Nathan wrote:
>They care because they experience the effects-- droning sectarian speeches
>at rallies, spokespeople from various front groups who are all really
>members of the WWP and spouting the line, and for more experienced
>activists, the reality is very clear.
Ok but I am referring to the larger numbers of people who are against this war but did not go to the demos. Ask them who is the WWP and I'll bet they cannot tell you.
>
>>Except it could easily be the high point, as it was back in the Gulf War
>>when large rallies before the war started were as large as they ever got.
>
>-Is the lack of participation in Gulf War protests to be blamed on the
>-organizers? I don't think so...It took the Vietnam Anti-war movement years
>to get-off the ground.
>
>See my other post on the effectiveness of that movement. But my point was
>that the beginning of the protests before the war started was the high
>point. They screamed "no blood for oil" and the military ran a campaign
>that minimized US deaths-- undercutting their simplistic message.
Blood was shed. KPFK reported that over 20,000 US soldiers lost
their lives after the Gulf war from exposure to toxic chemicals and
depleted uranium. Iraqi blood is still being shed but it is not
American blood. Are the organizers to be blamed also for the fact
that the US corporate media does not report these realities?
>
Marta -- Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.disweb.org