I don't want to start the whole war debate again because it's probably been done to death, but did anyone go on any of the peace marches round the world yesterday? According to the organisers, nearly 2 million people marched in London and I was one of them. One of the most mindblowing experiences of my life - and hardly an anarchist in sight!
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyRich,
I don't want to start the whole war debate again because it's probably been done to death, but did anyone go on any of the peace marches round the world yesterday? According to the organisers, nearly 2 million people marched in London and I was one of them. One of the most mindblowing experiences of my life - and hardly an anarchist in sight!
Rich.
I have heard quite a bit about the peace marches. My understanding is that 99% of them were done without any conflicts. That is remarkable in itself.
I have never participated in any protest marches or public gatherings of protests. I'm sure you were in awe with so great a number. Give us some more detail of what you experienced. I'm interested in knowing.
Doug 🙂
Originally posted by richhoeyYup, a friend and I went to the one here in Seattle, WA, USA. Count was in the 20,000 range. Very peaceful, no Eugene, OR anarchists in sight; of course w/o the anarchists, we couldn't get our free pound of starbucks coffee. Ooooh, that was in bad taste, wasn't it?
I don't want to start the whole war debate again because it's probably been done to death, but did anyone go on any of the peace marches round the world yesterday? According to the organisers, nearly 2 million people marched in London an ...[text shortened]... iences of my life - and hardly an anarchist in sight!
Rich.
Righty-O, here's some more detail. It was my first ever protest march, and given it was the biggest in the UK ever, quite an initiation. The numbers were absolutely incredible - a never-ending, seething mass of placards and banners, stretching back miles and miles and flowing like a river into Hyde park for 6 hours or more.
Yet the most terrific thing about it was not the numbers, but the amazingly ecelctic mixture of people. There were grannies and long-haired students, prim mothers, besuited accountants, taxi drivers, war veterans, public service workers... just the lot! And the atmoshere was so friendly that even the police couldn't help grinning. Apparently there was not a single major incident the entire day and only about 3 arrests. Not bad in over a million people.
I've no idea whether the march will have any effect on the likelihood of war, but I got the feeling that it would do good anyway, simply because it gave everyone there the feeling of belonging to a society in a way that most of us have never felt before.
Rich.
I participated in the protest in New York city yesterday. It was also a powerful experience: at what I consider to be very conservative estimates (many of the people who wanted to go to the protest were barred from doing so by the police) 500,000 protested against the war in Iraq. Despite temperatures far below freezing and high winds, all sorts of people walked outside for hours to show their feelings against the war and the Bush administration. Much the way that richhoey described the London march, there were people from all different ethnic and religious backgrounds, men and women, rich and poor people, anarchists with bandannas, hippies with peace signs, students, scientists, business people. We finally made our voices heard. The question is now: 'Was anyone listening?'
-mike
Originally posted by richhoeyI didn't attend any marches, but saw countless interviews with marchers and I must say one of the most infuriating things I hear is this: "We're opposed to the war, but we support our troops." Bullshit. Pure unadulterated B.S. The easiest thing to do (on either side of this debate) is to march oneself out and be one of the masses. It is easy for me to post my opinion. I feel for the guy out there sleeping in the desert wondering if he will be gased or be able to return home or even be remembered by his children. I feel for the children whose parents made the decision to jump 111 stories before they got cooked. Yes, I had forgotten them and found it easier to demonize Bush or Saddam. 😠 To all the French who cannot speak German I simply say, "you're welcome." Escuse me, don't let me leave the Germans out who don't' know Russian. You're welcome too. 😠 Kirk
I don't want to start the whole war debate again because it's probably been done to death, but did anyone go on any of the peace marches round the world yesterday? According to the organisers, nearly 2 million people marched in London and I was one of them. One of the most mindblowing experiences of my life - and hardly an anarchist in sight!
Rich.
Originally posted by kirksey957You can't seriously believe that this war is somehow analogous to the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. That is patently ridiculous. If you are serious about supporting our troops, then you ought to support those who are trying to bring them home. What better way to support the troops than remove them from an unjust conflict where they will be ordered to claim the lives of innocents? It's interesting how quickly people stop thinking critically when exposed to this particular line of rhetoric.
I didn't attend any marches, but saw countless interviews with marchers and I must say one of the most infuriating things I hear is this: "We're opposed to the war, but we support our troops." Bullshit. Pure unadulterated B.S. The easiest thing to do (on either side of this debate) is to march oneself out and be one of the masses. It is easy for me ...[text shortened]... me, don't let me leave the Germans out who don't' know Russian. You're welcome too. 😠 Kirk
- Joined
- 04 Jan 02
- Moves
- 11961
I have to side with bbarr on this one, who pointed out in another thread that the only real political "party" in this country is ruled by corporate interests. The looming war against Iraq has next to nothing to do with terrorism, and anyone who sees it as such is doing precisely what the Bush administration would like you to do. This is about money-- money for oil, money for the defense budget and the munitions industry, etc. That, and some twisted form of face-saving because George Senior blew the job the first time around. Perhaps Junior figures that, if he can eliminate Hussein, people will also forget that Bin Laden is (presumably) walking around somewhere.
And let's say for the sake of argument that we do go to war with Iraq, and that we do succeed in killing or permanently ousting Hussein. Will we then stick around to make sure that the quality of life of those poor mistreated Iraqis improves, and stays improved? I think not. We will install a government that says the right things about getting into bed with us-- and, sooner or later, we'll find out that that government lied just to get us to stay in bed with them. And the rest of the world (the ones that aren't just as misguided, anyway) will continue to shake their heads in dismay at the underevolved acts of this so-called "superpower."
