Communists and their "progressive" ilk are against a war with Iraq.
That isn't the question. The question is whether it's right or wrong, not the commies' viewpoint.
You've posted a thought provoking article, and I thank you for it.
My point is, if we're going to give up on hanging Osama from the nearest light pole, we should really consider if we want an aggressive war or not. By aggressive, I mean an aggresive war on people where we're lacking evidence of an attack on us.
Personally, I'm very much in favor of killing all those who've attacked us. Clearly, Bin Ladin and his buddies.
Saddam is a horrible guy. But compared to Kim Il Sung and his progeny there's no comparison in depth of evil.
Sorry, I'm not credulous. Why Iraq? Why now? Why not North Korea?
I served in South Korea. The north Koreans are rabid and evil nutsacks. They're also a much tougher target. Are we attacking Saddam (sh*t be upon him) because he's an easier target, while we ignore the extreme evil in North Korea?
Inquiring minds want to know.
To the punks who want to accuse me of being un-American, this voluntary US Army veteran says "Think again."
No. It most assuredly does not.
The article is specifically designed to separate the WWP nutballs from those who are against war on Iraq for more defensible reasons (as Corn himself is).
Corn is an anti-war leftist (The Nation magazine), who rightly wants no association with the WWP.