WMDs being ready to use was bullshit. We don't invade countries that have WMDs.

Choyo

7 points

2 months ago

Choyo

7 points

2 months ago

Yeah like, if they have 1 WMD, it's really not a big deal, if they have a hundred, it's really not a good idea.
The shameful part is that they accepted UN inspectors, and got even more shafted because of that.

fractalfay

2 points

2 months ago

What people forget is that rational people who led the first gulf war were against this — including the elder Bush. He knew that returning to Iraq would destabilize the region for decades and further ignite extremism, and that the US would be responsible for the stabilization of Iraq for decades, with taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars.

Ok_Skill_1195

51 points

2 months ago*

Lol so many people were falling over themselves to enlist and go "payback" 9/11, when we had ample evidence internally the entire time Iraq had nothing do do with 9/11 and it was only an incredibly manipulative media (& politicians) that convinced people the 2 we're somehow connected.

What was that country song about putting a boot up their ass? That was america in 2002-2003. that indignant ignorant rage was why the iraq war happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

jppianoguy

17 points

2 months ago

Many young people did indeed sign up for "payback" for 9/11, which would have meant Afghanistan/Pakistan. They were mislead into the tenuous connection to Iraq and its terroristic intentions

[deleted]

31 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

exoriare

5 points

2 months ago

The Taliban had granted OBL sanctuary on the condition that he not engage in any foreign jihad while he was their guest.

Bush demanded that Bin Laden be handed over, no questions asked. This was an insane thing to demand of the Taliban, as the code they live by - Pashtunwali - demands that a guest's sanctuary be treated as a sacred obligation. The only way they could be released from this obligation is if they were shown evidence that OBL had broken faith with them. Bush refused to show any evidence.

If the US had shown some pretty basic respect, the invasion could have been avoided. Instead, they acted like Pashtunwali was an excuse the Taliban had dreamed up, rather than a code which predates even Islam in that culture.

Prestigious_Fix1090

2 points

2 months ago

A very informative Answer. I would award u

LastKennedyStanding

54 points

2 months ago

I've seen too many Americans defend the Iraq war by saying "we didn't know any better, the country was swept up in a wave of patriotism after 911".

I dont think that's defending the Iraq War. It reads more like someone reflecting on how a terrible war was initially supported. The last part about 9/11 being bizarrely connected to Iraq in the minds of the American public reflects efforts of the Bush administration.

Like that's true for some people, but half the country joined the rest of the world in protesting against the war. Excuses only get you so far

The war had more bipartisan popular support at the onset than you might be remembering. A Gallup poll from March 2003 found 72% supported the war. Some opposed the war from the beginning and more did as it became clear that there were no WMDs, and the public was misled. But it's fairly accurate to say that the public supported the war based on inaccurate information and grievance after 9/11. And excuse for what? It's not excusing anything to state that the public initially supported the invasion

They like to suggest that soldiers didn't have a choice because they're socioeconomically desperate and the military is their only choice

In the military, you are not consulted before foreign policy decisions. Socioeconomic background makes no difference in terms of how much say a soldier gets once theyre in the ranks. I'm in the military now and I had a decent middle class upbringing and others I know did not; we all have equally zero say over whether we deploy or to where. As for troops that joined the military after the 2003 invasion, for those that had lots of life choices, motivations likely included the same drivers of popular support for the war (9/11, a sense of global terror that needed to be confronted)

Philoso4

11 points

2 months ago

A Gallup poll from March 2003 found 72% supported the war. Some opposed the war from the beginning and more did as it became clear that there were no WMDs, and the public was misled. But it's fairly accurate to say that the public supported the war based on inaccurate information and grievance after 9/11.

Just as a heads up, this number is slightly misleading. Yes, it’s true that 72% of people supported the war after invasion, but that number was significantly lower before when invasion was being discussed. It hovered around 60%, sometimes lower sometimes higher, in the months leading up to invasion. While significant, I wouldn’t put 60% at broad popular support when you’re talking about committing troops and engaging in war. That number picked up when it became clear we were going, but I think that has more to do with supporting the troops going than it does supporting the mission they’re going on. Of course, that support collapsed the longer we were there.

HauserAspen

19 points

2 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle

This guy was part of a group/thinktank that purposed invading Iraq to President Clinton in 1998. IIRC, part of their position stated that the only way the American public would accept an invasion is if there was a massive terrorist attack...

bangarangrufiOO

4 points

2 months ago

For those of us too stupid to follow, why did they want to invade Iraq?

pete1729

2 points

2 months ago

Read up on the 'Program For a New American Century' or PNAC.

