News | October 14th, 2006
Watch >> this video << about a stand that American youth are taking. They're saying, "Sir! No Sir!" to the army recruiters. For what are they standing? Whether you support the war in Iraq or not, can you see what this group is standing for?
One of the things we tend to do in taking a stand that requires great courage is make the other side inhumane. We humiliate the other side and our stand becomes a position that keeps the other side from listening to what you have to say. What are your thoughts on this?
Part of the video is from the Sir No Sir documentary about the largely forgotten military personnel who organized against the Vietnam War. Bush and Clinton found ways to dodge the draft. My father entered dental school. Were these men cowards? What about those who went AWOL? Were their actions dishonorable? Or was there something for which they were standing that was very honorable?
And those who enlisted and fought–were they too not standing for something worthwhile? Whether you agree with the Iraq War and the Vietnam War… don’t you agree that it’s time we find new ways to communicate and resolve our differences at home and abroad? Watch the video(s), then leave your comments. Thanks!
Peggy Babcock
Oct 15th, 2006I saw the movie and heard from the director, so I didn’t see the video. Thousands of people since Vietnam have worked on communication i.e. active listening groups, etc. Standing for something is one thing. Communicating that stand and understanding what risks are “worth it” and which are not is key.
Marilyn
Oct 20th, 2006An interesting video. I’m glad to see there ‘s some organized (?) counter to the recruitment drive for more soldiers for Iraq. But as an outsider (Canadian) I’m wary of flash propaganda for either side in a US debate. There’s too much Positioning on both sides. There are good and honourable soldiers who believe they’re doing the right thing in Iraq; they would be taking a Stand to be there – courting unpopularity. Giving someone a free ringtone to sign a card saying they won’t join up seems to enforce the Position that the War is Bad and doesn’t ask people to think for themselves. I think President Bush announcing he’ll finally reconsider his involvement in Iraq today to be a good demonstration of the difference between Position and Stand. Despite the morality of this war (where is the highest good here and for whom?) he is finally taking this action because the election is coming. Political parties everywhere in the world seem to be fine examples of Positions that need to be defended and strategized to win at all costs despite their initial inceptions as people gathered together to take a Stand for the greater good of their country.
Marilyn
Oct 20th, 2006Actually I just looked again at what I was supposed to be talking about here and had to write again. You say people who take stands often make their opponents inhumane. Taking a Stand is adopting a vision of the greater good for all, of seeing forward the goal you want achieved and taking action towards that. Considering anyone to be your opponent or enemy seems to be counter-productive to taking a stand. Everyone needs to be included in a stand. Education seems to be a vital component in recruiting people to a stand. People have to make up their own minds, follow their own hearts. There are a lot of facts in this video and including soldiers of the Viet Nam war who confess how they hated that war seems to lead modern viewers to the stand that they can hate the war in Iraq too. I just wish they didn’t off the free ringtone to people who sign up.
Daniel G. Taylor
Oct 21st, 2006To be able to go to war and murder other humans en masse requires turning the people you fight against into the other. It’s a similar process to eating meat. You don’t sit down and think, ‘OK, I’m sinking my teeth into a cow.’ Your brain pulls a creative disassociation whereby moo cow becomes beef. Taking a stand begins with the practice of recognise each person is human, regardless of what side they’re on.
Michael Morris
Oct 21st, 2006It has become blatantly obvious that the current momentum of politics in this nation is anti-constitutional. Unfortunatley, that policy is being directed by a group that is supposed to be leading us to prosperity.
As all militarly members know, they have to swear and oath to uphold and defend the constitution against “both enemies foreign and domestic” BEFORE they swear to any leader, unit, or personal agenda. The constitution was designed to serve a Republic, which constitutes serving the people of a nation. What happens when the enemy we swear to defend against is the person we take our orders from? How can any person in good conscience know whether or not the orders given serves the American people or the agenda of a select group.
Non-violent Non-participation has been proven to be the mose lethal weapon of a warrior fighting for a just cause. It has liberated entire nations, cultures, genders etc. Why not use if to free us from despotism?
Read my story about becoming a “non-participant” in the military; http://blog.myspace.com/61048678
TresJ
Nov 3rd, 2006Excerpt From VisionForce:
>>In a Positionary world, it’s enough to teach the “right” or “true” ideas and make the student follow and obey. In a world of visionaries that approach is quite obviously backwards. What we’re up to here at VisionForce is building a world of visionaries, and creating the tools that make that world possible.