Thread: Desertion in a communist army

Results 21 to 40 of 48

  1. #21
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 3,880
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    It is a natural human reaction but if a someone can't be trusted to at least be there for their unit in battle they would be of little use to a revolutionary army. To have a effective revolutionary army that outmaneuvers the enemies using the doctrine of Jomini you need very high will to fight among the vanguard military forces as they are going have to be mobile.

    Workers militas on the hand would basically be revolutionary garrisons, here you don't have to worry as much, when they see action they would be most likely against a enemy force trying to infiltrate their city thus there wouldn't be anywhere to run to as the enemy probably also have the city under siege. It would be kinda like Stalingrad where running just make them a easy kill for enemy snipers.
  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Psy For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    Join Date Aug 2011
    Posts 206
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Could you give examples?

    Anyways, I think you're missing the point. Wars under capitalism are not so much of army against army, like was the case under feudalism for example. No, under capitalism it's a total war in which all layers of society play a role. The reason for this is that the industrial support base of the enemy army is as much as target as the army itself. Hence bombing cities, although these days the bombing did become "smarter" as dead babies don't make good propaganda on tv, even if they are of the enemy.

    Workers militia's are taking that same logic, but in reverse so to speak. While standing armies are excellent tools for capitalists, given that they're a minority within society; militia's are excellent tools for the working class, given that it arms (or teaches to use arms to) the whole proletariat.

    The mightiest army on the planet can't even subdue Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries around. What are the realistic prospects of an invading army trying to subdue an entire proletariat that is well armed and is also trained to use advanced weaponry, like airforce and navy (Yes, I don't see why such advanced stuff couldn't be integrated within a militia structure)?
    A militia structure cannot support the logistical tail required for maintaining a modern airforce and navy, let alone supply a field army.

    I agree that a communist society should have militia's as they serve a variety of purposes outside of defense, but the original topic was during or just after the revolution.

    As far as Afghanistan, of course it is subdued. It hasn't been completely pacified, since this is almost impossible to do. But I doubt anyone thinks the taliban is legitimately in control of Afghanistan or able to impose their will.

    The taliban isn't making any significant victories over the coalition. All they can do is keep dying until we give up and go home. Hardly the stuff revolutions are made of.
  4. The Following User Says Thank You to runequester For This Useful Post:


  5. #23
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,080
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Communism wouldn't have standing armies. The Red Army Khad so charmingly refers to was not a socialist conception, Trotsky prefered workers militia's. However, the Red Army was a necessity under civil war conditions and a boken proletariat (the early Red Army consisted mainly of peasants).

    Communists stand for the universal education in the use of arms and workers militia's. Such a system is already feasible under capitalism (see the Swiss example) and is therefore a concrete democratic demand that empowers the working class and weakens the capitalist state.

    To come back to the OP's question: Desertion is caused by alienation, why would you die for your country if your country cares so little for you? That is exactly the type of propaganda we need to be making regarding the army: Don't die for your capitalist overlords, your main enemy is at home! Under a workers' militia, the militia duty is spread out to everyone and located in your neighbourhoods, where you live, work and have friends. You wouldn't desert from protecting that, would you?
    The sentence "such a system" is the only part where I disagree. The Swiss militia doesn't stand much of a chance against the French or German armed forces next door, if they were to invade.

    What are the realistic prospects of an invading army trying to subdue an entire proletariat that is well armed and is also trained to use advanced weaponry, like airforce and navy (Yes, I don't see why such advanced stuff couldn't be integrated within a militia structure)?
    Are you sure that's realistic???
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  6. #24
    Tectonic Revolutionary Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 9,090
    Organisation
    Socialistische Partij (NL), Communistisch Platform
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    A militia structure cannot support the logistical tail required for maintaining a modern airforce and navy, let alone supply a field army.
    Given that workers militia's are the proletariat itself that is armed, surely that implies very short and efficient supply lines, as it is so closely integrated within society itself? So I disagree with the point made here. In fact, militia's are exactly perfectly capable of defensive purposes. Standing armies are more geared towards offensive roles, to which I don't see any structural role for the proletariat.

