"...[As for] the so-called Peace Protests. What about those rallies produces anything remotely akin to Peace? Actually it produces more war - because it's them being militantly right about being peaceful.

"Does anyone else think that is ironic? Here's an idea - if all those people can get so torqued up about Peace (certainly not a bad idea) why don't they DO something? How 'bout help the homeless, how 'bout give aid to the sick, to the dying, how 'bout do something that unites people instead of divides. I don't get it."
...

(I'm not sure I follow your original idea, Ann -that angry pacifists somehow cause war. But I can feel what you're saying.)

Then Helen Cariotis took a plunge into history -

"Yes, we will continue to have war. Humans are a war-like species, and if you doubt that any peace of any length was not won by war, study your history. I am all for peace, but now I understand how we get it.

"There was a time that I didn't understand that. I protested the war in 'Nam when I was in high school all the way through college (well, until I met the handsome Marine just back from the war). I can tell you that many of us were very committed to peace and non-violent ways of solving problems. We did help the poor and the disenfranchised. We did try to get civil rights for blacks and latinos. We volunteered at Head Start, polling places, and sent huge numbers into the Peace Corps. But, like Ann said, we 'didn't get it.' We didn't know that it is strength and war that buys complacency and peace."

...

(During that paragraph, I was imagining how like what I was reading might be to a discussion among the upper class Athenian citizenry, ca. 350 BC - folks who could read, write, vote, belong to the senate - whose sons would be trained and ready to enter the ranks of the military automatically - for in the world of the philosopher Socrates and the comic playwright Aristophanes, male citizens were expected to serve in the military as needed. That duty was simply part of being a member of the community.)

Back to Helen:

"Now I love history. My fantasy is to be able to go back to the concert hall where Beethoven first conducted his powerful 9th Symphony. I want to watch him sing the Ode to Joy, completely deaf by then, but feeling every tremedous note. Or maybe to see the tiny Greek brigade defeat a huge army of Persians at the pass of Thermopolye.

"But it seems like we have to learn this anew in every generation."

...

More meditations on history:

Our Indo-European ancestors were not a peaceble lot. Given the tenor of Anglo-Saxon poetry ca. 750 BC - one suspects bronze age originals with the moral depth of a motocycle gang. Supposedly they came out of the Russian Steppes in migratory waves and moved south, subjecting or enslaving those indigenous peoples whom they did not kill outright. Then they started in on each other.

Not all tribes were warlike - But the peaceniks who survived wound up in the arctic and Tierra del Fuego. The indigenous people of the Americas seemed to think of war as a competitive sport in which some were killed, some captured & ransomed or sacrificed, etc. As one might expect, their Indo-European conquerors cheated them, lied to them, and massacred them - in general exhibiting the moral depth of a motorcycle gang - all under the cover of their supposed Christianity.

To the best of my knowledge, no one protested war for a long, long time. War was simply a fact of life. My guess is, the notion that a Christian ought to be against war began with the Quakers.

...

Carolyn said: "Great words, Helen. Listen to Tom, you have the gift."

Amen, Carolyn,

Tom

+++

Re: GETTING IT COFFEE

1. Anita Rager

Speaking of history, I am reading James Michener's Poland now, and the slaughtering that went back and forth in that area was horrendous. The Tatars, the Teutonic Knights, the Swedes, the Lithuanians, the Austrians, the Turks - Everyone slaughtered and destroyed everything in their path. Enslavement was another option. There was no mercy and no justice. Rome engineered a lot of what went on. I think Michener does reliable research then fleshes it out to make such readable stories. On to Iberia next.

Tom,

I finally came to the conclusion I can't catch up on the past posts, so I opened the most recent one. I think this is where I came in.

Concerning war protests -- it is nearly impossible to address this without getting into partisan politics. I will try, but I will at least mention the low level of protests related to WW-II, the Gulf War, and the attack on Afghanistan vs. the high level of protests against Viet Nam and GW-II. I will now drop concrete examples, which may sadden most freshman English professors, but should provide relief from at least one ex-freshman English professor.

Even beyond partisan polarization, overcoming cognitive dissonance seems insurmountable.

The expectation seem vanishing that

1) it is fully rational to be able to support, respect, and love soldiers in a war, but to oppose the war itself.

2) it is fully rational to be able to maintain and practice patriotism while opposing a specific war effort and/or the sitting president.

3) it is a citizen's patriotic duty to oppose governmental actions contrary to what one believes is the best interest of the nation (war or other).

Admittedly, some people oppose all wars. Most people support wars they consider just. The outcry comes when a significant fraction of the population views a war as unjust. What should they do?

Now I see. They should divert their efforts to public health issues.

The road to peace is war? It is certainly reasonable, at least from the standpoint of those backed by the most powerful fighting force that has ever existed on the face of the earth. I could probably sell it at the Roman Senate in its next session. It would be harder to sell to someone backed by the 25th most powerful fighting force on the face of the earth, unless, at the time, the 40th most powerful fighting force on earth is giving them problems that appear difficult to resolve through negotiation and compromise.

+++

Jose Cruz, Re. WAR AND PEACE COFFEE

Tom:

War is the inevitable result of man's Greed and Lust. Throughout History Man (as in mankind, because women have also been the agressors) has always desired what others have. This is usually land (territory) - e.g., U.S. expansion westward and the taking of Puerto Rico and other islands from Spain. But also wealth and resources, which in some cases are the same. i.e. Oil, gold, silver. And the ultimate justification for war? The rulers desire to take a wife from another country or opponent. England and Spain come to mind. Are wars justified?

In some cases yes and in others no. How can you tell the difference? It depends on whose side you are on. I am sure the people who waged war on the Native peoples of north of America justified it then and Spains conquest of the America's was justified by their leaders. On the other side I am positive that the people on the losing end of this propostion would say it was unjustified. The real queston then becomes, whose side are you on.

This is the one that troubled me during the Vietnam protests. I agree that as a citizen we have the right and obligation to voice our opinions and concerns regarding actions taken by our government, however once that decision is made, under our form of government which is a republic, not a democracy as we are led to believe, we must support the decisions of our elected officials. Not doing so , undermines our system of government and the effectiveness of our military. Therefore, I came to the conclusion, that even though I had the right to protest, I also have the duty to support our elected officials and the soldiers on the field. Call it patriotism or whatever, what it comes down to is loyalty. Something we sorely lack in this country of ours. Even our politicans respond more to foreign pressure and opinions than to those of us who elect them and pay their wages.

By the way, if you feel that our incursion into Afghanistan and Irag, is wrong, do your duty and let your congressman know, that's why you elected him in the first place. Don't give the enemies of our country encouragment by protesting the war. Remember whose side you are on.

Tu amigo,

Jose

CITIZEN COFFEE

Like Sylvia Plath's pregnant lady, we've boarded the train there's no getting off.

1. Ann Lane, Re: WAR & PEACE COFFEE

Clearly, I was peeved at the time I wrote what I did - it was a great example of me being right and other side being wrong and I didn't really accomplish anything. I became overwhelmed by Rob being in Baghdad, in harm's way, and not appreciated. Hopefully, I've made a little better sense in this e-mail - if not, I'd be happy to try again.

...

Gandhi's intellectual father was Henry David Thoreau, a man especially American: Thoreau chose to make of life an experiment, to try if it be worth living on its own terms - much as his then-new nation was an experiment in government, a trial of democracy. Our nation was born in the transcendant land, in romantic notions - that the value and potential of each individual could be discovered by maximizing freedom and opportunity, that mankind had the right to unyoke itself from monarchy. A revolution of the middle class it may have been, of merchants and gentlemen farmers, but altruistic farmers and merchants were they, who like Perecles of Athens two thousand years before, pledged their livelihoods and lives to found a nation worth living in. One proof that their pudding recipe was good is the American musical cited above; the citizen of a democratic nation is soonest a citizen of the world, and our nation is mother to modern democracy. Another proof comes with our enjoyment of this open forum.

+++

2. Helen Cariotis, Re. WAR & PEACE COFFEE

Well, I am not sure if Don H. was referring to me or not when he complained about "cognitive dissonance." I am not at all sure what that is, but I think I'm OK being a part of it. : )

I agree that assimilating the "losers" in war is the big problem, no question. Honestly, I don't care about that. Mother Nature at work, if you know what I mean. Now in Iraq, there's no assimilation that I can see as a goal on our part. It seems like we just want them to "be free," adopt a system of government like ours, and hopefully join the 21st century. A country filled with happy, free, and prosperous people will not be so likely to want to be our enemy (I guess).

And I happen to think Ann Lane is right on....the peace protesters, or I guess we should say war protesters, need to get a life. Maybe they are all living on entitlements, so they have plenty of time to make paint placards and travel to Crawford. Maybe none of them even have real jobs, so this is what they do. In any event, I agree that hey should think about channeling all that energy into helping their fellow man in some way. Like I wrote earlier about my days as a hippie, student peace-nik, I was involved in lots of social issues. Looking back now, I see how innocent I was, but then we were all convinced we knew the right and true way.

Helen

...

Dear Helen,

+++

3. Don Hockaday, Re: POSTINGS COFFEE

Jose Cruz, Re. WAR AND PEACE COFFEE

"The real queston then becomes, whose side are you on."

Countries go to war because they both consider them justified. The loser complains about the result, not the justification for the war. When wars were between kingdoms, the king justified the war by fiat.

In recent wars, some to many people in both countries (and third party countries) often object to going to war. I expect most of these consider the war to have been unjustifiable regardless of the outcome. The side who wins writes the history, although this doesn't work as well as it did in the past. Whose side you are own depends on who is on your side in the debate, not the war.

