Press Action

Friday, November 19, 2004

Why I Don't Support the Troops

By Jordy Cummings

Read full article...

Posted 11/19 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

...it seems funny to have to mention this on a website that bills itself as ‘libertarian/anarchist’, but the first order of business for any standing army is to insure the pacification of the home front… we’ve been domesticated for so long we’ve forgotten that fact. until they mutiny, they are our enemies, too.

Posted by zek gulag from on 11/19 at 04:51 PM

dear zek, a very interesting remark and entirely true. all empires fall when the troops refuse to perform within. i quote hereby from cummings’ piece as an aside: “But I sure as hell dont support patriarchal assholes who wont let their wives eat with them”. this is typical of the delusive propaganda of domestication because very little is known but much assumed in the west about middle-eastern society and practices. one ever sees the splinter in one’s neigbor’s eye but never the enormous two-by-four in one’s own (think of Jewish orthodoxy for example). please goddess, let us not judge as we do not want to be judged and then only after gaining knowledge…

Posted by gui rochat from new york again on 11/19 at 09:50 PM

War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today. ~John F. Kennedy

Posted by Nader Rider from on 11/19 at 10:31 PM

My quote is directly in reference to facts recorded by Christian Parenti. The resistance fighters are valiant gentlemen, to be sure, but their treatment of their wives is not very good, by any humane standards. This holds back the success of a movement, and I feel that it is an obligation for me, in solidarity, to offer such a critique. If it is judgmental for me to think it disturbing, than I’m judgmental. The treatment of women by men in all cultures, including our own, is abhorrent.

Posted by j cummings from on 11/19 at 11:55 PM

Just to reitterate...Feminism is not a western colonial enterprise. It is often, like the concept of human rights, perverted as such. To throw feminism and human rights out the window because Imperialists use them to their advantage is all the more reason to cling strongly to them, as they are true. period. Women and men are equal as entities Humans have rights. It does not have to be more abstract than that, and to suggest otherwise is very male chauvinist and or nihilistic.

Posted by j cummings from on 11/20 at 12:04 AM

i get disturbed though when especially western observers (americans often), who never penetrate any other society because of their isolation due to lack of insights and/or cultural obfuscation, make judgments about those cultures (vide: ‘the ugly american’ by greene). having lived in the middle east and gone to the american university of beirut i know those researchers and their pre-conceived hypotheses, thus absolving them nicely from feeling guilty about conditions within their own culture. why not concentrate on oppressions at home, dissolution of the moral framework by consumerism and the vulgarity of exposing women to the gaze of men in magazines and movies, instead of hypocritically claiming that the condition of women is so much better here than elsewhere. i feel like the women in the womyn’s movement in the 1970’s: ‘move on over or we will move on over you ‘, which goes as far as i am concerned for any other society impugned upon by american ‘hubris’ and lack of self analysis. and rightly or wrongly they have the rights to ignore this kind of western imperial criticism and move at their own speed. may i suggest here a saying of a german king, called frederick the great who
said: ‘lass jeder auf seine facon seelig werden’
i.e. live and let live. western standards are NOT universal you know and what works surely does not work elsewhere. how about that thought ?

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/20 at 12:18 AM

dear jordy, in reference to your two last comments. please do not confuse radicalism with aggression, an often made mistake. it is great to have heart and blood involved and feel passionate in what you believe in. there is no doubt that you feel that and do that. but in slinging terms like male chauvinism and nihilism around, is not good analysis. i noticed that in your remarks under another article on richard oxman. it is fine to disagree and to point out your view of another person’s lack of correct reactions to points made by you and others, but it is an entirely different kettle of fish to go into interpersonal disagreements from a finalizing standpoint, i.e. he is overbearing, this is male chauvinism etc. it closes down any discussion and is very impoverishing and limiting. there are many ways people reach enlightenment if you will, and it does not help the cause by being too unbending, to criticizing, too pc in other words. it is a danger we all have to watch for and not easy to avoid, but we all really should try. in solidarity, gui

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/20 at 12:40 AM

In a comment to Mickey Z.’s “Rumor Club” article, gui rochat said: “yup, i see what you mean ox and as for my long comments # 29 and # 30, i did not include free speech as i think there is too much free speech already in this country.”

We have “too much free speech” in this country, gui rochat says. “too much free speech.” Very interesting. (By the way, in response to this comment, Richard Oxman applauded: “Yes, you’ve touched the Mother/Padre Load!)

And then in a comment to this article (see #6), gui rochat says to Jordy: “why not concentrate on oppressions at home.”

“Too much free in this country”—“why not concentrate on oppressions at home.” If free speech—speech here at Press Action, let’s say—were taken away by someone or some government official, wouldn’t that be a form of oppression here at home?

American Heritage Dictionary, albeit a western imperial source, defines ‘oppression’ as: “The act of oppressing; arbitrary and cruel exercise of power.” How does this western imperial dictionary define ‘oppress’: “To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.”

