----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Do the anti-anti-war critics want a country without peace adocates?
> Perhaps the subject says it all; in case is doesn't... With almost any war > or threat of war, some will brand anti-war protestors as traitors, etc. "Have we gone to war yet? We (expletive) deserve to get bombed. Bring it on." "Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!" --Chrissie Hynde > Or > perhaps as jackasses. "In my country the atmosphere is poisoned. Unbreathable for those of us who are not on the right. So thank you for inviting me to this festival and allowing me to leave there for a few days." -- Jessica Lange > Over the last few days, I've found myself seriously > wondering what it means when there are so many such complaints against > anti-war protestors being aired today. "I'm saying that the moral climate within the ruling class in this country is not that different from the moral climate within the ruling class of Hitler's Germany." -- David Clennon >Do the critics of anti-war > protestors really want to live in a country where there is not a strong > voice for peace? I don't think there is all that much of a problem with anti-war rhetoric itself, but more with who is doing the talking and specifically what they are saying. The anti-war clique at its most visible does not have its act together. Its letting "anyone" stand up as its representative and say, not just something overtly polemic, but something that might be untrue or even ridiculous. Check this site out: http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/ Maybe Hollywood should just keep out of it altogether. They are giving pacifism a bad name. > > Isn't going to war such an sigificant action that it deserves criticism as > much as any other? I don't think criticism is correct exactly. I would think critical discussion is more appropriate. > A nation that enters war with little or no protest would > be a very frightening thing, I think. And does that ever really happen > unless those who would advocate for peace are afraid to speak up? I support what you are promoting, but I think the current situation is a bit different than you describe. People making sound logical arguments or even making sensible emotional appeals seem to be in short supply for the anti-war camp, or at least they lack visibility. > > This is one more domain in which I see a very bothersome trend -- people in > disagreement whose rhetoric implies that their goal is to silence or > otherwise get rid of those who disagree. (Of course, some of the more > radical voices don't just imply it, they say it out loud.) When I discuss > this, people tend to quickly blame the media for treating all issues this > way, a trend toward cynicism that I lamented in "The Transparent Society." > So this concern is not new for me. But poised on the brink of war, it comes > home even more, as I see and hear what seems to be a large group of people > who have no respect for peace advocacy. I think a lot of the problem lies with those peaceniks who are not prepared to *ever* lose an anti-war battle/debate. Much of the discussion on that side has devolved to extreme anti-American/anti-Bush commentary and not much discussion of the actual issues (at least as far as visible proponents go). Who would shed a moment to pay respect to someone like Hynde or Garafalo. I secretly suspect that a nostalgia for Vietnam era protest politics and culture plays some part in this. Conservatives hate it for rearing its lovely head, and Liberals are called to its siren song. And why wouldn't it be compelling? There was much great music and art inspired by that era. [Cue :CSN&Y Ohio] > > I'm not sure if war on Iraq is right or wrong. I am quite sure that if it > is the right thing to do (or perhaps I should say the "best" thing), that > wouldn't make disrespect for peace advocates right. I want to live in a > country and community where that voice remains strong, right alongside the > voices of those who are guarding our borders and security. > Agreed Doc! But we must recognise that this divide has existed since the 60s and while not always apparent, has been with us most of our lives. I dislike the the angry tone on both sides of the debate, but it has very little to do with average folks like us. Its folks like us who determine what the world *is*. xponent Blood Splatters Both Sides Maru rob wait a minute something's wrong he's a man with a plan his finger is pointed at Brin-L now we must sacrifice ourselves that many others may live ok we've got a lot to give _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
