Eschaton wrote:
I’m a bit tired with all the hand-wringing about what the anti-war people should do. Aside from not elevating the degree of civil disobedience above the slightly annoying, I think contuing to protest is just fine. The reason people protest in the first place is because they feel it’s their only avenue of political expression. Their elected representatives aren’t providing a voice, the media isn’t providing a voice, so the only possible way to register objections to the current war is public protest. In addition, as many people can attest, the state and local democratic parties are largely in shambles and/or unwelcoming to new participants.
If it was wrong two days ago it’s wrong today. This is my last obligatory “I support the troops and hope they come home safely.” That’s a given, and there’s no conflict between wanting them to stay alive and not wanting there to be a war.
I don’t think any anti-war protesters are under the illlusion that they’re going to change any minds this week. That isn’t the point – the point is to register objections the only way they can.
Hear, hear.
Don’t fall into the trap of letting our opponents decide for us what we can and cannot do. Don’t think that blind support for the war now the fighting begun, is “supporting the troops”. The only way to support the troops is to get them the hell out of there. Those four US and eight UK soldiers who died in that Sea Knight crash would not have died if they hadn’t been in Iraq, that US marine killed in combat would still be alive if Bush hadn’t started this war.
Apart from that, I personally am a lot less concerned about the fate of “our boys” than I am about the fate of innocent Iraqi civilians and Iraqi conscripts, some of which are as young as fifteen. It’s a given many more of them will die, who had no choice in being in this war, then will the US and UK soldiers now fighting Bush’s war.