So wouldn’t applying some level of cost on exercising free speech here at home—through, let’s say, threats, fines, imprisonment or death—qualify as a form of oppression that we should concentrate on here at home?

Moreover, if I, albeit someone who resides within the borders of a western imperial state, understand gui rochat’s comments above correctly, I think he’s saying we should stop expressing our opinions on non-western cultures. Jordy obviously doesn’t favor imposing western imperial values on Iraq through military force. Jordy’s article clearly states this. But Jordy, in his article, does share his opinions about what he views as the oppressive nature of segments of Iraqi society, an act of expression that gui rochat clearly finds objectionable.

But gui rochat’s admonishment of Jordy for expressing opinions about—not advocating violence against—Iraqi society through a western imperial lens can be better understood if we remember gui rochat is someone who believes “there is too much free speech already in this country.”

Posted by Mark Hand from on 11/20 at 08:10 AM

the writer above confuses two different comments of mine and conflates them into one argument. i said too much free speech ‘tongue in cheek’ about all the chatterings on the internet, in books and behind lecterns in lieu of real actions. it specifically does not imply that i approve of any impediment to exercizing free speech, on the contrary. but here i find that to express an opinion on other societies quickly falls into cultural imperialism. and is in the same bag as baby bush wanting to bring ‘democracy’ to other countries and the evangelists ‘the true word of the true lord’ to unbelievers. ‘feminism’ and ‘human rights’ are entirely western constructs and do not necessarily apply elsewhere and to think so is, if i may put it crudely ignorant arrogance. as for oppression, a devout muslim looks with horror on the open exploitation of female flesh for commercial ends here. and sees the use of alcohol with its consequences, harmful tobacco and drugs not as signs of indiviual rights and freedom, but as self indulgences and self destructive. so is female bondage less here than there ? is the freedom of choice to poison yourself real freedom ? on the contrary and the intent here to depict me as a reactionary falls exactly in line with the intolerance of the moral righteousness which wants to extend its own standards to those reluctant to be manipulated.

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/20 at 10:33 AM

Mark’s seeming equivocation on the phrase “there is too much free speech in this country” might not involve “intentional” deception, but...still...the diatribe above is misleading. I’ll let Gui talk for himself definitively on this count, but, in the meantime, permit me to point out that I believe --if memory serves-- Gui was addressing the lopsidedness of talk (quantity) versus meaningful action, NOT the whole strained angle Mark has delved into above, dictionary in hand. Also, as I remember Gui has put his life on the line many times over respecting the people that Mark suggests he has less concern for than Jordy. It would be more helpful for purposes of public discussion, it seems to me, if Mark got on Jordy to respond point for point --or at least to address ONE point-- pontificated upon in my last missive to him in these quarters. As I remember, Jordy decided to ignore what I was calling him on...in our last exchange in the Commentary Realm. I do hope, all this said, that both Mark and Jordy know that in spite of SEVERE diffs among us at present...I look to them to join hands at some point in solidarity...with me...and the likes of Gui.

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 11/20 at 10:44 AM

I don’t support the troops either, although in many ways they are the victims. In any event, they are less culpable than their commanders, who ought to be in the docket in the Hague facing charges of war crimes. But I resent this comment, with no substantiation, that perpetuates the myth that drugs and the states of consciousness they engender are automatically somehow bad, and which reinforces the disastrous status quo of drug policy: “I completely sympathize with the notion that these kids...are paranoid and probably doped up on who knows what.” What shred of connection is there to this statement and reality?

Indeed, I believe it is just the states of consciousness that some drugs can engender, LSD, Ecstasy, marijuana, and the other psychedelics, DMT, ayahuasca, mushrooms, peyote, could go a long way, may be at this point is the only thing could expand the consciousness of humanity and awake it and halt the horrors of its wars, its consumption, its environmental despoilations, and the rest of its mad rushes to oblivion and collective suicide. This is an issue of cognitive liberty and freedom of consciousness. Who gets it; in what amounts; when and why. Has anybody ever heard of the mystical states of consciousness that have been reported with respect to these substances? The religious rites that surround them in Indian peyote cultures of the desert Southwest, in mushroom cults in Mexico, and the ayahuasca ceremonies of Amazonia? It’s a cheap out to blame drugs for soldiers participation in the bloodbath in Iraq. What next are drugs to be blamed for? Seborrhea? Hemorrhoids? Global warming?

