>What's so hard to understand? The war involves fighting a brutal regime
>that abuses its own people and has a history of invading neighbors.
The American public also believes that Iraq was behind 9/11. In fact, the Bush admin has offered many reasons for the war. The offical reason was to pre-empt attacks on us, which is as bogus as the 9/11 reason.
And why didn't this apply to the Vietnam War? The official reason was to repel an invasion and to fight the worldwide Communist conspiracy.
>The antiwar movement lost the argument on timing and on the efficacy of
>alternative means of addressing peoples broad concerns on Iraq. And I
>attribute that partly to their simplistic focus on "no war" unity over
>developing a more sophisticated positive message that also would have
>required more outreach to non-rallygoers (and probably less focus on
>rallies).
And doing what instead? Knocking on doors to tell everyone how groovy Tom Daschle is?
>When people who praise the Hussein regime are leading the rallies, folks who
>don't like Hussein rightly should think that such a movement has no real
>plan for an alternative challenge to his regime.
Who are we to challenge the regime in the first place? This is the way in which humanitarian interventionism has greased the way for purely imperial war. And most of the people who've been to ANSWER-organized rallies have no idea that they're being led by people who praise the SH regime. And in the case of UFPJ rallies, that's a slanderous claim.
Doug