Has the coalition discussed the removal replacing "U.S.-led" with "U.S./NATO"? I apolagize if I'm bringing up old discussions as last meeting was the first I have attended. See everyone tomorrow. <br>
<br>James B. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:51 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:iskra@riseup.net">iskra@riseup.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Here (finally) is a poster draft:<br>
<a href="http://www.seattleaic.org/files/oct17posterDRAFT.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.seattleaic.org/files/oct17posterDRAFT.pdf</a><br>
<br>
I included the ANSWER-led event we endorsed at the bottom. Ater the 7th<br>
we can take this off and make the main headline bigger.<br>
<br>
Also, I said "U.S.-led" in the description of the ANSWER event. This<br>
might be better phrased as "U.S./NATO." Over the past few days there<br>
have been a bunch of news articles stressing the NATO role in<br>
Afghanistan. Of course the Democrats have generally favored a more<br>
"multilateral" strategy for imperialist domination and plunder.<br>
<br>
--Edward<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
antiwar mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:antiwar@lists.hcoop.net">antiwar@lists.hcoop.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/antiwar" target="_blank">https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/antiwar</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>