-the mood was celebratory and happy-

how blatantly can we expose the true nature of these protests--liberal feel good get togethers that accomplish nothing

-the unnamed anticapitalist contingent-

i'm becoming really fond of that unintended name... please dont ever change guys <3


anyway it sounds like the protest was pretty pointless.

i have a few questions:
-were there any actions at the moved ribbon cutting earlier today?
-at which point was there a police altercation and which groups were targeted (ha as if i couldnt guess)?
-are there any serious injuries?

one last question--how did the bike contingent fare?

the reason why these large anti-war protests are loosing numbers and causing little disturbance is because they are just a pat on the back for the attendees and a day of witty sign sloganeering.

whats it gonna take for people to realize direct action is the only way to get demands met. The assholes in charge dont care a flying shit what we/you think.

If people flooded DC and demanded GWB's resignation and choose not to leave till he did at least a few million would actually show up for that!!

interesting idea...i wonder if it really would work, or if peoples conditioned desire for "business as usual" would prevent it?

oh well. in any event i agree about direct action, and the uselessness of these protests. i'm thinking maybe we (radical) shoudl withdraw our token marginalized presence at them and concentrate solely on actions.

the only thing we would truly accomplish at protests is if we were to somehow radicalize the rest of the people and that never happens.

Actually, there would seem to be room for both types of protests.

First off, we need safe rallies people can come out to. If you tell people the only thing they can do is to get into big fights with the police, then they'll sit at home watching CNN.

Secondly, these rallies are important as educational tools. Since the media says nothing of the truth, then for some people one of these rallies is likely to have been the first time they've heard the truth.

Third, as people come to these peaceful rallies, then they are likely to want to do more. And thus might be more willing to join your direct action actions. I just don't think you can expect people to go directly from watching CNN to doing direct action.

I'm not on the east coast anymore, but I will admit that I am rather pleased that I didn't have to listen to the typical ANSWER speakers. Those people put on the worst speakers. The idea that presenting a point effectively is more important than the factional politics that says all these boring speakers from all these affliated groups get to get on stage just doesn't seem to occur to them.

None of this is to say you shouldn't do your direct actions. Its just that I think there is a reason for all of these types of actions.

How about this though, since we are supposedly all on the same side, how about continuing to show up for these rallies. Numbers do count, and by continuing to add numbers to ANSWER's stuff, we do help them out.

But go into it knowing what to expect. Treat it as a celbration. Be creative in what you do in your part of the march. Have fun. Enjoy being out as part of a bigger protest where you have some cover from the larger crowds and the permits ANSWER gets. Go out, march, be visible, have fun. Maybe do some networking and recruiting for your future actions. Most likely, some other people who are bored to tears with the ANSWER speakers will see your creative group having fun and come get to know you. Now you've got more people for your next action.

There's a couple of things I don't get though. I get the feeling that some people expect every protest to be a dramatic event that leads to regime change. And then people complain about the event being ineffectual when that doesn't happen.

At tne same time, these same people would be lucky to put two or three thousand people in the streets for their direct action. How would they expect that small number of people to be "effectual"? Seems to me that with such small numbers, the goal should be education and recruiting new supporters.

Secondly, if you keep talking about direct action, why are you surprised when the cops pay extra attention to you?

Basically, I don't think you have anywhere near the strength or numbers for a direct confrontation with the police. You seem sure to lose, and only result in getting lots of people into jail. So I'm puzzled why people are so anxious to be confrontational?

To me, the ANSWER rallies are a needed part of a strategy. Its a step in the right direction. And I think we did need something to get people back out into the streets at this time. No, it wasn't ever going to end the war or cause regime change. But I don't see what would do a better job of either at this time. So do what you can do, and make the most of it.

If you feel there are some direct actions you can take that won't lead to the police crushing your movement, but which instead will attract more people to your cause, then go for it. I don't see how the fact that ANSWER held a rally or march is stopping you. In fact today should have been a chance for you to recruit and organize for your own actions.

Did you take full advantage of that opportunity today?

boooo answer boooo

No number of protests or protesters could discredit the system as much as that convergence of Keystone Cops and Three Stooges know as the Bush Administration. Osama bin Laden could not dream of a more ideal weapon for his arsenal than Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz.

Mass rallies generate a collective energy, which helps prevent exhaustion and hopelessness. They also remind the White House power-mongers and Congressional weenies that there are plenty of us paying attention.

It's just as important, though, to continue small rallies at home. Put your placards in the back window of the car on your daily commute. Hand out flyers on Saturday afternoon at the library. Write a letter to the editor of the local paper. This reminds our average (read: civically-underdeveloped) fellow citizens that dissent is possible. Their silence and complicity is the biggest threat of all.

>If people flooded DC and demanded GWB's >resignation and choose not to leave till he
>did at least a few million would actually show
>up for that!!

What a great idea for the RNC convention in New York. Shut down the city until the shrub resigns!

Hey -- there are a lot more pictures in the media gallery too. Nothing much new-just makes what can be found more expansive.

I don't know about "celebratory and happy" unless it's talking about the attempts at solidarity and unity amongst different types of groups. These actions do make a difference when there is follow-up. Follow up is daily communication with your town, your neighbors, your government. I agree that there needs to be more.
As to this idea from another poster that if GWB's resignation was demanded, "millions would show up for that".....Hmmmm, I seem to remember there being many sitting on their sofa as he was crowned rather than in the freezing rain of that day. There is a time and a place for direct action. When there are children in the protest marches, there is a time for sane behavior- don't start shit with the park police when there is a four year old standing nearby the horse's foot. Take direct action and take responsibility for all of the consequences....then I'd take the so-called radicals more seriously.

Dear Q:
You missed a few facts. More than thirty thousand. Crowd also Includes former vets and families of soldiers now stuck in Iraq.

30,000? Yeah, keep saying that and it'll become the truth. That's how it works right? Lie enough and it enters your folklore.

But a serious question: What do you children think would happen if America just pulled out of Iraq right now, as you demand? Do you think they would keep moving forward to democracy? Or do you think maybe, just maybe the various dictatorships that exist all around Iraq, and the yet unfound former dictator of Iraq would do everything possible to insure that that didn't happen? After all once freedom and democracy touches a people it's awfully contagious.

In other words, you guys for some fucked up political agenda want to leave the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of what ever dictator can kill enough people to take over the country.