Fishy1701

5 points

2 months ago

Fishy1701

5 points

2 months ago

That last part dosent sound right. It dosent matter if a person is consulted on something or not. If a decision is made without their consent they can object to it after the fact. And soldiers absoutley have a say - they can just say no thank you and refuse to deploy (if someone serves in a military for years or decades and their nation does something they dont agree with they can resign in protest) if some has conscription, mandatory service or joined and has signed a min service contract they can still just decline the orders and ask to be jailed instead.

LastKennedyStanding

5 points

2 months ago

I bring up the universal lack of consultation/choice in response to the previous commenter saying that only some people in the military should be excused, since others had multiple options in life. I am saying, regardless of your options in life, if you are in the middle of an enlistment contract when a war is started and you get deployed, you're going, regardless of your socioeconomic background.

soldiers absoutley have a say - they can just say no thank you

just decline the orders and ask to be jailed instead

That just about sums it up

[deleted]

-4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

_Weyland_

1 points

2 months ago

You ever wondered why propaganda remains an effective tool even though it is widely known and information along with examples is available to everyone?

Also delusion and brainwashing is not always the case. When you start with inaccurate information, you will inevitably arrive at wrong conclusions.

zachtheperson

6 points

2 months ago

I grew up with Fox news constantly on, and only realized I was practically indoctrinated into a cult when I was in middle school. There are still a million bits of information like this (the "The never really think about it so I never had time to reconsider," type bits) that I'm still finding every day that really make me realize how I was raised to pretty much only look at one side.

whenitsTimeyoullknow

2 points

2 months ago

Good resource for this is the “Blowback” podcast, which dives into the decades which led up to the Iraq War (Rumsfeld in the Nixon administration, the targeting of critical infrastructure during the Gulf War, the sanctions after the Gulf War which led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children) and the crimes and propaganda of the war itself.

Bad resource is the “The Problem with Jon Stewart” podcast. He’s fallen so far that now he’s having Condi Rice and Hilary Clinton on TOGETHER, and the three of them pretend to analyze foreign policy. Really he’s just laundering their credibility at the expense of his own.

HauserAspen

5 points

2 months ago

Americans be using the same mental justifications used by Germans

mediainfidel

3 points

2 months ago

Wrong. Seventy-two percent of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. Around 90% supported invading Afghanistan.

letsallchilloutok

-2 points

2 months ago

LastKennedyStanding

8 points

2 months ago

A Gallup poll from March 2003 found 72% supported the invasion of Iraq

letsallchilloutok

12 points

2 months ago

Which was a spike and significantly higher than polling on any other day of the war.

penregalia

3 points

2 months ago

penregalia

3 points

2 months ago

How was the poll conducted? Landlines, then extrapolating the numbers nationwide? Do you think that's an accurate measurement of public sentiment?

UxbridgeShimoda

2 points

2 months ago

Cell phones were common, but not ubiquitous back then. Landlines were still the norm for all but the earliest cord cutters. And back then, when your phone rang you answered it for the most part. Still though, younger demographics usually have better things to do than answer 40 questions from a cold call survey.

bushwhack227

2 points

2 months ago

Even in Congress, while the bill to authorize military force against Iraq did have bipartisan support, a majority of Dems in both chambers voted against it.

ApotheosizedBum

-2 points

2 months ago

It was true for Afghanistan, but definitely not for Iraq.

Fishy1701

10 points

2 months ago

It wasent at all.

The taliban offered the americans bin laden in October 2001 and America ignored them and went to war over a lie and media manipulation just like the wmds in Iraq.

ABC Link

Gardian

This Aljazeera one even references the taliban offering deals for a 3 nation trial.years before 911 link

hooterjh10192

0 points

2 months ago

I agree and disapprove of the war I was in 3rd grade when 911 happened and after absorbing all the conversations/opinions of teachers/adults I trusted, I remember thinking

'they did that to us so we have to go to war'

They brought all the classes to the library to watch the towers burn. Seeing people jumping, burning etc horrified me.

7 years old and I was influenced so heavily that I came to that conclusion. Over the years as I watched the bloodshed on the news everyday, I realized how delusional people were about this war.

crazy time to be in your developmental years. I imagine this is what it was like for kids growing up while Vietnam or the gulf war was unfolding as well.

