Neocons Surge Against Anti-War Movement

The coming months may be the most important ones for a generation.
Don't look back years from now and have to tell your kids that you could have done more, but decided to just wait it out. Ride the wave. Sit back. Take it in stride.

-jared-




When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists.

- Dr. Ron Paul's message to the U.S. House - 3/09/99 -
- RonPaul2008.com -

Would it make sense to hand out Ron Paul DVDs to people participating in these events? Or are they all going to be Ron Paul supporters anyway?

Anyone that strong against the war is sure to convert to supporting Ron Paul if he or she does not know about him yet.

.
It is very interesting that Tom Hayden was the author of this article, and that he is a part of the peace moment. Although he shot to fame in 1968 as being one of the Chicago 8 (later to be the Chicago 7 when Bobby Seale was removed and tried separately) he sort of disappeared from the scene, became a state rep, married Jane Fonda and seemed to have retired. Now, apparently, he is back with the anti-war movement. Different war, same heart.

One day I had a long talk with William Kunstler, the attorney who represented the Chicago 7. I asked him what happened to the peace movement - it sort of fizzled out? He just gave a weary sigh and said that there were still many activists left, but the media paid no attention. He was a great man, Kunstler, although he was not popular. I liked him enormously. He would be in the forefront of the anti-war movement; we have few national leaders of his charisma; one who would thump his fists on the table and bellow, "HOW DARE YOU?"

I wrote 1965 in the subject line because, in that year, the war in Vietnam was still supported by the general publc. There were only a few pockets of anti-war sentiment. These were mostly around college campuses; nobably UC/Berkeley and Boston University, although every campus had an anti-war faction. At that time, our involvement with Vietnam was about 4 years old; about where we are now in Iraq. But within 2 years, 1967, the protests increased enormously and the peace movement attracted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, the Berrigan brothers and Thomas Merton. The military and defense people fought back hard against the protesters; there were firehoses used against demonstrators and there were wholesale arrests. By 1968 there were riots and violence; the Democratic Convention in Chicago was the scene of a massive confrontation between war protesters and the police. It was one of the first time such confrontations was shown on live TV and it was devastating. This, I think, was the beginning of the tide turning against the war; when cops with clubs beat college kids. "The whole world is watching!" was apt and true.

Unfortunately, we may see this kind of confrontation with those who protest Iraq en masse. I hope this does not happen; but it could. America is in a much more military/control mindset now than 40 years ago. This is of grave concern. With the exceptions of Ron Paul and Harry Reid, few national figures are calling for an end to the war. But to compare today to 1965, it's still early yet.

What baffles me is this: ALL of the politicians who are in congress witnessed the stupidity and devastation of Vietnam; and yet they are supporting Bush and his war policies? Did they learn nothing from the past? Apparently not, since we seem to be condemned to repeat it.

I believe one major thing creating backlash to Ron Paul is the idea that he is "soft" on self defense and terror, etc.

I do not believe he would be soft at all. I think the relatively simple minded out there equate War in Iraq with War on Terror. It is what the Neo-Cons have wanted the common folk to believe.

But the War in Iraq and the Self Defense of the United States here at home are two completely separate things and concepts.

Ron Paul wants us out of this foolish war in Iraq. It is wasting resources, energy and, worst of all, the lives of our bravest soldiers. But this should not be confused with the idea that Ron Paul is soft on self-defense.

To the contrary, Ron Paul knows more than anyone that self defense is the PRIMARY responsibility of a righteous limited government.

I believe Dr. Paul needs to emphasize more clearly his desire for an extremely strong, efficient, intelligent and wise self-defense in order to protect the lives and LIBERTIES of the United States citizenry.

This message would significantly demolish one of the prime criticisms of Paul amongst many people out there.