[Peace-discuss] When is now?

[Ricky Baldwin]

Yeah, and I think when we catch the next Jeffrey
Dahmer we should insist that they stop killing and
eating people "in months not years" and theys hould
begin stopping "by the end of the year"!  In fact, I
like this method for other crimes, too.  I can hear
the judge asking the jury whether they will vote for
robbers, rapists, et al, to cease and desist "in
months not years" or not.

Anyway, I think we should all respond as requested to
mail at democracynow.org -- and not just to ask the
meaning of "Tom Hayden" or "absurd" but to reiterate
the basic message that one more day of delay is one
more day that people will die because of our presence.

Ricky

--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> [During Clinton's administration, he asked us to
> consider
> "what the meaning of 'is' is."  During the Bush
> administration, we're apparently supposed to
> consider what the
> meaning of "now" is now.  The following is from the
> interesting blog <lefti.blogspot.com>.  The Tom
> Hayden
> referred to was the principal author of the Port
> Huron
> Statement, the founding document of Students for a
> Democratic
> Society, more than forty years ago.  --CGE]
> 
> 
> I just got an email from the Progressive Democrats
> of America
> urging me to sign "A People's Petition for an Iraq
> Peace
> Process", something Tom Hayden wrote(?)/has been
> advocating. I
> won't be signing it.
> 
> Here's point two of the petition:
> 
>     "The U.S. government must set goals for ending
> the
> occupation and bringing all our troops home - in
> months, not
> years, beginning with an initial withdrawal of
> troops by the
> end of this year."
> 
> The "end of this year" is 4 1/2 months away, and
> that's when
> they propose an "initial" withdrawal of troops"?
> When they say
> "months, not years" to bring "all our troops home,"
> what do
> they have in mind exactly? 36 months? 48 months? 96
> months?
> 
> Much of the rest of the petition is of a piece with
> that.
> Let's take a look:
> 
> "First, as a confidence-building measure, the U.S.
> government
> must declare that it has no interest in permanent
> military
> bases or the control of Iraqi oil or other
> resources." Only
> someone with unjustified faith in the goodness of
> the U.S.
> government would care a fig what the U.S. government
> "declares." The U.S. government breaks treaties
> whenever it
> suits it, its invasion of Iraq in contravention of
> the United
> Nations Charter being perhaps the most relevant
> example. A
> "declaration" isn't even worth that much.
> 
> "Third, the U.S. government must request that the
> United
> Nations monitor the process of military
> disengagement and
> de-escalation, and organize a peaceful
> reconstruction effort."
> Unfortunately, since the U.N. has shown no
> inclination to get
> involved, and since other countries are decommitting
> forces to
> Iraq rather than committing them, the likelihood of
> this
> happening is small, and certainly is in direct
> contradiction
> to the "month, not years" proposal.
> 
> "Fourth, the U.S. government should appoint a peace
> envoy
> independent of the occupation authorities to
> underscore its
> commitment to an entirely different mission." Sure,
> how about
> John Bolton? Again, the PDA shows that its illusions
> in the
> U.S. government know no bounds. If you want a "peace
> envoy
> independent of the occupation authorities" (with
> what
> authority is entirely unclear), how about letting
> Switzerland
> appoint the person? Or Norway? Or anyone in the
> world except
> the U.S. government. Not that it would amount to
> anything anyway.
> 
> "Fifth, the peace envoy should encourage and
> cooperate in
> talks with Iraqi groups opposed to the occupation,
> including
> insurgents, to explore a political settlement. The
> settlement
> must include representation of opposition forces and
> parties,
> and power-sharing and the protection of women's
> rights as core
> principles of governance and economic and energy
> development."
> No "U.S.-appointed envoy", or anyone in the world
> other than
> the Iraqis themselves, has the slightest right to be
> telling
> the Iraqis that "representation of opposition
> forces" and
> "protection of women's rights" etc. must be included
> in any
> "settlement." Of course I am for those things. But
> what I am
> for doesn't matter. The U.S. should just get out
> now, period.
> It didn't have the right to determine Iraq's future
> in the
> first place, and having begun to do so (by
> overthrowing its
> government) doesn't give it a continuing right to do
> so; it
> has no more rights in Iraq than it ever did.
> 
> What a crock.
> 
> [Interestingly, as I'm writing this critique, I'm
> suddenly
> listening to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!
> interviewing Tom
> Hayden pitching this nonsense. Unfortunately no one
> was on to
> debate these "principles" with Hayden. Goodman asked
> listeners
> to send their reactions to Hayden's proposals to
> mail at democracynow.org. Feel free to join me in doing
> so.]
> 
> ...
> 
> When "Now" means "Now"
> 
> I wrote this morning about Tom Hayden and his
> "People's
> Petition for an Iraq Peace Plan." As I was finishing
> that
> post, he was just coming on Democracy Now! Here's
> one of the
> things Hayden had to say:
> 
>     AMY GOODMAN: Tom Hayden, just one question on
> the issue of
> withdrawal, for clarification. In terms of a
> timetable, again,
> just reiterate what it is that you're saying. There
> are those
> who are saying now, withdraw now. What is your
> stance?
> 
>     TOM HAYDEN: We went around and around on this.
> We think
> we're being stuck by the President and by the media
> on this
> issue of now, because it implies, like, in five
> minutes. It's
> absurd. The whole point about now is now make a
> decision to
> get out.
> 
> So, Tom Hayden thinks that it's "absurd" for "now"
> to mean
> "now," and that really "now" means "let's decide
> now," not
> "let's leave now."
> 
> Earlier tonight I was at an ANSWER meeting, watching
> a video
> filmed by Gloria LaRiva at a rally at "Camp Casey"
> in
> Crawford, Texas on Saturday. At that rally, Cindy
> Sheehan
> delivered a rousing speech to 600 or so supporters,
> culminating in a call for troops to be withdrawn
> "now." And
> for Sheehan, "now" means "now" - before one more
> American
> soldier is killed, before one more Iraqi is killed
> by an
> American, before one more mother joins her in a
> lifetime of
> grief. The crowd, who responded to Sheehan's cry of
> "out now"
> with a series of loud "nows" of their own, clearly
> agreed.
> 
> Let me briefly talk about "why now?" before I return
> to answer
> Tom Hayden's question of "how now?" I've explained
> my
> reasoning in words before, as in the linked post
> below, so let
> me try an analogy. When you have a bull in a china
> shop
> breaking all the china, the proper response is not
> to ask the
> bull to repair the damage! The first thing to do is
> to get the
> bull out of the shop (not "make a decision" to get
> the bull
> out sometime in the future!). After you do that, you
> worry
> about repairing the damage, and getting the bull's
> owner to
> pay for them.
> 
> Now let me turn to the other question - is it
> "absurd" to
> think that "now" means "now"? Hayden uses the figure
> of five
> minutes. Yes, all American troops cannot be
> physically off the
> soil of Iraq five minutes from now. But here's
> something they
> could do five minutes from now, or five seconds from
> now -
> stop firing! Cease all offensive actions, all
> bombing, and
> tank firings, and so on. Interestingly enough, that
> simple
> proposal is not one of the five points in Hayden's
> petition.
> 
> Now after that, how quickly could 140,000 or so
> American
> troops leave Iraq? Let me pose a simple, if somewhat
> morbid,
> question. What if a nuclear bomb exploded over Iraq
> tomorrow,
> and a mushroom cloud of dangerous radiation was
> spreading over
> the whole country? How soon do you suppose the U.S.
> could get
> its troops out of harm's way? (Assume they're not
> concerned
> about the Iraqis - oh wait, it's not an assumption)
> Do you
> suppose they would be talking about "months"? I
> shouldn't
> think so. The fact is, every single member of the
> coalition
> forces, and every single mercenary in their employ,
> could be
> living in Kuwait in a tent by the end of this week,
> if they
> chose to do so. Sure, it would take a few weeks, or
> maybe a
> few months, to ferry them all home by boat or plane,
> although
> surely all those coalition partners and others like
> Russia
> could pitch in with their own ships and planes to
> help the
> task. Let's ask another question -- how long did it
> take
> 140,000 (or whatever the number was) of American and
> British
> soldiers to enter Iraq? Days is the answer, not
> months. And
> it's not "absurd" to think they could leave in
> exactly the
> same time. Cindy Sheehan, who hasn't been
> politically active
> for her whole life like Tom Hayden, understands that
> completely. It's too bad Tom Hayden doesn't, and
> chooses to
> call those of us who do "absurd".
> 
>    ###
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs