Wrong! Every war has winners: the profiteers. And that's what wars have really been about since the beginning of human history.

Yet the soldiers keep soldiering on. Since the beginning of recorded history warrior-chiefs have been proclaiming themselves ordained by God or the Gods to slaughter others, and there are always willing spear carriers and sentimental mothers and cheering crowds. It was at one time thought that the megadestructiveness of nuclear weapons would force humankind to evolve out of this mean madness, but that turned out to be a dreamy delusion. In fact, a lot of leaders seem downright eager to get it on with nukes.

Will it ever end? Doesn't seem likely.

Zinn does it again. His prose is so simple, so touching, and so understandable. I would love to have some journalist ask Obama and McCain "Sir, do you agree with Howard Zinn's Memo? If not, why not?"
Question could be just that simple. Then publish it all over the internet including sending it to MoveOn.

After O and M stumble around, it would make it easier to vote for Nader or McKinney.

America is like the Spartans but then again, we never learn from history so we are victims to repeat it. If things happen over 10 years ago, it is out of our minds. We never learn.

War does make the rich, richer...kings, kingdoms...power greed. That is all war is.

I don't see the humans making it on the planet if they can't make peace or get along. Either the planet will purge the virus that is man with global warming or man will destroy ourselves. IT may take a million years for Earth to recover but humans will not be around to enjoy it. Some other creature if they survive our carnage will reap the benefits.

Man can't get beyond the animal side of his/her brain, so wars will remain until we are no more.

Thank you Professor Zinn for your dedication to peace.

A few comments:

Since you mention people getting killed as the biggest way we lose in war, perhaps this is why the Bush Administration and the monopoly media never allow the American public to see dead people in war zones. We get a few press releases (often saying it was the fault of the "enemy"), but overall, Americans are never forced to consider the number of people being killed.

To say that "no one wins in a war" is a false statement. If the Bush Administration is successfull in occupying Iraq and getting the oil agreements for western companies, a few people will win in a very big way. War has almost always been a public expense for private profit.

In your example about destroying a neighborhood to kill one criminal, you forget to mention that we used to train, arm, and support that criminal. Many of the jihadist leaders in the Pakistan tribal areas are people we used to train, arm, and support when they were fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. If we want to end terrorism, perhaps we should stop supporting them as we are still doing now with various groups in Iran and elsewhere.

The reason these wars are supported is because most Americans spend a lot of time staring at their monopoly media screens. Americans won't be adequately informed by the monopoly media about deeper issues of war and peace because the corporations who own the cable lineups are weapons manufacturers and reliant on cheap oil supplies.

Another great piece from Howard Zinn.

I was disappointed in 2004 when Zinn got on the "anybody but Bush" bandwagon and advised progressives to vote for John Kerry. I hope this year Zinn remains true to real progressive values, which are not on either McCain's or Obama's radar, as shown by this article.

In addition to voting for third party candidates, I have also demanded a refund from my union of that portion of my dues that go toward political candidates (always Democrats). I let the union and the Dem party know that when the Dems represent real progressivism again, I will give more than just money. But for now, due to their cowardly refusal to decisively stand up against war, they will get no support from me. I would encourage other progressive union members to do the same.

bnerin (1:18), Yours is exactly the right question to be asked of Obama and McCain. However, I doubt you would accomplish much by asking it to them separately, then publishing their responses on the internet and sending to MoveOn. I think the question would need to come in the form of a probing "journalist" willing to raise it at a debate and allowing them to try to fashion a "difference" among themselves, with a Nader and/or McKinney.
there to pick up the pieces of a sane response after they "stumble" through their patent non-responses. In that dream debate (which is no less unrealistic than the expectation of true debate in a democracy) progressives should come to realize that there only real "choice" in this election is to make a choice between McKinney and Nader.

Spinoza (1:31) Bravo, brother! Would that many more would demand "accountability" of the Democratic Party.

I can't agree with the negative post above that included the statement:

"Man can't get beyond the animal side of his/her brain, so wars will remain until we are no more."

Wars have been getting more violent, but we also have been building more systems of non-violent conflict resolution that have stopped wars in many areas of the world. The Europeans used to absolutely brutalize each other and now they all get along pretty well. Same with the north and south in the US and other areas of the world.

We, as humans, are not forced into situations of war and violence. It is a choice we make on an individual and social level. Everything continues to change as we learn neew things, organize our societies in different ways, and make our daily decisions.

We have the ability to live in peace.

I love Howard Zinn, but there are 'winners' in every war.

Bankers love wars. Wars make bankers rich. Both sides usually borrow far more than is sensible in an attempt to win the war.

Weapons manufacturers and arms merchants 'win' during wars, of course.

In general, there's alway a group of businessmen who make out like bandits selling other stuff to the military. And often its junk like rotten food or clothing that's falling apart or weapons that don't work that they unload on the military during a war.

Politicians sometimes 'win' during a war. It can take a failing candidate or officeholder and the war hysteria in the public might raise them to even higher heights. Although its interesting that for most wars in the 20th century, the politicians who started them usually didn't survive the war in office. And in several notable cases (Germany, Russia especially), the entire political system didn't survive the war.

Sending anything to Moveon is useless. Think of them as just a wing of the Democratic party. In an election season like this, they'll never do anything other than just blindly support the Democrats.

And forget getting a journalist to ask a probing question during a debate. Ain't gonna happen. The system is tightly controlled to make sure that is exactly what can't happen.

Actually, I doubt either candidate would respond to the question.

But if you did get a response, using the internet (and email) to self-publish it is the best idea of the lot. That gets around the corporate media's control over information. Or at least the best we can do with the tools we have in our hands.

I can understand what you starry-eyed Naderites see in Ralphie, although he's way past his prime and too ego-driven now, but what, exactly, are Cynthia McKinney's credentials? She seems like a bumbling, self-centered twit to me. Al Sharpton made more sense than she does.

people can get passed the 'animal' side of their brains.

I'm an old hippy, which means I've seen hundreds of thousands of people come together with pretty much zero fights or violent conflicts. And where they do start to occur, lots of people nearby step in and act as peacekeepers to stop it.

It works, and I've seen it work in person. The main difference that forms is that the local counter-culture that forms at such events won't tolerate violence. That's the difference in that out here in the real world violence is acceptable behavior and even taught and encouraged to some degree.

wcdevins ...

I lived in Atlanta for twenty years. So, I've had chances to meet Cynthia McKinney, see her in action curing her 12 years as a US congressperson, and see her speak in person.

What you are reciting is entirely the bull that the corporate media spreads about her. What you need to do is to turn off your freaking tv set and go see her in person.

There has always been a huge difference between what Cynthia McKinney really is and what the corporate media smears her as. Open your eyes and stop drinking the corporate kool-aid.

As someone who's watched her career, and even a bit of her fathers, I have no reservations at all in supporting Cynthia McKinney and think she'd make an outstanding President.

There is an "inconvenient reality" in America at the moment that if Obama does not present himself as a credible commander in chief on war issues, McCain (the bigger war drummer of the two) will win.

Howard Zinn may be right about many things. But his ending questions:

"Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?"

should be directed to President Obama AFTER the election, not to two candidates now with the effect of rendering Obama the loser if he gives the thoughtful answer. Elect first. Elect the right one. Then demand your agenda.

I do not believe that any other American author has the skill and talent of Mr. Zinn.
He and other veterans such as myself will attest that War is an absolutely futile endeavor, and the winners never win, and the losers never stop loosing and neither side learn from their mistakes.

I have postulated for many years that the urge to go to war is a "learned trait" and can be "Unlearned". No one would be required to fight a war of defense, without another waging a war of aggression. The former is dependant upon the later and visa verse.

Taking this from not only a veteran but one who is the descendant of many generations of warriors, we should begin by teaching our children the futility of war. I would never have become a veteran a "volunteer", had it not been instilled into me from a young age.

Human kind now stands before a great precipice, that we can either step away from, or fall into. Total destruction of not only human kind but all of the other life forms on this planet can be the only result of continuing the mistakes of the past.

The American People, having been the only people to have used these terrible weapons upon other human beings has a wonderful opportunity to make THE one most important change for human kind to be able to survive this potential for total destruction. The
American People can disavow war in the future, for the future.

Or lead the way to extinction.

This can only be accomplished when more people like Mr. Zinn and those who oppose the futility of war speak out at very forum, and begin to teach the next generation the lessons the previous generations failed to teach us.

I speak out now; against war .

The treasonous war profiteers of the world's superpower WANT enemies for America and will provoke people into being our enemies. According to the war profiteers, the more enemies the better (and bigger war profits). More weapons to sell, more resources to steal from weaker countries. Of course they're not going to say it in public, but that's their philosophy. Actions speak louder than words. We tax payers pay for wars and they profit by wars. It's a win/win situation for them.

Ps ... there's a couple more things to understand about Cynthia McKinney.

For one think, the first time I went over to volunteer for one of her congressional campaigns, what struck me was the sense that I had just walked into the continuation of Martin Luther King's movement in Atlanta.

As a white guy hanging around hq answering phones, and who had a car, one thing I was tasked with was going and picking up some wonderful senior citizens who wanted to come in and help. Often they loved cooking for the hq, so I'd go pick up not only the person but also a load of food that they had prepared for the hq. And of course get a chance to talk to and meet these people.

The corporate media tends to personalize movements around leaders. So the easy habit is to think that Dr. King's movement died with him. But in talking to these amazing people, it quickly became obvious that many had marched with Dr. King and were still wanting to keep the fight going.

So, it was a real eye-opener that not only had I volunteered to help out an excellent progressive politician that I liked, but to find myself in a campaign that was in many ways a continuation of the movement that Dr. King had started.

Also, in the post above, I mentioned Cynthia McKinney's father. Do people know he was a long-time activist in the Atlanta area? Cynthia is a second generation (at least) activist who grew up in this movement. Her dad was an activist campaigning for the integration of the racist Atlanta police dept in the 60's, and as the vote was integrated he became a state senator in Georgia for something like 20 or 30 years.

My first exposure to the McKinney name was when he punched out a racist Republican who was making some very racist and insulting remarks on the state senate floor. Even as a youngster I knew someone who punches a Republican must have something good going! :)

Surely by now the one thing that is obvious is that any candidates that are challenging corporate power are going to be continuously smeared in the corporate media. The amazing part is why anyone who isn't a corporate CEO would listen to that crap and take it seriously.

Don't vote for the candidates on corporate TV.
Do vote for the candidate being smeared by corporate TV.

Good luck asking President Obama that question. My guess is you'll won't be able to get within a mile of him. Or do you have some invitation to the Oval Office that the rest of us sure won't have?

Better yet, since the Dems have already captured control of the Congress, go ask it to the Congressional leadership. Can you get an appointment to see them? Probably not.

We've seen what will happen. They'll call you and 'idiot liberal' and show you the door. And whine about how they can't get you arrested for loitering. Or maybe the police will taser you into submission for even trying to ask the question as they stand there and watch and do nothing to stop them.

Hmmm, maybe try coming to Denver and asking the question. See the rows of fences and riot police that will be there precisely to keep you from doing just that.

While I appreciate Dr. Zinn's argument that no one wins in war, I must question what the context of "win" really is. Clearly, war is the United States' biggest and most profitable export. If it is a game in which greedy defense corporations and contractors try to gain as much wealth as possible, I suppose they have won, if that was their goal, in which case Dr. Zinn is wrong. From a moral perspective, which I suspect is where Dr. Zinn really is coming from, no one wins in war because it is so destructive, upsetting, and lethal. I agree with him there. I admire Dr. Zinn for his wisdom, leadership, willingness to take on greedy corporations and corrupt politicians, and ability to produce such insightful and brilliant books as "The People's History of the United States." I feel indebted to him for this. Thank you Dr. Zinn.

Samson (l:50 and 2:00 PM) thank you for stepping to the plate for Cynthia McKinney, surely one of the most unfairly maligned public figures of our time. Of course there are episodes in her life, as of any one of us, that can be spun into appearance of her being an "idiot," which is what my daughter-in-law in Georgia first blurted out when she saw my McKinney bumper sticker. Having had some short but quality time to be with her at a campaign appearance in Miami, I can attest as do you to the unself-conscious but very real bond between her manner and the reactions of her followers with those of MLK. She's the real thing, not a cardboard cut-out like a rival or two of hers that could be named, and the American people will lose a great opportunity if they disdain her "power to the people" campaign.

An empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government) is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power.

Empires are very expensive and they never last.

I can remember (dimly) the French empire in Indochina called Vietnam. Remember that useless Imperial Fortress called Dien Bien Phu? Uncle Ho had exhausted his army and all the villagers dragging great cannons to the top of surrounding mountains and had the French simply left his efforts to unite North and South Vietnam would have collapsed and America would not have been drawn into that war for empire. Expensive!
And now America has been drawn into another Corporate Imperical War for oil. More blood, more treasure, all to fatten Daddy Warbucks' Money Bin.
Why have we fallen into the Fat Cats In The Hat trap of voting for Thing One or Thing Two again? Half the people in the world have an I.Q. of less that 100...guess where so many of them live.

Well said Dr. Zinn

Yes, Al Qaeda — a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics — was apparently responsible for the attacks
-the attacks on the WTC were a criminal act and the response should have been a police/FBI investigation and an attempt to capture those responsible (by the police). The response should not have been war.

The war was planned by neocons (Project for New American Century) waaaay before 911 as a way of justifying gargantuan military budgets (profits for the MIC), a justification for hegemony over the region and control over its resources, the precious oil.

instead of confronting these facts, and fighting against them, coventional, mainstream, staus quo politicians, like McCainand Obama, continue perpeptuating the horrors of war because it's profitable for a small number of business associated with the MIC.

To me they are nothing but whores wearing ties and suits instead of mini skirts and fishnet stockings.

I don't know if I've ever seen such consensus on the CD discussion board. I think there's a pretty broad consensus that Howard Zinn is a real hero of the American left. His writing exhibits the simple wisdom, moral clarity, populism and concern for ordinary human beings that must be hallmarks of a succesful and moral left.

As for those who say that Zinn is wrong that there are beneficieries of war, I think we can read no one benefits from war as no human being benefits from war, because war is destructive of humanity.

The Big Winner in war is Death. And George Wanker Bush, the failure, the loser, the slacker, the moron, the punk, the national insult, is the very personification of Death.

Great words from Howard. Human beings are basically pack animals. We come together to do good. We come together to define those we fear as "others" who must be purged.

Some sing "give peace a chance" and some "give war a chance". The tide ebbs and flows, we hope articles like this help send the rats back into the sewers. At least for a while...

Victory must be defined before beginning a game or contest.
War essentially is a game. Some reason to play is invented, armed forces converge, strategies are laid out, and people die.
If there is no objective, goal, or definition of victory it is a CONFLICT not a WAR. Conflicts continue until mutual resolution is achieved.

The Iraq dibacle is a conflict. There are no discernable objectives for victory. It is therefore impossible to 'win'. A resolution must be reached that is mutually beneficial and US Forces MUST withdraw. There can never be an end as long as foreign forces occupy the region.

To reach a satisfactory resolution you must ask "Why do they hate us?"
The main reason we are hated is that US foreign policy does not respect any other nation's beliefs, rights, or method. The United States expects all other nations to be the same as they are and submit to US policies. The United States makes no attempt to even comprehend another nations beliefs. Unless they mirror ours, they are obviously wrong. As you can see, until a major change occurs there, peaceful resolution cannot be reached.

On the flip side, "Why do we hate them?"
We hate them because we disapprove of their warmaking strategy and use of guerilla warfare to achieve military objectives. We fear their ability to counter US financial interests and those of US allies. We hate them because they do not think, act, and believe exactly the same things as Americans do.
Again, it appears that US foreign policy is the root cause of the problem.

The myths are that they hate us for our freedom, our money, our privilidged lifestyle, our religion, our type of government, etc. All nonsense.
If we would stop telling other nations how to live, what to do, how to think, and stop trying to pick their pockets clean maybe we would see less violence and hatred. The change MUST start with us and must be sincere. Only then can we look forward to peace.

Howard Zinn=Eugene Victor Debs

They are two of the greatest Americans of all time.

wcdevins, ask yourself why you think poorly of Cynthia McKinney. Interesting that you trashed Al Sharpton at the same time.

I remember watching the 2004 Democratic debates. Up until then, if you said "Al Sharpton", I word associated "Twana Brawley". But in that debate, he was sharp witted and very progressive, and I thought he did as well as Dennis Kucinich, which is high praise from me.

That's when I started thinking about how we are manipulated by the media to dismiss people by word association. Jessie Jackson' "hymie town." Cynthia McKinney "crazy hair".

Why don't we think "Lucky me. I hit the Trifecta" when we hear George Bush's name? Or "The terrorists never stop of thinking of ways to hurt America and neither do we"?

And why indeed is it "apparent" that Al Queda attacked "America" on 9-11? Could it be that within hours we were told that? And the story has never wavered, even though the FBI admitted years later that there was no evidence to prove it?

At least Howard Zinn, a great American, calls for, like Cynthia McKinney, a REAL investigation of 9-11, not the cover-up that we were subjected to before.

TheLorax July 17th, 2008 3:17 pm "It is therefore impossible to 'win'."
-I think winning to them means the complete subjugation of the people of Iraq until they have neither the will nor the means to oppose their colonial masters.

Winning to them means responding with such overwhelming force that you annihilate your opponent and eventually extinguish their will to fight. If the US could accomplish this they would see it as a victory.

OR- if they could install a completely compliant puppet government that would do the dirty work for them in exchange for money, protection and power, that would be winning to them too.

This empire is for terror, as the other insightful commentators have mentioned. Nothing to do with winning or losing in simplistic terms. 9/11 was a great thing for this country, part of the administration's "trifecta" in 2001. The US remains ever vigilante to attack somewhere else, it's the US way. Obama or McCain will feed the CACIs and Raytheons, or pay the price, otherwise don't even consider the asinine distraction of the presidential carnival. Was 9/11 excusable? Sure, depends on who you ask. Much has been accomplished after this particularly successful military strike. What's most fascinating is how many of us choose to just play along, including Zinn with this "shrug" of an article.

The first comment here by Arvy got it right. In war there is always a winner - just follow the money. In war some people die and some people get rich.

Capitalism needs war. The business plan of the USA is war. How many times has it been said that 'we are protecting our interests'. Remember when Madeleine Albright said that the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it?

Get with the program - you can have Peace or you can have Capitalism, but you can't have both at the same time. Take your pick!

r jackowski July 17th, 2008 3:46 pm
-Nails it!

Get with the program - you can have Peace or you can have Capitalism

Since CommonDreams, the "progressive" news site, is ignoring the Green Party Convention and Cynthia McKinney, read her acceptance speech here:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/mckinneys-acceptance-speech/

Howard Zinn's last sentence tells it all --"And is not war itself terrorism?"

... Where was the ruling class in the United States when blacks were living in terror during the Jim Crow era?

... Where was the ruling class and their obsessive concern for "terrorism" when genocide was being committed on an entire race of people, the American Indians? Were they stopping the terrorism or inflicting it?
Note: Any 7th grader knows the answer to that one. Or at least let's hope so.)

... Where is the ruling class now while the poor and lower classes -- throughout the world -- live in a constant state of economic terror? See the
following -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/17/10425/

I admire Howard Zinn greatly but what disappoints me is Professor Zinn's ongoing failure to point out what should be obvious to all. And that is that nothing is going to change, things are only going to get *worse,* unless and until a viable third party movement is established in the United States.

If Ralph Nader had won 5% of the vote in 2000 and, in turn, gotten millions of dollars in federal funding .. and then if that percent was increased in 2004 to, say, 7-8& ... and then this year, 2008, increased to, say, 10-12% ... would that 10-12% of the electorate not be a politcal force the ruling class would HAVE to take seriously, would HAVE to listen to?

But establishing that foothold 10-12% takes time. That "process" could have started in 2000, or 1968, or even back when Henry Wallace was running as a thrid party candidate in 1948.

(Note: Wallace prior to the Election of 1948 was polling around 9%, then on Election Day received only 1% of the vote. Meaning: Quite a few people were *again* duped by the Democratic Party into abandoning their principles and voting out of fear instead of as guided by their conscience.)

Assuming that the building of a third party movement had started several years ago and that, as such, this November 10-12% of the electorate voted for one or another left-wing candidate, here then is my question. What would you rather have: a right-leaning, corporate-beholden Barack Obama in the White House ... or John McCain in the White House but with candidates such as Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader garnering a combined vote total of 10-12% of the electorate?

Howard Zinn speaks eloquently about the futility of war, but the question is: How does the left mobilize against the warmongers? How does the left do battle with the corporatist elite?

If a large section of the left continues to be duped by the Democratic Party allows their principles to be co-opted and, in turn, betrayed by the Democratic Party -- as has happened time and time again throughout history! -- nothing is going to change.

Howard Zinn, professor emeritus at Boston University, knows full well that the Democratic Party has historically co-opted every single mass movement that has occured in American history. Co-opted it, diluted it and then betrayed it. The farmers' movement. The labor movement. The civil rights movement. The environmentalist movement. The peace movement. You name it.

This is the issue I'd like to see you address, Professor Zinn. The key issue is not to convince someone that war is intolerable, that should be obvious to any sane individual. Rather, the key issue is how does the left organize itself so as to wrest political power from those who are *insane* -- those who REVEL in war?

What's required is an independent political party that will represent the political beliefs of mass grassroots movements.

Because as long as well-meaning people on the left keep buying into the idea of T.I.N.A. --"There-Is-No-Alternative" to the two-party duopoly and, as such, vote out of fear instead of voting as guided by their conscience ... nothing will change.

Come on, HZ - of all f**king people, you should know way, way better.

The United States of America is not, either officially or Constitutionally, in a state of "war" with any nation on Earth.

There were 2 illegal, aggressive invasions of 2 sovereign nations, followed by 2 illegal, bloody occupations.

The idea of "winning" an illegal occupation is even more twisted than "winning" a war. But if we keep using the Rove-frame of "war," we'll never inspire the uprising so desperately needed, because "war" triggers both fear and deference to our "leaders," while "illegal occupation" triggers anger and revulsion towards the same.

He with the most money wins the election. The conservative corporate/banking Republican money-power and their candidate will likely win.

Obama tried to ingratiate himself with the money-power by voting with Repugs, like Clinton often did, but will lose because his liberal voting record earned him the hate of right wing conservatives and voting with Repugs earned him the hate of left wing conservatives:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/17/why-obama-is-actually-the_n_113333.html

Are we hunkering down yet?

Actually, if you read "A People's History of the United States", you will see that, at least as I interpret it, Howard Zinn is very aware that the 2 party system is a way of co-opting people. He says very clearly that mass movements are what change this country for the better, not the political system.

The Green Party is trying to build a movement. It's not easy. At least not for progressive people, who have to work to make a living, raise their children and do politics in their spare time.

The reason the Right has taken over this country is that there are BILLIONS of dollars behind them, and there has been since the 70s. They have think tanks, media, school boards and stolen elections. And still 50% of the people stubbornly insist on the common good, and taking care of their neighbors.

The Green Party has only been around since the 90s in this country. We have no billionaires, no think tanks, no media, and we're only on the ballot in a couple of states. And still, we stand for what a majority of people stand for in this country. A clean environment, a peace based economy, concern for our children and our neighbors and all the creatures of our beautiful planet, and grassroots democracy.

Too bad so many of those people who want a better life for all continue to vote Democratic. But with all the powerful voices telling us differently, it's amazing that 2% of Americans are smart enough and strong willed enough to refuse to buckle under.

"you can have Peace or you can have Capitalism...."

A good frame for discussion. But it's not the whole story.

We can have capitalism with strong regulation and a strong representative federal government that protects people.

Government is good, ideally it expresses the will of the people.

The conservatives/corporatcracy have attacked government in order to remove restrictions on their power. Governments can provide balance of power for society. This "government is the problem" narrative is a lie, Americans have been conned, bamboozled.

Strengthen government through public financing of elections.

No one wins?? Joke. The profits of Halliburton, Exxon, Shell, Blackawater, etc are in the millions. Who are you kidding?

Daniel David said: "Elect first. Elect the right one. Then demand your agenda."

Well, AFTER you elect, you have NO say as to the agenda... I understand your HOPE that Obama will be a good president and 'do the right things', but unfortunately Daniel, I believe that you're in for a massive disappointment when you see Obama being the Corporate/AIPAC controlled president that he is.

leftk said: "I think there's a pretty broad consensus that Howard Zinn is a real hero of the American left."

I think that Howard Zinn is a hero to anyone who values TRUTH over the lies that we all grew up with. Truth is not property of either the left or right and can and must stand on it's own merit.

Samson said: "people can get passed the 'animal' side of their brains"

I personally would rephrase that to say 'INTELLIGENT PEOPLE can get past the animal side of their brains. Stupid people have no chance. They're too brainwashed with the propaganda.

leftk July 17th, 2008 2:42 pm -- "As for those who say that Zinn is wrong that there are beneficieries of war, I think we can read no one benefits from war as no human being benefits from war, because war is destructive of humanity."

I can understand the point that Howard Zinn is trying to make. Unfortunately, his memo is addressed to people who are more likely to see "winning" in the same terms as their profiteering sponsors do, and that's the reason for my initial comment. No disrespect for Mr Zinn intended.

So why did you endorse Obama, Mr. Zinn? Or for that matter "Vietnam War hero" John Kerry?

"Have our political leaders gone mad?" Were they ever sane?

You are supporting them.

I have much respect for you.

But have you gone mad?

the war makers, profiteers, and elites of a society will seem to "win" in the short run. but what form of compensation makes up for having sacrificed one's soul?

As usual some posters here are passing on info that is as inaccurate and misleading as our friends in the msm do. Re: Mr. Zinn's endorsement please see it for yourself.
www.bigthink.com/policy-politics/2008-elections/10395

I find it laughable that some folks seem to think that Zinn is a crypto-corporate democrat. In PHOTUS Zinn says that Democrats and Republicans represent the same elite class interest with one party advocating positions that are only slightly better for ordinary people (I think he might mean the dems).

Zinn has said that he will most likely vote against his will for Obama. He has no great faith in Obama. Zinn writes,

"I will be forced against my will, because I want somebody else other than those three. I will be forced against my will to make a choice and I will probably choose Obama"

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

When this interview was given Clinton was still in the race. Now, it seems that some Greens out there will be offended that Zinn isn't considering a third party. Understandable. But it doesn't warrant a damning critique.

I won't put words in Zinn's mouth as to why he probably isn't considering a third party. But in a recent article he beseeched the left to stay away from election hoopla. The election is a farce because it doesn't offer us a real choice. If the people want to be heard it will not happen through an election where we have little choice. Change will happen through people working at the local level to build a popular movement. Are third party candidates the vanguard of a real popular movement, or do they just make us feel better about ourselves and our sham democracy.

elmysterio,

I know Obama is not perfect. But I do believe he will be much more free to discuss rationally the wishes of us lefties when he is not subject to being eaten for GOP lunch in an election--maybe over a single issue overblown by the opponents like a swiftboat bomb. That's why I say elect first.

McCain is not going to do anything but literally laugh at the left.

Howard Zinn of course is a giant in the effort to persuade "the folks" about the immorality and the futility of war, and this piece is yet another brick in his massive edifice of literary effort, but it falls short of what it could be IMO. And all of these CD posts attest to the futility that is so pevasive in Zinn's piece.

What Zinn ought to be shouting to the nation is that by any standard of measurement, we have lost the war! We started losing the war on 9/11. We have been losing it ever since. We have been losing it exponentially, with no hope whatsoever of turning it around militarily.

Just think about it! Nineteen guys killed 3000 plus Americans in one day, starting a chain reaction of massive economic misery that snowballs every day; causes us to commit men and national treasure for almost eight years, with 4000 dead and 20,000 maimed soldiers, and with nothing to show for it except that we have transformed America into a pariha nation in the world, and are now heading into economic collapse, with massive debt and
unending unsustainable deficits. And all of it stems from a single attack by nineteen guys with airplane tickets and box cutters.

The only thing that we can point to is that we sure killed a lot of Afghans and Iraqis whom we claim not to have intended to kill, and a few "enemy" that didn't even put a tiny dent in their numbers.

How can we ever hope to win such a war?

That is the kind of stuff that people
can understand - especially as the misery begins to reach their pocket books.

Zinn notes: "Have are leaders gone mad?"

Well, yes. Not only is Obama and McCain living out of a carefully crafted way of seeing the world, the pundits, so called journalists, and so called activists like Hayden and his handlers at the Nation so aptly demonstrate with each aticle presented, but the mass of humanity waiting to throw their votes away on same, are also mad. Get use to it until the collapse kicks in. Thanks to accelerating climate change this will soon be upon us and my guess is the enfranchised elites running the global show along with their eager followers will not only wake up, but learn first hand what other third world countries know currently, suffering will be a world wide phenomena.

As noted above Mr. Zinn is quoted as saying:

"I'm not happy, as you can see, with any of the candidates. When I get to the voting booth, I will be forced against my will, because I want somebody else other than those three. I will be forced against my will to make a choice and I will probably choose Obama, because in many ways he represents something really different, ......"

Forced, against his will? Really? Somebody will be holding a gun to his head in the privacy of the voting booth? Wow! Things are worse than I thought?

He wants somebody else other than those three (McCain, Clinton, Obama). Well gee, Mr. Zinn, there will be somebody else on the ballot, at least one somebody else whose views are MUCH closer to the ones you purportedly hold. But you won't vote for him/her. You will write marvelous books about how the little guy fought against the power structure time and time again against impossible odds, but if one of your heroes showed up today, you wouldn't vote for him/her.

You will, or at least have, march(ed) in the streets against war/occupation, but you won't vote against it. Do you realize, sir, that if progressive icons, such as yourself had had the courage, or at least the honesty to openly support a progressive candidate in the last election and enough of us had done the same, we would have had a better candidate this time around? All we got is another corp. Dem, This may be a Dem of a different color but he is still going in the same direction.

You say electoral politics aren't the answer, so then why bother to vote at all? All those folk you talk about in your books, fought, bled and died for causes that were not advanced until given the force of law - by people who we selected in those same voting booths. Sir, you may not get what you vote for, but you will never get it if you don't vote for it. By voting Obama you are capitulating, once again, to corp interests, the very interests that so many of the heroes in your books rebelled against. Sir, how can you refuse to give your vote for the things they gave their lives for?

I realize that in challenging Howard Zinn, I risk being banned forever, but, I am sorry, when he writes about and advocates for the stuff he does, then turns around and VOTES AGAINST it with his choice at the polls, then, not only encourages others to do the same, but actively, as he did in '04, discourages (to say the least) not only a candidate from running, but others from voting for that candidate who stands for all Zinn says HE does, then somebody needs to point out the hypocrisy and call him to account, even if it is suicidal in progressive circles to do so.

So, I await the firing squad, but here I stand because I can do no other.