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 11/20 at 11:18 AM

i read jordy’s comments above again and i agree with him that circumstances within the movements (or with freedom fighters in iraq) are far from ideal. jordy is correct and i apologize. the only thing i can say however is something i also quoted to richard oxman which is an exclamation by the black human rights lawyer, florynce kennedy: ‘what ? you want nigger nobility too ?’, in other words one can expect too much from fallible human beings and easily from those that are in fact struggling for their lives. i feel compassion for those groups in iraq and feel that one should not add to their burdens, whether their social failings disturb us or not. so i hope that jordy will understand my outburst. oxman advises me to sit back and be short and concise. but alright, i am a fighter and i am going to disregard his advise, even though he may think it dissolves his attempts to form solidarity. the verbal attack (not terribly important in the length of time) by mark hand shows that his thinking is very much off as he points the discussion ‘ad hominem’ based on what he can gather here and there from truncated previous comments people made on his website. that sort of method is extremely dangerous and follows to a tee what is done in the regime propaganda machine in order to twist the ‘opponent’s’ intentions. I would like to strongly warn others about this. i once before wrote that i have no particular drive to write comments on pressaction as i am not convinced that it will be productive (again in contrast to what oxman thinks), and mark, i am quite willing to pursue any argument. but your implication that i would approve of imperial military actions against the iraqis is disgraceful to say the least and unworthy of your otherwise interesting press action website.

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/20 at 11:32 AM

I am “extremely dangerous” and “follow[ing] to a tee what is done in the regime propaganda machine” and “point[ing] the discussion ‘ad hominem’” and “disgraceful” because I highlighted opinions of gui rochat with which I do not share. gui rochat also writes my “thinking is very much off.” Contrast those descriptions of me by gui rochat with my comments in #8 and then decide for yourself who is “point[ing] the discussion ‘ad hominem’.”

And, gui rochat, where do I, by implication, write that you “would approve of imperial military actions against the iraqis”? You lost me there.

I disagree with many of your points, gui rochat. It’s as simple as that. I’m not attacking you. I’m engaging in debate, pointing to the portions of your writings that I disagree with. Engaging in the debate/discussion is why I thought Richard keeps dragging you back to Press Action, isn’t it?

Are my comments a “diatribe,” Richard, because I’m disagreeing with a comrade—who has apparently “put his life on the line many times”—that you’ve brought to Press Action? Please explain how gui rochat has put his life on the line, instead of just throwing that personal nugget out, expecting us now to stand at attention to every word of gui rochat instead of allowing us to assess the logic and reasoning behind gui rochat’s comments on their own merit.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 11/20 at 12:26 PM

I didn’t bring Gui to Press Action; I kept him from taking a sabbatical. I’ll let him delineate how he’s invested himself in the cause of those abroad...as he sees fit. I certainly didn’t bring that or anything up to encourage anyone to “stand at attention.” That’s Stan Goff military language that I can’t relate to in any context. Perhaps it was a touch of the ironic or satiric that moved me to use the word “diatribe.” More likely, it was the “prolonged discourse” that prompted the choice of word, an entry at variance with the parameters previously “approved of” (desired for) in the forum. Personally, I’m totally in agreement w the notion of your criticizing Gui or anyone as you see fit. I just wish the same encouragement would be extended to me vis-a-vis articles I’m submitting...which would serve to balance some of the Bush League submissions that appear from time to time. There’s certainly no level playing field here...with me restricted to the commentary section on PA. That doesn’t really give me an opportunity to “criticize” postions posited for the public on an equal basis w others. Rather, I am expected to represent my POV in virtual PA soundbite form in the forum, expressing what must then seem to be a “marginal” point of view, as less deserving one. I trust that I won’t be deprived of even that...before long. I’m not the one who’s discouraging criticism in these quarters.

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 11/20 at 12:42 PM

allow me to correct hand’s comments before i sign off altogether (as no further benefits are apparent to me). first of all he should read my comments more carefully. i did not say he is dangerous, i wrote the method is dangerous and this method follows to a tee etc. and then hand accuses me of certain things i never stated and i quote here hand’s last paragraph: “But gui rochat’s admonishment of Jordy for expressing opinions about—not advocating violence against—Iraqi society through a western imperial lens can be better understood if we remember gui rochat is someone who believes “there is too much free speech already in this country.”, that remark is disgraceful as it imputes something i never wrote and distorts my intentions about the indulgence of ‘free speech’. that is not debate, that is frankly ‘wrong thinking’. i will bow out as i have seen such put-downs from the 1968 student action groups in paris to resistance cells in new york in the late 1970’s. they are unproductive and paternalistic and emerge if someone cannot impose their own idealistic viewpoints directly onto others and i would advise hand to re-read engels who commented on that sort of revisionism.
i still think that hand’s forum is excellent for some extraordinary people to exchange ideas on, but i am not entirely sure that his input is very helpful towards creating solidarity or any better understanding. the snide remark made of me putting my life on the line reflects accurately hand’s position. i send my very best wishes for solidarity, compassion and successful efforts towards social justice to all press action readers.

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/20 at 01:17 PM

Regarding the issue of supporting the troops, there is a therapeutic approach that many therapists effectively assume… whereby you come across in a manner that is supportive of the actor, but not of his or her actions(s).

