Comments on: Regional Antiwar March in Chicago Draws Thousands, Raises Questions http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/10/regional-antiwa.php Grand Rapids Progressive Left News Blog Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:38:14 +0000 hourly 1 By: bemf http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/10/regional-antiwa.php#comment-182 bemf Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:50:29 +0000 http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/10/regional_antiwa/#comment-182 A person certainly doesn't need to be "left" to oppose the Iraq War, and indeed many who are not left--Pat Buchanan comes to mind--have opposed the Iraq War. However, I think that if we're serious about both stopping and understanding the Iraq War, we need an anti-imperialist analysis rooted in the left. Such an analysis will help us get to the underlying systemic issues and structures that led to the war in the first place. Unfortuantely, Paul represents a reactionary rightwing tendency that is appealing because of the complete lack of immagination of Democrat and Republican candidates. None of the leading candidates (as defined by the media) in either nomination contest are talking about ending the war, and on that--and other issues--I think most folks see them as what they are, calculating and dishonest politicians. I'd argue that Paul--along with Mike Gravel--have appeal because they appear to be acting out of principle and outside of the scripted confines of mainstream debate. However, Paul's positions would be destructive to many segments of society with whom the antiwar movement should be making common cause. A person certainly doesn’t need to be “left” to oppose the Iraq War, and indeed many who are not left–Pat Buchanan comes to mind–have opposed the Iraq War. However, I think that if we’re serious about both stopping and understanding the Iraq War, we need an anti-imperialist analysis rooted in the left. Such an analysis will help us get to the underlying systemic issues and structures that led to the war in the first place.

Unfortuantely, Paul represents a reactionary rightwing tendency that is appealing because of the complete lack of immagination of Democrat and Republican candidates. None of the leading candidates (as defined by the media) in either nomination contest are talking about ending the war, and on that–and other issues–I think most folks see them as what they are, calculating and dishonest politicians. I’d argue that Paul–along with Mike Gravel–have appeal because they appear to be acting out of principle and outside of the scripted confines of mainstream debate. However, Paul’s positions would be destructive to many segments of society with whom the antiwar movement should be making common cause.

]]> By: anonymous http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/10/regional-antiwa.php#comment-181 anonymous Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:32:31 +0000 http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/10/regional_antiwa/#comment-181 Most of the anti-war movement is generally focused on issues of social and economic justice which much broader than the war as war is generally understood to be a systematic problem steming from our economic systems need to find increasingly cheaper markets and natrual resources. As well as its dependence on cheap oil. As a result the overwhelming majority of those in the anti-war movement belong to some part of the “left”. What the Ron Paul section was about was to show that many folks on the left are beginning to make the same mistakes as they did in 2004 with their support of Kerry. Simply getting behind a canditate due to their stance on one war while disregarding everything else they stand for is an extremely dangerous things to do as it threatens both the movement and the people who will suffer come the canidate’s rule. The anti-war movement needs to recognize that no canidate can possibly represent their interests as they represent a system which is structured to benefit the few. Once that happens then we can move to ending all war. Most of the anti-war movement is generally focused on issues of social and economic justice which much broader than the war as war is generally understood to be a systematic problem steming from our economic systems need to find increasingly cheaper markets and natrual resources. As well as its dependence on cheap oil. As a result the overwhelming majority of those in the anti-war movement belong to some part of the “left”. What the Ron Paul section was about was to show that many folks on the left are beginning to make the same mistakes as they did in 2004 with their support of Kerry. Simply getting behind a canditate due to their stance on one war while disregarding everything else they stand for is an extremely dangerous things to do as it threatens both the movement and the people who will suffer come the canidate’s rule. The anti-war movement needs to recognize that no canidate can possibly represent their interests as they represent a system which is structured to benefit the few. Once that happens then we can move to ending all war.

]]> By: Miranda http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/10/regional-antiwa.php#comment-180 Miranda Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:44:23 +0000 http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2007/10/regional_antiwa/#comment-180 Re: Ron Paul Does a person need to be leftist to be anti-war? And if we're talking about an anti war march and participation by supporters of the most(at least one of the most) anti-war politician running for office, what does it matter what his views on lefty issues are? You are going to have a lot of trouble bringing more people to your cause if you insist on them passing a critera other than being anti-war, that should be enough. Re: Ron Paul

Does a person need to be leftist to be anti-war? And if we’re talking about an anti war march and participation by supporters of the most(at least one of the most) anti-war politician running for office, what does it matter what his views on lefty issues are? You are going to have a lot of trouble bringing more people to your cause if you insist on them passing a critera other than being anti-war, that should be enough.

]]>