what ever happened to the antiwar movement

[peaccenicked]

Here is the culprit http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/34332/Does anybody know that they are planning to nuke Iran?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Scott Ritter
The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.

A "hot button" issue. Consider this thread from NYC Indymedia (one of many!) arguing this question...

Time to Shake Up UFPJ (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/04/68276.html)

Mr. Ritter, it must be noted, is more than a bit "full of himself".


I have indicated my willingness to apply my training and experience as a warrior in a manner which helps teach the principles of the art of war to those who call themselves part of the anti-war movement. There seems to be not only a need for this sort of training, but also a desire among the myriad of individuals and groups who comprise the anti-war movement for an overall coordinated strategic direction, operational planning, and tactical execution of agreed upon mission objectives.

This is "can do" military rhetoric, no doubt about it.

But it should be kept in mind that the forces that presently occupy Iraq and Afghanistan think the same way...and nonetheless "can't do!" :lol:

Mr. Ritter sounds like someone nostalgic for his days "as a warrior"...he misses the time when he was "in command and control" of things.

I think he'd be happier with a "real assignment"...coastal defense of Montana comes to mind. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Orange Juche]

The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war. - Scott Ritter

Thats absurd! Nothing more than anti-war? Thats like saying the anti-slavery movement should have been nothing more than anti-slavery (i.e. forget racism!).

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:58 AM
Thats like saying the anti-slavery movement should have been nothing more than anti-slavery (i.e. forget racism!).
That's exactly what it was, Abe Lincoln was a notorious racist

[bcbm]

Indeed, anti-slavery was racism and usually was coupled with a "Send them back to Africa!" sort of mentality. Abolitionism was the radical alternative.

If we apply this sort of thinking to the anti-war movement, what is our radical alternative, I wonder. <_< Either way, the "movement" needs a swift kick in the ass.

[STI]

what is our radical alternative, I wonder. dry.gif

Anti-imperialism as part of a broader strategy for proletarian revolution.

[LoneRed]

yet he may have a point, if all the forces unite on a grandiose scale at this moment to tell the governments how we feel then things can get accomplished. I agree that we shouldnt lose sight of the big picture, but if we are going against the war, holding signs, victory to the proletariat or what have you, the anti-war message could get lost in translation. first and foremost we need to stop the war, and pressure as much as we can the bush administration from using nukes, looking at it pessimistically it could mean the end of humanity, or put us back years and years from achieving communism.

[redstar2000]

Chips down, Bush prepares a Hail Mary bet (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/19/DDG9EIAGN61.DTL)

The liberals are getting nervous.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[peaccenicked]

Should nt the antiwar movement be after all antiwar. Is that not logical if not moral? Does it really have to declare itself anything else. Is it not madness when nuclear weapons are being primed for use to focus on other issues. Should not the antiwar movement be doing its job or is that too much sanity for the left to handle.

We are living throug a time akin to the Cuban missile crisis without the Mutually Assured Destruction being instantaneous.
The possibiliy of Russia and China getting involved is a recipe for WWW3. Russia has already offered Iran air defences.

Ignorance, complacency, retreat into routinism and belittling the threat is the last thing the antiwar movement should consider.
No to &#39;&#39;anti-imperialist&#39;&#39; cowardice, shake up the antiwar movement. Thanks for the links Redstar

[bcbm]

Its pretty clear that those in power don&#39;t give a flying fuck about the anti-war movement, so now I&#39;m actually curious what people intend to do by "reviving" it. The message has been clear for several years: marching in the streets with signs, whatever the number of people, isn&#39;t going to cut it.

[peaccenicked]

The answer cannot be doing nothing. If everybody says nothing can be done. Nothing will be done. The movement can go backwards, it has done since the big demos before the start of the Iraq war. The answer is: to change the direction of the movement and you have to get involved to do that. At all times in every epoch the forces that move life forward have not let the prospect of defeat negate their activity.
Should we lie down like slaves and take it.

[bcbm]

I never suggested we "do nothing," I&#39;m curious as to what tactics those heavily involved with "the movement" are proposing, since the ones they&#39;ve used thus far haven&#39;t amounted to shit.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by black banner black gun
The message has been clear for several years: marching in the streets with signs, whatever the number of people, isn&#39;t going to cut it.

Yes and no.

Doing it on a "ceremonial" basis -- every spring and every fall, for example -- doesn&#39;t work. That&#39;s clear.

Doing it like the French just did it can work...that is, can make the continuation of a government plan too costly.

If the streets are full day after day...that does cause the government to "seriously reconsider" its plans.

What would make Americans "do that"?

