Nathan wrote:
>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?
Um, no-- despite rightwing propaganda to the contrary, France is a democratic state, a liberal state in your favorite phrase.
North Korea is run by a dictatorial monarchy with a leader willing to see his own people die of starvation to support his military spending.
So, yes, I see a threat from such a regime.
That Bush has handled that threat stupidly does not discount that reality. And the existence of a threat does not mean that military intervention is the solution.
But it frankly reflects part of the irrelevance of left thinking to argue that North Korea having a bomb is not a threat to global security. That the left cannot make a coherent argument on foreign policy dealing with justified fears due to Al Qaeda, North Korea, and so on is why Bush has even bare support, given what a large portion of the population think his actions are only likely to make things worse. The American people might seem incoherent with such a position, but almost anyone prefers some plan, even a bad one, when there is no alternative presented.
And the left has no alternative, which is and has been the continuing weakness of most left antiwar movements since the first Gulf War. Which reflects the idiocy of groups like the WWP that have dominated such coalitions.
One reason Win Without War is encouraging is that just in its name it attempts to fashion a politics that addresses both antiwar sentiment and fears over terrorism.
-- Nathan Newman