ANTI-WAR OR ANTI-U.S.?

[Tony]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69969.htm full article



March 5, 2003 -- 'THE rebirth of the peace movement." This is how sections of the Western media describe the marches that attracted 30 million people in some 600 cities, in 25 countries, across the globe in recent weeks.

Last week, a group of "peaceniks" gathered in London to discuss ways of nursing the "reborn" child into adulthood. By coincidence, today marks the 50th anniversary of Josef Stalin's death.

The Soviet dictator was the father of the first "peace movement," which for years served as an instrument of the Kremlin's global policy.

Stalin's "peace movement" was launched in 1946 at a time when he had not yet developed a nuclear arsenal and was thus vulnerable to a U.S. nuclear attack. Stalin also needed time to consolidate his hold on his newly conquered empire in eastern and central Europe while snatching chunks of territory in Iran.

Pablo Picasso, a "fellow traveler" with the French Communist Party, designed the famous dove of peace as the emblem of the movement. French poet Paul Eluard, another fellow traveler, composed an ode inspired by Stalin. The "peaceniks" were told to wear white shirts, release white doves during their demonstrations and shake their clenched fists against "imperialists and revanchistes."

Soon it became clear that the "peace movement" was not opposed to all wars, but only to those that threatened the U.S.S.R., its allies and its satellites.

For example, the peaceniks did not object to Stalin's decision to keep the entire Chechen nation in exile in Siberia. The peaceniks did not march to ask Stalin to withdraw his forces from Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. When Stalin annexed 15 percent of Finland's territory, none of the peaceniks protested.

Neither did they march when the Soviets annexed the Baltic states. Nor did they grumble when Soviet tanks rolled into Warsaw and Budapest, and a decade later also in Prague. But when America led a coalition under a U.N. mandate to prevent North Korean Communists from conquering the south, peaceniks were on the march everywhere.

The movement targeted Western democracies and sought to weaken their resolve against the Soviet threat.

Over the years nobody marched against any of the client regimes of the Soviet Union that engaged in numerous wars, including against their own people.

The wars that China's Communist regime waged against the peoples of Manchuria, Tibet, East Turkestan and Inner Mongolia, lands that were eventually annexed and subjected to "ethnic cleansing," provoked no protest marches. Even when China attacked India and grabbed Indian territories the size of England, the peace movement did not budge.

In the 1960s the movement transformed itself into the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament. Here, unilateral meant that only the Western powers had to give up their arsenal, thus giving the Soviets a monopoly on nuclear weapons.

The peaceniks spent much of the '60s opposing U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

The 1980s gave them a new lease on life, as they focused on opposing American Pershing missiles in Western Europe.

The Pershings represented a response to Soviet SS-20 missiles that had already been stationed in central Europe and aimed at Western European capitals. But the peaceniks never asked for both the Pershings and the SS-20s to be withdrawn, only the American missiles.

President Ronald Reagan's proposal that both the SS-20s and the Pershings be withdrawn was attacked and ridiculed by the peaceniks as "an American Imperialist trick." Francois Mitterrand, then France's Socialist president, put it this way: "The missiles are in the East but the peaceniks are in the West!"

No peacenik, not even Joschka Fischer, now Germany's foreign minister, marched in support of tearing down the Berlin Wall and allowing the German nation to regain its unity.

All that is now history. The "evil empire" of communism has gone for good, but the deep anti-West sentiments that it promoted over the decades remains.

It is this anti-West, more specifically anti-American, sentiment that provides the glue of the new peace movement.

Last month, the British daily The Guardian asked a number of peaceniks to explain why they opposed the use of force to liberate Iraq?

The main reason they felt they had to support Saddam Hussein was that he was disliked by the United States.

This article reveals the true motives of the bedwetting "peace-niks".

[a_unique_person]

Last week, a group of "peaceniks" gathered in London to discuss ways of nursing the "reborn" child into adulthood. By coincidence, today marks the 50th anniversary of Josef Stalin's death.



doh, i warned them about that, how obvious can you get. But would they listen to me, oh nooo.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69969.htm full article

This article reveals the true motives of the bedwetting "peace-niks". Tony,

Can you clarify who these peace-niks are? I'm unclear as to whether you feel that everyone who opposes the war is a secret Stalinist or whether this is a small hard-core portion of the anti-war people?

I know lots of people who oppose the war (let's face it, they are in the majority in Europe) but none of them appear to be sympathetic to Stalin and few are especially anti-US (lots of people think the current administration is not that great, but that's not the same as being anti-American).

You have included one criterion to allow us to spot them - apparently they all wet the bed.

[corplinx]

I think that may be relevant for a significant portion of european sentiment. However, here in the US I think it is a different story.

neo-anarchists

George Bush is the biggest symbol of the establishment to ever be in the office. Oil friends, father of a former pres and cia head, cabinet full of establishment bigwigs, etc, etc.