I suspect it is only catastrophic military defeat that will have that effect.

America attempts to "nuke Iran" only (1) the bombers are all shot down; (2) the Iranian Army launches a savage attack on Basra, overwhelming and destroying the British troops in the area; (3) the Iranians attack and destroy the bulk of the "Red Sea" fleet with huge American losses; (4) the Iranians invade Afghanistan with the intent of conquering and annexing the Persian-speaking western provinces...they easily smash the local warlords and threaten Kabul; (5) Venezuela cuts off oil shipments to the U.S....gas goes to &#036;15/gal. and utility bills reach &#036;1,000/month...millions lose their electricity because they can&#39;t pay their bills; (6) Russia and China both offer to "mediate" but with the implication that they&#39;ll line up with Iran if the U.S. proves intransigent; and so on.

That might do it. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bcbm]

Doing it like the French just did it can work...that is, can make the continuation of a government plan too costly.

That&#39;s a bit more than marching in the streets with signs ;) , but yes, I agree.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine+Apr 19 2006, 02:56 PM--> (Rage Against The Machine @ Apr 19 2006, 02:56 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 11:58 AM
Thats like saying the anti-slavery movement should have been nothing more than anti-slavery (i.e. forget racism&#33;).
That&#39;s exactly what it was, Abe Lincoln was a notorious racist [/b]
Um, Abe Lincoln was NOT the anti-slavery movement. For years before Lincoln came to power Abolitionists were breaking the Fugitive slave act, smuggling and harboring fugitive slaves, leading armed raids against pro-slavery miltias and inciting slave rebellion. People like William Garrisson, John Brown, Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman were not just arguing for abolition, but for full equality of the races.

And after Lincoln got whacked, the Radical Republicans, like Charles Sumner, took over the show and were most definitely pressing for full racial equality. Many of the programs under the short-lived Reconstruction Era were more radical than the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. When Lincoln&#39;s former VP, now President, Andrew Johnson tried to stop or slow these impressive reforms, the Radical Republicans moved to impeach him.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 19 2006, 09:07 PM
Um, Abe Lincoln was NOT the anti-slavery movement. For years before Lincoln came to power Abolitionists were breaking the Fugitive slave act, smuggling and harboring fugitive slaves, leading armed raids against pro-slavery miltias and inciting slave rebellion. People like William Garrisson, John Brown, Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman were not just arguing for abolition, but for full equality of the races.
Yes, abolitionists argued for full equality. The anti-slavery movement, however, did not. There&#39;s a difference between the two terms.

[peaccenicked]

thanx for the history lesson, now lets get on to preventing world war 3.
There are forces outside ourselves that may &#39;do it&#39; for us. Historicaly, the antiwar movement has not prevented wars but there is always a first time. It is time to get ambitious.
lets take inspiration and hope, from those who have refused to take part in the genocide in Iraq. In times of madness we must point to examples of sanity. so let us change the direction of the movement towards getting out there every day. I attend a protest
glasgow, scotland thursdays every week 5 to 7 pm at Donald Dewars statue in buchanan street. we have to start somewhere. See if there is something similar nearby you.

[bcbm]

If we want "getting out there every day" to make a difference, we need to have mass sections of society taking part. I don&#39;t know about Scotland, but here in the US that seems pretty unlikely. Therefore, I think it falls on those of us who do want to stop things now and "up the ante," so to speak, to start finding ways to damage the machine economically or stop it in any way we can. Marching with signs and weekly vigils aren&#39;t going to cut it (and haven&#39;t cut it in over 30 years. Get out of the sixties&#33;).

[MurderInc]

There are many reasons why people aren&#39;t in the streets to end Iraq war in relation to Vietnm, but here&#39;s the biggest, for you youngens:

By the time of the Summer &#39;68, after Tet, and during the Presidential nominating conventions, tens of thousands of Americans had died, A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM DRAFTED.

People actually KNEW someone from high school who died in Vietnam, for reasons no one could explain. It literally touched everyone AT HOME. It was far less of a "leftist movement" to end Vietnam.

Ending Iraq through protest is, still for the most part, a leftist movement. It is possible it will eventually become a national movement (to immediately end the troops being In Iraq), but right now, it&#39;s not felt in the homes of all Americans.

[armedpoet]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:04 PM
There are many reasons why people aren&#39;t in the streets to end Iraq war in relation to Vietnm, but here&#39;s the biggest, for you youngens:

By the time of the Summer &#39;68, after Tet, and during the Presidential nominating conventions, tens of thousands of Americans had died, A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM DRAFTED.

