Pro-victory or Pro-war

"Grandpa, I’ve heard people who refer to themselves and refer to others using different terms in regards to the issue of the war in Iraq. Why is that?"

Grandpa just looked at me and with a twinkle in his eye replied by saying;

"The simple answer would be that people recognize the power of words and are very unwilling to portray themselves in a negative manner but do so to others as a means to justify their own position. And the war in Iraq is not the only issue of debate that this occurs. The issue of abortion is another area of debate where this occurs also."

I just smiled as I nodded my head in agreement as I waited for grandpa to continue.

"Boy, in regards to labeling there is another phenomenon that usually occurs also. One side will acknowledge and accept the label placed upon them by the opposition but the other side will not accept the label place upon them. And you will find that they become very emotional when tagged with the label given them.

Where war is the issue of debate there are three forms of labels thrown around very carelessly. They be the labels of pro-war and anti-war, pro-victory and anti-victory and last of all, the labels of pro-defeat and anti-defeat.

Being pro or anti war are positions that are taken where pacifism would be issue of discussion. A pacifist would be anti-war and anyone who was not a pacifist would be considered as pro-war. Here we are referring to wars in general and its use as a valid means to resolve issues that are at stake.

Another time where these labels would be valid would be in a debate of whether or not to declare war against another nation or enemy of some sort as labeled. Here we are referring to war in a particular situation as opposed to a general situation. It is here where labeling can be complicated.

A pacifist can claim the label of being anti-war regardless of the end results of that debate because of his stance based upon principle but those who are not pacifists cannot. This is especially true where the democratic process is used to be the determinant of whether or not war is declared or not.

The reason the democratic process is a factor is because of its purpose and intent. By definition, it is the recognition of the concept of majority rule with the consent and support of the minority. Thus, when a majority has been determined that majority speaks for the whole group, both the majority and minority. It is this that allows us to say we are united as one. When disunity is the result it can only be when the minority do not accept the concept of the democratic process but seeks to impose their viewpoint upon the majority.

Is what I am saying making sense to you so far, boy?"

I again just nodded silently awaiting to hear more.