Shedding light on a facet of current \"peace\" movem

And what''s your point? There always be people to take advantage of certain things by using it as vehicle. Hooligans are a certain ''facet'' of soccer, however, 99% of all soccer fans sure as hell aren''t hooligans.

JD I think his point is that the organizer''s of the current peace protest couldn''t give a damn about peace. They really don''t care about this war, its just a front for them to gain influence and power. I strongly suspect that the majority of the peace protesters really don''t have a clue who they''re marching for, and what those people''s goals are.

The problem with the peace protesters is that like lemmings they''re ignorantly following these people, because its trendy & so much more ""proper"" to be anti-war.

JD I think his point is that the organizer''s of the current peace protest couldn''t give a damn about peace. They really don''t care about this war, its just a front for them to gain influence and power. I strongly suspect that the majority of the peace protesters really don''t have a clue who they''re marching for, and what those people''s goals are.

That may be his point, JD is saying its not true. Some people are like that, but some African Americans are criminals. It''s a different story to say all of them are.

I''m not saying that some people aren''t like that, what I am saying is that the groups Organizing this ARE THAT WAY. This is true. I agree with you that quite a few of the protesters aren''t, but the people who are setting it up are, and the majority of the protesters aren''t questioning/looking at this, they prefer/ignorantly march on, irregardless of goals they''re helping these people reach.

Thank you, drgrey for stating my point better than I could.

ANSWER and Not In Our Name are organzations that lead and oranganize these peace movements in USA. And you if can''t even concede that there is something wrong, for the lack of a better word, with this then I don''t know what to say.

Then again, what is the media going to focus on? The organizers who are causing trouble, or the vast majority of organizers who are not. You do see that categorizing the ''peace movement'' as anything is a gross oversimplification and is as ridiculous as claiming that those supporting the war are close minded conservative racists (though a very small and vocal number of them are). It''s the same Red Herrings you see everywhere else right now on both sides of the fence.

I swear, I''m getting to the point that everytime I see a thread that talks about ""the Peace Movement"" I just roll my eyes at the rhetoric.

The problem with the peace protesters is that like lemmings they''re ignorantly following these people, because its trendy & so much more ""proper"" to be anti-war.

That''s funny. I''m sure a lot of people against the war would say the same of those who support Bush.

I''m going to rant here for a moment, and it''s not particularly about this forum or any participants, but about the larger debate raging.

Seriously, this is exactly the kind of statement that keeps either side from being able to enter into reasonable dialogue, this overarching assumption that since ""They"" don''t agree with ""We"", then ""They"" must be misguided buffoons. Both sides of the argument are equally responsible and guilty. I read thread after thread, article after article, editorial after editorial that says those who are pro/anti-war don''t see the ''truth'' [sic] of the matter, are ignorant of the situation, are hypocritical, are being manipulated by those in charge, and so on, and so on. It''s so remarkably counter-productive and insulting that, frankly, I''m disgusted with both the ''peace movement'' and the ''coalition supporters''. While we''re sitting here calling each other names, bemoaning the ignorance of one another, and generally making asses of ourselves there''s an eighteen-year-old kid being held as a POW in Iraq being tortured, abused, and humiliated in ways that you can''t imagine, or/and there''s an innocent Iraqi child burning in the fires of Baghdad.

I think it''s failing to see the forest for the trees, when you focus on a few dozen organizers political motivations without acknowledging that _millions_ of people feel moved enough by what they see as wrong to take to the streets. To suggest they did so just because they were bored or they liked to cause trouble is, I think, intentionally ignorant. At the same time, as many or more people genuinely believe that the humanitarian situation of Iraq is critical enough that we have a moral obligation to help, and to disregard these people as ''warmongers'' simply because you think Bush & Co. are disingenuous is equally ignorant.

Sorry, I''m not sure if this post is precisely in response to anything written here. Just some thoughts I had. Don''t misinterpret what I was trying to say here as being specifically critical of anyone present. I''ve said before, and will say again that I think, by and large, the posts here have been well considered and far above average.

Gross over-simplification is probably the biggest crime stemming from this war next to loss of life or violation of life.

Pro war over simplification:
The Iraqi people will cheer or cheer us when we get rid of Saddam.

Iraq will be a beacon of Democracy for the region.

Anti war over simplification:

No blood for oil!

I tried to avoid the gross oversimplification that you are acusing me of by titling the post that way, but I guess it doesn''t work. And it''d be a simple world to live in if we can dismiss facts we don''t agree with as simple rhetoric eh?

All I want to point out is that the 2 leading peace movement organizers have shaddy backgrounds. My understanding is that these organizations organize an overwhelming majority of the protests in USA. These 2 organizations are the vast majority of organizers in USA. Almost every peace rallies we have here in the USA cause trouble. So where are the organizations that don''t cause trouble?

I don''t want to get into what I think of the peace movement as a whole here and have some people tell me what they think is wrong with the war, that''s some tired points. But if you think what we here, or people in general, expressing both side of opinion on this war is counter-production then what do you feel is productive at this point?

