« the answer is.... | Main | rally roundup »

onward

I watched the speeches until the repetiveness of them put me to sleep. But I was left to wonder one thing; wasn't this supposed to be a rally against going to war with Iraq?

As speaker after speaker approached the stage, I heard a lot of talk about the poor and racism and free Palestine. I heard about welfare and homelessness and the unemployment rate. I heard, over and over again, how Bush is a bad, evil man, how the real axis of evil lies right there in D.C., how much Amerikka sucks.

Not once did I hear the words Saddam or Hussein mentioned. I didn't even hear the word disarmament. I heard the ramblings of actors and actresses and professional protesters who used their pulpit to evangalize about their agendas and close with a half-hearted chant of No War in Iraq in case you forgot why they were supposed to be there.

I heard a word or two about peace, but it was in reference to Palestine. I certainly did not hear any alternative solutions to the possible war. I didn't hear anyone give ideas on how peace can come about.

I saw signs that depicted Bush as the devil, a terrorist and a shrub. I saw the obligatory No Blood for Oil signs, the Get out of Iraq signs and the Not in My Name signs.

So was this an anti-America rally or a pro-peace rally? Was it just a big publicity stunt/fundraiser for A.N.S.W.E.R. or was it an anti-war demonstration? Had I not known ahead of time what I was watching, I would never have assumed it was a protest against the war in Iraq. I would have assumed that it was a large group of people who despised their country. And I would have wondered what they were still doing living here if they cannot find anything good about it.

To address some comments, I did not explicitly state that everyone who is against military action in Iraq do not support our armed forces.

But I've been to enough pro-peace websites and I've been to one too many forums of the anti-war crusaders and I've heard it all. Our soldiers are assasins, baby killer, murderers for hire. They are stupid, gullible and brainwashed. Perhaps I should have stated more clearly that I think the majority, but not the whole of, the anti-war movement feels this way.

And about the phrases anti-war and pro-peace. Nobody is against peace and nobody is really pro war. They are catch-all phrases that perhaps do not speak the intricacy of what they really mean.

I don't like war. War is ugly, war is deadly, war is costly. But war, often times, is necessary. If it were not for war, think of where we would all be now. Think back to 1700's and work your way up and tell me what kind of country we would be in right now if we never fought for our beliefs or used might and power to take down tyranny; if we never stood up for those who could not go it alone.

I do think Saddam is dangerous. I do think he would not hesitate to use whatever weapons he has to destroy us. I do think he has supplied al-Queada with money and/or weapons and I do think, in the deepest part of my soul, that Saddam was grinning on the morning of September 11, 2001. I think I cannot in good conscience trust a man who pays off terrorists that kill innocent men and women and children. I cannot trust a man who kills his own people daily, who has no sense of human rights, who will starve children to death and think nothing of it.

I believe we can change the world. Not through protests or speeches, not through anarchy or socialism or turning on our own and calling each other terrorists for the cars we drive. We can change the world by changing the way countries like Iraq are run. When Iraq falls, Iran's leadership will fall, too. It will be a start towards freedom around the world.

But that is just my opinion, which does not matter one iota in the long run. The fact is, we are most certainly going to war. I am not going to question that decision because I think it's the right one.

What I will not do is stand around and decry the motives of our government while my relatives and neighbors are being shipped overseas. I am not going to let the leader of the country we are about to go to war with look at his satellite tv and see me waving in a sign that, in all essence, supports him.

I will wish our troops luck. I will think of them daily. And I will hope for the best.

You say give peace a chance, but you don't tell us the way to attain that peace. You say war is not the answer, but you don't tell us what is.

It's easy to make up chants and go along with the crowd and despise everything your country stands for. I would have more respect for you if you came up with some viable alternatives for making this world safe.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference onward:

» It's More of an Antitest, isn't it? from Overtaken by Events
I only say that since the EYP's in D.C. seem to be against absolutely everything. Juan Gato sums up the [Read More]

Comments

Well said!

Thank you for saying that, I agree.

You say give peace a chance, but you don't tell us the way to attain that peace. You say war is not the answer, but you don't tell us what is.

Exactly!! I keep asking my anti-war friends these questions and I have yet to get an answer that doesn't involve anything but they hate Bush or their beleif thta if we Americans just left the rest of the world alone, it would be all better.

Frustrating as hell.

and it looks like I can't spell today [sigh]

Bravo, Michele!

What I wonder is how many of these people are truly aware of what's happening....at all. They just want their voices heard - which is fine. They can get a blog. Isn't that what the rest of us have done? Works well for all of us. Anyway, I think they're so used to regurgitating what they hear someone else say that they haven't a clue as to what's at stake. Probably why they can offer no solutions....they haven't heard anyone else spout off a few.

I saw that! Was it on MTV? Because there was the Battle Of The Bands, and they all had braces and stuff, and there wasn't any anti-war stuff, and they were all about chicks and leather and stuff.

It was cool.

Right on, Michele.

Not to worry, Ith. Most of us are fluent in typonese.

LGF has a link to a Victor D. Hanson interview on C-Span. 29 minutes well spent if you have em. Good explanation of Amerrika haters' separation from reality. Guy's a freakin genius.

I would stand with them and think america is great. But I could also point out the same very items. Why are we worried about Iraq when we have children unfed on our streets. Its a valid point, take a good look. In Iraq, you have an inalianable right to food. (of course thats because we banned them for getting money for the oil) but still. (oh and of course you don't have a right to your own life there, but where do you?)

Even though I love this country, we are like the neighbor with 3 broken cars on the front lawn that criticizes how his neigbor mows.

Volokh Conspiracy offers "they see the war in Iraq as only one example of U.S. imperialism, so it must have seemed artificial to limit the rally to that one example of the broader problem."

Oh, about us not being able to give you an answer besides war. Thats not the problem is at all.

We just want to know what the question is first.

Ok Edgar. The question is, how do we disarm Saddam? How do we make sure he is not going to keep giving money to the widows of Hamas terrorists as a thank you bonus? How do we make sure he stops starving the children and torturing his people? How do we make sure that he takes care of his citizens before he buys gold plated moldings for his mansion?

And by the way, having an inalienable right to food and actually getting to act upon that right are two different things.

Now. Answer MY questions, Edgar.

Alright, thats a start.
The question is, how do we disarm Saddam? The UN inspectors are working to do that as we speak in a peacefull means. Everyone I physically speak too says that saddam isn't going to let them look where the bomb is. The fact is... saddam doesn't have a choice. So thats answer one... keep inspecting. And have a little trust in the UN inspectors. These aren't police officers from a small town. These are people that are trained to follow the trail of weapons and weapon constructed materials. There not the local yocals from your police department.

How do we make sure he is not going to keep giving money to the widows of Hamas terrorists as a thank you bonus?
We don't, its his nations money and he can do with it as he pleases. If we where giving him money and he was using that money for that purpose... then we might have some say. What we do do is limit his incoming cash flow, I'll answer how later. So, maybe we should be looking at Saudi Arabia and Syria first.

How do we make sure that he takes care of his citizens before he buys gold plated moldings for his mansion?

We limit his cash flow. Your next question would be how I'm guessing so lets answer that. By working with the UN we emplace an embargo preventing him from selling oil for money, weapons, or other such goods and limit that trade to food. This has been emplace since the gulf war. And according to a recent article in National Geographic (which is about as impartial as you get) Its working. The article stated that there really aren't starving children. Food is readily available and everyone is able to access it according to National Geographic.

So, my opinion is we stick with the rest of the world and we keep pushing the rules we've set up. When he attempts to go out outside of the rules then we put the smack down as we did under our last presidency.

More of this is hype than fact. If we wen't to war, I wouldn't have a clue what we are fighting for. Thats why I'm asking... its not because I don't support america, or I don't support our troops. Its because I don't think its the right thing to do in this instance. It was the right thing to do in bosnia, and we should probobly have done more in samalia, and we need to wrap up in afganistan.

I messed up your tags again. I won't use it again.

How do we disarm Saddam?
Damn good question, really.
How also do we disarm Israel, China, NK, Russia, France, Pakistan, India,US?
I think if one must disarm, all must disarm.
Iraq used to be considered an ally, when it was convinient for both parties. No telling when any of the above mentioned Nuke-ready countries will decide being an ally to the US is not in their best interests, or when they remove the metaphorical knife from their backs.
Any country with nuke-capabilities is a potential danger to the US and the world, including the US.
I'm not opposed disarming Iraq~ I am actually in favor of disarming every damned coutnry that has WOMD's.
As far as broken UN resolutions go, Iraq is small potatoes compared to other country's broken resolutions~Israel for example.
Anyway, every single country in the ME is oppressive, torturous, backward. Perhaps we should consider wiping that whole slate clean-and I do mean whole.
After all, we have taken it upon ourselves to police the planet, and doing so would make our job sooo much easier.

Ooops, left the UK out of that list.

"When he attempts to go out outside of the rules then we put the smack down as we did under our last presidency." Huh? What'd I miss? Willy smacked em down? Dayum! I gotta quit sleepin in!

Ample justification for war lies in the fact that Sodom has continuously violated terms of the '91 cease-fire. Ergo, this is merely a resumption of Gulf War 1.

Ok, thats good enough for a smack down, but not an all out war.

Sadam was bombed twice under the clinton presidency for "pushing the limit".

We really need some better reasons... so far this is weak.

I think the point was, and I could be wrong, that they should concentrate on domestic problems and let the international issues continue to fester.....While they protested in DC, a 'death to Amerika'protest was taking place in Bahrain.
If they keep up up that attitude its going to bahRain hellfire missiles soon.