<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
China toughens stance on Libyan air strikes<br>
<br>
The Chinese government is stepping up its demands that the Western
coalition halt air strikes on Libya. Beijing called for an immediate
ceasefire on Thursday and warned an even larger humanitarian crisis
is in the making...<br>
<br>
MORE AT
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.france24.com/en/20110324-china-libya-brautigam-un-airstrikes"><http://www.france24.com/en/20110324-china-libya-brautigam-un-airstrikes></a>.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/22/11 7:39 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D89412D.6010706@pigs.ag" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011-3-23 7:54, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:490B5785-24F7-4B4B-8343-B3047D004F0C@illinois.edu"
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 朱稳森
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<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
cite="mid:368929AD-7AAC-4D13-BD5D-06C34A6EBC7F@illinois.edu"
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 朱稳森 wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<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
cite="mid:4D88C819.8050502@illinois.edu"
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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/">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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/">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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/">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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/">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
cite="mid:4D88BD54.6000702@illinois.edu"
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/">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
cite="mid:AANLkTikm_NbAEmJVPaDrO=dRSP-j-Kdv91451t_64Fs4@mail.gmail.com"
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">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 — though
these days it would have to be at
least a $64 billion question — 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 – including any kind of
strategic bombing – 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 — though these days
it would have to be at least a $64
billion question — 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 wrap=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<pre wrap=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<pre wrap=""><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>