Randy, when you cite one fact or make one argument in response to what I’ve argued or cited, I’ll be happy to respond to you, condescending attitude and all.
Pretending the facts are not there, or that the linkages are not plain only makes you look obstinate, or something else.
Spreading urban myths? Like what, that Stalinism no longer has adherents that organize most of the anti-war rallies? Go back and read the first link on Cagan.
I think the problem here Beagle, is what is your point?
So what if there were a few Stalinists involved in the Anti-War movement?
This is a land of freedom of speech. Anyone can talk about anything they want, save for seditious speech, but anyways, what is your point? So what if there were a few communists involved in the anti-war protests? Does that automatically invalidate all of the protests world wide?
What’s the big deal? Honestly. I can’t see one. It’s common knowledge that certain sects of the public are strongly opposed to any military intervention. Yet, you automatically discredit the anti-war movement as false, and irresponsible because a few communists are involved?
Do you want to start another “witch hunt?” Because, that’s what I’m getting from these posts.
Basically, you are saying, that if one, only one, member of the Ku Klux Klan was involved in a pro-racism march, that it would automatically discredit the entire march?
InternationalANSWER - n - friends. Links page. Note: IAC promintently featured.
They hope you’ll come to the next one.
I wish you would permit me to hear the wonderful argument to end all arguments, apparently on some other nameless thread, which makes InternationalANSWER not a big part of the peace movement organization.
Yes, witch hunt. Burn them. See if she floats. C’mon, you can do better than that.
When the first words out of my keyboard are that I support even a genocidal philosophy like Stalinism getting a fair hearing in public discourse, you come in with “witch hunt”?
Is there a computerized leftist program somewhere? 1. Not true, no facts. 2. Maybe true, irrelevant. 3. You are a McCarthyite.
Don’t miss David Duke, he’ll be speaking out against the war on the 22nd.
To me, it does matter who supports what. I think the politics of association which the left uses to great effect with Trent Lott, Bob Jones, Enron, etc. - often justifiably - can work both ways. If a particular right-wing organization is funding some television commercials, for example, it matters. On matters of international policy it matters more.
I would be willing to consider the opinions of people who rejected Stalinism unequivocally. I don’t trust anyone who apologizes for Stalinists or pretends like Stalinism no longer exists. I would not believe that Nazis or the KKK exists, but there you have it.
Well, hell, Beagle . I thought for sure i made my last post for the evening, but you got me right back into it.
I also thought that all that debate training would do me good. Carefully making an argument, trying to make a point. But then comes along this modern day Gorgias, completely ignores answering anything in my argument on the grounds that they are caca…
…Restates his unsupported accusations that were up for scrutiny from the beginning… [Cagan has earlier, f.e. in your own OP been characterized as a supporter of Castro, not of Stalin]
…and finally tops it off with the ultimate rethorical gesture, when in lack of solid argumentation: the pledge to “all sound people to accept that i am right, and if you don’t you’re a bad man”…
…complete with new link to website, adding nothing to his argument. ANSWER links to the IAC. So who are they (sorry but i am not a US citizen). If you want to incriminate the IAC, whoever they are, don’t you think it would have been more pertinent if it was the other way around?
I doubt I could make any argument to make you end even this argument. All and well, that is. But i’ll actually supply you with a decent argument, since you seem unable to find one yourself. 
(hope i don’t pick a fight here)
When surfing the ANSWER link you so kindly supplied, i came across this:
Now this is the first fact that i’ve heard so far in here that even remotely resembles any foundation for your original claim. Why not take that as a starting point?
I can’t guarantee your success though 
Groovy argument, Beagle.
So along those lines, since anti-abortion groups with links to anti-abortion terrorists who have murdered American citizens contributed money and resources to Bush’s campaign for president… if you support or God forbid voted for Bush, you support terrorists and condone terrorism against Americans.
-fh
The peace march I participated in was primarily older folks, old enough to be our parents, and families with children. It is a pluralist movement, so there is an occasional Rasta or body-pierced anarchist, but also probably the highest percentage of veterans of any peace group. To say that this cross-section of American society is Stalinist is ignorant beyond belief and is a really desperate attempt to discredit a group of Americans who are exercising their constitutional rights. Anybody who has a problem with us exercising our constitutional rights probably IS a Stalinist. I do know that Grover Norquist, Field Marshall of the Bush plan, is a Leninist.
The fundamental problem with having the anti-war movement demonstrations organized by Stalinists is that their goal is not preventing war; their goal is to making Bush and the US look bad. This sort of thing has a history. In my lifetime, peace demonstrations were always opposed to the US.
In the 1950’s and early 1960’s I participated in SANE’s anti-nuclear disarmament demonstrations, opposing the nuclear buildup. We now know that SANE’s real goal was to weaken the US, relative to the USSR. In retrospect, given the horror of Soviet Communism, this would not have been a reasonable foreign policy. The demonstrations did not succeed in promoting peace. They did not deter Eisenhower and Kennedy from building an enormous nuclear arsenal. However, they did make the US look morally wrong in the eyes of quite a few Americans and many people abroad.
The anti-Vienam War demonstrations did eventually help convince the USA to withdraw. They also created a world-wide picture of the US as uniquely immoral, which I think was unjustified. The Vietnam War was badly conducted and included American atrocities. However, it was well-motivated. Furthermore the atrocities on the other side were as bad, but they received far less publicity.
ANSWER’s anti-war demonstration followed history by taking it for granted that the US is wrong. That’s why there were no banners criticizing Saddam. Demonstrators didn’t call for him to disarm his banned WMDs, to keep his treaty obligations, to stop torturing his citizens, to stop lying, or to work through the United Nations. The best remaining chance of avoiding war would be for Saddam to change his ways. Yet, the demonstrations encouraged him to keep doing what he’s doing. From his POV they were supporting him.
Millions of demonstrators the world over focused on making the US and President Bush look bad. That’s a very successful result, if you’re a Stalinist. It’s an utter failure, if you truly want to avoid war.
december:
Maybe you missed out on Beagle completely failing to, in any way, show how the peace rallies was in reality run by stalinists.
Have a look, above. Have another try.