ignoring the
> real nuclear threat from
> Stalinist North Korea.
Threat? What threat? The possibility that NK might get the bomb? That's a threat? France has the bonb. Should we worry about the French threat? This way of talking, nathan, suggests that NK nuclear weapons might be used to attack the US. Or indeed, SK. But Kim Jong Il is not insane. He wants the bomb for the samne reason everyone but the US wants it -- to deter the US. That's not a "threat" that might be appropriately met with military force. Or are you in favor of liberating NK from its admittedly loathesome dictatorship by military force, justa s soon as we get done with Iraq and Iran?
Personally, I am starting to think that nuclear proliferation might not be such a bad thing after all in the era of the Shrub/Rummy/Rice Doctrine (We're gonna stay No. 1 by force, but not to worry because we're "special.") "First we got the bomb and that was good/Cause we love peace and motherhood/Then Russia got the bomb but that's OK/The balnce of power is preserved that way/Who's next?" (Tom Lehrer for you, Catherine)
jks
>
> Those who argue that it is irrelevent whether the
> WWP are defenders of
> Saddam Hussein's regime and defenders of North
> Korea's government are
> ignoring reality. The war on Iraq is not isolated
> from other issues. The
> WWP and ANSWER connects them to broader issues all
> the time. But when
> others connect it to North Korea and note the WWP's
> horrendous politics
> around that country, suddenly the only issue is
> Iraq.
>
> As some people have noted, back during Vietnam,
> there were those who tried
> to build a broad-based but narrow movement around
> opposition to the Vietnam
> War, excluding almost every other issue possible to
> maximize unity.
>
> But that's not the WWP's strategy. They connect
> Afghanistan, Iraq,
> anti-racism in the US, the Palestinian cause, Mumia
> and every cause they
> care about into one package. Having done so, they
> can't then say-- our
> critics are talking about something other than Iraq.
> Our critics are being
> divisive.
>
> It's all ridiculous rhetoric. It evades the reality
> of the WWP's horrendous
> support for Chinese fascism and North Korean, well
> I'm not sure what to call
> it since Stalinism would be a compliment to that
> regime.
>
> It's not "redbaiting", since both Chuck and I
> support coalitions like United
> for Peace and Justice that are loaded with "reds" in
> their leadership. It's
> like the defenders of Estrada saying that those
> attacking him are "racist."
> It demeans the term.
>
> -- Nathan newman
>
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/