Is there a position that is assumable whereby you can be supportibve of the troops but not of their actions?

Or do our actions always identify who we are?

Posted by Nader Rider from on 11/20 at 01:23 PM

You are who you kill? You are who you nurture. Oxlove

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 11/20 at 01:26 PM

Richard wrote:
“I just wish the same encouragement would be extended to me vis-a-vis articles I’m submitting...which would serve to balance some of the Bush League submissions that appear from time to time. There’s certainly no level playing field here...with me restricted to the commentary section on PA. That doesn’t really give me an opportunity to “criticize” postions posited for the public on an equal basis w others. Rather, I am expected to represent my POV in virtual PA soundbite form in the forum, expressing what must then seem to be a “marginal” point of view, as less deserving one. I trust that I won’t be deprived of even that...before long.”

The Internet is full of opportunities for you to criticize and write anything you want. I find it puzzling and somewhat sad that you feel Mark has an obligation to provide you that opportunity. And even more so sad that you have to publicly lambast him for it here.

Sigh…

Posted by Nancy from on 11/20 at 01:49 PM

Before you sign off, gui, I’d still appreciate you pointing me to where I, by implication, wrote that you “would approve of imperial military actions against the iraqis.”

Also, it was Richard who made “the snide remark” of you putting your life on the line. Check the transcript. Richard wrote: “[A]s I remember Gui has put his life on the line many times over respecting the people that Mark suggests he has less concern for than Jordy.” Since Richard brought this up, I thought I’d inquire about how you put your life on the line. It seems Richard was using your past activities—work that probably was a mystery to most Press Action readers—as a way to counter something I wrote. Don’t you think the phrase, “putting his life on the line,” should have been explained?

According to your final comment, it appears you were involved in student groups in Paris in 1968 and resistance cells in New York in the late 1970s. Sounds like you had a bad experience with these groups. Was it during this portion of your life that, as Richard described it, you put your “life on the line many times over respecting the people that Mark suggests he has less concern for than Jordy”?

Posted by Mark Hand from on 11/20 at 02:13 PM

Do you find it “puzzling and sad” that since I criticized Mark and Mickey in public (immediately following OUTSIDE THE BALLOT BOX, and partly in relationship to that fine effort)...the guidelines for posting vis-a-vis me...seem to have changed? This with the full encouragement from Mark to proceed with my criticism...having stated in public (first) that I was “intimidated” about the prospect of leveling such criticism for the very scenarios that have since come to be realized. The obvious fact that there are other places on the Internet..."full of opportunities” is neither here nor there. You have already lost a interesting counterweight to some of your positions in the form of Gui leaving this morn; there are others, of course...who have and will follow suit. But to criticize me for criticizing Mark --who I do respect on many counts-- is disingenuous, to say the least. No, Mark and you have NO obligation to me to post my stuff, though I do think your end has an obligation to respond to my many personal emails...so as to not encourage me to go public...if for no other reason. And there are others. Rather, you have an “obligation” to your readers.

Posted by Richard Oxman from on 11/20 at 02:15 PM

Richard- You (and your overbearing presence) overstayed your welcome on my website a long, long time ago. It most certainly didn’t start with “Outside the Ballot Box.” I’m just a guy who decided a couple years ago to start a little website of news analysis and commentary and now some bully is telling me I have an “obligation” to respond to his emails so as not to encourage him “to go public.” That’s nice. That’s really nice.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 11/20 at 03:03 PM

To Tracy =
I meant they are probably on speed- pilots are often given meth or other stimulants...I didn’t mean the world of psychedelics or puffing the ganja (though Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan almost mutined when their officers tried to stop them from smoking the finest hashish in the world, Afghani)

To Gui and Ox =
I am reminded of Chomsky’s quote about Marx in the London Museum Reading Room. If that was to cryptic, Ox can be a little more clear in what his agenda is in regards to little old me....

From when I first wrote about Dylan on Dissident Voice, Ox has been calling me out on this site I have had pleasant exchanges with him here and other venues, and I have engaged him. I think he is kind of obsessed with me, because he sees me as everything that is wrong with the left....when I am just a literary nerd who got into politics out of a sense of duty and don’t call myself anything but that

And if human rights are western, then why did you oppose the Iraq war. I am anti-imperialist because Imperialism kills and subjugates humans. Human rights, used properly, international law - is the only way - creating a discourse that renders the US criminal. Thats what I’m trying to do. If you get rid of human rights conceptually, on what basis do you oppose war?

Posted by j cummings from on 11/20 at 03:21 PM

... it’s only through our actions (or lack thereof) that we can be known. i ‘support’ the troops in a materially relevant way (i still pay my taxes, not yet resolved to incur the cost of saying no) and my ‘opposition’ is just hot air (i’ve yet to derail a munitions train, or tourch a recruiting center). what do i say to an iraqi mother, ‘gee, i’m really sorry ‘bout your child, but the system has me by the short hairs, i could loose my (job, house, family, friends...)if i do anything that actually affects the conduct of the war.’ an ugly situation, and we’re not looking too good, either.