And let me add that both my grandfathers fought in WWII, one of them received a Purple Heart at Pearl Harbor, and my father served in the Air Force. So, yeah, I support our troops. And I thank God that I'm not one of them.
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk??
I must say one of the most infuriating things I hear is this: "We're opposed to the war, but we support our troops." Bullshit. Pure unadulterated B.S. .... I feel for the guy out there sleeping in the desert wondering if he will be ...[text shortened]... rmans out who don't' know Russian. You're welcome too. 😠 Kirk
I've always been under the impression the "we oppose the war but support our troops" came about because those opposed to this war do not want to make the same mistake as was made during Vietnam, when young men came home from the war, a war that necessarily cost them personally much more than it did "the nation at large", only to be greeted by hatred and comdemnation by the anti-war protestors Yes, I am old enough to dimly remember Vietnam🙁 What I remember was that returning troops became unjust targets of blame for the war; it was easier to pretend one was protesting war by spitting on a soldier than it was continue the slow and imperceptable grinding away at the policies of Johnson and Nixon. I think everyone wants to avoid that mistake, and to remember to keep the focus where it should be, against the policies of current administration, rather than against the people who are required to carry out that policy.
For me, it is an attempt to remember that the justness of war is a morally difficult area, and that just as the many of the war protestors are doing what they feel is morally correct, namely protesting an unjust war, so too are our soldiers in the field doing what they feel is morally correct, namely protecting our country, including the protestors, from terrorism. To me the phrase is an attempt to remember not to dehumanize those whose actions we oppose.
Originally posted by maggoteerI'm interested in why you think that soldiers are required to carry out unjust foreign policy. I was under the impression that our requirements, our obligations, were of only of the moral sort. We are obligated to do that which is morally correct, and prohibited from doing that which is morally reprehensible. Dropping bombs on civilian targets is morally reprehensible, thus U.S. soldiers are morally prohibited from dropping bombs on innocent Iragis. The question is: what are we supporting when we support our troops? I don't support them if they are upholding an unjust foreign policy. You don't sign away your conscience when you enter the military. If we support our troops merely because they serve, we are de facto suporting the policies they are enforcing. I support our troops inasmuch as they are human beings, but along with being human comes the responsibilty to do that which is correct. If you alienate yourself from those responsibilities, you become something less than fully human....more a tool for the interests of others. If this war does occur, those who kill in the name of U.S. hypocrisy can expect no support from me. In my eyes they will be at least ignorant, at most monsters.
Kirk??
I've always been under the impression the "we oppose the war but support our troops" came about because those opposed to this war do not want to make the same mistake as was made during Vietnam, when young men came home from the war, a war that necessarily cost them personally much more than it did "the nation at large", only to be greeted by ...[text shortened]... sm. To me the phrase is an attempt to remember not to dehumanize those whose actions we oppose.
Originally posted by bbarrOh, probably for much the same reason Socrates agreed to abide by his unjust death sentence at the hands of his fellow Athenians.
I'm interested in why you think that soldiers are required to carry out unjust foreign policy....
Socrates: ...shall we say in answer, "The city wronged me, and it's decision was not right." Shall we say that, or what?
Crito: Yes, by Zuess, Socrates, that is our answer.
Socrates: Then what if the laws said, "Was that the agreement between us, Socrates, or was it to respect the judgements that the city came to?".....You must either pursuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure, whether blows or bonds, and if it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must obey. To do so is right, and one must not give way or retreat or leave one's post, but both in war and in courts and everywhere else, one must obey the commands of one's city and country, or persuade it as to the nature of justice...."
In the military, any military that I am aware of, you give up your right to independant though in these areas. Even more so the closer you are to the bottom. Soldiers HAVE to do what they are told or the military system does not work and the whole point of training, from marching to rifle drills, is to create men (& women) who do as they are told without independant thought. Imagine if, when told to attack a house that contained enemy, a soldier refused because it might not.. He must believe that what he is being ordered to do is right. There are strict rules that a soldier cannot be given and should not obey, such as to attack a house of civilians, but if a soldier is told to attack a house of enemy and it later transpires that they were civilians it can't be concidered the soldiers fault. He must believe that the houses occupents are enemy, just as he must believe that fighting the Iraqis is right if he is told to do that. As tough as it is it is a soldiers job to follow orders and nothing more. One reason I'm not in the military today is that I decided I couldn't do that.
Originally posted by bbarr------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]I'm interested in why you think that soldiers are required to carry out unjust foreign policy.
The following oath is taken by all personnel inducted into the armed forces of the United States, as found in the US Code, Section 502.
I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not see anything in this that allows us to pick and choose which orders are just or unjust.
regards, Marc (US Navy, retired)
Originally posted by bbarrJust because we may have a differing opinion doesn't mean that I'm not thinking critically. Now I may have an opinion that may turn out the wrong way, or it may turn out for the better. But I think we are both thinking logically and critically, we just happen to differ. And the wonderful thing about this discourse is that we won't be killed for it. Kirk
You can't seriously believe that this war is somehow analogous to the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. That is patently ridiculous. If you are serious about supporting our troops, then you ought to support those who are trying to bring them home. What better way to support the troops than remove them from an unjust conflict where they will be ordered t ...[text shortened]... how quickly people stop thinking critically when exposed to this particular line of rhetoric.