I would argue that the things we can do on this list of use in struggle against the bombing include:
1) Gathering facts. I would add that a list like this is also useful in anticipating what the best arguments your opponents could make. That is why it is worthwhile to keep up the argument with some of the more honest and intelligent supporters of the bombing.
2) Praxis. Many involved in day to day struggle, though we may have read Marx, are not necessarily theoretically sophisticated ( I suppose it depends on who we are compared to.) A list like this can help keep us aware of the larger and more long term contexts, of the history and structure, and forces behind what is happening.
3) Rhetoric and Slogans: these are not the most essential parts of struggle. But they are a necessary part of struggle, and a list containing a large number of professional wordsmith, is an excellent place to come up with rhetoric and slogans, and to submit them for criticism.
I'm not saying these are only things we can do. One example here. One of the thing I believe there is some disagreement on among the anti-bombers is whether criticism of the Yugoslav government should be included in the struggle.(BTW, I want to accept the criticism of my use of the word "genocide" and acknowledge that I was wrong. I am afraid I did not believe it until I verified from a mainstream liberal source, Human Rights Watch that the atrocities committed by the Yugoslav government do not meet the international definition of genocide. It still seems strange to me that the expulsion of an entire ethnic group from the land they live on is not considered genocide.)
I don't think there is any dispute on the anti-bombing side that Yugoslav government has committed atrocities, that the Serb minority with Kosovo have been victims of atrocities as well, and that the U.S. has more blood on it's hands than the Yugoslav government ever will.
But there is a both a moral and a practical tactical argument to make for including criticism of the Yugoslav government in our demands.
The moral argument is that NATO and the U.S. by going to war against Yugoslavia have opened up a space in which it Slobo has much more freedom to commit atrocities than he would if the U.S. and NATO had not attacked. Thus, since our governments have made it easier for him to engage in such atrocities, while fighting our own government is primary, criticizing the Yugoslavian government is also our obligation.
There is also the tactical issue. Everyone in NATO countries is aware of Yugoslav government atrocities. While they may have been exaggerated for propaganda purposes, they have not been exaggerated much. The portrait the media paints of atrocities by the Yugoslav government is essentially true. Their lies are in the omission of the U.S. responsibility for these atrocities, and their implication that the U.S. either intends or actually will make things better. (Note I use U.S. and NATO interchangeably. Essentially other NATO countries act as U.S. feudal vassals in this matter.) To struggle against the war, without including criticism of Yugoslav government simply makes you come across as cold-hearted lunatics who ignore well know facts, or do not care about horrible atrocities. Bear in mind that U.S. popular support for NATO is not based upon the illusion that this is a matter of self-interest. That line was tried and failed. The support is based on propaganda that horrible atrocities are taking place and this is the only way to stop them. The lie is that this is the only way (or even a way) to stop them. I know few of us (I mean on the anti-bombing side) would deny the atrocities. But it does seem like many of us wish to ignore them. It won't wash; they are real, and now that they have been reported working people are not stupid enough to forget them. This is not only a tactical issue; I think ethically, we are obliged not to ignore them. But I hope those who dismiss ethics as a fiction will pay attention to the tactical issue. -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502