United for Peace and Justice

The group separates its work into seven issue campaigns: Iraq, counter-military recruitment, global justice, nuclear disarmament, Palestine–Israel, civil liberties–immigrant rights and faith-based organizing.

It then echoes the rhetoric of Not in Our Name (founded six months earlier and itself a member of UFPJ) stating, "we say NO to [the U.S.'s] use of war and racism to concentrate power in the hands of the few, at home and abroad.

"[6] The statement lays out the intent of following these principles internally to UFPJ itself: "We will pay special attention in all aspects of our work to the inclusion and leadership of constituencies bearing the brunt of the war’s impact at home, such as people of color, youth, women, and workers.

[6] The statement continues with a critique of U.S. government conduct, above all, with respect to the justification, preparation, and execution of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation, including criticism of the media and the Democratic Party for "refus[ing] to challenge them."

It argues that, "the war on Iraq was the leading edge of a relentless drive for U.S. empire... [e]xploiting the tragedy of September 11, 2001..." for that purpose and to "impose right-wing policies at home under the cover of fighting terrorism.

"[9] In 2006, UFPJ, and many of its member groups, participated in the Voters for Peace campaign,[10] a pledge which states, "I will only vote for or support federal candidates who publicly commit to a speedy end to the Iraq war, and to preventing future 'wars of aggression'."

"[11] In September 2004, UFPJ joined with the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, Code Pink, and Global Exchange to launch the "No Stolen Elections!"

On November 3, tens of thousands of people, demonstrating in over 80 cities, protested purported vote suppression and mechanical irregularities in Ohio and other states.

"violated the terms of our agreement in ways that substantially and negatively impacted September 24’s message and impact," remarks that "co-sponsorship with ANSWER on September 24 was welcomed by some in the antiwar movement but limited or prevented completely the participation of others," and explains, "We did not have consensus" about the decision not to work with A.N.S.W.E.R., but had "a more than two thirds supermajority … We make no recommendations or mandates on this issue to UFPJ member groups in local or constituency-based area…"[12] A.N.S.W.E.R.