Posted April 4, 2003

Regarding "Why the Left and Right Must Unite and Fight" by Neil Clark:

Perhaps a useful analogy may be borrowed from Nature itself. Light, one of the most enduring metaphors for knowledge and wisdom, happens to have a paradoxical, almost self-contradictory nature, for when the behaviour of light is studied and theorised by a scientific model, it is observed to act either as a wave or a particle, depending on how the experimentation is set-up, yet neither model is true.

Is it any wonder than that the political and economic reductionism of Right and Left ideology may also be cut from that same obscure fabric of reality as that of the motion of light? Instead of relying on the persistent assumptions that Right and Left are necessary opposites, held captive to the prejudices they demand, I suggest that Right and Left worldviews are merely shadows, like in Plato's Cave and what truly unites Left and Right is the commonwealth of human aspiration for life, liberty and happiness, which no ideology can claim as solely theirs.

~ David d'Apollonia, Canada

Mr. Clark should not worry about this possible coalition. It is happening already "on the ground," and in cyberspace. As a hard left antiwar campaigner I mainly rely on Antiwar.com, knowing that it originates on the Right, as you say. And as you know, the antiwar party emerging in Britain crosses the party lines between Labour and Tories, encompassing the Liberal Democrats and Scots and Welsh nationalists. Strange times call for new and maybe strange coalitions.

One remark, even though I sympathise with Seeger's conservatism as you mentioned it, I must say he has been called a liberal once – by fellow protest singer Phil Ochs – whom I cherish on the turntable, rather than Joan Baez (have got Ani Difranco instead in the cd player).

Keep up the good work on Antiwar.com!

~ André de Raaij

Great article.

I agree there is common ground between the old left and the old right. I never fit into the square peg of liberal anyway if that meant that I was supposed to feel good about homosexuality, same sex marriage, open immigration and other knee jerk liberal responses – but who put us all in these tight little boxes anyway? Being an African American female, I'm not too crazy about the confederate flag waving, "get'ch gun and shoot you a ...." either. And I think that might be another aspect of conservatism that would need to be mended if we really wanted to unite and work together.

However, I do agree, this war issue supersedes everything. At stake is the blood of our children, the treasure of current and future generations, and the image and character of the nation, so I could really figure out how to gently disagree on other less important issues. As a liberal I was surprised to find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan about 70% of the time, which is about the same percentage that I agree with my husband and I have lived with him for years.

~ Jamille Barnes

Green Party Thanks

Thanks for the great job! We need Green Party candidates! Hate the war? Run for office now as Green Party candidate for peace. Whether it's local or state. Stop the waste of our tax dollars and horrible destruction.

Petra Kelly's Green Party is the solution, both here in the United States and in the United Kingdom. I write as a longtime Green Party member, and staunch conservative. We must offer a positive alternative to the militarists.

~ Carey Campbell, Green Party, Virginia

I have to agree that the left and right must work together to overcome our current political climate. I think the debate can best be won on the issue of freedoms. Most would agree that one ought to be free to act however one chooses provided it does not interfere with anyone else's rights. If we vote for those that believe the fundamental function of the federal government is to protect those freedoms we can avoid atrocities such as our current war in the future. If we band together and put economic philosophies aside this next election cycle and have a strong vote for the Libertarian Party, those in power will see that their jobs are in jeopardy.

~ Tim McGough

Your article is right on the money, a real precision weapon. Only I wonder how it can be guided to the right target. Those who most need to consider this message are too busy worshipping the GOD (money), and being good wage slaves/consumers to be able to sort through the propaganda coming from all directions to find it.

~ Dani Filth

Regarding "Rummy's Failed War Plan And The Casualties That May Result" by Jason Leopold:

Rumsfeld didn't waste any time in pulling his 'Rumsfeld's Rules' off the Defense Dept. web site. They disappeared the same day of your article, April 1, before I got to them. Antiwar.com is apparently being closely watched by our illustrious Total Information Awareness Agency.

Congratulations, and thank you. Maybe if you saved them, you could post 'Rumsfeld's Rules' on your website.

~ Chris Peterson

Regarding "Strange Insistence that No Miscalculations Were Made" by Alan Bock:

You should take off your rose glasses yourself. Your "contacts" in DC are lying to you. It is obvious that Bush is a religious nut bent on world domination. Already, he and Sharon are conspiring to attack Syria and if you read the news while thinking "What would Hitler do?" you can easily predict all the things Bush will do next.

Every time Bush and Sharon plans something against a Muslim nation, they trot out "we will take care (sic) of the Palestinian problem" without doing anything constructive except kill more Palestinians.

Before the attack on Afghanistan, Bush lied to the UN and said he will endorse a Palestinian state which then led to the killings of many Palestinians.

Before the attack on Iraq, again, Bush trotted out his "roadmap" (where this map leads us to, he refused to say, but I suspect it is called Armageddon). He did this to appease the Saudis and the other Gulf dictators.

Now he is making noises about how Syria is a problem.

Get the picture? The Christian/Jewish axis is committed now to the destruction of all Muslim states. This is going to be called "WWIII" by historians if any survive.

If you live in a major American city, I would strongly suggest you find a home somewhere far away. I already have. I used to be a New Yorker who lived very close to the World Trade Center where my husband used to work. (68th floor of the second building hit. I was so happy he no longer worked there, all his coworkers were killed.)

~ Elaine Supkis, Berlin, New York

Hiding Losses?

I thought I would show antiwar readers this site: Aeronautics.ru. It is compiled from Russian reporters with connections to Russian intelligence agencies. They recap the events within Iraq on a daily basis describing the battles in detail and seem to show an unbiased view.

The reason I bring this up is that if you look at the March 31st entry you will see some very interesting statements about the number of actual war casualties. It seems we have not had any casualties in the past few days listening to the Pentagon however Russian intelligence sees otherwise! Pretty hard to believe no casualties with all the fighting going on.

I've been wondering about this for some time as I remember talking to a guy who was an intelligence officer in the first Gulf War one day. I said well we only lost like 150 men and he kind of snickered and said, "Yeah right." Could we be seeing a hiding of the losses?

~ BK

Backtalk editor Sam Koritz replies:

It should be pointed out that Aeronautics.ru doesn't provide any proof that what they're posting are in fact translated Russian intelligence reports. Reader beware.

Letter from Syria

Before saying anything, I just want to say sorry to you if my English language is bad because it is not my native language, but I hope that the readers can understand what I have wanted to say.

My name is Hadi Alnehlawi, and I am living in Syria. I want to appear to you first and to everyone who reads my words a simple matter that the US citizens don’t have any idea what is the truth about this unfair war, that the US government has become the number one enemy to all the Islamic public, for its activities dealing with the dispute between Israel and the Arabs (Israel, Palestine), (Israel, Syria) etc.

I wanna clear up some points to all readers:

1. The war was begun in the cause of the freedom of Iraqis and to end the rule of Saddam : I want to ask you, is the freedom of the Iraqi people from Saddam the responsibility of the US government? Is every political system in this world that's not like the US government's that means the US must fight that system? (I think it is just a fabulous matter.)
   
   
2. The US government says that the reason for this war is because Saddam and his system have contradicted the international laws, also he has nuclear bombs. If we hand over to what the US government declares, I will assure to you that there is a country, which is called Israel, that is defiling the international laws every day many times and the US government is silent?! That means the US government must fight Israel, but the truth is the US doesn’t do anything like that. That's not all – there are about 10 to 20 decisions belonging to the UN security council which claim to Israel to return back the Syrian lands (Golan Heights) to Syria and give the Palestinians their freedom to make their free country.
   
   
3. I will assure to all US citizens, if the US government goes ahead on its plans to occupy Iraq and go through with its threat to Syria and Iran, the end of the US nation will be over this land cuz until now the world hasn't known that ... Arabic men prefer to die rather than to see their country under occupation, cuz they think that their honor depends on the honor of their country so if the honor of their country was profaned, so the one of them was also profaned.

The last thing I want to say: we in Syria always think there is a chance for peace, and we hate death so much but if we are forced to go through it, it will be the simple thing which we could give to our land.

~ Hadi Alnehlawi, Syria

Fundraising Protest Idea

Antiwar.com shirts, hats, bumper stickers, banners, flags, and bumper stickers would raise $$ and generate free publicity at the same time. You could have design-a-shirt contests. Here's 3 ideas and possible captions.

US & Russia: 2-3000 Nukes
China: 20-30 Nukes
N. Korea: 1-10 Nukes
Iraq: 0 Nukes
Who's a bigger threat to whom exactly? Who's acting like a paranoid schizophrenic scared of mice & flies?

US $343 Billion
China $39.5
Iran $7.5
6 Rogue States $6.9
Who's a bigger threat to whom exactly? Who's acting like a paranoid schizophrenic scared of mice & flies?

Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941
Schlieffen Plan Aug, 1914
Iraq-Kuwait Aug, 1990
Iraq-Iran Sep, 1980
Ft Sumter SC April, 1861
Lexington Concord 1775
Who fired the 1st shot and crossed the border 1st? The UK Empire excuse that we're not a police-state or Napoleon's excuse that we can shove our Moral Clarity down others' throats with brute military force isn't a casus belli for war. Saddam being a dictator doesn't justify launching a Pearl Harbor nor Barbarossa.

Imagine "Antiwar.com" appearing in the background of one of Chris Matthews Hardball College Tour shows. Populist Greens and the waiting-to-be-born populist right should take advantage of such an opportunity if their campus is hosting a similar event. Perhaps lobby Chris Mattews and his staff directly for an occasional appearance to discuss antipolice statism (USA Patriot act) and anti-imperialism (Preemptive Pearl Harbor aggression which is anti-US treason). The only true patriotic American position is Zero Tolerance and very high standards when it comes to war, government, police statism and imperialism (a.k.a. interventionism).

Populist Ralph Nader-types should start replacing DemocRATS at college campuses. Populist right should do the same to college Republicans. USA needs more 3- or 4-way elections like those that occurred in 1860, 1912, 1992. For the good of the country, Reps & Dems should follow the Tories, Whigs and USSR into the dustbin of history. Why can't each of the 19 million who voted none-of-the-above in 1992 not only continue to do so but also convince just 1-2 additional voters for a total of 38-57 million voting none-of-the-above? ...

~ Anonymous Coward, Corning, New York

Regarding "A Grand Unified Theory of British Party Politics" by Emmanuel Goldstein:

Goldstein's "Unified Theory of British Party Politics" made interesting reading however it overlooked a crucial factor.

British bipartisan politics is the product of a broken electoral system, just as in the US. The electoral system in both countries makes it well neigh impossible for a third party to become a credible force and actually come to power. This suits the Conservative, Labour, Republican and Democratic parties just fine because it makes it a 2-horse race over which they can retain a fair degree of control.

In the 2000 US presidential election, the battle ground was over a few narrow policy issues: this is what a 2-horse race allows. The glaring differences in foreign and military policy were scarcely noted. If they had been a topic of debate, the result might have been a more decisive victory for Gore than he actually got, and the US would probably not be at war now.

Similarly, in the 2001 UK general election, Labour got 62% of parliamentary seats with only 41% of the vote. If Blair had only 41% of the parliamentary seats, and needed a coalition for government, I somehow doubt that the UK would be at war now either.

Odd though it may seem, I would suggest that supporters of the antiwar movement could serve the cause well by also embracing the cause for Electoral Reform. A system of proportional representation would allow much greater granularity of political party opinion and the constituents of likely coalition governments would help keep each other (more) honest. Governments, fearful for their own survival, would be much less inclined to contemplate military intervention.

As it stands, those Florida 'chads' are shaping the world for the worse in a way scarcely conceivable at the time, and the UK and US retain their top tier status as the major expeditionary powers. So much for our 'democracy'.

