Posted February 17, 2003

Regarding 'Rally Against Fear' by Justin Raimondo:

Again, from South Africa, may I say how much pleasure I get from your columns, which are always informative and thought-provoking. At this moment, Bush and Cabal wouldn't know 'freedom-loving democracy' if it slapped them in the face and yet they claim they're on a divine mission to extend ' freedom' (at gunpoint) to all oil-drenched corners of the earth.

Take heart from South Africans who marched and marched and resisted for years and eventually brought apartheid down through their efforts and emerged with a fine and truly 'freedom-loving' person at the helm – Nelson Mandela. Power to your pen. And happy marching.

~ Margie Vidal, Johannesburg, South Africa

It appears as though the David Corn / Nation spin on the Lerner controversy is not accurate. Mike Albert at Zmag.org points out that Lerner was denied his three minutes by United For Peace and Justice per a prior agreement they had made to not "propose as a speaker anyone who had harshly criticized any of the sponsoring groups." If this is true then it is not the case that ANSWER used their veto to block Lerner and all of the subsequent accusations are groundless. Albert admits that this is what he has been able to piece together from conflicting reports, but it seems a reasonable explanation to me. I wonder if the deathbloggers will have the integrity to post this version of the story.

~ Matt Brown, Boston, Massachusetts

Protest!

I was looking around for Antiwar sites when I came across this site. I am so happy to see so many American against a war with Iraq. I am a military wife and I am against the war. I don't want my husband ... [to] go to war and, yes, possibly die. Bush is making America look bad and before too long not a single country will back us up! What will Bush do then?!

Protest, protest!

~ Heidi W.

Media Boycott

We must organize a boycott of one media outlet and all their sponsors – one at a time. These propaganda organs have to have their stock shorted and their propaganda lies exposed. We must kick them in their bottom lines.

~ Tony Roma

What Kind of Alliance is NATO?

A large portion of the American public expresses their anger at Germany and France's opposition to our president's determination that war with Iraq is now necessary. The French and German opposition to one particular American foreign policy determination is declared a crisis that is breaking up the NATO alliance. Perhaps this is so, but especially we Americans need to reflect on what kind of alliance NATO is, and how often should we expect an enlarged NATO to move with one unanimous voice. It should also be remembered that NATO faced a similar situation many years ago.
In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel attacked Egypt, for the purpose of seizing the Suez Canal. Britain, France, and Israel regarded the Suez Canal as a vital interest of these nations. Despite the fact that Britain and France were members of the NATO alliance, President Eisenhower of the United States condemned the invasion. Britain, France, and Israel ultimately withdrew their forces and Egypt maintained control over the Suez Canal. At that time, it was Britain and France that sought war for the sake of Europe's vital interests. At that time, it was the United States that believed a peaceful solution was needed, even though France and Britain were fellow members of America's most important military alliance.

NATO is an alliance primarily of democratically elected national governments. It was never meant to appear like the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact was composed of governments that recognized that Moscow set policy for the Warsaw Pact nations. NATO, however, was an alliance of democratically elected governments. Our alliance was never meant to be operated under the direction of a single national government. The alliance was meant to be an alliance of nations that desired to cooperate in military defense for the purpose of maintaining the freedom to govern themselves according to their national civilization and the goals arising from that civilization. When NATO nations cannot agree with one another on some very important issues then NATO is doing what it was meant to do, to ensure national freedom and democracy. The suggestion that NATO nations have an obligation to obey the United States and its leadership in foreign policy is a most offensive idea to any freedom loving people within Western civilization. Have Americans decided that they would like to set aside the ideals behind the NATO alliance? Have Americans determined that they wish to lead a Warsaw Pact style alliance that humbly obeys every whim and will of the great leader in Washington D.C.

NATO was always a far more unified alliance when the nations of NATO were focused on a purely defensive alliance ready to wage war against possible aggressors. Whenever nations within the NATO alliance have determined that they needed to attack foreign nations, some nations of the alliance were less than unenthusiastic about such adventures. In 1956 it was the United States that opposed the British and French war parties, in 2003 it is Germany and France that opposes the American determination to invade Iraq.

~ Dan McDonald

Impeach Bush

Another peace solution. View the Articles of Impeachment, drafted by Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Click here: Vote to impeach Bush.

~ Lady Lakin

Ashamed of the Government

I was born in the Netherlands, my parents immigrated when I was 12. The happiest day was when I could change my greencard for an American citizenship paper. As of late I am now living in the Netherlands, so therefore an expat.

I could exchange my papers for Dutch papers, which I could get back, but I am an American! I earned that right! But as of lately I feel ashamed of the government that is leading my country. It is like our everyday people have to supply their sons for a war that is president Bush own personal vendeta. This will be World War III, at the cost of thousands of innocent people. I am ashamed that our government sounds so ignorant.

~ Geraldine Walco

Bush Needs a War

Isn’t it so that George W. needs a war to get real enemies, to justify the enormous defence costs, the war machine and building a police state in the US? A war against Iraq is not only about oil but is also a war against the Muslim and Arab world and will obviously create a lot of potential terrorists – groups and people that want retaliation.

A war against terrorists will be forever lasting and the leader has his enemy, and the American people and others can be frightened forever. Every dictator and conqueror has created his external enemies for his own and his associates interests.

GW Bush has no interest in building a safer world for his own people and the people in the rest of the world. It’s all about the money for the American weapons industry and multinational companies.

~ Stefan G., Sweden

Worldwide Boycott

I would first like to commend you guys and what you are doing to prevent the war with Iraq. I do believe though that just demonstrations alone won't be sufficient to put a stop to a unilateral strike by the US or a bilateral US/UK strike.

I believe that should the US and or the UK decide to start a war without a UN security council resolution, an effective antiwar movement action would be a call for a worldwide boycott on goods and services, complemented with picketing/demonstration of all ports of entries to ensure limited or no movement of goods from the US entering other countries, particularly EU countries. I further believe that this message should be sent out to all the
other antiwar movement groups to get consensus and agreement as to how best to effectively move this idea forward.

~ GB

Regarding "A dove's guide: how to be an honest critic of the war" by Matthew Parris, Times (UK):

"How to be an honest Critic of the War" is without question the best article I have seen come from the ranks of Antiwar.com. I suggest you leave it up for a week or so and make it required reading for all the staff. With the wisdom of this author's words I see a real chance to change the current ratio of 80 to 20 in favor of war. Justin Raimondo and others would do well to adopt this author's style and become less confrontational and more receptive. If this war is to be stopped I submit it will be done when antiwar people open their eyes to the truth and make their arguments based on that only.

~ DB

Note from Webmaster Eric Garris:

We have been having some email server trouble and many of the emails sent to Antiwar.com on February 12, 13 and 14 were lost. (Hopefully this is now resolved.) If you sent us an important email on those dates, please re-send it. If it is nonessential, please let it pass, as we are currently swamped.

Over the past week, we have had our highest traffic ever, currently at about 100,000 page views per day.

Thank you for your continued support and understanding.