posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 10:25 PM
"I guess my parents were criminals too because they opposed the war after my father lost his brother. "
Since when is opposing an unjust war illegal? I'm quite sure that if you lost your brother you would not be so cavalier about war.
I think you missed her point. Marge was being sarcastic, and if English is not your first language, i can see how you missed that. She does not
think or believe that her parents were criminals when they were opposing an unjust war, but rather, she thinks that others would believe so.
For example: her parents lost a child in that war (presumably her brother), and then they began protesting against it. From some peoples perspective,
her parents could be just behaving like "liberal cry-babies", or unpatriotic people, or even criminals for doing so. Marge feels otherwise. You
feel otherwise. I feel otherwise. I suspect that most of humanity would feel otherwise.
However, there were some people who acted poorly in these demonstrations. Some of these demonstrators even spit on or at the soldiers who dutifully
carried out orders from thier superiors, as Jsobecky powerfully reminds us. But, some of the people who behaved poorly were police officers (i.e.
chicago) acting against the demonstrators. [here ends my explanation of Marge's comment, and begins a comment of my own, and begins my indirect
respnce to several more recent posts.]
The same could be said of many demonstrators vs. police or national guard, etc... and these days, things are a little different, but largely the
-People now and again behave irrationally; and especially do so during heated or intense moments of cultural and political unrest. Those who do so
are present on both sides of any debate (usually).-
Consider the people who marched and demonstrated for civil rights, and those other people who so disliked the concept of such an action so much that
they beat some protestors, poured feces and urine on them from a balcony, or screamed and counter-protested as loudly as they could to drown out the
protest itself. There were extremists on both sides engaged in irrational behaviour, though in this case it was clear who was more extreme in
employing violent or threataning behaviour. Given the lynchings, police violence in the southern states and more... the nation should be embarrassed
about treating the civil protestors so poorly.
Consider, next, the anti-war protests of the era (regarding the VietNam "military conflict". Here, you see violence or threatend violence and lots
of simian chest-banging on both sides. you can witness even more naive, cultur al or counter-cultural "protest" from both sides, of the likes of
which DontTreadOnMe was quite eloquent. The actuall violence on both sides, should again, not be discounted. Both sides have plenty to be
embarrassed about... but again, the protestors would see vindication in the eyes of history. We did remove our military from that nation, and most
people think we should have done so earlier. Hence the percent of the population willing to protest either in person, or in abstentia by voting.
Consider, finally, the current protests against a war and the president/administration in general. No violence from protestors is threatend, and yet
lots of actions being taken to lessen the ability of protestors voices to be heard... re-drawing of valid protest lines, etc... Quite an assymetrical
Even above this, you'll find that lots of people who feel a kindred spirit in the "right wing" defending the policies of the administration by
insulting others in the media and on this forum. They use such grade school tactics as name calling, ad hominem, and band-wagon appeals to quell
debate. Pathetic tactics, really, but sufficiently effective since most people will avoid a fight simply to save thier milk money (to continue the
grade school analogy), and the bully gets the bragging rights.
[edit on 30-1-2006 by TheeStateMachine]