Posted by zek gulag from badheadspace on 11/20 at 08:40 PM

Thanks for clarifying Jordy. That is a whole other kettle of fish. I do wish however folks would be careful and delineate what they mean by “dope” and “drugs” when they toss those terms about lest they perpetuate the myths of the likes of the Partnership for a Drug Free America. I agree the practice you mention is reprehensible; but then it’s American. How could it be anything else?

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 11/21 at 03:28 PM

Human rights are not Western. In fact the West is often the biggest obstacle to the realization of human rights in many parts of the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed and endorsed by many nations of the world when it originally proposed and has been subsequently endorsed by many others. It incorporate political, economic, and social rights, many of which are not realized even in some of the richest countries of the West. There are of course many aspect of human rights not covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but this only means that its scope should be enlarged, and that its implementation needs to be realized going forward.

Posted by Abu Spinoza from on 11/21 at 11:12 PM

Richard Oxman’s comments are sometimes insightful, and sometimes not. Some of us, including this commentator, do not necessarily find merit his some program & strateigies, and may prefer some other specific forms and mode of protests and activism.

Be that as it may be, I think there is plenty of scope of multiple strategies and visions in the left and different methods of different people. I do happen to think that informing people and trying to reach out to the mainstream of society happens to be important priorities. But this is not enough. There has be organizations and institution building, ranging from progressive publications to human rights NGOs, charities, trade union activitism, hunger strikes, solidarity missions (such ISM in Palestine), media activism, demonstration and rallies, work stopages and strikes, and so on. Even non-political work, arts, culture, films, and documentaries are important avenues of trying to change the system.

At the same time, the progressives need to build coalition with those in the mainstream who speak out against human rights violation, war, and imperialism. For example, many principled conservatives are opposed to the present “war on terrorism.” Although the left’s social values and economic policies are different, I don’t see why the left should be build strategic alliance with conservaties in forming a grand coalition of antiwar movement.

There are many openings for making meaningful policy changes, but the progressive are yet to exhaust all the available opportunities…

Posted by Abu Spinoza from on 11/21 at 11:28 PM

Indeed, Abu. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes the US Constitution look like toilet paper. What a utopia this world would be if we lived up to its ideals.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 11/22 at 01:26 AM

That is what so bothers me when folks say human rights are Western. I used to hear that in a poli-sci course I took, as a minor, in university. You’d see many Third World intellectuals state such things, others who didn’t… These concepts would come from, say, Singapore or the Chinese government to justify respectively, no democratic rights or Tianeman. Then the /us makes a simlair excuse in regards to the UN. Conceptually, they are “westenr” - enlightenment, etc. - but that “west” is mythical and taught by “east.”

Posted by j cummings from on 11/22 at 12:16 PM

I’d like to know what happened to many of the ORIGINAL responses to this article and the discussion that began after it.I would personally like to be told what exactly I wrote that warranted the removal of my posts.I think if statements made in a public forum,that are encouraged to be there shouldn’t be removed without at least a discussion personally(via email)as to WHY the decision was made.I notice my responses aren’t the only ones gone either.There were 28 now only 17 remain.

I thought,this was SUPPOSED to be a forum for various issues,discussing them and continuing the discussions into other related ideas.Isn’t that what those on the Left,Progressives and others who are tired of “the way things are"want?Or should we just sit around and complain,say how awful it is and do nothing else but agree nicely?Exposing the truth of things is fine,and certainly there’s going to be some disagreement on how to bring about deep and lasting change.But that won’t and can’t happen without the freedom to disagree and to at least embrace the IDEA of a new way of doing things.

Posted by Tammy from Metro Atlanta on 11/22 at 05:47 PM

Irrespective of the contents of the posts involved, I concur with Tammy. The act of deleting posts arbitrarily and without explanation is, in my opinion, an act of authoritarianism. Aren’t such acts supposesd to be an anathema to most anarchists?

Posted by NaderRider from on 11/22 at 10:32 PM

<meta comment> If Mark prefers not to have his personal name and personal Website associated with certain unstable individuals I think that is his perogative. I suspect before long he will have to close all comments and shut down the Web site - it won’t be worth his time to have to deal with the harrassment, threats and abuse of the comment forum.
</meta comment>
-ls

Posted by lucy from on 11/22 at 10:50 PM

When one person decides what is in the best interest of the collective, Lucy, you have benevolent paternalism (the nicest way that I can put it). I’m neither a fan of, or an active participant in, a collective where benevolent paternalism is the rule of the land. You may enjoy it fruits; that is your prerogative. I, on the other hand, prefer a more participatory and collaborative form of dining experience.

