[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

[Laurie]

> I propose attending the October 27th demonstration and carrying signs
> that say things like:
>     "We oppose the war.	
>     Politicians, we are waiting for you hear us."

I am sure that that will make the politicians stand up and listen to you like they never listened to your before. You would stand a better and more effective chance of getting a dead person elected to office. :-)  I sure hope everyone enjoys the mental masturbation and intellectual exercises of constructing signs and marching around waving them.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Medina
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:56 PM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> 
> I propose attending the October 27th demonstration and carrying signs
> that say things like:
>     "We oppose the war.	
>     Politicians, we are waiting for you hear us."
> 
> This is in response to at least these 3 points made by the ISO and CGE
> postings:
> >"the mainstream anti-war movement, [...] is captive to the Democratic
> Party" and >>"the dominant forces in the leadership of the Democratic
> Party prepare, not to end the war, but to 'take it over' from the Bush
> Administration after the 2008 election."  That seems borne out by the
> Oct. 27 demo.
> 
> >"occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan"
> 
> >"Obama's saber-rattling against Iran and Pakistan", and "his
> 'senatorial' support for Israel's crimes against Palestine."
> 
> -karen medina
> ==========================================================
> ---- Original messages ----
> >Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:04:59 -0500
> >From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> >Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> >To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >
> >It seems to me that the ISO people have got this right. I posted a
> >while ago (to some dismay among our colleagues) Alex Cockburn's
> comment
> >that "the mainstream anti-war movement, as represented by UFPJ, is
> >captive to the Democratic Party."  That seems borne out by the Oct. 27
> >demo.  --CGE
> >
> >martin smith wrote:
> >> Statement of the Chicago International Socialist Organization on the
> >> Chicago October 27th regional antiwar demonstration
> >>
> >> Mass protests are desperately needed to galvanize a growing antiwar
> >> majority to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. More than
> >> four years into the occupation of Iraq, upwards of 27,000 U.S.
> >> soldiers have been wounded and more than 3,700 have been killed. One
> >> million Iraqis have died. It is the hope of the International
> >> Socialist Organization (ISO) that the October 27th United for Peace
> >> and Justice (UFPJ) regional demonstration in Chicago will bring out
> >> large numbers against this barbaric war. The ISO certainly intends
> to
> >> mobilize and build for the protest.
> >>
> >> Two incompatible political agendas
> >>
> >> However, it is quite clear that there will be two incompatible
> >> political agendas present on October 27. On the one hand, people
> from
> >> the various endorsing organizations and beyond will be present to
> >> voice their opposition to the war. Many have worked tirelessly to
> >> oppose the war. On the other hand, Democratic Party politicians who
> >> have repeatedly proven their fidelity to the Iraq War have been
> >> invited to speak. This has become an even greater problem, as the
> >> dominant forces in the leadership of the Democratic Party prepare,
> >> not to end the war, but to "take it over" from the Bush
> >> Administration after the 2008 election. These invitations only serve
> >> to direct the energies and anger of the antiwar movement -— once
> >> again -- into support for politicians who have no intention of
> ending
> >> the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
> >>
> >> Withdrawing our endorsement
> >>
> >> It has long been the ISO's policy to support any genuine antiwar
> >> protest. Nor do we oppose inviting politicians to speak if they have
> >> shown themselves to oppose the war, whatever other, often very
> >> significant, disagreements we may have with them. From the
> beginning,
> >> however, we have had serious concerns about the way in which the
> >> local October 27th antiwar demonstration had been organized. We were
> >> told we could participate in organizing only if we did not raise any
> >> meaningful disagreements. We, of course, decided that we could not
> >> accept those limitations and have not participated in the organizing
> >> meetings. Nevertheless, we eventually decided to endorse the event
> >> and mobilize for it. While we intend to build and mobilize for the
> >> protest, we must withdraw our endorsement of the Chicago
> >> demonstration. This protest has been organized in such a way as to
> >> freeze out left-wing organizations and individuals, under the false
> >> assumption that the left or slogans around issues such as Palestine
> >> or Afghanistan have "frightened" away ordinary people in past
> Chicago
> >> protests. This is an elitist approach and a false assessment of many
> >> past protests organized successfully, in part, by the left.
