[Peace-discuss] Obama and the US use of military force

[Jenifer Cartwright]

It's all relative, isn't it? Phrase it as "good, better, best", or "bad, worse, worst" but the result is the same. I'm trying to stay informed, swallowing my pride, biting the bullet, crossing my fingers, and voting for the people who (hopefully) will do the least "collateral damage." Does a person of real (vs ivory tower) conscience have any other choice these days?
   --Jenifer

"Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com> wrote:
  In other words, we have to make bad choices. --mkb

On Feb 6, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:

> I worry that there is a dynamic in the discussion about Obama that
> folks are allowing themselves to be provoked into taking positions
> that US peace activists should not be taking.
>
> Whether we know for sure exactly what Obama told the Tribune doesn't
> really matter that much, because there is a well-documented public
> record that Obama - like Clinton and Edwards - advocated the potential
> use of military force against Iran in circumstances that would clearly
> violate international law.
>
> Under international law, there are basically 3 possibilities for the
> use of military force:
>
> - self-defense against armed attack
> - authorized by the UN Security Council
> - committing a war crime
>
> C, O, and E all moved substantially from their previous positions,
> which is a very positive development that it is important to note, for
> which the lion's share of the credit should go to public pressure and
> the fact that we have at least somewhat competitive elections.
> (although they should get some credit - because they deserve at least
> some credit but more importantly because it is strategic to give them
> some credit.)
>
> Nonetheless, none of them ever explicitly repudiated the notion that
> the US can unilaterally attack Iran whenever it suits the US to do so
> (note the FCNL chart on this point), and that's a very, very bad
> thing, which should not in any way be minimized.
>
> I would much, much rather face the problem of dealing with President
> Obama than the problem of dealing with President Clinton, and I would
> 10^6 rather face the problem of dealing with President Obama or
> President Clinton than the problem of dealing with President McCain.
>
> But it's not going to be all ponies and unicorns if Obama is elected
> President. Obama shares the Washington establishment view that the US
> is uniquely endowed by Providence to decide for itself when it gets to
> use violence. If he is elected President, the possibility that he
> might try to act on that belief - for example, in Pakistan - cannot be
> ruled out. If he does, resistance is going to be quite a challenge.
> There is no reason to let down our guard.
>
> Judging that the best plausible outcome of the electoral game from
> this point is for Obama to win - my own view, but not something we can
> know - doesn't require drinking the Kool-Aid.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080206/3f3b314c/attachment.htm