~ Roderick Parks, Bracknell, UK

Emmannuel Goldstein replies:

I'm agnostic on electoral reform, I used to be wildly for it but I see both sides of the argument now. However I must say that the two party system has managed to allow a vigorous debate on foreign policy – something a permanent coalition may not.

Countries like Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands do not seem to allow for different views on Europe, or reflect the scepticism of significant proportions of their population towards it. However unreformed France and recently de-reformed Italy do. I'm not saying that it's because of the system, but it is an arresting correlation.

Blair

It is interesting that the Blair Government includes Ministers (Sinn Fein) with a private army (IRA) responsible for the torture maiming and murder of men women and children and with proven links to terrorists in Europe, the Middle East, and South America.

The Muslim world may wonder if there is one law for white Christian tyrants and another for nonwhite non-Christian tyrants.

~ PD

Reason for Attack on Iraq

April 2nd is the start of the third week of the war on Iraq. Coalition forces control the area where the top 10 likely locations for weapons of mass destruction are likely to be and so far none were found. The UN inspectors did not find any either and their work could have been completed in several months. The only weapons of mass destruction we saw are those possessed and used by the coalition forces.

The main reason given by Britain and the USA for attacking Iraq was to disarm Iraq of these weapons. It was not a rational decision to start the war and pulverize a small country into submission, a country with a limited military capability, just on the suspicion that they had these weapons.

Recently the main excuse has been that they are liberating the people. It is clear that they do not want to be liberated by foreigners. Since Iraq does not have these weapons and does not want the foreigners attacking their country why do the coalition forces continue to kill hundreds and eventually thousands of innocent civilians and destroy their buildings? Could it be that they want to liberate the people from their oil reserves? This kind of conduct cries out for justice.

~ Kenneth D. Curry, Alberta, Canada

Hannibal

I was shocked and mystified Sunday to see a five-star general on one of the morning talk shows, apparently seriously expressing his surprise that the people of Iraq hadn't joined the US in overthrowing their government. He also appeared to seriously be saying this was something the US had counted on in their plans for victory.

Does no one at West Point teach about Hannibal anymore? Not only is this starry-eyed scenario way beneath what I would have thought the US would feature at the top echelons of its military machine, it also makes us look incredibly weak. Why in the world would we need anyone's help in conquest and destruction? Are we that simple and stupid?

One of my best friends, who in his more crazed moments actually supports this war, believes the general was lying and couldn't care less what the Iraqi people think or do. He also thinks we "lost" in Vietnam because the military wasn't "allowed" to win the war.

But it seems to me the politicians and military planners paint themselves into endless corners in their attempts to "sell" the war to the public. If it's a war of liberation, then there should be streets-full of dancing Iraqis welcoming the doughboys into their homes and introducing them to their daughters.

If that doesn't happen, and so far it hasn't, then it really was a war of conquest, and whether or not we've "won" it, we will still have lost – and that will be an actuality, not another spun story.

~ John McGill, East Glacier Park, Montana

At Odds with Myself

I am at odds with myself. There is a part of me that wants to support the war in Iraq, but there is another part, a major part that can't. I served in the military (Army) for eight years and came close to participating in the first Gulf War, so I guess this is were my support for the war comes from. I support the troops, my family and friends that are over in another country fighting for what reason, I don't even know if they are clear of.

But I can't support our President on his decisions regarding this war. It amazes me that so many people within our present administration who voted and planed for this war have never served in the military or even have children that served in the service. The President of the United States is an "AWOL liven a lie, I'm not going to Vietnam Draft dodging son of a gun." But he is quick to send someone else's child or children over to another country for war and state that it is all for Democracy. I feel this is a crock of sh*t and I can't wait to see what happens after the war.

When the bombs stop dropping and the bad guys have been captured and when the smoke clears, when the American people are no longer drugged and attentions are no longer consumed by war 24 hours a day on CNN. When the smoke finally clears, what are they going to see? They are going to see a country (America) in financial ruin. A country where part of its work force is out of work, a stock market that is a joke, and a national deficit that is three to four times its amount prior to the Bush war, and I did say "THE BUSH WAR".