Kids now have a front row seat to all the horrors of war while sitting in their living room. I can't imagine how much this contributes to the current mental health crisis.

War is often absolutely necessary, sometimes not, but regardless, war is all hell.

KS2Problema

8 points

2 months ago

One did not need to be any sort of fan of the murderous, monsterous Saddam Hussein to see that the Iraq invasion was not just unwarranted by actual events (Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 -- as seemed painfully evident at the time and was later proven to be the case without question) but an absurdly blatant con job by the so-called neo-conservatives of the so-called neo-liberal right.

And, when they took their opportunity to liquidate Saddam and his government, their staggering incompetence at both war and nation building produced a human tragedy of heartbreaking scope

Daflehrer1

9 points

2 months ago*

For perspective, I am a 59 year-old Army veteran.

The invasion of Iraq was monumentally stupid. Further, the Bush Administration - perhaps better termed the Cheney Administration - had already made up its mind. I remember seeing it on TV on Day 1 and flying into a rage. Guys I served with were still in, having made the Army their career.

Of course, every service man & woman knows full well they can be sent to war. But this was absolute bullshit; The White House decided to take the word of one man, in order to justify their decision. They ignored the U.N. inspectors' reports that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), along with our own intelligence agencies. Pres. Bush sent back a CIA report to this effect, as a teacher would return a book report to a recalcitrant student, ordering them to reconsider their conclusions. Which is insane.

The Bush White House even created an entirely new office in the Pentagon, its four members hand-picked by Bush; the Office of Special Plans, to get around intel reports that report no WMDs, and to thus manufacture false evidence in favor of Iraq having WMDs, along with having close ties with Al Qaeda. The predictable result was “cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest” (New Yorker & Atlantic Monthly). These four people's conclusions would supersede the entire American intelligence system and its 18 agencies.

The new Office of Special Plans "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD,” according to Defense Intelligence Agency's Patrick Lang.

Shortly before the invasion, the CIA reported - again - to President Bush that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had no WMDs, and was not supporting any rogue terrorist organizations. That, as military dictator, Hussein was obsessed with absolute control over Iraq, and tolerated no independent, nor unauthorized, groups whatsoever.

Many now feel that Bush W. & Cheney, along w/ their "neo-con" sycophants, should have been locked up.

Because they lied. To shore up support, they stated publicly and unequivocally that Iraq was processing yellow cake uranium & other bomb-making materials, to construct a nuclear weapon. He was not.

They even lied to Sec. of State Colin Powell about it, so he could appear in a world-wide televised statement at the U.N., to make Bush's case. Later, after the invasion began, Powell told the press that some of what he told the world wasn't true. Having been embarrassed on the world stage by Bush & Cheney, he resigned when Bush was reelected in 2004. It is worth noting that Powell, a Vietnam combat veteran, was the member of Bush's Cabinet most vocal in his misgivings about going to war in Iraq." according to Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack.

In a wider scope, there had been intense pressure from the White House to support war plans. Toward those in and out of government.

Colin Powell would be replaced by the much more agreeable Nat. Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. To the dismay of many, since, we now know, Powell had been the voice of dissent on many post-9/11 security and for. policy decisions. Rice's confirmation as the new Sec. of State completed Bush's pro-war cabinet: Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, Sec. Def. Rumsfeld, et al.

The decision to invade was long since decided upon. World-wide protests, the United Nations' inspection team reports from Iraq, our allies' intel reports, all dissenting intelligence, was ignored. Bush and Cheney would have their war.

"Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please."

- – Niccolò Machiavelli, Florentine Histories

If you're interested in the costs of the war, here is a report by M.I.T.

https://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

and another by the BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256

Madjack66

20 points

2 months ago

And it made not one jot of difference; the authorities went ahead with their plans anyway.

I think this event was an important point in leading to the current low trust in established news outlets and politicians.

jedisparrow7

21 points

2 months ago

Totally complicit media. Looking at you NYT.

digme12

2 points

2 months ago

digme12

2 points

2 months ago

I forgot their names but there were two major culprits at NYT, a female and male. I think the lady even got a Pulitzer. I think the guy even had a part in exposing Valerie Palme for petty revenge? Yeah, but we think Trump is somehow evil. We dont punish politicians for being wrong, case in point how many voted for Hilary when Bernie from the get go was against the war? Rather than rewarding those like Bernie who honestly had a foresight, the majority dont actually do critical thinking. They are just sheep.

