Mickey Z and Pat Tillman
Mickey Z has just written a piece reacting to the phoney-baloney “leak” from the Department of Defense that people — including officers — will be “punished” for the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s death at the hands of fellow Rangers in 2004. But Mickey Z’s article didn’t delve into the question of governmental malfeasance. It attacked Pat Tillman.
“This is as good a time as any to contemplate how and why Pat Tillman ended up in position to be killed by his fellow soldiers,” said Mickey Z.
Having had substantial contact with Pat Tillman’s family, and having read the 2,000+ pages of investigation documents, I can say without any reservation that Mickey Z’s article displays not one shred of understanding of “how and why Pat Tillman ended up in position to be killed by his fellow soldiers.” Instead, he quotes other people who made fairly predictable comments about Pat after he was killed, then uses the jingoism of some of those statements as a foil to show how much more enlightened Mickey Z is than the rest of the world. The problem with this nasty bit of sanctimony, from my perspective, is that — just like the Army that tried to erase the real Pat Tillman and substitute an iconic caricature — Mickey Z erases the real Pat Tillman to paint an anti-iconic caricature.
As both a friend of the family, and as a former soldier myself, and having worked with many former soldiers who came to oppose the war, I am offended by this devaluation of all who don’t — like Mickey Z, apparently — emerge from the womb with a full understanding of US history and imperialism. The fact is, the soldiers who have come to oppose this war have done more to discredit the war in the eyes of the American public than all the textual revolutionaries of cyberspace put together. Pat Tillman had come to oppose the Iraq war by the time of his death. His family opposed both fronts of the war now. That includes his brother Kevin, who was assigned to the same Ranger unit with Pat at the time of Pat’s death.
Pat Tillman was gifted in a way that precluded his exposure to the narratives of the left (as we are all insulated from those narratives); and he went to war. But while he was in Iraq, he concluded from his own experience, “This war is so fucking illegal.” Perhaps Mickey Z was unaware of this.
“Which America was Tillman standing up for?” Mickey Z asks. “[T]he bosses at Halliburton or the homeless guy I see every day on the subway steps? Do you know anyone who needed Tillman to ‘stand up’ for them by bringing indiscriminate death and destruction upon Iraq and Afghanistan?”
Of course, this was in response not to anything Pat said. Pat had a powerful aversion to personality-cults; and never made public statements about why he had decided to join the Army. He was explicit with friends and family that he wanted no part of the inevitable hype. When he deployed to Iraq (prior to his fatal deployment to Afghanistan), he brought an English copy of the Koran to study. Under no circumstances was Pat Tillman interested in “bringing indiscriminate death and destruction upon Iraq and Afghanistan,” any more than my volunteering for Vietnam in 1970 was based on a wish to “bring indiscriminate death and destruction on Vietnam.”
Pat Tillman’s aversion to hype can be matched by the infantile left’s aversion to complexity.
“Did … Tillman ever read, say, Zinn’s People’s History or Blum’s Killing Hope?” asks Mickey Z. Uh, Pat Tillman was actually reading Chomsky between operations in Afghanistan. I don’t mean to piss on your shoes, Mickey, but it is awfully easy to misrepresent dead people.
This kind of shooting from the hip, this kind of moral exhibitionism, is doubly offensive to me, because Mickey Z is seen as someone from the left. I feel tainted by this kind of uninformed and easy moralism. Pat, like 95% of the rest of us lesser beings in the heart of Empire, was not a fully-formed anti-imperialist. He was, however, extremely well-read and a diligent student of history. He did not deserve to be used as a posthumous recruiting poster by Donald Rumsfeld’s ministry; and he does not deserve being reduced to a straight man for Mickey Z’s homilies.
“Pat Tillman,” said Mickey, “to me, seemed like a pre-programmed American male…the spawn of decades of corporate conditioning and State-sponsored patriotism.”
To me. Me. Mickey Z.
In a final shameless flourish, Mickey Z compares Pat Tillman to Osama bin Laden, demonstrating once and for all what kinds of conclusions can be tortured out of this psuedo-revolutionary moral hyperbole.
If Pat had survived, he would have been a powerful voice against the war. Obviously, Mickey Z didn’t do even rudimentary research on Pat, or he would have known that. But hey, what the fuck! Who needs facts when we are engaging in cheap polemics?!
His family has persisted in its struggle for the truth because it was deeply offensive to them that the right-wing was willing to replace the life of this real and quite remarkable human being with a caricature. That Mickey Z would do the same thing in a fit of sanctimonious posturing is a slap in the face of that family. His suggestion that they have no empathy with the suffering of Iraqis or Afghans is patently false, but then Mickey never made the least attempt to find out about them. We have talked about the scope of the war’s criminality again and again.
The population that bears the greatest responsibility for stopping the war, however, is us — the Americans. Even the ones who remain attached to patriotic platitudes.
The fact is, Pat Tillman’s family has not rested in its struggle to hold the military to account for covering up how Pat Tillman died; and they have done so because they believe without exception that that is exactly what Pat would have wanted. And I can promise that the US government is far more concerned about the impact of the family’s ongoing investigation and its forthcoming Congressional investigation than they are with the facile Manicheans of the infantile left.
ansel:
Mickey Z makes a living writing these kinds of articles. This first came to my attention when he published this piece attacking the Dalai Lama and the Free Tibet movement: http://tinyurl.com/2vfn2r
Another commenter on that article said it best:
“mickey z’s articles are shallow, reactionary, poorly-researched, unintelligent sound-bite journalism. i don’t know why he gets such regular play on infoshop. his writing really sucks!”
Kudos to you for pointing out another example of his BS.
25 March 2007, 5:55 pmJanet Weil:
I’ve been thinking again about Pat Tillman and bought a copy of the San Jose Mercury News because they had a front page article on the latest news on his case, and a photo.
He’s very real to me, somehow. Maybe because my son got me to enjoy NFL football, or because my nephew is going into the Marine Corps at the end of this month, or because of his brother Kevin’s words, or just because… some people even after they are dead still seem present.
Most of all I think of his words to Kevin about the invasion and occupation of Iraq: “So fucking illegal.”
I haven’t made a sign (yet) for a demo or event with his words and name on it, but I say them to myself often, and I said them to myself before 3 intense days of actions (March 17-19) in the SF Bay Area.
I guess Pat Tillman lives on in my mind because he had so much privilege, and he was willing to walk away from (some of) it, and he had integrity and courage.
