|
|||||||||
Posted February 7, 2003
Military People Hate War
I was just browsing through the net when I found this site. I am active duty military and just want to clear a few things up.
First off, most military people hate war. I know personally that I would much rather be home with my pregnant wife than in a foreign land.
I spent 7 months in Afghanistan last year and I'm glad I did. I realized that we do have a purpose there. The local people would continuously thank us for what we were doing. I saw how women and children are treated there. They are never given a chance to make something of themselves because of the government and beliefs of the local people.
On the subject of Iraq: well I think it's senseless, however if my commander in chief sends me there I will go and do my job. Protests outside of military installations occur a lot and they're pretty useless. We don't have any control over whether we go to war or not. I volunteered to protect my country's freedoms and will die for the opportunity for my child to grow up in a place where he doesn't have to worry about terrorism due to religion or any other reason.
I suggest to those who so quickly form an opinion on "war" that they actually research what they preach. There are ideas out there that promote both sides of the fence but you should take both into consideration before forming an opinion. If you look on certain web sites you can actually see videos of Afghani women publicly executed. These pages are set up by the Afghanistan women who are trying to let the world know what really goes on there. All I'm saying is that sometimes there are no other routes to take and military action must be taken. Iraq may be a different story but I guess we all will have to wait and see what my commander in chief decides.
Regarding 'An Iraqi Dissident Speaks Out Against War' by Joe Quandt:
I read with understanding and sympathy the opinions expressed by the Iraqi dissident. My solidarity is with the Iraqi people and my curse to the American political, economic and military leaders.
~ A. Touman, a Canadian Armenian
Regarding 'Free Taki' by Justin Raimondo:
If Justin Raimondo will buttress his call to “Free Taki” with “Free Mumia,” then we may have something. In both cases there has been abuse of state power, driven by the intent to silence inconvenient speech. Mind you, Taki has not yet been charged, and his maximum sentence is two years. Mumia, on the other hand, is on death row.
If we’re going to fight totalitarianism, we may as well start on the home front.
As a fan of your site, I normally agree with most of what Mr. Raimondo says, but his defence of Taki is surely rather excessive?
It is quite simple to say that "West Indians were allowed to immigrate after the war, multiply like flies" but much harder to defend such attitudes, because simply, they are racist! What Taki failed to mention in his article was that the fathers and grandfathers of the minorities born in the UK today were not "allowed to immigrate after the war" but virtually imported here like cattle to help rebuild and maintain a country shattered by 6 years of war. The mistake was not in the immigrants longing for a new and better life, but in the government for bringing people here to carry out such a narrow range of tasks, that once the tasks were no longer there (for example, in the now defunct textile industry), these immigrants had no where to go and nothing to do. Many came here not knowing how to speak English and as far as I know, very little effort, until recently, was made to integrate them in society. Yes, they can sweep our streets, drive out busses and clean out our public toilets, but are they allowed to belong here? No!
~ Neil Lowrie, IPTME, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK
I'm happy to assure Justin Raimondo that speech in Britain hasn't suffered as much correction as he thinks. We can still dissent from the lies being clucked by our own chickenhawks. Why, even journalists at the BBC are now doing it.
Last Sunday, the BBC's top pundits were arrayed on the main news programme, "Panorama", to answer viewers' questions about the war The questions were overwhelmingly antiwar and the pundits' answers were very off-message from the Blair government’s viewpoint. (The programme can be viewed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/panorama/latest.ram – I think your readers will enjoy it).
Of particular
significance was the assessment of the BBC’s weightily pontifical
World Affairs Editor, John Simpson. He said senior members of the Bush
administration had given him different "motives" for the war.
They were (in this order): supporting Israel, gaining access to Iraq's
oil, getting Bush reelected. And those weapons of mass destruction? Simpson
said they were not a "motive" for war. They were, as he delicately
put it, "the justification – if you choose to accept it".
(Simpson has expanded on these comments in a piece on the BBC’s website
at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2688999.stm.)
In other words, the analysis that Justin Raimondo has been so resonantly expounding for many months is now being echoed by the main broadcaster here at Airstrip One.
The BBC is always wary of upsetting the government of the day because the government controls the level of its public funding. On the other hand, the BBC is equally anxious not to allow too much daylight to open up between itself and public opinion. That opinion is now swinging firmly against the war. Hence, I think, the willingness of the BBC to go off-message.
