thinking post-invasion

joanna bujes joanna.bujes at sun.com
Sat Feb 15 11:26:51 PST 2003


At 03:34 PM 02/14/2003 -0500, ChuckO wrote:
>This anti-war movement is not going to turn into something that will disarm
>the US war machine. Its thinking is too narrow and its messages are too
>simplistic. No blood for oil? Does that make invasion OK if few people are
>hurt in the process? And a series of protests and rallies are not going to
>change public opinion on the US war machine. For that to happen, I believe
>that the movement would need to engage in direct action against the military
>industrial complex. It will take something more radical to stop war, not just
>the war du jour.
>
>Sorry to be so cynical, but to me it seems like we keep spinning our wheels
>in the mud.

I agree with a lot of what you say in this post...including your charge of cynicism. The thing is, I have never seen so many people in the streets. I think, independently of what can be fit on placard, one reason why there are mass protests is because a lot of people are making connections between "business as usual" and the war plans. I think a lot of people are seeing that this is not "our" government and are becoming more sensitized/suspicious of the lies, especially the big lie that what's good for "business" is good for America...and that what's good for America is good for the world. It's hard to fit all this on a placard, but there's no mistaking the concern of many people, most of whom are not political, that what is being planned is not merely a war against Iraq, but a more horrible, precarious existence for all of us.

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list