79 Comments

1. Josiah:

   This what power systems encourage people to do: focus on low-level scapegoats, low-level criminals. Just like the corporate media fetishizes Sunni-on-Shiite violence but renders the US/UK occupation itself invisible and natural, liberals and even radical leftists misdirect their attention to the misdeeds of underlings. So it’s not the State Department and Pentagon planners, the weapons and energy industry shareholders, or even the counter-insurgency specialists and generals who get focused on, but under-educated working-class kids like Lyndie England.

   It’s the same mechanism with jokes about raping Ann Coulter or John McWhorter being a minstrel Uncle Tom: even when we criticize the power structure, first in the line of fire (pun intended in this case) are, as always, women, black and brown folks in general, the working class in general. That’s not to say the crimes of those lower on the pecking order don’t matter, but they’re usually smaller in proportion to their power. Kissinger committed more My Lais than a two dozen William Calleys could on their own. Etc.

   30 March 2007, 6:06 pm

2. Required:

   It’s interesting that they chose to use a skull for the soldier head. If they hadn’t, and they wanted it to be representative of the average soldier it would have had black or brown skin. Then you would have had a bunch of white middle class kids dressed in black burning a lyched effigy of a poor black man. Put the facists on the bonfire indeed.

   Fucking idiots.

   30 March 2007, 8:24 pm

3. Thomas:

   Perhaps a comment from a ‘third world’ expat, occasional poster and (incidentally) an anarchist. I’ll be speaking from an anti-imperialist position here.

   I can understand that you wish to organise (ex)soldiers, and that, as such, you don’t want to be down-right cruel toward them, and certainly, these people have been quite irresponsible - it suggests they are very much not in social contact with soldiers.

   However, I don’t think it is necessary to massage soldiers’ egos. Frankly, there are 250,000-odd foreign fighter terrorists in iraq, and most of them are American, with sizable contingents from the US army, Blackwater & other merc-terrorist organizations, as well as British terrorists, and South African terrorists - I hear Executive Outcomes (BOSS reinvented & privatized) also has a contingent.

   They are blowing up car bombs at Sunni ‘Arab demonstrations, using unwitting Shi’a ‘Arab police officers (R Fisk). Further more, they are funding & sustaining various death squads.

   The Canadian government organized the 2004 invasion of Haiti. The RCMP are training various death squad terrorists to be police officers in Haiti, and Elections Canada was caught in the act of destroying ballots in order to (attempt to) turn the election in Haiti.

   Here then is a set of suggestions: Feel free to take the voices of your victims; you’ve already taken everything else. Try spreading posters, say, of the following variety:

   Hey Canada!

   We Haitians wish to congratulate you with your Haitian
   born Governor General; we understand this is not the first time you have had a Governor General of a minority group, and as such we are quite impressed; should you replace her, we would be even more impressed if you replace her with someone from another minority group, but we won’t be hurt if you don’t.

   However, there is something we need to discuss.

   In 2004, you government organized and participated in an invasion of our country, and kidnapped our democratically elected president. After that, you brought in mercenaries from the UN to control our country. They have thus far, according to themselves, killed 8000 people.

   Some of your police officers are training death squad members from our old dictatorships to be police officers - prior to your invasion they were on the run from the law.

   Your ‘Elections Canada,’ in violation of Haiti’s constitution, organised elections in Haiti; during the counting of the ballots, journalists caught officials from your organization burning a dumpster full of ballots.

   We have some requests for you:

   We have never kidnapped your Prime Minister. Please allow Aristide to return.

   Please remove your mercenaries from our country and stop shooting our youth and children in the face. (pictures included).

   Please remove your police officers from our country. You can take the terrorists they have trained as well.

   Please remove your ‘Elections Canada’. We don’t want vote fraud in Haiti; if you want election fraud in Canada, we will respect your choice.

   Please respect our choices.

   (Time table for spreading films on Canada etc’s involvement in Haiti.)

   31 March 2007, 10:13 am

4. Josiah:

   “Here then is a set of suggestions: Feel free to take the voices of your victims; you’ve already taken everything else.”

   Thomas, I hear you. I wouldn’t dream of telling people being bombed or shot by American soldiers how they’re supposed to act, whether that’s armed attacks or collaboration. But let’s say we Americans look to the Iraqis like the Germans did to people living under Nazi occupation. Would it have helped those occupied people for German anti-Nazis to burn effigies of Nazi soldiers in a symbolic demonstration of anti-Naziism? Not one iota. But it would have been a good foil for the propoganda system. Targeting and resisting the Nazis in the most effective way possible, on the other hand, had an effect, there just wasn’t nearly enough of it. So this is about where we should direct activities of resistance in the US, not what people being occupied should think or do.

   31 March 2007, 4:17 pm

5. Required:

   “necessary to massage soldiers’ egos”

   It’s been said on this forum before that the troops who have come out against this war have done much to turn public opinion against the war. I would say that particular individual soldiers have done more than the efforts of every one of those kids burning that effigy.

   Who was that action designed to win over? No one, just there to make people feel righteous. Not much different from the stupid “anything war can do, peace can do better” banners liberals wave around.

   No one’s talking about massaging egos. It may be more righteous or just to exclude soldiers from this movement. But I don’t care about being righteous I just want to stop the fucking war.

   31 March 2007, 7:49 pm

6. DeAnander:

   I send this from my astute friend rootlesscosmo, who has been in the trenches of previous antiwar and freespeech and labour movements…
   

   Sometimes–in fact, quite often–the actions we take have unexpected consequences. These may be good; for example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 was originally planned as a one-day demonstration, a way of dramatizing the importance of Black passengers to the buses’ revenue, but community enthusiasm and determination were so strong, and so well-organized, that it became the open-ended, and ultimately victorious, 382-day action we all know about and admire. Sometimes, on the other hand, the unforeseen consequences are bad; the German Communists seem to have convinced themselves that rejecting united strike and electoral action with the Social-Democrats in 1932 would convince the workers that only the KPD was a reliable bulwark against the Nazis, and oh boy, were they ever wrong.

   But sometimes the consequences of an action are obvious to the veriest dunce. A Kansas City group from the “reborn SDS”–apparently dominated by anarchists–staged an action last year in protest against the Iraq War by blocking motorists’ access to gas stations during the afternoon traffic peak. Although they congratulated themselves mightily on their success, they succeeded only in getting a whole lot of working people very angry–people who, in most cases, never found out what was causing the delay, or got any explanation of how this might affect US war policy. This could have been predicted with complete confidence in advance.

   And the same applies to these Portland people. Yes, they’re young, and lord knows nobody in this country ever learns about events that happened before they were born (BOOO-ring!), but you don’t need a weatherman to know that burning a US Marine in effigy will antagonize nearly everyone, including the growing number of antiwar service members and their (frequently antiwar) families. (You might need a Weatherman to dismiss such considerations as irrelevant or reactionary, of course.)

   When people do something that they know will have certain consequences, it’s reasonable to conclude that they intend those consequences. Who intends to create antagonism among antiwar people? The question answers itself. Whoever thought up this action is–I’ll say it categorically, to an absolute certainty–on the cops’ payroll, and so were many of the participants.

   31 March 2007, 8:46 pm

7. Jon Flanders:

   Well,

   This is where frustration leads, away from the masses, giving openings to provocateurs.

   “However, I don’t think it is necessary to massage soldiers’ egos.”

   This has nothing to do with “soldiers egos”. Its about not handing Bush and the warmakers an ax handle to beat you over the head with.

   The small group dynamics of these anarchist groups are a virtual petri dish for govt agents to incite incidents like this.

   31 March 2007, 8:48 pm

8. DeAnander:

   I would also like to add my own $.02 which is that mostly, burning-in-effigy focuses on a well-known public figure such as a King, Cardinal, Senator, President, Dictator, Pope, etc. — it is unusual and imho somewhat suspect for a burning-in-effigy event to focus on a generic “role” figure rather than an individual named, famous face. Burning, say, an effigy made to (loosely) resemble Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld or Bush (or Blair, Chalabi, Sharon, etc) seems to me like a predictable and traditional public action for angry and theatrical protesters. But burning an effigy of “a Marine” — like “the Unknown Soldier” seems to me contrived, out of tune with the tradition of this type of protest, probably arranged by agents-prov’s and designed to spread a new Spitting Image type meme through the media.

   The EstablishedMen seem extraordinarily afraid of the Black Bloc kids and similar neo-anarchist formations; they go to such trouble to smear them in the MSM…

   31 March 2007, 8:51 pm

9. Jon Flanders:

   “The EstablishedMen seem extraordinarily afraid of the Black Bloc kids and similar neo-anarchist formations; they go to such trouble to smear them in the MSM…”

   There’s a feedback loop going on between these groups and the “EM”. The negative publicity serves the purposes of the government and for the group confirms the “success” of their action, for after all, something must be “wrong” if an anti-war protest gets positive coverage.

   Now that anti-war sentiment is so all pervasive, with building trades unionists howling down pro-war speakers,

   http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/29/156/

   it is time for the govt to trot out “black bloc” tactics through the medium of these anarchist grouplets.

   31 March 2007, 9:17 pm

10. Linda Jansen:

    It seems to me a certain number of military will be able to place this event in context.

    I don’t think they will take it personally. Many soldiers have publicly expressed their hesitation about the mission they are taking on in Iraq.

    That frustration is being expressed in a variety of ways, including this graphic one, will not surprise them. It may give them even more pause.

    31 March 2007, 10:31 pm

11. Thomas:

    Sorry, much of the above was written in frustration & anger. It is extremely frustrating living here, trying to open a conversation with someone about what the North American states are doing. I have it from good sources that Canada wants to invade cuba & venezuala in the next ten years, & it is difficult to bring Haiti to peoples’ attention, especially when they don’t want to listen.

    Rare are the locals who are willing to talk to you once they realise that one has something critical to say. I’m trying to give the information in a just-the-facts form to people, putting my anger to rest, but then still there is generally either (deliberate) non-understanding or contempt; hence the poster suggestion, which I’m planning… BTW some ‘nice’ depleted uranium victim photos at http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html
    Worth looking at; it is often (when I can get people to look at anything at all) what gets some sense into people, as well as Kevin Pina’s excellent film on Haiti, though the former seems to work better - racism?

    1 April 2007, 12:24 am

12. Randy Morris:

    I love the responses at Portland Indymedia!

    To Neil Larson (associated with some Right-wing hate radio station) from Xman:

    ” Sorry Neil,
    Just went to your website and your featured dj was mike savage.
    You are a “Hate-riot” station. You do not intend to improve the state of our country anymore than jerry springer hopes to improve family relations.
    In fact, it seems to me what you do is far worse than yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
    But, the money is good, isn’t it?
    How much can you get for a good soul these days?”

    Good stuff

    Randy

    1 April 2007, 12:30 am

13. Thomas:

    Perhaps a more on-topic note. I’ve been in anarchism for a long time, and some comments and criticisms seem appropriate. Many people who think of themselves as anarchists (and hence are anarchists) are quite immature in their thinking (not that they are unique in this regard).

    I’m currently in a highly heirarchial situation, and it is quite a learning experience, in that it is atleast to some degree voluntary; many idealizations are either disgarded or refined, and I’ve gained a sense of the degree of specialization and care required to achieve workable results. While it is certainly possible, desirable and more efficient to do things in non- heirarchial ways, it is a worthwhile experience to deliberately subject oneself to hierarchy and observe.

    A refined analysis of power, including psychological aspects of the participants, would be helpful: some people (or people in some psychological states) don’t want to think critically; anarchism (or something else) is a cureall - everything is cured by the revolution or whatever.

    Untiring (nearly, atleast) self-discipline that actually requires examination of ones assumptions is not common; I found it helpful to use Shalif’s psychological method (mentioned in a previous post) while reading the likes of ‘Little green footballs’ etc and actually taking their claims seriously (like checking a chomsky reference that they dispute) helpful in my own thinking, but many of the anarchists I meet just want to do their own thing, and aren’t too interested in self-cultivation, even in tactics.

    It bears comparison to certain religeous groups eg if we do this, this and this, the revolution will arise/we will go to heaven, or they lose interest in anything related to activism. Criticism is an effort to impose one’s authority, and the possibility that something can be learnt by effort, asking and (the horror!) humility is unheard of. One of the younger anarchists round here was quite rude to an elderly anarchist who came by; he sees discussion as a battle, with one side winning. I realise I’m not innocent, given my outburst above.

    I guess anarchism can be reduced to the claim (for fighting purposes) that heirarchies are pathological; what is needed in North American anarchism IMHO are studies of the peculiar pathologies, allowing for the psychological variations of individuals, of various hierarchies, the development of a culture of serious study, attempt at implementation and retreat to evaluate would be helpful, though difficult to implement.

    1 April 2007, 1:21 am

14. Required:

    I was wondering, what is the actual percentage of POC in the US military?

    1 April 2007, 6:50 pm

15. Randy Morris:

    Required, check this out:

    http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1000552

    or this (you’ll need Acrobat reader):

    http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics/FY05%20Army%20Profile.pdf

    (particularly page 4)

    Interesting…looks like white, male Protestants are the born killers.

    Randy

    1 April 2007, 9:51 pm

16. Jen:

    I feel this action is even more contradictory to ending the war and creating peace than the Mickey Z article.
    As a veteran I haven’t felt this type of disrespect from the anti-war movement at any march or event I have been to so this certianly doesn’t represent the movement or even anarchists I have met as a whole.

    Its scary how supportive some people are of this action as a “wake up” action. It was titled on the Portland Indy Media page as response from people “tired of talking about peace and doing nothing about it”.
    I certianly support thinking about Iraqi people. I wouldn’t be in a veterans organization that didn’t make it a point of it. But showing the “anti-war” movement on Fox News burning a soldiers effigy isn’t going to make a soldier pause and say “hey maybe I shouldn’t have joined the military, or “hey maybe this war is illegal”.
    Its only going to gives ammunition to those against the the anti-war movement.
    You don’t have to support the troops under the defintion the right uses of support. Thats not support at all anyway.
    One way to support the troops is to make the anti-war movement a home for them, not burn effigies of them.

    2 April 2007, 7:19 pm

17. Randy Morris:

    Thank you for what you’re doing, Jen. You and the rest of the IVAW are real heroes in my eyes. I know that sounds cheesey, but you’re shouldering a LOT of responsibility and we truly appreciate it.

    If any of you ever need a place to crash in Wyoming, please look me up.

    Randy

    2 April 2007, 9:10 pm

18. aud:

    Randy, thanks for posting that link. The bottom of page 4 is crushing.

    General US population:
    white: 80%
    black: 12%

    US army enlisted - men:
    white: 61%
    black: 21%

    US army enlisted - women:
    white: 39%
    black: 40%

    When a bunch of white males – surrounded by a very white crowd, as Required points out - are burning effigies of troops who are disproportionately composed of black women, it’s a bit hard not to relate that to the all white mostly male crowd that protests against black women patients at my local women’s clinic.

    It’s not a matter, philosophically, of massaging anyone’s ego. If the goal is to prevent young people from being recruited, we need to do a whole lot better than “war is immoral, imperialism sucks, now go be unemployed and live in poverty for the rest of your life – if you need me, I’ll be in my 4 bedroom house in the suburbs.”

    2 April 2007, 11:52 pm

19. emma:

    Well, at least the young anarchists actions have you all talking. But one could say - so what?After having just finished reading Joshua Key’s book “The Deserters Tale” why I walked away from the war in Iraq, as told to Lawrence Hill the award winning Canadian journalist.” Pub: Text Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. 2007 As a humanist,I do not care a damn how many efigies of US soldiers are burnt. Here as just a few extracts from Joshua’ book -

    Fort Leonardwood - Missouri - training camp:

    “We too were made to shout out “Kill the sand niggers’as we stabbed the heads, then the hearts, and then slashed the throats of imaginary victims..”

    “Commanders also drilled these beliefs into us by making us memorise and call out various chants -

    One shot One Kill One Arab One Asian

    Another had to do with putting our skill as sappers, or makers and defusers of bombs, to good use:

    Who can take a shopping mall
    And fill it full of people?
    The sapper daddy can,
    Cause he takes a lot of pains
    And makes the hurt go good.

    Who can take all the people in the mall
    And chop ‘em up with Uzis?
    The saper daddy can,
    Cause he takes a lot of pains
    And makes the hurt go good.

    “IRAQIS IN THE MOUTHS OF THE OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, WERE NEVER IRAQIS. AND MUSLIMES WERE NEVER CIVILIANS. NOBODY ONCE MENTIONED THE WORD ‘CIVILIAN’ IN THE SAME BREATH AS IRAQ, WHEN I TRAINED TO BECOME A SOLDIER, IRAQIS,I WAS TAUGHT TO BELIEVE, WERE NOT CIVILIANS AND THEY WERE NOT EVEN PEOPLE…..” (my emphasise)

    Chants learnt at Fort Carson “‘while we learned the ins and outs of blowing things up with C-4 explosives:

    Take a playground
    Fill it full of kids,
    Drop on some napalm,
    And barbecue some ribs”

    “One of the thing that disturbed me most in the house-raids was having to run into bedrooms and round up sleeping Iraqi children. I couldn’t help imagining how my own children would react if armed soldier from another country burst into their rooms and tore them from their beds. I was supposed to keep my guns trained on them when I woke them, got them out of bed, and marched them outside. I couldn’t do it though, I could never point my M- 249 at a child.

    I would tap them gently on the shoulder and the poor kids would leap from bed petrified, screaming like the world was ending. And outside they would go, as their brothers and fathers were being zipcuffed and shoved onto the backs of trucks and sent out to who knows where……”

    “….Skyora has gone nuts, I said ‘He ’s inside the shack wresting with bodies and tossing them every which way.’ Sergeant Ferninetz looked away. “He needs to let out his aggression,’ he said quietly. ‘Let him have his fun.’

    ..After I came across the four decapitated heads by the side of the road in Ramadi, and saw soldiers in my own army kicking their heads for their own amusement. I began to dream of the incident and of the rolling heads -even though I arrived after the murder.

    …”We couldn’t catch or see the real insurgents, let alone take a clear shot at them, so civilians would have to do.”

    ..”It struck me that we, the American soldiers were the terrorists. We were terrorising Iraqis. Intimidating them. Beating them. Destroying their homes…..”

    Josuah tells how he took part in trashing Iraqi civilian homes, bashing them and stealing from them.
    He tells how every male Iraqi civilian over 5 foot high
    was taken from their families, and in most cases never to be seen again.

    “If you guys were fighting against me right now, I said to Sergeant Fadinetz, ‘you would all be dead at this very minute. I would have strung a mine up in those trees, and I would have been hiding right behind that big rock over there, and the instant you people rolled under these trees, I would have hit the switch. And you know what, Sergeant? Every one of you would be dead.’ To my surprise, the sergeant did not lecture me for speaking my mind. Softly, he told me, I’d do the same thing if people invaded America.”

    Joshua Keys was in the 35th Combat Engineering Co.
    and his job was to detonate the doors of civilian Iraqi
    homes before searching and destroying.

    Joshua - interview with “The Sunday Age” 4th March,2007
    ….”I owe one apology and one apology only and that is to the people of Iraq.”

    What Joshua Keys is telling the world is that the US Defense forces are not in Iraq to help Iraqis they are there to either humiliate, intimidate, imprison, torture, rape, kill and maim every Iraqi man, women and child - , father, mother, sister, brother, grandmother and grandfather, aunt and uncle they can.

    Perhaps it is about time that everyone should stop ‘going lightly’ on the pro-invasion citizens of the US and stop making excuses for the behavious of the US Defense Forces in Iraq - in some cases even pretending that those who have carried out this terrorism are ‘heroes’.

    And like Joshua Keys come to realise that ‘just doing their job” cannot be excused (as at the Nuremberg trials) as I assume most people whether they are religious or not,know right from wrong. As
    Joshua’s remembers he was taught this from his grandfather. And Joshua came from an extremely poor background. I thinks Joshua’s ‘truth’ should be given to every man and women young or older,before they sign up to the slaughter in Iraq.

    The Anti-War Movements are quite capable of doing this.
    But I do not believe they have the honest political will to do so.

    Putting aside the Anti-War Movement.If all of us who want the US armies atrocities against the Iraqi people to cease, then perhaps we can ensure that Joshua’s truth lands in every house in our communities. Because I am going to make sure everyone for miles around in this country gets a copy of this ‘truth’.

    I have commented before that I find very little passion in these discussions - perhaps this is what some do not like in the young anarchists? Perhaps they are not perfect,but neither are those who criticise. For those that may be constipated with theory? Well, here is a chance to get the action going.

    Emma.

    3 April 2007, 1:32 am

20. Required:

    Emma, the quotes you have given from Joshua Key’s book are important to the anti-war movement.

    However, I don’t believe anyone on this board has advocated “going lightly” (I’m wondering who were you quoting?) on pro-invasion forces and I don’t think anyone has made excuses for the US Defense Forces in Iraq. If they have point it out, by quoting the text.

    You may not “as a humanist” care how many “effigies of US soldiers are burnt.” But as an anti-war activist, we should care about actions which damage the anti-war movement. Some people on this board have made the case for why this action may do that. You have not attempted to make a similar counter claim. All you’ve done is stated that you don’t care.

    Arguing that the reason why people are down on this particular action is because they them selves are in active is a cop out. Many people on this board are very active. Regardless, the inactivity/activity of the people on this board has no influence over whether or this action was constructive.

    The quotes from the book were good, but you have not made a case for why they mean that the action will be beneficial to the anti-war movement. Instead you have argued mainly by using ad-hominem attacks.

    What I especially don’t like is your moralising towards the troops. Don’t they “know right from wrong?” They are largely people who are poor enough to have to take the jobs which require them to personally face the horrors which everyone else has the privilege to avoid. The clothes you wear, the computer you are typing on, the oil that is used to haul your ass around (or in the construction of the plastic in your eco-mobile), you’ve got all that because some one else has “humiliate(d), intimidate(d), imprison(ed), torture(d), rape(d), kill(ed) and maim(ed)” people to bring it to you. So I would suggest you don’t go waving fingers at soldiers, just because you’ve got the privilege to pay someone else to do your dirty work.

    3 April 2007, 3:29 am

21. Required:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfhUaUuG1sM

    Here are some black bloc protesters in a protest to block a shipment of supplies. I think this action is much more beneficial.

    3 April 2007, 4:12 am

22. Required:

    Also so I’m not seen as making excuses for soldiers…

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17393.htm

    3 April 2007, 4:15 am

23. audrey:

    At one of the last protests I was at, the anarchist contingent had fashioned giant shields for themselves; they linked arms and started forcing their way through the marchers to the front of the line, splitting up other contingents.

    I was aggressively shoved out of the way by one of them. I looked at him in surprise, and told him “You almost knocked me over.” (I have a knack for stating the obvious.)

    He looked apologetic, unlinked his arms and walked over to the side a bit. My perception was that he had broken character. James Minton and I have had some discussions about that – if you needle him for it, James has a good story about people at protests acting out particular roles, rather than just being people.

    Also part of my perception at the time was that the shield-bearing anarchists were perpetuating exactly the sort of macho glorification of aggressive bullying and intimidation that I thought I was struggling against.

    Not so long after that, I passed a cop who was dancing to the beat of the drummers in the protest. I don’t know what to do with that contrast.

    3 April 2007, 5:35 pm

24. DeAnander:

    not everyone who calls himself an Anarchist behaves like an Anarchist, any more than those who call themselves Christians behave like Christians. and as with any doctrine there are different schools of thought and traditions, and some are more deeply read in the tradition than others, and some secondary and tertiary interpretations vary widely, and so on and so on.

    I find macho Anarchists to be just as absurdly oxymoronic as militaristic “warrior Christians”. but then my take on Anarchism derives from the Kropotkin-to-Bookchin lineage, which repudiates masculinist militarism and male dominance as the primordial form of authoritarianism (”original sin” I guess we might say). so for young men to act in a bullying way towards others, using their youth and strength to dominate, imho is reversion to an earlier form of authoritarianism, not a step outside authoritarianism into true anarchy (the equality of unequals, as Bookchin puts it, in which we act to complement and compensate for each other’s weaknesses rather than to exploit them for dominance and control).

    there is a (imho shallow) school of “anarchism” that consists of crowing “No Rules” and behaving as rudely as you like; but I find it hard to distinguish it on a principled basis from the Bush Regime’s contempt for international law and insistence on shoving their way to the head of the parade using their nuclear and fossil-powered industrial and military shields…

    3 April 2007, 5:45 pm

25. DeAnander:

    @Required, I’d suggest substituting “we” for “you” in that effective list of the bennies accruing to us fortunate (?) denizens of the imperial core — unless you yourself never use a plastic product, burn any fossil fuel personally or at 2nd hand, etc., it’s us we are talking about as receivers of goods stolen or extorted by our imperial legions, all of us, not just some of us.
    I think pointing the fickle finger of personal moral failing at the individual is just tricky, whether it’s a soldier or a consumer. We can pick on outlying cases where there seems to be a wanton revelling in the wickedness being done (asshats with Sahara Club bumper stickers on their monster SUVs, avid racists eager to go hunting darker skinned people in any colonial war) — but most people even if they have some good will and some information and some disquiet in their hearts either are limited in the disengagement they can practise, or in their perception of alternatives. We are embedded in industrial capitalism and its war economy [I do believe a war economy is the inevitable endgame of industrial capitalism — the only obfuscatable and lucrative way to destroy the cumulative results of overproduction] as surely as the tame reporters were embedded with the troops. and with a similar effect.

    Yes, we are the beneficiaries of crime. Our lifestyle is supported by pyramids of crime, from disinformation, environmental liquidation and political corruption to torture, murder, mass murder… but at the same time we find it hard to separate ourselves from the criminal machineries — because they have so completely pervaded our lives, and because most of us have been made incapable of food security or self sufficiency. Even if we take to the street and live homeless, eating out of dumpsters, earning nothing, paying no taxes, refusing to engage with the System — we’re still eating out of dumpsters that contain the cast-off looted food wealth of the world, that flows into our stores and eateries thanks to armed might, business chicanery, loan sharking, corporate welfare, and fossil fuel squandering. If the war machine shut down, the dumpsters would be empty, and then how would we eat if we wanted to “drop out” from the criminal system?

    This tension — of knowing the system we live in to be unbearably wicked and corrupt, and yet not finding any “outside” of it or any door marked Exit leading to a different system — is a permanent feature of life in opposition to empire, patriarchy, etc. The wickedness is systemic; but we have some choices even so. I don’t think it has been demonstrated that Tillman — despite his Nordic Uebermensch good-looks — was one of those who (like Mockenhaupt) fell in love with the license to bully, kill, terrorise, etc.

    If it is not possible to be a good person trapped in a bad system and/or in false consciousness, then what are all of us? I’m typing this on a computer which was made by criminal means (behind every great technology is a great crime) and unless we change our ways soon, that computer will end up poisoning some lowpaid 3rd world recycling workers in a year or two. I don’t personally wish those outcomes — the initial toxicity or the after effects. I am a bad person, nevertheless, because I participate in the system of mass production of consumer electronics that is devastating the biosphere and indigenous and poor communities worldwide. Ah, but my employer bought this computer, not I. Well, why am I still working for this corrupt employer? Why am I not making sprouted whole wheat tortillas in a Mondragon-style co-op bakery? Or I am a good person trying to find my point of (dis)engagement with a bad system… working towards disengagement but partly paralysed, partly co-opted, partly afraid to risk poverty. insecurity, uncertainty? What was Tillman? was he on his way to disengagement, would he have become a CO, a Watada, a whistleblower? He didn’t live long enough to find out.
    I think we might benefit from a quick revisit of two competing schools of xtian theology: one which believes in original sin and human frailty tempered by the possibility of contrition, reparationg and redemption; the other believes that the Elect are saved, sinners and damned, and that’s all He wrote… I thimk I hear echoes of this very old debate in the wrangle here over how much war guilt can be ascribed to each of us in our varying roles as citizen, consumer, soldier.

    3 April 2007, 5:56 pm

26. emma:

    Continuing on the issue of Joshua Keys’ book - and comments so far.
    Having being one of the poor class,and having run an unemployment centre and worked with my fellow poor for 7 years I have no problem empathising respecting and communicating with them. In fact I find the majority of these people more refreshing to communicate with when it comes to the realities of life. Refreshingly these folk to not make mountains out of molehills, unlike the better-off classes which I have found in my life experiences, many are prone to do.

    A good example of this is when Joshua Keys tells us how he preferred to shoot all the puppies to save them being killed with a shovel by his Grandfather.

    The information I was hoping people would pick up from what Joshua was saying,most has been passed over. I find this very interesting.

    Most anti-invasion people publicly talk about how Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. But again I emphasise - Surely the biggest most obvious lie Bush tells here, is that the US defense forces are not in Iraq in support of the Iraqi civilians as Bush has had many people around the world believe. - but the commander-in-chiefs’ US troops are in fact in cowardly combat with unarmed Iraqi civilians.

    Most people whether they were rich poor or whatever would be absolutely shocked to know this, and
    so would those people on the bottom of the economical scrap heap whom Bush intends to use for cannon fodder.

    My previous comments were coming from a ‘practical’ view - as to how perhaps we can stop the flow of human cannon fodder into the US Defense forces at this present time.

    Joshua Keys did not know these facts before he joined up. He was told he would be staying in the US and not being drafted.

    I ask why didn’t Joshua know about the horrible things he would have to do to Iraqi men women and children?

    Isn’t it because nobody informed him?

    Yes, most of the aware people know that Bush is using people who are suffering economically and socially from the inequal society they live in.

    But if you read Joshua Keys book - he is one of the typical people Bush is using. Yes, he had a wife and children to keep - and was in very poor circumstances - but he was not prepared to become a killer of other innocent human beings to survive - he rejected this and has managed to survive so far.

    Surely, this tells us the most powerful weapon to use here is pre-active ‘true information’ to those who are being coerced into the US army. In other words ‘get in first.’ ‘beat them to it’.

    What I am trying to convey that I have faith in human beings no matter what colour or creed, that they do know right from wrong. And at least someone should be getting the truth out to these people so that they CAN make a moral choice.

    Instead it appears Joshua’s truth is not getting to where it should - and instead others in Peace-movements etc. are making excuses on people like Joshua’s behalf
    without seemingly successfully communicating with people such as Joshua.

    The power of Joshua’s comments is surely,that his facts are coming from someone who was a US occupier in Iraq. Straight from the occupiers mouth. This has more power than coming from anyone who has not been occupying Iraq.

    It has been interesting and very disappointing as to how people have responded.

    There is no response to Joshua’s vivid descriptions of human criminality against other humanbeings. Not even a ’shit, this is bloody terrible.’ or “Fuck Man” No healthy irrational emotional response

    No response to the idea of getting Joshua’s information out to those being called up.

    Perhaps nobody is capable of getting this onto a leaflet, and getting it out in the appropriate places or perhaps some might have the view it is not appropriate?

    Perhaps it might be too offensive to distribute?

    I am still being left in the dark on this one.

    Instead there are views about Anachists being rude or defensive comments about my mis-directed morals, DeAnander’s comments describing the western capitalist system we live in - minus any suggested solutions to the problem.- all appear to hold much,much,much more importance - than your US troops unacceptable and abhorrent treatment of Iraqi people. How incredibly sad!

    Although I am aware of what is going on in Iraq. Joshua’s truth still upsets me, as thank goodness I still retain a vivid imagination and compassion for my fellow beings.

    And in turn I know a great many more people who have been conned by our governments would share my upset if they only knew the true facts about Iraq.

    As a strong believer that one can learn until the day they die - I can say that I have learnt a hell of a lot from the comments to date in response to the Joshua Key’s facts on Iraq.

    Out of this experience, perhaps one could be forgiven for thinking that Bush is putting something in the drinking water?

    Is there something in the water over there in the US that appears to stifle your emotions and passion.

    There are many people in history that were driven
    by emotion and passion and intelligence that made a difference for the better in our world

    3 April 2007, 10:15 pm

27. emma:

    A separate response to ‘required’:
    I note you find Josua Key’s comments as ‘important’ you make it sound on the same par as an ‘important’ appointment. This is the type of comment I would expect from a stuffy bureaucrat.

    It is amazing, here is some working class chap named Joshua who has more courage than the whole anti-war movement in saying that the US army which he is part of are ‘terrorists’, and you think this might offend the public if the anti-war movement passed his truth on to
    them. Oh Dear!

    While we discuss the morals and ethics of Anarchists burning an efigy of a US soldier; how about discussing at the same time,the ‘truth’ about US troops burning real people alive with their phosphorous bombs in Iraq,and with their foo-guns in the first Gulf War. Did you see the film “Road to Guantanamo” -those funny bombs the US pilots dropped on villagers in Afghanistan -wiggling white lines appeared in the air then bodies just blew apart.

    And yes, as a humanitarian I am not concerned about the Anarchists burning an efegy of a US soldier. There are many people I have enjoyed knowing over many years who burn efigies in protest-movements who cannot even bring themselves to kill an ant,myself included.

    As the immediate issue is to stop the death and destruction in Iraq and if “required” cannot take my criticism of the US Army’s morals, and chooses to miss the point, this is merely by-the-way because I and many others will continue to criticise the US Defense Forces criminality until they leave Iraq.

    And yes, ‘required’ I do have a computer, no computer games, and try and use it for political advantage and communication. But sorry to disappoint you I have never owned or driven a car in my life - but do provide two free car parking spaces for the family next door who have four, six-person cars. And no, I do not have an up-to-date telephone I still use one of those black dial phones at home. And amazingly I can get through to the people that matter instead of pressing numbers and waiting for long periods.. And no I have never had a credit card on the principle they would do away with bank clerks jobs. How right I was! And no, I do not have a mobile, so unlike others I cannot ring home when I am about to get off the tram and tell the folks I will be there in a few minutes. This allows me to be free to piss off somewhere else if I feel like it. And I have never had a drink of that yuky US Coca-cola which is stealing water from other people around the world. And I recycle clothes and house needs by buying from and giving to op-shops where I get designer brands for bugger all. And I can personally recommend metal buckets they last a lifetime over plastic. So you see I’m trying. Do you have a car. If you do you should get rid of it because that is why your US forces are in Iraq.

    4 April 2007, 2:45 am

28. Required:

    @ DeAnander. I agree with what you’ve said. I shouldn’t have personalized it to Emma, I knew as I was writing it that this group also included me. Plus I agree with the rest of what you said too. Sorry, bit tired. Now. Not before.

    4 April 2007, 7:43 am

29. howard:

    I am reminded of John Woolman, mid-1700s American Quaker & an early American anti-slavery activist. In his 1770 essay, “A Plea for the Poor,” he wrote: “May we look upon our treasures, and the furniture of our houses, and the garments in which we array ourselves, and try whether the seeds of war have nourishment in these our possessions, or not.”

    5 April 2007, 12:10 am

30. Joe:

    I was at this protest, and I spent some of my youth involved with the same anarchist milieu, so I speak from experience when I say that testosterone was the underlying reason for the black bloc’s actions at this protest. They were looking for a fight not because they had thought through their actions, nor because they had made a decision that physical confrontation was the only available course of action, but because the were young, in a group, possessed with a belief in their own superiority to the thousands of others at the protest, and interested in the theatrical low-grade martyrdom of tear-gas and arrests.
    While the personal courage of those who went to jail for assault and whatever other charges the police cooked up is not in question, their reasons for doing so were very questionable, tied up, as they were, with machismo of the crusty-punk variety and a nihilistic disengagement with the broader movement against imperialism. I have to confess a little bit of pride in my adopted hometown for being a bit on the unmanageable side, but overall I think their actions were a waste of intelligence and potential.

    5 April 2007, 4:05 pm

31. emma:

    re:’Required’s indirect response: What a cop out!
    ‘Required’s’ evasiveness to my response to his/her comments ” appears to reflect a case of …. ‘I do not like, or I feel threatened with what Emma said. so now I will pretend l did not mean to respond to her.’
    How anally retentive.

    5 April 2007, 10:47 pm

32. emma:

    Well, it appears that this forum only works for those
    mainly male commentators, whom it seems, like to examine the deeper meanings of life,and are’possessed with a belief of their own superiority’ when they come up against other ideas and views that do not fit snuggly into their moulded view of the world.

    Perhaps this is why very few people around the world
    bother to join in the discussions on this site.

    Even the view put forward here about the Anarchists burning an efigy of a US soldier - sound like the views of the left-boot of imperialism. Not one commentator attempted to assess the obvious symbolism of this - which to me clearly says You! US soldier! disappear! evaporate, go back from whence you came,and the hurt of the Iraqi people will stop.’

    Well, as someone not easily put off, I will be content to have a one sided chat with myself on this forum.

    Emma, Even though Joe,Howard, DeAnander and Required, do not support your call to get Joshua Key’s ‘truth’out publicly, and they have selectively ignored what you said, perhaps they might respond if it is coming from Joshua, being a man and all that. So here goes -

    Joshua Keys statement to the American Public:

    “ALTHOUGH I WOULD LOVE TO SIT DOWN WITH THE PRESIDENT,
    I WOULD LIKE EVEN MORE TO HAVE HALF AN HOUR WITH EVERY
    YOUNG AMERICAN WHO IS THINKING OF SIGNING UP FOR THE POVERTY DRAFT. AS POOR AND AS DESPERATE AS MY YOUNG
    FAMILY WAS WHEN I DROVE TO THE RECRUITING CENTRE IN OKLAHOMA IN MARCH OF 2002, I WOULD NEVER HAVE SIGNED UP
    IF I KNEW THAT I WOULD BE BLASTING INTO IRAQIS’HOUSES, TERRORISING WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND DETAINING EVERY MAN
    WE COULD FIND - AND ALL THAT FOR $1200 A MONTH AS A PRIVATE FIRST CLASS. SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE, I WOULD HAVE FOUND A JOB AND A WAY TO SURVIVE, I WOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO WAR FOR MY COUNTRY, IF I HAD KNOWN WHAT MY COUNTRY WAS DOING AT WAR IN IRAQ.

    YOUNG PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, THAT THEY DON’T HAVE TO LIVE
    WITH THE MORAL ANGUISH OF FIGHTING AN IMMORAL WAR….”
    (my emphasises. In his Joshua’s book the word ‘never’ is emphasised.)

    This is where Joshua is more honest than those politicos in the anti-invasion movement - who make up excuses for the poor without asking the poor. Joshua says here ’somewhere I would have found a job and a way to survive” He does not say like the political excusers would have us believe. ‘I did not have any alternative’.

    Well, yes Emma it seem Joshua agrees with you-that all potential recruits to the US army have to be told the truth first. But Require seems to know better than Joshua and he says it would be very antagonistic to the American Public if Joshua’s truth was told to them.

    Well, Require is not the official moral guardian of the American public is he? So we will just ignore him.

    And Emma,it appears Howard finds an 1770 essay by John Woolman “A Plea for the Poor’ is more important than Joshua’s plea. But isn’t Joshua’s plea a plea for the poor?

    Well, evidently Howard does not think so.

    And Jo, well he was more interested in the Anarchists and black people’s ‘nihilistic’ disengagement with the broader movement against imperialism.

    But Emma, the broad anti-invasion movement consists of many people with different political views and there are many in the movement who represent the left boot of imperialism which many black people and Anarchists are aware of?

    Yes, it is a pity that these movements are a waste of intelligence and potential when it comes to them not developing into genuine peoples’ liberation movements.

    Well Emma we will see ‘if the workers’ arise from their slumber’ in response to Joshua’s call for action.

    We certainly will. And by the way did you read where Bush is going to commit international human genocide by
    growing crops of cereals to feed to cars instead of people? He won’t be using American soil and water though. Bush said that US cars preferred the taste of cereals grown from Latin America.

    Hear from you soon Emma! Your certainly will.

    MODERATOR’S REMARK: We hope this doesn’t devolve into Menshevik-baiting by the true leaders of the true people’s liberation movements. If it does, we will be conducting a purge.

    7 April 2007, 10:53 am

33. Randy Morris:

    Hi Emma—

    I’m interested by your passion, but I’m having a hard time understanding what your message is.

    Your rage at the system is well-founded and, I am confident, shared by everyone here. I rage a lot on my own time. Sometimes I rage here. But this isn’t a directionless gabfest like so many blogs out there. As far as I can tell, most of the people who post regularly here are VERY active in their respective communities and tend to approve of strategically thought-out disruptive actions on the part of “front-liners.” I’m not sure everyone here wouldn’t agree that the modern American military is indeed being morphed specifically into a terrorist organization. I was in it, and I certainly think it is—I just happen to have a different view on how it should be tackled.

    What are you asking of me, Emma? I’m a small-business owner with two young kids in rural Wyoming; I already know what I am trying to do to make things right, but I would like to hear what you would like me to do.

    Randy

    7 April 2007, 9:22 pm

34. Jen:

    One question: How does burning an effigy help get Joshua’s “truth” out?

    8 April 2007, 8:31 pm

35. Don Bacon:

    Interesting chatter. All good.

    However I would like to make a point which hasn’t been made and needs to be made. That is, to refer to “US troops” or “soldiers” without recognizing the military hierarchy is an allusion.

    The military is a ultra-hierarchal organization where officers are everything and enlisted, particularly the lower grades, are next to nothing.

    The atrocities which have happened, and are happening, in Iraq and Afghanistan are accomplished by enlisted soldiers presumably under the orders and supervision of commissioned officers. Likewise with the training of the troops before deployment.

    Officers are supposedly educated in the arts of war, to include such particulars as the Law of Land Combat, the Geneva Convention, etc. Officers take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

    Enlisted soldiers are trained in soldiering with some exposure to conventions but with much more emphasis on killing the enemy that they are put up against. They’re the ones (not the officers) that have to do the killing and they have to be highly motivated for this un-natural act. Enlisted soldiers take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me”.

    Notice the difference between the status and the oaths that pertain to officer and enlisted, and in doing so learn to differentiate between “soldiers” and “officers” when it comes to apportioning blame for atrocities. Basically, in law, officers answer to the Constitution while enlisted soldiers have to obey orders. So primary blame, if there is to be any, ought to fall on officers and not enlisted. The enlisted are taking a bum rap for following the orders of malfeasant officers–let’s put the blame where it belongs.

    We should be asking: Why did the US military officer corps order or allow enlisted soldiers to commit illegal and immoral acts, acts that violate every military convention and result in such death and destruction to innocents, as well as mental trauma to the perpetrators?

    So don’t burn soldiers in effigy, they’ve suffered enough.

    P.S. I’m a retired officer.

    8 April 2007, 11:25 pm

36. Required:

    Sorry Emma I missed your post. I had originally meant to post my response to De sooner but for some reason I couldn’t. Then a couple days later I just logged in an posted with out checking the development of the conversation. I didn’t mean to ignore you.

    Your first comment that my use of the word “important” is reminiscent of a “stuffy bureaucrat” is merely a guilt by association debating tactic. Well done.

    The second paragraph is should be including in Critical Thinking text books as an example of a straw man argument.

    As for your 3rd paragraph, I did not discuss the “morals and ethics” of any fucking thing and don’t appreciate your misrepresentation of my argument. Yes, inform people about the atrocities of war (this wording may seem “bureaucratically” detached, but I refuse to get drawn into retelling the most gruesome accounts of war we both remember in an effort to prove how much each of us cares about the war) but we have to also discuss and critique strategies and tactics for actually stopping it.

    Your forth paragraph is merely a reiteration of a point I’ve already addressed. The addition information about you readiness to kill does not change this fact, although I feel like it MAY be indicative of a fundamentalist pacifistic belief that all violence is wrong. Is this the case?

    Your fifth paragraph is a second straw man followed by what seems to be your strategy for ending the war. You will “to criticise the US Defense Forces criminality until they leave Iraq.” So basically at some point they just want be able to handle any more criticism and they’ll pack up and leave?

    As for your 6th paragraph, my point was not that everyone on this forum has in some way, indirectly contributed to the oppression of the 3rd world.

    In your second post you accuse me of “not support(ing) your call to get Joshua Key’s ‘truth’ out publicly.” Please !!QUOTE!! the words in which I state that I do not support your call. One of the things stated explicitly was that “the quotes from the book were good (and important to the anti-war movement), but you have not made a case for why they mean that the action (of burning effigy’s of soldiers) will be beneficial to the anti-war movement.” This is not the same as not supporting the dissemination of Key’s writing.

    Obviously every person who signs up for the war has other options. These may range from pursuing a career in medicine to living on the streets. As a white man Joshua, has a few more options than many in the military. For arguments sake, let’s assume that every person who signs up to the US military is utterly immoral; if you ranked it would be (for instance) Mussolini bronze, (for instance) Hitler silver and everyone who ever enlisted in the US military is equal first place for the gold medal of most “immoral” human being to have ever walked the earth. Let’s just say that it’s a given that these people are basically “evil”. How does that influence the effectiveness of the tactic of burning an effigy of a soldier?

    I posted on this topic because I thought we were discussing the effectiveness of the strategy of burning effigy’s of soldiers. If you can show me how this tactic will end the war sooner please do so. If I thought that it would end the war, I’d burn 1000’s of them. But so far you’ve done little more than moralize about troops and misrepresent the arguments of myself and others who have posted here.

    9 April 2007, 12:12 am

37. emma:

    It is good to see more people come into this debate. First in response to Randy If you re-read my first comments Randy - I was simply making a suggestion that the Joshua Key’s statements about the ‘truth’ of what the US Defense Forces were really doing in Iraq should be reprinted on say for example a simple two-page leaflet and distributed to people in our local communities. Nothing really very complicated. This is what I was urging individuals to do. Because as I stated previously,that”truth” is the one thing Bush & Co. fear most. Perhaps it could be a good idea to read the book for yourself first.

    I was spurred on to write this suggestion after reading the responses on this particular forum on the Anarchist burning an effigy of a US soldier.

    I thought to myself why so much intense discussion about this action,when US troops have burnt Iraqi people alive! -

    Response to Jen: Jen, nowhere in my comments have I suggested that we burn effigies of US soldiers in getting Joshua’s truth out. I can see why you might be confused in thinking this that after reading Required’s comments.

    Response to Don: Yes, Don I know that the Army has a hierarchy and that the Commander-in-Chief Bush heads it. And under the Geneva Convention there is a section about civilians which Joshua Keys quotes in his book:

    ‘Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.’

    Also Joshua refers to his commanders being more responsible for the crimes -

    “I am responsible for the things that I did. And my commanders were even more responsible for putting us there and ordering us to do the things we did…..”

    Also Joshua refers to the United States instigated Nuremberg trials….”Just following the orders of a superior does not relieve oneself from the responsibilities of international law,provided that a moral choice was possible.”

    In this case a moral choice is possible because of the laws about ‘civilians’ under the Geneva Conventions.

    And in this case, firstly the whole of the US Defense
    forces from the Commander-in-Chief down to the rank-and-file soldiers are illegally carrying out military operations against a civilian population. And secondly, the troops at the bottom do have a ‘moral choice’of not to follow orders - according to laws instigated and set out by the United States Government.
    -Nuremberg Trials

    Surely, there is no honour in being an illegal invader and occupier of another sovereign country and contravening the Geneva Convention by being in combat with the civilian population and not making a moral choice to refrain from doing this. And since the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq, to this present day, this represents the present status of the whole of the US Defense Force from the Chief Commanding Officer right down the line to the rank-and-file soldier.

    This being the case I fail to see what is o wrong in burning an effigy of a US soldier at the invasion protests.

    Response to Required: No Required I did not ask you to inform people about the atrocities of war. I asked to to pass on to them the ‘truth’ of Joshua Keys.

    As for ‘tactics’ and strategies’. Informing the public of the truth of Iraq is a pretty good tactic for starters. Murdoch stated “That whoever controls the information controls the world.” At the present time he seems to be doing pretty well in the control stakes.

    After all a huge number of the US population believe the US army is in Iraq helping the Iraqi civilians - this is the daily news they get every day from Bush Murdoch and the US Army.

    Regarding 4th para - What I am saying here is that
    burning an effigy of a US soldiers does not mean one is a violent person. No, like Ghandi I believe sometimes violence is necessary in certain circumstances.

    Regarding your comments on my 5th para -I never claimed that criticising US atrocities would end the war. I am not a nitwit.
    I refer readers to your quote; “The quotes from this book were good but you have not made a case for why they mean that action will be beneficial to the anti-war movement.”

    I ask why have you now re-interpreted the above quote to now include “of burning effigy’s of soldiers”? Are you hoping people will be too lazy to go back and look at your original statement. This again,is seemingly dishonest in that it intentionally misleads the reader.

    You still continue to intentionally intertwine the issue of my, on the one hand, urging people to spread
    the truth of Joshua Key’s and the issue of burning effigies. I find it interesting as to why you are doing this.

    I do not have to show how the tactic of burning an effigy of a soldier will end the invasion. Because I have never been nutty enough to say it would.

    As to your comments regarding Joshua Keys, being a white man and having a few more options than many in the military. I would suggest you read his book before you make such un-informed comments.

    If urging people on a practical basis to get Joshua’s
    truth out to the public is seen by yourself as merely moralising about troops and misrepresenting you and others who have posted here then I suggest you should attend classes on “clear thinking”.

    As a political tactician I though it was appropriate to bring in at the same time the issue of burning real people.

    The harsh truth is that the effectiveness of burning an effigy of a soldier on bringing the troops home is about as effective as all the other actions in the protest marches. This is why the Democrats have joined up with Bush in ensuring the US’s illegal occupation of Iraq continues.
    .

    9 April 2007, 6:41 pm

38. required:

    Damn it, I messed up again. It should read…

    As for your 6th paragraph, my arguement was that everyone on this forum has in some way, (at least) indirectly contributed to the oppression of the 3rd world. It was not designed to do anything except try and move the debate away from pointless moralising. Maybe not the best strategy but that’s what I was trying to do.

    10 April 2007, 3:31 am

39. Thorin:

    I think such tactics are silly; they don’t really contribute anything and just draw attention away from the REAL criminals: Bush & Co.

    That said, I’m not too concerned about what the right wing will say. They’ve been cherry-picking the most lunatic-seeming aspects of anti-war demonstrations for years, and this is no exception.

    I would put this one soldier burnt in effigy up against the thousands of real ones that Bush has killed or maimed, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to suffer the same (or worse) fate.

    10 April 2007, 10:40 am

40. Required:

    ““The quotes from this book were good but you have not made a case for why they mean that action will be beneficial to the anti-war movement.”

    I ask why have you now re-interpreted the above quote to now include “of burning effigy’s of soldiers”? Are you hoping people will be too lazy to go back and look at your original statement. This again,is seemingly dishonest in that it intentionally misleads the reader.”

    You have misquoted me. The original unaltered quote actually reads…

    “The quotes from the book were good, but you have not made a case for why they mean that THE action will be beneficial to the anti-war movement.” (emphasis added)

    THE, As in THE effigy burning. Given that the post is about a specific effigy burning protest action it doesn’t seem unreasonable that a person referring to “the action” would be making reference to the effigy burning. Surely even you can see the irony of wondering aloud whether or not people would go back to check the original quote, given the fact that it is you who altered the original text.

    I agree that Josh’s work could be influential on the anti-war movement and if people want to disseminate it, than (with the limited knowledge I have of the text) I support that. I also think that the soldier effigy burning action was unproductive. More beneficial actions should take it’s place in the future.

    10 April 2007, 11:09 pm

41. Jen:

    I myself have read Josh’s book and passed it on to some other folks too cause it is that damn good and reminds me exactly why I left the military.

    To respond Emma my point is not that you yourself are saying we should burn effigies in order to tell soldiers about Josh’s book.

    What I AM saying is that burning effigys will make it harder to reach soldiers, and THAT is why you should care that it was done.

    My concern is not over the lighting fire to cloth when there are people who are suffering worse. My concern is over the things you are saying we should be doing to reach out is hampered over the effigy action.

    These are in themselves two seperate conversations, the need to outreach to troops and discussing the tactic of burning soldier effigies.

    I could care less what the right will say about this, I do however care what soldiers will see this action as saying about how the anti-war movement feels about them. Shouldn’t we be trying to bring them into the anti-war movement istead of pushing them away?

    Peace,
    Jen

    12 April 2007, 4:49 pm

42. emma:

    Jen, Joshua Keys’ ‘truth’ and the Anarchists’ burning an effigy of a US soldier are separate stories, but are relevant to each other.

    Regarding your concerns about what the soldiers will think of the anti-invasion movement - I would be interested in what the US anti-invasion movement feels about their US soldiers. I know what I feel about them, and millions of people around the world feel about them - but I am not quite sure what the people who represent the anti-invasion movement feel about them. From these discussions I get mixed signals on this issue.

    Even the fact that the anti-invasion movement calls itself the anti-war movement reflects dishonesty. Because the truth is that this is not a war - it is an illegal invasion and occupation of another sovereign country. There is a big difference here.

    Yourself having being in the military would know the difference between a war and an illegal invasion and occupation. Bush and his opposition calls it a war too - so it seems on this issue it appears there is one things that Bush, the opposition, the anti-invasion movement and the US soldiers have in common, and that is united self -deception. I find this one very interesting.

    On the question of worrying what those who do not agree with us think about us. If one worried about this we would never do anything really worth while to better our society.

    Why is it we confront our children when they have done something wrong, yet in this case,when US soldiers do something wrong, they should not be confronted because these same soldiers may then not like the anti-invasion movement.

    On this same issue people would probably be very interested in looking at the article on Mickey Z site where he is discussing the excuses that “Troops Home Now” are using for US soldiers’ crimes in Iraq.

    This article also has some interesting information
    regarding the numbers of middle class who have entered the US army and how the poor-class numbers have reduced.

    Mickey Z refers to being in Texas and seeing a sticker on a truck owners vehicle whom he assumes is affiliated
    to some sort of airborne US military unit.

    The Stickers has a black background with a white
    human skull out of which two eagles wings sprout and
    says “Death From Above”. At least this sticker being publicly displayed gives us information we need to know - which is that apparently many in the US air force
    are enjoying their job of slaughtering Iraqi civilians.

    Well, I am confident in saying Joshua Key’s ‘truth’ will offend US soldiers much more than the burning effigy - Truth initially can be very cruel. On the basis of your argument Jen, Should people keep “Joshua’s ‘truth’ to themselves and allow the US soldiers to just get on with doing their job safe in the knowledge that the so-called anti-war movement do not want to offend them ?

    And Require I will not waste your time and my time on how to translate ‘the action’. There are numerous comments on this forum that do not refer specifically to ‘the action’ as you interpret as “burning an effigy of a US soldier”. It is interesting why you choose to isolate my comments from theirs. This tells me a lot.

    And Bush would agree with your statement about my pointless moralising’, because he does’nt have any morals. But surely, you must have?

    And I do not care if I offend the majority of your US soldiers. I will continue to moralise about them. (This excludes the minority of US soldiers who do have morals and are against the illegal invasion and occupation - they are the real heroes and have my utmost respect - my hat goes off to them)

    Anway I am going to make sure Joshua’s Keys’ ‘truth’
    about Iraq is spread throughout as far and wide as possible in this part of the world. Phew!! I did not think it would be such hard work over a simple suggestion.
    regards
    Emma.

    14 April 2007, 9:02 am

43. Stan:

    “Death from Above” logos, bumper stickers, tattoos, etc., are exactly the same kind of logos, bumper stickers, tattoos, etc. as NRA slogans, as plot lines in films, and music videos… as cultural archetype… one could go on.

    That thing that makes them the same is the elephant in the living room, as always: it’s called masculinity. And it ain’t restricted to the military. It starts in the nursery.

    14 April 2007, 11:15 am

44. Jen:

    Emma,
    I have no problem with telling people about Jeff’s truth, whether they are soldiers or not. I think people NEED to hear it.

    As a former soldier, who choose to walk away from the Army over my disagreement with this war who now works with other Veterans to end the war, I am saying burning an effigy is counter productive.

    Thats it. The only critique I have of your comments is brushing the effigy off as nothing.

    If your kids do something wrong you don’t burn an effigy of them.

    Although in your new comment you said “Yourself having being in the military would know the difference between a war and an illegal invasion and occupation”. This is dead wrong. From inside that institution you DO NOT learn those things. I had to find that out all on my own.

    Jen

    14 April 2007, 9:44 pm

45. Required:

    Don’t have time to admit you misquoted me but plenty of time to use the misquote to make allegations that I was dishonest and tried to mislead people. What a peculiar time management system you employ, Emma.

    “I do not care if I offend the majority of your US soldiers…”

    hehe, tricky, “my soldiers” nice try. Here’s the question I ask you…

    What if in order to stop the occupation we need to convince them to join the struggle against it, and by offending them we make that less likely? What if in effect, offending the troops prolongs the war, do you then care about whether we offend the troops?

    15 April 2007, 5:16 am

46. Stan:

    Been staying out from plain time constraints, but this thread — as contentious as it is — has raised some very important issues. I hope that from this fractious beginning, we can agree on our mutual fallibility (and embrace that) and that we are all struggling with various phases of disentaglement from dominant ways of knowing.

    Any time we get tangled thus, it is a pretty good sign that the resolution of the issue (thesis, antithesis, synthesis… for Hegelians) can be located in a deeper cycle of reality than those we are already naming. This is the essence, in many ways, of the collective critical process. I want to acknowledge Emma here, and to value her, even though I fundamentally disagree with her, because she has been willing to articulate and re-articulate her position against these various challenges.

    My own experience, as a former member of a left class-first political formation, was very educational; and one of the ways that education proceeded for me was by obliging me to defend the positions of my organization (which I had internalized as my own as part of an organizational dynamic). In that process of defending the interpretative methods and baseline beliefs of a political tendency, I encountered plenty of resistance from what we might call “mainstream” argument. These interventions were easy; and the quality of our debate often just swallowed up these simplistic positions and rationales. This can lead us to believe that — since we are not receiving difficult or credible challenges — we have achieved a state approaching omniscience, embodied in an ideology. But operating out of an Us and Them framework (a dual framework), tends to simplify our thinking, and can lead us to evade complexity inside our bunkers of True Belief. When this is combined with a real, felt sense of moral outrage, then we can become polemicists of Good versus Evil (wherein we are tempted - a good religious term there - to simultaneously idealize the oppressed and demonize the oppressors).

    The “episteme,” the unstated categories and assumptions, that form the foundation of this kind of thinking - in our day and age - is individualistic; and therein lies not only the concealment of the true and complex nature of a social system, but the misinterpretation of what measures are necessary and efficacious to challenge that system. This episteme also leads us to take criticism personally, and to respond in kind with personal judgments of those with whom we debate.

    The tension here between personal accountability (of soldiers) and systemic causation (the multiple and interacting determinants of social control and behavior within a system) has brought this contradiction into sharp relief. This is a liberal conundrum, and not surprisingly, because we live in a liberal society (in the classical, not topical, sense), where every individual is seen as somehow an autonomous moral actor carefully weighing each decision in her/his life.

    I’m taking care of a baby today. He is less than eight months old. Horse sense tells us that we cannot expect this child to make certain kinds of decisions; because his physical and social development have not yet provided him with enough experience and information to even survive, much less navigate the complexities of social life.

    But ideology, as noted here about a thousand times, does two things simultaneously: it conceals relations of power and reproduces them. So, in a sense, the dominant ideology, inculcated through family, school, the media, et al, develops those skills in each of us only to the point where we can function within the boundaries of that system. In every other way, this ideology infantilizes all of us, by deliberately crushing or atrophying those aspects of critical thought and practice that expose dominant ideology.

    The liberal challenge to imperialism, returning to our original context, uses the stated ethos of liberalism - abstract, philosophically idealistic, based on the Rational Man model of the moral automaton - to point up hypocrisy in the practices of the system… and this is important, even as it has its dangers. This is not surprising, because we have very few other tools in our ethical armamentarium.

    But a system, by definition, is not reducible to its parts. It is bound together by a set of cyclic relations - some bonds being strong and some weak - and in a system as vast, as disembedded, as unaccountable as ours, is not permeable to individual changes in practice when the overwhelming majority of people cannot see a way clear from their own dependency on the system, and therefore in its stability. The conditions for real and deep change occur only when there are ruptures in the stability of the system arising out of contradictions within the system itself. Individual and even mass actions by minorities can have an effect, but these effects are only amplified and accepted by larger populations when these internal instabilities have shaken the confidence of, and immiserated or frightened, majorities.

    The question for revolutionaries can never be whether they are entitled to do something (we need a very deep discussion about how we define “rights” and where these “rights” come from); the question is does what we do advance or retard our efforts to use the fault lines in the system we oppose to shift more political power to those on the wrong end of multiple hierarchies. As long as we remain trapped in a simplistic Good vs Evil paradigm, we can never understand what the system looks like in detail, how it is changing, and what those changes are likely to be.

    If anyone thinks that soldiers are responsible for war, then they will have to show me that soldiers can describe the system they are in… they can’t in most cases… and that they are self-supporting in their efforts to make war. Every US soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is provided with bullets, but s/he is also provided with thousands of dollars a week in sundries, bottled water, electricity and fuel, food, equipment, transportation, communications, etc etc etc. Where does this whole capacity originate?

    If we pay taxes, we are as complicit as any soldier. If we work in WalMart or Arby’s or Barnes & Noble, we are participating in this system… because imperialism cannot be reduced to military action.

    The question is not complicity. It is dependence. So long as we are dependent on this system, we (as a society) will accept our own participation and that of soldiers, too, even if we don’t understand how this all fits together.

    One thing that differentiates this war from Vietnam is the high number of married troops… troops who depend on the military for their livelihood and that of their families. In this sense, they are dependent in the same ways as the rest of us. This is one reason there has been such a slow process of open dissent within the military; where in Vietnam, the majority of soldiers - single - did not have to weigh the consequences with others in mind.

    Things that remain constants in imperial military adventures are: the soldier believes the lies about the nature of the war (in a Good v Evil format) but in the conduct of his/her job, the solider is the one person who cannot remain in the dark except by an act of sheer will. The soldier is the person who is charged with the task of carrying out the war. This not only makes soldiers dangerous on account of role conflicts, it makes everyone of them a potential witness. That translates into something far more important than taking a position against the war, whatever the hell that means. Dissident soldiers are in the best position - in our actually existing society, given the valorization of the military in a miltiarizing phase of imperialism - to delegitimate the whole discourse of the imperial ruling class.

    Burning a soldier in effigy does not win anyone new over to a struggle against any aspect of imperialism. the criterion again… “does what we do advance or retard our efforts to use the fault lines in the system we oppose to shift more political power to those on the wrong end of multiple hierarchies?” No. It does not.

    It is - in the truest and most individualistic fashion - a form of moral exhibitionism, more-revolutionary-than-thou posturing, based on the idea that this kind of provocation might magically catalyze resistance (presumably by attracting new membership into whichever formation engages in the provocation, whereupon they will unite and everyone will flock to their black flag).

    The reality is that it alienates the vast, vast, vast majority of people, and has the exact opposite effect - it strengthens the arguments of imperial apologists in the eyes of most people. There is hardly a family - black, white, brown, or other - in the US who does not have at least one loved one in the military.

    And polarizing soldiers against our movement against the war by conducting mock executions of them alienates a special group of people… not merely witnesses, but young, energetic, smart-and-getting-smarter-fast people, who are fueled in their opposition to war by the sense of betrayal peculiar only to those who once “bought it.” These are people who are trained to overcome obstacles, to solve practical problems, to operate as teams, and to show tremendous physical courage. We want them. We need them.

    Those who “do not care if they offend them” may not realize it, but this attitude translates into not caring if you are effective at more quickly bringing this war to an end.

    These soldiers will soon enough feel the consequences of their own participation without hooded provocateurs’ antics. I have watched many of them, including those who are thankfully on this thread right now, struggle every day with their own parts in the war. No one is more keenly aware of the fundamental immorality of the war than they are. It haunts their dreams and stalks their imaginations. The rest of us are like those people in the supermarket, buying our ham and stew meat, and blissfully separated from the reality of the kill-floor in some windowless slaughterhouse.

    Get to know these former soliders. They are returning from an abyss; and we need them just as they need us.

    15 April 2007, 10:49 am

47. Mitchell Brewer:

    Burning effigies of soldiers is certainly a statement though quite immature, and therefore it deserves little space in public debate. Hence maybe why Drudge only gave it such short time. It would be, in my humble opinion, dead wrong to pull out now. I was schooled a couple of years ago by a seminar put on by the College of Defense. These guys explained, in my interpretation, what this latest assignment in Iraq is all about - SECURITY. The USA provides security for commodities around the world. Iraq, like several other countries, was and still is, a glitch on the global commerce map. We’re there to patch this up. We’re also in Afghanistan to apply a patch as well. The USA contracted through it’s father/mothers to go to the middle east and topple Saddam and set the country up as a democratic one. Business is better in such societies because they’re much more predictable and more likely to benefit the economic needs of the masses. I for one believe that if the flow of oil is stopped I, like many parents, will not have a plate of food to put in front of my children. In essence, this little security detail we as a nation are on is quite important. Mature Americans understand this and you will not see many folks with kids out there burning effigies of the security forces. Welcome to the new global economy. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, China, it seems, covets our security contracts. They want in. It appears they’re tooling up. They might believe they could do a better job. I shudder at this thought, knowing that it’s quite possible their people would not be burning effigies of their “company” members. I look forward to the debate. I’ve found some very good food for thought on this blog.

    STAN RESPONDS: Glad you are benefitting from engagement with FS. I don’t want the thread to be diverted prematurely, because I don’t think we are dealing with a simple, cut-and-dried issue. Moving through political strategies and simultaneously avoiding what old-timers call both “left and right deviations” (infantile adventurism on the one hand, and opportunism on the other) is not unlike navigating a submarine through Norwegfian fjords… a reason I am coming to eject grand strategies tied to eternal “principles” (read: dogma)… the emerging circumstances never change in predictable ways.

    The main commodities for which the US have taken up security are those which cross international waters on ships, especially oil. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan has ever been a threat to any of this. In fact, Iraq remained open to US commerce, on favorable terms, even while it was being attacked by the US. Afghanistan has only one major export commodity, opium, and that move overland toward Europe, where Euro banks get an invisible dividend from laundering the cash. The US does not depend on oil for its food yet, because (1) we have more than enough arable land to feed ourselves without a single import, and (2) we could easily do without 2/3 of our present consumption of energy with ill effects primarily on profits and no real danger to public health (except from addiction withdrawal of sorts). That puts us well below our dependency line on imports from the Persian Gulf region.

    You say, “The USA contracted through it’s father/mothers to go to the middle east and topple Saddam and set the country up as a democratic one.” I apologize for being short, but this makes no sense. What contract? What democracy? The principle purpose for the Iraq invasion was connected to a grand plan for the post-Cold War redisposition (rendered obsolete by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact) of American imperial military forces… bases, that is. The plan was to establish bases in Iraq (since they’d been forced out of Saudi Arabia) as the “hub” for future spokes into the region. Some folks called the concept “lily pads.” My apologies to the College of Defense for dissin’ them this way; but they are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. There has never been any threat to stop oil flow; so the idea that this was to prevent a halt in oil flow makes no sense. It’s a hidden premise that functions as an article of faith in a culture of impressions and images that have supplanted critical thought. The real emergency is the looming threat of an end to cheap oil. The prime directive is that capitalist accumulation continues uninterrupted. Plastic toys from China are not exactly a response to scarcity; the purpose of their production (from the standpoint of the owners and managers of the enterprises) is not plastic toys (they could care less if they all end up in creek beds or land fills). The purpose of the activity is to accumulate money. Oil is a critical liquid fuel for this accumulation process.

    In fact, if we factor in how much it costs to maintain the dominance necessary to keep our place at the front of the consumer queue for liquid fuel, the price at the pump represents only a fraction of the cost to American consumers for this profligacy. The true cost of oil is enormous, and includes costs of military power projection, military contracting, diplomatic intiatives, payoffs, subsidies via governmental infrastrucuture assistance, et al… a tab that gets picked up by US consumers (this is called externalizing the costs, by the profit engines called energy companies… get it? you are external). None of this is necessary in any real sense of the word. It is a system in which a few exist parastically off the many (and we are among the many, with enough privilege to keep us calmed down); and there are other, better, and more simple ways to do things. It just requires a political solution, ie, the defeat of ruling class political power. That’s a big “just,” but the stakes are pretty big, too. So the question is really, how do we enlist the maximum number of people in this struggle against a system that is aiming our children at a hellish dystopia (here for many already)? That’s why the question of effigy-burning is important. Starting arguments for the purpose of proving our moral superiority might feel satisfying to some folks (that kick wears off by and by, too). Building the social solidarities necessary for future struggles from among the “un-evolved” is harder work — like crossing a large body of water — but where we want to go is across that body of water, so the hard work is inevitable… if, that is, we want to win.

    15 April 2007, 5:27 pm

48. Mitch:

    I think I could find a bite to eat should I run out of gas. However, once the Lance man runs out, the Gwaltney truck, the turkey trucks, etc. The shock would be awful and would reverberate soundly. So, I ask myself, “is this threat worth protesting myself against?” I say yes. Therefore, I will vote accordingly. Is there a better way? Yes, let’s get it on. I’ll do my part. Like Stan, I now cut the grass like Mr. Dukakis did/does? I wonder what the Portland kids lit the effigies with? Yes, I’m external but I think that the U.S. has a stake for it’s people in the liquid fuel arena. Fact is, and will remain for a while, that we gotta have it. Yes, we’re the bread basket of the world, but tell me that this generation of parents and kids know how to glean what they need and I would beg to differ. Can we be taught? Yes when the economy necessitates. We trusted our leaders on the attack of Iraq. They’ve all admitted they made a mistake. WOW!! My bad! “My blood say we.” My Dad fought in Nam, 101st and yes, Airborne. An infantryman. He killed, maimed, and was treated the same way. For what? A damned policy! Literally. Ditto for Iraq. Unbelievable! I asked him did he know why he was fighting. He said because he was told to. It was fight or be jailed. He did what the leaders bet he would - he fought. They’re making the same bet now.By the way, Muqtada would like to know when we’re leaving. I hope this thread goes on, although I left the topic a little.

    Mitch

    16 April 2007, 12:06 pm

49. Mitch:

    Sorry. Second sentence should be Protecting not Protesting. Hmmm.

    16 April 2007, 12:09 pm

50. skol:

    About rights, what’s that one quote? Give comfort to the whatever and give opposite-of-comfort to the whatever-else? Having trouble finding it. It’s a good one, though, especially regarding this discussion.

    FS ANSWER-BOT: Afflict the comfortable; and comfort the afflicted.

    16 April 2007, 4:52 pm

51. Mitch:

    “Th newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.” This is about a hundred years old. And from what I gather was a sarcastic statement by the author with regards to how the newspapers were being irresponsible. I’m sure skol had a point but I’m not sure how it relates to effigies and the mess in IRAQ. Please explain.I’m interested to know.

    Mitch

    MODERATOR’S NOTE: What we will explain are some ground rules rules. If this gets overly macho in its argumentative style; or devolves into purely personal vitriol, you will post elsewhere.

    16 April 2007, 6:40 pm

52. emma:

    Still waiting for some responses as to what Joshua Keys has said. Why are you all avoiding this?

    Joshua has made some very important statements regarding his countries role in Iraq. And has also provided some very important advise as to how to prevent those who are unaware of the truth, being given an opportunity to make a ‘moral’ decision as whether they will partake in an immoral and illegal occupation.

    From his experiences at the coal-face, Joshau is saying says ‘tell people the truth’ and he clearly sets out ‘what should be done’.

    Joshua like the majority of other people around the world, is, one could say, trying to earn some money to buy the bread to give him strength to go to work. But it seems when someone from this class of society shows, in a constructive way, what action the anti-invasion movement can take - the inter-conversations here spill out all over the place. - not one person has addressed in depth what Joshua has said. Why is this so?
    -
    From those involved in debate on this site it seems that my saying I do not care if I offend US soldiers, appears to have sparked off something much-stronger than Joshua Key’s statement - that the US are the terrorists because US soldiers are in illegal combat with unarmed citizens in Iraq.

    I stated above that what Joshua Key’s had to say about Iraq would be much more offensive to the pro-invasion and occupation soldiers and community compared to burning and effigy of a US Soldier, and I asked would Joshua Key’s truth be sat on, on the principle of ‘not offending’. - To date no takers?

    Perhaps your US soldiers would be also offended, if they knew in an allied country who are part of the “Coalition of the Willing and Killing” that in our anti-invasion protests we chant “Hey! Hey! USA How many kids have you killed today?

    Or Perhaps it is actually some readers who are offended because I am offending their soldiers by what I am saying? .

    Perhaps your US soldiers would be offended if they knew many people including myself support the Iraqi peoples’ resistance to their illegal occupation of Iraq, and so does one of their own US soldiers - Joshua Keys, when he says if he were in the Iraqi peoples position he would kill the US occupiers- in this case, his own countrymen. This is big stuff compared to my comments regarding US soldiers.

    But no, perhaps it is safer to get somewhat annoyed with my view - and avoid discussing the unpleasant ‘truth’.at hand. Like, as Layla Anwar, an Arab women, on her site says the peace movements just go around and around.

    And Jen, you hit the nail on the head when you said
    ‘nobody told you’ Joshua has just told everyone what to do about this and yet, nobody to date seems to have the courage to address and discuss his comments and discuss what positive action could be taken from his comments.

    As to burning an effigy of our children after reasoning with them, Not being facetious here, I think my kids would thoroughly enjoy it.

    Oh! well, I will wait in hope.
    Emma.

    MODERATOR’S NOTE: Round and round we go. Emma, if you can find anyone here who is unaware that the war is an act of international aggression, please point them out. See this definition of straw man fallacy. Perhaps you should answer the questions, how will this war end? and what will get us to that point? No one here has denied the Iraqis’ right to self-defense either. But calling that out as “the right of Iraqis to kill American soldiers” and other such intentional, infantile, and more-revolutionary-than-thou posturing (like burning soldier effigies) is, from a tactical standpoint (those tactics designed to bring the war to an end as soon as possible), is what some might call stupid. The witness of Jen and Charlie and other veterans, wherein both Iraqis and US workers-in-uniform (I note that Emma has ZERO class analysis, or any form of system-analysis) are simultaneously humanized, has done more than nearly any other segment of the antiwar movement to win over the very people who would be offended by effigy-burning, and thereby brining the end of the war closer, than all the ultra-leftist tantrums in the world.

    16 April 2007, 10:26 pm

53. skol:

    It’s just a common quote. Who is comfortable, who is afflicted, how do we comfort, and how do we afflict? It’s vague, but you have to consider that its opposite “comfort the comfortable and further afflict the afflicted” is usually the trend, whether we know it or not. That’s all I meant.

    17 April 2007, 12:49 am

54. emma:

    I assume you are the moderator Stan. .
    In relation to the isue of ‘moral’ US soldiers -
    I had contact with the militant group of Vietnam Vets during the years of the US led Economic Sanctions on Iraq, in the period in which most people around the world, including many of the ‘progressives who have a lot to say now, were not one scrap interested.. I do not know at what timeline you yourself became involved Stan. So I do not need a lecture about those US soldiers who do have “morals”.as I wrote a piece about this previously.

    As to your “noting”I have ZERO class analysis. I ‘note’ this is merely your rather sketchy opinion. Also .I refer you to where I stated quite clearly that burning an effigy of a US soldier would not end the war. This is surely a clear enough statement. Why are you now putting your own misleading spin on this.

    So maybe it is you who are STUPID in this case, for not properly reading what I said. Fair comment is fair comment,therefore, do not twist my words to suit your case of defense. One could interpret your defense as a backhanded way in being personally offensive. But I will not take it personally, as I trust in your telling me you are a radical feminist..

    In turn I now ask you to substantiate your evidence and quote where I have said that ‘burning and effigy’ was revolutionary?

    Also I observe you have not made one mention in regard to Joshua Key’s statements.

    On the issue of Iraq - In your article “Wolves and Sheep” you accused the left of ‘failing to take a side. They not only failed to take a side - they provided a cover for Bush in their dishonesty about Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein. And many of them are still doing this to cover their own political idealogies.
    This has resulted in many people still having a very
    skewed views about Iraq.

    And what a romantic notion when one can say they support the Iraqi peoples resistance but at the same time should not support the killing of US soldiers.

    The harsh reality is that if on moral grounds, I take the side of the Iraqi peoples Resistance in turn I am supporting every action the Iraqis take to defend themselves and that includes Iraqis killing the ‘murderous beast’ who is is invading their homeland and homes killing, maiming, raping, imprisoning them and torturing them. In this case the ‘murderous beast’ happens to be US soldiers.

    Again I will repeat, the Iraqis have every right to protect themselves from the occupiers and the harsh reality is that if this means that I cannot complain when they kill the occupiers.So be it once I take a moral stand and ‘take a side’.

    If I could wave a magic wand and have my ideal world there would there would be no violence. That would include corporate sport which reminds me of Nuremberg
    rallies.

    This is in stark contrast to many of those middle-class “progressive” fence sitters holier than the holy, who sit on their high neutrally safe fence with their questionable political morality and divert the good intentioned and unsuspecting listeners and readers into the land of frustration,confusion and hopelessness. -

    Please explain how one can support both the oppressor and the oppressed at the same time?

    GO TELL THE IRAQIS THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEIR RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES- BUT AS LONG AS IN DEFENDING THEMSELVES THEY DO NOT KILL US SOLDIERS. THIS IS SHEER DISHONESTY!

    Interestingly many many middle-class progressives clearly took the side of the Viet Cong against the US and Australian troops in Vietnam. In fact this helped demoralise the US soldiers which in turn helped the
    Vietnamese people in their resistance.

    Joshua Key’s as one of the US soldiers you are talking about agrees with me when he takes the side of the Iraqi civilians. . What do you not comment on what he is saying?.

    Does Joshua stand condemned because he does not have a “class and systems analysis?” Actually I find this phrase and the context it has been delivered in personifies precisely the class driven society we live in.

    In regards to your request that I state how I believe the illegal occupation will end. That is easy to answer.

    Firstly, one would be a fool to think that there is no Iraqi Resistance. That is why after 4 years the US has not succeeded in making Iraq into a slave quarry. The reality is the Iraqi Resistance is winning their painful struggle against the violent beast. Considering they have the fundamentalist Iran invading them also -

    Secondly, as time goes along there will be an increase in the number of US troops becoming demoralised. In most case it will not be because they think it is morally wrong to be there but because they are losing. A minority of other troops may see what he or she is doing is morally wrong and go AWOL etc.

    Demoralisation comes out of either losing or a moral conscience both of which are a the direct effects from from the Iraqis’ resistance to them.

    As to the US civil opposition to the illegal occupation
    I think it is important to keep up the heat - but
    I do not believe these protests will play a major role in ending the war in Iraq. As I previously stated even the Democrats do not seem to be threatened enough by the so-called anti-war movement. This is shown in the way they have co-jointly supported more troops to Iraq.

    We have witnessed this on a bigger scale, where world-wide millions of people opposing the illegal invasion have been ignored. So perhaps some in the peace-movement should not take themselves so seriously.
    and make oneself more important than one is. In the wash-up it is important to keep things in their true perspective.

    After all, these same arguments about which group were acting in the best interests of the movement etc. etc. were had between groups during the Vietnam years. But in the wash-up it was the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese Peoples Resistance who caused the US troops to leave. In perspective the movement really played a minor role. And perhaps there would not have been as many in the movement if the middle-class had not been included in the lottery for conscription. And interestingly it is now many of these same middle-class who now support the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. How bloody selfish can people get? In both cases they were looking after ones own skin. Their skin now being their ‘lifestyle’.

    I was in Iraq ll months before the US invasion - and
    am cynically bemused at people’s lack of knowledge and understanding of Iraq and its people.

    What I do know to be the truth is that Iraqi people had much more than the people in the US have when it comes to free health, free education, housing, subsidised electricity for the poor and respect for women. And I could go on.

    The Iraqi culture is a much more social culture in that it has reverence for the family(not our idea of the just nuclear family) and community - this is something most people in the west could not even envisage.

    For instance my local Halal Muslim butcher, when I asked him how many people in his family he stood there counting up, and then told me he has 387 family members, and he told me how each one takes responsibility in ensuring they all look after each other. I doubt if most westerners would begin to even understand this.

    Perhaps I still not have forgiven the majority of those who were silent when 2 million Iraqi people civilians) died from US-bombings and Sanctions. And 750,000 yes, seven hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi children died as a direct result of US soldiers’ bombing of Iraq and its infrastructure which was followed up by the US Naval Forces and Australian Naval Forces blockade against allowing much needed medicines, food and goods being delivered into Iraq for the Iraqi civilians urgent lifesaving needs. Most people would call this organised fanticide would’t they?

    But then there was no death toll of US Defense Forces then was there?. So it appears there was no necessity to have an anti-war movement. I certainly could not get people here interested. Malcolm Lagauche tells the same story about the US.

    I will still await and see if anyone addresses the important issues that Josua Key’s has brought to the world’s attention.

    19 April 2007, 5:20 am

55. Required:

    Emma, your posts are difficult to read because they are poorly edited. Please try to spell check and do a basic proof read if you’re going to post something more than a few sentences long. Note: Every sentence does not need to be a separate paragraph. Try typing it out in Word or Notepad, then copy and paste into the text box.

    You say you are waiting for someone to address Key’s book, which I am under the impression that I and many others have already done. Apparently this was not up to your standard. So, in concrete terms, what do you want people on this board to say about it? What specifically do you mean by “address”?

    You spend a lot of time going on about people on this board not supporting the Iraqis right to kill US troops; when did anybody say that Iraqis have no right to kill US troops? PLEASE QUOTE DIRECTLY. COPY AND PASTE. If you can’t find a quote, may I suggest retracting this statement.

    19 April 2007, 9:55 am

56. Randy Morris:

    Skol—

    Thanks for bringing up that phrase—it’s on my screensaver now

    Emma—

    What I glean from your continuing posts is that we should support the Iraqi insurgency in killing “Coalition” soldiers. Let’s assume that course of action as the best available: what then?

    Joshua Key is a hero coming forward against the occupation, and he isn’t the only one. Unfortunately, by your own logic his voice should be ignored because he willingly participated in the occupation.

    What do you mean by “he takes the side of the Iraqi civilians” when you refer to Key’s anti-war stance? Do you mean that he has gone back to Iraq to fight beside the resistance? Have YOU gone to Iraq to fight beside the resistance? I haven’t. Have you decided to overthrow the existing goverment of the U.S. in order to install something that respects life? Me neither. If its distributing leaflets (which is what you answered my query with) you advocate, I’ve been doing that for years, citing sources equal to Joshua Key. I only continue this futile gesture because it can’t hurt, but I have no illusions about its effectiveness with anyone but the “choir.”

    And there is one of the main problems with what you are posting: you are posting to the choir, reiterating over and over like we aren’t hearing the information you’re presenting. We DO hear your information, we DO empathize with your anger, and many of us are NOT complying with the mealy-milktoast methods of the status quo anti-war movement. But you keep lecturing us about how we don’t care and how we should refer to the Gospel of Key in order to enlighten us (attributing him a prophet-like responsibility I seriously doubt he wants right now).

    How is this forum advocating against what you are arguing? You posted on a subject entitled “Kim on Portland Anarchists: Portland Anarchists Burn Soldier Effigy” and your only real response to that subject was:
    

    “I have commented before that I find very little passion in these discussions - perhaps this is what some do not like in the young anarchists? Perhaps they are not perfect,but neither are those who criticise. For those that may be constipated with theory? Well, here is a chance to get the action going.”

    Your sentiment is valid, but your critique is lacking. I believe the forum’s general criticism of the anarchists is valid, but I also believe your feeling about the “constipation” of many discussions to be relevant—the problem is the extent to which you’ve tried to pry this discussion toward your particular perspective rather than reading back through th