[Marxism] Peter Tatchell: Is he "pro-war"?

[Walter Lippmann <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For a discussion or debate be useful, it should focus on
real issues, not fake ones. To describe an activist like
Peter Tatchell as "pro-war" is an example of the false
polemic some people find particularly satisfying. Here
are a few comments regarding Peter Tatchell.

FIRST:
The provided link is helpful. The style of argument which 
Peter Tatchell practices is sardonic but is this a DEFENSE 
of Tony Blair? Calling for a Vietnam-style Guerrilla war?

Neither Blair nor Bush could be expected to provide arms
to any third world people to liberate themselves from 
dictatorial regimes there. Money for subversive political
propaganda, as they do in Cuba and other places? Yes.
But arms for a popular uprising? Why not try again...

SECOND:
That speech was more than THREE YEARS AGO. Has Peter
Tatchell continued such "defence" of Blair? I don't know, 
but as yet, evidence to substantiate the indictment has not
been brought forth. He remains innocent, to my eyes.

THIRD:
I'm not familiar with Peter Tatchell's activities beyond his
fight for gay representation in the Labour Party, based on
his book THE BATTLE FOR BERMONDSEY. He's generally
been known as a fighter for gay rights, which is Tatchell's
political priority. However, as indicated Tatchell's remarks
were made OVER THREE YEARS AGO.

FOURTH
Has Tatchell kept "defending" Tony Blair? This Saturday,
less than one week ago, March 18, 2006 we read this:
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/antiwarmarch.htm
In fairness, can this be called "pro-war, pro-Blair"???

THEREFORE
It would be better, in my opinion, to argue about real areas
of disagreement, not made-up ones. Aren't there any better
things to discuss and debate than this?


Walter Lippmann
http://www.walterlippmann.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TATCHELL:
Tony Blair is wrong to suggest that war is the only option.

The Left and anti-war movements should support an uprising 
by the Iraqi people â?? a Vietnam-style guerrilla war in tandem 
with a â??people powerâ?? campaign of civilian resistance, like 
they had in Czechoslovakia and the Philippines in the 1980s.

Compared to a American and British invasion, this home-grown
insurrection would be far more popular with the people of Iraq.

Fiercely nationalistic, they rightly dislike the idea of a United
States-imposed regime. Moreover, Saddamâ??s troops are more 
likely to defect to an internal revolt than to the forces of 
â??Western imperialismâ??.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Regime change cannot, ethically, be imposed from outside in a
flourish of revived Western imperialism.

It must lead to a democratic state, and not to a new form of
autocratic rule by a US military governor.

A democratic Iraq could become a beacon for human rights throughout
the Middle East, thus giving the Arab people their first taste of
freedom in a region that is dominated by semi-feudal Islamist
dictatorships, notorious for their brutality, nepotism and
corruption.

Perhaps, in time, it might even encourage similar, long overdue
regime change in neighbouring tyrannies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran
and Syria.

=========================================
JOHANNES SCHNEIDER provided the link, calling Tatchell's views:

"An outright attack on the Stop the War Coalition."
http://www.tribweb.co.uk/tatchell07032003.htm




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism