Don’t Eat the WMD

Voices for Animals is presenting a film about alleged deceptions about WMDs in Iraq and participating in an anti-war march. Did we blow up a lot of wildlife over there or is this just comical mission creep? This reminds me of some of the shenanigans at the anti-war rally and march just before the war in Iraq. A war protest is not the appropriate time and place to make a fuss about GLBT rights or abortion.

Comments 2

  1. Tom Smith wrote:

    I was similarly annoyed at an anti-war rally in Oakland last year (it might be the same as the one you posted about earlier). After seeing a number of rainbow flags, I really didn’t know what to make of the scene. Anyway, I think there’s a whole liberal/leftist culture of mutual back-scratching. The anti-war protesters will march in the GLBT rally if the GLBTs protest the war. If you protest and have a progressive, non-mainstream political orientation, you’ll support most any leftish cause, be it the “pan-sexual agenda,” to use Fr. Pontificator’s term, or the anti-war cause, or environmental issues, or organic foods, or whatever.

    I kinda think that having the same people at every rally weakens the cause, and causes those who don’t agree to pigeonhole and stereotype the protesters.

    Posted 20 Mar 2005 at 10:18 pm
  2. theomorph wrote:

    Yeah, the protesters in my area are all chronic, too. Almost all of them seem to be members of the nearest Unitarian Universalist congregation, too. Color me shocked.

    But personally I’m even more put off by the persistent, pathetic banality of war protesters. In the local paper today is a picture of a woman holding a sign that says “War is death.” Well, yes, what else would it be? I don’t know how anybody with half a brain could see a sign or a slogan like that and not feel insulted. Are we all just naive idiots who think war means going out and throwing flowers or having a pillow fight?

    I far prefer the clear-eyed realism of somebody like the General William Tecumseh Sherman during our Civil War, who said, “War is cruelty and it cannot be refined.” Indeed. And he was no pacifist or war protester, either. He understood that humans have a lust for war that, unfortunately, can only be satisfied by wars, and then they must be made so horrible and so cruel that it takes generations to re-ignite the bloodlust.

    But that recognition of human nature doesn’t show up in war protesters and their ilk, who seem to think protesting war is just another occasion for leftists to get together for an afternoon or a day.

    Don’t forget, either, the recent words of Nancy Soderberg (former member of Clinton’s National Security Council), when faced with the possibility of success for the mission in Iraq and the establishment of democracy there:

    “It’s scary for Democrats, I have to say. . . . Well, there’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s still hope for the rest of us. . . . There’s always hope that this might not work.”

    Ward Churchill (recently reviled, again) once wrote a little book called “Pacifism as Pathology” in which he decried American leftist pacifists for being hypocritical about violence elsewhere: When Americans use violence for their ideals, they’re evil; when people in developing nations use violence for their ideals, they’re patriots and freedom fighters. I.e., not only do pacifist leftists push arrogant and insulting slogans on their fellow Americans, they have the bizarre audacity to assume, apparently, that people in developing nations just aren’t civilized enough to make their point without violence, as we enlightened Westerners allegedly can, so they are praised for being insurgents or terrorists.

    Posted 20 Mar 2005 at 10:46 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *