|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Virtual March On Washington Gives Bush Wiggle Room |
Current rating: 2 |
by Joe Futrelle
Email: futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
25 Feb 2003
Modified: 11:14:23 AM |
|
moveon.org's virtual march on Washington urges us to contact our congresspeople with antiwar messages. This is a critical effort, but the message coming from moveon.org and truedemocracy.com in their talking points and templates stops short of rejecting war as an option, instead adopting the more widely-held position that war may be necessary if inspections fail. That is the administration's position, except that the administration claims that the inspections have already failed. |
moveon.org's virtual march on Washington urges us to contact our congresspeople with antiwar messages. This is a critical effort, but the message coming from moveon.org and truedemocracy.com in their talking points and templates stops short of rejecting war as an option, instead adopting the more widely-held position that war may be necessary if inspections fail. That is the administration's position, except that the administration claims that the inspections have already failed.
If you oppose war even in the event that the inspections "fail", do not adopt unmodified the moveon.org talking points and truedemocracy.com templates. Here are several alternate talking points for a position that rejects war as an option. The position proceeds from the pacifist premise that war is never necessary, because all human life has value beyond measure. If you reject that premise, read no further.
- War is a violation of human rights. War destroys families and communities and deprives its victims of the right to live without fear. The fact that our enemies are human rights violators cannot be used as a justification to ourselves violate anyone's human rights.
- War perpetuates a cycle of violence. The United States is a leader in the international community. If we wage war against our enemies, either unilaterally or through strongarming reluctant allies, other countries will be emboldened to themselves wage war against their enemies. Because we are a leader, we are in a unique position to lead the world away from violence and war, and this is the only morally acceptable choice.
- We cannot oppose tyranny selectively.
- Self-defense can justify the use of force. But "pre-emptively" ousting Saddam Hussein neither counters a real threat nor would result in a safer world, and will extract a cost in human terms that is absolutely morally unacceptable.
- Not only *can* we "win without war", we *must* win (or lose) without war. |
Comments
|
Re: Virtual March On Washington Gives Bush Wiggle Room |
by joe
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
26 Feb 2003
|
|
Hillarious. So when the US gets a vote out of the UN sec council (as it looks like they probably will), Jeanine Garofalo, Meathead, and BJ Honeycut have to go along with it, and are branded either as warmongers, or traitors. |
|
NO NO NO NO NO !!!!! |
by Randall Cotton
recotton (nospam) earthlink.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Feb 2003
|
I agree 100% with Joe's views on war as he stated in his article. However, I vehemently disagree with his primary point. Specifically, he claims "the message coming from moveon.org and truedemocracy.com in their talking points and templates stops short of rejecting war as an option, instead adopting the more widely-held position that war may be necessary if inspections fail." I'm familiar with moveon.org and truemajority.com (I presume you meant that, and not truedemocracy.com, which does not exist). I have *never* seen anything from them that states they support war in ANY circumstance. I challenge you to provide examples. For example, what part of "Win without war" or "Inspections work. War won't", their primary slogans, supports war?
moveon.org and truemajority.com along with dozens of other large mainstream coalitions such as the National Council of Churches, Veterans for Common Sense and Greenpeace have banded together to form the Win Without War Coalition (see winwithoutwarus.org). It is my view that this coalition is the key to supercharging the anti-war movement in America. As with the Vietnam war, it wasn't until nationwide mainstream organizations joined in the fight that the anti-war movement got real traction. It is my view that attempting to discredit this coalition with flippant accusations may be one of the best possible ways to stunt the growth of the anti-war movement. I implore the author to back up his claim with proof, otherwise he is defeating his own purpose, which I presume is to stop this war at all costs. |
|
Re: Virtual March On Washington Gives Bush Wiggle Room |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Feb 2003
Modified: 12:45:22 AM |
Here's an example. It's from moveon.org's "let the inspections work" petition.
"The United States has made a commitment to approaching the danger that Saddam Hussein poses through the international community."
Wiggle room: Saddam Hussein poses a danger. What danger? To whom? How much of a danger? Given the sanctions, no-fly zones, and periodic bombings, and our enormous military presence, does his weak and isolated regime really threaten anyone?
"The resumption of the inspections regime is a triumph for the U.S., international law and multilateralism. But the United States will lose all credibility with its allies if it appears that it will go to war regardless of the inspections' success."
Wiggle room: the administration will remain "credible" even if the inspections "fail", and we go to war.
"And by alienating and infuriating allies through unilateral action, the U.S. could throw the success of the campaign against terrorism into jeopardy."
Wiggle room: multilateral action (presumably military) will not throw the campaign against terrorism into jeopardy. But war is terrorism, even when it's committed by multilateral coalitions. To me, that jeopardizes any campaign against terrorism.
"Mr. President, it appears that your administration is looking for an excuse to go to war, when a peaceful and just solution may be at hand. We ask that you live up to your word and give diplomacy a chance."
Wiggle room: a peaceful and just solution **may** be at hand. This allows for the idea that if a peaceful and just solution isn't at hand, war, or worse, injustice, is an acceptable alternative.
It's no accident that these petitions and templates are written the way they are written. They are designed to energize the broadest spectrum of anti-war sentiment in this country, which the polls consistently show includes a significant percentage who do not oppose war on principle, but simply oppose unilateral war, or war against an unproven threat.
I really do not mean to discredit these organizations or accuse them of anything. But I think it simply isn't accurate to characterize their positions as consistent with pacifism. They are much broader positions, and pacifists, on principle, must dissent from any position that treats war as an acceptable option under any circumstance. I encourage other pacifists to participate in these campaigns, but just to rewrite the templates and use different talking points. |
|
Another Example |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Feb 2003
|
At the top of the page with the "Let The Inspections Work" petition:
"President Bush has agreed that war should be the very last resort. Let's hold him and his administration to those words."
How can I agree to that? War should not even be the very last resort. We should never resort to it. Anyway, I've made my point. |
|
Re: Virtual March On Washington Gives Bush Wiggle Room |
by Randall Cotton
recotton (nospam) earthlink.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Feb 2003
Modified: 11:40:15 PM |
------------------------------
Joe said:
Here's an example. It's from moveon.org's "let the inspections work" petition.
"The United States has made a commitment to approaching the danger that Saddam Hussein poses through the international community."
Wiggle room: Saddam Hussein poses a danger. What danger? To whom? How much of a danger? Given the sanctions, no-fly zones, and periodic bombings, and our enormous military presence, does his weak and isolated regime really threaten anyone?
---------------
I say:
The sentence you cited makes no judgement as to the extent of the "danger". It does not characterize the "danger" as small, large or in any other way. Now, you are unmistakably suggesting that you believe there is no danger whatsoever. That is, you apparently believe that Saddam Hussein poses no danger at all to anyone anywhere. I think it's fair to say that this is an extreme view and, as best I can tell, you are complaining here that the sentence above that you cited from moveon.org is inexcusably non-judgemental about the degree of danger that Saddam poses and doesn't express your personal view that no such danger even exists. That's all fine and good - I have no quarrel with someone expressing a complaint and would defend to the death your right to express it (though you might want to check in with the Iraqi people themselves on their opinion of said danger). However, if you'll recall, I'm challenging your explicit accusation that moveon.org's position is "war may be necessary if inspections fail". Your lament that moveon.org doesn't fully express your extreme view in the sentence cited above is not pertinent.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Joe said:
"The resumption of the inspections regime is a triumph for the U.S., international law and multilateralism. But the United States will lose all credibility with its allies if it appears that it will go to war regardless of the inspections' success."
Wiggle room: the administration will remain "credible" even if the inspections "fail", and we go to war.
---------------
I say:
The moveon.org statement here does not address the case you describe. For all we know, it may indeed be their view that UN-sanctioned war would be wrong even if inspections "fail". Why are you automatically assuming something that is not stated?
------------------------------
------------------------------
Joe said:
"And by alienating and infuriating allies through unilateral action, the U.S. could throw the success of the campaign against terrorism into jeopardy."
Wiggle room: multilateral action (presumably military) will not throw the campaign against terrorism into jeopardy. But war is terrorism, even when it's committed by multilateral coalitions. To me, that jeopardizes any campaign against terrorism.
---------------
I say:
Perhaps, but once again, the moveon.org petition says not a whit about the case of multilateral action. Why do you insist on putting words in their mouth?
------------------------------
------------------------------
Joe said:
"Mr. President, it appears that your administration is looking for an excuse to go to war, when a peaceful and just solution may be at hand. We ask that you live up to your word and give diplomacy a chance."
Wiggle room: a peaceful and just solution **may** be at hand. This allows for the idea that if a peaceful and just solution isn't at hand, war, or worse, injustice, is an acceptable alternative.
---------------
I say:
More of the same here - you are repeatedly assuming that if moveon.org is silent on anything, then their views on whatever it is their silent about must automatically be diametrically opposed to yours. Why is that?
------------------------------
------------------------------
Joe said:
At the top of the page with the "Let The Inspections Work" petition:
"President Bush has agreed that war should be the very last resort. Let's hold him and his administration to those words."
How can I agree to that? War should not even be the very last resort. We should never resort to it. Anyway, I've made my point.
---------------
I say:
You don't have to agree that "war should be the very last resort". They're not asking you to. They're demonstrating a statement the President has made and then identifying a strategy to use that statement to our advantage. The bottom line is that if you hold him to what he has said, the chances are that this war can be stopped altogether. The anti-war movement is continually growing. Every day, indeed every minute that goes by without an actual invasion makes it less likely it will ever start in the first place. It's a strategy to achieve an end. The strategy is delay. I and others believe there is a point of critical mass after which mounting *ANY* invasion of Iraq will be impossible. The American public will finally recover enough from its 9/11-induced psychosis to realize this is just a *really* bad idea. This point is not far away, but it's a really close call whether it will come soon enough or not and every little delay helps the cause. Don't get hung up in details of little consequence. If we get to the critical mass point, the chances of *any* Iraq war are vanishingly small. Of course, if another major terrorist attack occurs, all bets are off, but lets cross that bridge when it materializes.
That was your last example, but you still have not presented proof of your accusation that moveon.org's position is "war may be necessary if inspections fail"? Or that move.org or truejority.com supports war in ANY circumstance, for that matter.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Joe said:
It's no accident that these petitions and templates are written the way they are written. They are designed to energize the broadest spectrum of anti-war sentiment in this country, which the polls consistently show includes a significant percentage who do not oppose war on principle, but simply oppose unilateral war, or war against an unproven threat.
---------------
I say:
Well, yes, the idea is to unify as many people as possible to halt something we're all in agreement must be stopped. This is actually a "good thing". The more tailored a group's platform is to one side of the spectrum, the smaller and less unified it is, by definition. I entreat you to realize that it may very well be the case that the only thing that can stop this war now is overwhelming unified public opposition. It's crucial to unify as many as possible in whatever way is necessary even if some of us disagree on other issues or even fine points of the same issue. If we waste energy quibbling divisively with each other, war could be upon us the next time we look up.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Joe said:
I really do not mean to discredit these organizations or accuse them of anything.
---------------
I say:
The fact remains that in your initial article, you undeniably accused moveon.org and truemajority.com of adopting the position "war may be necessary if inspections fail" and my challenge to provide proof of your claim remains unmet. In my view, it is precisely this kind of irresponsible, divisive accusation that most threatens the potential of the growing anti-war movement and so I hope you can understand why I'm compelled to refute it vigorously.
------------------------------
------------------------------
Joe said:
But I think it simply isn't accurate to characterize their positions as consistent with pacifism. They are much broader positions, and pacifists, on principle, must dissent from any position that treats war as an acceptable option under any circumstance. I encourage other pacifists to participate in these campaigns, but just to rewrite the templates and use different talking points.
---------------
I say:
I suspect that if you genuinely and objectively take the actual statements at their face value without the assumption that something unsaid implies a position you're opposed to, you'll see that they are indeed consistent with pacifism, though they don't fully express every last tenet of pacifism. Even if you disagree, for heaven's sake, don't do us all the disservice of making false, damaging accusations that serve to divide the unity that may actually stop this war.
------------------------------ |
|
Re: Virtual March On Washington Gives Bush Wiggle Room |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Mar 2003
Modified: 02:04:42 PM |
I refuse to hold the administration to their statement that war should be our last resort. War should never be resorted to, and that's what I will hold the administration to. If someone asks me to call my senator and tell him that war should be our last resort, I'm going to say no thank you, and instead, I'm going to call my senator and tell him that we should never resort to war. Don't tell me not to do that.
And don't tell me I'm being divisive. How do you think I feel when I'm told I should adopt the "inspections work" rhetoric, when I think the inspections have no legitimacy and were put in place *in order* to justify war? We should reject the current inspections regime and instead insist that all nations with WMD, including the United States, Iraq (if they indeed have WMD), India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Russia, Britain, France, China, and several other nations, disarm immediately. "Letting the inspections work" would legitimize the administration's position that we should be able to arm ourselves, but our enemies should not. That promotes war, and it's really dangerous.
That's what I'm talking about. This "inspections work" rhetoric is administration bullshit, and moveon.org is promoting it to gain an admittedly important tactical advtange. But it leaves pacifists no choice but to dissent. I disagree with you that dissent is counterproductive in the anti-war movement. Some of my best friends are non-pacifists opposed to this war, and I stand by them in the struggle against it. |
|
Re: Virtual March On Washington Gives Bush Wiggle Room |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2003
|
Here's an article that makes the same point.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0304-10.htm |
|
