• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"How the peace movement blew it"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Sep 22, 2001
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Bush has gained support for this war by defining an invasion on a country that has not attacked the US as part of the war against terrorism. As the Democrats learned in the 2002 elections you can not appear to be weak on terrorism.
I don't think the defeat was based on the perception that they were weak on terrorism. I think the defeat was because they did not have a plan of their own. In the '02 election the Dems were very busy criticizing Bush, Repubs, economy etc. (The repub's were citiicizing too. Different topic) but were not coming forth with an alternative. Typical debate:

D, "The economy sucks. Bush has ruined the economy!"
R, "The economy is not recovering as well as we would like. We propose a tax cut."
D, "Your tax cuts only favor the rich."
John Q Public, "OK D what is your plan?"
D, "<silence>"
D, "<silence>"
D, " The economy sucks. Bush has ruined the economy!"

So with the absence of a plan or the inability to get whatever they had, the exposure it needed, they lost the election. Same with the protestors. Bush had a plan (kick their ass) and everyone else concentrated on saying how much Bush sucked. In the absence of a coherent, alternative plan of any sort the guy with the only plan, no matter how bad it is, wins.

With the exception of Max Cleland's defeat in GA, I think it was an absence of a alternative that lost the Dem's the last election, not being portrayed as being weak on terrorism.



Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2001
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: jjones
The anti-war people failed to address a solution to the Saddam situation. They pointed to continuing containment when that is not a solution, just a continuation of the situation, a situation that has played for 12 years. As stated aptly in the article, they failed to provide hope, and they failed in that respect by not having any, not even the least, idea of a solution.

As for a world court, good luck, because this will require enforcement by a world police. There is no international body or international community that is capable of making this happen.

Regarding any statements about other dictators and why the US is not pursuing them with equal zeal, the US has a right to be selfish in its pursuits. The US is not the world police and can choose its battles according to its interests, just like the French, just like the Russians, just like the Chinese, etc. When the so-called "international community" can move beyond the diplomatic and political morass of its unending debates and find the energy to take action, the US will be there waiting.
Yes. Excellent post, jjones.