Posted February 28, 2003
Reading in Backtalk lately the many interesting and creative alternatives to a wartime documentary future for the rest of our natural lives, I have a modest proposal of my own. Feed them. I propose we load up the equivalent of an army of vehicles loaded with food and move it directly into Iraq and begin feeding anyone who's hungry. And not second-rate handout food either; with the budget we're countenancing for killing people, a fraction should buy true Middle Eastern gourmet feasting for the foreseeable future for all. There might be resistance, but I say full speed ahead force really nice things on them. Let the rest of the world try to demonize that.
I suggest a recall vote on President Bush. Even though it's not in the constitution, I think that such a vote (perhaps via the net) would show exactly how many are for and against Bush.
...I happened to hear a motion on the Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today, to recognize Abraham Lincoln's liberation of slaves via the Civil War. The "honorable gentlemen" went on to praise Mr. Lincoln and his great achievements.
This led me to remember that the primary political objective of the Civil War was actually to secure the natural resources of the South for the northern industrialists. There have been many historically accurate books written on this subject, though this fact has never been recognized by the "establishment" and therefore is not generally a part of the knowledge base of most Americans.
I also note that the descendants of "carpetbaggers" still own much of the land and natural resources of the South and are thereby still profiting from Mr. Lincoln's "freeing of the slaves."
Over one hundred and forty years later, George W. Bush is about to strike a blow against slavery (and terrorism) by launching a war against Iraq. The fact that this "liberation" of the slaves of Iraq will also allow Bush and Company to exploit the vast oil reserves of that once sovereign nation is, of course, coincidental.
When will we finally learn that greed, and only greed, is the driving force behind wars of conquest? Maybe "we" never will.
Regarding Jefferson P. Carter's letter posted February 25:
Since I spend much of my time and efforts in strong opposition to the pending war with Iraq and the Bush administration's policies in general, I sometimes need a good laugh to help me wind down. Thanks to Mr. Jefferson P. Carter I got that laugh. His reply in the Anti-Protesters section, was a sadly hilarious example of the (dare I say) typical uninformed pro-war citizen. By that I mean have you noticed that without any real facts to back up their position they resort to YELLING as if that gives validity to their point of view. Well I've noticed it and I find it funny, although I wish they would get the basics right. Talk about 9/11 OK, talk about Saddam OK, lump them together and they don't know what they're talking about. But all in all it comes down to one thing. To attack first is to be the aggressor and that is wrong. Thanks for being part of Antiwar.com. You've helped me find ammunition for my war against war. And I mean that!
Regarding Eric Garris's reply to Tina Heidrich's letter posted February 25:
How can you be a Republican? Good God, the Republicans are nuts, dangerously stupid and greedy. Dubya is dumb as a brick and an unelected illegal President. He might as well be Captain Ahab, and Saddam Moby Dick. How can a Republican do justice to beat the pinhead President?
Regarding "Buying War Allies and 'Friends' with Foreign Aid" by Rep. Ron Paul:
Thank you for telling it like it is. I am sick to death of W's zealousness to spend taxpayer's money to line his and his cronies' pockets with this ridiculous war mongering.
Of course! Buying war allies is little different than the practice of the Mafia buying off police departments and local politicians so they can invade cities and carry out their criminal agenda. And where does the Mafia get its money to buy off the police? Why, from its constituency, the same place the government gets its money to buy allies and friends.
Good old Scrooge McDuck. The worlds wealthiest country is dead last amongst the developed nations of the world when it comes to handing out some odd change to the poorest nations (and what is more the cash has strings attached), and this scumbag crooked politician has the audacity to whinge and complain that Uncle Sam is paying too much? The gall, the sheer arrogance!
No wonder the Yanks are so bloody hated in this world!
Regarding "The New Leninism" by Chad Nagle:
Excuse me for failing to follow the arguments of Mr. Nagle. Nagle ... seems to claim that to overcome a Leninist enemy one must be able to think like a Leninist enemy. That may or may not be true.
Nagle also seems to claim that anyone who can think like a Leninist will necessarily fall under the spell of Leninism and surrender any principles or morals which would impede worship of Lenin.
I consider it possible that an anti-Leninist might subscribe to some system of thought which has the following two properties:
a) it anticipates
the maneuvers of Leninist enemies;
Until Nagle can demonstrate that no system exists with properties (a) and (b), I will remain unconvinced.
