<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=GB2312" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Whom do you mean by "Randists"?<br>
<br>
~ followers of Ayn Rand, like Alan Greenspan - responsible for the
housing bubble, but who pointed out (correctly) that the invasion of
Iraq was about oil?<br>
<br>
~ followers of Ron Paul, by way of reference to his son, Rand Paul?<br>
<br>
~ some other movement/group?<br>
<br>
On 3/22/11 9:17 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimQOv0=zUPiOqouTe79kbAiDSAvT6a8N_mGH0TU@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">My opposition to a coalition with the Right has little
to do with Absolute Ideological Purity. This is a straw man
argument. I, and others with my view, work quite closely with
people from my union, progressive organizations, veteran's
organizations, etc. I'm opposed to such a coalition because it can
damage the sort of anti-war coalition we should be trying to build
- including working people, involving unions, racially inclusive,
etc. And, frankly, I'm not interested in helping the Randists
build their movement and be able to put forward their own
reactionary agenda.<br>
<br>
Until we get hundreds of thousands, millions of people, in the
streets, the wars will continue. I really don't see that coming
from the Tea Party, since they only protest government spending
when it is for human need. As for individual Libertarians and
Republicans, I believe the strength of our movement comes from its
independence from business politicians. We shouldn't subordinate
an anti-war movement to any politicians or party groups, whether
they be Ron Paul, the Democrats, the Libertarian Party, or MoveOn.<br>
<br>
--- Corey <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:39 PM, "E.
Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ" <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ewj@pigs.ag">ewj@pigs.ag</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The "No, No, No, Absolutely No" that would have been my
knee-jerk
response was probably too strong a statement. And after
all, the
American Pharoahs have proven willing to proceed on their
own. Abstain
may have been the most peaceful and quietistic form of No,
although a
principled veto directed to the right ventricle seems
appropriate to
me. <br>
<br>
No use to be rude about it. Let the other guy wear the
millstone on
his ardourous neck.
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 7:54, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">--The inscrutable and amoral
world of geopolitics/foreign
relations. The inscrutable oriental mind (?) comes to
mind.
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, E. Wayne Johnson
ÖìÎÈÉ wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">I thought
that too, Mort. <br>
<br>
Amazingly, I was not consulted. <br>
<br>
I suppose the local PTB decided I was too busy
teaching pig farmers
down in Jiangsu to be bothered with such
trivial matters that they
could manage on their own.<br>
<br>
My interpretation is that a vetoing No by
those who could veto would
have been interpreted as an act of aggression
against those with ardor
for the resolution.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 6:07, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">So why did China
abstain, instead of vetoing, the UN
Security Council resolution?
<div>--mkb</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:58 AM, E.
Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times,
serif">This statement about
opposition to use of force and
recognition of Sovereignty seems
to come
directly from Libertarian
fundamentals, albeit from a
somewhat
unexpected source. Given such a
"message in a unknown tongue" (in
this
case, Mandarin Putonghua Chinese)
one could hardly refrain from the
"amen" given the clear
interpretation provided in
standard English.<br>
<br>
When I saw it on CCTV9, I told Dr.
Qiao, "Hey, this guy is a
Libertarian!" She smiled.<br>
<br>
</font>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">BEIJING, March 18
(Xinhua) -- China on Friday said
it had serious reservations with
part
of the latest U.N. resolution on
Libya.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">"<font
color="#cc0000">We
oppose
the use of force in
international relations</font>
and have some
serious reservations with part
of the resolution," Foreign
Ministry
spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a
statement on Friday.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Jiang's comments
came
after the United Nations
Security Council adopted a
resolution which
authorized a no-fly zone over
Libya Thursday.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">The resolution
also
called for "all necessary
measures," excluding ground
troops, to
"protect civilians and civilian
populated areas under threat of
attack"
in Libya, "including Benghazi,"
a key eastern city currently
held by
the rebels.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">"Considering the
concern
and stance of Arab countries and
the Africa Union as well as the
special situation in Libya,
China and some countries
abstained from
voting on the draft resolution,"
Jiang said.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Apart from China,
Russia,
a permanent Council member with
veto power, and Brazil, Germany
and
India, the three non-permanent
Council members, also abstained
from
voting on the draft resolution.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">"We support the
commitment of the UN Secretary
General's special envoy for
Libya, the
Africa Union and Arab League to
deal with the current crisis in
Libya
in a peaceful way," Jiang said.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font
color="#cc0000">China
has
always maintained that actions
of the UN Security Council
should
follow the objective and
principle of the UN Charter
and international
laws, respect Libya's
sovereignty, independence,
unification and
territorial integrity</font>,
Jiang said.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">"<font
color="#cc0000">The
current
crisis in Libya should be
resolved through dialogue</font>
<font color="#cc0000">and by
other peaceful means," Jiang
said.</font></font></p>
<p><font color="#cc0000" face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">"We
expect
Libya to restore stability at an
early date and avoid an
escalation of armed conflicts
and worsening humanitarian
crisis," Jiang
said. </font></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 0:02, C. G. Estabrook
wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">"[Rep.
Ron Paul] said his opposition to
the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan give him an edge over
other Republicans and could help
him
defeat President Barack Obama in a
national election. At CPAC, Paul
drew thunderous applause for
bashing the Patriot Act, US aid to
foreign
nations, and US military bases
overseas during his speech. The
conservative group Young Americans
for Freedom (YAF) later announced
that he would be expelled from the
group's National Advisory Board
because of his 'delusional and
disturbing alliance with the
fringe
Anti-War movement.'"<br>
<br>
Rep. Ron Paul wins another
Republican presidential straw poll<br>
By Eric W. Dolan<br>
March 21, 2011 @ 8:14 pm<br>
<br>
Texas Congressman Ron Paul beat
out top Republican presidential
hopefuls Mitt Romney and Newt
Gingrich in a straw poll for the
second
time this year.<br>
<br>
Nearly 18 percent of Republicans
voted for Rep. Paul in the straw
poll
conducted at a GOP Convention in
Sacramento on Saturday.<br>
<br>
He was followed by former governor
Mitt Romney, who received 10.9
percent of the vote and 2010
president candidate Sarah Palin,
who
received 7.9 percent of the vote.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
came in fourth place, with 6.9
percent of the vote.<br>
<br>
The informal survey was conducted
by the libertarian-leaning
Republican
Liberty Caucus of California [1]
(RLCCA).<br>
<br>
"Given that Congressman Paul and
the RLC share a common commitment
to
individual rights, limited
government, free enterprise and
constitutional principles we are
happy with the results," RLCCA
Chairman John Dennis said. "In
these times of big government and
even
bigger deficits, it is exciting to
see increased conservative
interest
in candidates such as Paul."<br>
<br>
The results of the RLCCA poll
reflect another presidential straw
poll
conducted at the Conservative
Political Action Conference [2]
(CPAC) in
February, where Paul took 30
percent of the vote, followed by
Mitt
Romney with 23 percent.<br>
<br>
Paul describes himself as a
libertarian and is hardly the
party's
typical standard bearer.<br>
<br>
He has said his opposition to the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [3]
give
him an edge over other Republicans
and could help him defeat
President
Barack Obama in a national
election.<br>
<br>
At CPAC, Paul drew thunderous
applause for bashing the Patriot
Act, US
aid to foreign nations, and US
military bases overseas during his
speech. The conservative group
Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)
later
announced that he would be
expelled from the group's National
Advisory
Board because of his "delusional
and disturbing alliance with the
fringe Anti-War movement."<br>
<br>
URL to article: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/"
target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/</a><br>
<br>
URLs in this post:<br>
<br>
[1] Republican Liberty Caucus of
California: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/"
target="_blank">http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/</a><br>
[2] straw poll conducted at the
Conservative Political Action
Conference: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/"
target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/</a><br>
[3] said his opposition to the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/"
target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/22/11 10:16 AM, C. G.
Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">The
so-called Tea Party is as we
know a mood rather than a
movement,
much less a party, and is even
more various than the anti-war
movement. Unlike the antiwar
movement, it has moneyed
interests (such
as the Koch brothers) and
traditional political groups
that re trying
to co-opt it.<br>
<br>
But we can't simply ignore the
anti-war currents within the
TP/Libertarians, e.g.<br>
<br>
~ the Ron Paul movement: Paul
won the straw poll for president
at both
recent CPACs; he's been
consistently anti-war,
anti-intervention,
anti-Pentagon.<br>
<br>
~ <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://antiwar.com/"
target="_blank">antiwar.com</a>>,
one
of
the best sites on the web, is a
Libertarian site.<br>
<br>
~ paleo-conservative elements,
such as the journal American
Conservative, have been against
the neo-con wars in principle
from the
beginning; Pat Buchanan has
attacked the Libyan adventure as
unconstitutional (which it is).
