I got an interesting email from a colleague today that suggested that should war begin, the demonstrations against the war would somehow be disconcerting to the people who were actually fighting the war [our troops].
I emailed him to let him know that it was my understanding that anti-war demonstrators were directing their anger at the politicians who decide to go to war, not with the armed forces Per Se.
This must be made very clear for those who are polarized in their thinking (if any real thinking is going on of course, which is a BIG assumption to begin with.)
Those who oppose the war, they argue, are somehow working against the troops, who are killing and being killed. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
Their "either-or" mentality will quickly put them in the wrong box when they try to decide "whose side you're on?". They could and probably will arrest many protestors.
From here on let it be known, with no uncertain language whatsoever, that anti-war protests have but one goal: to stop the war.
Once the war stops, some troops can start coming home. Isn't that where they should probably be anyway, given the current terror threat? I think they could be more strategically stationed to prevent incursions into U.S. soil, instead of on the opposite side of the freakin' planet.
I doubt there are many Americans who would venture the idea that a military is something that the U.S.A. could do without. At least not at this point in history. In an ideal future we could abolish all military forces worldwide and turn the earth back into a "garden of eden" and live in peace as a species.
Our world is a result of our collective level of consciousness. Our world is literally what we create it to be. Let's make it the best that we possibly can.
Truth, Love, Courage and Wisdom,
March 14, 2003
This Page Last Updated