No Double Standard
Just want to ask you a few questions: Is Antiwar.com really antiwar? Do you oppose to each and every war? Did you oppose when US and its allies attacked Serbia? If you do, then you really believe in the world that is free of war. But if you didn't then you are just the same as those antiwar protesters who only oppose war when it affects them. From what I see, most antiwar protesters are from Western countries which are afraid of being labeled racist. I remember that when Serbia was attacked, I didn't see such huge antiwar rallies. Do you mean that, innocent children won't die if a Christian country is attacked? Or do you feel less racist if your fellow European is attacked? I am a non-Muslim born in a Muslim country, I know that Muslim countries will only oppose war when their fellow Muslim country is attacked. They don't bother if US attacks Serbia, Japan or even North Korea. They will even support the US. So please, at least let me know that Antiwar.com is against all war without double standard. ... No to double standard.
The Backtalk editor replies:
The answers to your questions can be found on Antiwar.com's Who We Are page. (And on lots of the recent Backtalk pages.)
Regarding "Genocide Games" by Nebojsa Malic:
...You echo many people who currently hate America and all we stand for. But I look around and I see lots of people from all these countries doing anything they can to get to America. Why? I believe it's because it sucks so bad where they are from. And because we are America we can be blamed for all the problems there. Show me the country that does not act in its own self-interests first. Show me the people who go out of there way to help others before themselves. You won't find them because where there are people doing that you will find regular Americans right along side them. And that sort of muddies up your view. Its not popular to see Americans as helping anyone in this world. If you hold others to the same standard, who would be better? The French, Chinese, Russians? Perhaps you could find blameless people but I suspect they would only be indigenous tribes from remote regions of the earth. ...
Protest at the Alamo
A thousand protesters at the Alamo? Shite! I saw that protest and there wasn't a hundred. I suspect they were counting tourists. Saturday was the 167 anniversary of the beginning of the battle when all the Alamo buffs and reenactors show up big crowds. I think if you asked most people in that crowd if they were protesting the leader of any country, it would have been Santa Anna, the Mexican leader.
Regarding "War Party Stumbles" by Justin Raimondo:
Now be fair it's not divine right of kings, he still has to work within the system (assuming the Dems don't let him keep skipping that part) Bush's talk sounds considerably more like Manifest Destiny.
My name is Enrico Misenas, and I am a naturalized US citizen. I was born in the Philippines and have family and friends who serve in both the US and Filipino militaries. I know and understand the horrific impact of war; but I also have seen the tragedy of allowing a dictator to rule his people with fear tactics and reckless abandon for human life. ...
In this article, Raimondo proudly sides with France in its stance against the US and its "coalition of the bribed". ... How many UN resolutions did France seek before entrenching themselves in the current conflict in the Ivory Coast? How many more nuclear weapons factories must the World destroy in Iraq before France decides to stop selling them the materials and information to conduct this type of illegal weapons programs? Will the answer come on the wings of a French fighter, like the one shown deploying biological agent, shown during Secretary Powell's presentation to the UN Security council? When demonstrators wear shirts that read "No blood for oil", do they refer to France's multi-billion dollar contracts drawn up between France and Saddam Hussein? ...
I've pulled a few bookmarks, though they don't really give you a full picture and neither one of us has the time to go through the several hundred links I have from last September on. ...
Conservative estimates were between 8 and 12 million, in over 600 cities worldwide some in places I've never heard of. And some where I'd not expected it (Katmandu!): ...
Regarding "Vive la France" by Justin Raimondo:
Thank you, Justin, for speaking out in defense of France. Wonderful article reminding us of what Washington has conveniently forgotten.
Assistance comes in many different forms, sometimes just offering good common sense and sound advice and if only we had listened! just prior to 1960, President Charles DeGaulle warned President John F. Kennedy not to get involved in Vietnam; that it was a war that couldn't be won and would cost the United States dearly. We didn't listen then, and we have the Vietnam Wall in Washington DC to prove it. Maybe we should listen this time.
Will Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz and their ilk be held accountable after Iraq is conquered and millions killed there if WMDs are not discovered? Judging by the results of the last time a lie got us into the elder George Bush's high-tech massacre, (the incubator hoax), I think not, as witness the leading member in that deception, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-CA, has been reelected many times since. The elder George Bush was praised then for assembling his "remarkable coalition" the "old fashioned American way" by bribes and threats. His son is now using the same tactics to assemble his own proving once again "everyone has a price." The most amazing thing about all this is how few Americans realize the reasons for the attacks we suffered on 9-11. This because our government and mainstream news media diverted our attention away from the true causes. However, the linkage was finally exposed by the directors of the CIA and the FBI when they testified before congress predicting when we again attack Iraq we will suffer even more 9-11s here at home. Summing the reasons up: It's U.S. Mideast foreign policy, stupid!" And does any sensible person believe that conquering and further devastating Iraq will end terrorist attacks against us when over a billion plus Muslims now hate us? Summing the real reasons up: It's US Mideast foreign policy, stupid!
Regarding Jordan Hobfoll's letter posted February 25:
I am tired of hearing people say that Israel is a democracy, the only one in the Middle East. This is as fallacious as calling South Africa a democracy during apartheid. Just because people vote for their leader does not make a country a democracy when citizens are denied full participation because of their religion or ethnicity. Arab Israelis do not enjoy full democratic participation, as the black citizens of South Africa did not enjoy full democratic participation although the whites could vote for whomever they pleased.
On a separate note, I would like to thank all French and German citizens for their strong antiwar stance. The rest of the world is with you, don't let the lies and bullying of the US get to you. Your courage is much appreciated.
Thanks again to Antiwar.com for their excellent website.
I keep hearing that Israel is the only democracy in its part of the world. Not one to just automatically accept whatever I am told, I looked into this. If we define a democracy as a country that elects its government, or parts of it, by a vote of the people then this is not correct. By this standard at least half of the countries in the region, where Israel resides, are democracies. That is, many of the countries have, at least in part, democratically elected governments. Here are some examples. Lebanon is a democracy that is roughly an equivalent of any democracy in Europe. In Jordan there is a king who rules for life. But the legislature is elected by a vote of the people, as well are most minor officials. The legislature operates much as they do in western countries. In Iran the president, the legislature, as well as minor officials such as mayors are elected by a vote of the people. However, they have a supreme leader, an Ayatollah, who has supremacy. Even Iraq elects its mayors by a vote of the people. The point here is that many of the countries in the Middle East do have democratic institutions however imperfect, by our standards, they may be. As Israel does not extend full political rights to its non-Jewish citizens, it might more accurately be called a 'democracy for Jews only'.
If Israel was really interested in democracy, peace, and human dignity it would extend full political and civil rights to all of its citizens and extend that citizenship to everyone in the occupied territories. The fact is, the Jewish population is a minority in Palestine. (Geographically all of Israel and the occupied territories are in Palestine.) If Israel was a democracy in the sense that western countries are democracies, the Jewish people would lose their monopoly on political power. ...
As the groundswell Peace movement struggles to define its opposition to intensifying the existing war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the majority position needs to be reexamined. Two leading premises, in particular, seem to be flawed. The first is "No war without UN approval" and its corollary "Let the inspectors do their job". While the principles expressed in the founding of the UN are high-minded and laudatory, the actual workings of UN politics cannot be the basis from which to oppose the upcoming bombardment and occupation of Iraq. The idea that the World War II victors should collectively, into perpetuity, rule the world as permanent, veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council is fundamentally antidemocratic and dictatorial. Further, Phyllis Benis' study "Calling the Shots" accurately details how the US through bullying and bribery controls the outcome of most issues deliberated by that body. UN member nations are rarely free to vote their consciences and are structurally unable to influence the most important decisions of that body.
Moreover, Hans Blix, that "goofy Swede" is beginning to get that rush of power which so intoxicates people like Condoleeza Rice. This "Masters of the Universe" complex cannot be the basis for a just solution to any nation's problems. Blix and company are on the loose in a sovereign nation walking around like they own the place. This cannot be a working model for the future. Neither am I ready to sing "Vive la France" just yet, while still abhorring the infantile "Frog-bashing" which is going on. The French plan to occupy Iraq with an army of UN militarily-backed disarmament troops is still an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. This is a bad precedent for addressing so-called "rogue" states. The French plan is milder than Shock and Awe, but is aimed at the same result.
In fact, the total disarmament of Iraq as a goal of the "international community" is itself a suspect premise. Iraq is surrounded by heavily armed nations who have publicly declared claims on Iraqi real estate and resources. Not to mention swarms of US and British troops at the border. Do we really think that it is reasonable to force Saddam to defend Iraqi sovereignty with both hands tied behind his back? Not even a few short-range missiles to deter aggression? Just a few registered handguns? This is selective enforcement of a hypocritical standard. If weapons are bad and I think that they are then the US needs to lead by example and start destroying our own WMD's.
So deferring to the UN to lead this war of aggression cannot be a principled stand at this time, and the French plan is no good either.
Now, for Saddam, personally. He is, indeed, a ruthless dictator who deals violently with challenges to his own power in Iraq. But he is not necessarily irrational or crazed. His reasons for warring against Kuwait and Iran cannot be charged solely to bloodlust and Hitlerian ambition. He is a scary guy, but he also tolerates freedom of religion including Christians and championed universal education and health care. I don't care for the collectivist model, personally, but Saddam cannot be said to be insensitive to the basic needs of his people. Therefore, the majority antiwar claim that "Iraq would be better off without Saddam" is off-base. It is murderous in intent and arrogant and imperial in its tone. As a Strongman, Saddam holds together potentially warring factions in Iraq. Just as the War on Drugs backfired, so to will removing Saddam backfire. A relatively peaceful rule by drug kingpins in America was shattered when the drug kingpins were targeted and removed. This led to a scramble for power between petty, ambitious smalltime druglords. Violence multiplied and the drugs still got distributed on the street. The same thing might happen when Saddam is finally murdered and the Ba'ath Party removed. Isn't this Afghanistan again? The Taliban is whacked and now you can't travel the roads without fearing assault by former warlords? Poppy production is way up. Do we still want to keep talking like this is a "solution"?
It's good that people are protesting, and the French are not just rolling over in the onrush of US war fever. But we can't stand for the ultimate authority of a US-dominated United Nations, nor Han Blix' twisted power lust. Neither can we stand for whacking Saddam and installing only "good guys" in his place. Nonintervention and voluntary assistance is the only moral ground which makes any sense. Good old fashioned conservative, libertarian values! We've got to repent of the Masters of the Universe mindset. Bad poop!
The Order of the Day
The United States introduced a resolution to the Security Council to justify war against Iraq with the intention of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and his government. This is euphemistically called "regime change" but in truth it is a war for the purpose of removing one government and installing a replacement.
If the United Nations is going to proceed with an action to overthrow a Member State, then it should first proceed with expelling that State from the United Nations.
Here is the quote from the United Nations home page on the WWW: http://www.un.org/Docs/scinfo.htm:
"A Member State against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. A Member State which has persistently violated the principles ofthe Charter may be expelled from the United Nations by the Assembly on the Council's recommendation."
This is the order of the day: the United Nations Security Council should expel Iraq from the United Nations. That might in itself be sufficient pressure to change the regime in Iraq and is a much less severe action than war. It is an action which can be taken without justifying war.
First things first: before authorizing war against a member state it is only right that the United Nations should expel that state.
American Hostages in Columbia
This situation with those American hostages in Columbia is another result and consequence of this insane drug war. This drug war and the laws that go along with it is a detriment to our society. Connect the dots and see for yourself. Trying to control personal choice without doing your homework is resulting in a more and more rift between peoples, cultures and Governments. We must regulate educate tolerate and teach responsible use. Tooting a line of cocaine or a joint responsibly is neglected by our leaders because of closed mindedness and fear base emotions. When will our leaders lighten up? You media people need to help end this drug war. My goodness when a society has to pee in a bottle prior to employment and pee in a bottle with due process or just cause, its a sign that something is very wrong with the legislative body of a Government. And when we disregard a set of rules put down by our founding fathers this too creates a rift between peoples, cultures and Government. How can we trust our own US Government when they go over board over a personal choice, by locking people up and threatening to blackmail people by taking their life styles and livelihoods away? Police in our country are no longer our friends like they use to be many years ago. They are seen as an intrusion and implement of a police state and something to be avoided. Take this to heart because this problem will only get worse.
Regarding Joseph Stromberg's replies to Alan Koontz's letter posted February 13:
...Make no mistake, political analysis and action have certainly brought a lot of people a good living, but the good it has done to the living has yet to be measured.
Be that as it may, there is something to be said in favor of less political or social struggle and more in the way of actual accomplishment. Mr. Stromberg suggests the American Revolution as an example of a struggle of one or the other type. The question this begs is what the American Revolution really was.
As John Adams asked, "[W]hat do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced...[the] radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution." There it is. No political or social struggle. Just a change in attitude, mindset, thinking, and so on like that. It was quietism/Stirnerism at one of its highest moments.
Rothbard was as much a tangle of contradictions as the Cold War conservatives he criticized. The level of his confusion is highlighted in an article by George H. Smith and published in an early issue of The Voluntaryist late in Rothbard's career as professional curmudgeon in response to a full frontal attack launched by the latter against the voluntaryist impulse.
The one thing Rothbard hated most was for anyone to give up the struggle between the individual and the State. He saw the Cold War conservatives as nothing more than quitters. That's how he perceived the Voluntaryists. And, like a party whip, he would do whatever it took to keep people in line, even if it meant making a hash of his own thinking.
But what of this or that struggle? Political and social struggles are, after all, matters of concern only to those who can't think their way out of these mental constructs. There really need never be any struggle for anything, if one puts one's mind off it. No struggle or conflict need ever be necessary for the individual to achieve his aims, as John Adams realized.
The Voluntaryists have it right when they say: "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself." How do you plan to achieve your goal? Ultimately, the goal you actually achieve will depend upon how you respond to this question.
Regarding IM Fletcher's letter dated February 11:
Even though I present an argument for the other side I should clarify my own personal position.
I would prefer to see the US change to a semi isolationist nation. In this I mean pulling troops out of Asia and the Middle East and use the majority of the removed troops to US border patrol. The military should be equipped with nuclear, chemical and biological detection ability to prevent all vehicles and persons from entering the country with these dangerous agents. Stopping all questionable foreign visa entries to our country would coincide along with an extremely careful check on visa renewals, especially middle eastern countries and countries with extreme differences in comparison to the US. Call it what you will, profiling or whatever but it must be done to protect US citizens and economic interests. There really should be no reason for terrorism directed at the US anyway if we took on this policy in my opinion. Which would then likely ease these restrictions.
The $600 Billion dollars we would save from this Iraq war should go to two primary things:
1) A US Health Care Plan for all citizens which includes incentives to increase the number of doctors, specialists and nurses, whether they be pay increases and/or less hours to improve success in the medical field. This will also increase the attraction foreign countries have to our medical field, which in turn will increase the US economy. The medical field is one of the most important fields, along with our military right now.
2) An auto exchange program for all US citizens as we also invest this in our automobile companies to make an immediate switch to hybrid cars. The auto exchange program would allow all US citizens to exchange their gasoline automobiles to US Auto companies. The Auto companies would then ship all new and used gasoline cars overseas at substantial discounts which would in turn be made up with the war money. This immediate action would offset the increased oil prices from foreign interests that we rely upon, thus helping in creating a solid US economy reliant more upon itself and foreign export.
I could go on and on about lesser payouts to US oil companies for their losses, increases in funding for US businesses with US made products distributed within itself as opposed to importing $100 Million Dollars from China in exchange for a $1 Million Dollar US export to China. Just using China as an example but in looking at this we just created $99 Million Dollars for the US economy if we just go heads up with these guys at a million each way.
I could say a lot more but hopefully my own position is a little clearer with this. I just think your website exhibits bad judgment in it's accusations about all these so called bad things the United States has done through it's history....
Bush's Minority Report
There is something I think is missing from the discussion regarding shrub's war for Iraqi oil.
First of all I wish to address my patriotism because invariably I will be accused of hating America. I do not, nor have I ever disparaged the principles on which America was founded. Truth be told I believe the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are beautifully written, thoughtful, courageous documents. We have, in theory, perhaps the most just system of governance ever created. Further, I do support our troops. Contrary to the bile that pro-war talking heads spew forth regarding the antiwar movement I feel I support the troops more than they do. I want them to be brought home out of harms way so they can go back to being wives, husbands, sons and daughters.
The United States has arguably the finest system of justice in existence. As we all know the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We have a right to an attorney. We have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers. We have a Constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and illegal search and seizure. In fact, our criminal justice system is one of the founding tenants of our great nation.
Sadly, however, shrub seems have abandoned all sense of justice in his dealings with Iraq. Of all the reason given to justify war with Iraq I would like to touch on three that wilt when the light of American ideology is shone upon them.
been told we're going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction
we haven't located yet.
I would like to think that prior to inflicting untold suffering on thousands we would at least have empirical proof regarding those things I listed. I and many others nation and worldwide have not seen such proof. Speaking rhetorically where is the sense of justice in all this.
I recently began reading the works of Phillip K. Dick. He wrote an interesting and apropos novel titled Minority Report. If you haven't had the pleasure of either reading the book or seeing the movie the gist is that police arrest people for murders that they may commit. Shrub's war reeks of Minority Report.
To the obvious group of pro-war hyenas who are dumping muck here as somebody's agenda:
You attempt to label anyone who opposes this insanity of Bush's as "left wing." Sorry, wrong, wrong, wrong. For the first time since the '30s depression, thinking Americans from every direction are outnumbering you by huge percentages. Worldwide, no one has ever seen such numbers demonstrating. For Iraq? No, for the future of the world. Normal people realize that Iraq is just the beginning of this deranged mindlessness.
Left, right, in between and not any definite political direction at all, have all come together under the same sane logic Iraq, which couldn't have pulled off 9/11 in any manner, and which has had its infrastructure (and its people) steadily destroyed by US and British bombing and sanctions for 12 long years, couldn't be a threat to the "world's only super power" no matter if it devoted every effort to only that. Talk about paranoia!
As an example of your mislabeling, this writer against this moronic war has often been labeled as about 1000 miles to the right of Gengis Kahn but I describe myself as populist, meaning for the ordinary people, not some political movement. This makes me anti the strangulation of human spirit by the corporate state, a la the Bush administration dictatorship. If you call fascism "right wing," as the communists do, yes, I suppose that means everyone not condoning such government would be left of that.
Yet it's exceedingly strange how a knot of international communists, abetted by nutso fundamentalists hiding under the Christian umbrella, came to be "right wing" while those opposed to dictatorial government, no matter by what philosophy are now "left wing." Perhaps it shows that there never was any difference between communism and fascism. Only by degree.
Why not dump that foolishness and use the more accurate gauge of least necessary government intervention in lives on one end of the spectrum (freedom) and most government intervention in lives on the other (slavery)?
Where do you war mongering "patriots" sit on that gauge? Before you jump to answer consider whether or not you have discarded the Bill of Rights by acceptance of the Patriot Act police state and whether or not you think Iraq is a sovereign nation, just like the US. I suggest you find a pre-World War I dictionary and look up the word "sovereign."
Look up "slave" while you're at it. You might as well know the future you're working to bring on yourselves, your families and your posterity as well as the rest of us by backing Bush imperialism with its brutal, un-American, international bully tactics.
The Heat is On
It's obvious Antiwar.com is doing it's job well, judging from the number of pro-war statements you have posted on Backtalk! I've noticed that most pro-war letters in print and on the Internet display a berserk-whacked out, temper-tantrum mentality. Many of the letters to the editor in my local newspaper from pro-war individuals contain references to God and hatred for Bill Clinton and "liberals". These individuals brand their opponents as anti-American and supporters Of Saddam. In one letter I came across in Bradenton, Florida, the writer called the millions of people that marched in protest across the globe "spineless Jellyfish". I responded to that saying it is anything but spineless to Brave miserable weather conditions while under elevated terrorist alerts to protest en mass in the city that was so horribly attacked on 9/11. They could have stayed away and bought duct tape.
The people speaking out against this war are brave indeed, I have lost several friends because of my antiwar stance, and several family members barely talk to me anymore, I can live with that. I'd have a lot harder time knowing I could possibly help avert a slaughter and did nothing. Keep up the good work, another donation is coming.
PATRIOT Vs Patriot
Others may make this mistake but please be sure to refer to the PATRIOT Act, not the Patriot act. This offensive acronym should never be confused for actual patriotism.
Regarding "One Battlefield, Two Wars" by Justin Raimondo:
Excellent! You caught them red handed. I can hardly wait to see your very vocal and vicious critics' attempts to worm their way out of this.
I'm sure their response will entail even closer scrutiny of your alleged personal life. But, don't be deterred from your mission. No one pays any attention to their transparent and filthy campaign to undermine your very effective writing, and if it gets too nasty, Larry Flynt may launch his scuds right into their hypocritical, missionary position asses! I have five bucks that says he collected enough dirt on the beltway bastards to get himself killed, but that won't deter him if he decides to expose them once and for all!
Even if the world at large never knows your name, those of us who do know that everyone owes you a debt we can never repay.
~ Jim Nance, Delaware