And I honor those qualities. I am so sorry he’s gone.
How many more?
26 March 2007, 1:09 amxenia:
Even though Mickey Z. is simplistic and crude, I agree with him on that evil creature, the Dalai Lama.
Forgive me, Stan. I respect and admire you very much for your development, but I am also person whose country was bombed many times in the past century, and I cannot find much compassion with occupation soldiers.
My compassion still rests with those being bombed rather than those with guns in their hands, those who have the ultimate luxury to decide that they want to be good. A child is a different kind of a victim than a grown man.
26 March 2007, 10:01 amBoris Epstein:
Geoff,
That Mickey Z guy won’t even publish his real name. So fuck ‘im. Who cares what some anonymous internet scribe thinks?
26 March 2007, 10:51 amMark:
A lot of the Mickey Z. piece is just a rehash of an article he did shortly after Tillman’s death three years ago.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey04262004.html
Many people on the left from posters on indymedia to cartoonist Ted Rall wrote a lot of stupid, uninformed things about Tillman around that time. I understand that they were reacting not to the person himself but to the pro-war narrative being woven around him by the neo-con propoganda outlets; however, in doing so they were denying Tillman’s humanity in exactly the same way as the propogandists they were opposing. Many of those people subsequently apologized when faced with the reality of Pat Tillman as a complex human being who had developed serious doubts about what his country had sent him to do (from what I understand, a growing phenomenon on the ground). It’s unfortunate that all of this seems to have had no impact on Mickey Z’s opinions over the last three years. I for one take pride in being a critical thinker who is willing to rexamine my own assumptions and prejudices and admit when my analysis has been badly colored by them. It would be nice if Mickey could do the same.
26 March 2007, 1:19 pmeoinmonkey:
Ah, complexity! Does anyone like it who isnt a glutton for stress or a genuine fan of truth?
26 March 2007, 2:48 pmDavid Parish:
For those interested in learning more about Pat the “iconclast” instead of Pat the patriotic “icon” I suggest you read the cover story of Sports Illustrated for 9-11-06 on si.com. It’s the single best character sketch available out there, done with the cooperation of his family. The sfgate.com 9-25-05 article is also valuable.
PS
Stan, did you read my email to you about the Tillman – Yoni Netanyahu connection? It would be worth your time. Ditto the James Webb piece.
26 March 2007, 6:28 pmChris:
When I read the article at Counterpunch I had a similar reaction to Mickey Z’s confusing the official narrative with the actual person. The bit about what he had or hadn’t read was particularly galling.
26 March 2007, 10:50 pmI rather enjoy the closing question though, because it is one that folks all over the world should be asking.
“…As yourself this: Who gave up a life of luxury and turned his back on millions to fight in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan for what he believed in and, as a result, is revered by millions as a “hero”?”
I like it, not because I believe that Tillman is the same as Osama (or that Osama’s a worthy role model), but because I believe that if sacrifice is to be revered in and of itself then it should apply to all who sacrifice.
Similarly, if we are to hold people in high esteem because of their convictions and beliefs then it seems to follow that the subjective nature of one’s “enemy’s” beliefs should also be recognized.
The original article is awful in its sloppiness and reactionary rhetoric. I totally agree. However, taken out of context I feel that the final question is still a valid one.
As the late Robert Anton Wilson put it, “Convictions make convicts.”
David Parish:
I just thought I’d flesh out my previous post referencing the Tillman-Netanyahu connection and James Webb for the benefit of other readers:
I believe Senator James Webb could assist the Tillman’s in their battle for the truth. Webb’s only son is a Marine grunt in Iraq, he is on the Senate Armed Service Committee, and as a novelist he has dealt with themes of betrayal, justice, and honor. Coincidentally, his 1991 novel “Something to Die For” features a Marine whose death is covered up and used by the President for political purposes. Even though Webb is a bit too “patriotic” for my tastes and I disagree with his assessment of the Vietnam War; he is a man of integrity.
Yoni(Jonathan) Netanyahu has largely been forgotten in the US (his younger brother Benjamin is well-known as a former Israli Prime Minister) Yoni led the 1976 Raid on Entebbe. The truth of his death has been covered up by the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) for the past 30 years. His brother Iddo had to perform his own investigation into his brother’s death. Iddo has published two books about his brother’s death (the latest 800 page tome is only available in Hebrew) In a recent article, he called the government’s official story “ridiculous”.
I feel the Tillman family would benefit from talking with Iddo (he’s a doctor in New York State. Besides the coverup of their deaths, both Yoni and Pat were remarkable men, driven by total integrity and honesty.
27 March 2007, 6:50 amJames O'Shea:
Pat Tillman was used as a propogandic figure to promote the US’s illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so Mickey Z has every right to attack that portrayal.
Also, no one knows the ‘real’ Pat Tillman except maybe his close family members…all of whom seem to be extremely angry over how the government used him and lied about him. What I do know is that he volunteered to go fight over there, that means, that always means he went over there to kill people. Our military has killed tens of thousands of innocent people in both countries. He is no hero. Mickey has every right to attack him for that as well, as do I.
So, in my opinion, both the iconic figure and the man who decided to go kill are open for attack…and rightly so.
27 March 2007, 9:45 amajit H:
Goff writes,
27 March 2007, 11:39 am>> Under no circumstances was Pat Tillman interested in “bringing indiscriminate death and destruction upon Iraq and Afghanistan,†any more than my volunteering for Vietnam in 1970 was based on a wish to “bring indiscriminate death and destruction on Vietnam.â€>>
But that is what the Soldiers do. Whether you are in Wehrmacht , US Army,Pakistan Army , Israeli Defense Forces or whatever. Goff obviously didn’t hand out candies to vietnamese. And I am sure Even Tillman didn’t do it.
Soldiers are part of machine. They can’t really be much different in their work from what the Institution of Military does.
r jackowski:
Stan…You disappoint me. I had a lot of respect for you but I think you missed the point this time. In my view, Mickey got it right. He tells it like it is. When choosing which side to be on, the Killers or the civilians being killed, I don’t see much of a contest. We should all be supporting the civilian population which is under illegal occupation by an invading army.
27 March 2007, 2:54 pmM Piper:
For Many Americans, revenge is the order of the call to battle in the sense of volunteerism. Wasn’t Bush running with an extremely high approval rating when it was disclosed that the campaign was about to begin in Afghanistan? What is his rating now? A difference between night and day, it has gone to opposite ends of the spectrum. Why is that? The fraudulent war on terror is why. We didn’t go there to fight the Taliban, if we did, they wouldn’t be having a resurgence right now.There weren’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and no connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queida.So why would the Administration lie about this? Tillman figured it out, not the whole story of 9/11, but enough to question why this war was being waged, and realizing that the U.S. had pre-emptively attacked a soveriegn nation. This is the POINT that Mickey Z does not consider. For a soldier who steels himself and prepares to go into the battleground, not afraid to die, ready to sacrifice in the moment needed. There are no second thoughts. But after a time when the emotion of Red, White, and Blue wear off and the reality of how the campaign is being conducted sets in. Well, thats when some questions in the mind get answered. Pat Tillman at this point realized that he’s been lied to, his unit had been lied to, so then what the hell are We doing here?
27 March 2007, 5:54 pmMickey Z..what the hell are We doing there? That question needs to be answered…honestly.
skol:
Just ‘cuz they’re part of a machine doesn’t mean they’re not, y’know, human beings with faults and all. Like you and me. I thought about joining the army at one point, and never did I want to harm anyone. It’s naive, but it’s honest.
It’s a little hard to not like someone who brought a Koran with them, as a soldier, into Iraq and Afghanistan. And I’m sure there have been many others. Give them a break, just a bit… maybe not as soldiers, but as human beings.
Pat Tillman was part of the same machine that feeds us, gives us a home (like an entire continent), and drives us to work everyday to FEED that same machine… Most people don’t know this.
27 March 2007, 7:41 pmAudrey:
“The world doesn’t need any more ‘heroes’ like Tillman or Osama.”
How ironic that he suggests Pat Tillman should have read Howard Zinn. Mickey Z would do well to remember that Zinn came to his understanding of the world as a result, in part, of his own role in the bombing of civilians in France.
David Barsamian: “…in the mid-1960s, you visited Hiroshima. You had intended to make certain remarks at a gathering of survivors. You weren’t able to make those remarks.”
Howard Zinn: “… As I planned to get up and speak, I thought, I don’t know what I can say. But I have to be honest. I have to say I was a bombardier, even though I didn’t bomb Japan. I bombed people, innocent people, civilians, just as in Hiroshima. So I got up to speak and looked out at the people sitting there. Suddenly something happened to my eyesight, my brain. I saw this blur of people who were blind, with missing arms, missing legs, people whose skin was covered with sores. This was real. That’s what these people looked like. I looked out at them and I couldn’t speak. In all the speaking I’ve ever done, nothing like that has ever happened to me. It was impossible. I just stood there. My voice choked up. That was it.”
I don’t know what sort of “heroes” Mickey Z is looking for. There are no heroes. There are just people.
27 March 2007, 8:48 pmRandy Morris:
ajitH and r jackowski, et. al. —
Can you honestly remove yourselves from the workings of “The Machine” so totally as to not be complete hypocrites. If you can, then wouldn’t your time be better spent educating the rest of us in how to become enlightened, and to teach us how to bring down the system that is devouring the planet?
Moralizing about soldiers being “part of the machine” and how we should be “choosing which side to be on, the Killers or the civilians being killed” serves no purpose other than giving you an excuse to feel comfort in a simple dichotomy of “GOOD/EVIL” instead of having to wrestle with real complexity.
The implied “Support the Civilians!” bumper-sticker sloganeering is nauseating; I’ll tell you the same thing I tell the mindless Righties that start spouting their “Support the Troops!” crap in my ao: your “support” means less than nothing so long as you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about—both for the troops and for the occupied civilians.
Worse than that, the only thing it will do for the troops is make sure that when the government turns them on you, those same troops that you just dehumanized will be more than happy to shoot your slogan-waving ass without a second thought.
Over the past several years, Stan has been working hard to bridge the rift between the activist Left and those middle- and lower-class men and women who serve in the military. Your caricatures of soldiers as nothing so much as mindless killers enslaved by the machine is as accurate and useful as me blindly describing you as a latte-sipping laptop revolutionary, similarly enslaved and killing by proxy in the game of consumerism.
Seems to me Stan pointed out pretty clearly how MickeyZ’s rant served the same purpose for MickeyZ as Tillman’s posterization by government propagandists did for the pro-war interests.
No, Tillman wasn’t a hero or an icon—he was a human being just like every other soldier, marine, sailor, air(wo)man…just like you and me. Stan speaks from an intimate understanding of that fact, and it’s clear in his writing. MickeyZ, on the other hand, speaks on this subject from somewhere between his asscheeks.
Your implication that vilifying Pat Tillman is equal to taking the “Right” side speaks to me from the same orifice.
Randy Morris
27 March 2007, 9:42 pmAndy:
This article is straight out of the reactionary Euston Manifesto, attacking the naive left for feeding into the right. Mickey Z undermines the efforts of the decent left, a useful idiot for the right who devalues our struggle with simplistic polemics.
Wake up call: that’s actually the function of THIS article and not Mickey’s. Mickey’s blog consistantly encourages thought. I recommend everyone to try it (thought).
27 March 2007, 10:28 pmskol:
Andy, et al, I hope we can kind of meet half way on this, just personally.
I’ve been scanning Z’s blog and this blog, and I see a middle ground here. His efforts have a very wide reach, and his intentions are good. Goff’s efforts all have a very wide reach, and his intentions are good. And I think, minus the different significant opinions, we’re all battling basically the same thing. It’s just that both are framed entirely differently.
I think, in this case, JUST PERSONALLY, we need to remember that we’re all in the same spot, and that is important above all else. We’re comparing apples and oranges, imo. This is VERY contentious, and we all have our reasons.
Is that fair? I hope I’m not transgressing here. Allies don’t have to be friends, and Lord knows, we all need allies. We don’t even need to really understand each other, but I think the best we can do is try.
28 March 2007, 4:23 amjohn steppling:
Tillman was radicalized by the war….once he got there….or at least disillusioned. Stan’s right about his potential as an anti war voice……but he also signed on to go fight in a colonial war and occupation — so Mickey Z has some points to make.
We have an economic draft….poor kids sign up…..they have a limited menu of choices…..but Pat saw joining up as idealistic…so it seems. Stupid? yeah…but lots of us are stupid. The germane point here is not who pat tillman was or thought…..because probably we cant know…but that war made him reject the narratives he had been given growing up — and then the US military covered up the story of his death….thats whats important at this point.
The army covered up and distorted the entire story…..like jessica lynch…..and this seems where the focus should be.
28 March 2007, 5:50 amJeremy R. Hammond:
Dear Mr. Goff,
I believe you missed the point of Mickey Z’s article. It was a commentary on the culture of war the permeates our country, glorifying soldiers fighting in the so-called “war on terrorism” as heroes for ostensibly heeding “a greater calling”, for personifying “the best values” of America, for fighting “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.”
This is a sham. Surely, you must recognize this. Mickey Z observed the sham and commented upon it. Let’s face the facts, Mr. Goff, as uncomfortable as they may be.
The young men and women fighting overseas in the “war on terrorism” are not heeding “a greater calling”. This language implies a belief in God and going God’s will, or at least a belief in higher moral principles. If you agree that Tillman was heeding “a greater calling”, what was it? And if you agree with Mickey Z that the “war on terrorism” is not a war fought for higher moral principles, but is much rather fought in violation of higher moral principles, then where is your argument with him?
Those who participate in illegal and immoral wars do not reperesent “the best values” of America. The standard applied at Nuremberg was that if there was, in fact, a moral choice, then a soldier who participates in war crimes or a war of aggression is guilty, that “I was just obeying orders” is no excuse. Those who have had the courage to stand up and say, “No, I won’t fight in an unjust war” are those who represent the best values of America. Do you disagree? If not, where is your argument with Mickey Z?
Those who are party to aggression do not fight “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.” This may be an uncomfortable truth, particulary for those who have loved ones fighting in the war. But we must be honest with ourselves. The American dream and way of life are based upon higher moral principles and the rule of law. The “war on terrorism” represents extreme corruption and immorality, and US military action violates both international law and the US Constitution. Do you disagree? If not, then where is your argument?
Mickey Z asked how and why Pat Tillman was in the position he was in. And it’s pretty clear that Mickey Z believes Tillman was a victim of this culture of war which glorifies violence and convinces people that participating in aggressive warfare is somehow virtuous.
I, for one, am offended by this devaluation of true moral values, of true respect for the rule of law. I, for one, cannot disagree with Mickey Z’s distaste for such infantile disregard for morality.
Finally, you criticize Mickey Z for comparing Tillman to Osama bin Laden. I read no such thing. What I did note was that the same culture of glorifying war surrounding the hype about Tillman is not disimilar to the glorification of violence among those who are supposedly our enemies in this alleged “war on terrorism”. And that is a perfectly valid comparison, for all of the above reasons.
28 March 2007, 7:05 amrobert:
Honest American Special Forces should start defending the Constitutional rights of all Children in America now. all the cover-ups having to do with minors need to be un-packed. rcorraljr
28 March 2007, 9:11 amLegume Sam:
While we resist the messages of reactionary fools as they spam our eyes and ears, it’s important to recognize that dialogue is just talk. So someone voices an opinion! And there’s a response! It’s not cemented in stone for all time. It can be changed, even with stodgy old adults.
Sure, Mickey Z ought to respect the learning curve of Pat Tillman, who went to war out of pride in America only to discover some aspect or other of the grisly truth. And as for the learning curve of Mickey Z?
Being an ideological guardian will not “make it so.” The Democrats should have learned this ages ago, but apparently they didn’t, and so their political work typically settles upon questions of how conformity (aka “unity”) can be coerced out of the group as a whole . An especially painful example of this would be the 2004 election, in which everyone was asked to support John Kerry. This went all the way down to the suppression of dissent at the Boston convention, in and outside of the convention halls. Not only did Kerry not distinguish himself meaningfully from Bush, he said and did nothing as the election was stolen from him by Ken Blackwell and others.
Oh, sure, there was an earlier period in the Presidential race, in which the candidates were acknowledged as being free to say whatever they want. But the position of the Democrats was one of “only so much free speech, and no more,” and so there was a point in 2004 when the allowance for free speech was said to have ended, and the fear of a second Bush term was exclusively to rule the thoughts of the multitudes. Supporting Ralph Nader in protest of the entire charade, whether right or wrong, became the ultimate heresy.
It’s beginning to look like the same pattern is coming out in how the Democrats treat the war against Iraq. Ideological guardianship means we support the latest compromise for the sake of conformity (conveniently redescribed as “unity”), and don’t ask questions like the one asked by Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now this morning, about how there’s ’09 Iraq funding in the current spending bill. In this instance the fear of an endless Iraq war is being used to justify continuing the Iraq war. It’s funny how advocacy can be turned into its opposite in such a way.
Teaching, on the other hand, goes beyond ideological guardianship to respect everyone’s right to say what they think in an unlimited way, while at the same time advocating on the grounds of reality. Teachers can’t fear personal opinion. So Mickey Z is a “useful idiot” — but dismissing him as such is still the easy way out. Teachers should have the courage to look at the controversy surrounding Pat Tillman (or for that matter any other subject) and level an on-the-ground opinion that respects others while helping them move forward, toward reality.
28 March 2007, 10:25 amStan:
Rushing here, but if I was intemperate in my remarks, it was because I was with Pat’s mom, and I saw the look on her face when she read Mickey’s article.
I can be just as territorial about my friends as the next person. Dannie Tillman is my friend.
28 March 2007, 1:02 pmr jackowski:
This is a reply to Randy and others who don’t share my view. Also, I would like to expand the debate, if you don’t support civilians, you don’t support the victims of 9/11. Some of those in the WTC were civilians. Maybe some here are trying to say that they support OUR civilians, but not THEIR civilians. It seems to me that that is a flawed argument.
Below is part of an article from the PressAction site. In it I quote Ward Churchill who says it better than I can. We should be protecting civilians by whatever means necessary.
“Vermont Vets Support Ward Churchill Statement
By Rosemarie Jackowski
Veterans for Peace, Chapter 88, held its monthly meeting in Vermont on June 11, 2006. The members agreed by consensus that the following quote would be supported and endorsed. The quote appeared on the blog site http://www.mickeyz.net/ on June 9, 2006. The statement was made by Ward Churchill and is taken from Derrick Jensen’s book, Endgame.