Don't get me wrong tho - i understand - brown and black people aren't capable of living in a democracy - they need white people to lead them, right?

yo'-thanks for adding more photo links -- here is a suggestion: there are still more photos by more people and they could be linked to with less links... I see there are 'collections' of photos, you could link to collections of photos from the front page, rathern than each photos page maybe? less links, more coverage. maybe it does not work that way, I do not know.

After all once freedom and democracy touches a people it's awfully contagious.

If what's going on in Iraq is "freedom and democracy-" I'd rather die.

Curiously, that seems to be the same attitude of every single Iraqi.

Furthermore, if Iraq's such a great place, now that "Freedom and Democracy" have been introduced there, why don't you move there?

Your words, not mine, bub.

We need to use many different tactics.
Protest marches & rallies serve to unite & inspire many more
people than even the participants.
The world wide protests earlier this year delayed the US attack on
Iraq by causing pressure on Bush to go to the UN, which then
didn't support him because the protests empowered countries to
refuse their cooperation in the attack.
The protests at Cancun worked the same way.
They work to inspire & empower people & create unity.
What does not work is to put them down & attack our allies
because we have differences. When I see this I sometimes
wonder if the these critics are really on our side or are in the
service of those who would destroy our dissent.

yet another function of these kinda bland, but multi-generational and easily accessed, marches is to keep letting the rest of the world know that these fascists aren't as popular as they keep telling everyone they are. That crowd is evidence that America is NOT 'Bush-Cheney Inc.' , and could keep us safer than we have any way of knowing, while preparing the ground for the difficult process of reconstructing our place in the world community once this regime's been toppled.

I couldn't agree more with the comment about way too many speakers - many of them representing important groups but having no talent at all for firing up a crowd.

HEY A.N.S.W.E.R., IF YOU'RE READING THIS... HOW 'BOUT SOME MUSIC BETWEEN ALL THE TALK?? How 'bout limiting speakers to people who have passion, and not just a prepared statement to read? How 'bout giving the crowd some party to come back to instead of front-loading it until we're all so bloody weary of speeches we're ready to march without you? Spoken word stuff is very cool but when it's the only thing providing respite from speeches, folks tune out. WE TUNE OUT! The Raging Grannies got a great response... and there are lots of topical musicians to choose from. Two speeches, then a topical musician, will keep most people from drifting. You want us to LISTEN, right??

Stupid assholes have to burn the flag for Fox TV and the Washington Times. Stupid punk white kids with bandannas over your stupid faces. Think anyone cares who you are? Think if they did, they'd have any trouble finding out? Think at all?

Well... I have made it back home to Upstate New York safely... however if you look in the last two pictures, I was the one sporting the Green Flight Suit. My shins are bruised, however the spirit of the Bloc and our unity arm in arm has brought my spirit to a newly intensified passion for our fight for justice. Never before have I seen MOTORCYCLES run into peaceful demonstrators. However since we are "terrorist" we have no rights. I was too caught up in the moment to catch that officers badge number... if anyone has his badge number in a photo please report this inhumane animal.

These protests definitely need to continue to provide an alternative voice to CNN and the pro-bush media throughout the world.

It seems farily obvious bush and blair could not give three-fifths of a toss what their people want, but visible protests make good moral ammunition when the time comes to kick tweedledum and tweedledummer out of their respective offices.

Basically, its all gonna turn into one big 'i told you so' when the shit hits the fan.

And as for the police, there are good police who care about people and bad police who care about flags and orders. the second lot will 'prevent trouble' by hospitalising everyone around, this is illegal, immoral and above all dangerous to free speech and indeed safety.
Respect the police, do not respect violence as authority. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE MORE OF US THAN THEM.

Frank - Reading comprehension problems? I understand. Smoke so much dope and your brain turns to oatmeal.

Where did i say Iraq presently has Freedom and democracy? My point, to the brain dead, is that with the US there eventually there will be. But i find it amusing that you are speaking for the Iraqi people. How come at that little hatefest yesterday there wasn't a single Iraqi demanding the end of the "occupation"?

Oh i know - because you intellectually superior leftist/stalinists know better then the people of Iraq what is good for them.

So again, answer the question: If we pull our troops out now, what do you think will happen?

It's not a tough question for you genius'.

How come at that little hatefest yesterday there wasn't a single Iraqi demanding the end of the "occupation"?

because they're demanding an end to the occupation in Iraq... IN IRAQ- or has Pravda/Fox not been telling you that?

And the funny thing is, all of the "hate" I saw yesterday came from the little group telling us that God hates us.

So, perhaps you're right in wondering why there were no Iraqis at the religious nutjob "hatefest."

Ah Frankie - so young so full of shit. Where exactly do you see polls saying Iraqis want us out. Please be very specific, since i obviously am not as smart as you and would need to look it up.

Further, you still haven't answered my question: what do you think would happen in Iraq if we pulled out as you and your ilk are screaming for?

Lastly, nice dodge on why not a SINGLE Iraqi spoke at your little hate fest. Intellectually dishonest? No, not the left, why they would never lie.

Dear Q, so the Right Wingers have once again stumbled upon Indymedia, eh? It's always an adventure when you do. Perhaps if your ilk didn't regularly ban people from their own message boards you wouldn't have to surf all the way over HERE to find an argument? Anyway...

What would happen if the U.S. pulled out? I believe you're blurring the issue here. What most support is not simply pulling out of Iraq and leaving it in chaos. What we support is turning over of the authority over the rebuilding of Iraq to the United Nations. What we support is an INTERNATIONAL COALITION of troops in Iraq, working under the UN, thus freeing up large numbers of OUR troops (aka sending them back home). We support this for a number of reasons but foremost is because the United States CANNOT be trusted with this kind of power. It has shown time and time again that it WILL abuse it. America loves democracy only when the candidates IT backs will win. Don't believe me? Check out the elections the Sandinistas won in Nicaragua. We responded by slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians. Check out our response to democracy in Chile - we overthrew Allende and propped up the dictator Pinochet. Check out the crap we're involved in right now in Venezuela - Chavez stands in the way of America's goal of a subserviant Western Hemisphere so the CIA is involved in attempting to oust him from power. Elections. Hah. We already postponed them once in Iraq and unless we're sure our pawns will win them when the come around again, chances are we'll do the same shit. If we don't, we'll attempt to control whoever wins through military and economic means. If that doesn't work, we'll have them shot. Don't believe me? Than you know little to nothing about U.S. foreign policy since WWII.

Hate-fest? Please explain. And give specific examples - since I was kind enough to do so in my post.

"Where did i say Iraq presently has Freedom and democracy? My point, to the brain dead, is that with the US there eventually there will be."

Hi, the U.S. has been in Haiti for decades. How great of a place is that? Colombia? Try organizing a union and you'll wind up beheaded along the roadside. Our friends are in power there though, right? So it must all be cool. Turkey? More friends of ours. Democratic too. Unless you're a Kurd (in case ya didn't know, Turkey has killed nearly one million Kurds - U.S. military aid as directly helped this along). Naw, I'm looking at the places we've been involved in since WWII and I'm failing to see how your claim holds any water. Sure, plenty of nations are democratic - to an extent, but FREE? Surely you wouldn't call Colombia free. It's a nation ravaged by paramilitaries. Haiti? We overthrew their govt. when somebody we didn't like one the election - and helped install a brutal military regime. How democratic is THAT?

Dear Mark, yes, the police DO care who we are. Yes, they DO attempt to keep track. Yes, wearing bandanas over our faces DOES make it much more difficult for them to keep track of who did what, who was where, etc.

I see no reason to doubt that COINTELPRO-like operations continue in this country. Judi Bari vs. FBI seems to confirm my stance.

Seriously, how ABOUT some freaking bands at these things?

"What a great idea for the RNC convention in New York. Shut down the city until the shrub resigns! "

Agreed. America needs to take a hint from Bolivia.

On direct action, after 9/11, the bar has been raised.

On Bolivia, the President of Bolivia was elected with ~20% of the votes, Bush was elected with far more. Plus our Narco-growers are not a real political force like they are in Bolivia.

While sealed off in ultra-liberal-land, you may believe that there is some kind of significant revolutionary fervor going on, but in truth the majority of the people in the US feel more like "why are we paying for them darn Iraqis?" in a highly racist and self-serving way, nothing like the thought out and thougtful reasoning that you have.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis I know believe that no other force but the US can now hold the country together until there is a coherent government, and the coherent government is impossible until there is a turnover of security from US forces to Iraqi military forces. And they aren't ready yet. Certainly everyone hates some of the stupid things and mistakes that go on during a mission like this. But in the long term, they realize there is no other choice, and that Europe is too greedy in terms of wanting their money that Saddam borrowed back.

But you know what, I am really glad you guys are protesting. Because government should always know there is an opposition.

This war was a gamble - one I would not have taken. And it was based on lies, because most Americans don't care about brutal dictatorships, and the truth wasn't enough to sell it. But I do think it was for the best, because I know people who are freer today than they were a year ago. And a couple of terrorists doesn't compare with the risk of a society of Nazi-like informers, prisons, and mass murders.

Actually Fred, since roughly 50% of those able to vote in the last election did...and since Bush lost the popular vote...we can say that Bush won 24% which is really not "far more" than the former president of Bolivia had.

Certainly some conditions exist in Bolivia that do not exist here in the United States (atleast not on a large scale) but that does NOT, in any way, mean that we shouldn't aim to shut down NYC in response to the RNC (aka taking inspiration from those who continue to struggle in Bolivia). Not sure what you were even attempting to accomplish here.

Also, would the Iraqis you know care to elaborate on why they feel that ONLY the U.S. can handle this because, in case ya haven't noticed, even BUSH realizes that the U.S. can't do this shit alone. If possible, spare me the broad rhetoric and provide specific examples.

1) We are not the world's policemen.

2) Are you Iraqi friends honestly shortsighted enough to believe the U.S. will ALLOW them a free and democratic society even IF the Iraqis elect leaders we despise? Are YOU shortsighted enough to believe it? 'Cause I know far too much about OUR history to believe this nonsense.

The aim ought to be some long lasting and real form of freedom. Not the shit we're handing them.

Oh, and a history lesson for ya. Revolutions are ALWAYS started by a small minority on the fringes of society. Castro was, at one point, openly ridiculed for attempting a revolt in Cuba. They told him the country was not ready for revolution. Hah. And just how many people do you think originally helped spark hundreds of years of revolt in Northern Ireland? Not that many, friend. Not that many.

PS And why are Iraqis "not ready" to vote yet?

In case you haven.t noticed, the "Iraqi people" are not analogous to some sort of socio-economic tennis ball that gets banged around the court between two competing players. In fact, they understand the geopolitical implications of invasion and occupation even better than any of us could ever hope to, since their lives literally hang in the balance, whereas ours (the "American people") do not. I honestly don't know what the "Iraqi people" would do if the US withdrew from its occupation of the country. I'm inclined to believe that the country would become consumed in a civil war, not unlike the one which destroyed Yugoslavia after Tito's demise. On the other hand, the US proposes to accomplish the equivalent result over the period of its occupation in order to ensure its access to Middle Eastern resources and to promote a regional stability to continue its extractton of those resources.

Hussein didn't need weapons of mass destruction to threaten the US, which was why he had them destroyed before, he hoped, they became the pretext for US occupation. His principal weapons were the deposits beneath his feet, and his intention to sell them for euros as well as dollars. This strategy may well have provoked a global collapse of the dollar, and a world-wide depression, or, in any case, a local one.

Whether we oppose or support the occupation of Iraq, let's at least debate the actual issues involved. As adults, for a change.

" The aim ought to be some long lasting and real form of freedom. Not the shit we're handing them"


And wile were at it we should try to get real freedom right here in America, its a promise that has never been delivered!

We need to put pressure from every angle, loving capitalist always say "put your money were your mouth is"......

What if there was a nation wide federal TAX revolt against King George?

inflation, yes.

depreciation of the dollar, yes.

World Wide, even local depression?? Not likely! In the long run, it might help the American economy, create some labor jobs in the US for once. Maybe we'd become self sufficient for once instead of needing to invade someone everytime shit looks bad

After starting to study the work of Bichler and Nitzan, I have to conclude that the threat of deflation was a factor in the decision to go to war. Inflation and very likely stagflation are to be the (intended) results.

Estimating crowd numbers at DC marches has been problematic since the Civil War.

Despite his questionable motivations, this time I think Ramsey's estimate of 50,000 was fairly accurate. Given the march route, which precluded a view of the entire march, or any kind of meaningful grid estimate, and the surprising number of feeder marches which arrived either during the rally, or merged directly into the march, skipping the rally entirely, these numbers appear to be within the ball park.

But even 50,000 is dramtically llower than UFPJ-ANSWER figures . Since both coalitions had been working to lower turnout expectations in comments to the corporate press for several weeks before Oct. 25, ( one quote suggested that 30,000 would be considered a success ) the 100,000 person figure seems inflated beyond reaso n, given that most attending expected smaller numbers than the huge rallies before the war commenced.

In response to "I agree" regarding "direct action", I must ask a question. What is your definition of "Direct action?" At this time an anti-war protest is pointless. We are there, and the damage has been done. It is time to fix the problems that we've caused, and pulling out of Iraq right now is not the answer. Like all of those active in the anti-war movement, I was outraged when the Bush Administration attacked Iraq without the approval of the United Nations. Yes it was blatantly wrong...but it is too late and too unrealistic to "demand" that our governemnt "bring our soldiers home." I rarely see anyone active in the movement come up with a plan to safely and peacefully and productively end the occupation in Iraq. Using "direct action" by taking to the streets, confronting police and causing disturbances simply does not work. All it does is give peace-lovers a bad reputation as being "ignorant radicals." I don't have the best answer, but I do know that being a radical protestor in today's America is not it.

Your use of "bring the troops home" is sickening. Maybe your ANSWERite handlers think that it's a message that will stick, but everyone sees through it. Your real motivation is to see that as many American soldiers are killed as possible by eroding support for Iraq, as a way of advancing your anti-America hatred. Everyone still remembers your "We'll support the troops when they shoot their officers" signs, and knows that if you actually knew any people in uniform, you'd despise them and anyone like them, as the opposite of the effete, whiny little protest hobbyists that you are.

RE: "Do these types of protests inspire anything, and is this related to the way the protest was organized?"
Yes, but I think there should be planned civil disobedience at each of these large protests (for trained volunteers, natch), or at least some 'finale' to focus activists for future direction / next rally, etc. ANSWER events should end with an exclamation point, but usually seem to wither away...

direct action can and should mostly be 'non-violent'. Direct action is doing something physical not just thinking about it. A prostest is a form of direct action so is blowing things up.

People respect non violence civil dis.

The civil rights/womens/labor movements are filled with shining examples of direct action that helped accomplish a goal.

People need to brainstorm on ideas on new + sucessful Non-Violent direct action tactics to further the 'peoples' power in a corporate ruled system.

One way is not to 'feed' the system. Cut down on America's insane appetite which is one of the reasons why it needs to control the world. Because of our programming to fill the hunger of internal void with material goods.
They call us "CONSUMERS" not citizens, remeber that.

Every every gallon of gas you waste is feeding the wars.
Every tax dollar you spend is feeding it.
Every coke you drink is feeding it.
What do you do for work? How does that affect things.
Do you really need all the things you own.
How do you spend your free time?

Its all connected we need to look inward first and change our direct actions that affect the world negatively.

America is a great place because we can create what ever reality we choose, this is the double edged sword the fine line between freedom and slavery. We cant let the greedy win. make them powerless by not giving any power to them.

RESIST in every way possible to you.

Thank you gee, that was right on. :-)

dear chxr
please dont try to spin us off topic, throwing shit in each others eyes is a pointless waste of energy.

I have put up a gallery of 175 photos I took during the event. It is running off my own internet connection so I hope the bandwidth holds up :D great march everyone!

effigy.darktech.org

Heheh .. powerless idiots descent on DC .. as if there weren't enough of them in that city already.

Quest, I'm afraid you're being a bit shortsighted. You claim that "the damage has already been done" as if things cannot get worse in Iraq. What you ought to keep in mind here is the fact that the U.S. has already postponed elections in Iraq once. That, throughout Central and South America (as well as the Middle East), America often has NOT respected the wishes of people in democratic nations. It has gone so far as to KILL the democratically elected officials and prop up it's OWN puppet regimes if the vote does not go in favor of the rich white men who run Washington. America CANNOT be trusted with this type of authority. We've TRAMPLED on the very things we're claiming to promote in Iraq FAR too many times! Haiti, Chile, Iran, Egypt, Nicaragua...the list goes on and on. The best shot at a TRULY democratic or free Iraq will likely NOT COME from U.S. rule over the rebuilding. The best we can hope for with America at the reins is a puppet regime nicer than Saddam Hussein's was in the 1980s. It's a choice between legitimate freedom or this bullshit Washington is feeding us. If you know your history regarding U.S. foreign policy, I fail to see how you can stand with Washington on this. Iraq IS NOT America's by right of conquest.

What's gonna happen in Iraq with all that depleted uranium floating around?
How is this going to affect the guys on the ground. Some reports from doctors working in Iraq before the occupation state that the rise in cancers and birth defects had gone up forty fold since the 1st war and research has concluded that this was probably due to depleted uranium dust being ingested by the victims. Our guys are wandering around there with no protection from this product.
I fear we have not even begun to see the result of this pointless excercise in the desert and that we will pay the price for our deployment of these "weapons of mass destruction"

Powerless? Naw, tens of thousands of people are never powerless. Remember Seattle?

Hi Maknho.
that's the problem with the written word. :-) It's difficult to understand a person fully without body language and the immediacy of clarification when people are talking in person. Yes you're right, I've left out A LOT of things in my post, and I certainly respect your comments. I think I simply meant to say that I think it is much more productive to concentrate on rebuilding Iraq, building and furnishing schools and hospitals, training their police force, etc. I personally know a man who is helping to train the Iraqi police force. Do I agree with the war on Iraq? Absolutely not. Do I think Bush is a liar? Yes. Do I believe that this war will help end terrorism? No. I believe that violence begets violence and I have always been against American Imperialism. But I also believe that if we pull all of our troops out of Iraq right now, there is a strong probability of Civil War there or worse. Do you really think that it is appropriate for us to bomb the shot out of Iraq and then just leave?

not only do US soldiers have 0 protection from depleated uranium. When/if the soldiers get home there left on their own trying to cover medical costs.
Cuz Uncle Sam doesnt really give a shit even about its own troops that do the dirty work.

I couldnt make October 25ths demonstration (cause i live about 2,000 miles away) but I do know from attending other demonstrations that they work to inspire people who do care but aren't vocal enough to speak out. I know because i used to be one of those people.

As to the right wingers who like to sling shit at us: consider that it was your and your corporate whores who got us into this quagmire that is bringing kids back in bodybags.

But how would I know that people are dying? Bush banned media coverage of caskets returning to the states from Iraq.

We are dealing with fascists here.

"I am really glad you guys are protesting. Because government should always know there is an opposition."

Then you must be really pissed off, in fact: Free Speech Kept Off US Streets
Officials deny plot to herd dissenters into protest pens
But sign-carriers testify to being hustled out of sight
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1026-04.htm

Just picking up and leaving Iraq right now would just give the terrorists of the world another excuse to spout out to their followers.

"Look, they bombed our people in to the ground and then just left us for dead."

I do agree that the best thing for Iraq would be for the UN to oversee the reconstruction, however, I'm not sure just pulling out and dumping it all on the UN would be very benificial either. What we need to do is to give up the controll slowly (and by slowly, I don't mean take our sweet ass time about it..........maybe over the next year), to allow Iraq to adjust to UN supervision, so as to avoid further feelings of being invaded.

Makhno and Jerry have posted the most relevant points here. The question of the rise of the euro against the dollar, and the danger of OPEC switching from the petro-dollar to the euro, was certainly a major factor in this war (Iraq switched its Oil For Food funds of $10 billion US to euros and made about 25% profit from 2000 to 2003). Iran and Venezuela began converting funds in their central banks to euros, as has Russia. The danger to the U.S. dollar and hence the U.S. economy was significant, from a capitalist standpoint. Likewise, the need to protect the U.S. economy's long-term viability against the growing power of the EU and China (who will be consuming about 75% of Persian Gulf oil before 2017) was also a serious consideration---the federally subsidized economy in the U.S. cannot compete against the huge European economy (about to expand to roughly 450,000,000 people) or a long-term double-digit Chinese economy. The U.S. sees control over global energy as the one way of assuring continued U.S. dominance, and there is the added bonus of a massive military presence in the most populated section of the world---Central Eurasia. Look at a map of U.S. forces, from Djibouti on the horn of Africa and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Krygystan, Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, and support in Israel and Turkey. This is a massive military machine, designed to control the region for U.S. global hegemony. THAT is what this war was about, plain and simple.
The history provided by Makhno amply demonstrates that, contrary to the fantasies of the right-wingers posting here, the U.S. does not have a history of spreading the shining light of democracy around the world. The shah, supporting Hussein, supporting dictatorships and monarchies, the list is endless of U.S. anti-democratic activities in the region, and certainly throughout the world. Anyone saying the U.S. can install democracy is either naive or a liar, period. The notion is absurd, as even a basic understanding of history will demonstrate. To even have to debate such questions is ridiculous, and ultimately a waste of time unless it is a discussion with someone honestly just completely uninformed about history and reality in general. These posts here from supporters of the war are not such examples, and in the end a waste of time. They are illogical, ignorant, and just close-minded, so we should save our breath and ignore their posts as much as possible, I suspect.

Andrew,
I agree with your intelligent response except for one thing that pops immediately into my mind. You write: "Anyone saying the U.S. can install democracy is either naive or a liar, period. The notion is absurd, as even a basic understanding of history will demonstrate. "

Have your forgotten Nazi Germany? After the fall of Hitler, democracy rose in Germany and it is now one of the most "Anti-war" thinking countries in the world. I'm not denying Americas mistakes and atrocities, but this country is not all bad, nor have all of our International policies been bad.

yeah, but the US reasons to go to war with Germany were completely different.

what would happen to a democratically elected Iraqi government that nationalizes oil and regulates trade?

"what would happen to a democratically elected Iraqi government that nationalizes oil and regulates trade?"

They would become Americans. :)

I need as many pictures of the police at this rally as I can get. If any of you have any pictures of the police--Metro PD or Park--please send them to me ASAP.

Thanks!

Jerre

Quest, though I feel the comparison to post-Nazi Germany does have some relevance I think it's important to keep in mind that the Germans already had some experience with democracy prior to Hitler's rise to power. After the war they not only had THAT going for them but they ALSO wised up quite a bit and realized that not-paying-attention to what their government is doing is NOT an option in a democratic society. On top of that, there was no truly organized opposition after Nazi Germany's fall. Despite what Bush, Rice and Co. have said - U.S. troops were NOT facing the threat of a guerilla war during that occupation.

I'm not bringing these points up to say that democracy in Iraq is impossible. It is possible, surely, but it's important to keep in mind that it's not going to be a cakewalk and any examples from post-WWII rebuildings OUGHT to be viewed in their proper context - and that context is very different from the one we find ourselves in now.

As Billy Bragg once said "Don't expect it all to happen in some prophecized political fashion/People are different and so are nations - You can borrow ideas but you can't borrow situations"

That was gorgeous day indeed, etc. I noticed the following at the rally:
1. Rally is not about carring for peace at all,
but for saving money primarily, i.e objecting
to the $87 Billion dollars required to finish
the job. I do not think that there would have
been any march if cheaper SCUDS were
lounched from far away. Those cheap
SCUDS would have been more
devastating of course and lot of money
would have been saved.
So, let's call it a march for Money instead of "for peace"

2. From Iraq, it expanded to Palestine as if it
is the US GIs who were occupying
Palestine territories.

3. I have had the opportunity to interview two
speakers early on, i.e around 10AM, a
representative from the "Islamic STudents
of Canada", who questions the INTENTIONS ANDMORALITY of US GOVERNMENT"
Claims:

a. Iraqi civilians suffer because of US
occupation, and presence of US in Iraq is a
violation of Human RIghts.
b. Terrorism not connected with Islamic
Values.
c. US government violates "Due Process"
and "religeous freedom of Moslims" and
therefore is a repression against ISLAM as
a religion.
c. Islam has no relation with 911, Islam is for
Human Rights including freedom of
speech.

Q: Does that include the usage of one's
language?
A: Of course because holly Qoran requires a
moslim to learn Arabic Language.

Q: What about the native languages of several people in Africa (North Africa, Somalia and other places where Moslims are a majority, thus a force ?
A: It is not an Islamic value but Regime's
Exploitation of Islam.

Q: What do you say about 150 000 victims of Islamists in Algeria ?
A: I don't know, it's not Islam it's Islamists.

Interviewee left the scene.

In conclusion, a NO TO $87 Billion spending on Iraq rebuilding, turned into a platform to defend "The political wings of Islamist Movements everywhere"
--------------------------------------------------------------

RE: "Do these types of protests inspire anything, and is this related to the way the protest was organized?"
Yes, but I think there should be planned civil disobedience at each of these large protests (for trained volunteers, natch), or at least some 'finale' to focus activists for future direction / next rally, etc. ANSWER events should end with an exclamation point, but usually seem to wither away...

civil disobediance does matter. i didn' realize how much, until it wasn't there. nobody's counting the turnout at these marches. if there were no arrests, it didn't happen. i know vandalizing starbucks and burning flags gets the press. hopefully most activists are learning to not do that. but i'll be sad if public suicide becomes the big form protest.

RE: "Do these types of protests inspire anything, and is this related to the way the protest was organized?"
Yes, but I think there should be planned civil disobedience at each of these large protests (for trained volunteers, natch), or at least some 'finale' to focus activists for future direction / next rally, etc. ANSWER events should end with an exclamation point, but usually seem to wither away...

("If people flooded DC and demanded GWB's resignation and choose not to leave till he did at least a few million would actually show up for that!! ")

Now that's something I would buy a ticket to DC for! I am not quite as cynical as 'I agree", but close to it, these are starting to turn into a nice day out rather than effective political action. What's the goal? To see how deeply they can bury it in your hometown paper with how small a picture?
www.blogstudio.com/polis

DJEB wrote: "Free Speech Kept Off US Streets
Officials deny plot to herd dissenters into protest pens But sign-carriers testify to being hustled out of sight www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1026-04.htm "

Anyone notice how the DC police allowed counter protesters (at the start of Saturday's march) to have about 30 slick/sick signs which had 6-foot wooden 2x4 'handles'? Had the anti-regime protesters had such sign they would have been jailed or the signs confiscated, but these bubbas were just protected by the man.

Is it the DC police sign policy that right-wingers can carry disguised clubs, but opposition groups may only carry cardboard?

"Is it the DC police sign policy that right-wingers can carry disguised clubs, but opposition groups may only carry cardboard?"

Very good point indeed. Maybe they didn't see it??

"""
("If people flooded DC and demanded GWB's resignation and choose not to leave till he did at least a few million would actually show up for that!! ")

Now that's something I would buy a ticket to DC for! I am not quite as cynical as 'I agree", but close to it, these are starting to turn into a nice day out rather than effective political action. What's the goal? To see how deeply they can bury it in your hometown paper with how small a picture? """


Alot of people in this movement are just begging to get organized and wake up to whats really happening. So i think people will eventually learn from mistakes ,wastes of energy and concentrate on more direct actions, peaceful sit-ins, shutting down imperialist when the come to speak, radicalizing high school and college students.


The truth is a large majority of people wont do anything until it directly affects them. Its a basic human factor we have to deal with. Well the economy isnt getting better, job are being moved over seas, the presidental election is already fixed and the draft will be reinstated after all the reserves are beat, which looking at how fast people are getting injured and killed it wont be too long.

I've posted 18 new pictures of the march. You guys are beautiful!

Quest,
Regarding Germany, something else to remember is that, immediately after Germany fell, the U.S. began to install ex-Nazis (if the term "ex" can really be used) and Nazi sympathizers to run things, just as happened in just about all the territories "liberated" by the allies. It was the pre-existence of democracy that allowed Germany to become deNazified, and more importantly the fact that Germany was partitioned, necessitating an eventually increasing amount of freedom in the attempts to draw contrast with Soviet-occupied Germany. There were certainly many factors involved, and this was ultimately not a case of the U.S. importing democracy abroad.
As Makhno mentioned in his post, this is of course not to say Iraq cannot become democratic. The point is simply that it cannot do so while under military occupation by the U.S., and more importantly that the U.S. never intended Iraq to become truly self-governing. Freedom to do as the U.S. dictates is not freedom, it is tyranny, and no flags or patriotic rhetoric can disguise that fundamental truth.
As to the question of what would happen if Iraq were to become truly self-governing and nationalized its oil, that is quite easy to answer---look at what has happened to any nation in the Persian Gulf that has done so...as soon as possible, the U.S. has either funded a coup or invaded. We see what happened when Iraq converted to euros for oil transactions, so the response to the above question can be imagined.
Drew Poe

You knuckleheads are lucky if you scraped up 10K people. You had to bus in nutcases from all over the US to do even that. Get a job, get a life, and get behind the eventual freedom and democratic rule for Iraq. Stop loving murdeous dictators, it only marginalizes you more.

Lilly, I'm sorry, but you are the victim of ignorance here. Why don't you stop watching Fox News and wake up?

Wow Lilly, you posted the same thing twice, so you must be right.

I'd love to see you try a crack at a logical argument demonstrating that "we" love dictators of any stripe. Unfortunately for you, others possessing far more sagacity than you have thus far demonstrated have tried and failed numerous time to do just that. Good luck.

Creo que se ha dado una señal positiva a las autoridades que miran el voto en el 2004. Las protestas en contra de Bush son politicamente motivadas. Es para rajarlo de la Casa Blanca. Total, Bush puede mandar matar a cientos de miles de civiles y militares, de Iraq y EE.UU. y el solo va a ser rajado de su silla. Yo no veo diferencia entre Bush y el tirano de Alfredo Stroessner de Paraguay. Despues de oprimir a su pueblo por 35 años, se fue a Brasil, con la recomendacion de los Estados Unidos. En todos lados se cuecen habas, y en Washington, DC, si que la saben.

haha, I was kicked off of PABAAH. What a bunch of assholes. Not only do they have horrible opinions, they ban anyone who tries to argue with them. At least here on indymedia, there are some dissenters, however stupid and misled they might be. PABAAH is just scared because they are wrong...

Fine to know that the resistance against the great Amercans in the U$A isn't exterminated.
In Germany it is under the pledge of secrecy and nobody knows that there are already thousands of demonstrating people all over the word and specially in the U$A.
Don't let you oppress....
solidarity from Germany

No Nation
No Border

Peace

It doesn't matter anyway.

we are on the path to anihilation and there is no turning back.

Human beings are a cancer that must be eliminated.

let's drop the bomb. Kill everyone, Americans, Iraqis, everybody. let the lower lifeforms evolve.

An interesting if not suicidal view point.

