Doug Henwood wrote: > >Would the anti-war movement in the US be interested in such > questions?
> Probably, but it's a distraction. The US thinks itself exempt from > international law. It's about politics, meaning mobilization and > strength in numbers, not law or ethics. I don't know much about the US anti-war movement. Sometimes the questions re: the law and ethics are important for mobilisation in politics. But, as I said, I don't know much about the US. So it may be a distraction. Ulhas ^^^^^^ Ulhas, Your question is sensible. Imagine a mass rally against the war without , as you say, any use of law or morally to draw the people to the rally or, without any of the speakers making any moral or legal criticisms of a U.S. attack on Iran. Gee what would they talk about ? Well they couldn't say "We mustn't attack Iran because it would cause the wanton killing of thousands !" too much of a moralistic distraction. What exactly would they talk about at these antiwar rallies that are forbidden to speak of law or morality ? Oh, economics. "It is not in your economic and other self-interests for us to attack Iran " ( Why not ?). "It's not in your "political" interest for the U.S. to attack Iran ." (Why not ?) That's all they could say. Charles
