Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 253 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Whose Hands Should Be On Iraq And Ukraine?

The Independent Political Report gives us news of a recent anti-war protest in San Francisco in which the World Workers Party was involved. I’m grateful to any group or individual who takes part peacefully in an anti-war protest…

world workers party iraq syria protest…but I just can’t get over this picture that was posted along with the article. It shows a pair of Workers World Party protesters carrying a sign that reads “U.S. Hands Off Iraq, Syria And Ukraine – Money For Human Needs, Not War!

I am 100 percent in support of the idea that money should be spent on basic human needs instead of on war.

I can’t stop asking this question, though: Just whose hands does the World Workers Party want on Iraq, Syria and Ukraine?

Are they okay with Iranian hands being on Iraq? Will they accept Russian hands on Ukraine? What about Al Quaida hands on Syria?

Is the World Workers Party only against American hands?

War is not the answer to the problems in these countries, but a solution won’t come simply from getting U.S. hands off either.

6 comments to Whose Hands Should Be On Iraq And Ukraine?

  • Workers World Party is Communist and various Communist Parties have criticized Western countries, but are quiet or Pro Russian with regards to Ukraine. The Communist Party of Ukraine for example is the most pro Russian!

  • J Clifford

    Yeah. Down with imperialism! Except for our imperialists!

    • J, Communist parties as fans of Soviet Imperialism.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Imperialism

      While Russia and the various Moscow based organizations aren’t Communist right now, Communists still have hope for a resurrection of the Soviet Union. More exactly they are also anti America/NATO/EU as well.

      All of America’s Communist parties have taken pro Russia positions either explicitly or implicitly.

      http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=Ukraine

      Just looking up Ukraine on the various article by IPR, I found various political parties criticizing the West as if they were solely responsible for the crisis and not Russia at all. Even the Greens, who aren’t Communists, have taken such a position.

  • Dave

    Peregrin, well spoken. I find it strange, however, that the U.S. is sending soldiers once again to Iraq without any worldwide uproar as in the Bush endeavor. There is no justification for our involvement there, period, for the reason that we cannot because of our election cycles sustain a consistent policy in the mid-east. Obama looks like a fool for sending troops into Iraq after pulling them out. I understand the Sunni leader in Iraq is now someone that Obama freed from Guantanimo. Anyone tired of this slapstick yet?

    • J Clifford

      There have been protests, Dave, and we’ve spoken out on the matter here, but one big difference is that, once Obama got elected, rank-and-file Democrats allowed themselves to get co-opted to stand right along the Republicans in the Presidents-Can-Go-To-War-Whenever-They-Want-To camp. They don’t want to contradict Obama, after all. Republicans continue to be mostly, idiotically, automatically pro-war. So, the anti-war protesters have dwindled down to a few principled independents.

  • Charles Manning

    I think we’ve seen an international spread of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned against. He didn’t contemplate that other countries would also host their own MIC’s, or branches of the MIC. Now that nuclear weapons are not an immediate threat (despite the fact that countries like China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and of course we, and our allies, have them), we see groups everywhere, armed with conventional weapons, who believe they must kill to get their way. Where do they get these arms? Not just from the U.S. As long as groups seeking to overturn tyranny, as we believe they have a right to do (cf. the U.S. Declaration of Independence), are supplied with guns, bombs, planes, etc., people in those groups who advocate non-violence don’t stand a chance of being listened to.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>