Re: Fwd: NYTimes article on antiwar movement

[Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

Michael,

The correct approach, as WBAI speakers pointed out today, is to
unequivocally defend De Genoa's freedom of speech, and point out, with
Malcolm X, that the victims of Washington's war have the right to defend
themselves by any means necessary. I too, hope and work for those soldiers'
defeat, insofar as they are TROOPS in the U.S. IMPERIALIST MILITARY.  The
key is to realize that this war is not just NOT in rank and file soldiers'
interest, it is against their interests as working people. Their allies,
the ones whose interests they share, are the young, working class Iraqis
they are fighting, not Bush, Rumsfeld and Big Oil. So, insofar as the
soldiers are young working people (many there against their will), part of
our struggle is to help them realize they're on the wrong side. Part is to
get them out of there, out of harm's (theirs and the Iraqi people's) way.
And the best way to fight for these things is to build a mass movement
against the war.

Mike
At 12:19 PM 3/29/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 08:34:08 -0800 (PST)
> From: m <zinnhist@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Fwd: NYTimes article on antiwar movement
>
>  Louis Proyect  wrote:
> I am particularly annoyed with Eric Foner, who told
> the scumbag NY Post that, ""If I had known what he was
> going to say, I would have been reluctant to have him
> speak.
>
> But don't you think Foner is only trying to avoid the
> disasterous association of the anti-war left with
> gleefulness at the deaths of (working class) U.S.
> soldiers?
> Michael D.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.