[Peace-discuss] Barack Obama for U.S. Senator???

[Ricky Baldwin]

Thanks, Mort-

This is the kind of thing we in the antiwar movement
need to be thinking about!  Here's a man who most of
us have supported, a democrat, regarded as an antiwar
candidate almost universally, and he says we might
attack Iran, in the current manner of speaking,
"preemptively"!

I doubt that Kerry is to Obama's left on this.

The point is, whoever wins the elections in November,
we definitely have our work cut out for us.  This
election will not solve our problem.  We need to
defeat Bush, yes, definitely.  Defeat Keyes for so
many reasons, too.  But focus on the principles of
opposing militarism, domination and mass hysteria, not
hooray for the Dems. It WILL backfire after November.

Ricky 
--- "Morton K.Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com> wrote:

> Get this! On blog of David Peterson from ZNet.
> 
> Posted by David Peterson on 9/26
> 
>   A question for Illinois State Senator Barack Obama
> the Democratic 
> frontrunner (an absolute shoe-in, in fact) in the
> race to capture the 
> seat in the U.S. Senate currently occupied by the
> Republican Peter 
> Fitzgerald (the other held by the Democrat Richard
> Durbin): Under what 
> circumstances would, say, the Government of Iran
> ever be justified in 
> launching surgical strikes against U.S. territory?
> 
> 
> Would it be on condition that the U.S. Government
> threatened to attack 
> Iranian territory?  Or would the U.S actually have
> to launch an attack 
> on Iranian territory first, before the Iranians were
> justified in 
> attacking the United States?  But what if the U.S.
> Government imposed 
> economic sanctions on Iran?  Or supported a foreign
> state that 
> threatened to attack Iranian territory, even
> supplying this foreign 
> state with the weapons it required to launch such an
> attack?  What if 
> the U.S. militarily invaded and occupied a sovereign
> country that 
> shared an international border with Iran?  Would
> this give the Iranians 
> the right under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to
> come to the aid of the 
> people resisting the American invaders, even by
> opening a new theater 
> in the war on American soil?  Or what if, somewhere
> near the Iranian 
> border, the U.S. maintained a terrorist organization
> the expressed goal 
> of which was to destabilize life within Iran and,
> ultimately, to bring 
> about a change of regime in Tehran?
> 
>   Would one of these circumstances justify an
> Iranian attack on U.S. 
> territory?  At least two of them combined?  Three?
> 
>   How about all of them taken together?
> 
>   These are not just academic questions, I’m
> afraid.  Were the State of 
> Illinois’ election for the U.S. Senate to be held
> this Sunday in late 
> September, so convincing is Barack Obama’s lead in
> the polls that 
> somewhere between six- and seven-in-ten registered
> Illinois Republicans 
> would vote for Obama over their own party’s
> candidate, the unspeakable 
> Alan Keyes.  (John Chase, “State GOP wrestling for
> identity.  Polls 
> show far right failing to connect,” Chicago Tribune,
> Sept. 26.)
>   (Between ourselves: I remain utterly mystified as
> to why this State’s 
> Republican leadership bothered to invite this
> turkey, a resident of 
> Maryland, of all places, to come to Illinois and
> replace its original 
> candidate for the U.S. Senate, Jack Ryan.  The same
> report in the Trib 
> also tells us that the “survey showed that 94
> percent of the voters who 
> identified themselves as Republican are white, and
> only 2 percent are 
> Hispanic, and another 2 percent are black.  The rest
> declined to 
> identify their race."---Alan Keyes?)
> 
> Nor do these questions for Obama come out of
> nowhere, either: Their 
> point of departure was a face-to-face meeting that
> the Chicago 
> Tribune‘s editorial board sponsored with Obama on
> this past Friday, the 
> 24th.
> 
>   Here’s how the Trib set the scene (David Mendell,
> "Obama would 
> consider missile strikes on Iran" (Chicago Tribune 
> Sept. 25):
> 
> 
> 
>   Iran announced on Tuesday [Sept. 21] that it has
> begun converting tons 
> of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel
> for a nuclear 
> reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic
> Energy Agency has 
> called for Iran to suspend all such activities.
> 
>   Obama said the United States must first address
> Iran’s attempt to gain 
> nuclear capabilities by going before the United
> Nations Security 
> Council and lobbying the international community to
> apply more pressure 
> on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure
> should come in the 
> form of economic sanctions, he said.
> 
>   But if those measures fall short, the United
> States should not rule 
> out military strikes to destroy nuclear production
> sites in Iran, Obama 
> said.
> 
>   “The big question is going to be, if Iran is
> resistant to these 
> pressures, including economic sanctions, which I
> hope will be imposed 
> if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going
> to, if any, are we 
> going to take military action?”
> 
>   Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United
> States is not in a 
> position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might
> be a viable option, 
> he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might
> further strain 
> relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
> 
>   “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with
> all the problems in 
> terms of perceptions about America that have been
> created, us launching 
> some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal
> position for us to be 
> in,” he said.
> 
>   “On the other hand, having a radical Muslim
> theocracy in possession of 
> nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct
> would be to err on not 
> having those weapons in the possession of the ruling
> clerics of Iran. 
> ... And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But
