catapult magazine

What does being anti-war at this point mean? Now that we ARE at war, are you rooting for Iraq, the “underdog?” And if you are, does that mean you endorse Iraq’s methods of attack, the torture and killing of American soldiers? Do you want America to lose?

If this is the peace movement … what’s treason?

Dan, the endorsement needs to be further defined. I hate it that we are it war. I think it is a bad move politically and, to a certain extent, ethically. And yet I want to support our troops. Not the actions that they are told to do, but them as people. I have very few direct connections to the war, and yet I have too many.
I guess it’s the love the sinner hate the sin mentallity.
My uncle was in Vietnam and while, if I had been living at the time, I would have disapproved of the war, I would have supported and prayed for my uncle. Not in his fighting an arguably unjust war, but in that he is my uncle and I love him.
Anti-war American sentiment isn’t dead, it’s simply tempered by our concern for the soldiers who we love even though we don’t agree with what they are told to do.

My message got posted twice, so I deleted one version. See below

I still oppose the war, even though the troops are fighting over there. My opposition to begin with came from my personal conviction that war in general is not the way to solve problems. Just because the Bush Administration chose to send the troops to war does not change my personal conviction. I see no need to “support” them because they are there of their own choice (We don’t have the draft in the United States anymore, so going to war is a personal choice of those in the Armed Services. In my opinion, they are no more “heroes” than firemen, police, or for that matter anyone who is doing the job they were hired to do.)

Having said that, I can see how some people can “change their mind” about being against the war to begin with, but then supporting it once it is a done deal. I assume that in at least some of these cases, the opposition is to war as the particular selected alternative. When the Administration picks a different alternative, then some people would be satisfied that they’d had their “vote” but that another alternative won the day.

Religion for Thinkers:
http://www.netcom.com/~symbios/relig.html

I still have questions about the rationale for opposing or not opposing wars, as a Christian. In a lot of the discussion on this and related topics, it seems like the positions taken are sort of separate from one’s Christianity. That seems odd, to me.

Religion for Thinkers:
http://www.netcom.com/~symbios/relig.html

dan: just to echo some of the sentiments already shared, i still whole-heartedly disagree with using war to attempt to solve the problem of saddam hussein’s brutality. i think we could have explored a lot more non-violent solutions.

however, now that we are involved with this war, it doesn’t seem productive to me to continue to try to prevent the war by arguing its validity. while we do need to hold our government responsible for its actions (which is our responsibility in a democracy), i’m interested in what we do now. how do we proceed during this war and how do we proceed after the war?

sandy: i’m saying all of the things above as a christian, and i try my best to temper all of my ideals with the teachings of Christ. it is difficult, though, especially in a fallen and sinful world. i would personally like to see a foreign policy based on the beatitudes. wouldn’t that be amazing? “love your enemies.” how would that change the way we do things?

Many years ago, Billy Graham said something like, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and not tried.” I think what he was getting at is that living as a Christian involves not just trying to live with your Christianity in the face of a screwed-up world, but developing a whole new paradigm for facing and influencing the world. It is extremely difficult to see the world living by the Beatitudes, but as it says in Ephesians, God is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think. That’s what I had in mind when I brought up the subject of “Christian anarchism” in one of the other discussions – Christians have to be Christians first, and patriots, capitalists, Democrats, etc., as their Christianity permits. Another nice Old Testament scripture that seems to hold great promise – if we will start acting like the Body we are supposed to be – starts out: If my people who are called by my name shall humble themselves and seek my face… You know the rest.
Cheers.

Religion for Thinkers:
http://www.netcom.com/~symbios/relig.html

g.k. chesterton said that; billy graham may have quoted him.

dan, dissent hasn’t left the US. There is still civil unrest in the Bay are of California. There are still protesters in the capital. There are still anti-war activists in Seattle and Chicago.

I suppose the media may be showing some bias simply by focusing on the troops instead of the protests. Not that I don’t think they should be focusing on the war, but the protests may just be less visible instead of less numerous.
Statement of the obvious I guess, but I don’t think it’s been said yet.

Thanks for the responses everyone. I’m glad to hear that dissent is not dead in America. Like Sandy, I find it difficult to pity professional soldiers for doing what they’re paid well to do, and what many of them have looked forward to for a long time.

I especially remember a televised scene from early on in the war with American soldiers laying in a trench and being shot at by Iraqi positions in a building. One American used a shoulder-launched missile to put a hole in the building. When it blew up, all the soldiers cheered as if they had just scored a touchdown. All the noble images of World War II veterans slogging it out in the trenches became irrellevant to me at that point.

As an American citizen I don’t think the fact that troops are in danger should change my opinion about whether they should be in danger or not. I know the war is over now, but I still feel this is crucial because it will happen again. And again, and again. Unless people learn that their opinion is not automatically undermined when troops are in danger—that even in times of war, dissent should never be associated with anti-Americanism. That sympathizing with the soldiers who are fighting against all odds should never be a crime.

The reason my mind didn’t change is because I disagree with the Bush Administrations vision for the world. I wasn’t against taking out Hussein. It should have happened through the United Nations. The fact that the attack occurred didn’t make the attack any more multi-lateral or any more legitimate.

I’m worried about the future. About who is next on Bush’s “evil” list. About a world where non-Americans long for the good old days when there was another superpower to keep the USA in check. About danger to Americans as respect for America’s military grows in tandem with hatred of America worldwide. All these worries would be alleviated (in my mind and millions of others) if Bush had the patience to work through international organizations.

Having said all that, I’m happy that Iraqis are free from Hussein’s oppression and from economic sanctions. Unfortunately, dropping bombs is fun and easy compared to creating a democracy.