[Peace-discuss] Re almost anti-war

[David Green]

I think that part of the motivation might be that some
of us would like to distinguish among those who oppose
the war on pragmatic grounds (it didn't work), in
contrast to those who opposed it on principled grounds
(it was wrong). The former are trying to save face,
and are more concerned with the fortunes of liberalism
and the Democratic Party. The latter are concerned
with setting an example that will prevent future wars,
unlikely to be opposed by the former when push comes
to shove at the New York Times. I think that this is a
legitmate motivation for those of us who want an
antiwar movement that will be able to sustain itself
for future challenges. In terms of vision and
strategy, MoveOn is not part of the antiwar movement.
It's concerned about electing Democrats.

David Green

--- Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> You're exactly right, Dan. The anti-war community is
> being
> serious damaged by people who think that if you
> don't exactly
> agree with them, you're a traitor to the cause.
> 
> It is always worth asking who folks are working for
> when such
> conflict occurs. During Vietnam, people were paid to
> promote
> fighting inside the anti-war community. When peace
> advocates
> are at war with each other, their behavior is
> inherently
> contradictory, and one must question their
> motivations.
> 
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com