>I did not see Chuck mention the use of violence. But
>let's face it, channeling the movement into the ballot
>box and the walk-in-the-park-singing-kumbaya type
>demonstrations have their limitations. It's time to
>try direct action, instead of just symbolic indirect
>actions.
What kind of direct action? Messing up the war supply chain will get you arrested in a second - and the number of people who'll do that is just too small for it to be more than a flash in the pan. If there were broad and strong public opposition to the war, that'd be another matter entirely, but with little or no assent from the masses, forget about it. Nathan's right that Bush could easily spin this as putting "our" boys & girls at risk, and could end up damaging the antiwar position.
So what else do you have in mind? There's a bit of a macho mystique around direct action - it's bold, it's radical, it's not for pussies. But give some examples of some actions that could accomplish something other than making the actors feel tough & revolutionary.
Doug