Fwd: So You Think You're Antiwar?

(SORRY if this was already posted sorry sorry scuse me I've looked and didn't find it okay!??!!)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Eric Stoner: So You Think You're Antiwar?
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:40:02 GMT
From: <Eric Stoner>

While recent polls reveal that 60 to 70 percent of Americans have soured
on the war in Iraq, most of these people should not be mistakenly
labeled "antiwar."

Many of those calling for the troops to come home could more properly be
called "anti-this-war. " "We never should have gone into Iraq," the
argument typically goes, "but World War II was a war we could all get
behind." It's the tired "just war" argument rearing its ugly head, and
Iraq just didn't meet the criterion. While this may aptly describe the
thinking of a certain part of the population - thanks to patriotic
history textbooks and a popular culture that continually reinforces the
myth of the "good war" - it fails to explain the increasing numbers that
are now ready to pull the plug.

More to the point, most Americans are simply "anti-losing- this-war. " As
Alexander Cockburn explains in The / Nation/, people have turned against
the war in Iraq because they "looked at the casualty figures and the
newspaper headlines and drew the obvious conclusion that the war is a
bust." Had the invasion and occupation not been completely botched from
the start, and if there was even some distant glimmer of hope that we
might still "win" - however that is defined - many of the currently
discontented would readily give their approval.

To be truly antiwar then means being opposed to all war, irrespective of
the casus belli offered by those in power. It means complete rejection
of the notion that violence has some role to play in bringing about a
more just world, and actively resisting in ever more creative and daring
ways what the /New York Times /last week called America's "voracious war
machine." This critical work can take many forms, including: supporting
GI resisters and the growing counter-recruitment movement, organizing
against ROTC programs and war profiteers, not paying war taxes, engaging
in nonviolent direct action, and educating others about peace and the
power of nonviolence.

If this is how antiwar is defined, then far too few fit the bill.

Taking such an absolute stand against the utility and morality of war,
however, is exactly what is needed if we are to ever be rid of this
barbarism. As long as we leave the door open even a crack for violence,
and argue that there are some instances when we must kill, the flood
gates for unspeakable horrors will be opened. To guard against this
imagined evil we must then prepare for war, with no amount of money for
the Pentagon being too much to spend for our protection. Following this
logic, we end up right back at the current untenable status quo.

Some might call this wide-eyed idealism. But if spending hundreds of
billions euphemistically on "defense" every year, while 47 million
Americans have no health insurance and billions of human beings live
(and too often die) in desperate poverty around the world is what
realism looks like, I'd choose idealism any day of the week.

I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had it right when he passionately
declared in Memphis the night before his assassination, that there is
"no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's
nonviolence or nonexistence. "

Eric Stoner is a writer based in New York, whose writings have appeared
in The/ Nation/ and a variety of newspapers. He can be reached at:
ericstoner1@ gmail.com.

Clearly, it's correct to presume that most people are just anti-iraq war. The simple way to tell is to ask them about Afghanistan. You'll find out very quickly who is "anti-war"

eventually came around to support the effort in WWII after having fought to stay out of the conflict, while the American population initially embraced this conflict (except for quite a few people with IQs higher than their shoe sizes) and are now dropping their support for the war ...

because hindsight is 20/20 ...

the conservatives/Republicans realized what horrible things were perpetrated by Germany, Italy, and Japan and joined the fight ...

the American people are realizing how much this occupation is a farce, and are regretting their participation ... and the Repukes are re-inforcing their cult status ...

But I expect that to translate out to pro-war.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Other than that I agree with the article.

There is no such thing as a "just war".

When you start from that premise, it's amazing how truly creative folks can be in their responses to events. When you rule out returning violence for violence from the get-go, and you encourage your society to do the same (witless cartoon episodes notwithstanding), violence can become marginalized.

We're so far from that in the United States, however, that it's truly impossible at this time to have a reasoned discussion about nonviolent conflict resolution. It's quite telling that the three historic peace churches are also the smallest sects of the dominant religion. All our leaders like to parade their Christianity for public consumption, but none of them like to put it into actual, real world practice. In fact, we shoot people who try.

a pitiful shame, people's violence on each other :puke: I realize the worst ones have to be removed by force sometimes, but that's just because they're surrounded by sycophants, and that's just more SHAME on my whole pathetic species.

People who backed the war were so short-sighted. I told crapheads I knew online at the time that we'd be there for years and they didn't want to hear it, they just talked about the strength of their president and their country.

but is there never a necessary war? Note that I'm not saying 'just war'; I'm saying 'necessary war'. Very few wars *are* necessary - but what would have happened to the world if our countries hadn't fought Hitler?

It's still a SHAME that war is what's needed when enough people give someone like that so much power. A shame that sometimes whole countries full of people need to be forced to act right :puke:

I think it's hilarious, people changing their minds about George Bush. There are at least 20 Impeach him/them signs in my neighborhood and I think most of my neighbors were happy as hell a few years ago about us throwing a war.

And that's fine with me. Sure, I protested Gulf War I, Afghanistan and Iraq, but sorry I think WWII was neccessary. I think if a nation is attacked, it has the right to defend itself. By the rationale in this article that's never true. That means if the U.S. attacked Iran, Iran would have no right to defend itself.

If you set out to make the antiwar movement an exclusive club for strict pacifists, don't fucking come crying to me when the movement fails.

This war became unpopular due to two factors: the tenacity of the Iraqi resistance, and the incompetence of the administration.

Think about that. Pacifism on the part of the Iraqis would have ended the war by now, and Bush would have come out smelling like a rose.

The early "antiwar" movement was chock full of pointy-headed dipshits like this guy. My local equivalent to Peace Fresno got so bogged down in groupthink that during 2004, they drove out: 1) the insufficiently pacifist, 2) meat eaters, 3) non-Christians, 4) Democrats, and then 5) women who were neither celibate nor fucking the leader.

Sure I'm bitter, but my point stands: fart-sniffing narcissism may feel good, but it won't help you achieve your goals.