Re: [sixties-l] Which AntiWar?

From: drieux (
Date: Wed Nov 21 2001 - 13:47:31 EST

  • Next message: "[sixties-l] Antiwar News...(# 34) (fwd)"

    On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 08:51 , Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
    > Driuex wrote:
    > Driuex may not have agreed with the anti-war movement if
    > he was out of swaddling clothes at the time, but there
    > actually was such a movement, and while some of its
    > exploits were overblown, at least it concerned Richard
    > Nixon to the point where, according to his Oval Office
    > conversations, he hesitated to drop the A-Bomb on Vietnam
    > because he thought it was bring about a real war in the
    > streets of the US. He was probably right.

    p1: thank you for the ad hominem, but I guess if I had been
    a great 'anti-war hero' like you I would not have tales about
    what it was like to actually be an american high school student
    involved in anti-war protests ON an american air base, overseas.
    But Hey, If only we could have been cool like you, WOW, like
    the Older Generation was like, so cool....

    p2: the proposition on the table WAS, and IS, about which
    'anti-war movement' were you actually engaged in, and how do
    we who were not a part of your COOL anti-war movement know how
    to tell you folks from the anti-war-wannabe's like the YAF and
    Young Republicans, and the rest of your friends like Gingrich
    and Rush Limbaugh. see [1] below in which you clarify that
    you have a commitment to this.

    So far you seem to be defending the 'pro-NVA/pro-VC' side of
    the debate, unlike those I know who ARE 'anti-war' and will
    not in good conscience take up arms at all. Which I hold as
    a completely different standard to either the 'pro-NVA' and
    the YFA/YR's who make up a portion of the rest of the anti-war
    groups - there were, as I recall, also those folks, like the
    John Birch Society who opposed our involvement on the grounds
    that it was a Red Trap to distract us from our European Commitments.

    I of course was from the 'constitutionalist' crowd - who, ironically
    enough, were advocating quite exactly what MACV would ask for after
    the start of the 'tet offensive' - namely a clean 'declaration of
    war'. Failing the Government's fulfilment of its constitutional obligation
    then it had no other choice but to withdraw military operations. We of
    course are a minority group amongst the 'cool crowds' - were then, and
    it appears that we are now.

    > There was nothing comical about Vietnam's decision to
    > invade Cambodia. The Khymer Rouge were surrogates both
    > for China and, less openly, the US, and had been attacking
    > Vietnam repeatedly across the border. The Vietnamese, who
    > had been fighting since the 40s, had no choice but to go
    > in and depose Pol Pot and had not the latter kept his
    > support from both the Chinese and the US, the miring down
    > would, more than likely, never happened. That Drieux can
    > see that situation as a "comical farce" is less defensible
    > than the usual indifference that most Americans, whatever
    > their degree of "formal education," express towards the
    > victims of US policies around the globe.

    So in your 'anti-war' movement - war itself is a legitimate
    means to an end, as long as it is not american troops engaged
    in the process of doing the military operations.

    I consider the attack 'comical' at a professional level because
    the presumption of the NVA was that the use of 'euro-centric'
    military operations would not lead to them becoming bogged down
    in a 'dirty little war' in Kampuchea. After years of the 'true
    anti-war types' explaining to us all about what was wrong with
    the american military strategy, to find the NVA off doing the
    same, is, in some literary motif's known as IRONY.

    > While the end of the draft undercut a significant rallying
    > point for the movement, there was a critical difference
    > between those against the war who manifested some elements
    > of human decency to the point of getting their heads
    > beaten in by the cops or their lungs and faces seared by
    > tear gas, than the young button-downs who were more than
    > willing to "drop the bomb" as long as their plans to make
    > a quick fortune weren't messed up.

    "vet's Up" I believe was the rallying cry to get the VVAW
    to take the brunt of these assaults from the draft dodgers
    who stayed CONUS with the deferment that they were either in
    the national guard or the local constablary....

    As for 'drop the bomb' - wow, were there stoners who actually
    thought that this was the majikal option? Catch me up on this.

    Yes, it is true that Ike had offered the French to Nuke
    Dien Bien Phu, but let us not confuse Ike with Nixon, Nixon
    was no Ike.

    > And since most of them
    > had money and could go to college or have their dear old
    > dad call their local congressman for help, there wasn't
    > much chance of them having to put their life on the line.
    > Just look at the brave warriors of the post-war Republican
    > administrations. Most of them were draft-dodgers (and may
    > I get personal and inquire about your status at that
    > time?)


