Re: [sixties-l] We are part of the problem

From: Carrol Cox (
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 18:34:33 EST

  • Next message: drieux: "[sixties-l] How Far we have not moved from the sixties anti-war protests ???"

    TODD JONES wrote:
    > "My argument for voting for Nader (where it was possible) was that it was
    > a way widely scattered progressives could say hello to each other across
    > the nation. That reason still holds." -- CC
    > I hope the nice feeling that progressives got from saying hello to each
    > other makes all those
    > Iraqi deaths worthwhile. -- TJ

    I am casting a blank ballot tomorrow in Illinois. We would be at war
    under Gore as under Bush; only the rhetoric would change. Wellstone was
    pretty clear that he didn't oppose war on Iraq -- he opposed doing it
    without better cover.

    And how many Iraqis did Clinton kill?

    And it was Carter after all who started the whole chain of events in
    1979; as his national security advisor has since told us: The U.S.
    intervened in Afghanistan _before_ the Soviets did, and for the precise
    purpose of triggering a Soviet intervention.

    Those potential progressives who stay in bondage to the DP are the
    problem. Imperialists will be imperialists as hawks will be hawks. But
    those who know better have an obligation to build an opposition, not
    just plead for lethal injection instead of the electric chair.

    Have you no shame.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 22:59:19 EST