    I agree that a communist society should have militia's as they serve a variety of purposes outside of defense, but the original topic was during or just after the revolution.
    The point I'm trying to get across is that we should work towards these goals - universal education of everyone to use arms, the unionisation of the armed forces, democratic structures within the armed forces, workers militia's - right now. We shouldn't wait until after the revolution. In fact, these goals are pretty necessary conditions for a successful revolution in the first place!

    As far as Afghanistan, of course it is subdued. It hasn't been completely pacified, since this is almost impossible to do. But I doubt anyone thinks the taliban is legitimately in control of Afghanistan or able to impose their will.

    The taliban isn't making any significant victories over the coalition. All they can do is keep dying until we give up and go home. Hardly the stuff revolutions are made of.
    I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. No, the Taliban isn't able to control all of Afghanistan (although they do have huge swats of it under their control in the south), but so can't the allied forces. To say it is subdued, that is under allied control, is totally not understanding the situation over there.

    But Afghanistan was a limited analogy, in that you can't subdue a society that easily. I very much doubt it could occupy a well developed, industrialised, highly educated society with a large proletariat that is armed to the teeth. It would be a nightmare from day one.
    I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branch
    Marxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
    Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
    Educate - Agitate - Organise
  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Q For This Useful Post:


  8. #25
    Join Date Aug 2011
    Posts 206
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Given that workers militia's are the proletariat itself that is armed, surely that implies very short and efficient supply lines, as it is so closely integrated within society itself? So I disagree with the point made here. In fact, militia's are exactly perfectly capable of defensive purposes. Standing armies are more geared towards offensive roles, to which I don't see any structural role for the proletariat.
    Historical evidence of this actually working?

    The vietnamese VC were composed of large numbers of regular NVA, received arms and support from the USSR and fought to support regular army operations.
    Partisans in the USSR and Yugoslavia were largely organized as military units, and obviously fought to support such.
    The fabled "minute men" in America fought alongside a regular, conventional army (when they weren't running away from the British and Hessians).


    The point I'm trying to get across is that we should work towards these goals - universal education of everyone to use arms, the unionisation of the armed forces, democratic structures within the armed forces, workers militia's - right now. We shouldn't wait until after the revolution. In fact, these goals are pretty necessary conditions for a successful revolution in the first place!
    I agree with this, but not for the purpose of fighting the revolution against reactionary forces. Peasants with rifles don't defeat armoured battalions and they don't stop carpet bombing.
    They can garrison areas, fight enemy militia and carry out harassing activity.

    Once they are equipped to fight a modern war, and organized in such a way that it can be fought, guess what? We have an army. It just happens to be an army that serves the proletariat, rather than an army that serves the capitalists.


    I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. No, the Taliban isn't able to control all of Afghanistan (although they do have huge swats of it under their control in the south), but so can't the allied forces. To say it is subdued, that is under allied control, is totally not understanding the situation over there.
    Let me ask this in a different way: What are their prospects of winning? At what cost?
    What are they fighting for? What prospects do they have of bringing that about?
  9. The Following User Says Thank You to runequester For This Useful Post:

    Rss

  10. #26
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,080
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Standing armies are more geared towards offensive roles, to which I don't see any structural role for the proletariat.
    Spreading revolution to sympathetic but ill-equipped areas? Precision-bombing of enemy military and paramilitary bases to suppress attempts at suppressing sympathetic but ill-equipped workers elsewhere? Spetsnaz units for similar sabotage operations abroad? Organized cyberwarfare?
    Last edited by Die Neue Zeit; 28th August 2011 at 17:05.
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  11. #27
    Join Date Aug 2010
    Location new york
    Posts 1,210
    Organisation
    Workers International League
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Spreading revolution to sympathetic but ill-equipped areas? Precision-bombing of enemy military and paramilitary bases to suppress attempts at suppressing sympathetic but ill-equipped workers elsewhere?
    What the hell is this nonsense? Since when did Marx speak of a proletarian revolution sparked by a preemptive precision bombing campaign?

