Firstly, to equate the AFC with the current anti-war "movement’ is foolish: it was comprised of well-known non-interventionists, and was primarily a non-intervention group; their anti-war stance was in the belief that we should not involve ourselves in what was seen as a “fratricidal” European war.
The current anti-war push did not start out as a rally for isolationism or non-interventionism: it was brought on by the administration’s push for the invasion of a sovereign nation, without evidence of a direct threat to us or its neighbors, and without the blessings of the UN, if necessary. Though many who are against war are also for some kind of “homeland defense”, not all support the administration’s proposals; most do not seem to be pushing for isolationism on the part of the US, but do want to see a focus on the current domestic situation. Equating “fix the economy before war with Iraq” as isolationist is silly; although I know there won’t be any, can I kindly ask for some kind of proof or cite that the majority of those that don’t want war are isolationist, and not simply concerned about the validity of the administration’s argument? The anti-war protesters are not asking for abstention from intervention, either: most seem to think that the UN-mandated inspection regime is doing its job, and it should be left in place as long as there are results. I don’t think Mr. Lindbergh would have had much in common with the current group of anti-war protesters…
In addition, the AFC was a US phenomenon; the current anti-war movement is not. The demonstrations of 15 Feb alone prove that: there is no way of linking a global outpouring such as occurred to isolationism in the US.
Eva: I agree wholeheartedly. It’s sad to see a bunch of “Cold War” relics such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice (though she is substantially younger than the others, her focus has always been the Soviets/Russians and East Europe) try to pick their way through such a complex problem as the Middle East. They ignored the Palestinian/Israeli conflict for as long as they could; none of them have demonstrated knowledge of the region, and it doesn’t seem to have gotten any better. The only experience any of the main decision makers have gotten to the ME are via the petrochemical industry or war; so how can we possibly simply “trust” them to do what they think is right? I guess I misplaced my blinders when I voted in the last election…
And december, just where does the anti-war “movement” show itself as being anti-semitic or as being “apologists for fascism”? Once again: as you have shown in other threads, you tend to throw out rhetoric pretty handily, with little proof; when proof is actually thrown your way, you usually disappear (only to start another thread with more supposition and rhetoric). Being against the heavy-handed policies of Sharon is not being anti-semitic; being critical of the way in which Israel uses US aid is not anti-semitic, either. Yet you seem to want to paint all of those that don’t agree with you in the same light; however, you obviously haven’t bothered to look at the diversity of the people that are against this desire of the administration.
For example: I am against the war, but not a pacifist - I am currently stationed in the ME, on the airbase that will be the key player when this all takes off; I did my part in a few campaigns in the past, and will do what is necessary when the time comes. I am not an isolationist: on the contrary, I think the only way America can sustain itself as the only remaining superpower is to work with the UN and the global community. I am not anti-semitic, although I do not agree with current Israeli or US policies regarding the Palestinian crisis. I have lived and studied the ME for 12 years; I believe that the administration is being extremely short-sighted in its outlook, and that every action has a reaction. I don’t think the current administration has enough data to know what that reaction will be, and that they have not made much of an effort to find out. Much like most of those who support the war, no one has really thought this thing out much past the “take out Saddam” part; those that have made the attempt do so without studying the history nor the dynamics at work in the region. And I am an interventionist, in that I think the US and the UN can intervene without resorting to war.
So, is there going to be some backing up of the OP’s assertions, or are you going to run and start yet another unsubstantiated thread?