"Ouch! And the ref takes a point away!"
-Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

:D

Your other points are dead on ballz accurate.. :D

Michale.....

Actually, I didn't think you were being snotty, I thought it was a valid criticism (just like the one that made me disassociate "anti-war" with "lefty"). It was less snottier than some of your comments... whoops, now I'M being snotty, sorry!

heh heh.

There is indeed a spectrum of the anti-war community. Some people, often through very strongly-held religious beliefs (Quakers, for instance) are anti-the-concept-of-war. Even in WWII, they only entered the Army as Conscientious Objecters. Being a CO in WWII was a brave thing to do, when the enemy was clearly defined, obviously evil, and with world-domination as their objective. Some would say it's just as hard today, but it's always hard to compare such things.

Anyway, then there are anti-Iraq-war people. I've met people who are strongly anti-Iraq-war, who actually supported the war in Afghanistan. They see their position as consistent and logical.

Then there are folks who are anti-Bush, or I would put it anti-Bush-war, you're right.

I lump them all together as anti-war since I don't think any of them would disagree with that label. As I said, I used to call them "the anti-war left" until I was corrected. There are soldiers serving right now in Iraq who are anti-Iraq-war, for instance. But with any label comes problems. That's why I'm overly sensitive when I use one that someone validly objects to.

I think I like "war supporters" or more properly "Iraq war supporters" for the same reason -- I don't think anyone in that category would object to the label. "Pro-war" could be objectionable, you are correct.

But some labels I don't really care if the person being labeled objects to or not. Example: Darth Cheney.

heh.

-CW

But you do raise an interesting point.. Are those who are protesting the Iraq War truly "anti-war"?? Or are they just "anti IRAQ War"?? Actually, the cynical side of me thinks that these people aren't really anti war or Iraq War at all. They are just anti-Bush and will use any flimsy excuse to show that...

Pursuing this line of thought, as I said, anyone who is actually PRO WAR is a psychopath or sociopath..... How would you pigeon-hole someone who is anti-war, but not to the exclusion of self-defense..

As I said, don't feel like I was slamming your terminology. It's just a pet peeve of mine. One could still be ANTI-WAR and still be PRO-IRAQ WAR..

How to state that in a convenient one/two word label is a daunting task... :D

Michale.....

You're probably right about the labeling. I started using "anti-war" a while back because someone complained I was labeling the "hard left" as being against the war, and they were an anti-war righty! So I started using the more generic "anti-war" to describe those against the war (of any political stripe). In this article, I needed to explain the opposite opinion, and I chose "pro-war" (for the first time, I believe, I usually call them "Bushies" or "neo-cons" or similar labels) when I probably shouldn't have. How about "supporters of the war" or maybe "supporters of the Bush policy on the war"... hmmm, neither of those are very snappy. Problem is, I need a short and easy term...

I'll think about it. Labels are divisive in more ways than one, I guess.

Irony is, I thought I did a pretty fair job of showing how both sides would react in similar ways, through the lens of their own personal agenda. In other words, I was really trying to be even-handed here (while, of course, taking gratuitous swipes at the media).

But like I said, I'll think twice next time. Maybe "war supporters"?

-CW

First, though, let me say that I really hate the "anti war" and "pro war" terminology. It's so prejudicial and misleading.. No one in their right mind is "PRO" war. Any reasonable rational human being would HAVE to be Anti War... That's just a minor pet peeve of mine.

In any case, you do pick up on the spin excellently. But it does leave the anti Iraq War crowd in a little bit o pickle.. If they, as you project, claim that "We told you the British method of pulling back made the most sense — when you leave the fighting to the Iraqis themselves, they are successful." then the next logical step would be to point out to the anti Iraq War crowd that the "success" came at a high price in Iraqi lives. Lives that would NOT have been lost if US Forces were there to assist.. And therein lies the pickle.. The anti Iraq War crowd could respond to that with a, "Well, that's fine, as long as it's not American lives being lost." message But that would seem to be hypocritical in light of their constant whining about the loss of Iraqi lives in this "unjust war"... The anti Iraq War crowd's position is not based on any sort of logic. It's a position riveted in emotion. It has been my experience that any position taken in emotion is, usually (not always, but usually) the wrong position to take.

Michale.....

I too would like to know what the candidates think of these events and what if any plans they have if they become President.

I also think that the current Congress will be slow to react other than to mouth the usual sound bites.

I agree that the media has failed in its duty to question the government and the candidates on such important issues.

...Stan