Mike's comments require a response.
First of all, I think a significant segment of the anti-war movement does in fact recognize that much of U.S. policy in the Middle East is to the benefit of Israel; however, this tends to be within the context of furthering U.S. interests and hegemony, not Israel's (except where Israeli interests serve U.S. policy objectives).
As far as attacking white society, and Mike's statements about "Jewish" hegemony and global domination, there a several logic problems in this line of thinking. The most obvious issue on most readers minds might be the term "anti-Semitism". On the one hand, it is unfortunate that any attempts to address the fascist nature of Israel and Zionism is automatically labeled "anti-Semitic"; on the other hand, when you talk about Jewish plots to rule the globe, don't be surprised if some of us think you're taking it a bit far. No, it is not anti-Semitic to recognize the oppression and evils of the Israeli state; to see that as part of a racial plot for global conquest, however, is quite another thing, and it does seem motivated by racist thinking. This becomes especially possible when the same post also includes statements opposing attacks on white social wrongs. This brings us to the logical problem in Mike's argument.
Considering the history of Western European and U.S. imperialism, war, oppression of minorities within their borders and non-whites around the globe, considering the power of these majority-white and white-run governments and corporate interests, doesn't it make more sense to speak of a white, racist plot for global domination rather than a plot by a small minority controlling a relatively tiny section of the world?
However, this is not to say U.S. global hegemony is motivated by an Anglo-Saxon plot per se; the truth is that the issue is one of profits, power, and class warfare, and racism is a means to an ends for the system.
So, when Mike or others denounce talk of the wrongs committed by white society, and at the same time they say the focus should be on world Jewish domination, they are making a rather patently irrational argument.
No one, certainly not me, who understands the history of Palestinian struggle will for one moment deny the violent, racist, tyrannical nature of Israeli governance and Zionism in general; we do not, however, equate this as ultimately a question of "Jewishness", any more than we view the evils carried out by white society as being inherently an "Anglo-Saxon" racial quality. Any such discussion, if we were to engage in such racist absurdity, would likely lead to the inevitable conclusion that, if any race of peoples has some genetic or social predisposition towards tyranny and global oppression, it would be the whites of the world. Of course, most of us do not make such claims, precisely because we recognize that the racism and oppression carried out by white society is, in the end, part of a larger evil of greed and profits which seeks to dehumanize us all, and which fuels racism and hatred for the purpose of dividing us all for the protection of the ruling classes.
I do not know Mike, so I will not presume to say his arguments are based on his own racism, as I am weary of automatically using the "anti-Semitic" card against someone without proof it applies (I have been attacked as anti-Semitic for some of my articles on Zionism, despite the fact I go to great lengths to use only factual documentation, and to express my disdain for racism and anti-Semitism). But anyone making such serious accusations about a global Jewish plot for domination need to consider how this sounds, and realize that it is one thing to denounce Israeli policies and Zionist rhetoric, and quite another to claim an entire peoples are conspiring against us all. We must always speak the truth, even when that means making unpopular statements and pointing out uncomfortable facts; however, if what we say is honestly based on contempt or distrust, or actual hatred, of a people based on race, then we should say that with the same level of honest, and allow our comments to then be judged accordingly.
So, I will ask the uncomfortable question of you, Mike: are you anti-Semitic, do you feel Jews as a people are a danger? Please clarify your views on these issues. Otherwise, all we have is someone angry about blaming white society who says Jews are trying to rule the globe, and I assume I need not refer you to some more ominous sources of such thinking.

Drew Poe

Mike's comment was posted in the same time frame as white power group's post. His anti-semitic flamebait post was hidden.

Regarding Sarah's comments:

First, am I Jewish? I'm white and Irish, Sarah, and from Mississippi to boot.
Second, from your post I guess you missed most of my points entirely. Zionism as an ideology includes an expressed notion of racial superiority. I never at any point suggest we should just replace the word "Jewish" with "Zionist"---the precise point is that all Jewish people are not Zionist, and that when you or Mike or anyone else demonizes an entire race of people, you are ignoring the important fact that it is Zionism, the ideology, and the government of Israel which acts upon Zionist principles which is fascistic and racist. You and Mike talk of "Jewish" conspiracies, as opposed to Zionist or Israeli ones, so it seems more likely that it is you who lump all Jewish people together without distinctions between Zionists and non-Zionists.
Your comments about whites being "scapegoated" is incredibly uninformed and illogical. Again, I'd refer you to pretty much any history book or news article not published in 1933-1944 Germany.
If you look "in vain" for white supremacists or white racism in U.S. policy, I might presume you are blind. Bush, Cheney, Lott, Delay, or to go back in time a bit, every single WHITE, non-Jewish President and Vice-President in U.S. history, for example. You can look that up, too, if necessary.
How about U.S. corporate control and CEOs? Mostly white, non-Jewish, too.
This absurd notion of mass Jewish domination of the U.S. stems from racism, period. You can say "I'm not anti-Semitic", but when every other comment is about Jewish plots and world domination, whether you like it or not you look like an anti-Semite. And if you really DO feel all or most Jewish people in the world are taking control of the U.S. and the world, and that what they do with that power is evil, then you are in fact saying an entire race of people are dangerous and evil---and that's racism.
If someone suggested a Black conspiracy controlling our government and out to run the world, and spoke of "white scapegoating" to further the domination of the Black race over the globe, would you think there was some element of racism in his thinking? What if he said, "Oh, no, I'm not a racist. I just think Blacks run the world and do evil things with their power," would you say he wasn't a racist?
It is one thing to recognize the racism of an ideology like Zionism as fascist, and to say those who adhere to it are racists. It is quite another to paint a whole race like that, and when you do you are being a racist.
Notice, by the way, I did not ask Mike what color his skin was, or if he was Jewish; I asked about his opinion of Jews, as I would ask you what you think about Jewish people in general, as a whole. You asked me if I was Jewish, which I think says quite a lot about where you are coming from and what you think about the "average Jewish person".
That you are black and still making such arguments leads me to say one final thing:
don't be surprised when those rallying around you against the Jews turn and look at you with the same contempt next, for it is all part of the same twisted thought process.
Drew Poe

"Just picking up and leaving Iraq right now would just give the terrorists of the world another excuse to spout out to their followers.

"Look, they bombed our people in to the ground and then just left us for dead."

I do agree that the best thing for Iraq would be for the UN to oversee the reconstruction, however, I'm not sure just pulling out and dumping it all on the UN would be very benificial either. What we need to do is to give up the controll slowly (and by slowly, I don't mean take our sweet ass time about it..........maybe over the next year), to allow Iraq to adjust to UN supervision, so as to avoid further feelings of being invaded."

Drew poe,
First of all - Where in that post do you see anything about either a "white" or "jewish" plot for world domination?

Secondly - Where do you see anything even mildly racist in my post? I despise racists for their ignorant, narrowminded and barbaric attitudes twards their fellow man just because of a different skin color, social background, geographic location, religion, etc.

Lastly - I don't recall typing anything about Israel.

