I knew ANSWER was out there, but this is beyond the pale.

[DealsGapRider]

Just read this on Salon.com:

"According to an ANSWER pamphlet, 'Counter-revolution & Resistance in Iraq,' 'The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.'"

Good grief. In other words, we should not just cheer, but actively support the people who are killing American troops in Iraq.

How could anyone in good conscience march in a protest organized by these goons? Is there a line, ANY line, that anti-war groups can cross and receive the opprobrium of liberals in this country?

[quinnox]

1. LOL

Oh man, this is nuts.

They can't be serious.

This makes me tend to believe a rumor I heard about that group, that behind them were marxists.

[BurtWorm]

13. They are Marxists. It's not a rumor.

They're affiliated with the Workers World Party, a Trotskyist group that supported the Chinese government over the democracy movement there (among other "anti-imperialist" positions). Their reading of history is that the Chinese have taken the appropriate path toward modernization, whereas Russian perestroika and glasnost wound up screwing the Russian people and enriching a handful of criminals. (There is some truth to their reading of Russian history, anyway.)

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

[Mairead]

154. Perestrojka and glasnost' were working fine til the Stalinists

grabbed Gorbachev in their abortive attempt to regain power. Then Yeltsin got lionised for standing up to the already-faltering coup attempt. So when Gorby came back, everyone conspired to make him irrelevant (not least because he would have maintained Russia as a superpower and the proto-PNACers weren't having with that). Regretably, the Russian people, unlike the Venezuelans, helped hand their nation over to the thieves, and they've lost so much to the various groups of thieves and plunderers since that it'll be a long cold road even to get back to where they were pre-coup.

[bearfartinthewoods]

137. it's no rumor

when answer first started organizing the anti-war rallys, i checked out their website to confirm that they shared offices and phone numbers with Workers World Party.

they did. maybe they have changed it since then but more than a year ago, one of the CA offices of WWP and the CA contact of answer was the same number.

[Loonman]

2. Maybe they really are communists

They sound like Jane Fondas to me.

[soupkitchen]

3. They wouldn't be killing American soldiers if American

soldiers weren't there. I think thats the point of the anti-war movement. And what part of that equation don't you understand.

[HFishbine]

5. It's not a matter of misunderstanding

it's a matter of disagreement. Some of us can be opposed to the war and the continued occupation without seeing the killing of our troops as a way to support our beliefs. Got it?

In fact, I'd suggest that those who support killing of American troops as a way to protest our actions in Iraq are terribly misguided. I think those who condone this will find themselves in an extremely miniscule minority of those who oppose the war.

Are you really any better than the war-mongers if you do not condemn killing on all sides, but rather justify killing of those you find greatest fault with? That's not advocating for peace, that's just as distugsting as those who brought us this war.

[quinnox]

8. Misguided is far too kind a word

The proper word for those who would actively support and organize this kind of action against our own troops would fall under the word "treason".

[Stuckinthebush]

6. I think...

That the original poster was presenting the argument that one can be anti-war, but not applaud the death of American soldiers in Iraq.

The ANSWER group (evidently) wants us to actively support those who are killing Americans in Iraq. That is plain nuts. It is possible to condemn our government for sending our soldiers over there and also pray/hope that nothing happens to our soldiers while there. You see, these guys and girls over there are pawns in this administration's war. They have no other choice than to be there. I do not wish harm on them for doing what they have to do. ANSWER's request for us to support the killing of our troops is sick.

[DealsGapRider]

7. That doesn't mean we should be rooting...

...for the people who are killing them.

Are you kidding?

[Terran]

41. I've had this conversation at DU recently

and ran into a *whole bunch* of people who explicitly felt that all the Americans getting killed in Iraq was "worth it" if it helped get rid of Bush next year.

The ANSWER material seems to me to fall into theat same line of thinking. Unacceptable, to me. No way.

Dirk

[Guaranteed]

159. Right on

That's sound judgment.

[WilliamPitt]

19. The part about cheering for the guys killing our guys

is still a little foggy.

[Paschall]

106. Will, I think the subtlety of your remark...

...escaped the original poster. :shrug:

[John_H]

188. I can think of lots of subjects to get publicly cute about

but this is not one.

'The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance'

[bearfartinthewoods]

197. well...unconditional support isn't exactly cheering

but it's waaaay too close for my comfort.

[belle]

62. Understanding it and cheering them on are two very different propositions.

Yeah, I can "understand" it; if I were an Iraqi, I'd almost certainly be cheering them on. But I'm not an Iraqi. I know people who have loved ones in the American Army. Some are or have been in Iraq. And frankly, my cheap sympathy toward the Iraqis would not make a furious Iraqi who'd just lost his family to Americans hate me any less. Nor should it. I've tried to be neutral about ANSWER, but god, they're simplistic, if not downright stupid, if that's the sort of thinking that's typical of them. I suppose they think Mao was all that and a bag of chips too, eh? Jesus.

[Rooktoven]

194. the soldiers are innocent

to wish them harm is, to put it bluntly, evil.

[Terwilliger]

4. We attacked their country

we're supposed to cheer for what's right...the troops shouldn't have been there in the first place

If you don't like people encouraging Iraqi resistance, maybe you could do something...like telling your "moderate" friends that the killing would stop when we did the right thing.

[DealsGapRider]

9. So, the Iraqi "resistance" is "right?"

Does that mean that killing US soldiers in Iraq is the right thing to do?

[radwriter0555]

21. Well, the US supported the Kuwaitis when they were invaded by Hussein...

now, iraq is being invaded by the US.

What's fair, right and proper?

Certainly NOT the actions of OUR own administration in putting our US taxpayer funded soldiers in harms way for their oil co profits, eh?

So which side SHOULD we choose? The RIGHT side or the POWERFUL side?

Might doesn't make right.

Iraqis are RIGHT to oppose and resist US occupation. Therefore, I have to support Iraqis.

[DealsGapRider]

23. At least you're honest enough to admit...

...that you explicitly favor another armed force that is fighting and killing your own countrymen.

I'm sure the families of our service members would be heartened to read your comments!

[Terwilliger]

34. maybe the families of our service members should demand Bush's head...

on a plate

god knows the Democrats aren't capable of that

[Paschall]

97. Radwriter did not "explicitly...

...favor another armed force that is fighting and killing your own countrymen."

She said "I support the Iraqis."

And while we're at it, what "armed force" is that? There is no longer any Iraqi army, except the one we've begrudingly accepted.

[Terwilliger]

32. As opposed to...?

killing Iraqis? Is that the right thing to do?

By the way, when we hear about a US soldier dying every day (not to mention the wounded, because they aren't mentioned), we NEVER hear about the other side of that...about how many Iraqis are dying in proportion to that 1 dead or wounded US soldier. I'd be willing to bet that the ratio is intolerable, but apparently acceptable to people here and elsewhere in our country.