    I feel like we are falling into the exact inverse of the capitalist cold war mentality, where we accept all of the constructs which they forwarded... except we are supporting the 'communists' as opposed to the capitalists.
  12. #28
    Join Date Aug 2011
    Posts 206
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    What the hell is this nonsense? Since when did Marx speak of a proletarian revolution sparked by a preemptive precision bombing campaign?

    I feel like we are falling into the exact inverse of the capitalist cold war mentality, where we accept all of the constructs which they forwarded... except we are supporting the 'communists' as opposed to the capitalists.
    DNZ said nothing about "preemptive"
  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to runequester For This Useful Post:


  14. #29
    Join Date Aug 2010
    Location new york
    Posts 1,210
    Organisation
    Workers International League
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    DNZ said nothing about "preemptive"
    Spreading the revolution (with bombs) implies as much.

    And regardless, this is displays a horribly flawed understanding of the most basic elements of Marxist theory. That isn't a counter point in the slightest, you are falsely assailing something that is not even tied directly to the brunt of my point.
  15. #30
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,080
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    What the hell is this nonsense? Since when did Marx speak of a proletarian revolution sparked by a preemptive precision bombing campaign?

    I feel like we are falling into the exact inverse of the capitalist cold war mentality, where we accept all of the constructs which they forwarded... except we are supporting the 'communists' as opposed to the capitalists.
    I didn't say "preemptive," though I do recognize the role of precision bombing in furthering revolutionary situations elsewhere.
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  16. #31
    Join Date Aug 2010
    Location new york
    Posts 1,210
    Organisation
    Workers International League
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I didn't say "preemptive," though I do recognize the role of precision bombing in furthering revolutionary situations elsewhere.
    I already analyzed the connotative value of your initial remarks, but regardless this is a minor detail well beside my primary point.

    Your thought on this matter is based more in the bourgeois geopolitical thinking of the cold war than it is in actual Marxist theory, wherein you seem to think that revolution can be physically created through bombs as opposed to economic conditions, workers movements and revolutionary theory.

    If we just take what you are saying and replace revolutionary with democratic, you could very easily be mistaken for a White House press secretary. There is nothing even remotely based in materialist thought in your faulty assumptions on this matter.
  17. #32
    Join Date Aug 2011
    Posts 206
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Spreading the revolution (with bombs) implies as much.

    And regardless, this is displays a horribly flawed understanding of the most basic elements of Marxist theory. That isn't a counter point in the slightest, you are falsely assailing something that is not even tied directly to the brunt of my point.
    When reaction to the revolution comes, it will come with military force, as it has always done.

    This means the revolution will be fighting a war, with the objectives a war entails.
  18. The Following User Says Thank You to runequester For This Useful Post:

    Rss

  19. #33
    Join Date Nov 2009
    Location United Kingdom
    Posts 5,920
    Rep Power 0

    Default


    To come back to the OP's question: Desertion is caused by alienation, why would you die for your country if your country cares so little for you? That is exactly the type of propaganda we need to be making regarding the army: Don't die for your capitalist overlords, your main enemy is at home! Under a workers' militia, the militia duty is spread out to everyone and located in your neighbourhoods, where you live, work and have friends. You wouldn't desert from protecting that, would you?
    That's a cop out answer. You can't just say 'it won't happen because why would anyone do that'. That sort of answer leads to problems because desertion would then be viewed more harshly.

    In any case, to answer the question, desertion is such a rare occurrence that personally i'd like it to be judged on a case-by-case basis. We can do better than becoming gung-ho army patriots.
  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Vladimir Innit Lenin For This Useful Post:


  21. #34
    Join Date Aug 2010
    Location new york
    Posts 1,210
    Organisation
    Workers International League
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    When reaction to the revolution comes, it will come with military force, as it has always done.

    This means the revolution will be fighting a war, with the objectives a war entails.
    Such lovely militarism, good thing that it's covered with a thin facade of revolutionary bravado, because everyone knows that suddenly makes it valid.

    After all, who really cares about silly concepts like class struggle and synthesis when we can just talk about how fun revolutionary warfare is going to be! Marx be damned, I want to bomb some capitalists with jet fighters!
  22. #35
    Join Date Aug 2011
    Posts 206
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Such lovely militarism, good thing that it's covered with a thin facade of revolutionary bravado, because everyone knows that suddenly makes it valid.

    After all, who really cares about silly concepts like class struggle and synthesis when we can just talk about how fun revolutionary warfare is going to be! Marx be damned, I want to bomb some capitalists with jet fighters!
    You betray a frightening lack of understanding of world history.

    You seem to be conditioned by years of ruling class definitions, and have come to identify so strongly with them that you must define yourself purely in their terms.

    Hence the concept of fighting for the revolution is anathema to you, because the ruling class has defined that "communism is militaristic".


    Let's see what Lenin had to say

    Armed uprising of the people! This is the slogan—advanced so resolutely by the party of the proletariat, as represent ed by the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party—which the very course of events, the spontaneous process of expansion and intensification of the revolutionary movement, powerfully impels. Away, then, with all doubts and vacillations. Let it be realised by one and all, now and without delay, how absurd and discreditable are all pretexts today for evading this urgent task of the most energetic preparation of the armed uprising—how perilous it is to delay, how vital it is to unite and co-ordinate the local uprisings which are breaking out all over the country. Taken separately, these outbreaks are ineffectual. The organised force of the tsarist government can crush the insurgents group by group, if the movement continues to spread from town to town and from district to district as slowly and sporadically as it has been doing until now. But united, these outbreaks can converge into a mighty torrent of revolutionary flame, which no power on earth will be able to withstand. This unity is on the way, it is coming by a thou sand paths we do not know of or even suspect. These sporadic outbreaks and skirmishes are giving the people a lesson in revolution, and our job is never to lag behind the exigencies of the moment, but to be able always to point to the next, higher stage of the struggle, deriving experience and instruction from the past and from the present, and urging the workers and peasants on and on more boldly and more broadly to the complete victory of the people, to the complete destruction of the autocratic gang that is now fighting with the desperation of the doomed.

    I appreciate the wish that everyone will come around, the capitalists will see the error of their ways, as workers take control, bread is redistributed for all, and they willingly give up their riches for the good of mankind.

    Except for the part where that has never happened.
  23. The Following User Says Thank You to runequester For This Useful Post:

    Rss

  24. #36
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,080
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Spreading the revolution (with bombs) implies as much.

    And regardless, this is displays a horribly flawed understanding of the most basic elements of Marxist theory. That isn't a counter point in the slightest, you are falsely assailing something that is not even tied directly to the brunt of my point.
    Your thought on this matter is based more in the bourgeois geopolitical thinking of the cold war than it is in actual Marxist theory, wherein you seem to think that revolution can be physically created through bombs as opposed to economic conditions, workers movements and revolutionary theory.
    According to the orthodox Marxist criteria for actual revolutionary periods for the working class, the fourth criteria is the breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, paramilitary, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.). If the first three criteria are met (popular tensions against the state, worker-class party-movement existence, majority political support from the working class as a whole for the party-movement) but the fourth isn't, "spreading the revolution with [precision] bombs" and more conventional military tools helps.
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  25. #37
    Join Date Aug 2010
    Location new york
    Posts 1,210
    Organisation
    Workers International League
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You betray a frightening lack of understanding of world history.

    You seem to be conditioned by years of ruling class definitions, and have come to identify so strongly with them that you must define yourself purely in their terms.

    Hence the concept of fighting for the revolution is anathema to you, because the ruling class has defined that "communism is militaristic".


    Let's see what Lenin had to say




    I appreciate the wish that everyone will come around, the capitalists will see the error of their ways, as workers take control, bread is redistributed for all, and they willingly give up their riches for the good of mankind.

    Except for the part where that has never happened.
    That's sort of awkward for me then, given the fact I'm actually majoring in history and that most all of my spare time goes towards the study of it. But no, I must be ignorant of the course of world history because I don't read Marx through the lens of a bourgeois general and due to the fact that I actually view history through a material perspective.

    Seriously though, don't speak down to me as if I am inferior to you for not displaying such jubilation at the thought of militarism. It is baseless and just plain insulting really.

    And yes, let us look to Lenin on this matter, but let us also be sure to apply a materialist analysis to his words this time around.

    Lenin was speaking to the significance of class struggle being augmented by armed soviets of the proletariat, he was not joyfully speaking to some sort of grand war against the capitalists. There is a difference between recognizing the necessity of arming the workers and of wielding that potential in a reckless fashion. It is important to not let militaristic aims obstruct the course of class struggle and dialectical advancement, as those are the underlying forces which allow for such forces to come into existence in the first place!
  26. #38
    Join Date Aug 2010
    Location new york
    Posts 1,210
    Organisation
    Workers International League
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    According to the orthodox Marxist criteria for actual revolutionary periods for the working class, the fourth criteria is the breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, paramilitary, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.). If the first three criteria are met (popular tensions against the state, worker-class party-movement existence, majority political support from the working class as a whole for the party-movement) but the fourth isn't, "spreading the revolution with [precision] bombs" and more conventional military tools helps.
    Karl Kautsky, what a shining example of an exemplary revolutionary indeed!

    I digress to the point of this discussion though, standing armies should only exist in a revolutionary form designed to protect the aims and progress of the proletarian from tangible threats. These forces should not take on an offensive role, even if they would stand to have support within a population.

    Organs of proletarian agitation are perfectly capable of coming to their own defense should the need arise; they do not need a glorious red army to sweep into a situation which is already revolutionary so as to quicken its pace.

    Leon Trotsky on the tasks of socialism in relation to militarism

    One of the basic tasks of socialism is to free mankind from militarism and from the barbarity of bloody clashes between peoples. The goal of socialism is universal disarmament, permanent peace and fraternal co-operation between all the peoples inhabiting the earth.

    This goal will be achieved when power in all the strongest capitalist countries has passed into the hands of the working class, which will wrest the means of production from the exploiters and turn them over to all working people for common use, and will establish a Communist system as the unshakable foundation of the solidarity of all mankind.

    At present it is in Russia alone that state power is held by the workers. In all the other countries the imperialist bourgeoisie is in power. Its policy is aimed at suppressing the communist revolution and enslaving all weak peoples. The Russian Soviet Republic, surrounded on all sides by enemies, has to create its own powerful army, under the protection of which the communist transformation of the country’s social order will be accomplished.
    Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...itary/ch11.htm

    You will note the clear focus on defense and the necessity created by conditions seen in this excerpt. Such is a proper approach to the defense of revolution through military means, well ordered reluctance subdued by the depravity of the powers of capitalism. No a word of marching the Red Army to Berlin so as to liberate the workers there.
  27. #39
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,080
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Karl Kautsky, what a shining example of an exemplary revolutionary indeed!
    "This book, written by the most authoritative writer of the Second International, contains the most complete exposition of the tasks of our times.… This is what German Social Democracy was—or rather, promised to be. This is the Social Democracy that one could and had to respect." (Lenin)

    http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=2479
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Die Neue Zeit For This Useful Post:

    Q

  29. #40
    Tectonic Revolutionary Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 9,090
    Organisation
    Socialistische Partij (NL), Communistisch Platform
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    According to the orthodox Marxist criteria for actual revolutionary periods for the working class, the fourth criteria is the breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, paramilitary, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.). If the first three criteria are met (popular tensions against the state, worker-class party-movement existence, majority political support from the working class as a whole for the party-movement) but the fourth isn't, "spreading the revolution with [precision] bombs" and more conventional military tools helps.
    I remain unconvinced that this could happen. It's a dangerous gamble in which you risk the breakdown of class solidarity and a rise of nationalist sentiment.
    I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branch
    Marxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
    Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
    Educate - Agitate - Organise
  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Q For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Left Communist (Marxist) analysis of the black army.
    By Rafiq in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13th June 2011, 08:16
  2. Russian Liberation Army aka Vlasov Army, 1944
    By The Idler in forum History
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 21st November 2009, 14:23
  3. Defence and army in a communist society.
    By GeistDerRevolution in forum Learning
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 29th May 2008, 18:07
  4. US Soldier in court for desertion
    By The Feral Underclass in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 24th May 2004, 18:38
  5. Michael Moore on Bush's Desertion
    By praxis1966 in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th February 2004, 19:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread