<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=GB2312" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Corey,<br>
It seems that you have quite little faith in the evangelism of your
ideology. If you can't teach others your views and convince others
that you are correct one wonders what is wrong. If you think that the
non-followers are unteachable that seems xenophobic, perhaps even
Racist to me.<br>
<br>
Perhaps you arent working hard enough on articulating your ideology in
such a way that it would be universally acceptable.<br>
<br>
Of course there is yet another possibility.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 10:17, 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="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>