Nathan Newman wrote:
>On the other hand, I have great confidence in our ability to challenge the
>current war fever, as I wrote. And great confidence in the current new
>generation of activists to try new better tactics that actually promote
>positive alternatives, rather than just a "no" strategy.
-The first task, it seems to me, for a peace movement right now would -be to stop the U.S. from doing anything horridly crazy. I don't think -you need to come up with an alternative; for the moment, "no" is -urgently ok. Time is pretty short, from the sound of some of the -rhetoric. Over the longer term, I agree that just saying "no" isn't -enough, but that's an issue for the longer term.
You've got it reversed. The question is HOW to stop he US from acting crazily. A bunch of the usual suspects screaming "No" in the streets is pathetically inadequate to the rightful demands of those demanding justice. They will be ignored.
And Bush will get his war, if the choice is between his alternative and "no."
On the other hand, there is global support for demanding justice, international law due process, and a longer term commitment to isolating terrorism through promoting global justice for those with legitimate demands of their own.
No justice, no peace.
It's that simple. Why lefties believe it is true for their favored victims, but think US victims will meekly accept less is beyond me. Everyone deserves justice and those who won't fight for it will not succeed politically.
Nathan Newman
Doug