[Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

[C. G. Estabrook]

"We don't pull people to us by protesting at his party."

That's ridiculous.  The anti-war movement continues its abject capitulation to 
the Democrats -- "sticking close to Nurse / for fear of something Worse," as the 
poet has it.

Can we please ask that nice Mr. Obama and his SECURITY TEAM to please, maybe, if 
it would not be too much trouble, and if they won't frighten us with that awful 
Sarah Palin again, to please, well, maybe just think about stopping killing 
people...?  (Of course we'll understand if the TEAM has to keep doing it...)

Three out of four eligible voters did NOT vote for Obama, and many who did, did 
so not because they approved of his policies -- which were not considered in the 
campaign, being identical in important matters from those of his opponents -- 
but because his carefully-arranged opposition was worse.

We should do all we can to demonstrate against the murderous and unbroken 
policies of the US government.  --CGE


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> These thoughts come from the UFPJ listserve, in which it was suggested 
> that there be protests at the inauguration ceremonies in January. Its 
> author is one Kevin Zeese.
> 
> While I share John's [Walsh] views on the national security team Obama 
> has appointed and expect that these are the people who will be running 
> foreign policy for the next two years while Obama focuses domesticallly, 
> the peace movement needs to figure out what -- if any -- message at the 
> inagurartion will be effective.
> 
>  
> 
> Most Obama supporters, even the apolitical ones, want to see the Iraq 
> war ended.  They agree with us even though they voted for Obama.  
> Indeed, many, many peace activists supported Obama despite his weak 
> foreign policy positions and proclaimed victory when he won the 
> election.  So, the crowd that will be at the inaguration will be with us 
> on the Iraq issue but also be with Obama, celebrating his presidency. 
> 
>  
> 
> We need to pull people to our position and develop a broad protest 
> movement against Obama's foreign policy positions -- which we know we 
> willl not like.  
> 
>  
> 
> We don't pull people to us by protesting at his party.  It just will not 
> be effective, indeed it will marginalize more than broaden the peace 
> movement.  Communication needs to serve the purpose of broadening the 
> peace movement not making us feel good by shouting our anger.  Effective 
> communication is the goal.
> 
>  
> 
> Carl's [Davidson] approach of building on the "Yes we can" slogan of 
> Obama is closer to what would be effective.  The phrases that come after 
> "Yes we can" are important.  "End the Iraq War NOW" -- with the emphasis 
> on NOW is one that might work.  Expressing the urgency of now -- another 
> Obama phrase and one that shows that he can stop the killing now -- he 
> can stop the drones in Pakistan  --  now, the bombings of wedding 
> parties in Afghanistan -- now,  Israel getting out of Palestine - now. 
>  The same could be true with other foreign policy issues. After 
> inaguration these killings in Pakistan etc. willl be Obama's 
> responsibility as he does have the power to stop them now.
> 
>  
> 
> We have to walk a fine line of demonstrating our independence for Obama, 
> but at this stage of his presidency, especially inaguration day, showing 
> hope for the new administration -- despite our expectation that hopes 
> willl be dashed, rather quickly.