[Peace-discuss] (no subject)

[C. G. Estabrook]

But you don't mean you'd no longer oppose the war if DeLay did.  Buchanan
does oppose the war, and you haven't stopped doing so because of that.
(And to call him a fascist is hyperbole.)

What counts as a "strategic alliance" or "lining up with the likes of
DeLay"? On the Vietnam example, members of Congress and the Nixon
administration were pressured into calling for the removal of troops and
the ending of funding.  During the Reagan wars, Congress-members were
pressured into passing the Boland Amendment.  Was this making a strategic
alliance or lining up with them?  I wouldn't say so, but in any case it's
the sort of thing we need to be doing now to oppose the corporate
militarist authoritarian state.  --CGE


On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Susan Davis wrote:

> Carl,
> 
> Actually I DO mean that about DeLay.  It's like Buchanan.  He's
> against the war, but he's a fascist -- should I make a strategic
> alliance with him on the theory the ends justifiy the means?  No way.  
> To theoretically or practically line up with the likes of DeLay on an
> antiwar issue -- or any other issue I believed in -- would be a huge
> damaging mistake for the anti-war movement.  It's not the same as a
> working alliance with someone you have a few side disagreements with.
> 
> My point: these guys want to dismantle the federal gov't and the
> separation of powers -- they want a corporatist militarist
> authoritarian state --- and they don't care what it costs us or the
> world.  if they can use Terri Schiavo or tax cuts or the flag or
> immigrant rights or you or me or whatever to do it --they will.
> 
> SD
> 
> At 01:01 PM 4/1/2005, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Susan Davis wrote:
> >
> > > ...Tom Delay is an opportunist and not to be trusted.  If he declared
> > > himself against the war tomorrow, for humanitarian and international
> > > justice reasons, I still wouldn't give him a quarter for his parking
> > > meter...
> >
> >I'm not sure what you see as the political significance of this
> >observation, Susan.  There are those whose antipathy to DeLay is so great
> >that they've implied that they'd be against anything that he is for, and I
> >know you don't mean that regarding the war.  But I'd suggest that the only
> >way to end the war is getting opportunists in government like DeLay to
> >declare themselves against it, because of public pressure.  That's how the
> >Vietnam War ended -- not by replacing the DeLays of those days with
> >non-opportunists who could be trusted.  That didn't happen. --CGE
> 
>