[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The march to save Saddam
TownHall.com | 2/17/03 | David Horowitz


Millions of people poured into the streets of cities from Melbourne to New York on Saturday February 15 to protect Saddam Hussein from an imminent American attempt to disarm and dethrone him and disable his arsenal of chemical, biological and proto-nuclear weapons. They professed concern about Iraqi children (bearing mock bodies to symbolize their alarm) but marched in solidarity with Palestinians and Arabs who kill their own children by strapping bombs to them and telling them to blow up other children -- Jew children -- so that they will go to heaven and their families will receive a $25,000 reward.

In politics intentions count for nothing; actions are what matter. If the marchers are successful, Saddam will survive to be stronger than ever. All over the Middle East and the Muslim world fanatical haters of Americans, Christians and Jews will take heart from Saddam's successful defiance, will draw the conclusion that the West is weak, and will be inspired to commit new atrocities against its most defenceless citizens.

All the marches were organized by supporters of Communist and other totalitarianisms, and by the fifth column agents of Islamo-fascism. All the demonstrations promoted Iraqi war propaganda -- myths about starving children and about alleged mercernary interests behind American policy; all of them had one purpose -- to disarm the American force already in the Middle East and allow Saddam to fight another day.

It is true that some of the marchers were well-intentioned or at least not so blind yet that they could look past the evil that is the regime in Iraq. What of it? What could be more irrelevant than splitting critical hairs when your country is under attack and your actions serve the aggressors?

During the Cold War there were many intelligent souls on the left who joined the "peace" demonstrations in the West organized by Communists and their supporters, but described themselves as "anti-anti-Communists." They meant by this that they knew that Communism was bad, but were against the cold warriors who were locked in mortal combat with the Soviet empire. The Gorbachev regime in their eyes was bad, but Ronald Reagan was a "warmonger" and therefore worse.

The anti-anti-Communists may have been good at stimulating critical discussion. A democracy can always benefit from dissenters because no faction has a monopoly on truth. But in practice the decent opponents of Cold War encouraged the Communists to hold onto their slave empire and resist the presures of the free world. In the end it was Ronald Reagan and the Cold Warriors he led who stymied the Communists' ambitions, brought down the Soviet empire and liberated more than a billion people. In the scales of that historic struggle, when it came to mobilizing the military resources that backed the enemy down, the anti-anti-Communists ultimately put their weight on the other side of the scale.

During the Vietnam War -- the clearest parallel to the present events -- the anti-war movement was organized by Communists who wanted the other side to win. The non-Communists who joined their marches, whatever their intentions, served the same practical end. America was divided at home and these divisons evnetually forced its armies to retreat from the field of battle. As a result, the Communists won and proceeded to slaughter two-and-a-half million peasants in Indo-China between 1975 and 1978. This is the scenario that the people (mostly the same people) who are leading Saturday's protests hope to accomplish: the defeat of the West and the triumph of Islamo-fascism and its friends.

Today's "peace" movement -- the innocent-intentioned along with the malevolent rest -- is a fifth column army in our midst working for the other side. Already their leaders have warned that if the United States remains determined to oppose this totalitarian evil and stay its intended course, they will act within our borders to "disrupt the flow of normal life" and sabotage the war. This is ultimately the most ominous threat Americans face. Abroad we can conquer any foe. The real danger lies at home.



©2003 FrontPageMag.com

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I believe this was from FR. I'm sorry I can't give credit to the poster who did all the work. I inadvertantly did not copy the posters information. My apologies. But this is an excellent source for information.

See also, form http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1562311.php:

International A.N.S.W.E.R. is a post-9/11 creation of the International Action Center, one of many front groups for the Workers World Party. The Workers World Party:
» supported the Chinese government's 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre
http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html
» supports the "socialist" North Korean dictatorship of Kim Jong Il
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0425.php
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/korea0509.php
» and views Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a beacon of anti-imperialist resistance
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/iraq0125.html
» defends the genocidal Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic
http://www.iacenter.org/yugo_milosdeligation.htm
http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/larry0228.php
http://www.workers.org/ww/2001/milosevic1108.php
http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm

For these reasons, as well as Workers World's poor track record of relations with other groups, some people refuse to attend A.N.S.W.E.R. events, including the January 18 anti-war protest.

On the pro side, A.N.S.W.E.R. has proven skill at organizing massive demonstrations. Most who attend the group's protests know nothing about their actual political leanings and merely wish to express their opposition to war in Iraq

And many people and groups who are repulsed by A.N.S.W.E.R.'s support for genocidal dictators choose to attend their anti-war protests anyway, because they feel it is so urgent to stop the Iraq war.

See, for example, Z Magazine's Q&A on the topic (A.N.S.W.E.R. is discussed in #8):
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2527)

To help you make up your mind, we've assembled links to a range of writings on the topic - some more factual, some more polemical, from various points on the political spectrum:
* http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/03/1946241&mode=nocomment&
Lengthy, detailed expose of International Action Center's politics
* http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html
Anarchist critique of Workers World Party
* http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php
David Corn critique of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s October 26 D.C. anti-war march
* http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/
Salon reporter's critique of A.N.S.W.E.R. and other far-left anti-war groups
* http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-11/11dominick.cfm
A critical response to Corn and other A.N.S.W.E.R. detractors
* http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020513&s=featherstone
An example of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s relations with other groups
* http://www.journalofaestheticsandprotest.org/1/BenShepard/index.html
Why the A.N.S.W.E.R. style of political mobilization is inherently disempowering

brought to you by International A.O.W.C.U.T.G.D.F.P.




www.authoritarianopportunistswhocozyuptogenocidaldictators-forpeace.org/