Nathan's point deserves serious consideration, but I'm not sure he's right. First of all, the wars _are_ linked, not the way they say, but as part of a rather grandiose plan to get rid of all their enemies. But N might be right that the best way to oppose the next war, or the continuation of this one, is to pretend that it's not a continuation. What do people think? jks
>>
>-But Nathan, the "war," as Bush, Rumsfeld, et al have made clear, is not
>-confined to Afghanistan. Irq's next, then who knows. So yeas, we have to
>-oppose "the war"--the "war on terrorism," of which the assault on
>-Afghanistan was jsut the opening shot. Unless you think they;ve lost their
>-taste for blood and cheap victory, fat fucking chance. No wider war! jks
>
>Maybe, but to the extent that we treat going after Iraq as qualitatively
>the same war as Afghanistan, we are essentially replicating the ideology of
>the neoconservatives in reverse. To argue "no wider war" is to essentially
>link them, which is insane poltical rhetoric given support for the
>Afghanistan intervention. We don't want to reinforce the idea that those
>who supported Afghanistan should inevitably support Iraq.
>
>There is a LARGE body of people whose support for intervention in
>Afghanistan will not extend to a war on Iraq opposed by the rest of the
>Muslim countries and many of our European allies.
>
>One reason to discuss the peace is to hasten the idea that the war is over.
>We want to encourage as many people as possible to "declare victory and go
>home." And the best way to do that is to promote what a just victory would
>look like.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp