======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================


Generalstrike2000 wrote:

"The overwhelming majority of those oppossing the Iraq Afghanistan wars are
not pacifists. They are oppossed to these two particular wars. The pacifists
want the common point of unity to be opposition to all wars on "moral"
grounds. So what's the problem with the term "peace". Well, let's see, in
1939 Germany invaded Poland for Peace. In 2003 the United States invaded
Iraq for peace. In 2006 Israel invaded southern Lebanon for peace. I trust
my comradely critic of the Pacifists will not be mistaken for contempt for
the bastards."

A thought...I think Ken makes an error to assume that only pacifists want
peace. I'm not a pacifist at all but I want peace. When the Bolsheviks
marched against WWI they did so under "Land, Peace and Bread" (and correctly
tied the economic issues to the peace issue). The use of any slogan is
raised is only a tactical consideration based on what is needed to mobilize
people around their immediate demands and the task at hand, in this case,
removing imperialist troops from Afghanistan. If "Peace Now" works, use it.
If it means using "End the War now and end all alternate side of the street
parking", use that.

David
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to