[soupkitchen]

109. Right or wrong you still only have two choices

You can either escalate the war, maybe even Nuke 'em, or get your ass out of there. Although, I should point out to this administration, which seems to be tactically impaired, that it would be in the best interest of our soldiers to get them out of there before you do any Nuking.
Now I guess there is a third chocie, the Administration's present course of action. Which, pretty evidently, is going to cost a lot of American lives. Drip, Drip, Drip, Drip....Only written in the red of Ameircan blood. However, it must be understood that the Administration's present position is essentailly anti-war. Didn't Flight-Suit declare the war, or least major hostilities over, back in May. Which means that the officail role of the Army is only keeping the peace, establishing a democracy. So the Anti-War people should have no problem with the Adminstration's position. We aren't at war. We are now an occupying Army of peace-keepers under attack.
Of course, some might argue that they are against the Bush Administrations policy of having an occuppying Army in Iraq. But that leads to this quandry for all patriots: how can one be against their country occuppying another country without recognizing the invaded companies right to resist. And the truth is, that is one of the lessons forgotten from Viet Nam. You can't be.
So I come back to my first two choices: either kill 'em all and let God sort em out, or get your ass out of there. The third choice is unstatainable. And eventually will rip this country right apart. Just like Viet Nam. For at some point, it will force thinking people to question the moral basis and intellectual consistency of their patriotism. And then what? Anger? Despair? Riot?

[diamond14]

180. USA is already torn apart (pic) American soldiers protesting bush*

policies, with 100,000 other American taxpayers....Washington DC, October 25, 2003

[Dhalgren]

131. From the Iraqi standpoint, yes.

There is plenty of right and wrong in all this, but we are occupying their country! You may regret the loss of American life, but you have to understand the position of the Iraqi people. They are being killed, too, and for no damned good reason.

[Scott Lee]

187. Speaking as an American or an Iraqi who lost their nation?

I'll bet if you are an Iraqi the answer is "yes".

Tell me - if your nation were attacked and invaded, would resistance be the "right" thing to do?

[rogerashton]

10. ANSWER is in fact strongly associated with

the Worker's World Party, a Marx-Lenin-Trotskyist group who broke with the larger Trotskiist group in order that they, the WWP, could support the Soviet invasion of Hungary, which most Trotskiists opposed. (you can't tell the players without a program.)

The fact that this group were the only effective opposition to the invasion is a major indictiment against the "American Left!" But certainly their support of attacks on American troops should be repudiated by everybody.

[Aidoneus]

17. deleted

.

[Selwynn]

90. edit

[durutti]

144. They're Stalinists

Not Trotskyists.

[RichM]

161. This is right. Being descended from a Trotskyist group is not the same

as being "Trotskyist." The WWP is Stalinist (NOT Leninist). They split from the SWP (which was Trotskyist) in 1959.

[BurtWorm]

178. That's even worse!

In my humble opinion.

(But I strongly support the protesters.)

[shimmergal]

182. How can you say that ANSWER was the only effective opposition

to the invasion? If they (or any group) had been EFFECTIVE, it would never have happened.

Now granted, I don't know what could have been done (by the "American Left" or anyone else), short of some other country waving _their_ nuclear threat. But letters to Congresspeople were running 100 to one against the war/invasion, and Bush & Co. still did it. It's my impression they would have done so even without a resolution passed by Congress; in fact certain Admin. players wanted to bypass both this step and taking it to the U.S.

[ma4t]

184. I have to disagree with you

That ANSWER is the leading group in organizing protests is not an indictment of the American Left.

Rather, the fact that so much of the American Left has chosen to participate in events organized by ANSWER is the more stinging indictment. Those who turn out to an event lend support to the organizers, however indirectly, just by their presence. What's next, a massive turnout of the American Left at an anti-war protest sponsored by the Klan?

[HFishbine]

11. Makes me

damn glad I didn't go to the rally this weekend. I'll damn sure avoid ANSWER sponsored events in the future.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. That's my ANSWER as well

Fuck ANSWER. They stand for basically everything I hate about the wacko extremist left and, yes, I have been opposed to the dumbass war in Iraq from the very beginning.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Funny you say that

Since I have always advocated a state for the Palestinians.

[HFishbine]

147. The Point

The point is that the great "muddle" is never going to be pursuaded that the anti-war movement has any legitimacy as long as whacko fringe elements taint the message with a radical view that even most of the peace activists disagree with.

[lostnfound]

143. I agree but it is a shame & I wonder about cointel also..

It's a shame because tying anti-war and anti-racism together is powerful and appropriate (and because "ANSWER" was such a great acronym!).

The left is always at a disadvantage because inclusiveness is part of our position and therefore we are open to a) fringe wackos and 2) infiltration by 'agent provacateurs'. When a left wing group starts to go wacko, there's no way to tell if it's native-grown, or if it's actually a victim of idealistic/naive leadership allowing the group to be shaped into something by an infiltrator in order to cause the group to lose all appeal through advocation of ridiculous positions.

It's happened before.

Which ties into an interesting quote from a Czech writer, Milan Kundera, that I heard today:

The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.

[diamond14]

185. 'shaped by an infiltrator" could easily describe what;'s happened

here on DU, since the highly successful protests on Saturday October 25th in Washington DC...sponsored by a coalition which includes such horrible frightening 'marxists' and 'communists' as the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit...and the Veterans for Peace and frightening 'stalinists' and 'fringe-wackos' as shown in this photo.



IMO, there are now a BIG group on DU trying to pull something similar to what bush*/KKKarl rove do so well....seed some dis-information, have others get on the board and encourage the belief the 'these protestors are KILLING OUR TROOPS!!!!! OMG..OMG...OMG' and then repeat it...and then it's true....

[Tinoire]

193. I'm with you

From having attended many of these marches for the last few decades (my first introduction to them was in Europe), I am highly suspect about the smearing taking place right now to scare people from attending.

These are the same tactics that were used in the 60s and 70s to scare people away from the Vietnam anti-war marches.

Only in America can we scare people by screaming "socialist". Someone PLEASE give me some of those socialist benefits the average worker has in Europe. PLEASE!~

[IrateCitizen]

12. And that sums up why ANSWER is the worst face possible...

for the anti-war movement.

ANSWER is not made up of "Marxists". Marxism is a valuable socioeconomic commentary, despite the slander of those who do not understand the basis of it. ANSWER, OTOH, is more in the "Leninist/Stalinist" mold.

The idea that they are willing to advocate continued violence to advance their campaign is insulting to someone who is anti-war because they don't believe in the effectiveness of institutional violence to solve problems (like myself). To me, it is proof that they view their involvement in the anti-war movement not as a means to prevent war, but rather as a means to further their ideology. In that respect, they are not much different than the ideologues in the Pentagon who are perfectly comfortable with exercising US military force to achieve their immoral ends.

There is a difference between holding up the example of armed resistance as a REASON as to why we should not adopt imperial conquest as a valid foreign policy, opposed to the actual cheering of the resistance. ANSWER obviously does not understand that line.

[jiacinto]

20. We agree on something?

I am no fan of ANSWER either, but for different reasons.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Highly doubtful, Carlos...

Just about the only area of our agreement would be that neither of us are fans of ANSWER. Any analysis beyond that would only result in disagreement.

[jiacinto]

14. I agree with you there

And yet some DUers are all too willing to support these people who want to kill Americans.

[dreissig]

30. Killing Americans

You make it sound like the Americans are just standing around chewing gum while waiting for a bus. The Americans in question have come to steal their country away from them.

How do you feel about shooting a burglar climbing in the window? That's how other countries feel about the American military.

[jiacinto]

100. So you support the killing of Americans then?

Shame on you.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

15. Why why why

is there not an alternative to ANSWER, as far as organizing peace marches? I heard this over and over about them during the marches early in the year, and it certainly discredits our efforts.

We need to organize without ANSWER.

[belle]

75. That's why United for Peace and Justice formed, remember?

They were the ones who organized the really big demonstrations in March. They're not affiliated with ANSWER, although they remained on cordial terms during the "active" war phase, I believe, on the philosophy that they were here at least united against a common front (Bush and the impending war). I don't know where they stand at present, though.

[knight_of_the_star]

146. They organized the rally I was at in SD

They organized a whole boatload of small rallies across the country when ANSWER was busy sucking everyone into their two big ones in DC and SF. My issue with ANSWER is that they are too far left of center and difuse in their objectives to really lead the anti-war/anti-Bush movement. UPJ is jut big about no to war and no to Bush, nothing else. That is probably what helped our rally is that the ONLY things the speakers we had talked about was Bush's lies, the costs of war, and that Bush should be run out of DC on a rail. And the people speaking were just like your average joes. One of them was a vet who was a businessman. My beef with ANSWER is that they have hijacked the anti-war movement to try to use it to push their own objectives which hurt the movement overall.

[Aidoneus]

16. do you ever get the idea..

that you personally are not their target audience?

[jiacinto]

26. Do you support the kiling of American soldiers?

nt

[Aidoneus]

33. do you support the occupation of Iraq

and the killing of Iraqis?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

51. You should be ashamed of yourself also

That's a mighty dirty bit of "putting words into my mouth" that you're going off on.

Am I needed here, or will you just imagine inside your head what I'm saying and keep reacting to that? I could do other things, and leave you here with your fictional version of me to spew at..

[jiacinto]

58. I've seen your posts in the I/P forum

I know what side you're on.

[Aidoneus]

60. Oh, good

At least somebody is reading my work.. with exception to a couple people whose opinions I have come to value greatly, I was under the impression that I was being ignored.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

189. "I know what side you're on. "

The side of peace.What side are you on Carlos?

Oh wait,I've read enough of your posts here in GD to know which side you're on as well.

[dreissig]

53. Bogus Argument

We're coming to take their country away from them, and they're fighting back. We'd certainly do what they're doing if some enemy did the same thing to us. Just imagine America being overrun by hordes of Canadians.

[arcane1]

89. the Iraqi people have EVERY right to defend themselves

and from a purely objective standpoint, the US is the aggressor, the invader, the "bad guy" in this case

do I LIKE THAT? Fuck no I don't, but a fact is a fact. Doesn't mean I'm "cheering" for dead Americans, you can ALL stuff your strawmen you-know-where

it is not easy being objective when your leaders are doing evil things

bring them the hell HOME! :grr:

[jiacinto]

94. It seems like you are

nt

[arcane1]

111. you and your "seems"

try thinking, man. :eyes:

[Brian Sweat]

138. I agree

I understand why the Iraqis are fighting. I think it is wrong when the Bush administration calls them terrorists for fighting, but I don't support them.

[Guaranteed]

156. Alright

But do you support an organization that supports the Iraqi resistance (aka killing Americans?)

[Paschall]

56. Careful how you use the word "enemy," jiacinto

Remember we are the aggressor nation. Or do you doubt that?

[Tyler Durden]

61. What's with you?

OUR people are worth more than YOUR people is the worst form of bigotry justification I've every heard of.

The Germans said they'd kill 10 for 1 in occupied areas. Perhaps you support this?

Geez, Carlos. Everybody is EQUAL, a death equals a death, a life equals a life. What's wrong with that equation?

[jiacinto]

64. I think deaths on both sides are unfortunate

However, it seems like ANSWER supports killing US Troops. And they should be ashamed for it.

[Tyler Durden]

96. As an ex-USN/USMC Medic, I'd be ashamed to be killing Iraqis right now.

Very, very hard to be remotely rah-rah when we are in the wrong here.

My spin? Get out. NOW. Before anyone else gets killed for Halliburton (on EITHER side) and take our lumps in the international community for being idiots and assholes, which we get to take the rap for, Bush not being STOPPED by us.

[diamond14]

174. Thank-you Tyler....some DU posters should be ashamed of this

blatant display by wrong-wingers to demolish the impact of the BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW ! American Patriots...I stood with the Veterans at the March....my cousin was killed in Vietnam (HM3 medic) silver star (for valor) purple heart 19 years old, my dad fought in WW11, my uncle fought in Korea, still has shrapnel in him...all these criticizers and whiners could have got up from their TV's and stood with OUR Veterans on Saturday too....

BRING THEM HOME NOW !!

[BurtWorm]

175. Your mind could stand to be a little more open, in my opinion.

You've been very prolific at accusing people who essentially agree with you of creating the seeds for violence against protest. You should be a little more careful with your words and not let your emotions get the best of you. Self-righteousness is very unbecoming and not conducive to constructive dialogue.

[diamond14]

186. more Kent State re-load....creating the conditions for another

shooting of protestors by calling them 'communists' 'Marxists''twits' 'need to have your mind opened' 'you should be careful....." anti-war protestors are 'not conducive to contructive dialogue"....

it makes it a lot easier for the police to shoot when they feel like you do...these are just people who need their minds opened...they are communists, marxists, they are not 'careful with their words'...not saying the 'correct' words....and then...for 15 seconds....the nervous National Guard pulled the trigger....

here...these people faced many more police on Saturday in DC, heavily armed, on rooftops and lining all the streets...maybe now those police will know what you have succinctly told them on other threads...that we
are 'communists' 'marxists' 'radicals' 'fringe' 'need our minds open' are not 'careful what we say' and then they do it with bullets....

