First of all, i am pro-war but i’m no hawk. I realise this whole thing has been messy and will have serious repercussions but im for it nonetheless.However, the point of the thread is to comment on what i perceive to be anti-war intolerance of the pro-war camp.They see us all as a bunch of bloodthirsty,unilateralist, sadistic trigger-happy savages with no morals. I’ve heard a lot of anti-war people on radio and Tv spouting off how immoral the pro-war camp is. I tend to see the pro-war camp as being more tolerant-at worst we see the other side as loonies but thats not such a bad thing 
We often understand most of their arguments-undermining the UN,civilian casualities etc. but they never seem to understand ours. Anyway i was wondering if you guys have noticed this: Is the anti-war camp stubbornly intolerant of opposing views? I’m not saying they have to agree with us, but they ought to at least stop casting us as the savages we are meant to be and try and understand our point of view.
Is being cast as a savage any worse than being cast as a loony? Either one is an ad hominem attack. Don’t like it myself, but from the traditional point of view of either side, they are both ways of marginalising the other side.
WRT either side being more or less tolerant, I think this always comes down to perspective. Of course YOU understand, and the people you talk to generally understand the other side. But THEY, well, they just don’t seem to understand your point of view, and they’re intolerant of your side as individuals.
I’d imagine that objectively you could slide a very thin piece of paper in the gap
Actually, im ny experience, it’s been the opposite, but I think it’s a matter of perception as much as anything. I’ve noticed a lot more pro-war folks calling anit-war folks loonies and cowards, or accusing them of being stupid, short-sighted, and unrealistic than the situation you describe. Of course, I tend to be anti-violence (even when I understand and accept that violence is necessary) and so tend to notice pro-war people who are being assholes.
It’s just a natural human tendency to notice when those other people are being assholes while not seeing assholishness in ourselves or our cohorts. There’s plenty of jerkishness and intolerance on both sides of this issue, it’s just that you and I tend to notice different instances because of our own viewpoints.
There are vocal elements on the fringes of both sides who are acting in such ways:
Anti-war: If you’re pro war you don’t care about the innocent civilians of Iraq, you’re just interested in grabbing land and oil.
Pro-war: If you’re anti war you don’t support the troops and are unpatriotic. You also support Saddam and terrorism.
There’s also a large group who understand that there are several ways of viewing the war, but can understand why someone else may view things differently. Many of these people (myself included) would support a war in Iraq, but not under current circumstances.
minega, how much popular support does the war get where you live? Do most people support it, like here in the states, or are most people against it?
I think b_y_k has hit on something. I find myself maddeningly on the fence, and that fencepost hurts like hell. The rhetoric (always controlled by the extremists, it seems) would leave you to believe that you’re either a bloodthirsty baby-killer or a spineless America-Hater. The larger center, as always, gets largely ignored.
Yes i agree that the middle ground is largely ignored, which is sad because they are the ones who actually have thier heads on straight. Im on the anti-war side but i think the radical anti-war people make me look anti-american to some extent. I dont stand behind this war but that certainly doesn’t mean that im pro-Saddam or that i want to see us lose the war, but thats the idea that some people think of when they see these extremist protesters. And i think the same line of thought is true for the Pro-war side, resectively.
It’s hard to maintain a consistent anti-war stance and still favor realistic measures to rid the world of the worst tyrants. Thinking regarding the blood of tyrants and such, of course, is enshrined in US history. We love to hate tyrants, unless they can be played off against other tyrants, are necessary for regional stability, help in the war against Communism, drugs, terrorism, etc… Other than in those situations, and maybe some I forgot, we’re anti-tyrant all the way.
I’d consider myself to be an idealistic skeptic. I’d love for the US to always be a force for basic human freedoms, democracy, and prosperity. But, I’m skeptical enough to see blowback, perceived imperialism, and inconsistent behavior by the US government vis-a-vis rights and freedom. Given the past history, it makes you want to do things better (optimist), or stay the hell out so as not to screw things up again (skeptic).