Will the people of the United States have enough of the Bush Regime and do to him what they wanted to do prior to him stealing the election of 2000 and get him the hell out of office or will we settle for more B.S. from the Bush Administration?

I am hoping that we all wake up and smell the dung roses surrounding the Capital and do what we feel is right, however you or I may see fit. I am not looking for a right or wrong situation, I just want the masses to open their eyes and take a look at the big picture, and make a choice for True Democracy. ...

~ Mr. Wells, San Jose, California

Lame Protest Signs

I'd like to complain about something. A common sight on the street is signs that say "no war," "honk for peace," and so on. The signs are apparently an attempt to make the antiwar crowd more visible, and they do succeed at that. But against polls showing most Americans in favor of the war, the signs are powerless – our government will continue to side with the majority. So it is necessary for the protesters to make an effort to convince the majority. How can we do this? One possibility would be to put simple reasons to be against the war on those signs, preferably those that would not alienate the majority. In addition, we should practice them so that when asked we can respond, "Actually, I'm against the war BECAUSE _____." I suggest "the war will kill thousands of our troops" or "Saddam is weak and not a threat" but my talent for writing propaganda is limited. Maybe someone has some better suggestions?

~ Paul G., Pasadena, California

AWC on Italian TV

During the late-night news on Italian TV, there was a side panel showing links to four war critic sites: the Vatican, www.antiwar.com and two others!

Keep up the good fight, I find your material tremendously useful. And so apparently do other people here.

~ Miguel M., Italy

Regarding Antiwar.com's Mission Statement:

I respect your right to state your policy and would defend it to the death. That was my position for the 26 years that I served in the Navy. But your apparent position that a separatist operational political policy includes an absence of commitment to fight your enemies is idiotic.

The position that the U.S.A. is an imperial power is false. The conflicts that you use to illustrate that, prior to 9/11, were largely UN police actions that we joined as part of the Democrats move toward World Government.

You statement of purpose includes:

"Antiwar.com is dedicated to building an awareness to the globalist and interventionist forces that would enslave us all in a New World Order on which the sun never sets."

I believe that you are playing directly into their hand and have become stooges to support their program by taking a stance that even a war to preserve the rights that you tout as so precious, is absolutely wrong.

It is time to take the fight to the homelands of the enemies of our country. The Islamic radicals have declared war on us and have carried it out with impunity for years. I have had enough.

By the way, if we were truly an imperialist state, Germany and Japan would be US territories.

~ Steve T.

WHERE IS THE COVERAGE OF THE RESCUE OF THE POW FROM HER IRAQI COWARD CAPTORS? PROBABLY IN THE SAME CIRCULAR FILE YOU PUT ALL OF THE OTHER HONEST STORIES OF THIS WAR. SINCE I NEVER SEE STORIES OF STINKING IRAQI COWARD PUKES USING CHILDREN AS HUMAN SHIELDS, OR SHOOTING AT TROOPS FROM MOSQUES OR THE MANY OTHER ACTS OF TOTAL COWARDICE AND BRUTALITY, WHY SHOULD YOU DISPLAY A STORY OF HEROISM. A CUTE LITTLE 19 YEAR OLD HILLBILLY CHICK HAS MORE GUTS AND GONADS THAN ANY ANTIWAR SLIME BUCKET ON EARTH. ... TO HELL WITH YOUR WEBSITE AND YOU.

RIGHT-WING AND PROUD OF IT.

(WHAT ON EARTH WILL YOU HAVE TO WHINE ABOUT AFTER WE PULVERIZE AND GRIND THE IRAQI DEATH MACHINE INTO DUST AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE FLAMES OF HELL?)

~ Kenneth Carpenter

Managing editor Eric Garris replies:

We ran coverage of the rescue up top yesterday. (Take a look.)We report news as it happens, not the day after. Also, it is worth noting that we also ran the story of the earlier rescue attempt, in which nine Marines died and eight are MIA, which got no mention the follow-up accounts.

Of course, I know that you are responding to an appeal to write us and you have never been to our page before, or you would know that the site is run by conservatives and libertarians, not leftists.