> >>
> >> The problem with Durbin, Obama and Daley
> >>
> >> We are not in disagreement with the main demands of the protest,
> >> though we would have wanted them to reflect more opposition to
> >> broader issues of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. The reason we
> >> are withdrawing our endorsement is because of the invitations
> >> extended to certain politicians to speak, especially senators
> Richard
> >> Durbin and Barack Obama. Over the summer a number of antiwar
> protests
> >> were held at Senator Richard Durbin's Chicago offices, organized by
> >> groups such as the American Friends Service Committee, Voices for
> >> Creative Nonviolence and the Campus Antiwar Network, among others.
> >> These protests included sit-ins, and some included non-violent civil
> >> disobedience and arrests. Unmoved by these actions or the seventy
> >> percent of the state that opposes the war, Dick Durbin voted once
> >> again to fund the occupation on September 27 —- and again on October
> >> 1 —- along with the vast majority of the Senate. Barack Obama could
> >> not be bothered to show up for that vote. However, there should be
> >> little doubt at this point as to where the junior senator's
> >> sympathies lie. At the Democratic primary debate on September 25,
> >> Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards all refused to entertain the
> >> idea of a full withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2013. Obama made his
> >> position regarding a promised pullout by January 2013 clear: "I
> think
> >> it would be irresponsible. " This is not to mention Obama's saber-
> >> rattling against Iran and Pakistan, or his "senatorial" support for
> >> Israel's crimes against Palestine. Earlier in the year, even
> >> mainstream Democratic Party politicians took a more oppositional
> >> stand around the war. However, with the 2008 elections approaching,
> >> more and more politicians are not appealing so much to antiwar
> >> voters, but to the establishment, trying to prove they will be
> >> "responsible" administrators of the war itself. It is unconscionable
> >> to invite as antiwar speakers those who continue to fund the war,
> and
> >> those who publicly plan to continue the war for years.
> > >
> > > Also worthy of
> >> criticism is the speaking invitation for our "illustrious" mayor.
> >> Putting aside his pursuit of rampant gentrification, complicity in
> >> countless cases of police brutality or his large role in covering-up
> >> the Jon Burge torture ring, Richard Daley has proven he is no friend
> >> of the antiwar movement. As bombs fell on Iraq in 2003, it was
> >> Daley's police department that arrested hundreds of peaceful antiwar
> >> activists. Under Daley, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) became the
> >> most militarized in the nation. It was Daley's cronies in the CPS
> >> that installed a naval academy at Senn High School over the protests
> >> and opposition of students, faculty and community members. No matter
> >> how many antiwar resolutions Daley's city council might pass -— and
> >> such resolutions are welcome —- these students are to be used as the
> >> occupiers and cannon fodder of Bush's wars. An uncritical approach
> to
> >> these pro-war politicians politically disarms the antiwar movement.
> >> The Illinois senators have made it quite clear that they are not
> >> against the war. They may mouth criticisms and may at times vaguely
> >> speak of withdrawing "combat troops" at some future date. But this
> >> will not bring the war to an end —- and Obama and Durbin have proven
> >> it with their actions over the past two weeks. Their empty promises
> >> mirror the countless and never-materialized withdrawal schemes
> >> hatched during the Vietnam War. That war did not end until a
> >> confluence of resistance in Vietnam met mass antiwar protests in the
> >> United States, which in turn gave confidence and support to a wave
> of
> >> antiwar activity in the armed forces itself. That can be built
> today,
> >> but Durbin and Obama are not allies in that project. Instead, they
> >> have proven themselves to be obstacles.
> >>
> >> Don't boycott
> >>
> >> At the same time, we believe it would be mistaken, as some have
> >> argued, to boycott this protest. The vast majority of organizations
> >> and individuals who will attend this demonstration are antiwar. They
> >> are open to discussing a different strategy to ending the war, and a
> >> discussion of why a strategy of courting warmongers -— in whatever
> >> partisan clothing -— is a strategy doomed to failure. Instead,
> >> antiwar individuals and organizations need to mobilize all the more,
> >> to begin to organize opposition to this war in a different way -—
> one
> >> that is open to the left, and one that does not rely on Democratic
> >> Party politicians who continue to enable the war. Instead of
> inviting
> >> them to speak for us, the antiwar movement must hold Durbin, Obama
> >> and Daley accountable for their complicity in the murder of one
> >> million Iraqis and nearly four thousand U.S. soldiers.
> > >
> > > 	###
> >_______________________________________________
> >Peace-discuss mailing list
> >Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss