>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/20/99 01:23PM >>> I don't have Nathan's email address, but I would urge Michael P. to express to Nathan that at least some of us regret his departure, despite our disagreements. Heck, if all the pro-bombing people leave the list, I'll have to make their arguments for them, even though I oppose the bombing, ugh This is a very serious and difficult issue and it is understandable that people are getting worked up about it. There are strong arguments on each side, as the labels "pro-imperialist" and "pro-genocide" suggest. I would not like to see this list become a love-in fest for the anti-bomb crowd, even though there are some who might prefer that for the purposes of spending our time in figuring out "how to oppose imperialism." ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( Charles: I guess it is a demonstration of dialectics that most e-mail list discussions are driven , "get their motion" , from debates or "contradiction". I'm not sure that an anti-war love-in would generate many posts, from my experience on these lists. However, from my standpoint, because the left is so small today, and there are plenty of communication networks for the neo-liberal /conservative majority views (including all of the monopoly media) , it would not be such a bad thing if a few lists such as this one could became an anti-war planning center. In other words, Nathan's point of view will get plenty of broadcast anyway, so, his side of the debate is not silenced by no one (or fewer) being on this particular, relatively small in the larger picture, list. We can get that point of view by picking up the NYT or receiving any major news outlet. In the current war debate, although I have the impression that anti-war discussants are in a majority, there seems to be a significant minority ON THE LEFT who support the war. This seems to be a new situation for the late twentieth century left. But since the list(s) probably accurately represents a split on the left beyond the lists, I think we anti-warriors must engage this struggle in order to keep our thinking in touch with real opinions of the left ( if you follow me). This reasoning ( sort of :we need opponents here as sparring partners)may not be a palatable basis for drawing Nathan back. Anyway, I think Nathan's departure is also related to the fact that he probably was in the minority here, and therefore felt a lot more flak than the war opponents. I haven't followed every post and exchange, but I don't really think that the anti-warriors were less polite than the pro-warriors, there are just more of the former. The sharpness of discussion was not greater than typical in the many other disputes on the lists, and this issue is literally a matter of life and death, although our debate probably doesn't directly impact the life or death occurrences. To sum up, I don't agree that Nathan had a legitimate gripe that he was treated more impolitely or unfairly than he treated others (if that is what he thinks). On the substantive issue, THE WAR, let me be frank and say that I think it is a measure of the degeneration of the left that there is significant left support for the current war. So, I don't view the debates as sorting out a truly new situation that might end with a call for left support of U.S. imperialism inadvertently doing the right thing. Rather, as I say above, the only value of these debates is for us anti-warriors to sharpen our anti-war arguments against "real" opponents. Perhaps Nathan could sense that he was not about to change anybody's point of view on the issue. So, maybe it is better for Nathan to take a break from a fight in which he is so outnumbered. Hopefully, this does not have to become a permanent separation. Charles Brown