People actually KNEW someone from high school who died in Vietnam, for reasons no one could explain. It literally touched everyone AT HOME. It was far less of a "leftist movement" to end Vietnam.

Ending Iraq through protest is, still for the most part, a leftist movement. It is possible it will eventually become a national movement (to immediately end the troops being In Iraq), but right now, it&#39;s not felt in the homes of all Americans.
Precisely.

Nevertheless we should hope that people see beyond their naive immediate existence and realise the interconnected nature of society ie we - those of us in the western empire, are feeling the effects of imperialism at home.

From sedition laws to a lack of funding for education and health. Until people realise that or begin to sympathise with those directly effected by war we will do nothing.

As far as the left movement against imperialism goes. We need to build a stronger global network that includes NGOs, trade unions etc. No matter how piss weak such organisations are and how much they differ from us ideologically, we must escape the leftist ghetto.

And of course.. More direct action.

Make the bastards pay.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine+Apr 19 2006, 02:56 PM--> (Rage Against The Machine @ Apr 19 2006, 02:56 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 11:58 AM
Thats like saying the anti-slavery movement should have been nothing more than anti-slavery (i.e. forget racism&#33;).
That&#39;s exactly what it was, Abe Lincoln was a notorious racist [/b]
Wasn&#39;t marx or engels homophobic? and wasnt Bauknin a woman izer? or was that marx?

The point I&#39;m getting at is that Lincoln really wasnt a big racist he just said things to appeal to the voters? does this excuse it ? no. but saying he was a huge racist is kinda ridiculous.

[MurderInc]

Abraham Lincoln:

Lincoln was a Unionist, and has to be cast in that light, FOR ALL THINGS.

He had a more difficult task than any president before or after him, and it is hard to paint him with 21st century concepts. He was, after all, a 19th century man. So give him a break. Otherwise people in the 23rd century will view us as God knows what. Capice?

OK: Lincoln hated slavery. This is a historical fact. However, he, as a Unionist, believed in the continuation of the United States of America. It obsessed him. Remember that none of the states went off and formed the Confederate States of America. The president before him, Buchannan, stated, "I am the last president of the United States." And he believed it.

NO PRESIDENT has ever had a more difficult job than Lincoln. EVER.

Please consider only evaluating pwople in their HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

[peaccenicked]

The strange case of becoming a mass movement spontaneously and all else failure is a romantic idealism the left can afford to do without. It is hard to see results from a weekly vigil, it is merely a starting point. According to Ritter we are sleepwalking into a nuclear war. It seems to me that the left has been dragged in screaming to this one. The writing has been on the wall and been covered. whistleblowers are now being listened too.
On the streets of Glasgow people have come to our table with more suss than the leftist controlled antiwar movement. There is more interest in gaining information than doing things. The harsh reality is that in the relatively affluent
west, street work seems sorry assed.People sacrificing their time when life is for enjoyment. However feelings run high, society is split over Iraq. People are in limbo.
Those with foreknowledge of the nuclear threat have to maintain a presence no matter how small and seek a clear direction for the movement devoid of nostalgia, and mindful that neo conservatism is leading to neo fascism and that we are on the same list as the travellers, and illegal immigrants. we also can go bump in the night.

[bcbm]

The strange case of becoming a mass movement spontaneously and all else failure is a romantic idealism the left can afford to do without.

Who&#39;s harboring that notion? I haven&#39;t seen it anywhere here.


Those with foreknowledge of the nuclear threat have to maintain a presence no matter how small and seek a clear direction for the movement devoid of nostalgia, and mindful that neo conservatism is leading to neo fascism and that we are on the same list as the travellers, and illegal immigrants.

Sure.. but I think we should also be doing things that work.

[peaccenicked]

"things that work" yeah, surely you are jesting me, what do you mean?
(bearing in mind that doing nothing doesnt work either)

[bcbm]

Will there be new material in this thread any time soon? <_<


"things that work" yeah, surely you are jesting me, what do you mean?


start finding ways to damage the machine economically or stop it in any way we can.


(bearing in mind that doing nothing doesnt work either)


I never suggested we "do nothing,"

[peaccenicked]

start finding ways to damage the machine economically or stop it in any way we can.



Could you clarify this, how does it translate beyond good intentions?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:43 PM
Could you clarify this, how does it translate beyond good intentions?
Well, I think damaging it economically suggests more than good intentions.

[peaccenicked]

Damaging the system economically, I think, involves protesting against the war, especially if you are outside recruiting offices, if only morally to begin with.
We need more and people on the streets, and the more often the better, on as many issues as possible but defeating the warmongers is my first priority.

[bcbm]

I think we need more people skulking around at night, actually...