Stop the U.S. War Machine
- U.S. War Machine Action Network

This paper, issued by the Stop the U.S. War Machine Action Network in January 1992, is an evaluation of the struggle against the U.S. war in the Gulf. Its purpose is to learn from that battle in order to do everything possible to stop the U.S. from waging other wars of aggression. We present this paper today in the context of another imperialist war, led by America, where the real objective for the war has been sought to be covered by the slogan of “War against Terror.” The anti-imperialist struggle has to be waged as much by the victims of imperialism abroad as by the American people.

SOME LESSONS OF THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE GULF WAR

The Gulf War brought terror, death and destruction to Iraq. Overall more than 150,000 Iraqis were slaughtered. Even now the U.S. threatens further military action, while thousands more Iraqi children sicken and die as a result of the Allies’ premeditated destruction of Iraq’s life support infrastructures and continued sanctions. America’s masters of war hailed this slaughter as the country’s “defining hour,” celebrated it with victory parades, and declared it the dawn of a “New World Order.” But Bush’s “New World Order” has just as hideous a ring as Hitler’s did 50 years ago.

The Gulf war also triggered global outpourings of furious protest against the U.S.-led coalition, and millions of us have refused to celebrate its obscene “victory.”

The Stop the U.S. War Machine Action Network was one of the national organizations born during the first weeks of the U.S. buildup in the Gulf crisis. We quickly sized up the outlines of the coming war and raised the call of “no business as usual” opposition. The Action Network drew together people from a wide variety of political trends and ideological perspectives. We fought crucial battles and made them count such as to “Free Jeff Paterson” and support for all GI resistance and “The Day Of/Day After” demonstrations, especially the powerful actions during the January 14 to16 days. The Network initiated and helped popularize key slogans including “Support All GI Resistance, “The Arab People Are Not Our Enemy, They Are Our Sisters and Brothers,” “Kick the Yellow Ribbon Syndrome, Wear Red and Black.” After the war’s end the Action Network organized and led courageous protests against the ugly Victory/Welcome Home Parades, proclaiming, “No Celebration of a Massacre.”

While not the largest of the national antiwar organizations, the Network earned a reputation for fearless, spirited resistance that declared that the people, not the governments, would have to stop the U.S. war machine, no matter what it takes.

Although millions around the world fought to stop the Gulf war, we did not succeed. As we mourn our murdered sisters and brothers in the Middle East, the antiwar movement faces questions that cry out for answers.

WHAT DID THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT ACHIEVE?

We must not underestimate how broad the antiwar opposition really was. Despite the media’s systematic effort to white out antiwar resistance once the war began, the antiwar movement was the largest and broadest outpouring of opposition since Vietnam. For literally tens of millions from all walks of life, this war sparked deep anger, which, in some ways, hasn’t abated but grown since the shooting ended.

The fact that mass protest began even before the actual war is to our credit. We did not “wait ‘til the American body bags came home,” to demand an end to the war. It was also of enormous significance that a new generation of GI resisters stepped forward who refused to die for oil, or kill for it.

Another of our most vital strengths was the broad involvement of people from oppressed nationalities, in particular the broader antiwar outrage that poured forth from Black and Latino youth.

We have learned our “Panama lesson.” Too many progressive people let that invasion go down without protest, in large part due to the lack of a “good guy” to support; since Noriega was no hero, and the U.S.’s rationale for aggression was allowed to stand. This time we did the right thing: when the U.S. attacks anywhere, under any pretext, it is our responsibility to oppose it. We must reject the logic that the U.S. has “legitimate national interests” halfway around the world to sanctify arming dictators like Hussein or Noriega and then toppling them when they cross their creators. There was no justice in this or any war waged for American power and profit.

The broad peace movement did much to overcome its longstanding hesitations about opposing U.S. intervention in the Middle East, which have been in large part due to its unwillingness to stand with the Palestinian people and condemn Israel. It was important that many people learned more about the U.S.’s real role in the region and took the stand of “No Blood For Oil.”

Widespread revulsion against the media was one of the most significant changes the movement helped to encourage-and should be encouraged by. The media lied about the war, covered up the protest, and played a crucial role in manipulating and molding public opinion. It was proof of our movement’s power and potential that America’s rulers poured such effort into this aspect of battle management. Bush boasted that we were “only a handful”, but in reality support for the war was shallow and even shaky, and the antiwar outpouring just before the war began in mid January was unprecedented. Countless protests arose against this media blockade—which was a healthy blow against the complacency and chauvinism so critical to the smooth functioning of the war machine.

The war makers desperately needed to cure the Vietnam Syndrome. They could launch a major war, but would they have political support on the home front? But while we may have not stopped the war in the end, it must be said that the Vietnam Syndrome is still alive, with the potential to infect a whole new generation- and that is an achievement to be proud of.

COULD THE MOVEMENT HAVE DONE MORE?

The government and the media made enormous calculated efforts to derail the antiwar struggle. They pumped up the myth that 60’s antiwar demonstrators had hurt their own cause by “going too far and alienating the majority.” We were told to express dissent, but keep it patriotic: write to your Congressman, don’t burn a flag. We were “reminded” that 60’s student radicals were really just spoiled brats who didn’t care about the mostly working class troops and “spat on returning Vietnam veterans.” And we were told that if we really wanted to stop the war we should build a “realistic, responsible” movement that angered or inconvenienced no one.

When such a line comes from outright reactionaries, many activists know how to recognize lies and liars. But this attack was echoed by too many of the movement’s own “friends,” including prominent 60’s “experts.” We were told to “avoid the mistakes of the 60’s,” meaning the more radical, “no business as usual” type of protest, which some claimed only drove middle America into the arms of the government. These experts urged us to support the sanctions and argued that since Hussein had invaded Kuwait a demand for complete U.S. withdrawal without alternative measures was an unrealistic option. And when the protest mounted, including students occupying recruiting stations, Vietnam veterans leading marches at military bases, and GIs refusing deployment, one of these experts, Todd Gitlin, actually called on antiwar activists to donate blood for the troops. The logic of this “blood for oil” was that the movement’s greatest need was to prove we were not irresponsible or unpatriotic, thus correcting those heady “mistakes of the 60’s.”

To this we can only reply: what mistakes of the 60’s!?! Helping stop a war of imperialist aggression, changing the thinking of an entire generation, and cramping the government’s ability to wage another such war for 20 years? Let’s try to have today’s movement make the same “mistakes!” The “don’t offend Americans” line was concentrated in this advice from Communist Party USA in their newspaper, the People’s Weekly World: “...provocative actions-burning flags, disrupting traffic, etc.- are ineffective and counter productive. They neither interfere significantly with “business as usual,” nor do they lead new people into the antiwar movement. In fact, they drive people away.” (PWW, 1.26.91, p. 19) However, the powerful January 14th-16th upsurge and the anti-Vietnam war movement 20 years ago show this argument to be a lie. First, it was vitally important that militant protests take place around the January 15th date and not wait for the rallies scheduled for January 19th and 26th. Moreover when the January 19th demonstrations did occur, the protest in San Francisco was much larger than the one in Washington. Why? In large part because actions like the people’s takeovers of the Bay Bridge and other bridges and major highways were effective. Bold protest and resistance actions that deliver a strong, clear message and can’t be ignored are exactly one of the most powerful ways that a minority can have an impact on the vast majority. In New York City and elsewhere around the country, some of the most powerful protests around January 15 were high school students walking out, boycotting school and leading actions at recruiting stations, highways and elsewhere.

The January upsurge disrupted business as usual (and electrified the Bay Area in Particular), forced millions to confront the issues, shifted public opinion-rather that driving people away-empowered thousands more to join in the struggle. And in the 1960’s it was precisely defiant, “no business as usual” protest (e.g. the Stop The Draft Week in the Bay Area and the Pentagon demo in 1967, the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968, May Day 1970, rebellions in the inner cities) that transformed the movement from a relative “handful” to an upsurge of tens of millions that shook this country to its foundations.

WHAT ABOUT THE “MAINSTREAM” AND THE “MAJORITY?”

The movement needs to weigh its strategies carefully, so that our actions have the strongest possible impact and influence on more people. But this is an argument for, not against, controversial political activity-activity that may offend some in the mainstream by speaking the truth, even when at first only a minority sees it. We should constantly check ourselves against internalized chauvinism: taking humanity as a whole, who is the real “majority” anyway? The 6% of the planets inhabitants who live in the U.S. and consume over half the total resources of the whole earth, or everybody else?