    So where did you do your time? I presume that of course as
    a true hero of the one true anti-war movement you were detained
    by the evil american sekret police in the super sekret detention
    camps that the fascist nixon set up?

    Or were you active in the armed revolutionary struggle to liberate
    the political prisoners from those vile death camps?

    Or perchance there is some other modality you would prefer to
    conduct this personal part of the 'my manhood stuff is more
    macho than your manhood stuff'.

    > Saddam Hussein, understandably, saw himself as a US ally.
    > Not only had the CIA been instrumental in putting him in
    > power, the Bush administration, with Sweet Old Bob Dole as
    > his personal emissary, had provided Saddam with chemical
    > and conventional weapons in order to fight a debilitating
    > 10-year war with Iran. So when Kuwait began slant-
    > drilling for oil into Iraq, in his provincial unworldly
    > ignorance, called in the US ambassador April Glaspie, and
    > complained to her and said that if Kuwait didn't stop it,
    > he was going to go to war. Glaspie offered no objection,
    > which Saddam read as a go-ahead. Saddam, Nixon-like, taped
    > the conversation.

    Ok, so.... I have never had a problem with the fact that
    electing a member of the Red Hollywood Elite, Ronald Reagan
    was clearly not the brightest idea, a point that George "what
    loop" Bush, had tried to point out with his concerns about
    'voodoo economics' - that, well came true.

    So in your anti-war world, isn't it cool that Saddam started
    the war with Iran? I mean we all know that the Iranians had
    always been the puppet toadies of the CIA, where the Shah
    had actually been put in power by the first coup the CIA
    ran - this with getting the CIA to install Saddam, is well
    news to me, and probably everyone else on the Middle East Desk,
    so please fill me in more on this. I mean we all know that the
    Shah had supported the Kurdish Attacks in Iraq, and that the
    new regime in Teheran were supporting the Shi'ites - so isn't
    this just the same as your support for the NVA liberation of
    Kampuchea? Or is this more of the sometimes war is cool, some
    times it is not as cool, problem that keeps complicating the
    process of cleanly sorting out who are the One True Holy
    And Religious Correct Implementation of the Anti-War Movement
    that of course you need to protect from the ideological
    infiltration of the apostates?

    > There is nothing that makes it "reasonably clear that
    > 'sanctions alone' would not have worked at ending the
    > Iraqi occupation of Kuwait." According to Kuwait
    > statistics, the number of dead Kuwaitis was only 240!
    > There was a lot of wiggle-room. Now, we are reminded,
    > after tens of thousands of Iraqi children have died ("the
    > price is worth it," said Albright) that Saddam is one of
    > the greatest threats on the planet. And as former Marine
    > Scott Ritter, who headed the inspection team, repeatedly
    > says (but the mainstream press doesn't listen), it's all a
    > lot of bunk.

    Ok, so the reason that the current state of affairs with
    iraq remains as they are, is because Saddam Hussein so
    openly and constructively supported every line Item of
    the cease fire agreement he signed? Are you really trying
    to tell me that He Has Complied??????

    Or is this back to the 'anti-war' means 'anti-american'
    working sub-text of your 'movement'?????

    Counting Dead may be cool for the MACV chart keepers, the
    press, and apparently YOU. but what does that have to do
    with the stipulations of the cease fire agreement - and
    let us recall that is NOT a 'peace accord' - merely a
    cease fire agrement. Even Ritter has admitted that Saddam
    has not complied with that document.

    Granted, in my world, 'non-compliance' means 'non-compliance'
    and is a breach of contract, I hope you will help me understand
    how to better understand how body counts have diddly to
    do with all of this.

    Or maybe in another ten years, with the sanctions in place,
    and actually supported, including not allowing the Russians
    to upgrade the Iraqi Air Force, you may be right. But based
    upon the current ten years of trying to get Saddam to Focus
    on the cease fire he agreed to, mere sanctions alone seem
    to have failed to get him to comply.

    > The problem with such groups as the International Action
    > Center (IAC) with their retrograde Stalinist mind-set is
    > that they refuse to say a critical word about Saddam, who
    > like so many friends of this and past administrations has
    > much blood on his hands.

    So the IAC can not be a member of your FunHouse, because
    unlike you, they will not say a critical word against Saddam????