No one questions the fact that in our republic the people transfer power of decisions to elected representatives to act according to law. All should question that it is incumbent upon the electorate to keep their mouths shut about it. The electorate, by definition, vote for the representatives and consequently must have free expression to voice agreement and objections or the republic will fail. Protest is not contrary to the concept of a republic; it is necessary for its perpetuation. Let he who has never complained publicly about any decision of the government stand to make the case "once that decision is made..."

I concede the point protests interfere with the war effort. It is a good and valid point and one worth making. There is no justification for a protest of a war whose outcome could decide whether or not the republic endures. Otherwise, the sides on the issue of whether war protests are justified are those related to the relative importance of the war and the republic. The protesters should be reminded that protests interfere with this particular war effort. The others should be reminded that our enemy in the war on terrorism seeks to destroy democracy and republican forms of government in general.

In the United States, when a president uses the War Powers Act you will find congress-people on all sides standing tall to support the president. When the emergency is over, they have a hard time (although they should not) convincing people they thought the idea sucked from the beginning, but supported the war because at that time it was in the best interest of the U.S.A. to show strong home-front support. The war supporters say, "Don't listen to him, he keeps switching his position for political purposes."

Does it follow, once elected, a president can send troops to war for any reason or no reason, and everyone should support the decision until the war is over and after the war is over? No fair to even bring up objections to it during an election, that would be unpatriotic? I don't think our republic wants to give any president that amount of power directly or indirectly.

So -- as I keep hearing -- if a person does not support a war, then that person does not support the soldiers in the field?

I supported the attack on Afghanistan, but I didn't support the attack on Iraq as waged. Now we are in the war with Iraq. I support the soldiers. I support the war to the extent it would be unwise to back out of it now. So which is it? Am I patriotic because I support the troops and see no choice but to follow through on the war, or am I unpatriotic because I still strongly object to the decision?

To fog things up a little, I supported Gulf War I and I am confident I would have supported GW-II under different circumstances. However, the question at hand is not about this war, nor is it about the decisions related to this war.

Some say those who do not support a particular war do not support the troops. This is an outright insult. Perhaps the worst of it would be the underlying, unsaid, insinuation that those who protest a war want the U.S.A. to lose the war and want their neighbors who are fighting in it to be killed or injured. That insinuation is strong and wrong.

I do call it patriotism if it is loyalty to my country.

We are caught in a loop. I invite you back to the top -- we came in discussing "side."

+++

4. Jose Cruz, Re. POSTINGS COFFEE

Sometimes it is better to air the laundry inside the house instead of putting it out on the yard or patio for all the world to see. A house divided will surely fall. It's when we all pull together that we accomplish great things.

I remember telling a friend during the chicano movement the following. If communism is such a good system, why don't we see people climbing over the Berlin wall to get in, all I see is people trying to get out.
...

Dear Jose,

All of which looks pretty irrelevant, given that we're there, have won, and will have put the Iraqis in power long before the election. And so far John Kerry comes across as a really unpromising alternative to Bush. I'll stand by my write-in favorite, Dave Berry. But back Bush just because he's Commander in Chief? Pretend I believe that our troops in Iraq are somehow protecting my right to voice these very thoughts? Not today, thanks; I've had far too much of that already.

***

Tom,

After a long discussion of the politics of sexual orientation in the Episcopal Church, you said:

And I agree. It appears the audience represents a wide spectrum of political views and I appreciate the restraint shown by everyone in avoiding divisive partisan support/criticism. It is not easy to discuss issues that often very clearly indicate political party persuasions while avoiding a direct "political discussion." For myself, I may not have always been completely successful, and some of the ASCII characters may have virtual stains of the blood drops from my lips, but I really try.

Now look at you:

I am not going to play. I like coffee, but the American Legend Hall serves beer with this discussion.

...

Dear Don,

You are, of course and as always, right. Shame on me. Forgive also my failure to state that our troops have done and are doing a fine and noble thing for the Iraqi people - giving them a shot at democracy. In company with ladies whose sons are there, that was unforgivably rude, and I am truly sorry.

Thing is, as I was putting y'all's comments together - and what a delightful chain it has been! - I could not help sensing beneath all the metaphysical eloquence the hard knot of an election year.
+++

2. Jose Cruz, Re. CITIZEN COFFEE

Re. Bemused Coffee

1. Bonnie Swank

Is any politician who takes the 'I'm not always right, but I'm never wrong!' stance to be preferred over the more human (and perhaps honest) response of 'I voted for this but in retrospect I wish I hadn't'? Personally I prefer a politician who is willing to closely reexamine his or her actions and political stances on a regular basis and if necessary (gasp!) change them for the better. In today's parlance that's called 'waffling,' while sticking to your guns (even if they turn out to be pointed in the wrong direction) is called 'uncompromising values' or 'strong convictions'. Like I said, not judgments, just food for thought....

your loving daughter,
Bonnie
...

Dear Bonnie,

Re. Politicians admitting their mistakes:

+++