Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
This was going to be my counterexample too. Millions protested in the US, UK, Australia, and elsewhere before any troops were committed and it still didn’t help. I dont have solid numbers but I’d be shocked if less than 3.5% of people were involved. They were the biggest protests ever at the time.
The USA actually still had troops in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc. And the protests were to prevent an invasion from happening in the first place, not to go in, kill a million people and then 2 decades down the line throw up your hands and say ‘that was a mistake’ with no consequences for anyone that pushed for it.
And the number there should be is 0, I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here. People didn’t want a war in Iraq in 2003, there were mass peaceful protests, and yet it still happened.
The number absolutely should not be 0. It’s a nation which actively funds and mobilizes religious extremists who imprison or execute homosexuals and treat women as cattle.
EDIT: in this context Iraq/nation meant the local populace, not the government
Which wasn’t the case before the invasion, when there were 0 US troops. Why the fuck do you bring up current day when I’m talking about protests that happened over 20 years ago (by people who knew the current outcome was likely)?
Are you confused about which comment thread you’re in? You said initially that the protests 20 years ago of the Iraq War were impotent and I pointed out that the US Involvment in Iraq sharply declined as a result of those protests, despite anti-NATO religious extremism presence growing in the region for many of the following years.
Jesus fucking Christ this post alone should be considered an act of violence for it’s sheer depravity and mockery of millions of deaths. The US did it’s thing in Iraq for 15 years, utterly failed, made lots of people rich and then they left. How dare you claim that was success for the anti-war movement. What is wrong with you? What the fuck is “Anti-NATO religious extremism?” This is a suspiciously nonsensical statement, especially when NATO wasn’t even in Iraq. Is a chat bot writing your responses for you?
Politicians making decisions based on public opinion has a lot of cause and effect relation. By all accounts it would have been easier to maintain a 40k to 100k presence in Iraq than it was to pack everything up and leave.
Yeah, look at the Iraq war protests, they didn’t amount to anything because they were peaceful and easily ignored by the media.
This was going to be my counterexample too. Millions protested in the US, UK, Australia, and elsewhere before any troops were committed and it still didn’t help. I dont have solid numbers but I’d be shocked if less than 3.5% of people were involved. They were the biggest protests ever at the time.
I personally feel like a lot came out of it, though. The USA left Iraq for example.
The USA actually still had troops in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc. And the protests were to prevent an invasion from happening in the first place, not to go in, kill a million people and then 2 decades down the line throw up your hands and say ‘that was a mistake’ with no consequences for anyone that pushed for it.
In 2007 there were 170,000 troops in Iraq
In 2010 there were 88,000
In 2024 there were 2,500
And the number there should be is 0, I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here. People didn’t want a war in Iraq in 2003, there were mass peaceful protests, and yet it still happened.
The number absolutely should not be 0. It’s a nation which actively funds and mobilizes religious extremists who imprison or execute homosexuals and treat women as cattle.
EDIT: in this context Iraq/nation meant the local populace, not the government
Which wasn’t the case before the invasion, when there were 0 US troops. Why the fuck do you bring up current day when I’m talking about protests that happened over 20 years ago (by people who knew the current outcome was likely)?
Are you confused about which comment thread you’re in? You said initially that the protests 20 years ago of the Iraq War were impotent and I pointed out that the US Involvment in Iraq sharply declined as a result of those protests, despite anti-NATO religious extremism presence growing in the region for many of the following years.
The protests didn’t do anything to that, it was the insurgency causing a steady supply of body bags to come back.
Jesus fucking Christ this post alone should be considered an act of violence for it’s sheer depravity and mockery of millions of deaths. The US did it’s thing in Iraq for 15 years, utterly failed, made lots of people rich and then they left. How dare you claim that was success for the anti-war movement. What is wrong with you? What the fuck is “Anti-NATO religious extremism?” This is a suspiciously nonsensical statement, especially when NATO wasn’t even in Iraq. Is a chat bot writing your responses for you?
post hoc ergo propter hoc. the invention of Facebook was just as much a cause of leaving Iraq. or flat screen TVs. or Blu-ray disks.
which is to say the protests didn’t change anything.
Politicians making decisions based on public opinion has a lot of cause and effect relation. By all accounts it would have been easier to maintain a 40k to 100k presence in Iraq than it was to pack everything up and leave.
please prove a casual link between protests and the ending of the war
People opposed the pointless war whose only winners were Exxo n Mobil.
People voted the party who started the war out of power.
The opposition party withdrew from the region.
doesn’t sound like the protest had any impact. sounds like the votes were the only thing that mattered.
By that logic no protest has ever had any impact. You sound like a real bootlicker rn.
nonviolence protects the state
deleted by creator