[Peace-discuss] Feckless Democrats

[C. G. Estabrook]

There are apparently two ways to be anti-war, as the term is being used 
currently.

The first is to recognize that the US government has consistently 
misrepresented the situation in the Middle East, from the 9/11 attacks 
to the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction," to justify murderous and 
criminal policies, up to and including what the Nuremberg Tribunal 
called "the supreme international crime" (i.e., worse than terrorism) -- 
launching an aggressive war.  The US should therefore withdraw 
completely from Iraq (and Afghanistan), as a large majority of Iraqis 
wish; pay reparations; and hold accountable those guilty of prosecuting 
this war, in accord with the Nuremberg principles, the UN Charter, and 
international law.

The second way is to call for a "re-deployment" of US forces in the 
Middle East, so that the central point of the long-term US policy in the 
region, control of the region's energy resources (a decisive advantage 
over Europe and Asia), can be maintained, while the US washes its hands 
of any responsibility for the countries it has invaded and devastated.

The former is the only position that truly deserves the name anti-war, 
and it is similar to the view adopted by more than 70% of the US public 
more than thirty years ago, that the Vietnam war was "fundamentally 
wrong and immoral, not a mistake" (according to the Chicago Council on 
Foreign Relations).

The latter is a matter of cynical pretense, and it is Mr. Obama's way.


Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:

> ... liar ...

(I'll save you the trouble. --CGE)