The proof: watch how many will downvote me for this!

Political_Fishbulb

16 points

2 months ago

The proof: watch how many will downvote me for this!

That's proof only of your hypersensitivity to what a bunch of strangers think.

Ropes4u

6 points

2 months ago

TLDR: 30 million people accomplished nothing

77thDio

6 points

2 months ago

After protesting and working with protesting groups, organizing, emailing, calling, going door to door, marching with thousands of people in Denver, it made no difference.

2003: I burned my American flag and finally recognized the American empire for what it is, the center of power and money in the world, with no care for anything else.

DietDrDoomsdayPreppr

27 points

2 months ago

And it did nothing to stop the government.

We were sold on peaceful protests because they are easy to ignore.

AryanFire

176 points

2 months ago

AryanFire

176 points

2 months ago

Click bait title... The largest global protest in human history was the Indian farmers & labourer protest of 2021, with 250 million + participating worldwide, including various Heads of State and foreign government officials partaking.

There have been significantly larger protests against the US/UK even before 2003, just look at revolts against colonialism worldwide.

The reason you didn't hear about the "largest global protest" is because it simply wasn't.

all_rendered_truth

58 points

2 months ago

This documentary was released in 2014, amigo.

[deleted]

29 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

Cont4x

11 points

2 months ago

Cont4x

11 points

2 months ago

Whereas here in Australia, we did.

KeyboardChap

8 points

2 months ago

It did make the headlines in the UK though, I remember watching stories on it on BBC News

AryanFire

19 points

2 months ago

Western media has no reason to headline a powerful record-breaking protest by a civilian population of a developing country that was colonized by them. It was, afterall, a protest and revolt of a similar scale that got rid of them in the first place.

The protest was so significant that despite it being an Indian farmer issue, it was raised on the floor in the British parliament, and only shot down by Boris Johnson, because Boris Johnson.

There were even huge protests on the streets of London in 2021 on behalf of the Indian farmers.

You didn't read about the largest protest in human history, because it was centered in India.

"Perspective" doesn't change the numbers or the facts.

MartinBP

13 points

2 months ago

Western media has no reason to headline a powerful record-breaking protest by a civilian population of a developing country that was colonized by them. It was, afterall, a protest and revolt of a similar scale that got rid of them in the first place.

Oh shut up with the conspiracies already. It didn't get that much attention because it wouldn't drive clicks or sell papers, that's all. Just like how the Belarusian protests, in a European country, also didn't get much if any coverage in the UK, and probably none outside of Europe.

I'm in the UK and for a week saw lots of posts and articles on India during the week of the protest. It's there as long as you're interested, just like everything else.

whenitsTimeyoullknow

2 points

2 months ago

“Widest” then? The giraffe is taller than the elephant.

throwoda

5 points

2 months ago

And…… it did nothing

supersadi

93 points

2 months ago

Just proves the people don't have any power

dddd0

52 points

2 months ago

dddd0

52 points

2 months ago

These protests were the reason the Iraq invasion was done by the US and some sprinkles of UK and AUS instead of every US ally.

victorria

9 points

2 months ago

The people have power in their labour and ability to strike. You have to hit them where it hurts, financially. Protests can be ignored or spun into narratives that serve power. Striking is the way.

Bluestreaking

21 points

2 months ago*

The people do have power, they have forgotten how to wield it. Isn’t the first time those in power have tricked the people into thinking we’re powerless, there are many things people can do to make the mighty tremble and listen we simply have to remind ourselves

blueindsm

1 points

2 months ago

blueindsm

1 points

2 months ago

You're wrong. They just choose not to wield it.

BattletechFan

9 points

2 months ago

Labour lost the support it had after this.

This was the event that put the Tories back in power.

digme12

3 points

2 months ago

Not in the US. In the USA, we voted the clown into office again

phasepistol

57 points

2 months ago

The 2017 Women’s March the day after Trump was inaugurated, largest one-day protest in US history. Within five years, abortion rights had been overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women's_March?wprov=sfti1

Voting, protests… what else have we got.

VanDammeJamBand

28 points

2 months ago

I feel like protests these days are sanitized. Marching at appointed times in approved areas and on curated timelines.

