More Anti-War Protest

Right now I'm still on vacation, and probably should be writing about my journeys, or better yet get off the internet and enjoy the vacation.

But I found something on the Internet I want to briefly respond to. It seems my previous post on the Anti-War protest has been picked up and critiqued at murdoc online. (Contrary to Dr. Doodles assertion that no one was interested because there were no graphics).

I don't know Murdoc, but he's obviously approaching this from the opposite end of the political spectrum. He points out that
1). I identified it as an Anti-War Protest, but Media Mouse made a big deal about it being a "Anti-military recruiting protest" and in fact harshly criticized the Grand Rapids Press for simply calling it an anti-War protest.

and 2) "I wonder if the kids with the flags were really "pro-war demonstrators" as Swagman writes or if maybe they were simply "pro-military", "pro-victory", or "pro-USA" demonstrators."

Although it could be argued that Murdoc has ignored my main points in favor of nitpicking at details, these criticisms are fair enough at face value.

There is obviously a discrepancy between the focus of the Media Mouse article and my own account. I'm somewhat confused myself as to why Media Mouse chose to make a big distinction between anti-war and anti-recruiting. The two are really interlinked. I mean its not like we were saying, "We support the war effort, we just don't want you to recruit any troops to fight it with."

Plus we were chanting anti war slogans, such as "Peace is patriotic. No more war." And I was given a sign to hold that read, "Stop the War in Iraq."

As for the second point, this is really a semantic debate, and I never like to spend too much time on those.

Obviously no one wants to be called "pro-war", no one will tell you they are in favor of war, and yet wars still happen all the time. I'm somewhat reminded of the quote by Herman Goering (one of the highest ranking Nazi's) at the Nuremburg trial:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Not even Hitler and the Nazi's stood up and said, "We like war for the sake of war." They told the people that the war was necessary.

Three years ago the President told this country that war was necessary. Some of us did what we could to try and stop it. And others decided to support the President. If you supported the decision for war, you may not like the term, "Pro-War", but when the choice was between peace and war, you choose war. Everyone is for peace if they could have it on their own terms.

But if Murdoc wants to call these kids "Pro-Victory" instead of "Pro-War", I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.

Also, Media Mouse has posted pictures of the protest here. I can be seen in one of them standing with my hands behind my back looking confused as to what to do. This was one of those "moments of confrontation" I alluded to in the earlier post, and you can see I'm looking like I'm not quite sure what to do. Not one of my more heroic and decisive moments, but oh well.

Useless Wikipedia Fact
The Sub-Mariner is arguably the first Comic book anti-hero.

Link of the Day
A Dozen Marines May Face Courts-Martial for Alleged Iraq Massacre