He drives these people nuts.

Notice, these sorts of people weren't protesting Kosovo where you had the little boy from Hope Arkansas in charge. Bill Clinton's service as governer of state nobody cares about did him a great service as he was not looked at as a member of the establishment. He was gonna cut the big defense budget, play his sax, and get rid of the reagan/bush era. Kosovo came and went with nary a whimper.

Now look at the Iraq situation. People acting like fools in several US cities. You look at their credos and signs and you can tell there is something that isnt genuine. I think that this war is the issue they have been waiting for to pounce on Bush for.

Who are the neo-anarchists? Too lazy and too apathetic to be really effective, they only act out when it might get caught on TV.

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain
Tony,

Can you clarify who these peace-niks are?


The peace-niks are the peace-at-all-costs types. The kind that would rather live, or condemn other people to live under tyranny and/or oppression, than fight for freedom.

I'm unclear as to whether you feel that everyone who opposes the war is a secret Stalinist or whether this is a small hard-core portion of the anti-war people?

It has been proven that the organizers of the so called "anti-war" protests are hard-core communists. Everyone else is either a peace-nik, useful idiot, bush-hater or america-hater.

You have included one criterion to allow us to spot them - apparently they all wet the bed.

http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony


The peace-niks are the peace-at-all-costs types. The kind that would rather live, or condemn other people to live under tyranny and/or oppression, than fight for freedom.

It has been proven that the organizers of the so called "anti-war" protests are hard-core communists. Everyone else is either a peace-nik, useful idiot, bush-hater or america-hater.Thanks Tony,

A couple more questions if you don't mind.

- When you say that it has been proven the protest organisers are hard core communists, could you give us some idea of the nature of this proof and where we can find it?

- Are you saying that there are no valid reasons to oppose war with Iraq and that everyone opposed to war falls into one of your categories?

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain



- When you say that it has been proven the protest organisers are hard core communists, could you give us some idea of the nature of this proof and where we can find it?


I cant find an article right now. But from what I remember off the top of my head, is that the group "International ANSWER" is a front group for the World Workers Party. The World Workers Party is a group that split with the communist party in 1956 (or was it '58?) after the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Ill try to find something concrete and post it later on today or tonight (houston time).

- Are you saying that there are no valid reasons to oppose war with Iraq and that everyone opposed to war falls into one of your categories?

The only valid reason to oppose the war, is the concern that the war in Iraq will further distablize the Middle East. That is the point that had me sitting on the fence for a while.

[blackpriester]

I think you are a little bit confused, Tony.
The protest you are speaking of was the peace rally in San Francisco... and guess what, that one went by completely peacefully. because the police did NOT escalate the conflict.

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester
I think you are a little bit confused, Tony.
The protest you are speaking of was the peace rally in San Francisco... and guess what, that one went by completely peacefully. because the police did NOT escalate the conflict.

Huh? Im not speaking of any particular protest, Im talking about the organizers.

[blackpriester]

I mean this one:


Originally posted by iain



- When you say that it has been proven the protest organisers are hard core communists, could you give us some idea of the nature of this proof and where we can find it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I cant find an article right now. But from what I remember off the top of my head, is that the group "International ANSWER" is a front group for the World Workers Party. The World Workers Party is a group that split with the communist party in 1956 (or was it '58?) after the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Ill try to find something concrete and post it later on today or tonight (houston time).


Or are you saying that EVERY peace protest is organized by ANSWER?

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester
I mean this one:

Or are you saying that EVERY peace protest is organized by ANSWER?

The big protests were organized by answer, and they are one of the dominate forces behind the so-called "peace" movement.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Tony


The big protests were organized by answer, and they are one of the dominate forces behind the so-called "peace" movement.

Great claims. Since you come to the JREF web site you probably are aware that you need to back your claims up, right? So please do so now.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


Great claims. Since you come to the JREF web site you probably are aware that you need to back your claims up, right? So please do so now.

You could check out thier website. http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/resources/index.html Other than that I refer you to:

I cant find an article right now. But from what I remember off the top of my head, is that the group "International ANSWER" is a front group for the World Workers Party. The World Workers Party is a group that split with the communist party in 1956 (or was it '58?) after the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Ill try to find something concrete and post it later on today or tonight (houston time).

I guess you'll have to hurry-up and wait. :D

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Tony


You could check out thier website. http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/resources/index.html Other than that I refer you to:



I guess you'll have to hurry-up and wait. :D

...and those were execatly what I was referring to when I told you that THE SAN FRACISCO protests were (among other parties) organized by ANSWER, but i never heard about the Oakland ones being ANSWER-driven (and those are the ones we talk about here).

I believe (speculation on my part, I admit), that you got your info on this protest from the http://www.protestwarrior.com website. If you search it, you will find NO mentioning of the Oakland protests being organized by ANSWER. neither will you find such references on the ANSWER website, obviously the first source to check for such...

Cheers,
- Ashcroft's good twin

[Mike B.]

I know there are all kinds of people that protest the war.

However, in my city we had traffic blocked by protesters who laid down in the road and did other things of that matter. When I finally got up to them after waiting a long time, I was surprised to see how many of them had signs that had nothing to do with the war.

"Free Mumia"
(Don't get me started on that one.)

"Fight Globalization"

"End embargo of Cuba"

"Destroy Corporate Power"

etc.

I wonder if many of these anti-war protests lose their focus because of all the other causes.

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester


...and those were execatly what I was referring to when I told you that THE SAN FRACISCO protests were (among other parties) organized by ANSWER, but i never heard about the Oakland ones being ANSWER-driven (and those are the ones we talk about here).

I believe (speculation on my part, I admit), that you got your info on this protest from the http://www.protestwarrior.com website. If you search it, you will find NO mentioning of the Oakland protests being organized by ANSWER. neither will you find such references on the ANSWER website, obviously the first source to check for such...

Cheers,
- Ashcroft's good twin

I think you are getting your threads mixed up. :p This thread is about wheather the protesters are anti-war or anti-american.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I know there are all kinds of people that protest the war.

However, in my city we had traffic blocked by protesters who laid down in the road and did other things of that matter. When I finally got up to them after waiting a long time, I was surprised to see how many of them had signs that had nothing to do with the war.

"Free Mumia"
(Don't get me started on that one.)

"Fight Globalization"

"End embargo of Cuba"

"Destroy Corporate Power"

etc.

I wonder if many of these anti-war protests lose their focus because of all the other causes.


unfortunately they do :rolleyes: Don't judge the cause by the nutcases...

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Tony


I think you are getting your threads mixed up. :p This thread is about wheather the protesters are anti-war or anti-american.

Oops... sorry sweetheart, you are correct. I was mixing threads up... ;).

[shecky]

You are correct. Anti war protesters are Stalinists.

:rolleyes:

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/69969.htm full article

This article reveals the true motives of the bedwetting "peace-niks".

Thanks for giving me something to laugh about today. Can you do one about the bed-wetting "warmongers" next? (Hitler's birthday is April 20, maybe you can do something with that.)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I know there are all kinds of people that protest the war.

However, in my city we had traffic blocked by protesters who laid down in the road and did other things of that matter. When I finally got up to them after waiting a long time, I was surprised to see how many of them had signs that had nothing to do with the war.

"Free Mumia"
(Don't get me started on that one.)

"Fight Globalization"

"End embargo of Cuba"

"Destroy Corporate Power"

etc.

I wonder if many of these anti-war protests lose their focus because of all the other causes.

As a sign-carrying peacenik, I would have agree with you. This has long been a problem with the movement. Losing focus, that is. Many recent protests were designed to keep the anti-war message at the forefront. I think the message is getting clearer, but it has not been entirely successful at eliminating the clutter that comes with a broad coalition of groups.

[Denise]

Many of the antiwar protests are organized by ANSWER. Lie down with dogs wake up with fleas.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Denise
Many of the antiwar protests are organized by ANSWER. Lie down with dogs wake up with fleas.

Well, not with this dog! :cool:

[Denise]

Originally posted by Supercharts


Well, not with this dog! :cool:

I don't think you associate with those dogs do you?:D

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Thanks for giving me something to laugh about today. Can you do one about the bed-wetting "warmongers" next? (Hitler's birthday is April 20, maybe you can do something with that.)


Wait a minute!?! Isn't April 20th Earth Day?!?! Aha! Now we know what that's all really about!! :D

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Thanks for giving me something to laugh about today. Can you do one about the bed-wetting "warmongers" next? (Hitler's birthday is April 20, maybe you can do something with that.)

Wait a minute!?! Isn't April 20th Earth Day?!?! Aha! Now we know what that's all really about!! :D

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Denise
Many of the antiwar protests are organized by ANSWER. Lie down with dogs wake up with fleas.

Come on Denise... you have such sensible views on circumcision :D, and now this??? If the quality of a cause is affected by everybody associating with it, i would think that tax cuts are pretty bad, since civil-rights-cutting republicans are all for it.

Forntunately, it ain't so.

Just as Republicans do not diminish the value of (more) libertarian economics, ANSWER and their red hordes does not diminish the prinicipal validity of peace protests :).

If you are for or against the war, address the causes that speak for either, but do not judge it by the people who associate with it.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Scorpy


Wait a minute!?! Isn't April 20th Earth Day?!?! Aha! Now we know what that's all really about!! :D

My Granddads Birthday was April 20th...
during the third Reich he used to pretend that the flags were flown full mast for HIM... also he was evading the Wehrmacht by simulating disease and totally cheating the Nazis out of serving on the Battlefield (quote: "All that war heroes get is a chaplet on their grave")

[Victor Danilchenko]

There are other valid reasons to be anti-war that have nothing to do with communism, besides destabilization of the Middle east. For example, one could be concerned about international law and due process (in which respect USA is acting like a vigilante); or one could think that military intervention is ineffective in promoting democracy, being more likely to simply end up emplacing a different dictator; or one could be concerned about the growing international imbalance of power being increased by this american incursion; etc.

Yes, there are other reasons to be anti-war, Tony. I told you that before.

[aerocontrols]

I think the antiwar Left makes a huge mistake in attending rallies organized by ANSWER. Serious liberal activists have long complained that ANSWER hurts more than helps their respective causes (by dominating the planning of events, by controlling the agenda and the speakers, by shutting out other organizations that have a slightly different take but still want to participate, etc.)

Previous threads about ANSWER:
thread 1 (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=302399#post302399)

thread 2 (more about them specifically) (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=314605#post314605)

If I were antiwar, (or only just antithiswar) you still couldn't get me to attend a protest organized by them.

MattJ

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
For example, one could be concerned about international law and due process (in which respect USA is acting like a vigilante);

We have international law on our side. Resolution 1441 promised serious consequences if Iraq fail to abide by the UN resolutions.

or one could think that military intervention is ineffective in promoting democracy,

One COULD think that, but they would be wrong. Military intervention was successful in promoting democracy in Japan and Germany after ww2.

being more likely to simply end up emplacing a different dictator; or one could be concerned about the growing international imbalance of power being increased by this american incursion;

I think this would fall under anti-americanism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tony


I cant find an article right now. But from what I remember off the top of my head, is that the group "International ANSWER" is a front group for the World Workers Party. The World Workers Party is a group that split with the communist party in 1956 (or was it '58?) after the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Ill try to find something concrete and post it later on today or tonight (houston time).



Rusty and Iain: This is for u guys.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php ...full article

FREE MUMIA. FREE THE CUBAN 5. FREE JAMIL AL-AMIN (that’s H. Rap Brown, the former Black Panther convicted in March of killing a sheriff’s deputy in 2000). And free Leonard Peltier. Also, defeat Zionism. And, while we’re at it, let’s bring the capitalist system to a halt.

When tens of thousands of people gathered near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for an anti-war rally and march in Washington last Saturday, the demands hurled by the speakers extended far beyond the call for no war against Iraq. Opponents of the war can be heartened by the sight of people coming together in Washington and other cities for pre-emptive protests. But demonstrations such as these are not necessarily strategic advances, for the crowds are still relatively small and, more importantly, the message is designed by the far left for consumption by those already in their choir.

In a telling sign of the organizers’ priorities, the cause of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the taxi driver/radical journalist sentenced to death two decades ago for killing a policeman, drew greater attention than the idea that revived and unfettered weapons inspections should occur in Iraq before George W. Bush launches a war. Few of the dozens of speakers, if any, bothered suggesting a policy option regarding Saddam Hussein other than a simplistic leave-Iraq-alone. Jesse Jackson may have been the only major figure to acknowledge Saddam’s brutality, noting that the Iraqi dictator “should be held accountable for his crimes.” What to do about Iraq? Most speakers had nothing to say about that. Instead, the Washington rally was a pander fest for the hard left.

If public-opinion polls are correct, 33 percent to 40 percent of the public opposes an Iraq war; even more are against a unilateral action. This means the burgeoning anti-war movement has a large recruiting pool, yet the demo was not intended to persuade doubters. Nor did it speak to Americans who oppose the war but who don’t consider the United States a force of unequaled imperialist evil and who don’t yearn to smash global capitalism.

This was no accident, for the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s “socialist system,” which, according to the party’s newspaper, has kept North Korea “from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.” The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, “Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials — including spokesperson Brian Becker — are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.

The IAC, another WWP offshoot, was a key partner with ANSWER in promoting the protest. It was founded by Ramsey Clark, attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. For years, Clark has been on a bizarre political odyssey, much of the time in sync with the Workers World Party. As an attorney, he has represented Lyndon LaRouche, the leader of a political cult. He has defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was accused of participating in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Clark is also a member of the International Committee To Defend Slobodan Milosevic. The international war-crimes tribunal, he explains, “is war by other means” — that is, a tool of the West to crush those who stand in the way of U.S. imperialism, like Milosevic. A critic of the ongoing sanctions against Iraq, Clark has appeared on talking-head shows and refused to concede any wrongdoing on Saddam’s part. There is no reason to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “After 12 years of brutalization with sanctions and bombing they’d like to be a country again. They’d like to have sovereignty again. They’d like to be left alone.”

It is not redbaiting to note the WWP’s not-too-hidden hand in the nascent anti-war movement. It explains the tone and message of Saturday’s rally. Take the question of inspections. According to Workers World, at a party conference in September, Sara Flounders, a WWP activist, reported war opponents were using the slogan “inspections, not war.” Flounders, the paper says, “pointed out that ‘inspections ARE war’ in another form,” and that she had “prepared party activists to struggle within the movement on this question.” Translation: The WWP would do whatever it could to smother the “inspections, not war” cry. Inspections-before-invasion is an effective argument against the dash to war. But it conflicts with WWP support for opponents of U.S. imperialism. At the Washington event, the WWP succeeded in blocking out that line — while promoting anti-war messages more simpatico with its dogma.

WWP shaped the demonstration’s content by loading the speakers’ list with its own people. None, though, were identified as belonging to the WWP. Larry Holmes, who emceed much of the rally from a stage dominated by ANSWER posters, was introduced as a representative of the ANSWER Steering Committee and the International Action Center. The audience was not told that he is also a member of the secretariat of the Workers World Party. When Leslie Feinberg spoke and accused Bush of concocting a war to cover up “the capitalist economic crisis,” she informed the crowd that she is “a Jewish revolutionary” dedicated to the “fight against Zionism.” When I asked her what groups she worked with, she replied that she was a “lesbian-gay-bi-transgender movement activist.” Yet a May issue of Workers World describes Feinberg as a “lesbian and transgendered communist and a managing editor of Workers World.” The WWP’s Sara Flounders, who urged the crowd to resist “colonial subjugation,” was presented as an IAC rep. Shortly after she spoke, Holmes introduced one of the event’s big-name speakers: Ramsey Clark. He declared that the Bush administration aims to “end the idea of individual freedom.”

Most of the protesters, I assume, were oblivious to the WWP’s role in the event. They merely wanted to gather with other foes of the war and express their collective opposition. They waved signs (“We need an Axis of Sanity,” “Draft Perle,” “Collateral Damage = Civilian Deaths,” “**** Bush”). They cheered on rappers who sang, “No blood for oil.” They laughed when Medea Benjamin, the head of Global Exchange, said, “We need to stop the testosterone-poisoning of our globe.” They filled red ANSWER donation buckets with coins and bills. But how might they have reacted if Holmes and his comrades had asked them to stand with Saddam, Milosevic and Kim? Or to oppose further inspections in Iraq?

One man in the crowd was wise to the behind-the-scenes politics. When Brian Becker, a WWP member introduced (of course) as an ANSWER activist, hit the stage, Paul Donahue, a middle-aged fellow who works with the Thomas Merton Peace and Social Justice Center in Pittsburgh, shouted, “Stalinist!” Donahue and his colleagues at the Merton Center, upset that WWP activists were in charge of this demonstration, had debated whether to attend. “Some of us tried to convince others to come,” Donahue recalled. “We figured we could dilute the [WWP] part of the message. But in the end most didn’t come. People were saying, ‘They’re Maoists.’ But they’re the only game in town, and I’ve got to admit they’re good organizers. They remembered everything but the Porta-Johns.” Rock singer Patti Smith, though, was not troubled by the organizers. “My main concern now is the anti-war movement,” she said before playing for the crowd. “I’m for a nonpartisan, globalist movement. I don’t care who it is as long as they feel the same.”

The WWP does have the shock troops and talent needed to construct a quasi mass demonstration. But the bodies have to come from elsewhere. So WWPers create fronts and trim their message, and anti-war Americans, who presumably don’t share WWP sentiments, have an opportunity to assemble and register their stand against the war. At the same time, WWP activists, hiding their true colors, gain a forum where thousands of people listen to their exhortations. Is this a good deal — or a dangerous one? Who’s using whom?

“Organizing against the silence is important,” Bob Borosage, executive director of Campaign for America’s Future, a leading progressive policy shop in Washington, said backstage at the rally: “This [rally] is easy to dismiss as the radical fringe, but it holds the potential for a larger movement down the road.” Borosage did add that the WWP “puts a slant on the speakers and that limits the appeal to others. But history shows that protests are organized first by militant, radical fringe parties and then get taken over by more centrist voices as the movement grows. They provide a vessel for people who want to protest.”

That’s the vessel-half-filled view. The other argument is that WWP’s involvement will prevent the anti-war movement from growing. Sure, the commies can rent buses and obtain parade permits, but if they have a say in the message, as they have had, the anti-war movement is going to have a tough time signing up non-lefties. When the organizers tried and failed to play a recorded message from Al-Amin, Lorena Stackpole, a 20-year-old New York University student, said, “This is not what I came for.” And an organizer for a non-revolutionary peace group that participated in the event remarked, “The rhetoric here is not useful if we want to expand.” After all, how does urging the release of Cubans accused of committing espionage in the United States — a pet project of the WWP — help draw more people into the anti-war movement? (In a similar reds-take-control situation, the “Not in My Name” campaign — which pushes an anti-war statement signed by scores of prominent and celebrity lefties, including Jane Fonda, Martin Luther King III, Marisa Tomei, Kurt Vonnegut and Oliver Stone — has been directed, in part, by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime Maoist activist and member of the Revolutionary Communist Party.)

Let’s be real: A Washington demonstration involving tens of thousands of people will not yield much political impact — especially when held while Congress is out of town and the relevant legislation has already been rubber-stamped. (The organizers claimed 200,000 showed, but that seemed a pumped-up guesstimate, perhaps three or four times the real number.) The anti-war movement won’t have a chance of applying pressure on the political system unless it becomes much larger and able to squeeze elected officials at home and in Washington.

To reach that stage, the new peace movement will need the involvement of labor unions and churches. That’s where the troops are — in the pews, in the union halls. How probable is it, though, that mainstream churches and unions will join a coalition led by the we-love-North-Korea set? Moreover, is it appropriate for groups and churches that care about human rights and worker rights abroad and at home to make common cause with those who champion socialist tyrants?

At the rally, speaker after speaker declared, “We are the real Americans.” But most “real Americans” do not see a direct connection between Mumia, the Cuban Five and the war against Iraq. Jackson, for one, exclaimed, “This time the silent majority is on our side.” If the goal is to bring the silent majority into the anti-war movement, it’s not going to be achieved by people carrying pictures of Kim Jong-Il — even if they keep them hidden in their wallets.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tony


We have international law on our side. Resolution 1441 promised serious consequences if Iraq fail to abide by the UN resolutions.


I think this would fall under anti-americanism.

First, 1441 did not call for additional action without the approval of the UNSC. Bush couldn't get that approval, so he blew 'em off.

Second, it is not "anti-Americanism" to want us to operate in the world arena as a equal partner with other nations in building a better world. Some of us feel our power should not be brandished as would a bully in a playground.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Second, it is not "anti-Americanism" to want us to operate in the world arena as a equal partner with other nations in building a better world. Some of us feel our power should not be brandished as would a bully in a playground.

There is a difference between not brandishing power "as would a bully in a playground" and not having that power in the first place. The original quote sounded a lot more like the latter.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese


First, 1441 did not call for additional action without the approval of the UNSC. Bush couldn't get that approval, so he blew 'em off.


1441 called for serious consequences if Iraq failed to comply. Iraq did not comply and serious consequences followed.


Second, it is not "anti-Americanism" to want us to operate in the world arena as a equal partner with other nations in building a better world. Some of us feel our power should not be brandished as would a bully in a playground.

We are not equal with other nations, america has more power and influence. So why should we lower ourselves to thier level? Because its the "moral" thing to do? Spare me your ********.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Thanks for giving me something to laugh about today. Can you do one about the bed-wetting "warmongers" next? (Hitler's birthday is April 20, maybe you can do something with that.)

Since you are so keen on hitler, ill let you dig that one up. :D

[DavidJames]

"We are not equal with other nations, america has more power and influence. So why should lower ourselves to thier level? Because its the "moral" thing to do? Spare me your ********."

Spare me your nationalistic arrogance. Oh, and I suggest if you are trying to portray America as so high and mighty you might want to check your spelling first ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



We are not equal with other nations, america has more power and influence. So why should lower ourselves to thier level? Because its the "moral" thing to do? Spare me your ********.

I think there is a big difference between this attitude and that shown by other Americans on this forum, such as Tricky, Headscrather etc.

They clearly love their country, but also are not afraid to question what it is doing.

I love my children, for example, but want them to do the right thing. If they do something wrong, I stand up for them, but I also make sure that they know that if they have done something wrong, what it was they have done wrong, why they should not do it again, and what they should have done instead.

If my son was the biggest kid in his class and a bully, I would not just say 'tough, he's bigger than the rest of you, should he apologise for that'.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"We are not equal with other nations, america has more power and influence. So why should lower ourselves to thier level? Because its the "moral" thing to do? Spare me your ********."

Spare me your nationalistic arrogance. Oh, and I suggest if you are trying to portray America as so high and mighty you might want to check your spelling first ;)

It has nothing to do with nationalism. The simple fact is that america DOES have more power and influence. Why do you want to deny the facts?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


It has nothing to do with nationalism. The simple fact is that america DOES have more power and influence. Why do you want to deny the facts?

No one denies, that. The question is, how should it act. All nations, regardless of their power, have to ask themselves that question.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think there is a big difference between this attitude and that shown by other Americans on this forum, such as Tricky, Headscrather etc.



What attitude? Do you deny the fact that america doesnt have the most power and influence? Why dont you answer the question?

So why should we lower ourselves to thier level? Because its the "moral" thing to do?

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by Tony


One COULD think that, but they would be wrong. Military intervention was successful in promoting democracy in Japan and Germany after ww2.Don't you think that had more to do with the generous and dignified reconstruction plans developed by Marshall and MacArthur? What will define the success or failure of this campaign for history will be what happens in Iraq after Bush declares a military victory.

ANTI ASSASINS

Anti-nazis, etc.

[Tony]

Originally posted by VernorsRush
Don't you think that had more to do with the generous and dignified reconstruction plans developed by Marshall and MacArthur? What will define the success or failure of this campaign for history will be what happens in Iraq after Bush declares a military victory.

I stand somewhat corrected ;) . Yes, you are right, it was the marshall and macauthur plans that helped Japan and Germany achieve a democratic government after the war. But military intervention had to happen before those plans could be implemented.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


I stand somewhat corrected ;) . Yes, you are right, it was the marshall and macauthur plans that helped Japan and Germany achieve a democratic government after the war. But military intervention had to happen before those plans could be implemented.

Japans version of Democracy is quite interesting.

The country has been run, since the parliament was set up by McArthur, by one party only.

This is the Liberal Democratic Party. What is unusual about this institution is that it is neither, Liberal, nor Democratic, nor a Party.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Japans version of Democracy is quite interesting.

The country has been run, since the parliament was set up by McArthur, by one party only.

This is the Liberal Democratic Party. What is unusual about this institution is that it is neither, Liberal, nor Democratic, nor a Party.

That is interesting, are you sure Japan has a democracy? or do they have some other form of government? I remember you were the guy that tried to argue that the US is a democracy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


That is interesting, are you sure Japan has a democracy? or do they have some other form of government? I remember you were the guy that tried to argue that the US is a democracy.

The people get to vote every so often. Only they have never voted out the LDP.

The LDP itself appears to be a democracy within a democracy. it is divided up into factions and leaders, trading favours and loyalty. A big breakthrough was supposed to have been achieved when the new PM was elected. He was supposed to be a new broom, clearing out the accumulated years of internal corruption and patronage. He appears, however, to have run into a brick wall.

And, by my definition, the US is a democracy. No democracy in the world has the 'mob rule' that the framers of the US constitution were so afraid of. All modern democracies have the 'checks and balances' built into their systems to ensure that there is stability as well as change.

The US is just one more democracy that has ensured that there are controls in place. The distinction of it being a 'constitutionally limited republic' appears to be one that only the US sees, serving to help further the myth that the US is somehow 'special' and the
'best'.

As far as I can tell, the rest of the world regards the US as just another democracy, with it's own problems to deal with in working as a democracy. For example, you can't run for president unless you are a wealthy man, voter participation is falling, the requirement that you have to register to vote discourages participation, etc.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


That is interesting, are you sure Japan has a democracy? or do they have some other form of government? I remember you were the guy that tried to argue that the US is a democracy. This has been discussed on several threads - in general I think it was shown that US is or isn't a democracy in just the same way as most European countries. There's not much of a difference.

[DavidJames]

"So why should we lower ourselves to thier level? Because its the "moral" thing to do? Spare me your ********."

This is phrase to which I was specifically responding. The fact that the U.S. is more powerful and influential is clear, the belief that we are "lowering" ourselves if we deal with our world neighbors as equals is arrogant. You disagree, fine. My experience has been that influence can better be gained through helping others understand the value they will derive from your ideas rather than "bullying" them. Perhaps your experience is different.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The people get to vote every so often. Only they have never voted out the LDP.

The LDP itself appears to be a democracy within a democracy. it is divided up into factions and leaders, trading favours and loyalty. A big breakthrough was supposed to have been achieved when the new PM was elected. He was supposed to be a new broom, clearing out the accumulated years of internal corruption and patronage. He appears, however, to have run into a brick wall.



That is interesting. Does it have an adverse effect on the country?

And, by my definition, the US is a democracy.

And by my definition a dog is a cat, but that doesnt make it so.


The US is just one more democracy that has ensured that there are controls in place. The distinction of it being a 'constitutionally limited republic' appears to be one that only the US sees, serving to help further the myth that the US is somehow 'special' and the
'best'.

http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Paranoid?


As far as I can tell, the rest of the world regards the US as just another democracy

The rest of the world is wrong. The US is a Republic.

voter participation is falling,

Voter participation flucuates with time. Its no big deal.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


That is interesting.

And, by my definition, the US is a democracy.

And by my definition a dog is a cat, but that doesnt make it so.


The US is just one more democracy that has ensured that there are controls in place. The distinction of it being a 'constitutionally limited republic' appears to be one that only the US sees, serving to help further the myth that the US is somehow 'special' and the
'best'.

http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Paranoid?


As far as I can tell, the rest of the world regards the US as just another democracy

The rest of the world is wrong. The US is a Republic.

voter participation is falling,

Voter participation flucuates with time. Its no big deal. Tony, it might be good if you explain what is so different between the (constitutions of) the Republic of the US and the Democracies in Europe.

Earlier threads have shown that the systems are very compareable. :confused:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Tony, it might be good if you explain what is so different between the (constitutions of) the Republic of the US and the Democracies in Europe.

Earlier threads have shown that the systems are very compareable. :confused:

Are european countries really democracies?

I dont know much about european governments, but I would assume most of them have a parliament or congress where the population elects representatives to represent them in parliament. If this is true, that would make them republics. Republic of France (http://www.elysee.fr/ang/index.shtm)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


Are european countries really democracies?

I dont know much about european governments, but I would assume most of them have a parliament or congress where the population elects representatives to represent them in parliament. If this is true, that would make them republics. Republic of France (http://www.elysee.fr/ang/index.shtm) You got that right, and by your definition we don't have any/many democracies in the world. I myself see no reason to define a republic as a non-democracy. Democracy means, as far as I recall, that the people rule.

If you argue that the US is not a democracy, would you also argue that the US is not a democratic country? How can we claim to export democracy (e.g. to Iraq) if we're not democratic ourselves? :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Are european countries really democracies?

I dont know much about european governments, but I would assume most of them have a parliament or congress where the population elects representatives to represent them in parliament. If this is true, that would make them republics. Republic of France (http://www.elysee.fr/ang/index.shtm)

Note quite, many of them are still monarchies. These are nominally head of state, but really only have a ceremonial role. Kind of like the Irish President, who has a similar position. The Irish President and American President are two completely different roles.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You got that right, and by your definition we don't have any/many democracies in the world. I myself see no reason to define a republic as a non-democracy. Democracy means, as far as I recall, that the people rule.

If you argue that the US is not a democracy, would you also argue that the US is not a democratic country? How can we claim to export democracy (e.g. to Iraq) if we're not democratic ourselves? :rolleyes:

A fact which I lament, is that the word "democracy" has become a generic term for representative or elected government. So when we say we are going to bring "democracy" to Iraq, we mean we are going to bring representative government.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Note quite, many of them are still monarchies. These are nominally head of state, but really only have a ceremonial role. Kind of like the Irish President, who has a similar position. The Irish President and American President are two completely different roles.

I know that is how it is in England. Which other countries still have a monarch?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


A fact which I lament, is that the word "democracy" has become a generic term for representative or elected government. So when we say we are going to bring "democracy" to Iraq, we mean we are going to bring representative government. That's how the word is used, like it or not.

I've never understood the American need to emphasize that 'we are not a democracy' - unless there is some negative interpretation of 'democracy' compared to 'republic', or if one really thinks that the European way of ruling countries are very different from the American?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


I know that is how it is in England. Which other countries still have a monarch?


The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, The Vatican, Spain

I think that's all of them.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by armageddonman



The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, The Vatican, Spain

I think that's all of them. And as far as I know, if the royal families went on a perpetual holiday in the Seychelles and just stayed there forever, not a single thing would change in those countries except for the tabloids (fewer scandals). Politically, real life, they have no influence.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bjorn
That's how the word is used, like it or not.

I've never understood the American need to emphasize that 'we are not a democracy' - unless there is some negative interpretation of 'democracy' compared to 'republic', or if one really thinks that the European way of ruling countries are very different from the American?

As I said before, my theory is that they have to make out that they are better. When the US constitution was drawn up, that may have been the case. The Australian constitution was modelled on it, for example, (even though Australia is still a Monarchy!).

I think everyone has learned a lot over the past few hundred years, and they are all pretty equal now.

Not that any of them is perfect.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bjorn
And as far as I know, if the royal families went on a perpetual holiday in the Seychelles and just stayed there forever, not a single thing would change in those countries except for the tabloids (fewer scandals). Politically, real life, they have no influence.

I went on holiday in Tasmania recently. One of the Princes from over there is dating a Tasmanian girl, would you believe. This was page one stuff just about every day.

Anyway, I think the film stars are the new royalty now. Not as scandal ridden as Royals, maybe, but there are more of them.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think there is a big difference between this attitude and that shown by other Americans on this forum, such as Tricky, Headscrather etc.

They clearly love their country, but also are not afraid to question what it is doing.

I love my children, for example, but want them to do the right thing. If they do something wrong, I stand up for them, but I also make sure that they know that if they have done something wrong, what it was they have done wrong, why they should not do it again, and what they should have done instead.

If my son was the biggest kid in his class and a bully, I would not just say 'tough, he's bigger than the rest of you, should he apologise for that'.

*clap clap clap*
Unique, that was the best post I have read by you so far - and there have been some goodies among them already.

You are completely right and you just beautifully illustrated the difference between rightful PATRIOTISM and not-so-rightful NATIONALISM, which can get pretty ugly pretty soon, as especially we Germans know for about 65 years now.