Optimist: engages in places like Mogadishu.
Skeptic: fails to engage in places like Rwanda.
Pick your poison.
I am against any war and killing, but I realize that there are some really evil people in this world. In our country (US) we have a justice system to take care of this problem. Policemen stop evil people who rob, and murder innocents. We need them until the world becomes a perfect place to live. Think what chaos there would be without them.
Hopefully the UN would be the justice system for the world. But some of the UN countries are actually making money by selling the bad guys weapons to kill with, and don’t want to lose their customers, so they vote against stopping them.
Someone has to take the responsibility to stop the torture and killing by dictators. Iraq has invaded two other countries already and seeks more and more powerful weapons. Do you think Saddom will not use them?
If we don’t do it now, we will have to do it later at much greater cost in lives and effort. I am old enough to remember Hitler. If he had been stopped in 1930, the lives of 150 million people may have been saved.
Ask yourself if you would ignore a neighbor that beat and tortured their children because he wasn’t doing anything to you.
It takes a lot of courage to stand up for freedom for all.
When I saw the tapes of soldiers passing out candy and water to the children it reminded me of WWII. One soldier said, after talking to the children, “I know why I am here now, and what I am doing, freedom is very important.”
Well, I am Pro-War. Actually, I am in the “There isn’t anything else to do because the UN isn’t working” Pro-War camp.
I have talked to some anti-war people and I asked them all the same thing which is: “Well, what do you think we should do?”. They have all, so far, replied with: “Let the UN inspections go on.”
When I point out that the UN inspections were not working and ask for other suggestions no one in the anti-war camp has given me a better idea on how to resolve this. If someone can come up with a better idea that dis-arms Iraq without war I am all for it. So far I haven’t heard of any better options.
Note, my Nephew is out there in Harm’s Way and, while I am proud of him, I am also very worried.
Slee
The question is, disarm what? Where are those NCB weapons, given that both Blair’s dossier and Powell’s “sat photos” are both crap?
Mminega, I think you’re just experiencing a regional difference. Here in Los Angeles, I can’t even turn on the radio without hearing someone spewing vitriol at war protestors. I know Hollywood gets portrayed as being radically liberal, and there is certainly a contingent of anti-war people, but the day-in, day-out political climate here tends to be staunchly pro-war. When protesters were blocking streets, certain radio personalities, as well as a lot of callers, said they wanted to run over the protesters with their cars. The arguments made by these people are almost all strawmen, too. It’s maddening to continue hearing from people who don’t realize that being against war does not mean one has to LIKE Saddam. And any anti-war person who calls in simply gets shouted down. It’s as if there’s no middle ground to these people; you either support the war or you support Saddam and bin Laden. It’s just downright infantile at times.
Since it doesn’t appear that Minega will be back anytime soon to answer my query, I’d like to follow up on blowero’s post with the theory I was developing.
My perception is that the reverse is the case here the states. That the anti-war folks are generally less tolerated, berated as Sadaam apologists or peacenick pacifists - when neither are the case.
My theory is that which side seems intolerant depends on which side has the majority view in that region. Here in the states, most folks support the war. The dissenting view is more repressed and less tolerated. Elsewhere, where those against the war are in the majority, I would expect the opposite to be the case.
Just a theory, but I do wonder how it holds up.
Maybe it has to do with the American philosophy of
United we stand, divided we fall?
The majority will want the rest to get in line and finish what we started. Lets finish the war and discuss it afterwards. Its not the pro-war want to impede the anti-war’s right to free speech. My position as a moderate war advocate is that the “effect” of the anti-war sentiment was more helpful to the enemy (Saddam) than effective in changing the administration’s policy.
“You’re either with us or against us,” eh? Sure sounds like the American Way to me. :rolleyes: Frankly, that’s part of the problem.
I suppose your solution is that it would be better if those against the war would just shut up about it for the time being? A simple yes or no will suffice, if you decide to answer that.
Both sides of the argument need to respect the other side’s right to an opinion. The pro-war side seems more likely to lynch the pacifists, though. They seem more fanatical in their beliefs, since it is after all the view of the government - nationalists are always the most “passionate”
What makes the pro-war side “nationalists”?
Actually, a simple yes or no is impossible. It is not a simple question.
What what I would like the Anti-war people to do is speak to the issues as they happen. Keep the administration honest but dont force policy.
For example: sending troops home now is catastrophic both militarily and politically. It would be a financial waste of resources and unrealistic.
If they have proof of atrocities or mismanagement, apply pressure to air it or present their case.
Anyone in the camp got a better idea than this war? I hear a lot of them say “theres got to be a better way” but I havent heard one yet. Dont bring up old issues. Inspections are done, move on.
Dont contradict yourselves, especially in the same breathe.
“I am against all war and any violence but I support our troops”
“This war is unjustified but I agree that Saddam is pure Evil”
“I am a pacifist! Stop this war or I will beat you!”
What I would really like is for the anti-war people to have spokespersons so that the lower IQ minions dont have to get on camera and represent them.
I’m just theorizing that some pro-war people are simply pro-war because of blind patriotism.
Sure it is… “yes”, you think people who are against the war should shut up about it while the fighting is going on. See how easy that was?
Let’s look at your post and see how well you understand the anti-war movement, shall we?
I’d like an example of where any anti-war folks have “forced policy” in this matter. Pretty clearly, the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq has flatly ignored the anti-war movement. Any attempts made to keep the administration “honest” have been rejected as anti-American or some other such twaddle.
I agree. The way I see it, though, the people protesting the war now are protesting the reasons for the war. At most of the rallies I’ve seen or statements I’ve heard, nobody it’s suggesting we pull out at this juncture. Now, there probably are such suggestions, but I’d challenge you to prove that they represent the majority of the anti-war movement. I don’t think they do.
And where would said proof come from? Bit of a Catch-22 here… you’re expecting people who already mistrust the Bush Administration (with some good reason, to my mind), to trust them to own up about atrocities/mismanagement in the war effort. Pull the other one now, why don’t you?
Mind you, I don’t think our troops have committed any atrocities. I do, however, think there might be some mismanagement going on, and given the whitewashed version of events beign fed to most of the major press, I don’t think we’re going to hear of it until well after the war is over… whenever that is.
The only reason inspections are an “old issue” is because they weren’t given a decent chance in the first place. And don’t start the “12 years of inspections” line either, because it doesn’t wash. Failed diplomacy is a big element of this war, and it’s one of the many reasons I’m against it. To call it an “old issue” is dismissive and inaccurate.
These statements are not contradictory in the least, unless one holds the world in a perfectly black/white dichotomy. For example, I agree (mostly) with the first statement. I am against this war (not all war), but I support our troops, in that I hope they do their job and come home soon.
The second statement is not contradictory either… Saddam could be pure evil (though that’s not a word I would use), and the war could still be unjustified. I don’t see a problem with this.
Uhhhh-huh. Cite? I’m wondering whose butt you pulled this out of. It sure is contradictory, but I call bullshit until you prove it.
Well, I can’t help but agree with this. Some of the people being shown as talking heads for the anti-war movement are remarkably stupid. But then, some of the people speaking for the pro-war movement have also said some extremely dumb things. “Freedom Fries” ring a bell? How about the idea of unearthing WWII soldiers’ corpses to drag them across the ocean? How about the people who still believe and/or put forth the notion that there are connections between alQaeda and Hussein’s regime, despite strong evidence to the contrary.
I agree that there are stupid people on the anti-war side, and they shouldn’t be given microphones to trumpet their ignorance to the world. However, don’t pretend that the anti-war movement has a monopoly on dumbasses. There are plenty of representative samples of ignorance (sometimes willful ignorance) on the pro-war side as well.