Even within the borders of the U.S., why do so many people use the term “majority” when who they actually mean is the white middle class? There are millions of people even here-in the ghettos and barrios, among the homeless and the immigrants, and among millions of others-whose life experience tells them that this government cannot be trusted or believed, and who hated this war and all the lies that accompanied bombs. Plenty of these people found nothing offensive about a strong antiwar movement, even when some of our tactics made the authorities howl. Insisting that the opposition avoid any action that might offend “the mainstream,” is a recipe for never doing anything that would challenge or oppose our own government. It’s a prescription for a tidy, ineffectual registration of dissent tolerable to the authorities. These strategies boil down to one simple mistake: relying on the makers of war to stop their wars.

The shortness of the Gulf war made every day, every action, count enormously; we should be encouraged by the numbers and strength we did achieve. Had the war lasted longer, and even more people forced to take a stand, the movement would have developed to far greater heights. But still the choice for the two roads for the movement would have been the same: To merely register dissent or do the utmost to actually stop the war? This was (and is) the bottom line question for our movement. Do we rely on the war makers (Congress, the Democrats, and the United Nations) and act only within the rules they set? Or do we rely on and lead people to struggle from below, in determined mass political action to do everything we can to stop the criminals from carrying out there crimes? This was a thread that ran through much of the debate within the antiwar movement.

THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE SANCTIONS FOR THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT TO SANCTION!

Unfortunately, before the war broke out, some in the antiwar movement argued that we should support sanctions. They argued this would buy time for non-military solutions to force Hussein out of Kuwait. The movement was not supposed to rush to the barricades because we supposedly had friends in high places. The Soviet Union and China supported the U.N. sanctions; maybe the governments would work things out. As late as December, the National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, one of the two largest national coalitions, demanded Sanctions, Not War! And Embargo Yes, War No! They criticized those who refused to support sanctions for being unrealistic.

This was the classic loyal opposition political trap. As Colin Powell noted, the sanctions and war were a seamless process. To support any sanctions, embargoes, or blockades was in reality to legitimize U.S. intervention and to support the war, for U.N. sanctions were acts of big power aggression and part of preparing for war. Sanctions bought time all right—time for the U.S. to position its forces for the military onslaught, while softening the enemy by starving the Iraqi people. This bitter lesson we should learn; if the pre-war sanctions fooled some in the movement, the issue of more sanctions and other U.S. blackmail now against devastated post-war Iraq should not. America’s “New World Order” in the Middle East will rely heavily on the threat of such sanctions.

“SUPPORTING THE TROOPS” MEANT SUPPORTING THE WAR

Our next major test came with the slogan “Support The Troops.” All tied up in yellow ribbons, “Support The Troops” was pushed at the movement to break its back.

All that yellow was no spontaneous heartland feeling welling up; it was produced. As reported in the NY Times, rightwing forces such as the American Freedom Coalition, the Freedom Task Force (led by Reagan’s ambassador to Bahrain), and the Coalition for America at Risk (star members: General Singlaub and Richard Viguerie) staged multimillion-dollar campaigns to promote pro-war rallies, complete with waving flags and yellow ribbons. Furthermore, in the war of the symbols, the yellow ribbon winds back a long way. While most people assume that this symbol’s inspiration was the insipid 70’s pop song about the return of an ex-con to a loving sweetheart, the song itself was inspired by a real event in the proud history of America (memorialized in the classic John Wayne movie, “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.”) During the American genocidal trek westward, wives of the U.S. cavalry soldiers wore yellow ribbons while their husbands were out on their missions-of massacring Native Americans. Does that say anything about this war?

The yellow ribbon was Bush’s Patriot Missile for our movement, and “Support The Troops” should never have been embraced by anyone in the antiwar opposition. It was calculated to turn an antiwar movement into a PRO-war movement. For one, it aimed to blunt the sharp distinction between pro and anti-war positions, saying: See? Some Americans are pro-war and some are anti, but we all support the troops! No big difference to make trouble over, no life-and-death questions to confront-no real opposition here! It aimed to derail people’s fury, saying: You may not have wanted this war but now that it’s a reality you must accept it, everybody else does, look at the sea of yellow ribbons.

The government hypocritically sought to blackmail people into supporting the war by playing on their sympathies for those who are being forced to fight it. Everybody knew the new “all-volunteer army” is nothing but a poverty draft, with GIs overwhelmingly recruited from the oppressed nationalities. We were guilt-tripped over our compassion for those who’d gotten stuffed into a uniform because this society offered them no choices.

THE RESISTERS ARE THE REAL HEROES

“Support The Troops” to do what? To carpet bomb Iraq? To kill other human beings of a different nationality so the U.S. could plunder the Middle East? As Marco Lokar (the former Seton Hall basketball player who quit the team rather than wear an American flag on his uniform) put it: “I have heard many people saying that the flag should be worn in support of the troops and not in support of the war. This is a foolish argument though. The troops are in the Gulf fighting a war.” Anything short of this truthful stand only sanctioned the war, and the racist lie that Iraqi lives were less precious than American lives. To attempt to oppose the war yet “support the troops” is akin to opposing rape yet supporting the rapist. The only right and real way for antiwar activists to extend their hand to the troops was not to promise to “support” them in any crimes they were ordered to commit. It was to do everything in our power to stop them from killing and being killed taking part in an unjust war of aggression. It was up to the antiwar movement to tell GIs the truth. This meant going to the bases, finding every way possible to communicate with GIs, inviting them to join us in resistance, and supporting those who did.

We salute groups such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist who, along with others, worked tirelessly from August onward to do just that. With its leaflet, “Open Letter to the Troops of Ft. Saudi Arabia,” VVAW-AI reached out to tens of thousands of GIs here and overseas, calling them to resist the war. We also commend the many draft and military counseling groups who bucked the “Support The Troops” tide and supported GI resisters.

Especially now, when the generals and pilots have gotten their parades and the resisters are getting the brig, court-martials, and harsh sentences (including the governments threat to give resister Erik Larsen the death penalty for desertion!) we know who this war’s true heroes are. And we must stand with the resisters, and continue refusing to “Support The Troops.”

In the 1960’s President Nixon and the powers-that-be also raised the slogan “Support The Troops.” But many protesters (including a large number of antiwar GIs and veterans) came to reject this line because it implied our bottom line concern should be for American lives. Instead, tens of thousands came to sympathize with the Vietnamese people, to understand they were fighting a just war against foreign aggression that should be supported, and to see the U.S. government was the real enemy. This defiant posture sent shock waves that rocked the entire home front (and even the world) that continue to be felt today.

A huge section of the 60’s generation began to see that the same system was waging an unjust war against the Vietnamese people was responsible for the many injustices, such as national oppression, that we saw at home-and to act upon it. This radicalization process deeply influenced American society, creating enormous problems for those in power. No wonder the government tried like crazy to convince us that the 1990’s weren’t the 1960’s. They didn’t want a repeat.

COULD THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT FIGHT THE VICTORY PARADES? “NO CELEBRATION OF A MASSACRE”

Once the war was “over” and victory declared, supporting the troops fed right into welcoming them home and marching in thoroughly ugly and reactionary Victory Parades. Many in the antiwar movement backed away from protesting these American-style Nuremberg Rallies because they were intimidated by the government onslaught to build these events and/or bought into the argument that “Even if you didn’t support the war and won’t celebrate the victory at least we can all be glad that our boys made it home safe.” One such view was that we should “sit this one out,” especially in the face of the massive June 10th ticker tape parade in New York City.

The Action Network was able to help lead, nationally, the historic ‘in the street” efforts to expose, protest and as much as possible stop these parades (largely because the Network from the beginning opposed the support the troops/yellow ribbon attack). The ferocious attack on the anti-celebration protests and the support they received clearly indicates how important they were.

In Seattle the city literally had to cancel it’s victory parade. In the Bay Area both the parade into San Francisco’s Presidio Army Base and a later celebration in Oakland were thoroughly disrupted. Extremely significant protests took place in Detroit, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington D.C., Honolulu, and several other cities. In New York City, site of the biggest parade and a massive media/government/corporate build up, the Network led the “Red and Black” resistance, and a major court battle continues in the “War Parade 18” case. It is worth quoting from one of the many letters of protest sent to New York District Attorney Morganthau, in charge of prosecuting the War Parade protestors: “...The “victory” celebrations and hullabaloo around the country were well covered by the German T.V. We saw the moral force of America reveling and rejoicing in destruction, violence and death. Is there no sense of shame or propriety left in the country? I can state unequivocally and without exception that I have not met one German who has commented positively on it. In fact, most can’t even begin to comprehend such blatant displays of cold-blooded chauvinism and have asked me incredulously if ‘you Americans are all right in your heads.’ Others see dangerous parallels pointing out that ‘we’ve already been through all that.’ Now I have just read that protestors against the parade and other celebrations in New York on June 9th and 10th are being prosecuted for various and sundry misdemeanors and crimes, to which my only comment is-if there is any reason I might have for being proud to be an American, it’s because of these Americans who truly showed moral force and a sense of decency, not to mention a healthy abhorrence of violence and destruction. One day when the full truth is known, then these people may well be the heroes of the future. I am asking you to drop all charges against the protestors. Wehrheim, Germany LETTING THE WAR MAKERS TELL US HOW TO OPPOSE THEM “Distancing” and “good protesters” vs. “bad protestors”

Most people will tell you they think war is bad-even presidents and generals. But the question is how to oppose and stop these wars. The term “distancing” has become more widely understood since it was encountered in West Germany during the mass protests against Euro missiles in the mid 80’s. Distancing is a tactic employed by the authorities to divide and paralyze the movement, to try and set up distinctions between “good protestors” and “bad protestors”. According to the authorities, the good protestors are those who stick to forms of dissent acceptable to the powers that be (electoral campaigns, petitioning policy makers, obeying the laws), while the bad protesters are those who refuse to confine their struggle to those “acceptable” bounds, and instead adopt a more “no business as usual” orientation that relies on the people, not the good will of the authorities.

The slogan of the Action Network has causes and continues to cause considerable debate in the antiwar movement. To say we must “stop the U.S. war machine, no matter what it takes!” is obviously a very different stance than one that adheres to a strict code of “non-violence”. “I want change, even revolutionary change, but this must be framed by non-violent means consistent with the end we desire,” say many activists who criticize the “no matter what it takes” phrase. They fear these words will open the door to ways of struggle that might carry the movement into promotion of “violence.”

There have been too many experiences in the antiwar movement of “good protestors” allowing themselves to be distanced from and set against “bad protestors.” Tactics of bold political confrontation shouldn’t be automatically decried as violent (and therefore bad). Is the smashing of a missile nosecone or a nuclear war strategizing computer facility “violent?” Is it destructive or constructive for demonstrators to break through police barricades to physically blockade a federal building or a military recruiting station? Is the internationally symbolic act of burning an American flag negative because it angers pro-America patriots - or positive because it expresses solidarity with those internationally who have been invaded, attacked, and oppressed by an aggressor flying that flag? Is the blocking of a bridge or the symbolic act of burning an effigy an act of violence? All of these examples of recent actions by people in the antiwar movement, which have been supported by some and distanced by others. These questions and issues raise deep philosophical questions about the nature of political dissent, of strategy and tactics that this paper can’t attempt to cover. In terms of debate within the movement, who do think that no one should accept a superficial definition or a quickie explanation of what it means to the struggle, nor allow ourselves to be needlessly divided and distanced over fears or accusations of violence, when most often the real issue is not violence but disagreements over politics. In criticizing the movement for allowing the yellow ribbon and the slogan, Support The Troops, former CIA officer-turned-peace activist John Stockwell recently wrote: “I sit back and wonder: Would the people of this country have succeeded in stopping the Vietnam war if they had been sending messages of love to the people on the ground who were doing the killing? If we had not had Chicago in 1968 and Kent State and Berkeley and the massive, angry energy in the peace community, the war would have lasted longer. I reread the Graham and Burr book, ‘The History of Violence in America’, in which they conclude that there has never been substantial social change, revolutionary change in the U.S., without violence or at least the serious threat of boycotts and disruption. People have to stand up and draw a line and project their disapproval.”

AND WHERE TO NOW? AFTER THE WAR IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER: A PEOPLE’S VERDICT IS NEEDED!

Events since August 1990 have dramatically changed the world, and those who came together to fight to stop the war now need to find solutions to the hard questions we face. The formation of an International War Crimes Tribunal is a welcome development that must be supported. Yet some in the movement seem to want to “forget” the war as a “battle lost” and concentrate on “things we can win,” like domestic reforms.

But to turn away from the Gulf was would be a serious mistake. The after effects of the war and continuing sanctions are killing thousands of children in Iraq-sanctions must be lifted immediately.

Further, to let the U.S. get away with a “victory verdict” on the war will simply encourage the monster’s appetite and ambitions for more such crimes. Where will it be next—Cuba, Peru? GI resisters are being court-martialed and sentenced, and activists arrested for protesting the war and parades face serious legal charges and jail-both need our support.

Injustice and oppression by the U.S. are rampant at home and abroad and both must be fought. America spent more money in five days of the Gulf massacre than it has spent on all AIDS research and prevention;’ it spent more in one day on war than the cost of prenatal care for a million low income women. It slaughtered Arab people half way around the globe and then gave Rodney King the same kind of treatment on a L.A. freeway. Can this situation be tolerated?

We cannot know today all the long term ramifications of the U.S. war against Iraq, but those who don’t want the U.S. war machine to create another Vietnam-or Iraq-will have to gather our strength, including those we can draw from the most recent battle, to take the war mongers on again. So we should boldly confront our weaknesses and deficiencies.

For one, the scale of the broad opposition that sprang up quickly outstripped the organizing abilities of the movement. Far too much “movement as usual” thinking held sway: when GI resisters, radical youth and others from among oppressed nationalities, anti-media campaigns, and more stepped out, too often the “organized” antiwar movement was not poised to welcome these new energies on a national scale. We need to open up and hook up new, national, ongoing organizations and forms of communication among many different clusters and focuses of opposition and resistance-networks that can unleash the energies of the masses. The antiwar movement is always a cauldron of political struggle over what to do and how to do it, but it is time to rethink old habits and retool for the future.

We have some work to do. We have learned some important lessons about who we are, who our friends are in this country and the world, and what we are up against. We have learned that “supporting the troops” is a fatal trap, and we should be able to build on what we achieved and learned to be better prepared next time. Millions of people have been thoroughly alienated from the government and many who actively opposed the war realize that we cannot rely on the war makers to stop their wars. Tens of millions now know, deeply, how the mainstream media lies. Moreover the New World Order “victory” is full of contradictions and self-exposure; there is now even more polarization and crisis in the U.S. The real story of the war cannot and must not be hidden. The people’s verdict must continue to be fought and won.

This paper was edited by the National Office of The Stop the U.S. War Machine Action Network, along with the invaluable contributions of many antiwar activists. It is being issued by the National Office of the Network along with the following co-signors:
* Rahim Azizarab, Iranian Activist, Chicago
* Anna Brown, Dept. of Political Science, Fordham University
* Comm. to Stop the War in the Gulf/Comm. To Defend Jeff Paterson, Hawaii
* Thomas K. Cullerton, Coast Guard Resister, Florida
* Carl Dix, Nat’l Spokesperson, Revolutionary Communist Party USA (served 2 years in Leavenworth for refusing to go to Vietnam)
* Shawn Eichman and Joe Urgo, Convicted of felony for protest at Times Square Recruiting Station, NYC, Sep. 11, 1990
* Ron English, Artist, NYC
* Larry Everest, Author/Journalist, “Behind the Poison Cloud: Union Carbides Bhopal Massacre” and produced video “Iraq: The War on the People”
* Rev. Keith Farnham, member of conferences social concerns committee, United Church of Christ, Wisconsin
* Phil Farnham, RCP, NYC, War Parade 18
* Colleen Gallagher, Navy Resister, Long Island
* Laurie Tormey Hasbrook, Palestine Human Rights Ctr-International
* Sean Hellier, War Parade 18, Amnesty International staff, ACT-UP, (facing felony trial for joining war protest)
* Richard Hutchinson, Author/editor, “Life During Wartime”
* Joey Johnson, Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade
* Rev. Michael Kendall, Cathedral of St. Johns the Devine
* C. Clark Kissinger, Correspondent for Revolutionary Worker, organized first anti-Vietnam War march on Washington D.C.
* Yuri Kochiyama, community activist
* Rev. Earl Coopercamp, Ass’t priest, Church of the Intercession, Harlem * Ron Kuby, Attorney
* William Kunstler, Attorney
* Beth and Corliss Lamont
* Fr. Lawrence Lucas, Church of the Resurrection, Harlem
* Samual Lwin, Marine Corp Resister, NYC
* James Marsh, Prof. of Philosophy, Fordham University
* Dr. Mohammed T. Mehdi, Pres. of Arab-American Relations Comm., Author of “The Gulf Victory War: Myth and Realities”
* Maryam Namazie, Iranian, member of War Parade 18
* Jeff Paterson, First military resister, editor of “The Anti-Warrior”
* Cinny Poppen, Chicago
* Vic Scutari, Religious Leader, Long Island
* Judith Sloan, Performance activist/comedian-actress
* L.K. Stewart, Attorney * Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist, Seattle Chapter
* War Parade 18, On trial for protesting the Parade of Shame, June 10, NYC
* Rev. George W. Webber, Prof. and ex-pres., NY Theological Seminary, visited Iraq with medical supplies, Dec. 1990
* Dan Williams, Attorney
* Behzad Yahamaian, Ass’t Prof. of Economics, Stockton College

(Individual’s organizations listed for identification only)