> realistically, as I 
> watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised
> if Iran blinked at 
> this point."
> 
> 
>   Obama also expressed some thoughts on Pakistan. 
> “Obama said that if 
> President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a
> coup,” the Trib 
> reported, “the United States similarly might have to
> consider military 
> action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it
> already 
> possesses.  Musharraf’s troops are battling hundreds
> of well-armed 
> foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in
> increasingly violent 
> confrontations.”
> 
>   And Obama had an intriguing (to say the least)
> take on the nature of 
> the wars the Americans have been fighting:
> 
>   Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a
> vastly different 
> brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the
> Cold War, and they 
> must be treated differently.
> 
>   “With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that
> they were operating 
> on a model that we could comprehend in terms of,
> they don’t want to be 
> blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do
> game theory and 
> calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think
> there are certain 
> elements within the Islamic world right now that
> don’t make those same 
> calculations.
> 
>   “... I think there are elements within Pakistan
> right now--if 
> Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think
> we would have to 
> consider going in and taking those bombs out,
> because I don’t think we 
> can make the same assumptions about how they
> calculate risks."
> 
> 
>   Now.  I can’t tell you exactly where in all of
> this Barack Obama’s own 
> voice fades out (except for the actual quotes, that
> is), and where the 
> Chicago Tribune‘s rendition of Obama’s voice fades
> in.  The Trib‘s 
> opening paragraph about Iran and the International
> Atomic Energy 
> Agency---that the IAEA “has called for Iran to
> suspend” its uranium 
> enrichment activities---is accurate on its face but
> worthless as 
> history.  It tells us nothing about which state
> drives the IAEA’s 
> agenda with respect to Iran.  Much less why.  Nor
> what the actual 
> findings of numerous IAEA investigations of Iranian
> facilities have 
> been.  Nor how other states, both regional and
> global (i.e., Israel and 
> the United States), conduct their affairs towards
> Iran.
> 
>   But working from the presumption that the Chicago
> Tribune faithfully 
> reported Barack Obama’s views on these issues, what
> we find in the next 
> U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois is a man who
> is very much a 
> creature of American Power; who regards America’s
> threat or use of 
> violence not to be inherently menacing or
> problematic, but rather 
> potentially good and just and necessary for the
> advancement of 
> God-only-knows what kind of world order; and for
> whom the rights of 
> other peoples and states are dissoluble according to
> the dictates of 
> American Power.  Indeed.  For whom other peoples and
> states are looked 
> down upon as evidence of their cultural or
> civilizational inferiority, 
> and obstacles to the kind of world the Americans
> want.  A world which, 
> judging by Obama’s session with the Trib, is
> governed not by the rule 
> of law but by the force of American arms. 
> 
>   For creatures of American Power, the only question
> that ever arises 
> is, When is it okay for the Americans to do
> something violent and 
> murderous to others?  While other, perfectly
> reasonable 
> questions---such as, When is someone else justified
> in doing something 
> violent and murderous to the Americans?---never
> arise.  Remain 
> off-limits.  Are strictly unaskable. 
> 
>   From my point of view, someone who takes the
> positions that Barack 
> Obama expressed to the Chicago Tribune during last
> Friday’s meeting 
> with its editorial board is unfit to serve in any
> high office of a 
> state as powerful, as dangerous, and as menacing to
> the rest of the 
> world as the United States is today.
> 
>   Come the first Tuesday in November, Obama will win
> one of Illinois’ 
> two seats in the U.S. Senate by a landslide. 
> 
>   God help the world.
> 
> "Barack Obama’s Speech to the Chicago Council on
> Foreign Relations,” 
> July 12, 2004
> 
> “Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran,”
> David Mendell, Chicago 
> Tribune, September 25
> “State GOP wrestling for identity: Poll shows far
> right failing to 
> connect,” John Chase, Chicago Tribune, September 26
> 
>   “Future of Iran opposition group held in Iraq
> hangs in balance,” 
> Mohsen Asgara and Gareth Smyth, Financial Times,
> July 14, 2004
>   “Dissident Iranian group given special status by
> U.S.,” Joanne 
> Laucius, Ottawa Citizen, July 27, 2004
>   “Iranian Exiles, On U.S. Terror List, Now Seeking
> Refugee from Iraq,” 
> Farah Stockman, Boston Globe, July 28, 2004
>   “Why the US granted ‘protected’ status to Iranian
> terrorists,” Scott 
> Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, July 29, 2004
>   “U.S. decision to protect exiled Iranian
> terrorists fuels speculation 
> Pentagon is planning a new war,” Bruce Garvey,
> Ottawa Citizen, August 
> 3, 2004
>   “Board Rules 4 Iranians Not a Threat,” H.G. Reza,
> Los Angeles Times, 
> August 25, 2004
> 
> “Eying Iran Reactors, Israel Seeks U.S. Bunker
> Bombs,” Reuters, 
> September 21, 2004
> 
>   Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in
> the Islamic Republic 
> of Iran (GOV/2004/60), IAEA, September 1, 2004
> Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in
> the Islamic Republic 
> of Iran (Resolution GOV/2004/79), IAEA Board of
> Governors, September 
> 18, 2004
> 
>   The “FTO List” and Congress: Sanctioning
> Designated Foreign Terrorist 
> Organizations (RL32120), Audrey Kurth Cronin,
> Congressional Research 
> Service, October 21, 2003>
_______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com