Umm..shouldn't we be worrying about this?Um, and why do assume we aren't, Atrios? But the comment section unfortunately reinforces my opinion of the antiwar movement's ability to make coherent arguments. Lots of sarcasm, name-calling, naivete about how diplomacy or the military actually work, warmed-over soundbites about "imperialism," "cowboys," "chickenhawks" . . .
Meanwhile, Blogs of War has the photo of a great peace "costume," and readers have supplied excellent captions. BoW also captures an essay from Houston Indymedia:
I explained the protest to him in terms that I though he would understand before hand. I wanted to make sure that he understood why we were doing this. "Right now son, the man who is in charge of our country, our house on the world, wants to do things like a bully. Like a bad guy. If he is a bad guy then a lot of other people will think that you and I are bad guys. I want to tell him that I don't want this country to act like a bad guy. Bad guys punch first. Good guys don't. Good guys try to avoid hurting others."Again, great comments on this classic example of well-meaning sanctimonious idiotarianism, especially this one:
My son agreed. He's a good guy. We all are.
Okay, we'll do for you what you did for your son: use small, simple words.
Saddam is a bad man. He hurts people. He kills people. He makes bombs and gas and germs to kill people. He lies, too. We told him "stop" and he kept on doing it. Now we have to go stop him from doing more bad things.
Dumb people and scared people and mean people who just don't like us don't want us to. Remember the Charlie Brown cartoon you watched on TV? Remember how Lucy pulled the ball away every time? Saddam is like Lucy and these dumb, scared, and mean people are like Charlie Brown. And someday Saddam's going to beat them up for being so dumb.
Charlie Brown is a dummy. We're no dummies.
<< Home