I believe that violence would be counterproductive and would seriously damage all the great things about FreeRepublic -- chiefly that it is a forum for ideas, discussion and the development of mental strength and support for conservatives. The self-discipline involved in peaceful protest garners respect from passers-by, who don't know the whole story of the anti-war people. To bystanders, anti-war protesters don't necessarily look like socialist agitators with paid leaders determined to subvert our government.
Last week at the Walter Reed FReep, one of the residents of the block across from the Hospital came out and lambasted FReepers for shouting slogans at Code Pink: "They're Americans, too!" she said. "They have just as much right as you do to their opinion!" She obviously didn't care about content.
Violence would endanger FReepers, who come from all walks of life. Half are women, elders or children. Although some FReepers have military backgrounds, most aren't trained for physical combat. Any violence would bring harm on FReepers who are peaceful and who are trying to demoralize the Anti-wars, not to physically attack them. Violence and arrests are not conducive to having a responsible life with a job, mortgage and kids, which is more typical of FReepers than the adolescents-of-every-age leftists who live like permanent students.
The greatest harm of violence would be the bad press that would surely result from violence. Washington is a very Dem city in terms of the residents. The surrounding neighborhood might rise up against any violence, and surely the LibMedia press would damage the reputation of FreeRepublic all across the country.
It wouldn't be worth it.
What I will do personally, is between God and I.
So far, you have justified everything that the Libs have said about Iraq. Violence only hurts our cause...
Well, are they correct?
Well said.
http://www.dcchapter.com