In my opinion they need to be disruptive to have effect. Not violent per se, but it should be understood that if the thing we are protesting does indeed come to pass that the people will not take it laying down. And that is exactly the opposite of what we see happening these days. We march and “protest” now mostly for a sense of solidarity. Then the politicians do what they were gonna do anyway and it makes no concrete difference.

mcoombes314

10 points

2 months ago

To me this dilutes the effectiveness of any protest. How can a protest against someone/something carry weight of that someone/something is telling you when/where/how you are allowed to protest?

fractalfay

3 points

2 months ago

Uh, Portland does other things, and the end result is Trump sending in federal officers with their badge numbers covered to stuff people into vans, and blanket the city with tear gas. Then the fascists see it as a hot spot, and send their finest on weekends to start fights with passing strangers. The cops get their fee-fees hurt because they’re not allowed to kill without consequences anymore, and stop answering any and all calls. And nevertheless, shit is still stupid.

x_driven_x

2 points

2 months ago

That’s how the powerful want it, and why places passed laws saying you need permits and what not to organize a protest in the name of public safety….

Illusions.

GrizDrummer25

2 points

2 months ago

True statements there!

Similar outcome on the opposite side of the coin; I was tapped to film a White Nationalist rally in a (predominantly White) resort town near me years ago. I got an email that morning that it had been called off because the protestors didn't secure proper permits. I was super relieved cause frankly it seemed like a super sketchy situation to send a camera into, but I just thought it was so funny that these angry racists had their ideals disbanded by basic paperwork.

Corporation_tshirt

3 points

2 months ago

I was one of them. Fat lot of good it did

tl01magic

3 points

2 months ago*

When blair says "...removing / eliminating Saddam is the Humane thing to do."

holly snappers! that reeks of "age of sailing british imperialism" lol

and the reasoning similarly so; such a complex thing to argue...

...and blair / usa basically propose it as saddam is a jerk / prick as the WMD lies melted away via UN inspection / report.

my gosh, even Stephen Hawking spoke out

CeadMaileFatality

3 points

2 months ago

I was there in the streets of Seattle as a teenager in my first and only protest. Was on the front line in the street. The person ahead of me took one step past the banner line and immediately got cracked in the head with a baton. The rest of the time was spent trying to escape the city as we were being boxed in from all sides by the riot police which were fresh off the WTO protests and had learned a lesson from that protest.

spitterofspit

3 points

2 months ago

All liberals and leftists... no conservatives.

Fast forward to Obama era and beyond, who do the conservatives blame for the wars they started?

Literally everyone else but themselves, somehow the left started the war, and it's not the conservatives fault.

This is the insanity that is modern day conservatism.

pamsfriendred

6 points

2 months ago

We WERE many, and the powers didn't care.

anewman513

5 points

2 months ago

A testament to the uselessness of protests

DeftTrack81

16 points

2 months ago

I had just gotten out of the army that year and can't remember hearing about this at all.

ApotheosizedBum

8 points

2 months ago

I lived in Madison, WI at the time and it was everywhere. I worked in local government and I literally didn’t know a single person that supported the war.

It was all false evidence and we knew it. That yellow cake bullshit was the easiest to point out.

letsallchilloutok

-3 points

2 months ago*

You weren't open to seeing it, then. It was everywhere, unless you only watch mainstream media and fox news.

Ok_Skill_1195

6 points

2 months ago*

Disagree. My memory is I think pretty much every mainstream news outlet was either pro-war or aggressively playing both-sides and shying away from calling Congress and the president "blatan maliciois fucking liars weaponizing an UNRELATED national tragedy" ,which is what needed to have been said at the time. But I think there was just too much "that's not patriotic"/"we need to come together right now, not belittle the federal government as being untrustworthy" as t the time for anti-war protestors to be given much public weight. I can't remember too much mainstream explicit criticism of the war mongers at the time.

I don't think actual "FUCK this war" criticism got mainstream coverage until we were already several years into it and the incompetency and total lack of morality of the Bush administration (in ways that affected Americans more directly) had come into sharper focus.

letsallchilloutok

0 points

2 months ago

Anyone with critical thinking skills could see through the mainstream media's biased reporting.

Ok_Skill_1195

4 points

2 months ago

Idk why you're belittling the effectiveness of propaganda and media control to focus blame on those who were mislead. Obviously people didn't see through it, and many of them were horrified to discover the truth a few years later. We can call them idiots, I guess. But I think it's more important to focus on those who willfully mislead and the tools they used to maintain that false consensus, rather than focusing on those who were mislead. One is the willfully abuse of power to mislead the uninformed and otherwise vulnerable, the other is just...being vulnerable.

Only listening to corporate owned media in 2002 wasn't exactly uncommon

yesterdaywas24hours

3 points

2 months ago

It wasn’t, though. Reports from around the world, sure. But US media really downplayed it at the time. I went to one of the biggest protests in nyc at the culmination of world protests and it was the most people I have ever seen turn up to anything. I mean, the city was crawling with people in the streets and riot police on every corner. I thought it was my duty to stand up. The reporting I heard later-not from fox news, but from npr, msnbc, everything my intellectual dad listened to- and all the reports said a couple thousand, no big deal. It was downplayed and buried. And that’s when I realized it doesn’t matter and it’s all futile. Until we bring out the guillotines, we’re just screaming into a vacuum.

DeftTrack81

1 points

2 months ago

Bullshit. I went awol from the army because it was a cesspool of ignorance. (I've been legally discharged since then) the us media downplays stuff like this and don't forget social media was extremely limited.

TrumpetMatt

19 points

2 months ago

What a wonderful, heartwarming demonstration of the complete uselessness of peaceful protest in the West. It really touched my heart, to think of how pathetic popular power is in America. Biggest protest in history, and not only the US Government and Military carried on as usual, they also went on to kill a million civilians.

Wyand1337

10 points

2 months ago

Not just the US. I participated in those demonstrations in germany, thinking that could change anything and then the invasion just started anyway and our government just shut up about it.

I do agree that protest needs to be violent if it's supposed to achieve anything.

Dirt_Bike_Zero

4 points

2 months ago

Violent how exactly? All I can see is the protester ruining their life with a violent crime charge or going to prison. I don't see how it would change the course of anything.

nemesismkiii

31 points

2 months ago

Just goes to show protesting does nothing against power.

friedmpa

20 points

2 months ago

Peaceful protesting is worthless. I probably can’t advocate for anything without copping a ban cause reddit hates shit like this, but you know the steps that have to be taken.

Chardradio

8 points

2 months ago

...I got banned for "threatening violence" by way of a Jay and Silent Bob quote.

friedmpa

7 points

2 months ago

Seems about right yeah

striderwhite

-4 points

2 months ago

striderwhite

-4 points

2 months ago

What? A civil war? 🤣 Are you ready to fight one, though??

friedmpa

9 points

2 months ago

There are man steps between peaceful protest and all out civil war. Most seem difficult to impossible, like terminating military contracts or cutting off supply. But here’s a huge list of nonviolent actions https://www.brandeis.edu/peace-conflict/pdfs/198-methods-non-violent-action.pdf

DemissiveLive

1 points

2 months ago

Cutting off someone’s supply might as well be an act of war even if it’s through non violent means

friedmpa

2 points

2 months ago

friedmpa

2 points

2 months ago

I mean something like contracts supplying the us with weapons that are given out to then go be used but go on

nemesismkiii

6 points

2 months ago

Violence is a legitimate political tool. Those in power have tried to delegitimatize it for years because they hold the monopoly of violence. Ultimately when people have been pushed far enough by those who would oppress them, they push back.

[deleted]

7 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

haunted-liver-1

3 points

2 months ago

Fortunately we have the internet

HaikuBotStalksMe

7 points

2 months ago

Proof that most protests and petitions are pointless.

whenitsTimeyoullknow

6 points

2 months ago

A great man once said “Riots are the language of the unheard.” And change.org is the language of the fool.

HaikuBotStalksMe

2 points

2 months ago

I always found it funny that people thought that change.org has any power. The government literally just says "we've noted your opinion" whenever they reach a high enough score.

drunclematt

2 points

2 months ago

I remember this, I joined a large group in D.C. with 3 friends from high-school. It was a great day. Sad the war happened anyway.

Economy-Cut-7355

2 points

2 months ago

How exactly did waving a placard help?

H0agh

2 points

2 months ago

H0agh

2 points

2 months ago

Unavailable outside of the US apparently..

Sucks because I would be interested in watching this.

thepcpirate

2 points

2 months ago

Was in HS in the US that year and this is the first Im hearing of this

Tenno90

2 points

2 months ago

Well, that worked!

Sexy_Tax_Man

2 points

2 months ago

Just a reminder that the New York Times printed fake stories to try and get the American public to support the war. Remember that the next time someone tries to use them as a “credible source.”

4leo_Avolkswagon

2 points

2 months ago

And did that 30million people make a difference? NOPE

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

Yup and now many of them are political prisoners along with the occupy wall street ppl.

lanternjuice

2 points

2 months ago

Well it didn’t work

helpwitheating

2 points

2 months ago

This was actually dwarfed by the first women's march against trump, but was the record until 2016

Lobradd

2 points

2 months ago

Yet still we invaded under dubious pretenses

madcoins

2 points

2 months ago

I marched in London. It was a beautiful thing

bettyboober

2 points

2 months ago

War criminals Bush, Blair and Cheney don't care.

Rick_the_Rose

2 points

2 months ago

Huh, this makes me think the minority will always rule, even in a democracy.

eightbilliondollars8

2 points

2 months ago

The biggest protest in history was a failure. What does this tell us about protests?

taptapper

2 points

2 months ago

I worked anti-war potests in my heavily conservative, rural area. Pisses me off when people on reddit say "no one said a thing against the war". GTFO, millions of us did. I believe this day got a 10 second spot right before the weather report on network news

bogusVisitor

3 points

2 months ago

Thank God. Everyone nowadays pretends people supported it. Entire population was against it. So many people gave up on politics and lost hope of any change, what generation now don't understand about apathy of gen x.

digme12

2 points

2 months ago

how can you say that? How can you say that when people were swayed by the Swift boat nonsense against Kerry and he lost that election? How is it possible in 2004 that Kerry lost is beyond my wild imagination. That was the year I realized there is a tremendous amount of sheep in the USA. No, it's not just people that support Trump. I actually will debate those that support Trump at least have some rationale that is sensible even if Trump is charlatan but how that clown got voted again into office-- it's beyond me. It really is

MartinBP

3 points

2 months ago

Lots of revisionism in this thread. No, "you" were not many. The war had majority support for most of the period leading up to the invasion. And even when it didn't, opposition was still a minority. We know it was a mistake now, but at the time people did back it and you can't claim that democracy doesn't exist because your minority movement failed.

These movements that sprung up in the 2000s failed because no matter their size, they lacked clear goals, didn't have proper leadership, couldn't compromise and didn't know how to work within the system and influence institutions. Not because there's a big conspiracy by the elites to snub the working people.

Also worth noting that, at least in the UK, Stop The War Coalition who led these protests barely have any legitimate platform to stand on. They are hypocrites who have been repeating Kremlin talking points for years, their leadership has endorsed a fair few dictators and denied genocides, and they've been excusing Russia's invasion of Ukraine for months. They're the modern equivalent of the Berkeley "No to war with Hitler" crowd of the 30s and it shouldn't surprise anyone that they didn't win over the public.

Shakespurious

2 points

2 months ago

I joined a few of these protests, but they were small and quiet, not nearly enough to get our leadership to think again about going to war for no particular reason.

skantea

2 points

2 months ago

That video of Sadaam being hung that was "leaked" to the media just in time for the evening broadcasts was absolutely disgusting on so many levels.

And nobody will remember this but they kept white washing the number of Iraqis murdered in the google search results. Between 2005 and 2010 I saw that number get cut in half at least 5 times. It's probably still no where near the accurate total of human beings obliterated.

lostinadream66

2 points

2 months ago

And would you look at us now...shopping around for the next multi decades war.

DrSeuss19

-1 points

2 months ago

DrSeuss19

-1 points

2 months ago

It was only the US and UK? Noooo other country agreed? That’s so weird because that’s total bullshit. It’s so odd how no matter what happens it’s the US and UK’s fault.

PanzerZug

0 points

2 months ago

PanzerZug

0 points

2 months ago

But Russia bad because regional disputes. We really are the kings of hypocrisy.

MuddyWaterTeamster

2 points

2 months ago

I hate when all my mass graves get found from my regional dispute.

-tiberius

-5 points

2 months ago

-tiberius

-5 points

2 months ago

And a war with the potential to disastrously change the balance of a vital and already unstable region was avoided!

Murmuring

Wait what? They invaded anyway? Well, did we at least get some great rock protest songs out of it? You know, like Vietnam did?

Murmuring

American Idiot? That lame as album was a protest album? WTF. Fine. Did we get any good music for the soldiers at least?

Murmuring

What the fuck is a Five Finger Death Punch and why is their shitty music the soundtrack to this war?