Anti-war resolutions
I was excited last month to hear that Hawaii had passed an anti-war resolution and was about to excitedly rant about it, until I read it. I'll paraphrase it for you here:
"WHEREAS the State of Hawaii has supported every imperial act undertaken by the US government starting with the Gulf War, including the bombing of Afghanistan and the ongoing never-ending 'war on terrorism,' the relentless bribery and coercion of supposedly sovereign nations which led to the passage of UN Resolution 1441, and the immense military buildup, threats, and actual ongoing attacks on Iraq despite the fact that Iraq has never attacked the US, nor attacked anyone else in over twelve years, the State of Hawaii is nevertheless slightly concerned that actually going ahead with a full-scale war against Iraq right now might possibly not be the best idea ever. But we still love our president."
Check it out for yourself: That's basically what it says. And several others have been along these lines. So I have trouble getting excited about these resolutions when I basically disagree with everything they say except for one line. Ann Arbor's resolution is much clearer and to the point. That's what an anti-war resolution should look like.
In these desperate times, all of us anti-war activists are looking for any port in a storm. We're excited when a Norman Schwarzkopf or Wesley Clark speaks out against the war. But Bush has made it clear that he has many more wars on his horizon, even if somehow we are successful in averting this one. We must be careful not to give indirect support for further extensions to the non-sensical "war on terrorism" by jumping too solidly behind some of these statements.
That said, today's NY Times lead editorial falls somewhat in this category. Still, it is an improvement over one from last week. So I applaud their recognition of clear evidence of disarmament and their reduced militancy, while still disagreeing with many of their assumptions.
In conclusion to this rambling rant, let me say that going to an ANSWER-sponsored peace rally doesn't make you a communist; and neither does agreeing with Hawaii or Norman Schwarzkopf that a second Gulf War is a bad idea mean that you agree with them that the first Gulf War was a good one.
I was excited last month to hear that Hawaii had passed an anti-war resolution and was about to excitedly rant about it, until I read it. I'll paraphrase it for you here:
"WHEREAS the State of Hawaii has supported every imperial act undertaken by the US government starting with the Gulf War, including the bombing of Afghanistan and the ongoing never-ending 'war on terrorism,' the relentless bribery and coercion of supposedly sovereign nations which led to the passage of UN Resolution 1441, and the immense military buildup, threats, and actual ongoing attacks on Iraq despite the fact that Iraq has never attacked the US, nor attacked anyone else in over twelve years, the State of Hawaii is nevertheless slightly concerned that actually going ahead with a full-scale war against Iraq right now might possibly not be the best idea ever. But we still love our president."
Check it out for yourself: That's basically what it says. And several others have been along these lines. So I have trouble getting excited about these resolutions when I basically disagree with everything they say except for one line. Ann Arbor's resolution is much clearer and to the point. That's what an anti-war resolution should look like.
In these desperate times, all of us anti-war activists are looking for any port in a storm. We're excited when a Norman Schwarzkopf or Wesley Clark speaks out against the war. But Bush has made it clear that he has many more wars on his horizon, even if somehow we are successful in averting this one. We must be careful not to give indirect support for further extensions to the non-sensical "war on terrorism" by jumping too solidly behind some of these statements.
That said, today's NY Times lead editorial falls somewhat in this category. Still, it is an improvement over one from last week. So I applaud their recognition of clear evidence of disarmament and their reduced militancy, while still disagreeing with many of their assumptions.
In conclusion to this rambling rant, let me say that going to an ANSWER-sponsored peace rally doesn't make you a communist; and neither does agreeing with Hawaii or Norman Schwarzkopf that a second Gulf War is a bad idea mean that you agree with them that the first Gulf War was a good one.
<< Home