Your speech at the Dublin Debate was brilliant, rational and civil in the finest traditions of debate. If only political discourse in the United States could be conducted on this level.
15 October 2004
Thank you so much for courageously expressing the views commonly held by writers for the WSWS web site. All I read there every time is uncommon common sense about the illegal war in Iraq, and most importantly about our failing US experiment with democracy. I see this web site as one of the last outposts for true American patriots, people who believe the founders were often wise and right, people who want to see this country be strong and solid and above all, honest.
Most sincerely, I thank you.
21 October 2004
I’d like to say a job well done about your in-depth reply. It made for interesting reading because all of it is so true based on my own many years personal working/living experience in the Middle East.
Keep up the good work.
* * *
14 October 2004
You could have shortened your response to Mr. Rothwell to a few sentences: Under the prevailing conditions—kidnapping, murder, and so on—how the hell did he get out of the protected areas, where the rich, spoiled, traitors, turncoats, and corrupts live, and talk to ordinary Iraqis. Who were these Iraqis? Did they include those who have lost their family and everything else as a result of the occupation? Like most of the rest of them, Mr. Rothwell is a disgrace to the profession of journalism.
Worse, he does not write in clear English; he uses contractions popular with high school kids.
a) He says he tries not to extrapolate too far. This implies he does extrapolate, but his “far” might be too far for most other people.
b) He says, “...and there is a certain tide of optimism in some sections of the capital.” Exactly what sections?
c) He says, “...but one does write in order to be read.” That is the problem. First of all, to be read by whom? The general public? Editors? Governing elites? Corporations? Who? One does not write for the sole purpose to be read, but to state one’s views as honestly as possible, even if that means no one will ever read it. Distorting news is not just writing to be read, it is deceitfulness and dishonesty at their worst.
14 October 2004
Compliments to Rick Kelly for a superb principled and analytical response. It shows an excellent understanding of the historical context. Please keep the excellent work up.
To the WSWS:
Thank you for your many fine articles. I go to your web site whenever I get on the net and I’m a supporter. I have one comment that I hope doesn’t seem like semantic quibbling. I consider the term “anti-globalization” to be a deliberate ruling class pejorative. It characterizes people who are struggling against the horrors of imperialist (“neoliberal”) international financial policies as quixotic Luddites who are opposed to the “progress” that (corporate) globalization is bringing about. I’ve read, and prefer a term like “global justice” movement. (I’ve also seen the term “anti-corporate globalization,” which I consider vague and clumsy at best.)
Though there are plenty of valid criticisms of some attitudes in that movement, I don’t believe that the majority of them wish to turn back the clock on the spread of technology and communication. The fact that they’re using web sites tells us that. So please don’t let the ruling class media impose their obfuscating terminology on us.
That said, thanks again for the many excellent articles and incisive analyses. Keep up the good work.
Long Beach, CA, USA
14 October 2004
To whom it may concern,
I read your article on the shutdown of the 20 antiwar web sites and got utterly disgusted. I guess like a lot of people we have had it with these fools. I’m not a socialist but a libertarian, but I’ll defend your right to free speech. I would that you remember this and don’t do the same yourselves if you ever came to power as the state would control the press under your system. Once again, we don’t agree on many issues, but the ones we do, such as the above, we should work together to get rid of our common enemy.
16 October 2004