‘What I want is for civilization to stop killing my people’s children. If that can be accomplished peacefully, I will be glad. If signing a petition will get those in power to stop killing Indian children, I will put my name at the top of the list. If marching in a protest will do it, I’ll walk as far as you want. If holding a candle will do it, I’ll hold two. If singing protest songs will do it, I’ll sing whatever songs you want me to sing. If living simply will do it, I will live extremely simply. If voting will do it, I’ll vote. But all of those things are allowed by those in power, and none of those things will ever stop those in power from killing Indian children. They never have, and they never will. Given that my people’s children are being killed, you have no grounds to complain at whatever means I use to protect the lives of my people’s children. And I will do whatever it takes.’ -Ward Churchill…”
28 March 2007, 1:36 pmRandy Morris:
Rosemarie–
Well, I ‘ll be the first to say that if you read “Endgame” and agreed with Jensen’s premise, then we are probably on pretty close to the same page.
I also want to be the first one to say that my last post was full of GUYSH*T. I apologize to everyone for my manner in the face of communication frustration. If you can read around the anger, please do; if not, I can’t really blame you.
I have no right to judge you—and I was doing just that in the moment. My vitriol arises out of arguing the same limited points with people in my daily life, with seemingly no real impact on the true enemy, our way of life. I should assume that if you’re here, you’re fighting the same fights I am.
Randy
28 March 2007, 10:24 pmaudrey:
Rosemarie, I don’t take issue with anything you’ve said in that last post, except for this: “Maybe some here are trying to say that they support OUR civilians, but not THEIR civilians.”
I don’t think anyone here, not Randy, not Stan, not me, has implied that we don’t support their civilians. It’s presumptuous for me to speak for either of them, but all the same I feel confident that I’m safe in making that statement.
The difference in how I view this and how you view it, I think, comes down to this: “When choosing which side to be on, the Killers or the civilians being killed, I don’t see much of a contest.” I don’t feel like I’m choosing sides for a contest. I’m looking at people who have been victimized in the worst possible way, and at the same time I am looking at the profile of a person who had come to the same realization, made worse (for him, I mean) by the recognition that he’d been used as a pawn in that process.
I don’t like the oversimplification of humanity into good vs. bad, or heroes vs. villains. The reality is that both sides, the civilians and the US troops who aren’t existing in a flag-waving stupor of nationality, are people being exploited by the powers that be, and both are having their lives ruined or extinguished by the lies and greed of those at the top of the pyramid. It’s possible to have empathy for a person, while at the same time having empathy for the person who is fighting against them. Hoping for the success of one particular side doesn’t require dehumanizing the other. That disneyfication of people into neat packaged roles of good person or bad is part of what’s wrong with the way we teach history.
I was never a huge fan of the cubists, but the more I think about it, the more I think maybe they had it right when they were trying to portray people from all sides at once. I am not sure why the paintings we label as “realism” depict scenes from one narrow perspective.
28 March 2007, 11:29 pmM. Junaid Alam:
The rift here is quite frankly a function of the massive vacuum in American left politics. You have a smattering of intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, and activists, most armed with good intention. But because the great mass of working people in the United States are miles removed from leftist ideas – and because the existing left seems to go a long way toward maintaining this distance – you end up with ultra-moralistic pieces like Mickey’s latest.
I think Mickey was using the old hype around Tillman as a way to bounce off his criticisms of nationalism. But it is a mark against him that he clearly chose the wrong target. He completely failed to either learn about or take into account Tillman as the human being that he was. Like Goff said, Mickey took at face value the picture of Tillman the caricature – the caricature promoted by the war forces.
Lenin had it right when he said that anyone who thinks a bunch of people will line up on one side for socialism, and another bunch of people will line somewhere else for imperialism, is a fool. Along the same lines, you can’t just depersonalize soldiers and moralize against them by painting them as part of the problem.
Frankly, what makes any of superior to any of the soldiers, save those who have been gripped by outright sadism? We are all part of the same system and the only difference is that their lives are at risk and ours are not. Few here are untainted in any hyper-moralistic sense.
29 March 2007, 12:04 amDeAnander:
MJA I concur. a conversation I have often had with friends of conscience is the deep frustration, unease, bitterness, even despair we sometimes feel about the impossibility of existing with clean hands in a deeply corrupt system. I suspect that this lurking guilt and despair gets taken out horizontally on our approximate allies more than we collectively admit.
as many more astute analysts than myself have pointed out, the entire American economy is hanging on the military/weapons nexus. my pension plan is probably partly based on investments in the weapons labs. the entire American economy and that famous “way of life” is predicated on imperial domination of the periphery, which is just fancy educated Left-speak for killing other people and stealing their stuff and lying about it.
Pat Tillman was complicit in the imperial system, as an imperial legionary. and so am I — I paid my taxes, instead of resisting and going to jail. my tax money was used, and will be used, and always has been used, to kill people and steal their stuff and buy some very fancy professional-crafted lies to cover it all up. I paid Hill & Knowlton. and so did all of us.
I buy food at the supermarket that wouldn’t be there, and wouldn’t be affordable to me, if it weren’t for the cheap oil and the unequal global exchange that allow US and transnat corporations to loot the southern hemisphere. and so do almost all of us (how many live exclusively off local CSAs or their own gardens? never eat longhaul produce? never eat endangered southern ocean fish? never buy slave-labour cut flowers? never buy sweatshop clothing? never buy anything made in China by indentured or slave labour [good luck!]?). the complicity is deep, it’s not always voluntary or conscious. we’re all receivers of stolen goods, we’re all Mama Corleone. we’ve all at one time or another bought some kind of propaganda line that someone fed us. and maybe later on we woke up and realised we’d been fooled.
the Taint — moral, structural, informational — permeates the system. OK, having said that, there’s no excuse for Abu Ghraib… there’s deliberate sadism and there’s cluelessness, and I think that’s a valid distinction. from what I know of the Tillman story (which is not a whole lot) he was clueless and propagandised, and then he started to get a clue, realised he was complicit in a crime — and then he was dead. most people’s life story, in other words, except sped up some. fast-forward.
I remember hearing the TV talking heads nattering on about Tillman when he was their cartoon hero. I remember the saccharine eulogies on the airport TV monitors when he was reported dead. and I remember thinking, “o lord, they’ve found their Horst Wessel.” as such he makes an easy target; but that cartoon isn’t him, any more than “Marilyn Monroe” was the real Norma Jean.
29 March 2007, 12:47 amJames O'Shea:
“you end up with ultra-moralistic pieces like Mickey’s latest.”
You have completely missed Mickey Z’s point here…I don’t even know where to begin. Read some of the comments above, go to his site, look at comments there by him and others.
29 March 2007, 9:02 amMilan:
People. The basic point, and it seems that Geoff tried to state it as clearly as some commenters have misunderstood it is that these soldiers went out there to fight WITHOUT knowledge of history, empire, and colonialism. And their experiences are making them aware of the evil nature of this whole enterprise in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, does that mean that they’re beyond criticism because although ignorant of history and perhaps with the best of intentions (protecting family, country, etc.) they’re still killing innocnt people?
No. But if you’re serious about a movement to stop these wars you’re going to have realize that most people don’t have these left-wing narratives. These things have to be taught, and caricaturing soldiers as baby-killers while they’re beginning to question the logic of empire will provide absolutely zero headway. And the posters that say that we’re all complicit have got it exactly right.
29 March 2007, 10:43 amJoe Ciarrocca:
I have respected the perspectives of both Stan Goff and MickeyZ. I have exchanged emails with both. I was in the military from 1967-1971, I was not in jungles with rifles. I was on 2 aircraft carriers as a jet mechanic in an a6a bomber squadron. I knew the war was wrong before I enlisted. I enlisted because I was too afraid to try not to join when draft time came around. I did not agree with war during my term. I did not agree with any war during any period of time. In fact, I didn’t, I don’t agree with many things during this period of humans evolution. Oh sure, I must exist, eat food, pay bills, listen to bullshit from politicians, people who think, claim, they’re representing others. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE…okay, and that is my opinion you say? Does anyone ask why humans have not evolved beyond this savage state we experience? Oh, this is my opinion also? Does anyone ever ask, is it possible to become fully conscious and transcend this barbaric behavioral condition? And again, I’m simply not in touch I guess if the reader does not relate to what I am saying? The greater the tensions, the more they increase…we need to start communicating how we feel, not what we think or think we perceive. We need to start speaking from the guts, not the head. The intellect is too shallow. Who am I to insult academics with years of advanced education and reading, when I Joe Ciarrocca, had to look up the definition of polemics??? Our cultural conditioning gave us the idea we can function from the head with minimal information and most of that standardized. Most people require a shock effect to wake up and start feeling, first themselves, since they have been fully asleep functioning from autopilot. Feeling, that word many males are afraid of…many men don’t know what to do with this word! We need to understand we know vey little about anything. The laws of the universe, that we ignore because we’re more concerned with laws designed by politicians and town councelman, are laws we might want to think about. We don’t have to understand fully, that all things in the universe have a relationship and that we humans might be effected by more than we know from out ‘there’ and I’m not just referring to the full-moon explanation for everything unclear. Everything is unclear, which is why we have this turmoil on this planet, turmoil between neighbors who argue over the turmoil brought by ignorant people with terrible weapons. Are emotions get out of control since we don’t know ourselves and are not fully conscious…remember, we only function from a very shallow intellect using memory recall with minimal information to recall…ah, the memories…forget every damn one, see right now in the moment as clear as possible, understand why you feel like you do, where those feelings came from, develope the future…america is a page of history that should have been turned 500 years ago…arguing over this, debating, doesn’t inform, it keeps us stuck. We lack the correct kinds of information…to become conscious and want to evolve and transcend all this crap, this ‘place’ where I, where we all function from, this minimal awareness of all things, their interrelationships…think of building a new society, how to communicate…this is what we should be discussing not the past…how do we build a new society, not try to repair the old that is too corrupt to far gone. Think beyond parties, think beyond male dominated, hierarchies, think beyond all you have known…don’t march in place rehashing every damn detail. Put your energy into developing a new community…probably starting small and change will happen…you will then be social change,paradigm change in progress. Build self-sustainging communities, that are initially not as dependent upon the mainstream…5-6 people…start change…focus on that! Non-critical, non-judgemental, self-observation.
29 March 2007, 10:50 amRandy Morris:
Right on De, Milan, Joe …thanks.
29 March 2007, 12:20 pmJen:
I am a veteran. I served from 2000-2005. I joined the military willing to defend my country, wanting to go to school and make something better of myself. When the war started I was against it from day one. I did not realize when I enlisted at 18 (in high school) after 12 years of NC public education that we would go to war to attack people who didn’t deserve it. I was fortunate to get out of the military early, something I was somehow able to pull off because it isn’t easy when they need bodies. I left because I could not morally participate, in any function, in this war. I changed a lot from 18 to 23. I read a lot of good books. I grew up.
I now spend my time working part time, in school full time and nearly every waking minute other than that and some while I should be working trying to end this war. I am a member of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) and actively speak out against the war.
I am have grown as a person to see the interconnectedness of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism and the like to militarism.
I also was once a soldier. I now consider myself a radical feminist.
I now stand the divide attempting to reach out to soldiers to show they why the war is wrong and working with the anti-war movement.
I agree with Stan in his review of the article. I find it counter productive to reaching out to soldiers to attack them with the very reasons we should be critiquing the current state of society with.
I know this war is frustrating, but if you all speak so highly of the knowledge that soldiers should have on how this war is wrong I ask you how insulting them will get them to listen? I am not asking anyone to agree with war crimes or agree with this war. Soldiers are not given options on what war to fight and the options they do have they are often lied to about. I couldn’t get someone in my unit to help my with college tuition requests, how would they help me with a CO (conscientious objection) application? The best thing the movement can do is to be a home for military members who are willing to step away from the killing and destruction. They are a part of the system, but they are not system. The best thing they can do is be willing to teach them, not insult them. Open a helping hand.
It is contradictory to say soldiers should know this stuff and then drive them away from a movement where they could learn it. The whole line “they volunteered for it†is regurgitated pro-war guilt imposing propaghanda. Most people volunteer for something entirely different from what the truth of military service is. Yes the truth is what Mickey Z described, but how is holier than thou posturing enlightening to anyone but his ego?
Mickey Z is questioning all the aspects many soldiers do. The American Dream, patriotism, bombs dropped on innocent people houses. However if you want to get those soldiers to act on those thoughts how is saying “One of the first things it needs is for the American people to snap out of their propaganda-induced fog ASAP and seek a “greater calling” in the truest sense†while insulting a soldier who was beginning to do just that going to spur any progress at all?
This war can so easily be shown to be based on greed, corruption and power grabs that I question why someone would feel the need to push soldiers away over the ease of reaching out to them.
Attacking people for joining the military does nothing to get them to realize the fallacies of why they did it. Attack the system that allows people to see military service as a better option than their lives at the moment, not the people themselves. This is like attacking drug dealers for selling powdered death for money, when I think most people on here can see how the system helps put them in the place to see it as a better option than their current lives.
In the case of Pat those same ideals that led him to give up the “American Dream†are the same ones that helped lead him to question the war. Don’t make the assumption that all soldiers are bad.
I get these attacks from the right; I don’t expect them from the left.
The right insults me as a coward for learning the truth and speaking out against the war, now some on the left insult me for not knowing the truth soon enough? This is the exact egotistical attitude that turns people away from the left. This war and its destruction are both way too serious for the Iraqi people, who never signed up for it, and the soldiers, who thought they were signing up for something else, to let someone’s ego to get in the way.
SGT
NY ARNG
2000-2005
Audre Lorde: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”
29 March 2007, 8:39 pmJeremy R. Hammond:
It seems to me that people still aren’t getting it.
I read Mickey Z’s article. I didn’t interpret it as an attack upon Pat Tillman. It was a criticism of the culture of war in which violence is glorified, in which aggression is equated with protecting America, in which destruction is equated with American ideals.
To put it in terms of state religion, this is pure blasphemy. And it is the blasphemy which Mickey Z attacked. And rightfully so.
30 March 2007, 6:34 amJen:
You’ve got a former soldier telling you that it’s tone is offensive and counter productive.
30 March 2007, 7:05 pmYes Mickey does attack culture but by way of the actions of Pat. He focuses his attacks on Pat did this and Pat did that instead of how culture educated Pat. He makes it the faults of Pat and not our culture. He uses words like “the action Pat choose”. How can one say this is not directed at Pat? Sure its larger scale is culture but Mickey Z didn’t bother to even investigate what Pat thought after the life changing experience of being at war. Had he done that he might see that Pat was making the changes we all hope soldiers do. Instead Mickey Z choose to use Pat the same way the government did, for his own short sighted motives no matter what Pat would have said.
James M:
Well said, Jen.
31 March 2007, 8:08 pmJeremy R. Hammond:
I don’t believe you read the article carefully. I believe you made a judgment about it before ever even reading it. What I observe here is an emotional attachment to the very culture of war Mickey Z criticized. Look at your appeal to Mr. Goff as “a former soldier”, as though the fact that he is was a soldier and was offended by the article somehow proves the accuracy of your criticisms.
The fact is that the article does not focus on Pat did this and Pat did that. The only thing Pat “did” that the article regards as important is join up to participate in a war of aggression. That is “the action Pat chose”. And that’s a factual observation.
Beyond that, it focuses entirely on the image of Pat others have built up, in which he is glorified as heeding “a greater callingâ€, for personifying “the best values†of America, for fighting “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.â€
So I’ll repost a few observations and direct the questions I asked Mr. Goff to you:
The young men and women fighting overseas in the “war on terrorism†are not heeding “a greater callingâ€. This language implies a belief in God and going God’s will, or at least a belief in higher moral principles. If you agree that Tillman was heeding “a greater callingâ€, what was it? And if you agree with Mickey Z that the “war on terrorism†is not a war fought for higher moral principles, but is much rather fought in violation of higher moral principles, then where is your argument with him?
Those who participate in illegal and immoral wars do not reperesent “the best values†of America. The standard applied at Nuremberg was that if there was, in fact, a moral choice, then a soldier who participates in war crimes or a war of aggression is guilty, that “I was just obeying orders†is no excuse. Those who have had the courage to stand up and say, “No, I won’t fight in an unjust war†are those who represent the best values of America. Do you disagree? If not, where is your argument with Mickey Z?
Those who are party to aggression do not fight “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.†This may be an uncomfortable truth, particulary for those who have loved ones fighting in the war. But we must be honest with ourselves. The American dream and way of life are based upon higher moral principles and the rule of law. The “war on terrorism†represents extreme corruption and immorality, and US military action violates both international law and the US Constitution. Do you disagree? If not, then where is your argument?
I keep seeing references to Tillman developing an opposition to the war. I fail to see the relevancy of this observation. Similarly, I fail to see how anything “Pat thought after the life changing experience of being at war” would be relevant to the criticisms of the glorification of men who willingly participate in violence and aggression.
I’m sure many, if not most, of the men fighting this war believe they are doing “the right thing”. And I’m sure many of them know deep down in their subconscious that when they think that, they are deceiving themselves. If we’re going to appeal to authority, perhaps we should ask Mr. Goff his opinion about that.
I respect that people don’t appreciate judgment and condemnation of the troops. But I don’t understand the defense of this culture in which aggressive war is glorified through the glorification of those who participate in it.
I think people are likewise deceiving themselves if they think they can defend that culture and actively participate and contribute to it and still say, “I am opposed to the war.”
We can love the troops, and we can try to understand the position they’re in, and we can work to bring them home.
But we shouldn’t deceive them or ourselves by trying to glorify what they’re doing over there.
In the end, I believe the standard of Nuremberg is the correct one.
And certainly in this case, a moral choice was possible.
31 March 2007, 10:23 pmJen:
I am refering to MYSELF as a former soldier. You did not read what I wrote in my earlier post. I myself am one of those that stood up and said “No I won’t fight in an unjust war”. I myself belive that this war is wrong and it does not heed any greater calling to serve in it. What I am saying to those like yourself is that if you want to reach out to those soldiers directly criticizing them is not the way to do it. When Mickey Z says “Which America was Tillman standing up for-the bosses at Halliburton or the homeless guy I see every day on the subway steps?” it accuses Tillman and other soldiers that they want to line the pockets of Halliburton more than help out the average American. While the actions they are participating in ARE in fact lining those pockets that is most often NOT why they are doing them. (While they are most often themselves average Americans and not Halliburton benificiaries) That sentence I quoted lays it at the feet of Tillman and those like him for Halliburton’s greed and takes misdirects our much needed focus off those who are in fact in charge of those contracts, Halliburton and the administration. I would in fact say that you are misreading what people like myself and Goff are saying. After reading this blog how could one even suggest that Goff supports the current state of culture? People like yourself are continuing to make this conversation into one about culture that I do believe we already all agree needs to be changed. So lets start after the culture conversation, we agree on that already. What we can focus this conversation on is tactics. If the soldiers, as you say, believe they are doing the right thing I think that shows that they WANT to do the right thing. So lets show them how what they are doing is NOT the right thing instead of attacking them. They might listen if you talk. They will never listen if you attack. Lets feed that desire to do the right thing, not attack it when its misdirected.
1 April 2007, 1:17 pmJeremy R. Hammond:
You just said it yourself, “While the actions they are participating in ARE in fact lining those pockets…”
Mickey Z didn’t address Tillman’s own personal motives in the article, or attribute any to him. He was looking at the fact of the matter, which you just acknowledged.
Again, I’m sure soldiers are able to convince themselves they’re doing the right thing, but if so, they’re deceiving themselves. Let’s be honest, here.
Once again, the article was an attack upon the glorification of war, not upon Tillman. Tillman is the object through which the war has been glorified, and it is this use of Tillman that Mickey Z criticizes. The article observed that he had willingly participated in a criminal war and criticized the culture in which his participation is glorified.
Mr. Goff and yourself, and others here, criticize the article. Hence, you are defending the glorification of war that the article criticizes.
Once again, my questions remain unanswered, so once again, I’ll repeat them:
If you agree that Tillman was heeding “a greater callingâ€, what was it? And if you agree with Mickey Z that the “war on terrorism†is not a war fought for higher moral principles, but is much rather fought in violation of higher moral principles, then where is your argument with him?
Those who participate in illegal and immoral wars do not reperesent “the best values†of America. The standard applied at Nuremberg was that if there was, in fact, a moral choice, then a soldier who participates in war crimes or a war of aggression is guilty, that “I was just obeying orders†is no excuse. Those who have had the courage to stand up and say, “No, I won’t fight in an unjust war†are those who represent the best values of America. Do you disagree? If not, where is your argument with Mickey Z?
Those who are party to aggression do not fight “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.†The “war on terrorism†represents extreme corruption and immorality, and US military action violates both international law and the US Constitution. Do you disagree? If not, then where is your argument?
You say I am making this conversation one about culture you agree needs changed. Only you say that as though I were changing the subject. In fact, that was the central thesis of the article you criticize. That IS what we are discussing here, since that is the point of the article. You say you agree it needs to change, and yet you criticize Mickey Z for saying just that. There’s a contradiction there I can’t reconcile.
STAN REPLIES: Quoting you — “Mr. Goff and yourself, and others here, criticize the article. Hence, you are defending the glorification of war that the article criticizes.”
This is a classic non sequitur, a logical fallacy frequently employed for polemical purposes.
1 April 2007, 9:42 pmJen:
The article criticizes Pat for things like serving Halliburton, not Halliburton for using the good will of millions of Americans to further their greedy goals. I am saying the central thesis is not in fact a critique of culture but a citique of those who take part in it. What I am here to say as a former soldier is that when you are in it, it doesn’t look like you are serving Halliburton. If you and people like Mickey Z don’t want help reaching soldiers then you don’t have to listen. You can’t change the fact that we at some point joined the military but you can try to reach us and teach us. Thank god I had people reach me, not push me away.
What kind of soldiers were prosecuted at Nuremburg? The millions of everyday foot soldiers? Or the ones who had a glimpse of the big picture.
I think I have answered your questions more than one time over.
When I am not spending too much time on here I am working hard to end this war, everyday, in Iraq Veterans Against the War. http://www.ivaw.org
2 April 2007, 8:06 amJeremy R. Hammond:
That is false. You’ve made it perfectly apparent that you disagree with the article’s thesis. Since the thesis is that Tillman should not be used to glorify war, and since you disagree so strongly with it, you must therefore agree with the glorification of the war through Tillman.
That’s not a non sequitur, it’s a valid syllogism.
And you never answered my questions or addressed my main points.
2 April 2007, 8:48 amR. S. Morris:
I give.
2 April 2007, 11:35 amJeremy R. Hammond:
Jen, you say “The article criticizes Pat for things like serving Halliburton”. Let’s examine just what the article says. It quotes a public official saying:
“Where do we get such men as these? Where to we find these people willing to stand up for America?”
Mickey Z responds by asking:
“Which America was Tillman standing up for-the bosses at Halliburton or the homeless guy I see every day on the subway steps?”
The question begs an answer. Mickey Z obviously believes those fighting the war serve the likes of Halliburton, and not the true interests of the American people. I agree completely.
By your criticism, it seems you disagree. It seems you that you believe that Tillman was serving not the likes of Halliburton, but of the American people. If not, and if you agree the war serves a few elite and is contrary to the interests of most Americans, then why does the observation that the soldiers are serving that elite offend you so?
You say the thesis was that the troops deserve criticism. I read the same article and to me it says that we shouldn’t glorify the job the troops are doing there, that we shouldn’t lie to ourselves or to them just because the truth is uncomfortable. That is a pretty loud and clear message in the article, and I happen to agree with it 100%. Do you disagree? Do you believe we should glorify what the troops are doing? If not, what, exactly, is your contention with the point that was made?
Again, as I said before, I’m sure most of the troops have managed, for their own sanity, to deceive themselves into believing that they are doing “the right thing”. Perhaps many even believe this honestly. However, the article doesn’t address individual motives, or attribute any. It simply observes that the war is criminal and immoral, that those who participate in it do so willingly, and that hence it is wrong to glorify what they are doing over there. I think it’s a very honest piece. It may be hurtful for those deceiving themselves, but sometimes, as we all know, the truth hurts. We need to move beyond sentimentalism. I believe the words are true, “The truth shall set you free…”, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.
Regarding Nuremberg, again, it was in reference not to the leaders and generals, but to the common soldier that the standard of the “moral choice” was applied. That standard is relevant here. For every individual participating in the war, there is, in fact, a moral choice. I believe that is a proper and correct standard.
I really don’t understand this, though I’m trying. You say you are against the war, and I applaud your efforts to do so. Yet when an article criticizes the glorification of the war through the soldiers participating in it, you get offended. There is an inherent contradiction there that I cannot reconcile.
This is an important conversation and I hope we may continue it and find an understanding and a resolution to our disagreement.
3 April 2007, 2:29 amCharles:
The fact is, the soldiers who have come to oppose this war have done more to discredit the war in the eyes of the American public than all the textual revolutionaries of cyberspace put together.
^^^^^
True that
5 April 2007, 5:57 pmemma:
Interestingly,it seems we are having the same discussion on ‘Kim on Portland Anarchists’ forum, which has developed into the issue of ‘morality and the military’ – as being discussed here. It is interesting carefully reading through both forums and comparing the two of them.
18 April 2007, 5:12 am