Anti-war train drivers refuse to move arms freight

Bill Humphries bill@whump.com
Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:46:13 -0800


On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 06:28 PM, johnhall wrote:

> 'Peace' movement is objectively pro-Saddam.  Yes, you _are_ defending
> him.

You're incapable of having a civil discussion on the subject without 
hyperbole or bombast. (this goes for all sides, John had the misfortune 
of posting the message which drove my cumulative annoyance epsilon over 
the "I'm tired of this BS" threshold.)

I haven't decided if I support a war or not. However, your comments are 
not going to carry much weight with the undecided if you continue to 
accuse the anti-war camp of being pro Hussein any more than wearing a 
pink frock and yelling outside the White House will convince me to the 
contrary.

Both sides of this argument promise doom if their cause is not 
supported. Fine, demonstrate it or otherwise admit the risks and 
benefits of the strategy.

While you're at it, everyone drop the victim models they argue from: 
people at home worry about terror directed against them AND they worry 
about how we treat our fellow humans. Otherwise it's either egoism or 
self loathing -- and neither of those are useful positions to make 
decisions.

Enough with demonization as well, I doubt John wakes up thinking, "how 
I can murder little brown non-Christian people," and Owen doesn't wake 
up thinking "how can I threaten Americans and oppress vast numbers of 
people in the non-Western world". Neither of them have an army, weapons 
of mass destruction, nor a vote on the Security Council.

So both sides, get past that and have a real engagement. And don't 
accuse us sideliners of moral cowardice.   Uncritical acceptance of 
either camp's ticket is what is cowardly.

This is FoRK, and supposedly some of the finest minds in human 
civilization play here. Act like it.

-- whump