<br>
<br>
For the anti-war movement
itself, the co-option has
already taken
place, by the Democrats and
Obama. We forget that the
Democrats were
given control of Congress in
2006 specifically to end the
war, as they
recognized. The firing of
Rumsfeld after the election was
the
administration's recognition of
the fact. But the Democrats
quite
consciously and cynically pissed
it way - e.g., with "timelines"
- when
they could have de-funded the
wars (which required only 41
votes in the
Senate) in the SE Asia and LA
were finally defunded. Then the
coup-de-grace was provided by
Obama's smiling lies and the
foolish
trust that so many people who
should have known better put in
him.<br>
<br>
Remember that the antiwar
movement of the 1960s grew up in
opposition
to both business parties. There
were attempts to co-opt it,
notably by
Robert Kennedy and Richard
Nixon. Nixon (whom Obama much
resembles in
this regard) was elected in 1968
as the "peace candidate" because
in
part it was widely believed that
he had "a secret plan for ending
the
war."<br>
<br>
Events of this week have shown
once again how much a new
antiwar
movement of that sort is
required. The percent of the
population
opposed to the administration's
wars is now about where it was
in 1968.<br>
<br>
Regards, Carl<br>
<br>
On 3/22/11 9:13 AM, Corey
Mattson wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">I
support what Iraq Veterans
Against the War did in
Madison on March 12 --- bring
the anti-war cause to our
natural allies,
workers and students <i>fighting</i>
the Tea Party. When I was in
Madison February 19th, there
were about 1,000 Tea Party
counter-demonstrators to our
80,000. Those 1,000 Tea Party
activists
were way more than any of
their number ever protesting
the war.<br>
<br>
An anti-war Tea Party
movement? Where is it?
Fledgling right-wing
libertarian groups clearly
haven't been that successful
in bringing
them to the anti-war cause.
It's not worth diluting the
substance of
our opposition to the war to
attract a handful of
libertarians who are
opposed to the war for the
wrong reasons and are our
enemy on
practically every other issue.
In the proposed movement to
"Stop the
War, Stop the Spending," what
are left-wingers supposed to
say when
their right-wing partners
attack the poor, bust our
unions, and make
U.S. capitalism even more
savage and inhumane?<br>
<br>
By the way, in the piece
below, David Boaz gets the
timeline wrong as
to when the anti-war movement
weakened, and I believe he
does it
purposefully for political
points. The anti-war movement
was already
seriously weakened by 2006,
maybe as early as 2005, as
demoralization
set in. Surely hopes in a
electoral victory played a
role, but there
was no sudden death of the
movement upon Obama's
election. If Boaz is
going to blame the Democrats
for the movement's demise, he
should at
least get it right. I suspect
that he wasn't involved in the
anti-war
movement back then and
wouldn't know what happened.<br>
<br>
--- Corey <br>
Bloomington-Normal Citizens
for Peace and Justice<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:29
PM, C.
G.
Estabrook <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu"
target="_blank">galliher@illinois.edu</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;">[From
a
director
of the 'libertarian' Cato
Institute.]<br>
<br>
"...the $64,000 question ¡ª
though these days it would
have to be at
least a $64 billion
question ¡ª could a new
antiwar movement hook up
with the Tea Party
movement in a Stop the
War, Stop the Spending
revolt?"<br>
<br>
What Ever Happened to the
Antiwar Movement?<br>
David Boaz - March 21,
2011<br>
<br>
About 100 antiwar
protesters, including
Daniel Ellsberg of
Pentagon
Papers fame, were arrested
Saturday outside the White
House in
demonstrations marking the
eighth anniversary of the
U.S.-led war in
Iraq. It¡¯s a far cry from
the Bush years, when
hundreds of thousands or
millions marched against
the war, and the New York
Times declared
¡°world public opinion¡±
against the war a second
superpower. Will
President Obama¡®s military
incursion in a third
Muslim country revive
the antiwar movement?<br>
<br>
On a street corner in
Washington, D.C., outside
the Cato Institute,
there¡¯s a metal box that
controls traffic signals.
