Groundswell Educational Films » Obama's Anti-War Stance: What Changed?
Obama's Anti-War Stance: What Changed?
Leave your responses to the video below.
At noon on October 2nd, 2002 I was busy teaching a course called Documentary and Social Change at Columbia College Chicago. My wife, Jennifer Amdur Spitz and many of our friends were involved at that same hour in an old fashioned anti-war rally in Federal Plaza in the heart of downtown Chicago. It would be the first gathering to protest the Bush Administration’s move toward a pre-emptive war against Iraq.
I asked my students if they wanted to leave our classroom and walk to a real anti-war rally. Try to remember how you felt in your gut when President Bush rallied Americans to move fast into a pre-emptive war to prevent America from being attacked with “nuclear,” “biological” and “chemical” weapons – weapons that could be provided to our enemies by Iraq? At the demonstration one of my students, Nahlyee Van Brunt, filmed some of the action with his video camera. Well, documentary and social change do go together whether we realize it or not. Please post your comments about what you think changed. This is a new kind of film experience – a webumentary.
Barrack Obama was against the Iraq war in 2002, his title has changed since but his stance on the Iraq war hasn’t. I am glad he is moving towards getting us out of Iraq, but where is he taking us in Afghanistan.
Now that Barrack Obama is Commander and Chief, I wonder why he is prolonging the war in Afghanistan. In 2002, he did say the War in Afghanistan was a ‘just’ war. 8 years later, are there any results? Is killing Afghan people really that beneficial to the American public and the world? Are we stopping terrorists or breeding terrorists? These questions persist and I don’t see sending 30,000 more troops as an answer to anything.
Maybe President Obama understands something about the Afghanistan situation that I don’t, whether he has economic or moral reasons for continuing this war, but if you look at history no outsider has had success controlling Afghanistan.
I don’t feel Afghanistan has changed for the better since 2001 and I don’t think President Obama has increased our national security by sending more troops.
Thanks, Mitch for articulating so well the important questions here.
Is the protest moving from the streets to the internet/web? What is the most effective way to protest this war?
Many people who voted for Obama are anti-war activists. How do we reconcile our wish to support the President in his fight for a better health care option against a deluge of criticism, yet oppose the troop elevation in Afghanistan?
There is probably NOT one of you that lived during WWII nor do you know how pacifism resulted in the death of 6,000,00 Jews.
Can any of you guarantee that Sadam, had we not intervened, would not have eventually secured WMDs? Have any of you read the Rise And Fall of the Third Reich which traces the fatal results of pacifism? I’ll be there isn’t one in a thousand of you that can say yes.
you are correct, and we are still asking the question: what changed?
we believe in asking tough questions about policies that impact our lives and the lives of our peers. Did you volunteer to go to iraq and fight against Saddam Hussain? Did you encourage your loved ones to go and do the fighting? Who are we sending to do the fighting while the rest of us remain behind arguing about perceived threats to our security? How do we justify paying for them while our country’s economy goes down into a spiral of debt?
the problem with pre-emptive wars is obvious. where do you draw the line? is every perceived threat the same thing as the Nazi threat? is it possible to make distinctions? Is it possible for presidents to respond to the will of the people or is there another force shaping the policies that impact our lives? which information source is accurate? which is manufactured to support a specific policy? is it unpatriotic to question the elected leaders of our country?
What changed is that he got into power, and was suddenly confronted with a little dose of reality. Nothing like pursuing power to corrupt a man’s character, don’t you think?
It’s a political strategy to satisfy America’s notion that we must always win. So add troops, give the illusion that we won and then pull out as victors, for we must never lose. Thus, we save face and Obama is our hero. That way the doves and the hawks are all happy!
It’s amazing how we can justify killing hundreds of thousands under the ruse of saving hundreds of thousands.
I lived through WWII CHUCKYJUR, American took too long to decide then and was ultimately forced to decide. Now the same indecision haunts the military machine and their leader. As Churchill said, “You can trust America to come to the right decision, after having tried every other way.” With his faults, it was the decisiveness of Churchill that made him the man for the moment. Obama has not disappointed me yet but the Republicans are a dreadful anchor to have around ones neck.