Are the Current Anti-War & Veteran's Movements Worthless?

[chlamor]

Continuing a conversation from here:
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/boar...22203&start=30


American Dream wrote:

In my view, the Veteran's Movement in the U.S. is extremely important, as is the Anti-War Movement, whatever it's limitations.

chlamor wrote:

Both are ineffective. I've been involved with both and what you describe as limitations is more accurately described as worthlessness. This deserves it's own topic.

They do swallow up energy though.

American Dream wrote:

In my view, challenging these movements to do better, is way preferable to writing them off as "worthless".

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/vi...=242352#242352

[Kid of the Black Hole]

You beat me to the punch on the RI thread, but the real question is: What anti-war movement?

[m pyre]

I'm with Kid.

The nearest thing to an anti-war "movement" that I've seen has been two parallel and unrelated things.

1) Cindy Sheehan's media-darling rise and eventual Congressional campaign

2) Justin Raimondo's AntiWar.com website.

Raimondo's a Trojan Horse for von Mises libertarian economics. Sheehan's probably a decent lady, but is trapped in a partisan perspective and therefore isn't very productive in getting anyone to be truly anti-war. Sheehan's more anti-Bush and anti-Feinstein than anything.

[choppedliver]

I kind of enjoyed when Vets for Peace perched on the National Archives in DC two days (overnight) last September to call for Bush/Cheney arrest...they made some good statements, and they gave me energy for those days...I know two of the Vets, and they work more for social justice, and see the occupations as part of that, pissed that they were duped when they were kids serving inn Viet Nam, pissed that the duping of kids is still going on...


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Vet...80923-805.html

[eattherich]

Only them godless commies want peace

[eattherich]

I'm with Kid.

The nearest thing to an anti-war "movement" that I've seen has been two parallel and unrelated things.

1) Cindy Sheehan's media-darling rise and eventual Congressional campaign

2) Justin Raimondo's AntiWar.com website.

Raimondo's a Trojan Horse for von Mises libertarian economics. Sheehan's probably a decent lady, but is trapped in a partisan perspective and therefore isn't very productive in getting anyone to be truly anti-war. Sheehan's more anti-Bush and anti-Feinstein than anything.

Watch how Sheehan will get ignored by everybody but the antiwar right,like awc,or Alex Jones,or ripped to pieces by the sycophants over at DU,Kos,The Nation,et al,when she starts going after Saint Barack over Afghanistan.

As someone who used to be firmly in their camp,I can say that the antiwar.com,Mises types are completely sincere in their opposition to war and empire.While we may disagree with them on nearly every other issue,any real movement against war,and empire would have to include these people.The mainline antiwar groups are going to have to sever their ties to The Democratic Party,and put opposition to war and empire above every other issue.I don't see this happening.Until this does happen,we will never have a real peace movement.Period.

This is the point people like the Cockburn brothers over at Counterpunch keep making all the time.This is why they keep publishing Paul Craig Roberts,who has come a long way over towards "our" side since his days over at The Wall Street Journal.

I think the election of Barack Obama has effectively killed what pathetic little "peace movement" we had.

[m pyre]

As someone who used to be firmly in their camp,I can say that the antiwar.com,Mises types are completely sincere in their opposition to war and empire.While we may disagree with them on nearly every other issue,any real movement against war,and empire would have to include these people.The mainline antiwar groups are going to have to sever their ties to The Democratic Party,and put opposition to war and empire above every other issue.I don't see this happening.Until this does happen,we will never have a real peace movement.Period.

Can't say I agree. Raimondo, Rockwell, et alia would end the war in order to shrink government to maximize "privatization" profiteering. Their goal is empire without laws & regulations, which remains empire still.

I think you're too soft on them!

[Kid of the Black Hole]

As someone who used to be firmly in their camp,I can say that the antiwar.com,Mises types are completely sincere in their opposition to war and empire.While we may disagree with them on nearly every other issue,any real movement against war,and empire would have to include these people.The mainline antiwar groups are going to have to sever their ties to The Democratic Party,and put opposition to war and empire above every other issue.I don't see this happening.Until this does happen,we will never have a real peace movement.Period.

Can't say I agree. Raimondo, Rockwell, et alia would end the war in order to shrink government to maximize "privatization" profiteering. Their goal is empire without laws & regulations, which remains empire still.

I think you're too soft on them!

You ca't take Raimondo seriously IMO, he's just an idiot. I think there are two possibilities: everyone gets together on an exclusively anti-war campaign and they can peddle their nonsense on their own time. Or, they prioritize spouting their infantile crap over doing anything else, and remain as inconsequential and laughable as they are now.

I think the Lew Rockewells are a different story altogether though. Most of them are "suits" to begin with.

[meganmonkey]

Maybe we need to start with the question "Are the current anti-war movements really even anti-war?"

[vampire squid]

not really. rather, they're pro-peace, in the manner of bleeding heart imperialists like, say, bono. peace without justice, that's their thinking.

[choppedliver]

not really. rather, they're pro-peace, in the manner of bleeding heart imperialists like, say, bono. peace without justice, that's their thinking.

Not to be contentious, honestly, but there are a few "peace" groups ( I honestly know of two near me) that battle more for justice than anything else, they see the anti-war stuff to be under the socio-economic justice umbrella, really, just part of the plan. Maybe its because the ones I know's members are pretty darn poor...and non affiliated...

[m pyre]

not really. rather, they're pro-peace, in the manner of bleeding heart imperialists like, say, bono. peace without justice, that's their thinking.

I pretty much agree with this take. They're the people Frederick Douglass was talking to when he said,

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

You ca't take Raimondo seriously IMO, he's just an idiot. I think there are two possibilities: everyone gets together on an exclusively anti-war campaign and they can peddle their nonsense on their own time. Or, they prioritize spouting their infantile crap over doing anything else, and remain as inconsequential and laughable as they are now.

I think the Lew Rockewells are a different story altogether though. Most of them are "suits" to begin with.

If you read their anti-war essays for the narrow purpose of anti-war as anti-war alone, some of the things Raimondo posts at AntiWar.com aren't bad. Even Paul Craig Roberts wrote some pretty decent critiques of Bush during the past 8 years. But the rest of their agenda is just crap, it's that dipshit Ron Paul nonsense, appealing to those who hate taxes, Jews, furrrrrrrrriners, bureaucrats and of course, PINKO COMMIES. Their game is to shrink the US and State Govts via privatization, which will yield contracts to the many businesses who support the Mises Foundation and Ron Paul and the rest of that libertarian lunatic "Austrian School of economics" nirvana that completely ignores man's capacity to cheat, lie, steal, etc. Under "libertarian" minarchism, it is assumed that there's no real need for laws or regulations because everyone's magically honest and thoughtful and deferential, thanks to the wonders of deregulation.

The sad thing is, they've got a decent following.