Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
>>
> No one disputes your hierarchy of culpability. But you forgot to add a
> fourth example. What is the culpability of someone, (D), who has the
> opportunity, through the ballot box, to help ensure that the next president
> is one who is less likely to order soldiers into an illegal war -- but
> declines to exercise this opportunity?
>
Two points, one that Brad Mayer has made nicely: "Not to mention that it [leftists voting DP] will make no practical statistical difference to the outcome, anyway - funny how the hopelessly handwringing Left suddenly gets a swell head about its power when it works in _support_ of the Democrats." Our (leftists) organizing ability _might_ make a difference in some states, but then we would be _not_ using those abilities to organize resistance to the war. And this is, I think, an either/or. Time and energy are not unlimited.
Secondly, it is pure guess that Kerry would be less apt than Bush to order soldiers into an illegal war. He has (and here the leftists on this list for the most part are backing him up) pretty much committed himself to maintaining troops in Iraq (i.e., sending more and more soldiers into an illegal war) until it is not a "mess" there anymore. But it will be a mess until a decade or so _after_ u.s. troops leave.
I will not support nor urge anyone else to support a candidate committed to mass murder, which is what commitment to continued occupation of Iraq is. Bush is probably more apt to lose his nerve and skedaddle than Kerry. But it doesn't matter. We can't know, and guesses as to how a u.s. president will act are simply not an adequate basis for political decisions.
No empire has ever willingly given up its empire. The U.S. is not going to withdraw or cease its endless war against the world until it is forced to by armed resistance abroad and political resistance at home.
Carrol
> Seth
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk