Perhaps it would be useful to expand a bit on my previous post. When Bush began the aggression against Afghanistan some leftists did argue that the question was complicated. This was wrong in principle. Every use of u.s. troops in combat wince the civil war, with the possible exception of WW2, has been an act of aggression. It is not im principle possible for the u.s. to make legitimate use of its troops outside u.s. territory. This is fundamental principle for any left analysis of the world today.
And in 2003 it did not matter whether or not Iraq was building or had "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Iraq had as much right to such weapons as any other sovereign state. All kinds of hostile action, peaceful or military, against Iraq by the U.S. constituted acts of aggression. Leftists have to keep these principles in the forefront of their thought. We should not have to debate each other, each time the u.s. launches a military action, over the necessity to oppose that action. We should only discuss ways and means of mobilizing as much opposition to it as possible. It should also be understood without debate that at the beginning of such a militaryaction, we direct our appeals in the first place _only_ to those who can accept the principle U.S. out of ______. _Within_ the ranks of the anti-war movement there can be further debate and discussion as to _how_ to reach out to larger elements of the population. But that problem should not be allowed to interfere with the preliminary mobilization of those already opposed. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