So, Justin, please note: EastEnders isn't the only treat on British telly.
Inspired by Justin Raimondo's column, 'Free Taki':
To:
membersservices@mpa.gov.uk
CC: backtalk@antiwar.com
Mr. Hebert:
I am glad I am living in America so as not to be tempted to take my Constitutionally-owned firearm and pistol whip some sense into you! Please don't contact John Ashcroft and report me for Hate Speech. I prefer the frozen tundra of Pennsylvania to sunny GITMO Cuba!
We may not agree with what Taki wrote but no one has the right to imprison someone for their thoughts. Sounds like England is just a tad more "free" than Iraq.
I was planning a trip back to my old university , Glasgow Caledonian, but I don't want to spend my $ in Blair's socialist state. ...
membersservices@mpa.gov.uk
Subject: Public Order Act
I have heard (in Justin Raimondo’s recent article) that author Taki Theodoracopoulos is being investigated by the “Diversity Directorate” for a violation of the “Public Order Act” based on a complaint from you.
I am an American, and thought that we owed our common law traditions of freedom of the speech and press to England. It appears that any such tradition is extinct. When a complaint can start and investigation and get a person thrown into jail for homophobic or racist speech as defined by the hearer, freedom of expression has been lost. I have lost all respect for Britain based on this incident, and will boycott British goods and urge friends and family to do the same.
In America, we are secure enough to allow even idiots to say what they want, trusting in society to ostracize those who make hateful or hurtful comments (not that Taki did in my opinion, for what it’s worth). It is sad that you all seem to have forgotten that tolerance is not forced acceptance but a change in heart that sees the uniqueness in others (and no “Public Order Act” can engender that in anyone).
~ Mike Croteau,
Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
Regarding 'The Kook Factor' by Justin Raimondo:
Thanks for the article on the Kook factor. As a Christian who earlier in his life was deeply influenced by Dispensationalism, I sympathize with some I consider Christian brethren while recognizing nonetheless the general accuracy of your article.
One comment you made however, I think could be revisited. "And they say Muslims are mired in medievalism." I would argue that Medieval history does have something to say to us. There were plenty of kooks in the Medieval era for sure. But, alongside of the kooks there were plenty of men and women of faith who worked tirelessly for peace and sought to construct civilizations where the acceptance of religious truth was coupled alongside of a growth in understanding of the sciences and reforms in government that would lead hopefully to prosperity and peace.
This was true in both the Christian and Muslim world, although I admit I am far better informed of the Christian world. While much of the Christian world was signing up for the crusades Francis of Assisi was arguing against the crusades and seeking to remind Christians that their faith was best spread by good deeds and following Christ. Thomas Aquinas spent his life seeking to reconcile the knowledge obtained by human experience with that of the Revelation of God, and many Muslims were working for the same purpose. Ideas about "just war" were being hammered out, and are the sort of thing which drives men like Patrick Buchannan to oppose the likely war with Iraq, or should we say the expansion of the sanctions and limited war against Iraq into a full-fledged war of conquest and reconstruction.
My point is that when we accuse someone of acting as if they were Medieval, we obscure that the Medieval era was an era of progress as well as problems. One of the things that motivate modern Dispensationalists and I expect Muslim fundamentalists or Wahabbists is the sensed threat that their faith is irreconcilable to a modern world threatening them. These sort of fears are with the faithful in every era. In the Medieval era, the Crusades were often waged in fear that the Christian world would be overwhelmed by the advancing forces of Islam. But, at the same time men like Aquinas and Francis were convinced that the threats of the modern age could be dealt with theologically and in accordance with revealed truth.
I know that this post is heavily theological in nature, but I am convinced that many of those described by your article are people who feel deeply threatened by the seemingly overwhelming encroachment of modernism on one hand and Islam or anti-Americanism on the other hand. Their understanding of Christianity has become merged with a disappearing American past that was fairly deeply rooted in Christianity. Radicals, whether they be armchair warriors wanting mushroom clouds sent to oppose the infidels of the Islamic world, or Islamists wishing to blow up everything of the great Satan, really share one factor in common. They fear that theologically they cannot answer the difficulties of the present, and must rely on military strength and violence. We can call that a Medieval spirit, but then we fail to see that some great men of the Medieval era were able to lay a foundation for resisting the temptation to believe that the answers of their era were answerable only in terms of military conquest and crusades. That in turn is what is needed to turn kooks into hopeful people willing to put up with some contradictions to their faith.
Sounds like they're pretty desperate. That means you are doing an excellent job.
A link from the phrase "World War IV" in your "Kook factor" piece took me to an article by Paul Craig Roberts that said "Trying to create a small Jewish state in a seas of Muslims was a 20th century mistake. ... Why not recognize the mistake, evacuate the Jews, leave the Muslims to themselves, and focus on saving our own country?"
Evacuate the Jews to where? Not to the USA, it seems, because according to much of the rest of Roberts's article ... we needed a less multiethnic society, and, therefore, less immigration.
While I am no uncritical supporter of Israel, and oppose its occupation of Palestinian lands and oppression of the Palestinians, it is just this kind of thinking that led to the rationale for Zionism in the first place. There is, in fact, no place that welcomes Jews as immigrants, including Mr. Craig's version of America, especially if it meant the entire Israeli population. ...
While I admire and agree with most of your brilliant anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist polemics, this link (and others in the past that have led me to tirades against Abraham Lincoln and his "war of Northern aggression"; and ignorant and lying attacks on Martin Luther King as an inciter of riots and of mutiny by minority soldiers serving in Vietnam, and as a Communist servant of agents of the Soviet Union – all in the supposed cause of "libertarianism") makes me wonder where you stand on issues other than this single one on which we agree. ...
~ Peter Abbott, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Justin Raimondo Replies:
It is clear, at least to me, that Paul Craig Roberts assumed that the destination of most Israelis would be the U.S., which is what I said in my piece on the subject. Obviously, Israeli refugees would have the choice to settle anywhere they pleased.
On the "war of Northern aggression" - merely putting that phrase in ironic quotes is hardly enough to dismiss it as frivolous. The separate States united voluntarily in a Union, and, in doing so, retained the right to opt out of that Union. When the southern states decided to exercise that option, the North attacked: now that's what I call a war of Northern aggression.
I don't know what you are referring to when you talk about a link that accuses MLK of inciting "mutiny" in the armed forces - not that there's anything wrong with that. While I am not a big fan of King's, I have never written or implied that MLK was an "agent of the Soviet Union."
I don't think my ideology is any secret. I'm a libertarian, of the Rothbardian persuasion. I believe in capitalism, individualism, and decentralist localism. Check out my book, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000). Also see Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement (Center for Libertarian Studies, 1996).
Regarding 'Our Reds, and Theirs' by Justin Raimondo:
... "He has also led a crackdown on the 'free' media..."
A crackdown on the media? I suggest you inform yourself on the topic before commenting on it; compared to Poland, the media in the US are as varied as the media in the USSR 20 years ago.
"...and shamelessly feathered his own nest in the commie-kleptocratic tradition."
Nothing new, same as politicians everywhere. ...
"...recentralized the economy, rolled back privatization, increased Polish dependence on Russian energy supplies by canceling a contract with Norway..."
There is nothing wrong with this statement factually, what is wrong with it is what it implies: the Old Days were bad, the East is bad, the West is Good. You have a very simplistic and ignorant view of the issue. What do you know of Polish history? Have you lived there? Do you know the language? Do you understand its politics? (Not that I am an expert.)
People in North America automatically assume that everything was bad about the "communist" system in Eastern Europe. Maybe they should go talk to the people who lived under it, including my cousin's stepfather who was a cofounder of the Solidarity movement and thinks (along with the rest of Poland) that Lech Walesa is an embarrassing idiot. The commies in Poland were no angels but they were nothing compared to the ones in countries like Romania and Bulgaria.
What does re-centralizing the economy and "rolling back" privatization in Poland mean? First off all, it's a joke, no such thing; 75% of Poland's national assets have been sold off to foreigners and the self-interested politicians in Poland are selling more every day, for pennies on the dollar. If the selling off was done to Poles that would be another matter, the wealth would stay in the country, in the hands of people who have an interest (hopefully) in the well-being of their country.
Here is an illustration of what privatization means in the average Pole's life: My sister-in-law (in Poland) works in a company that logs trees and whose finished product is furniture that is sold to pricey stores in Europe. Under "communism" (as defined in Poland at that time, every country was different) this plant provided gainful employment for thousands of people. Now that it is in foreign hands, the company works 24 hours a day in 3 shifts, workers work 6 days a week for 200USD a month. This is how far that money goes: 70USD on average is spent on rent if people don't own their home or apartment, 30USD might go on a bus pass to get to work (gas for cars is more than 3USD per gallon), the rest is left over for food and bills. Forget about clothes and entertainment. The lucky ones might have family in the country that provide them with produce. You go talk to these people and ask them about the new economy. It's easy for a foreigner to say "Oh, it'll be better in 50 years".
On the national level, Poland has nothing but a market to offer to Europe, a market where the consumers are broke. Poland produces (or used to, before factories, ship yards and steel mills were torn down because they were a threat to the competitiveness of western European companies) multitudes of products and is almost self sufficient in everything, but so is almost every other country in Europe and Poland's goods are not needed, save the dill pickles. In order to placate other European countries, Poland imports goods which are available domestically. For Poland (and Europe) to ignore Russia is enormously stupid. Poles are respected in the former Soviet countries, in the western European countries, we are treated like dirt. Poland would be wise to ignore the self-interested advice of the West and stop brooding on the unfortunate past with Russia and build a new future with that country along with the former Soviet republics whose economies are similar to Poland's and have demand for products that Poland could supply. Both countries want to succeed, Europe will never be secure if Russia will be stupidly left out of the loop.
Otherwise, this was an excellent article.
Two
qualms:
First, there's a world of difference between being an unreconstructed
communist and an unreconstructed Stalinist. I'm not endorsing Miller's
past, but you don't produce a shred of evidence to warrant comparing him
or his politics, even in the bad old days, to one of the last century's
greatest tyrants; Anne Applebaum, for her part, never makes the comparison
in her column.
Second, how is Rzeczpospolita Poland's "lone independent newspaper"? What about Gazeta Wyborcza? You can't very well suggest that Miller's government is in bed with Gazeta editor Adam Michnik and that Miller is still the commie whom Michnik so staunchly opposed in the 1980s. It would certainly be strange for a supposedly government-controlled paper to break a major story about government racketeering in connection with work on media monopoly laws, as Gazeta did last December.
Check your facts.
Guernica Covered at UN for Powell Visit
...The UN has covered a tapestry reproduction of Picasso's Guernica for Colin Powell's visit and speech because it gives "too much a mixed message."
To call in protest:
UN phone number...: (212) 963-4475
To email:
United Nations Administration:
inquiries@un.org
webmaster@unhcr.ch
areca@unhcr.ch
unsco@palnet.com
ecu@un.org
coi@un.org
webadmin.hchr@unog.ch
Security council members:
france@un.int
Chinamission_un@fmprc.gov.cn
mexico@un.int
ang-un@angolamissionun.org
chile@un.int
contact@germany-un.org
Pakistan@un.int
spain@spainemb.org
rusun@un.int
usa@un.int
IPRD@mfa.government.bg
syria@un.int
Guinea@un.int
Cameroon@un.int
uk@un.int
~ Susan Bentley, LouisvillePeace.org
Idea from the Boulder Mennonite Church
Here's an idea that might appeal to you. This amazing idea is from the Boulder Mennonite Church: There is a grassroots campaign underway to protest war in Iraq in a simple, but potentially powerful way.
Place 1/2 cup uncooked rice in a small plastic bag (a snack-size bag or sandwich bag work fine). Squeeze out excess air and seal the bag. Wrap it in a piece of paper on which you have written, "If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Please send this rice to the people of Iraq; do not attack them."
Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope (either a letter-sized or padded mailing envelope – both are the same cost to mail) and address them to:
President
George Bush
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Attach $1.06 in postage. (Three 37-cent stamps equal $1.11.) Drop this in the mail.
It is important to act now so that President Bush gets the letters ASAP.
In order for this protest to be effective, there must be hundreds of thousands of such rice deliveries to the White House. We can do this if you each forward this message to your friends and family. There is a positive history of this protest! In the 1950s, Fellowship of Reconciliation began a similar protest, which is credited with influencing President Eisenhower against attacking China. ...
Shame
...Preemptive War will be a sea-change in the history of democracy and in the history of us all. The USA and UK will no doubt attempt to write their own rationalised version of history but this must not be allowed to stick.
What now seems almost inevitable will be a shameful act of preemptive war and it is the shame, which we must make stick, both to events and to the political figures responsible. ... This chapter in history must be wreathed in shame, in perpetuity. Our threat to do so now might also contribute to stopping the war happening.
At the core and soul of this suggestion is the murder or intended murder of Iraqi people by UK and USA forces because they already know that that will be the cost of their action. This adventure must have an historical costume of shame from the outset and be a constant reminder to humankind that killing people in the name of the UN or democracy in an unjustified war is obscene and an affront to civilised humanity.
... The aim of all actions, events and creativity is to ensure that this adventure always carries a label of shame and likewise its authors.
Some Suggestions
Organising events, commemorations etc. designed for the presentation of 'Wreaths of Shame' symbolically to the political instigators; presentation of Honorary Degrees of Shame at Universities with official backing or symbolically by students; prayers in places of worship on the theme of Shame in our public life; poetry of Shame, written, performed and anthologised; articles, plays, story telling, the making of modern myths, all around this common theme; postcards (huge numbers) with images of political figures of Shame. Mass mailing of images of shame to these same political figures; artists interpretation of this moment in history; a website of Shame. Please add ideas as useful, all aimed at 'tagging' the main culprits and terminating political careers and ambitions. This should be directed to make the individuals aware of their personal legacy of this Shame.
Any of the above can be enacted before possible hostilities and essentially on the day war begins, and at intervals during any war and commemorated at intervals at least annually to reinforce a genuine history. It would hold the idea together if someone could design a unifying symbol or brand, to capture the essence of this idea. This idea, if accepted as a tool, could be made widely known on 15th February worldwide (by flyers, speakers at demonstrations and through the web.)
Armbands
In 1969 a case was brought to the Supreme Court dealing with two students of the Des Moines School District who were suspended from school for where in black armbands to protest the war. In the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District case, the Supreme Court ordered that the school had violated the student's freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment.
I am a student from Plano West Senior High, in Plano, TX, USA. Reflecting the case above, fellow students and I have begun to wear armbands in order to protest the war with Iraq. These armbands are white with two black parallel lines, resembling the equal sign. The lines represent peace, for they run side by side and never intersect or conflict with one another. They also represent equality. We are asking people who are against the war to join in this silent protest and wear these armbands. We would be delighted to see more people from around the nation and around the world to wear these symbolic armbands.
Regarding "Ethnic Cleansing: Some Common Reactions" by Ran HaCohen:
HaCohen states: "The expulsion of the Palestinians took place within what can be termed a civil war (a war crime)..."
I question whether expulsion is an appropriate term, but what I'd like to point out is that this "civil war" was started by the Arabs, if they really were expelled (rather than left so the Jews could be dealt with) it is a better fate than what the Jews of 1948 Israel were looking at in the face of pan-Arab aggression.
Ran HaCohen replies:
Even supposing the Arabs started the war, neither moral nor international law allows the side that claims to be attacked to commit war crimes. However, I believe most peoples on earth would resist attempts to take over their country by massive immigration (legal and illegal) and by declaring a state for the sole benefit of the immigrants. Imagine Pakistanis declaring Britain is theirs, immigrating there en masse (legally or not) and establishing a Pakistani State on the island, with native British regarded as second-class citizens at best. Would you also say "the British started a war and it's their fault"?
Regarding "A Chauvinistic Farce" by Nebojsa Malic:
An interesting description of the problem. What do you view as the solution? Are you still hoping for the great proletarian revolt? That is highly unlikely. The mismatch of weapons is too great. You clearly don't want the UN to intervene. Who, then, or what, will close the farce? Who in this day and age can bring an end to thousands of years of sectarian fighting? You? If you wanted that job, you wouldn't be hiding behind a pen in the U.S. The only thing that can end this is the triumphant return of Jesus. If you believe that won't happen, then quit griping about a situation that is unstoppable and unchangeable. Instead, figure out who you want to win, and help them. At least then you will be making a difference.
Nebojsa Malic replies:
I thought my columns were rather precise regarding a solution (not 'the', as unlike the interventionists of all stripes, I do not wish to play God): liberation not just from the Empire, but from Statism, the insane notion that individuals exist to serve the State and not the other way around.
I'm not a Communist to believe in a 'proletarian revolt,' nor am I a Dispensationalist to believe that only the Second Coming will resolve the conflict, which is really not sectarian. I am, however, a libertarian who has seen the imposed solutions fail.
Since my picture is on the page every time, and my name is signed under every article, I would hardly call what I do 'hiding.' But if it be seen as such, then I would rather hide and preach liberty than boldly go and practice tyranny.
Regarding Nate L.'s letter posted February 3:
"I am confused as to why you believe in no war."
The following links might help to clear your confusion : http://www.holocaustforgotten.com, http://www.polandsholocaust.org/intro.html
Regarding "Almost Spot On: The British Critique of American Newspapers" by Christopher Deliso:
One thought comes to mind. The American political system is not based on proportional representation, so it seems we're stuck with the Reps and Dems for the foreseeable future. Could it be the Brits are attempting damage control, by attacking what they see as the worst of two evils?
You guys are true American Heros
Regarding "You Don't Have To Be Brave To Be French" by Christopher Montgomery:
With regard to the last paragraph, over here the White House and Executive Branch are referred to as neo-con occupied territory and not (ROTFL) "quiet practical men of government". Preemptive war risk assessments have a notoriously bad track record. Just ask Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini or even Saddam. The current risk assessment will likely prove to be more wishful thinking as the inevitable unintended consequences start popping up like mushrooms. The first crop has already sprouted in N Korea.
Regarding "Pentagon Moves to Make Nukes 'Usable'" (originally titled "Making Nuclear Bombs 'Usable'"), LA Times:
Isn't it about time to begin thinking about a war crimes lawsuit? The article, "Pentagon Moves to Make Nukes 'Usable'" sounds like a crime under the Nuremberg code. Aggressive war. Crimes against humanity. I'm sure a good lawyer, a Clarence Darrow, could make his case before the world. What do our readers Antiwar.com with some legal expertise think? Where is a stalwart young lawyer with a smooth tongue and a steely nature ready to rage against the war machine? Think of the opportunity to serve mankind while creating a lasting legacy; go ahead – slap a restraining order on these rascals!
Regarding "The Case Weakens, the Plot Thickens" by Alan Bock:
Just say it! Bush lied when he made the link between Saddam and al Qaeda. You could even tell by the little smirk and the sudden direct stare into the camera when he said it. It was like a child who had just discovered that mommy can't read his mind if he looks her directly in the eyes and fibs! This lie will have much graver consequences on the American people then anything Clinton ever did.
Regarding Kenneth Sterling's letter posted January 3:
Funny Kenneth Sterling never mentions Israel's unilateral destruction of Iraq's nuclear power facility in 1981. This was a greater act of aggression than a few SCUD missiles fired into Israel during the Gulf War. Contrary to Sterling's assertion, the Israeli Lobby in the US was the most active group pushing for war in 1990 and today. Israel has repeatedly called for a US war on Iraq. This doesn't sound like noninvolvement to me. The US has been at war with Iraq since 1990, through continuing sanctions that have killed millions of Iraqis and continual bombing to enforce the US-UK (not UN) so-called "no fly" zone.
Bush's war on Iraq has nothing to do with the so-called war on terrorism. There are no links between al Qaeda and Iraq. Iraq is a nation with a nationality and is a legal entity under international law.
Finally, Sterling is as ignorant of World War II as he is of the Middle East history. The Nazis were wrong to invade the USSR but that's hardly proof of a plot to conquer the world. Germany's foreign policy aims going back to the Weimar Republic were for the territorial revisions of the Versailles Treaty. The Nazis added Russia to that because of their anti-communism. The German conquests in west Europe were in response to the UK-French declaration of war. Otherwise it is plain from the Nazi writings their expansionist plans were far to the East. A.J.P. Taylor's The Origins of The Second World War and William Henry Chamberlin's America's Second Crusade are works that Sterling and others can profitably read.
~ Michael P. Hardesty, Oakland, California
Regarding "Growing Up" by Justin Raimondo:
Terrific piece. In the '60s, Workers World and its "youth" group – Youth against War And Fascism – were one of many hard left splinter groups. They were always very tenacious, with a solid core of devoted members. They were talented at positioning themselves within issues but their political power was decidedly limited. I'm surprised at the influence they've acquired and I can't help but wonder if it's been due to the uncertainty of other anti war forces on the left, post 9/11. I'm sure Workers World never paused an instant in their ideological certainty. Amusingly, in the 60's, it was a standing joke that at any large demonstration, you could count on Workers World representatives to jump in front of the crowd, holding aloft a banner with their name at the bottom. So as to look to the media like they were leading the masses.
In the following issue of the party paper (named what else but Workers World) there'd inevitably be a photo with the caption: "Workers World Leads Youths," "Workers and Black Americans in anti-whatever protest."