[Peace-discuss] What needs to be said...

Fri Mar 7 21:50:40 CST 2008

John,

I some ways, yes, the world was more stable during the cold war  
(balance of terror if you like)  in the sense that the U.S. had to  
keep its hands out of the affairs of certain regions.  It is an  
arguable point. However, there are other conceivable potential  
countervailing powers. You've named one, China. Russia will be  
another. The South American nations, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,  
Venezuela, … may one day be able to step up to the plate.  Even  
India. It would be useful if Europe, which is a powerful entity,   
exercised independence from the U.S, but it is fraught with its own  
internal divisions, which the U.S. encourages.

At one time one had hope in the United Nations…. and one peaceful world.

Mort

On Mar 7, 2008, at 6:37 PM, John W. wrote:

> At 06:23 PM 3/7/2008, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>
>> Your position is unfair to Solomon. I'm sure he is under no illusions
>> that Obama "will save us". But one can always hope, even in desperate
>> straits, and I believe that is what he expresses.  Solomon is saying
>> that in uncertainty there resides a modicum of hope. Our crystal
>> balls are always clouded.
>>
>> The vote on Israel-Palestine-Gaza is indeed disgusting, but still,
>> some representatives are far superior to others on important issues
>> (occupation of Iraq, the Patriot Act, military spending, etc.,) and
>> we ought to use whatever leverage is available to thwart present
>> policies. It is a mistake to put them, the politicians, all in the
>> same basket. We have to work with the reality of politics. Or do we?
>>
>> Aside from revolution, I am still interested in what you would
>> suggest as best tactics to stop the wars.  Supporting Ron Paul, Nader
>> or McKinney? Is criticizing everybody in the political arena  likely
>> to advance our aims?    Perhaps there is no good solution at present
>> in view of the established balance of power.   I suppose one can hope
>> that some huge setback to government policies occurs to set people
>> thinking straight.
>>
>> The world needs a countervailing power...
>
>
> You mean like the old Soviet Union, Mort?  The world was in better  
> shape during the Cold War?
>
> Well, not to worry.  There'll be a countervailing power soon  
> enough.  It'll be great.  Arguably China already is that  
> countervailing power.  Our "leaders" just haven't quite figured it  
> out yet.
>
> John
>
>
>
>> --mkb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:18 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>> The illusion is to hold that a nice Democrat will save us.  How do
>>> you "apply anti-war electoral pressure to the least belligerent of
>>> the presidential candidates"?  By hoping that Obama is only saying
>>> what he is "to get elected"?
>>>
>>> I admit that it's sometimes worth voting against a presidential
>>> candidate -- e.g., in a swing state (but not Illinois) it might be
>>> worth voting against McCain.
>>>
>>> As to those "congressional representatives who have come out
>>> strongly for ending occupations and military spending" -- did you
>>> see what they did this week? The following is from JTA:
>>>
>>> ======================
>>>
>>> The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a
>>> resolution strongly defending how Israel has repelled rocket  
>>> attacks.
>>>
>>> The non-binding resolution, passed 404-1 on Wednesday, was
>>> substantially rewritten since its introduction in January to
>>> include a strident defense of recent Israeli tactics in the Gaza
>>> Strip.
>>>
>>> New passages include one saying that "those responsible for
>>> launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their
>>> production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian
>>> civilian population, utilizing them as human shields" and "the
>>> inadvertent inflicting of civilian casualties as a result of
>>> defensive military operations aimed at military targets, while
>>> deeply regrettable, is not at all morally equivalent to the
>>> deliberate targeting of civilian populations as practiced by Hamas
>>> and other Gaza-based terrorist groups."
>>>
>>> More than 100 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed
>>> since last Wednesday...
>>>
>>> ==========================
>>>
>>> The sole vote against? Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)... --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>
>>>> The options available to those truly against the Iraq, Afghan and
>>>> other imperial wars are sorely limited. The option Solomon softly
>>>> proposes is to apply anti-war electoral pressure to the least
>>>> belligerent of the presidential candidates. This to me is "sage",
>>>> if not sanguine. Demonstrations, protests, lobbying, anti-  
>>>> recruitment
>>>> actions, etc., all are supposedly for this purpose, in
>>>> that we have no viable anti-war presidential candidates. Some
>>>> congressional representatives who have come out strongly for
>>>> ending occupations and military spending should be supported as
>>>> part of this effort.
>>>>
>>>> What else do you propose? What is Solomon's illusion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:21 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sage, maybe, but perhaps not entirely free of illusion.  We've
>>>>> seen for example how effective "grassroots pressure" has been
>>>>> with the Democrats who were given control of Congress in 2006.
>>>>> "Democrats won the 2006 election largely thanks to public disgust
>>>>> with the Iraq war," as Paul Krugman writes today in the NYT, and
>>>>> they proved pretty impervious to "grassroots pressure" as they
>>>>> went on to support the war.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, the leading astro-turf group, AAEI, with its millions
>>>>> from party funders and its mission to co-opt the anti-war
>>>>> movement for the benefit of the Democrats, has just re-emerged
>>>>> under a new name.  Prwatch.org writes as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> Campaign to Defend America, a group spun off by Americans Against
>>>>> Escalation in Iraq, is behind McCain: McSame as Bush, a TV ad
>>>>> attacking presidential candidate John McCain. Campaign to Defend
>>>>> America "is among anti-war and left-of-center groups that have
>>>>> pledged a multimillion-dollar effort to target McCain and
>>>>> congressional Republicans on the consequences of the Iraq war on
>>>>> the U.S. economy. ... [T]he Campaign to Defend America has
>>>>> received at least $1.4 million from The Fund for America, a
>>>>> nonprofit group set up last year by John Podesta, a former chief
>>>>> of staff for President Clinton; Anna Burger, the secretary-  
>>>>> treasurer
>>>>> of the Service Employees International Union; and Rob
>>>>> McKay, a California philanthropist (and chair of the Democracy
>>>>> Alliance). The Campaign to Defend America is headed by Tom
>>>>> Matzzie, the former Washington director of the liberal activist
>>>>> group MoveOn.org. Among Fund for America donors are
>>>>> multimillionaire financier George Soros." The Center for
>>>>> Investigative Reporting has created a chart illustrating the
>>>>> liberal money and connections behind the Campaign to Defend  
>>>>> America.
>>>>>
>>>>> --CGE
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> /…when a war based on lies is opposed because too many Americans
>>>>>> are dying, the implication is that it can be made right by
>>>>>> reducing the American death toll./
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /When a war that flagrantly violated international law is
>>>>>> opposed because it was badly managed, the implication is that
>>>>>> better management could make for an acceptable war./
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /When the number of occupying troops is condemned as
>>>>>> insufficient for the occupying task at hand, the White House and
>>>>>> Pentagon may figure out how to make shrewder use of U.S. air
>>>>>> power -- in combination with private mercenaries and Iraqis who
>>>>>> are desperate enough for jobs that they're willing to point guns
>>>>>> at the occupiers' enemies./
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /...The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have
>>>>>> illusions in the first place. There's little reason to believe
>>>>>> that Obama is inclined to break away from the routine militarism
>>>>>> of U.S. foreign policy. But it's plausible that grassroots
>>>>>> pressure could pull him in a better direction on a range of
>>>>>> issues. He seems to be appreciably less stuck in cement than the
>>>>>> other candidates who still have a chance to become president on
>>>>>> January 20, 2009./
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> /
>>>>>> This is from *Norman Solomon's* sage reflections, at http://  
>>>>>> www.alternet.org/waroniraq/78638/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080307/2d13c192/attachment.html