(no subject)

[jfb]

A pre-war blog entry from Josh Marshall about "the right and wrong kind of antiwar protests": "It’s not about stopping the war. It’s about what comes afterwards."

My local alternative newsweekly on mainstream dissent: "And while protesters by the thousands get arrested in San Francisco and elsewhere, and Code Pink keeps beating its drum to rally the young and the progressive, it is this movement, the one gaining momentum among the middleweights of the political and military establishment, that has the greatest potential to put mainstream America on board the antiwar wagon."

And a health article on home front stress: "Regardless of what's driving a person's need to watch the war, experts say it can be helpful to turn an obsession into a constructive motivation, by looking for other ways to express your feelings. 'Taking action -- no matter how small -- is one way to overcome fear and anxiety, and make you feel that you can make a difference,' Cooke says."

Comments

Re: Yes, right on! ... WTF?!?

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Mmm, gum.

I'd nod to the "chemical weapons" part of that paragraph (since the context was "used by Iraqi troops"). You're right that the "terrorism" part of it is kind of twisted.

Re: Yes, right on! ... WTF?!?

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Well, even if they are used by Iraqi troops on American troops, the American troops wouldn't have been there to be victims if we hadn't invaded.

Granted, it would prove he had chemical weapons, but there were precious few protests saying, "No, Saddam is innocent, don't hurt him!"

Re: Yes, right on! ... WTF?!?

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Right. But there have been people saying there's no evidence that Iraq has chemical weapons. If Iraq has chemical weapons, I'm sure Marshall would agree, that doesn't make the war right. But it is something that anti-war movement will have to deal with.