I tried to avoid the gross oversimplification that you are acusing me of by titling the post that way, but I guess it doesn''t work.

I do want to stress again, that I really wasn''t targeting you. I can see how it reads that way, but it''s not my intention.

All I want to point out is that the 2 leading peace movement organizers have shaddy backgrounds.

I understand that, and don''t disagree. Don''t think I''m apologizing or supporting these positions, but I do respect that millions of people around the world took to the streets to voice their opinion. Against that voice, I''d suggest that the politics of the organizers is argumentatively irrelevant.

But if you think what we here, or people in general, expressing both side of opinion on this war is counter-production then what do you feel is productive at this point?

That''s not at all what I said. What I said was that a productive conversation respects the views of those who take a counter position. That is not, in general, what is happening.

Elysium I agree with the fact that not only both sides oversimplify points and that the majority of both sides are ignorant of the actual facts/underlying causes of this war. At the same time however I believe that many in the pro-war side have to research much more their own, and opposing, views then the anti-war crowd, because you there is no basis in being pro-war, you''re foundations for your argument have to have not only logical meaning but factual data to back it up. In the typical mainstream press I don''t see a lot of questioning of the foundations/facts of the anti-war side, in fact I see very little to any at all. However you do see lots of questions/checking posed to the pro-war camp. Some of this I think is legitimate, but at the same time it should be focused on the other side, some of the arguments I think exist just becuase the anti-war/press at some base point just dislike Bush. Its all fine and dandy if you dislike/hate Bush, you can do that here as opposed to France/Iraq, but at least be honest about the background of your argument so that others can more clearly see where your arguements/beliefs come from and what foundation you have.

Besides Bill Orielly/Sean Hannity of Fox News, and people like Rush Limbaugh, what sort of questioning do you see of the goals of the main organizers, none. Check the NY Times, our nations and maybe the world''s most influential paper, the Washington Times, the SF Chronicle, the LA Times, CNN, MSNBC... do you find ANY reports on the background/goals of the organizers & the basis/facts of their arguments... No. At the same time in all of the above publications/views I see lots of questioning/research looking at the pro-war side.

I think what Locke is trying to say, you can''t have it both ways: to hold down the pro-war side as being influenced by certain factions for their self-interest, and not say that the same thing is true for the other. To do so is MASSIVELY biased and thats what I think is going on not only in the American press, though the questioning/research of the pro-war side is dwindling since we now how soilders fighting/dieing, but as well the International press.

don''t see a lot of questioning of the foundations/facts of the anti-war side, in fact I see very little to any at all.

I agree. It''s a double standard.

I think what Locke is trying to say, you can''t have it both ways: to hold down the pro-war side as being influenced by certain factions for their self-interest,

Ah, perhaps I wasn''t clear enough here then. What I was saying in response is that the people who feel morally compelled to support the war for humanitarian reasons aren''t just Bush lackeys as many protestors might have me believe. I was saying precisely what you are, that the double standard is counter-productive to any reasonable discussion, and that for those who want to ''support the troops'' and liberate Iraq, the possible ulterior motivations of the administration are as irrelevant as the ulterior motivations of portest organizers for those in the streets.

To do so is MASSIVELY biased and thats what I think is going on not only in the American press, though the questioning/research of the pro-war side is dwindling since we now how soilders fighting/dieing, but as well the International press.

I agree completely, but I don''t think the answer is to indict legitimate protesters for the motives of possibly nefarious organizers. Hold those organizers accountable? I''m fine with that, but don''t then dismiss those who participated in the protest as simply a manipulated voice. On the same hand, I''m all for the pro-troops demonstrations that have been cropping up, and would never see them as anything else if it turned out the organizers were secret Halliburton shareholders, because I realize the demonstrators didn''t speak under that pretext.

At the risk of over simplifying, I think I have a possible answer to some of our concerns.

It seems these issues are conflicts of the simple and complex. While ANSWER and Not in Our Name have complex motives, I believe that most anti war protesters have simple motives. They oppose the very idea of war or they oppose use of force as a means to an end. You can research and discount the motives of the organizations promoting the peace rallies but I dont think it will do much good to question why someone is against killing.

An awful lot of effort goes into legitimising motives for war. War is killing and killing is the opposite of living which most people promote and encourage. By its very nature the more beneficial the reasons for killing the more we can lessen the negative emotions surrounding it. The more and different motivations become complex.

Goals can be simple and complex as well. The anti war movement has complex goals. Trying to achieve an objective or change someones point of view without force takes a lot of effort. We wont convince someone of our point of view by just telling them that they are wrong. We usually have to qualify it with facts and experiences. The more facts used the more complex our argument and the more compelling it becomes.

The pro war side has generally simple goals. At least they are simple when voiced. Saddam is bad and must be removed. Democracy is good and therefore making Iraq a democracy will be good.

So, we have a group with simple motivations and complex goals trying to communicate with a group with complex motivations and simple goals.

In this case I would say that the press is giving equal coverage to the complex motivations of the one group and complex goals of the other.