Posted by NaderRider from on 11/22 at 11:20 PM

but this is NOT a collective. (or do you run it with mark? maybe i am mistaken..) i was under the impression he did this all on his own. he gets submissions from folks and decides whether to publish them. just because he posts articles written by other people (with permission) does not make his personal website a “collective”...
-ls

Posted by lucy from on 11/22 at 11:34 PM

I stand corrected then. And plead guilty to believing his earlier affirmations of having anarchistic tendencies. You are right. It is his thing, and he can do whatever he wants with it. Including deleting whatever posts he wants to delete without explanation. That doesn’t sit well with me, however, so I will exercise my pererogative and provide you all with more room on this dance floor. Enjoy the dance. I did, for a while.

Posted by NaderRider from on 11/22 at 11:47 PM

Without an assumption that the individual is morally responsible for their own behavior, authoritarian structures are necessary. However if we fail to be compassionate with those who have been brainwashed, we ourselves create authoritarian structures. To develop consciousness within the tissue of society I favor a paradigm of “hard head, soft heart.”

Posted by JohnTinker from on 11/23 at 12:10 AM

Your title suggests that you are against the troops,( Why I don’t Support The Troops),but you state that you are against “war crimes” in Iraq. Killing civilians, torturing prisioners,etc. I would like to agree with you and join thousands,(maybe millions), of other people throughout the world, in proclaiming that: I DON’T SUPPORT THE U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ! It’s not the Abu Ghraib scandal, or the “possum playing” Iraqi freedom fighter who was murdered, or the little child who got snipped, or even the ten thousand who got “Shocked and Awed” to death, that I choose not to support the troops.It’s the simple fact that WAR is a crime. All wars, any wars, big wars, little wars,open wars, secret wars, War is a crime. There is not a good or noble or righteous way or reason to kill another human being, not for god, not for country, not for nothing. I don’t support the troops because without them, war would be impossible. The “Masters Of War”,(anti-war Dylan song #1),could not do what they do without the cooperation of thousands of “washed” soldiers, and millions of flag waving, self righteous American citizens cheering them on. If people are going to proclaim to be anti-war, then I have just one request: Be anti-war. Peace

Posted by Tony Soldo from Hobe Sound, FL on 11/23 at 12:15 AM

This past weekend, I removed 11 comments to this article: four of my own comments; three by Richard Oxman; three by gui rochat; and one by Nancy. Due to popular demand, I have now unremoved the comments. Yay!! See comments 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21. I have not removed any other comments from this site, except for advertisments for Viagra, Cialis and other products that are routinely posted as comments by spammers and the occasional threatening comment.

I have also made the decision to cut all ties between Press Action and Richard Oxman, i.e., I have removed all of his articles from this site. I no longer want this site associated with him and I do not plan on reversing that decision.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 11/23 at 01:58 AM

Re-reading the reinstated comments above, it is seems that they were removed for being off-topic (not related to Jordy’s article) and personal attacks. I think that is a fair comment guideline - personal issues are better handled privately and off-topic comments are distracting and disrespectful of the article author. Perhaps Press Action could post guidelines for comments in full interest of disclosure for those that choose to participate.

ls

Posted by Lucy from on 11/23 at 08:47 AM

dear mark, i am glad to read your entry number 37 and others as it cleared up a misunderstanding i had about press action. i thought that you wanted to provide a really free forum for people to exchange ideas, even unusual or controversial ones (and usually those are the most valuable), but as you write you are just a guy sitting in his basement writing on his pc and paying the bills. Paying the bills in capitalist society means you are the boss and that function is what you want to exercise. To claim that your site is libertarian/anarchist is then hardly correct as you apply censorship as you see fit. I do not disagree with your ‘prerogative’, but sadly to me that does not provide any liberation from conservative thinking nor a venue for finding new options to resist the onslaught of what private ownership does to us all. The reason why i support richard oxman in all his ‘outrageousness’ as you and some of your readers would have it, is exactly that his kind of person is the one that really can bring a change about (as proven by history with crazies such as Che), not by the careful theoretician weighing this action against the other till all resistance has been shlushed away in the avalanche of possible options. I wish you and your commenters all the best, I really do, but I doubt that you will bring out any meaningful alternative of what is ‘coming down’ in this manner, even from your basement redoubt… in all sincere solidarity, gui

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/23 at 08:47 AM

As much as I hate war, I am forced to support it. I pay taxes to the empire, unfortunately.

War crimes never cease in a war. Any action that causes the death of civilians not associated with any part of a war effort is a war crime. Since I contribute to the US gov in the form of taxes, it makes me an enabler of war crimes.

If the insurgents were to turn their swords into plowshares, there would be peace. I really don’t see that happening any too soon.

The war will slog on through the briars and the thickets.

The dogs of war bring down the animal and tear into the flesh with a voracious appetite.

It all boils down to how US elected leaders and the appointed diplomatic corps have carried and conducted themselves for the past sixty years, give or take a couple of hundred.

All of this can be condensed into one old adage: All is fair in love and war.

Love scares people. They feel threatened by it. It is far easier to hate your neighbor than to love him.

“Love thy neighbor as thine own self” is tough to do.

Hate the sin, not the sinner. Seems hokey and thoroughly naive, but it’s true.

Posted by MDPB from on 11/23 at 09:30 AM

Gui- I adamantly believe we are in desperate need of radical change in our society. My dedication to this belief will always remain strong, as long as conditions allow governments to commit atrocities against all life forms. And, given the public’s apparent tolerance for these atrocities, I’m fairly confident the overwhelming majority of people in the United States would view the ideas contained in most of the articles that I’ve posted on Press Action over the past two years as “controversial.” As for Richard Oxman, I grew tired of his authoritarian and bullying manner in his comments posted on Press Action and in his correspondence with me. Just because I rejected Richard’s form of authoritarianism on Press Action doesn’t mean he can’t go elsewhere where his dogmatic style might be more appreciated.

Posted by Mark Hand from on 11/23 at 10:39 AM

well mark, since i pulled myself back into the discussion, let us consider my entry on ‘free speech’ which i meant as a comment on the interminable liberal and leftist chat on the inter net (i suppose my direct ironic reference to some twenty-odd articles on counter punch about kerry versus bush and twenty on znet, disturbed you) and not as you interpreted it (without apparently carefully reading what i had written) like a generalized attack on free speech in this country: are you exercising the right of free speech for others on your web site ? you have stated yourself that this is not the case… my problem is that there is too much talk, too little action (aside from what i term ‘wrong thinking’ which is the nefarious influence of the capitalist mind distortion, but which would lead me into more talk...) and which seems a typical indigenous syndrome. you wrote above that you would not stand at attention at everything i wrote (which i referred to as a ‘snide remark’ not worthy of discourse), i am the last person who would like people to stand at attention and it reminds me too much of spectators (as you apparently like big sports) standing at attention for the national anthem (i get the heeby-jeevies at the word ‘national’....)... and me being european, of course we ‘love’ to have others stand at attention… ...? but i bring this up because there is obviously some sort of resentment at play here with oxman, which surprises me unless you want to steer a steady ship and never ‘rock the boat’. life gets a lot easier when one gets away from thinking of private property, financial investment into web sites and a need for curbing another’s right to ‘antagonistic’ speech (however unwelcome this may be). i do pay others the compliment (or rather respect their dignity with it) to read very carefully indeed their entries. please extend to me the same courtesy and consider if a web site would not gain enormous more interest and significance if it can tolerate diverse, obverse and even subversive opinions and/or what you call bullying ones from people like oxman. do you not agree that the cause will be very much enhanced by controversy ? if not we will suffer from what Martin L King called the consequences of :"staying silent”. will i now be banished too ? , all best, gui

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/23 at 11:12 AM

Gui seems to have taken up Richard’s mantle...bemoaning the paralysis of analysis by writing endless articles and comments about the left’s steady stream of rhetoric sans action. Besides his articles, what has Oxman done except for his “plan,” almost a year now in the making, to interrupt Letterman’s and Leno’s show? Against all the other obstacles, has it occurred to Oxman that were this impossible scheme successful, it would simply be edited out of the tape? As for Mark’s fondness for sports, I have been reading PA for about a year now, and this is the first I’ve heard of it. Which sports do you like Mark?

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 11/23 at 11:45 AM

Dear Friends:

I apologize for my broken English. I have been working on some issues regarding U.S.A. and I had used some articles written by Richard Oxman. I was also lucky interviewing him on behalf of REPORTERASSOCIATI: http://www.reporterassociati.org/
an association of FreeLance Reporters that focuses on foreign policies based in Italy.
I searched for Oxman articles yesterday night and I could not find them. May I ask if they are still somewhere on this web-site?.
I absolutely need the articles to finish some work. Pls, inform as to why the articles are no longer visible…

Bianca Cerri
Rome Italy

Posted by Bianca Cerri from Rome-Italy on 11/23 at 12:03 PM

dear tracy, you have not gotten my message: i have not taken up richard oxman’s mantle, i have taken on yours and other peoples mantles by trying to convince mark that his otherwise great website would be enormously enriched by controversial and often unpalatable messages, because agreeing with accepted opinions does not bring any of us one iota further. best, g.

Posted by gui rochat from new york on 11/23 at 12:34 PM

Let me repeat what’s been pointed out here before. People like Tracey know better than to accuse Richard Oxman of not doing something about what he talks about. If he needs details, if he WANTS details, he can contact Oxman directly. Apparently, he just wants to denigrate with no basis, remaining inactive himself, except for what’s routine among people attached to this site. It’s obvious that he didn’t read The Plan carefully. Mickey, who ran away from NYC (as has been pointed out before here) when the RNC was in town is someone who Tracey can attack if he wants to accuse someone of not putting words into practice. Jordy must be very young. Jordy, Mark and others all miss the main point. If someone runs a website for very personal reasons, not giving priority to mutual concerns, varied POVs re communal crises, then they are remaining silent, contributing to the “evil” that they lament with crocodile tears. Again, when MLKing said that “evil” flourishes by the silence of people, he wasn’t just talking about people who didn’t talk. He was talking about people who ONLY talk too. Let’s see how long Mark let’s this stay posted.

Posted by Ms. X from on 11/23 at 04:13 PM

Toni Soldo said “There is not a good or noble or righteous way or reason to kill another human being, not for god, not for country, not for nothing.”

Seems you need to check out W. Churchill’s “Pacifiscm as Pathology,” or understand the difference between macroviolence and microviolence.

I understand your point - I am antiwar, as in against American Imperialism in Iraq, but I won’t say that I am against all war...it seems that class war may not always be peaceful, nor should it.

Posted by j cummings from on 11/23 at 07:20 PM

Ward Churchill’s “Pacifiscm as Pathology” seems to be incouraging change through violence, and that anyone practicing non-violence is standing in the way of change. His arguement seems to be that the “state” will change it’s harmful ways only when revolutionaries rise up and overthrow the government. That is not alternetive activism, that is war. When one person’s, or one group’s, views or beliefs are so important to them that they are willing to take another’s life, that is an act of war, and war IS an act of terror, and the “state” or will be more than happy to engage the “radical exstremists”.Remember the fallout after the WTO protest in Seattle. The government sponsered corporate media made that event look like total anarchy and mass rioting, when, in fact, only about 50 people started fires in the street, the rest of the protesters were peaceful. Now, any time there is a gathering of corporate political or military leaders, the security is so over the top that most people just stay away. That is in direct response to violent protests.They play right into the hands of the fascist neo-cons who are dismantling the Constitution and Bill of Rights as we sleep, I mean speak. Churchill goes as far as to say that “pacifiscm is actually pathological, with delusional, racist, and suicidal tendecies, and bears more hallmarks of a religious rather than a political ideology”. Pathological? Delusional?... sounds like a certain dictator/pResident I know,(and he’s no pacifist!), and as far as pacifiscm being a hallmark of a religious ideology, think of all the wars throughout history that have been fought over religion. Non-violence is the only form of resistance that cannot lead to more violence.Churchill himself, either accidentally, or knowingly(think: false flag/psy op), is bringing the heat to the very concept of activism,public protest, and resistance, and inevitability causing politicians and judges to pass more laws restricting our rights. An alternative book to counter Churchill’s anti-peace book is :The Sword That Heals, by George Lakey. His website is http://www.trainingforchange.org

Posted by Tony Soldo from on 11/24 at 01:31 AM

I am certainly not as extreme an anti-pacifist as Churchill - and I certainly don’t doubt that there are (tough I doubt Churchil would wittingly involve himself, others with paradoxically public personas...)psy-ops and false flag ops to indicate violence as hallmark of radical politics.

Though I also believe there are false flag ops to push reformism and concilliation and “peace” oriented go-nowhere activism.

Both exist, so to find a happy medium is where an antiwar movement needs to go..

In regards to being anti-pacifist, agreeing with the modern prospect for violent revolution is not what I was getting at, though I don’t completely rule it out (like John Lennon I say to destruction count me out/in) The ambiguity has to be there.
What I was trying to get at though is that I can think of historical wars in which there were “good guys” and “bad guys”...the “bad guys” often win, but to be a pacifist one would have to assume that all “guys” are “bad guys”...I certainly don’t think the Vietcong were bad guys. Nor do I think that India was wrong in attempting to stop the genocide of Bengalis. And despite my agreement with much of MZ’s book Saving Private Power, I think WW2 was - at the very least from the prospect of Europeans fighting fascism - a just war.

Posted by j cummings from on 11/24 at 03:25 AM

Ms. X

I’m not “very young”...I’m near 28, and aside from working on a book and as a community organizer, dedicate a lot of my time to writing radical agit-prop. Though I am a marxist of mostly autonomist leanings, I am anti-authoritarian and find Oxman’s and your attitudes as dangerous and counterproductive to any change needed as I do the likes of Eric Alterman.

I think your overall attitude of assumption and subsumption is very rude. I don’t necc. agree with removing Oxman’s articles, but banning him when he was taking up mad bandwidth, as opposed to pointing out how ripe for cointelpro co-optation his coke-addled seeming attitude happens to be, seems the least painful option.

Posted by j cummings from on 11/24 at 03:55 AM

Nice from you http://www.bignews.com

Posted by Galia from USA on 08/25 at 02:59 AM

Next entry: No, Virginia, the Earth Is Not Flat ... They Just Believe It Is

Previous entry: Protect the Right to Hunt Iraqis

[ads]

Friday, November 19, 2004

Why I Don't Support the Troops

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate