selftitled85
02/05/07, 02:01 PM
The recent protest marches on Washington, D.C., organized by the advocacy group United for Peace and Justice, have been receiving a lot of softball commentary and gushy reporting from many news agencies. While it is certainly a newsworthy event, it seems as though everyone has shied away from the apparent fallacies of the so-called “Peace March.”
If it were truly a march for peace, then terrorism would also have been denounced and there would have been calls for Palestinian terrorists to cease blowing themselves up on civilian buses in Israel. The protest would have called for regimes like Iran and North Korea to cease enriching materials for making nuclear weapons. There would also have been demands for Iraqi insurgents to stop kidnapping Americans, brutally torturing and beheading them. None of these positions were taken up; instead the march was against American foreign policy and the Bush administration. If this was the main goal of the march, then it should not have been portrayed as being a march for “peace.”
What really struck a chord with me were reports of how protesters treated war veteran Joshua Sparling all while claiming to be protesting against the war and not the troops.
Sparling served in the army and did a tour of duty in Iraq, where he fell victim to an improvised explosive device attack and had to return to the United States to undergo several corrective surgeries. Sparling ended up losing a leg and now must travel in a wheelchair. Upon returning to the United States for treatment, he received a death threat from an individual who was against the war, stating that he should have died in Iraq.
To show his support for the troops and for the mission, Sparling attended the recent protests in Washington. Seated with members of his family and voicing his opposition to the so-called peace rally, Sparling was attacked by a mob of angry “peace” protesters and subsequently spit on. Police had to form a barricade around Sparling, since he was handicapped and could not defend himself, and then escort him out. The New York Times covered Sparling’s story on Jan. 28 and he was interviewed about his experience on Fox News the following week.
This is a terrible and pathetic display of sincerity for the members of our armed services. A man goes over to Iraq and gets his leg blown off while serving our country, and instead of honoring him, a group of protesters felt the need to attack him. The common saying from those who are against the war is that they are not against the troops; however, such low-class behavior like the way Sparling was treated proves that notion to be completely false.
Additionally, another group of “patriotic protesters” vandalized portions of the Capitol building with spray paint. Again, while protesters of the Iraq war claim that they are not against America, just the war, why is it that they deface a government building? To add to their credibility, a Hollywood celebrity entourage attended the march to use their prestige for strengthening the cause, because after all, overpaid actors are really the most informed citizens of America.
In the end, this gathering will change nothing about the war. Sadly, it is the immature misbehavior of some protesters that makes everyone not want to hear the concerns of those who might not have behaved this way and may possess respectable ideas. The real problem exists when those who are naďve fall victim to conspiracy theory and unsubstantiated reasoning much like the messages sent by the protest. My suggestion to UFPJ and those who bought into its logic is to next time approach their disagreements about the war with real, feasible and researched suggestions and to stop relying on Michael Moore propaganda to fuel their cause.
now i am all for peaceful protests...but what the writer says in this article is very true. how can you go around saying you want peace and an end to the conflict yet not condone beheading of americans, or suicide palestinian bombers? and the treatment of sparling...that is really really shitty.
thoughts?
If it were truly a march for peace, then terrorism would also have been denounced and there would have been calls for Palestinian terrorists to cease blowing themselves up on civilian buses in Israel. The protest would have called for regimes like Iran and North Korea to cease enriching materials for making nuclear weapons. There would also have been demands for Iraqi insurgents to stop kidnapping Americans, brutally torturing and beheading them. None of these positions were taken up; instead the march was against American foreign policy and the Bush administration. If this was the main goal of the march, then it should not have been portrayed as being a march for “peace.”
What really struck a chord with me were reports of how protesters treated war veteran Joshua Sparling all while claiming to be protesting against the war and not the troops.
Sparling served in the army and did a tour of duty in Iraq, where he fell victim to an improvised explosive device attack and had to return to the United States to undergo several corrective surgeries. Sparling ended up losing a leg and now must travel in a wheelchair. Upon returning to the United States for treatment, he received a death threat from an individual who was against the war, stating that he should have died in Iraq.
To show his support for the troops and for the mission, Sparling attended the recent protests in Washington. Seated with members of his family and voicing his opposition to the so-called peace rally, Sparling was attacked by a mob of angry “peace” protesters and subsequently spit on. Police had to form a barricade around Sparling, since he was handicapped and could not defend himself, and then escort him out. The New York Times covered Sparling’s story on Jan. 28 and he was interviewed about his experience on Fox News the following week.
This is a terrible and pathetic display of sincerity for the members of our armed services. A man goes over to Iraq and gets his leg blown off while serving our country, and instead of honoring him, a group of protesters felt the need to attack him. The common saying from those who are against the war is that they are not against the troops; however, such low-class behavior like the way Sparling was treated proves that notion to be completely false.
Additionally, another group of “patriotic protesters” vandalized portions of the Capitol building with spray paint. Again, while protesters of the Iraq war claim that they are not against America, just the war, why is it that they deface a government building? To add to their credibility, a Hollywood celebrity entourage attended the march to use their prestige for strengthening the cause, because after all, overpaid actors are really the most informed citizens of America.
In the end, this gathering will change nothing about the war. Sadly, it is the immature misbehavior of some protesters that makes everyone not want to hear the concerns of those who might not have behaved this way and may possess respectable ideas. The real problem exists when those who are naďve fall victim to conspiracy theory and unsubstantiated reasoning much like the messages sent by the protest. My suggestion to UFPJ and those who bought into its logic is to next time approach their disagreements about the war with real, feasible and researched suggestions and to stop relying on Michael Moore propaganda to fuel their cause.
now i am all for peaceful protests...but what the writer says in this article is very true. how can you go around saying you want peace and an end to the conflict yet not condone beheading of americans, or suicide palestinian bombers? and the treatment of sparling...that is really really shitty.
thoughts?