[Marxism] Peter Tatchell: Is he "pro-war"?
Johannes.Schneider at gmx.net
Fri Mar 24 07:44:03 MST 2006
Brian Shannon wrote:
> Of course, experienced opponents of imperialism would not presented
> their ideas in this fashion.
Do I hear here some kind of irony?
> Much of this is not that dissimilar to the kind of language that I
> recall from the early 1960s, when our formulations were also directed
> rhetorically against rulers urging them to arm the people to
> overthrown colonial regimes. We learned that this was a little
> demagogic and simply wrong.
I think it just shows how flawed this popular fron rhetoric always was. The
key argument in Tatchell's reasoning is:
"we should train and arm a Free Iraq Army inside the safe havens of the
northern and southern no-fly zones, as we supported the Free French forces
and the French resistance during the Second World War."
It is this "we", that was and is never true. In the case of WWII it was not
"we", but them, Churchill and Roosewelt. Like as Louis pointed out today it
is not us, but Bush and Blair. All this popular front rhetorics only leads
you to tailend the imperialists.
A better anylogy to the attack on Iraq would be Mussolini's attack on
Ethiopia. Did any leftist call for regime change by the Ethiopians
themselves at that time?
Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
More information about the Marxism