Comments on: Anti-War and Anti-Military Too (UPDATED)

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:07:59 +0000

Once I get access to write comments on their site I will be among them.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:02:36 +0000

I see plenty of response from the majority (support the troops, against the war) The comments section of the post you updated here, shows quite a few actually.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:22:26 +0000

Jay_C: I’m not swayed by that because I have a separate opinion about the war itself (mixed) from my opinion of the Bush administration and the way it sold the war to the public (negative.)

And on top of the fact that my opinion of the war overall remains mixed, I also separate my view of whether or not we should have initiated the war/overthrown Saddam from whether or not we now need to stay and clean up the mess as much as possible. So none of that is influenced one iota by the lack of transparency and candor from the Bush administration.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:06:36 +0000

Thanks for seeing our point Christine I think I will try to contact those in the anti-war movement to renouce these acts as we do.

This just in… (if this is true) Do you think most reasonable, pro-military people will see this as something that would possibly sway one to be anti or pro Iraq war?

http://poligazette.com/2008/03/13/report-on-saddams-iraq-censored/

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:24:47 +0000

I understand the criticism of Jason’s point, because it’s very difficult as an individual to have any effect whatsoever on what other people in a ‘movement’ say or do. Personally, I feel there’s a bit more responsibility to be placed on leaders in a movement (politicians who oppose the Iraq War, leaders of veterans groups, etc) who should be more loudly speaking out against the extremists. I can remember feeling this way when there was a rash of abortion clinic bombings: as a pro-life individual, I wanted to make sure that any group or politician who was advocating that stance would speak out against that indefensible tactic.

And the reason it’s important to hold SOMEONE accountable for doing that is because it’s the only way to stop those tactics from occurring in greater and greater frequency. You two are correct, Michael Merrit and Jay_C, that the extremists are the ones who get the press; but the problem then is that they believe this means that their tactics are working and they become emboldened to do more of the same. Unless other leaders who identify with the same cause but not the tactics speak out and denounce them, the problem grows.

So even though it’s hard and seems unfair as an individual to be tarnished by these people, perhaps one thing you can do is contact leaders of the anti-war movement, and politicians who have that stance, and ask them to speak out loudly and clearly.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:50:14 +0000

Thanks Michael Merit, you are much better than I at getting to the crux of the issue. I guess you have to spell it out. So here goes. (I thought it went without saying), but I also formally denounce actions like these. I not only denounce this action, I reject it as well. Again, using the "reasonable people" argument, I believe (don’t know for sure) but I believe that most reasonable people would distance / have distanced themselves from the anti-military 60s radicals. Given this, those who are otherwise pro-military would, I would think, (If not viewed by others through the lens of pre-conceived notions that “all anti-war folks are anti-military”) appear less “tainted” in the eyes of military people. As a matter of fact, case in point. I have a cousin who knows I am against the current war in Iraq (he was in the first Iraq) war. But he knows he (as well as the military in general) has my full support. I believe of the anti-war people I fit the profile of the majority. I don’t think I’m some “enigma” or “outlier” that is the exception to the rule, but rather the rule.

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:54:44 +0000

I was going to post this in Michael’s entry below, but figure it might get more attention here. Jay_C also mentioned this, but I wanted to expand.

Is perhaps the problem that the radicals are the ones getting all the media coverage? The media figures, "Who wants to hear about the guys who support the troops, though not the war? The guys who want to destroy the recruiting center will sell more papers/get more ratings."

I’m not saying it’s right. I’d like to see more stories about people who support the troops, though perhaps not the war. But, I would think that a site which constantly comments on stories in the media would understand the vocal minorities always get the better stories. And having spent some time studying the media as a student, and having spent some time actually doing it, I can understand why these people, and the Code Pinkers, for example, are getting more coverage.

I certain denounce actions like these. But, if it makes people happy, I not only denounce this action, I reject it as well.

So, I’m not in the camp that silence means you support something. If all the anti-war leaders (are there any?) had to put up statements rejecting every word and/or plan some crazy loon/organization has, they’d have no time to do anything else.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:14:01 +0000

I wold think most reasonable people would "do something about it" though, they call the cops, as I would. Wouldn’t you agree?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:04:09 +0000

Merely saying that the anti-military people don’t speak for you is not the same as actually condemning them for their bigotry and excess, Jay_C. Differentiating yourself without joining the condemnation of their excesses allows you to evade responsibility but not actually commit to a consistent standard of judgment. It is thus an unprincipled dodge, not a principled position. As long as you try to have your rhetorical cake and eat it too, I will consider you and others who use the same dodge as you do as condoning the anti-military elements of the anti-war movement even if they do not go all the way to endorsing it.

Coverage isn’t the issue. Having the backbone to confront one’s allies when they go over the line is the issue here. If the 9 people refuse to do anything to stop or condemn the person throwing chairs, they are condoning his action whether or not they actually endorse it or participate in it.

Silence in the face of prejudice and violence is consent. This is the standard that Obama was held to regarding Farrakhan and your anti-war comrades should not get a looser one just by virtue of your claim of good intentions.

By: Jay_C

Jay_C — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:44:42 +0000

The "nuts" can claim to speak for the entire movement as much as they want, they don’t, as I wrote here. http://poligazette.com/2008/03/12/anti-military-protesters-to-imprison-recruiters/
And of couse the majority appears relatively "silent", Competing for coverage if you are civil and orderly is a boring story. How are the majority of civil anti-war, pro-military folks supposed to compete with that?

If there are 1o people in a room, 1 is throwing chairs and punching people and yelling he is anti-war and anti-military. The other 9 are civily but passionately saying that they oppose the war but support the troops, who is going to get most people’s attention? Does the one speak for the other 9?