Hacker News Reader

Comment by thejazzman | Hacker News Reader

The use of "we" feels so unfair when a very large majority of the people were against it the entire time. "We" couldn't do anything about it, as usual.

View on HN

> very large majority of the people were against it the entire time

I don't think this claim holds up to the evidence. Looking at opinion polls between 9/11 and 2003's invasion of Iraq makes it unclear that a "very large majority" was against the invasion. Here's a quickly-found Gallup poll[0] from October 2002 wherein 53% of polled Americans supported a ground invasion of Iraq.

The American people were misled by government claims about WMDs and handwavy connections between Iraq and 9/11. But that doesn't permit us to retroactively declare that "well, if only the people knew in 2002 what we know now then they would have been against it."

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20171201030755/http://news.gallu...

>The American people were misled by government claims about WMDs and handwavy connections between Iraq and 9/11. But that doesn't permit us to retroactively declare that "well, if only the people knew in 2002 what we know now then they would have been against it."

Can you explain more? If the American people knew they were being lied to in order to create support for a war, why would they support the war? The argument at the time, repeated all over the media, was that the war was necessary because of WMDs. 53% is a narrow majority supporting invasion, you don't think knowing they were being tricked would have caused at least a 5% swing?

People tolerate being lied to by politicians because they see it as politicians having to convince others to go along with a plan they believe and agree with. They don't see it as politicians lying to them, it's politicians who they approve of and agree with lying to others to convince them to go along with an agenda they approve of.

In other words, it's okay for politicians to lie because the supporters of those politicians believe they are in on the lie.

Sorry, I was trying to make an almost pedantic point. I agree with you that deceiving the public is important to understanding what/why. However, the claim that "very large majority of the people were against it the entire time" is false, and trivially testable. 53% in favor of war means at most 47% against. 47% is not "very large majority".

Would people have been against it _conditioned on having knowledge from today that was unavailable then_? Possibly, but this hypothetical doesn't move discussion in a useful direction.

Had Gallup asked about the atrocities listed above, I don’t think 53% would also support those.

That’s simply not true. A very large majority were in favor.

Some were opposed, yes.

Using “we” is a proper generalization. Everybody is offended by generalizations today. (See what I did there?) but you can’t talk coherently without them.

Sure, but also as much as it may make you feel old, those polls were of people over 18 in 2003, and about half of the current US population does not fit that bill.

The effect is even more dramatic when you presume polls always skew older.

Do you presume that most of the unpolled 17 year olds in 2003 were against it? Most of the unpolled 16 year olds?

Even if they weren't polled, it's not reasonable to assume that 0% of them would have supported the various responses.

I know many of the unpolled 1 year olds who are now 24 probably never thought the war was a good idea.

My point is that America in 2003 feels the same to people who were alive then, but blaming Americans alive today for Iraq is like blaming Americans alive in 2003 for being pro-Grenada.

If "we" is misinformative, it seems like the opposite of coherent.

It is possible to use some sort of set theory terminology to avoid misleading people, but then that wouldn't really be "proper" (culturally acceptable).

It's a real conundrum.

Even the ones who were opposed at the time, myself included, should have done more.

You wouldn’t have changed a thing. The wars were in the making for over a decade by the time 9/11 happened. That was just the opportunity for them to fully put those plans in motion.

If anyone or group actually did “more” they would have been branded a traitor and thrown in prison — or worse.

I don't believe you because I refuse to live in a world where that's true.

That kind of thinking is exactly what they want you to think, and, they can't call everyone a traitor and lock everyone up.

While it feels unfair to say "we", what have you done to stop this?

Have you protested? Written to your representatives? Contributed to a NGO fighting these things? Etc.

Or did you let your tax money fund this destruction with little opposition?

I'm being harsh, and probably a hypocrite. But it's easy to be against something in words, but do little to change it sitting comfortably and safe at a distance.

We can't even vote for one party over another, since both are pro-war.

Stop voting for parties, vote for people instead.

Doesn't always work out but I think the odds are better.

I left the country.

Now, I sleep soundly knowing my taxes get wasted on road works instead of death works.

> Have you protested?

I did. I even almost got arrested on multiple occasions for it.

> Written to your representatives?

Hell, I went to Washington DC and their local offices on multiple occasions and told them to their faces what I thought of them for doing what they were doing.

Didn't do a damn thing, could have done more. Should have done more.

> The use of "we" feels so unfair when a very large majority of the people were against it the entire time.

No they were not.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-america...

Iraq was a popular war.

This is important to remember. One reason it might feel unfair now though is some combination of a) to many people, it is clear the war was a mistake and they remember always being against it now and b) some 35% of the current adult US population, including myself, wasn’t old enough to be polled then, but was legitimately against the war always.

Speaking as someone who was against it.

Iraq was popular because we were lied to.

Saddam was behind 9/11 so we have to go in there in retribution.

Iraq has WMDs and is going to use them on us so we have to go in there to stop them.

Saddam is attacking and killing his own people so we have to go in there on humanitarian grounds.

I'm not sure anything would have changed if we knew we were lied to. 2001-2002 was a strange time. A lot of people just wanted war--with anyone. It didn't really matter who we invaded. The Cold War ending meant the USA was out of overt enemies, and this was a real bummer to people who loved war and belligerence, so the sooner we could make enemies and start fighting, the better.

I have always opposed these wars, and I use "we" to position myself in them. History has shown that we were right to oppose them, and in fact were justified in using much more radical resistance than we did. My "we" is contrition and repentance for not doing so.

I use we, and I also opposed them from day 1.

Could have done more to stop them. Should have done more to stop them.

I didn’t live in the US during that time, and I even know this isn’t true. Heck, just talk to any Muslim American who was working or growing up during that time period.

I was against it, even the afghan invasion, on day-1. Caught a lot of shit in post-9/11 NYC for that.

Protested in the streets in NYC, almost got arrested a few times.

Didn't do a damn bit of difference.

We all could have and should have done more to stop it.

It's a government "for the people and by the people" and clearly the people either approve or doesn't care enough. So yes, "we" the people applies here.

This "for the people and by the people" thing does not appear to be empirically true. Here's a study out of Harvard:

> Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

When you roll with a gang, you're responsible for that gangs actions, like it or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com