Arguments for ground war - forget it

[Gordon Fitch]

Kelley:
> ... 
> and you, for example, were deeply offended by max's comments which weren't 
> directed at you. if anything, they were directed at a couple of people most 
> vocal on the issue in the past couple of months. and yet, you felt he was 
> attacking your person. if you can experience a feeling of being personally 
> attacked just by max criticizing something, then people are going to feel 
> offended by things like protestors holding bloodied dolls in town squares. 
> afterall, whether right or left, bloodied dolls are used for a reason: to 
> make people feel something.
>
> brad's point was abstract and it shouldn't have been taken so 
> personally.  ...

I didn't feel personally attacked.  I thought Brad posted a
piece of nasty innuendo against a small and practically
powerless minority, and I called him on it.  We're not dealing
here with two equal parties.  Imperial liberalism and its wars
command millions of agents and trillions of dollars and have
crushed all material opposition -- in fact, the opposition
has been eaten up and turned to advantage.  Demonstrators --
was there more than one? -- with bloody dolls may be stupid
and rude but they're vanishingly small against what they
oppose.  Most demonstrators don't even have bloody dolls.
There's no equivalance here.

In any case, if people feel they _must_ get after those who
oppose the war, I think they should at least be straightforward
about it.  Hence my question about what those who oppose the
war _ought_ to do, if not express their opinions in any way.

As I pointed out before, I'd like to get away from the victim
cred stuff.  I can probably match anyone on this list on it,
but I think it's usually pernicious, an excuse to avoid
struggling with the issues in reason and good faith.

-- Gordon