Re: some observations
>There's an organization mainly based in Seattle called
>Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist. I
>think their URL is www.vvawai.org
>They have an article there about supporting the troops
>while opposing a war and they are against such a
>They seem to be, as an organization, under the
>influence of that Workers World group which supports
>the Iraqi people and has published one article
>favourable to the position of women in Iraq under
>Saddam Husayn, but which in general avoids all mention
>of the Iraqi leadership, sticking with "the Iraqi
>people" formula. Then one finds lots of Jew names
>among their writers.
>They're clearly better than the CPUSA, but that's not
>Anyhow, the VVAWAI does have an article or two about
>that notion of supporting the troops but not the war
>that might be useful.
>Personally when one says "support the troops" I take
>that to mean "support them doing what they are doing."
> That is the common notion. True, one can rationalise
>it and say that I mean something different from
>everyone else when I parrot their slogans.
>I could even say that I "support our troops" by which
>I mean the Iraqi troops, since I regard them as
>fighting for the oppressed and exploited, to which
>group I also belong.
>I could wave the stars and stripes and say that Bush
>represents ZOG and therefore I am the true American
>and he isn't.
>And so forth.
>But if I wave the US flag and say I support our
>troops, that will help swell the pro-war chorus, even
>if I have convinced myself that I mean something
>I mean, if I say "I support president Bush" no
>rational person would interpret that as meaning that I
>think he should resign immediately and seek the
>psychological help he needs while devoting the rest of
>his life to theraputic collective labour.
>If I say "I support president Bush" every normal
>person will understand from that that I agree with
>most or all of what he's doing.
>The same goes for "support the troops". The phrase is
>not taken to mean, "I support them as they mutiny."
>Also, those who claim that they oppose the war but
>support the troops because of all the suffering and
>heartache they're going through, must also then say
>that they support the Iraqi troops. If that sticks in
>their craw, then what they really mean is that they
>still think that the GIs are fighting for the American
>people and they side with them. That is a very
>Of course it's worth while to remember that the
>military personnel in many cases are extremely naive
>and young individuals who join the military to get a
>job, to travel, to be able to go to college. Their
>naive patriotism and idealism are manipulated by the
>cynical Jewish Zionists and monopolists who run the US
>and don't care what the people in uniform have to go
>through, despite all their jingoism and flag waving.
>But when they go off to participate in an aggressive
>war, they are committing a war crime. When they are
>killed in the commission of a crime, well, they are
>receiving punishment -- just like a shoplifter who is
>shot by the night clerk on duty. It's too bad that
>they were induced to go astray by the "gangsters" who
>run the country. But like the youngster who is
>arrested for some crime and says, "I just went along
>with the gang; I didn't know they were going to do
>anything illegal," that defense is inadequate to wipe
>out their shared guilt.
As Trotskyites go, the WWP is not an especially bad
bunch, though I have my differences with them, and they
consider me to be a white supremacist. I was very
impressed by the Greek Trotskyites who were translated
on the Free Arab Voice (unfortunately no tactical
report there this evening). They have a proper
understanding of the meaning of dictatorship and
democracy and how it fits in with the anti-imperialist