[bearfartinthewoods]

172. Carlos, you are forgetting ANSWER's first name

International.....American lives or interests hold no special attraction on bond with them. if you keep that in mind, the picture is much clearer.

[Mairead]

160. Carlos, which would you value more

an American killer, or the Iraqi shopkeeper he kills? Hmmmmmm?

[jiacinto]

176. I support the troops

That's what matters to me.

[IrateCitizen]

183. Worthless, blind jingoism -- the last refuge of scoundrels and fascists

Mairead asked you a very specific, pointed question. Your answer is a complete non-answer.

"Supporting the troops" is a statement of complete nonsense, unless you are willing to take the time to define it. Once again, I wonder if your true "Heartland Red" colors are peeking through.... :shrug:

[Forkboy]

190. well rah rah rah for you

where's your waving flag and amber waves of grain pic?

[DrGonzoLives]

57. I certainly don't

But neither do I support Iraqi guerillas killing our troops, nor will I support anyone who thinks that is a good thing.

Now, are you going to answer the question posed to you? Do you supports the killing of American troops?

[jiacinto]

59. No I don't

nt

[Brian Sweat]

129. I am opposed to killing on both sides.

I think the invasion was wrong, but I do not support the Iraqis.

[leftofthedial]

18. I can't support the killing of our troops or anyone else

we should get out of Iraq. We are making the situation WORSE day by day. We eventually will have to leave and the magnitude of the ensuing bloodbath just gets bigger every day we wait.

BUT . . .

The fact that ANSWER are MArxists is a GOOD thing. A very GOOD thing.

[Kamika]

22. i dont want our soldiers to die.

But if I am to follow my conscience I must support ANY people/country that fights back occupiers.

[dreissig]

24. World Citizens

I don't feel obliged to root for the American "team". In fact I think the idea is unsophisticated. It reminds me of high school football.

[Guaranteed]

157. Yeah that's

not gonna fly. The groupings have been made (including the Iraqi resistance group). You can't just deny them.

[Loonman]

28. Well, if anyone wants to support Iraqi resistance

Get a rifle and go over there.


Otherwise, yer a filthy fucking traitor.

[Kamika]

31. just what makes them a traitor

So unless you support us occupying another country you're a traitor? is that all?

I support any country/people that tries to liberate themselves. I know for sure id be killing anyone that would invade the US.


Don't you think its hypocrisy to say stuff like.. "I think people should have a right to free themselves of their occupiers except when it's us that occupies.

[Loonman]

36. Hey, I'm just making sure I'm on the right side

The side that supports killing Americans is not that side.

[Kamika]

38. ok

So what if those Americans that gets killed aren't on the right side?


Here's a question for you.

If an American in lets say Thailand kills someone is it unpatriotic to arrest him or maybe even stop him if you're American?

[arcane1]

93. exactly- the way I see it, I love my Dad a lot... a LOT

but if he were to go out and try to, for example, abduct and violently rape a woman, I would HOPE LIKE HELL that she kicks his ass and gets away safely

does that mean I hate my Dad? Does that mean I WANT my Dad to get beaten up and arrested?

only the feeble-minded could say "yes" to that

I don't see the situation in Iraq any differently. I don't want anyone dead, but we (the US) are on the side of evil this time. It sucks, big-time

[jiacinto]

80. I feel the same way

Good post.

[LeahMira]

117. Really???

Get a rifle and go over there. Otherwise, yer a filthy fucking traitor.

And your point of view would be better served if you managed to keep a civil and respectful tongue in your head.

I understand your message and you may be right to be concerned, but I'm sorry... I can't talk with you now.

[jiacinto]

29. Shame on those who support the killing of Americans

Those who do disgust me.

[dreissig]

37. Killing of Burglars

A burglar coming in the window does not have the same rights as a guy innocently waiting for a bus on a street corner. Go to the dresser drawer, take out the .357 Magnum. Point, aim, and shoot.

That's how the Iraqis see it. Wouldn't you?

[Loonman]

40. The combat arena doesn't allow circumspection

Or as much as we'd like.

If a guy is shooting a .50 Cal at your position, does it really matter what his motivation is?

You're still just as dead if you get hit.

[dreissig]

45. Circumspection

I support circumspection. I'm all for it.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

52. When have I said anything at all?

I don't suppose I'm needed here, you're carrying on this conversation with me just fine all by yourself..

[Tyler Durden]

46. How about people who don't support killing ANYONE?

No troops kill Iraqis, No Iraqis kill troops, No Israelis kill Palestinians, no Palestninians kill Israelis, No Rwandans kill Congolese.....

We can keep this up. Even if you're a fundamentalist Christian, the incitement is TO NOT KILL ANYONE.

And if you want to look for the moral upside in Iraq, frankly, it ain't us. And that is NOT supporting killing US troops.

[jiacinto]

54. That's different

But some people here seem to support the killing of US troops. And that's wrong.

[dreissig]

76. Some Support Liberation Movements

Support for liberation movements isn't support for killing Americans per se. You are removing from the equation the critical factor of what the Americans are doing. It's like saying that killing a burglar coming in the window is same as killing a guy smoking a cigarette at a bus stop.

[arcane1]

95. well, at least you're using the word "seem" now

good start

[Paschall]

101. Who here "supports the killing of US troops"?

You've got all their posts in front of you. Name names, Carlos. And be specific damn it!

[arcane1]

114. he "seems" quite pro-war to me

I guess wanting the troops to leave Iraq is the same as wanting them killed, if un-reason is the rule...

[jiacinto]

115. Easy

Anyone who defends ANSWER. By defening ANSWER they are defending their beliefs.

[arcane1]

121. so, you think invading and occupying Iraq was a good thing?

the right thing to do? Shock and awe was ok too?

is the US on the side of righteousness and goodness in Iraq?

seems like you feel that way

[Paschall]

122. That's chickenshit, jiacinto

Answer my question.

Who here has specifically supported the killing of US troops?

Or are you just gonna give me your usual Likudnik chain-jerk again?

[jiacinto]

128. I've given you my answer

nt

[IrateCitizen]

136. So, I guess you are content to settle with "chickenshit"?

It seems like that is what you are saying.

[Terwilliger]

47. Shame on anyone who institutes killing...SHAME ON THE UNITED STATES

SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dreissig]

65. Supporting the Wehrmacht

Can you imagine a German, during World War II, not supporting the German army? But those soldiers were loyal to Hitler. They took his orders and did his bidding. Is there a way to separate Hitler from the Wehrmacht? Probably not.

[kimchi]

162. Shame on those who support the killing of Iraqis.

Those who do disgust me.

It isn't treasonous to suggest that Iraq is being occupied--and that a country being decimated has the RIGHT to attempt to oust the occupiers.

That being said, it is SAD and WRONG that my country is the one at fault for bombing/maiming/killing/starving them. I wish no one had to die. But Americans lives are NOT more important than Iraqi lives. The exception, of course, is if they are your loved ones.

I do not condone war, killing, or violence except in self defense. I believe this occupation satisfies that requirement.

One world, Jiacinto. If the shoe were on the other foot I would damn sure be attempting to repel the invaders with every fibre of my being. I can't look down on the Iraqis for doing the same, and I can't look down on the good soldiers who are following bad orders.

Bring them home NOW and let the UN help the Iraqis. Our presence is counterproductive and a waste of lives on all sides.

[jiacinto]

201. I don't support the killing of Iraqis

Howver, I will not defend those who support killing Americans.

[Paschall]

35. Looking at it logically...

'The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.'

Was the invasion an act of colonization? To cite only a few facts: According to some estimates, we may be in Iraq for 30 years; Shrub has, by executive order, seized the revenus generated from Iraqi oil; the "governing authority" has authorized foreign multinationals the right to obtain 100% holdings in Iraqi enterprises. Sounds like colonization to me.

That being given, does a colonized people have a right to resist? Uh, the answer to that seems pretty clear.

This, unfortunately, is the Moral Quagmire in which Shrub has entangled us. I'm not cheering for anyone's death. But the anti-colonial movement which liberated North Africa, for example, also meant that ordinary French citizens sympathetic to North African independence bombed sites belonging to the colonial authority--meaning the French government--within France itself. This happened only 40 years ago.

Has no one seen where we've been and where we're going? Why does this shock you?

[dreissig]

42. A Burglar in the Window

The Iraqis see the Americans the way a homeowner sees a burglar coming in the window. When we say Support the Troops we can't be indifferent to what the troops are up to - taking somebody's country away from them.

[Uzybone]

44. to hell with that

Im not giving support to Iraqi militia. US troops should leave Iraq now and let the UN take over. But no fucking way will I support attacks against US troops.....just like didnt support US invasion.

[LittleApple81]

48. What we need is TO GET ORGANIZED ourselves. They had the

enthusiasm to do this demonstration. I did not know about their "creed" but was glad to see the protest. So where is OUR protest group?

[Kamika]

55. We don't have any

We're too busy bickering about whos candidate has the biggest p*enis and complaining about the ones that actually protest.

[incapsulated]

49. It's one thing...

to understand why people would want to kill our troops.

It is quite another to root them on.

Especially when we have no idea who the fuck these brave "resistance fighters" are. Could they be ordinary Iraqis who want us out? Sure. They could also be Saudi fundamentalists, Saddams old crew or al-Qaida. Either way, they could care less how many innocent Iraqi bystanders they kill and maime, while fighting for their "freedom".

Pot meet kettle.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. How could anyone in good conscience support the war?

There would be no resistance aimed at our troops if there were no war.

[dreissig]

67. High School Football

You have to go to the pep rally even if you don't give a damn whether the Spartans beat the Cavaliers. Support your team!!

[Paschall]

81. The fact that we all agree it is a "resistance movement"...

...is quite telling in itself.

Where is the "enemy?" Oh, right, Mission Accomplished.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

85. What is the difference between a moderate liberal supporting Answer

and a moderate Republican supporting the NEOCONS? :shrug: It seems like we have two groups of usually reasonable people supporting extremists. I like irony.....

[Paschall]

99. I don't think moderate liberals support ANSWER

At least I certainly don't think that everyone who showed up at the demos is specifically supportive of ANSWER.

It was a demonstration of coalitions, where moderate liberals had their place--and I'm glad they raised their voices there along with the rest.

[Q]

66. So then...you're defending the premise of your argument...

...by using terms like "in other words' and 'apparently'?

- The 'Iraqi Resistance' is comprised of about every Iraqi in the country. No one there wants an American occupation.

[incapsulated]

68. Really?

"The 'Iraqi Resistance' is comprised of about every Iraqi in the country. No one there wants an American occupation."

What do you base the sweeping statement on?

[Kamika]

69. put yourself in their shoes

Or just imagine Iraq occupying us.

You think someone WOULDN'T agree with the resistance??


I'm sure that most Iraquis want the US out some just wantsit, some actually acts on it. To say that they want us is ludicrous. What country WANTS their occupiers to stay??

[incapsulated]

82. There are plenty of Iraqis

Who are frightened of the country ripping itself apart or being overtaken by southern fundamentalists if we simply pull out with no government in place.

Of course they don't want to be occupied. But they don't want civil war and a bloodbath either.

What we are *not* doing is helping to get Iraq somewhat stable with it's own government in place. Bush and company refuse to let the UN help set up a government and refuse to let go of control. So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Leave, and let the country descend into chaos, stay but refuse to share any power and fight a unwinnable war.

[dreissig]

86. Not Chaos

Iraq won't necessarily descend into chaos if Americans leave. Saddam will return to power and proclaim a great victory.

[bearfartinthewoods]

173. if every iraqi wanted us gone, we'd be gone

unlike here, in iraq, a lot of people view the war as a liberation, not a burglary. by the only guage we have, it's something like 70% want US forces in their country, at least for now.

[charlie]

177. Wait until January

when Bremer cuts off the free staple food distribution, because he's deemed it a "dangerously socialist" undertaking. I doubt we'll be charting high then.

This article on how the Bushies are jiggering Iraqi poll results might interest you:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=33984&d=22&m=10&y=2003

Edit: posted wrong link leftover from another thread, sorry!

[DealsGapRider]

72. Not true.

"The 'Iraqi Resistance' is comprised of about every Iraqi in the country. No one there wants an American occupation."

I can't speak for the majority opinion in Iraq, but I think it's silly to suggest that every single Iraqi opposes the presence of American forces. Some do, some do not. Some were tickled pink when we rolled in and overthrew Saddam, some were outraged and took up arms. There's no single, monolithic sentiment that is uniform among Iraqis with regard to the occupation.

[belle]

79. I expect most of them just want to live their lives, same as we do.

But hey, anyone who feels so strongly about the necessity of killing the Enemy, whether you're a flag-waving freeper uberpatriot or a right-on "revolutionary," the solution remains the same: pick up a gun, get on a plane or a boat, and put your money where your damn mouth is. Seriously. John Walker Lindh was repulsive, but at least he was consistent. If you think violence is necessary, then at least have the good grace to put your own ass on the line. Otherwise, you're just another blowhard letting real live people get maimed and killed so that they can live out your romantic violent fantasies by proxy.

[Kamika]

88. You know..

By your reasoning you have to go help our soldiers

[dreissig]

83. Straw Man Argument

Nobody is arguing that every single Iraqi opposes the American occupation. But it's probably true that the Iraqi people in general want the Americans to leave.

[DealsGapRider]

87. Q is...

"The 'Iraqi Resistance' is comprised of about every Iraqi in the country. No one there wants an American occupation."

All I was point out is that some -- perhaps not a majority, I have no idea, but some -- support the US occupation.

It's not Bush propaganda to suggest that SOME Iraqis are pleased to see the Americans over there, even if they're in the minority.

[Q]

102. It's irresponsible to suggest that supporting the 'Iraqi Resistance'...

...is the same thing as supporting the death of Americans. It doesn't follow that one necessarily leads to the other.

- You're doing a disservice to this country and a service to the Bushies by using a broad brush to paint all war protestors as somehow connected with those who want to see harm come to troops.

- And yes...it IS Bush* propaganda to suggest ANY country welcomes an occupation.

[John_Shadows_1]

71. Ditto on that one...

... hello, "Kill Americans for Iraqi freedom", good-bye "legitimacy".

[_NorCal_D_]

74. I find it disgusting.

It's one thing to be against the war. It's another thing to advocate violence against our troops.

[dreissig]

78. Defending One's Country From Invasion

The Iraqis are defending their country from American invaders. If America were invaded, wouldn't you defend America? Why would you deny another people the right to defend their country?

[Malva Zebrina]

105. Know the waters you are diving into

I tried to say that in one of my posts yesterday and some nice person told me if I did not like it, to start my own protest with the ladies sewing circle--LOL--which actually gave me an idea for the next protest I attend in my little small town--so thanks to whoever it was that said that-

-I can understand that it is envigorating to protest, meet new friends etc. but I think that by being there, one is giving tacit consent to the agendas they are listening to through the speakers and that included free Mumia and a lot of other pet causes that had little to do with the occupation of Iraq and which a whole lot of people have no real information on in order to make any decision, one way or the other. Why would they stand there and clap for the cause if they are ignorant as to it's agenda? If they are aware of the agenda, then I would assume they are complicit and approving and standing there clapping because they agree that Mumia needs to be freed, or that such and such needs to be done in the Phillipines or Columbia or whatever. Anyone who decides against approving of initiatives such as that mentioned in this pamphlet, may be better off not attending an A.N.S.W.E.R rally for their own sense of integrity--some would not care, believing any protest that can garner in large numbers is better than nothing, and I do not make a judgement on them--but if the outcome is, as pointed out, not effective because it turns as many people off as on, then I ask myself, what good can those numbers mean?.

Staying away from any organized protests by A.N.S.W.E.R. does NOT make anyone traitors or enemies on DU however! Some here may be charged up to support it all, but others are not so willing to take the plunge without knowing a thing about any of the groups that were there speaking for their cause and not for protesting the occupation. Another truth is that almost all the speakers for all of those peripheral, or perhaps they were main, causes were strident, screeching and screaming into the mike--that turned off a lot of people who caught the protest on C Span also. And yes, the rap group was unintelligible to me--sorry that is the my raw truth--please do not accuse me of racism again.

Too bad so many people were so sensitive to any criticism at all of this protest, which appeared to approach the definition of "sacred" to them -and it could not be discussed realistically. Rancor ruled and a lot of people were stung by it.

[Q]

107. WAIT a minute...

...it's disgusting the way this thread have evolved into a witch hunt. I've looked on the ANSWER website and watched the rally...nowhere can I find anyone advocating violence against American troops.

- This thread has become a distortion built upon a lie.

[Paschall]

112. A distortion built upon a lie

Like the war. I agree.

Interesting parallel, no?

[David__77]

77. Isn't there non-violent resistance?

There are strikes and other forms for struggle besides with guns. Sadr's people don't seem to be using weapons except in self-defense. The Iraqi people do have a right to control their own country.

[reachout]

84. I just want to point out...

that the people with guns and RPGs are not the only resistance in Iraq. There are people protesting and speaking out and writing (many of whom are having their newspapers shut down by Bremmer and the CPA). There are also people resisting by refusing to use the institutions set up by the CPA and instead creating their own parellel organizations for things like local government. There are people lying down in the streets to prevent US convoys moving around their cities (and keeping a camera rolling to make sure it is documented if Americans decide to just roll over them).

I personally support the resistance and oppose the killing...ALL the killing. I would like to see active non-cooperation by the Iraqis rather than bombs and bullets (it worked against another empire not long ago). See how well the occupation can work when everyday Iraqis simply refuse to do what they're told.


Peace

[Paschall]

91. Correction

The demos were, according to other DUers who attended, only co-organized by ANSWER. The other co-sponsor was United for Peace and Justice.

Perhaps you should address your questions about "liberal opprobrium" to them.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

[Hell Hath No Fury]

133. As a person who is not...

a supporter of many of ANSWERs stands and political philosophies, I'd had a hard time making the decision to march with them in the past. I did sit out a few that were solely sponsored by them, but many of the recent local actions have been umbrella events that I felt totally comfortable going to.

Sometimes I wish to hell there was an alternative, but for right now that is the only game in town, so I march.

As noted by Paschall, this past SF march was co-sponsored by UFPJ, a wonderful collection of groups that include MoveOn, Not in Our Name, Voter Rights, and religious organizations from the Quaker, Mennonite, Buddhist, Catholic and Jewish faiths, as well as assorted traditional leftists groups.

I can live just fine with that.

[Tinoire]

192. Not in Our Name is also being smeared in another thread today

Some poster advocates we cut ourselves off from them immediately and wishes

would be marginalized by the anti-war movement, along with NION.

ANSWER, no matter how much they try to deny it, is controlled by the WWP, which is a wacko Stalinist party. NION is the RCP. Both parties are delusional, and they think that organizing these protests is going to boost their party membership.

It is impossible to have any sort of honest relationship with these people, because they behave like cult members when they attend meetings and such. They're very unpleasant to deal with.

[Selwynn]

92. This is same thinking as "eitehr your with us or with the terrorists."

Its either/or thinking and its very wrong. I both can oppose the Iraq-war and also oppose terrorist attacks and violence inside iraq. I say a lot about how frustrated I am with this country, but I will never - ever - support attacks my own brothers and sisters.

[LoneStarLiberal]

98. They Have Organization Means, Unfortunately

ANSWER leads most of these large rallies because they are one of the very few orgnaizations on the left of the political spectrum that has the experience and resources to organize large protest rallies like this one.

No doubt their pro-North Korea and pro-Iraqi resistance propoganda makes them a Godsend to the right wing. Makes it nice and easy to tar all us "liberals" as dictator-loving, troop-hating wackos.

[Tinoire]

103. Hell yes! Get those soldiers out of there NOW!!!!!!!!!!

I support every people's right to resist colonialization, occupation and the plundering of their country's wealth!


Notice nobody here is complaining about all the aid the French gave Americans when WE were resisting colonialization!

Sheesh.

Yep, it is with a GOOD, CLEAR conscience that this retired military person marches with ANSWER and supports the Iraqi people in their legal resistance to an immoral occupation!

You want to save American troops? Get them the hell out of there!

[jiacinto]

116. I apologize to you

I misread your post and take back what I said.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jiacinto]

125. I misread her post and apologized

nt

[IrateCitizen]

135. Why don't you try reading and COMPREHENDING next time

before responding? That way, you won't have to make such "retractions".

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jiacinto]

127. Well

I don't support killing Iraqi civilians, but I do take exception and will denounce those who support murdering Americans!

[IrateCitizen]

134. It seems that you support US imperialism and killing of Iraqis

I mean, otherwise why on earth would you be upset about the deaths of US soldiers? I find your view disgusting to be quite honest.

[Tinoire]

191. I didn't see your post

No matter how much we may snarl at each other I know you are sincere in your beliefs and work very hard on behalf of the Democratic Party.
I admire you for sticking by your beliefs no matter how much abuse and grief Leftists like me give you.

We'll just keep snarling and apologizing until the day we finally understand each other. Maybe we can learn from each other in the meantime.

It's all cool. Thank you for apologizing for whatever it was. Something tells me it must have been particularly juicy ;)

[DrWeird]

104. You know what pisses me off?

All of those unpatriotic german civilians who question the fuhrers leadership and then hope that the russians and americans break through.

[DealsGapRider]

108. I like this post from Instapundit:

"Antiwar protesters aren't Communists by definition.

"But A.N.S.W.E.R. and the WWP basically are. (And of the extra-nasty Stalinist variety.)

"Communists are, in my opinion, as bad as Nazis: mass murder, totalitarianism, etc. (And calling them "Marxists" instead doesn't fool anyone.)

"Going to a march organized by Communists doesn't make you a Communist, any more than going to a march organized by Nazis makes you a Nazi.

"But knowingly going to either one makes you icky. And calling it McCarthyism when people point that out, or point out that the Communists really are Communists, makes you either dishonest, or stupid.

"Clear enough?"

[jonnyblitz]

113. quoting right wing bloggers now?

sorry, I was just being icky...

[DealsGapRider]

118. Instapundit is rightwing??

I didn't know that. I always see him being quoted by Calpundit, who is most certainly not rightwing, so I assumed he was on our side.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jonnyblitz]

124. You have never heard of Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit?

wow...notorious right wing blogger heavily criticized by people who monitored pro-war blogs last winter/spring. Do a yahoo and google search and type in Instapundit and read for yourself.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DealsGapRider]

139. Would you get over that comment? I retracted it almost the moment...

...it was posted. I honestly didn't know about Pipes. I apologized immediately. You reference that comment every time I post on DU. Don't you have anything better to do than keep bringing up something that I long ago repudiated?

[charlie]

141. I honestly didn't know about Daniel Pipes

I honestly didn't know about Prof Reynolds.

There's a pattern emerging here.

[jonnyblitz]

140. Daniel Pipes , reason and moderation ?!?!?!?!? LMFAO

NOW I understand.... :crazy:

[ArkDem]

166. Shh!

We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-pikang-zoop-boing-goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv'

Ni

[Paschall]

120. Can you tell me which French, Spanish, British, or Finnish Communists...

...are guilty of mass murder, totalitarianism, etc?

As the facts would have it, French and Spanish Communists helped--in a very large way--defeat Hitler.

But, of course, I guess such niceties get lost under the swath of the broad brush.

[Guaranteed]

153. It's not the Communism part that makes them "icky"

it's the "supporting killing American soldiers" part.
I was passionately against this war. I took massive verbal thrashings from people calling me "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican" before it started, for expressing that feeling.
But I will NOT support anyone who is advocating killing our soldiers. Anyone who does do that is plainly wrong and does deserve such labels as "unpatriotic."

[LeahMira]

110. Right or wrong...

... the Iraqi people who are killing American troops in Iraq believe that they are defending their homeland from invasion and occupation by a foreign force intent upon taking control of their land and disenfranchising them.

They are fighting the U.S. for the same kinds of reasons that the American Indians fought against colonial troops and later the troops of the U.S. government that took land belonging to the tribes and eventually relegated the tribes to a few remote reservations or else eliminated them entirely.

The Iraqi people are seeing nations throughout the world become more and more "Americanized." While there are many good things about our culture, there are many things that are not so good. While I wouldn't insist that a woman cover herself from head to toe with a veil, neither do I think it's all that great that some women are quite as exposed as they are in this country, voluntarily or otherwise. While WalMart is a perfectly good store to shop at from time to time, I see no need for a WalMart every ten miles down the highway, especially when small business are driven away from the area. While Christianity is a fine religion for Christians, I feel that it is a very bad religion for those of us who are not Christians. Et cetera.

Now the Iraqi people may be completely mistaken about the intentions of the United States for their country. The fact is, though, that history is not reassuring on this count.

I'm certain that Iraqis are generally pleased to have Saddam Hussein out of the way, just as I'm certain that as long as he remains at large the Iraqi people are more than a tad nervous about him. I'm also certain that they feel themselves perfectly capable of deciding what sort of government and systems they want for themselves. I think that they do not feel comfortable or confident about the presence of U.S. troops in such large numbers in their country while no other nations are there and the role of the United Nations (in which the Iraqis have some voice) is minimal.

Things take time, but if you have no food, no electricity, even no home left, even one day is too much time to wait. From their point of view, the situation looks pretty bad. I don't want them shooting at U.S. troops, but I can certainly understand why they would. I feel terribly sad both for the Iraqi people and the U.S. troops, and I damn Bush for all that he has done to cause this mess. There were other, better ways to free Iraq from a horrible dictatorship, and I damn those who refused to see them.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

142. You wouldn't happen to have a copy of the alleged "pamphlet"...

...would you? Or possibly a link to the "pamphlet" referenced by Salon.com?

So, tell me...are the pamphlets anything like the ones Oswald was handing out in New Orleans in support of Castro that just happened to have been printed by the CIA?

've Learned a Great Deal"
<http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/14th_Issue/leads_releases.html>

"The 'Crime Against Cuba' pamphlets came from CIA stocks."

[WoodrowFan]

148. Here it is (a link)

from ANSWER's own website, unless you think THAT is a CIA front too. :eyes:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/iraqresist.pdf

[Melinda]

149. Pamphlet:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/pdf/iraqresist.pdf

It's actually a very informative read -- if someone can point out the part calling for death to American troops, I'm sure many here would be appreciative.

[WoodrowFan]

152. the last paragraph

heavily IMPLIES it (unconditional support for Iraqi Resistance) What? that means petitions??

[Melinda]

155. Did you read the pamphlet?

Did you read the history of US and British colonialism and occupation in Iraq within the pamphlet?

Do you contexually know what a "Resistance" is?

[WoodrowFan]

158. Yes I did, did you?

and since I a professional historian I wasn't exactly surprised by any of it, although it would have gottten a poor grade if it were turne din as a paper in my class. But it was quite clear to me, and I suspect it is to most people as well, that unconditional support means, well, UNCONDITIONAL support, not "support for non-voilent action" or "support for a UN take over of rebuilding Iraq" but simple UNCONDITIONAL support which means support for all actions, that includes violence you know....

[Melinda]

165. Errors, Professor.

"although it would have gottten a poor grade if it were turne din as a paper in my class."

Your sentence construction and spelling needs academic attention, sir.

That aside, you are correct that unconditional support means just that - this organization unconditionally supports whatever forms of resistance the Iraqi people choose to assume. However, that is not the same as advocating FOR violence... if it were, many here could not and would not be supportive of our family members in uniform.

The fate of Iraq and its peoples should NOT be determined by the govt of the US or any other world govt, and that is the crux of the pamphlet - not some "implied" advocacy for violence. Resistance takes many forms, not least among them non-violent resistance - think Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Caesar Chavez.

Thomas Paine said it best:

"There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it."

I wonder how many here would deem the founding fathers support for self-rule, their call for arms, and the subsequent Revolutionary War misguided and traitorous as well. The mind boggles. Have a good day, professor.

[Guaranteed]

150. We really need

to distance ourselves from organizations like this. Make sure people know that we do not support this crap.

[sexybomber]

164. absolutely.

They give the rest of the peaceniks a bad name. Just like the ELF gives the rest of the environmentalists a bad name.

Unless a lot of people make it explicitly known that ANSWER doesn't speak for the anti-war movement, a lot of people are going to assume that any anti-war protesters are extremists. And that might turn very, very ugly.

[Jose Diablo]

163. Anti-war hijacked by anti-Americans

It is unacceptable to me the anti-war pro-peace movement is being hijacked by those, that to be blunt, are anti-American in how they think of our troops. Remember these troops are our children marooned in Iraq by *Bush and his cronies.

It is unacceptable that any so called American would want our children killed to make a political point that we do not have any reason to be in Iraq.

To be sure, Iraq should not have been attacked, but our leaders lied, our representatives are gutless cowards more interested in getting re-elected rather that checking the facts. The media went along with the lies because the corporations that own the media have a hidden agenda called 'Israel'.

Nontheless, nuts to "Answers" agenda, if they are advocating our children be killed to make a political point.

I want our troops OUT of Iraq and home where they belong. As far as the Iraqi 'resistance', kill them before they harm our troops. But get our troops home now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

167. Tell me more, tell me more

About the media "hidden agenda" called Israel.

[Dhalgren]

168. I think that anyone who claims to be against the

Iraqi occupation is being either dishonest or is completely clueless if they do not realize that that means that US troops will die. As long as the Bush criminal government keeps these soldiers in Iraq, in their illegal occupation, this means that soliders are going to die. Now, you can say all you want that "I against the occupation", but "support the troops" and you have to know that there is a least some incongruity there. If you are agaisnt the occupation, you must therefore be in favor of the ending of the occupation - that is the same goal as the resistance fighters. People need to grow up and realize that evry US soldier killed in Iraq is own George Bush's head. As far as guilt is concerned, Bush has pulled the trigger or flipped the switch on every American casuality since this war started. The resistance fighters are fighting against Bush, the US military is fighting for him.

[haymaker]

169. It's not at all about ANSWER,

unless you are a right-wing toady. I didn't go to the protests, but have before and will again. ANSWER and their views have absolutely nothing to do with my protest, my views, or anything. The only people that propagate the ANSWER stuff are right-wing toadies. It is their way to discredit the protests.

Don't pay any attention to that man behind the window.

I am sure there are lots of distinct and fringe groups at these protests. I couldn't give a flying fuck about ANSWER, and you shouldn't either.

Have peace of mind in knowing that you are right in what you believe. Do not let the toadies sway you from what you believe. You know why you protest the war.

[Dhalgren]

170. Well said!

You are absolutely right! This is a bullshit, fake, issue!

[qanda]

171. Are all those who resist the US occupation

Shooting at our troops? If not then perhaps you all are going over the deep end. I'm sure that those who marched on Saturday, were not marching to support the murder of US troops-- that's just plain silly. We want the troops to come home. I've seen non-violent demonstrations in Baghdad which called for the troops to leave and I'm sure that is the resistance of which they speak. Also, ANSWER was not the only sponsor of the rally, there was at least one more sponsor and many groups inside of that. Get a grip!

[jonnyblitz]

179. yeah all those vets for peace and military families that were

up there on stage endorsing the rally were advocating the death of their loved ones via the Iraqi Resistance Movement. YUP sure makes sense to me :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[MrPrax]

181. What hypocrites!!

There isn't a single person in this forum that wouldn't take up arms against a foreign and illegal invasion--hell even if a 'quisling' government invited in a foreign power--most would rally and shoot the occupiers.

As Malcolm X said, 'If someone breaking into your house with a gun is a criminal, then you grabbing your gun and running him off, doesn't make YOU a criminal'

I don't like ANSWER...but at least their consistent in whatever garbage they believe...and not confused by the who might be waving the flags...

[prolesunited]

195. Here's my response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=602150

[morgan2]

196. if you truly believe the war is unjust

then wouldn't it be the right thing to do to be on the right side of the battle?

[MSchreader]

198. I am really, REALLY through with this crap

It never fails that, when someone brings up the subject of International ANSWER/Workers World Party, the ignorance just seethes from the overwhelming majority of the posts (and posters). Unless you have worked directly with the WWP, or have researched their history and politics, you have no basis for saying anything. It is best that you follow Twain's admonition about being thought a fool.

If you want to know, ask. If you don't understand, ask. If you want to pontificate, keep it to yourself.

Facts, not rhetoric.

Martin

[brainshrub]

199. Say what you want about ANSWER...

at least they are doing something about the war. Last year while the Democrats were doing Bu$h's bidding by giving him authority to go into Iraq, ANSWER was organizing the opposition.

ANSWER, a radical Marxist organization, is leading the pro-peace movement only because the traditional opposition in this nation has abdicated it's responsibility.

[Rich Hunt]

200. they're not "leading" the pro-peace movement

In every city, there are grass roots activists - activists whose groups and coalitions pre-date ANSWER. People who had coalitions in place before ANSWER.

ANSWER obtains permits and organizes DC rallies. There are lots of anti-war events all over the country, every week and every month.

I know many a life-long peace activist who would not like the notion that ANSWER is their "leader".

[Bridget Burke]

202. What's wrong with "beyond the Pale"?

Do you know the derivation of the phrase?

Hint: It has nothing to do with Tonto's famous remark to the Lone Ranger...