During the Bush
years there was hardly a
day that it didn¡¯t sport a
poster advertising
an antiwar march or simply
denouncing President
George W. Bush and the
war in Iraq. But the
marches and the posters
seemed to stop on election
day 2008.<br>
<br>
Maybe antiwar organizers
assumed that they had
elected the man who
would stop the war. After
all, Barack Obama rose to
power on the basis
of his early opposition to
the Iraq war and his
promise to end it. But
after two years in the
White House he has made
both of George Bush¡¯s
wars his wars.<br>
<br>
In October 2007, Obama
proclaimed, ¡°I will
promise you this, that if
we
have not gotten our troops
out by the time I am
president, it is the
first thing I will do. I
will get our troops home.
We will bring an end
to this war. You can take
that to the bank.¡±
Speaking of Iraq in
February 2008, candidate
Barack Obama said, ¡°I
opposed this war in
2002. I will bring this
war to an end in 2009. It
is time to bring our
troops home.¡± The
following month, under
fire from Hillary Clinton,
he
reiterated, ¡°I was opposed
to this war in 2002¡.I
have been against it
in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6,
7, 8 and I will bring this
war to an end in
2009. So don¡¯t be
confused.¡±<br>
<br>
Indeed, in his famous ¡°the
moment when the rise of
the oceans began to
slow¡± speech on the night
he clinched the Democratic
nomination, he
also proclaimed, ¡°I am
absolutely certain that
generations from now we
will be able to look back
and tell our children that
. . . this was the
moment when we ended a
war.¡±<br>
<br>
Today, however, he has
tripled President Bush¡¯s
troop levels in
Afghanistan, and we have
been fighting there for
more than nine years.
The Pentagon has declared
¡°the official end to
Operation Iraqi Freedom
and combat operations by
United States forces in
Iraq,¡± but we still
have 50,000 troops there,
hardly what Senator Obama
promised.<br>
<br>
And now Libya. In various
recent polls more than
two-thirds of
Americans have opposed
military intervention in
Libya. No doubt many of
them voted for President
Obama.<br>
<br>
There¡¯s another issue with
the Libyan intervention:
the president¡¯s
authority to take the
country to war without
congressional
authorization. As many
bloggers noted over the
weekend, in 2007 Barack
Obama told Charlie Savage
of the Boston Globe,<br>
<br>
The President does not
have power under the
Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a
military attack in a
situation that does not
involve stopping an actual
or imminent threat to the
nation.<br>
<br>
Candidate Hillary Clinton
spoke similarly:<br>
<br>
If the country is under
truly imminent threat of
attack, of course the
President must take
appropriate action to
defend us. At the same
time,
the Constitution requires
Congress to authorize war.
I do not believe
that the President can
take military action ¨C
including any kind of
strategic bombing ¨C
against Iran without
congressional
authorization.<br>
<br>
And candidate Joe Biden:<br>
<br>
The Constitution is clear:
except in response to an
attack or the
imminent threat of attack,
only Congress may
authorize war and the use
of force.<br>
<br>
Fine words indeed. Will
their supporters call them
on their apparent
reversal?<br>
<br>
It¡¯s hard to escape the
conclusion that antiwar
activity in the United
States and around the
world was driven as much
by antipathy to George
W. Bush as by actual
opposition to war and
intervention. Indeed, a
University of Michigan
study of antiwar
protesters found that
Democrats
tended to withdraw from
antiwar activity as Obama
found increasing
political success and then
took office. Independents
and members of
third parties came to make
up a larger share of a
smaller movement.
Reason.tv looked at the
dwindling antiwar movement
two months ago.<br>
<br>
With his launch of a third
military action, President
Obama seems to
have forgotten a point
made by Temple University
professor Jan C. Ting:
¡°Wars are easy to begin,
but hard to end.¡±
Americans haven¡¯t
forgotten,
though.<br>
<br>
Nearly two-thirds of
Americans now say that the
war in Afghanistan
hasn¡¯t been worth
fighting, a number that
has soared since early
2010.
Where are their leaders?
Where are the senators
pushing for withdrawal?
Where are the
organizations? Could a
new, non-Democratic
antiwar
movement do to Obama what
the mid-2000s movement did
to Bush? And the
$64,000 question ¡ª though
these days it would have
to be at least a $64
billion question ¡ª could a
new antiwar movement hook
up with the Tea
Party movement in a Stop
the War, Stop the Spending
revolt?<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/"
target="_blank">http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>