>
> But you are living in your own bizarre corner of reality if you think "just
> say no" is going to decrease support for the Bush policy without that
> alternative. Friends and family who have normally opposed every war you
> could think of, including some I supported such as Kosovo, are suddenly in
> the war hawk camp on this campaign. And "just say no" isn't going to
> change their views, although demonstrating the failure of this campaign ON
> ITS OWN TERMS very well might.
>
this fails my feeble mind. what is the dividing point on changing one's approach on dealing with wars etc? the feelings of one's friends and relatives? (i am not saying that is an invalid criteria. after all one can gains most of one's wisdom this way). there were a zillion yellow ribbons where i live during the gulf war. now it might be that these folks were sympathizing with the dangers faced by US personnel and not the military action itself, but i am not sure that's a meaningful distinction. what did everyone involved in this debate say at that time, in the face of popular support for that war? why cannot the same things be said and the same actions taken this time around? does the fact that there is 20% (or whatever) more support for this war precipitate compromise on that stance? by this line of reasoning, should one have argued against the gulf war by following the line of reasoning offered by the administration and exposing the imfeasibility of reaching their goals (the administration's) through the actions they chose? or should the argument have been that it is an unjust war? and finally w.r.t alternatives, surely carrol, lou and others arent just suggesting that you visit your friends and family and proclaim "just say no" and refuse to offer any further thoughts or suggestions for action? (this reminds me, if you will excuse the segue, of the seinfeld episode about jerry and george pitching the "show about nothing" and the back and forth "its got to be about something", "no its about nothing", etc).
one possible answer to my question (equating gulf war response to this one) might be that in this case a crime was committed that nobody can doubt was a crime involving innocent victims. but that seems to beg the question of whether there is indeed agreement on this distinction especially among the larger populace?
--ravi