    But I thought you had just told us that Saddam IS a CIA
    puppet, so are you suggesting here that the IAC is also
    a CIA front organization????

    > One does not have to pretend, like the IAC or some die-
    > hards who haven't come to grips with the collapse of the
    > USSR and the East Bloc, that Milosevich was a committed
    > socialist, to oppose the bombing of ANY country in which
    > either civilians or the infrastructure of civilian life is
    > targeted as it was in Serbia. At Rambouillet, Milosevic,
    > however, was told to sign an agreement by Frau Albrecht,
    > that would have surrendered Serbia's sovereignty, and not
    > even to the UN but to NATO! It was clear again that the
    > US wanted a war to dismantle Yugoslavia and bring the
    > region into the US-dictated Western umbrella.

    Ok, help me here. Are you Pro or Anti Ethnic Cleansing?

    Or perhaps to help us along here, was Milosevich, and
    the policies of Ethnic Cleansing just more of the
    SuperDuper CIA sponsored Plot?????

    > I don't have time or inclination to respond to the rest of
    > Drieux's hodgepodge, but if the US thought it useful to
    > bring Milosevic to an international court, they could have
    > made an effort to do so in the case of Osama bin Laden.
    > But then, the US would not had been able to get away with
    > the bombing of Afghanistan and the destruction of the
    > Taliban, an organization which the US helped to bring to
    > power and supported.

    Ok, I know that I am not as smart as you, but how exactly
    were you planning to get your hands on Osama bin Laden
    in a way that would be distinct from how we picked up
    Milosevic??? If I seem to recall, the Taliban Regime,
    that ever popular and progressive organization, had been
    a bit disinclined to hand over Osama bin Laden on the
    outstanding warrents to begin with.

    Or is it the case, and only the True Believers in your
    FunHouse of the Correct Implementation of the One True
    Anti-War, know that the Taliban have always, like Saddam
    and now apparently Milosevic, been paid agents of the CIA?

    > It was more important for the US to legitimize its bases
    > that have been in Uzbekistan since 1996 and to extend our
    > military into Tajikistan. Is it any coincidence that
    > Unocal and Exxon/Mobil have the oil rights in Uzbekistan
    > and Chevron has the rights in Tajikistan (where old
    > Richard Armitage of Iran-Contra infamy is part of the
    > consortium) and that they need to have a pipeline though
    > Afghanistan to take the oil to Persian Gulf? Do you by
    > any chance have Bechtel's phone number?
    > Jeff Blankfort

    You forgot to mention Enron here, you know, that power house
    that bought the Presidency for Bush..... Never mind the current
    SEC investigation..... 8-)

    Now catch me up on how Clinton, with all of his charm, was
    able to sneek these bases into Uzbekistan.... and no one,
    not even the 700 Club, or the Republican National Committee,
    ever noticed that Clinton was doing this?

    I mean, most people seem to have found out about the fact
    that we were putting troops on the ground in Macedonia,
    but this with the SuperDuperDeluxeSekret bases in Uzbekistan
    now this is a first for moi.....

    Are they all super sekret troops or what?

    And are you opposed to them because of your anti-war stand
    against america, or because in your heart of hearts you
    know that President Shrub was right about not frivilously
    wasting our militry power in such Clintonian 'peace keeping

    What I don't get out of your concern here about the fact
    that various multi-national organizations have gone in to
    Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, is what this has to do with the
    whole 'anti-war' thing one way or the other - or is it the
    part that you would prefer:

            a) continued poverty in those states
            b) continued ecotastrophes in those states

    rather than run the risk of having companies who's stock
    holders are growing more and more liberal with the days, and
    are advocating things like 'do it right' and 'do it safely'?

    Or is this just more of the general, what is it you called
    it HodgePodge of positioning that comes with never being too
    sure which 'anti-war' movement you really meant to support.

    Mine is the simpler approach.

    I do not want to see in my son's eyes,
    what my father saw in mine.


    On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 08:25 , Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
    > I certainly agree, Marty, that no one has or has ever had a
    > monopoly on the right analysis. What I insist upon, however, is
    > the existence of boundaries that define within the most general
    > terms, what is commonly referred to as "the movement."  That the
    > movement's origins were as an "anti-war movement" and  that it
    > continued to oppose the extension of US military hegemony either
    > through direct or covert intervention, albeit ineffectually, for
    > the most part, is something that has to be considered  when
    > evaluating Gitlin's past and present relationship to the movement.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 19:28:03 EST