[Peace-discuss] The case against anti-war adventurism in the U.S.

[Morton K.Brussel]

I, for one, am all for supporting those who engage in civil non-violent 
disobedience to protest this dreadful war. They may make a positive 
impact, by their selfless example and commitment, on national discourse 
and policy, the author's (Justin Raimondo) assertions to the contrary 
notwiithstanding. At the least, they can be a symbol and rallying point 
of our opposition.

The author minimizes the number of people who are anti-war, but in fact 
we don't know the depth of opposition and uncertainty to the war in the 
general population. His is a narrow, self-defeating, and insulting 
polemic against those who are willing to accept the risks of overt 
opposition to this war.

To oppose this war is also to resist the repressive state that 
inevitably accompanies it. We ought not disparage (e.g., in using the 
pejorative word "adventurism") those willing to sacrifice their comfort 
and (even) freedoms in the cause of righting the terrorble (sic) wrongs 
of this government.

Think of the haunting image of the Chinese student confronting the 
tanks in Tianimen Square in Beijing. Or of the recent American women 
tragically overrun by Israeli bulldozers defending the homes of 
Palestinians.

MKB


On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 10:21 US/Central, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> [I'm not entirely comfortable with the following piece (particularly 
> the
> penultimate paragraph), but it raises the question of what to do on 
> "the
> day after," and I think the suggestion is on the right line.  --CGE]
>
> March 17, 2003
>
> THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU
>
> Antiwar movement should shut up about 'shutting it down' - before the
> state shuts us down  ...