Can someone please re-post Mike's comments? I'm active in the Jewish peace movement, and very interested in this exchange, but I'd like to see the post that set it off. People should be aware that there *is* a Jewish peace movement (check out, e.g., www.nimn.org, www.vopj.org, www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org), that many Jews are non- or anti-Zionist, and for every fascist Jew sadist motherfucker like Eliot Abrams or Paul Wolfowitz I can show you ten socialists. So please don't muddy the waters - there are fascists of all colors and creeds (Condoleeza Rice, anyone? Clarence Thomas?) and I believe that white Christians still lead the way. It is so off base to claim Jewish conspiracies in the New World Order that it makes me believe these arguments are planted by agents provacateurs to distract us...

be advised: a well known white power troll is spamming this thread under different aliases, to get anyone to focus on his anti-semitic "Jewish conspiracies".

"Just picking up and leaving Iraq right now would just give the terrorists of the world another excuse to spout out to their followers.

"Look, they bombed our people in to the ground and then just left us for dead."

I do agree that the best thing for Iraq would be for the UN to oversee the reconstruction, however, I'm not sure just pulling out and dumping it all on the UN would be very benificial either. What we need to do is to give up the controll slowly (and by slowly, I don't mean take our sweet ass time about it..........maybe over the next year), to allow Iraq to adjust to UN supervision, so as to avoid further feelings of being invaded."

Drew poe,
First of all - Where in that post do you see anything about either a "white" or "jewish" plot for world domination?

Secondly - Where do you see anything even mildly racist in my post? I despise racists for their ignorant, narrowminded and barbaric attitudes twards their fellow man just because of a different skin color, social background, geographic location, religion, etc.

Lastly - I don't recall typing anything about Israel.

Mike,

1. You expressed disagreement with speakers' comments about white society; this was a primary point in your post.

2. You refered to Jewish global hegemony, which I think is adequately described as the idea of a Jewish plot or plan for dominance---hence the term "hegemony", right?

3. I stated EXPLICITLY that I did NOT presume you were a racist or anti-Semitic---but your choice of wording and the ideas inherent in "Jewish hegemony, not white domination" will lead many readers to question your ideology and motives, whether you like it or not; that's precisely my point, that if you make such vague and unexplained statements, readers can only judge your comments and interpret them based on what you said, and what you said had very specific undertones recognized by those of us who have long heard such theories of Jewish global hegemony and control of the U.S.

4. You DIDN'T mention Israel---my point exactly.

My post was, I feel it was clear, intended to point out that there is a difference between recognizing the wrongs of Israel and Zionism, which has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic, and talking about a Jewish desire to dominate the world (again, a definition inherent in your choice of phrasing, whether intended or not).
I was the one bringing up Israel and Zionism, and the issue of white global hegemony, for the very reason that your post conjured up those issues but did not mention them. If you are not in fact anti-Semitic, or if you do not actually mean to say there is a Jewish desire to dominate and exploit the U.S. and the globe, then you should clarify what you did mean, for as Sarah's post shows, both sides of this debate thought you were talking about Jewish domination and control---see Sarah's post in the hidden comments for her agreement and comments about Jewish domination.
If you were saying what Sarah thought and I suspected, however, then you, like Sarah appears to be doing, are adhering to a racist philosophy, intentionally or not.
Drew Poe

"Just picking up and leaving Iraq right now would just give the terrorists of the world another excuse to spout out to their followers.

"Look, they bombed our people in to the ground and then just left us for dead."

I do agree that the best thing for Iraq would be for the UN to oversee the reconstruction, however, I'm not sure just pulling out and dumping it all on the UN would be very benificial either. What we need to do is to give up the controll slowly (and by slowly, I don't mean take our sweet ass time about it..........maybe over the next year), to allow Iraq to adjust to UN supervision, so as to avoid further feelings of being invaded."

Alan,
That was my original post. As I pointed out for Drew Poe, there is nothing in there about "whites", "jews", or Israel.

Poe, could you please copy and paste this post that I supposidly wrote, cause I'd like to read it.

From "Mike"
dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/83916/index.php

*LOL*

Damn, someone else posted with my name.

I can point out one main flaw with that post being associated with me.........."29 Oct 2003
Modified: 03:39:10 PM" At 3:39:10 PM today (29Oct 2003) I was sitting in traffic on my way home from work.

I have to ask......was that post on this page, cause I'm not seeing it anywhere. Also, take note that that particular post contains an e-mail address, and none of mine have.

To Sarah and Mike:

First, Mike, if you are not the same Mike at the address mike3458 (at) aol.com, then you are not the Mike I was responding to, who has his post under the hidden articles. If you are him, then you know exactly what post I am refering to and maybe just want to see someone else repost it, so I'll just let anyone who wants to read it go see it themselves.
Now, Sarah---the most important thing might be to explain that "prejudice" is based on "pre-judging", and this includes statements that lay claim to a knowledge about collective group actions or behavior with regard to entire peoples or races. More precisely, such "pre-judging" is based on bias against the group in question, such as "Jews [as a collective group] are out to [here comes the generalization about behavior] try to dominate the world [a statement that is, presumably, meant to suggest this is a BAD thing, and hence an expression AGAINST this behavior viewed as inherently a collective behavior of the group]."
This is, of course, an unnecessary exercise, as nobody being intellectually honest could doubt that you don't recognize that a claim about Jews behaving, collectively, in a bad and world-dominating manner is prejudice, and anti-Semitism is defined as prejudice against Jews (here, I'd like to note that, technically, anti-Semitism SHOULD refer to racism against Jews and Arabs, since Semitic doesn't just mean Jewish).
As far as Zionism is concerned, Zionism is no more a "euphemism" for "Jewish" than "Nazi" is a euphemism for "white". We are speaking of ideologies here, a point, Sarah, you do not seem to grasp (or prefer not to). There is nothing confusing about this, it is quite simple: Zionism is a belief system, just as white supremacy is a belief system; both are racist, both lead to oppression; Israeli policy is based on Zionist principles, and carries out oppression and racism; not all Jews (not even close to a majority of them, I would say) are Zionists, and not all of them support Israeli policy. Why is this all so hard to understand?
Of course, you choose not to address any of the facts concerning the predominantly all-white, non-Jewish nature of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, the vastly white and non-Jewish nature of Congress, and the vastly white and non-Jewish nature of U.S. corporations. You can't afford to address such facts, or your beliefs fall apart.
The suggestion that Jews are engaged in a global campaign of domination is based on prejudicial ideas about Jews collectively. If what you mean is Jewish people who adhere to Zionist philosophy seek to ensure pro-Israeli U.S. policies, and to control land resources surroun