Choose one’s words carefully in these times. The advocates on various sides of the war on Iraq showcase the tempers and irrationality rampant in wartime.

In Iowa City, ROTC offices were vandalized last week in what may be a politically motivated crime at the University of Iowa.

Conversely, a pizza deliveryman in Des Moines was fired after he saw a peace yard sign last Friday, stopped, and proceeded to lecture the 17-year-old girl who came to the door of the house.

These unacceptable actions make the ground for stereotyping and generalization fertile.

It must be said that the peace movement is as diverse as it is large, from the nation’s leading religious figures, union leaders, student groups and community organizations. Fittingly, the groups employ various tactics to get their message out. It is simply inaccurate to lump an entire movement into one.

Some anti-war groups choose to attack the current administration personally, others criticize its policies. Some pro-war folks call the peace advocates traitors and unpatriotic, while others challenge based on ideas.

News coverage, however, has in large part not recognized the diversity in tactics and philosophy of the peace movement. Aeschylus said in ancient times, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Evidence abounds to support that truth has indeed fallen victim in our times as well.

Debates take place on the editorial pages of the nation’s newspapers. The groups talk past each other. The peace crowd calls war supporters uninformed and they in turn call peace people ignorant.

Jeers, ineffective demonstration tactics and reactionary patriotism accusations plague debate.

To add to the mayhem, the TV news media are doing what they can to perpetuate things. They produce an addictive blend, Nintendo-style news regurgitation of military press releases with high-resolution maps and diagrams of troop movements. Incredible resources have been expended creating these things, although they are perhaps better spent deploying reporters in the streets of the Middle East to find something other than repeat news.

There is something frighteningly surreal about watching the machine of war live on television.

Exhausted reporters incessantly speculate the news until the next rumor nugget is released to trumpet for the next few hours. Absent from these reports is the bloody, disgusting and horrible side of war.

Coverage of dissenting opinion is reserved largely to brief clips with little context and reported in vague and impersonal terms. The peace movement can, in part, blame itself for poor coverage. Activists are often out of touch with news organizations and plan events at inopportune times. By the same token, corporate interests and the vigor of the war public relations machine are forces of increasing influence.

Meanwhile, other violence around the world goes largely under-reported. Both India and Pakistan have tested nuclear-capable missiles this week. An undercover unit of the Israeli Occupation Forces opened fire Wednesday on a car of Palestinians in Bethlehem, killing 10-year-old Christine Shehadeh and seriously wounding her parents and 15 year-old sister. On Monday two students and two teachers were killed in a primary school in Burundi’s capital Bujumbura as violence there rages on.

Closer to home, budgets of after-school programs, Americorps service programs and education are slashed as the obsession with Saddam Hussein marches forth. These stories hardly find their way to our pages and airwaves or into serious discussions.

Truly lacking in the debate between pro-war and anti-war voices is conversation on the common values of both sides. Regardless of the issues you claim in the debate, the common hope of safety for our citizens and the human rights of the Iraqi people must be clear. We stand together in wishing well for our colleagues upon whom the task of waging war has been directed. The peace movement has, from its beginning, hoped for a safe and immediate return of our sisters and brothers in the armed forces.

As the coverage of these matters is hotly contested, dialogue must win out over oversimplification.

In order for effective conversation to take place, we must look past the ever-tempting generalizations.

Families, neighbors and co-workers disagree over Iraq and real dialogue can start there.

The jeering crowds demanding deportation of anti-war protesters are not the same war supporters elsewhere.

The activists who vandalize buildings in one town are not the people who demonstrate against war in another.

Not until disagreeing sides begin to debate ideas rather than sling stereotypes can sustainable progress toward dialogue can be made.