Ok, So what is the alternative? was Re: [sixties-l] Antiwar News...(# 37) (fwd)

From: drieux (drieux@wetware.com)
Date: Mon Dec 03 2001 - 11:30:00 EST

  • Next message: drieux: "Trade Unionism as its own Compromise? Re: [sixties-l] Re: Residents Express Outrage Over Howard Zinn"

    On Sunday, December 2, 2001, at 04:37 , sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu

    > Antiwar News...(# 37)

    It remains funny to read the gag line 'Russian anti-aircraft guns
    manufactured around 1943.' - as if this should be taken in any way
    seriously other than as a simple failure to be honest with people.

    I mean why not call the B-52 a 'fifties vintage antique'.... Since
    it was first developed in that era. Are people this unwilling to
    be 'honest' in the 'anti-war side'???? that they have to blatantly
    LIE to the american people to 'make a point'?????

    Look at the video images of AAA systems that the Taliban has been
    actually using! Don't trust my opinion - look at what is there.

    Then ask yourself - gosh kiddies when were those BMP's built???

    So lets move along from the simply technical to the possibly
    intellectually challenging moment in all of this - is it really
    the case that the 'anti-war movement' has decided that being
    openly misogynistic is even cooler now than before? What was the
    big plan on how to end the Taliban rule? What was the plan to get
    those arrest warrents served in Afghanistan - let alone the extradition?

    What are the really cool and groovy plans to get the how many ever
    million afghani refugees in Pakistan home to their homeland? What was
    the Really even groovier plans to end the civil war in Afghanistan?
    What are the really cooler and groovier plans to restore women's rights
    to a Taliban Held Afghanistan?

    Or is it just that these have never really been issues anyone in the
    'anti-war' movement wanted to address? Since to go there would mean
    having to come up with something more than the simplistic 'hate
    america and the west and modernism, and the problem of complexity'
    cheap rhetoric of 'they are bad people' to match the even lamer
    'evil doers' rhetoric of Shrub????

    I think that some folks have noticed, perchance, that when an armed
    force is willing to 'die in place' - that getting them to 'negotiate'
    is not a really possible option for preventing them from engaging
    in the 'armed struggle phase'.

    Some may even have noticed that Yassar Araft is going to have some
    problems bringing the 'really cool butch macho' "armed factions" to
    heel and allow any type of peace settlement to occur as long as those
    armed factions are bent upon the simple thesis of Slaughtering all Jews
    and Crusaders in the Middle East.

    How exactly has the way too cool 'anti-war types' come up with a way
    to stop armed terrorism, either by 'the evil doers' or the foreign
    based people who are not members of the American Armed Forces or any
    of their wholely owned subsidiaries????

    More whining while people keep dying?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Dec 04 2001 - 21:16:46 EST