[Peace-discuss] A new left/right antiwar movement?
"E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"
ewj at pigs.ag
Tue Mar 22 18:28:30 CDT 2011
I thought that too, Mort.
Amazingly, I was not consulted.
I suppose the local PTB decided I was too busy teaching pig farmers down
in Jiangsu to be bothered with such trivial matters that they could
manage on their own.
My interpretation is that a vetoing No by those who could veto would
have been interpreted as an act of aggression against those with ardor
for the resolution.
On 2011-3-23 6:07, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> So why did China abstain, instead of vetoing, the UN Security Council
> resolution?
> --mkb
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:58 AM, E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森 wrote:
>
>> This statement about opposition to use of force and recognition of
>> Sovereignty seems to come directly from Libertarian fundamentals,
>> albeit from a somewhat unexpected source. Given such a "message in a
>> unknown tongue" (in this case, Mandarin Putonghua Chinese) one could
>> hardly refrain from the "amen" given the clear interpretation
>> provided in standard English.
>>
>> When I saw it on CCTV9, I told Dr. Qiao, "Hey, this guy is a
>> Libertarian!" She smiled.
>>
>> BEIJING, March 18 (Xinhua) -- China on Friday said it had serious
>> reservations with part of the latest U.N. resolution on Libya.
>>
>> "We oppose the use of force in international relations and have some
>> serious reservations with part of the resolution," Foreign Ministry
>> spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement on Friday.
>>
>> Jiang's comments came after the United Nations Security Council
>> adopted a resolution which authorized a no-fly zone over Libya Thursday.
>>
>> The resolution also called for "all necessary measures," excluding
>> ground troops, to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas
>> under threat of attack" in Libya, "including Benghazi," a key eastern
>> city currently held by the rebels.
>>
>> "Considering the concern and stance of Arab countries and the Africa
>> Union as well as the special situation in Libya, China and some
>> countries abstained from voting on the draft resolution," Jiang said.
>>
>> Apart from China, Russia, a permanent Council member with veto power,
>> and Brazil, Germany and India, the three non-permanent Council
>> members, also abstained from voting on the draft resolution.
>>
>> "We support the commitment of the UN Secretary General's special
>> envoy for Libya, the Africa Union and Arab League to deal with the
>> current crisis in Libya in a peaceful way," Jiang said.
>>
>> China has always maintained that actions of the UN Security Council
>> should follow the objective and principle of the UN Charter and
>> international laws, respect Libya's sovereignty, independence,
>> unification and territorial integrity, Jiang said.
>>
>> "The current crisis in Libya should be resolved through dialogue and
>> by other peaceful means," Jiang said.
>>
>> "We expect Libya to restore stability at an early date and avoid an
>> escalation of armed conflicts and worsening humanitarian crisis,"
>> Jiang said.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2011-3-23 0:02, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> "[Rep. Ron Paul] said his opposition to the wars in Iraq and
>>> Afghanistan give him an edge over other Republicans and could help
>>> him defeat President Barack Obama in a national election. At CPAC,
>>> Paul drew thunderous applause for bashing the Patriot Act, US aid to
>>> foreign nations, and US military bases overseas during his speech.
>>> The conservative group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) later
>>> announced that he would be expelled from the group's National
>>> Advisory Board because of his 'delusional and disturbing alliance
>>> with the fringe Anti-War movement.'"
>>>
>>> Rep. Ron Paul wins another Republican presidential straw poll
>>> By Eric W. Dolan
>>> March 21, 2011 @ 8:14 pm
>>>
>>> Texas Congressman Ron Paul beat out top Republican presidential
>>> hopefuls Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in a straw poll for the
>>> second time this year.
>>>
>>> Nearly 18 percent of Republicans voted for Rep. Paul in the straw
>>> poll conducted at a GOP Convention in Sacramento on Saturday.
>>>
>>> He was followed by former governor Mitt Romney, who received 10.9
>>> percent of the vote and 2010 president candidate Sarah Palin, who
>>> received 7.9 percent of the vote. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
>>> came in fourth place, with 6.9 percent of the vote.
>>>
>>> The informal survey was conducted by the libertarian-leaning
>>> Republican Liberty Caucus of California [1] (RLCCA).
>>>
>>> "Given that Congressman Paul and the RLC share a common commitment
>>> to individual rights, limited government, free enterprise and
>>> constitutional principles we are happy with the results," RLCCA
>>> Chairman John Dennis said. "In these times of big government and
>>> even bigger deficits, it is exciting to see increased conservative
>>> interest in candidates such as Paul."
>>>
>>> The results of the RLCCA poll reflect another presidential straw
>>> poll conducted at the Conservative Political Action Conference [2]
>>> (CPAC) in February, where Paul took 30 percent of the vote, followed
>>> by Mitt Romney with 23 percent.
>>>
>>> Paul describes himself as a libertarian and is hardly the party's
>>> typical standard bearer.
>>>
>>> He has said his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [3]
>>> give him an edge over other Republicans and could help him defeat
>>> President Barack Obama in a national election.
>>>
>>> At CPAC, Paul drew thunderous applause for bashing the Patriot Act,
>>> US aid to foreign nations, and US military bases overseas during his
>>> speech. The conservative group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)
>>> later announced that he would be expelled from the group's National
>>> Advisory Board because of his "delusional and disturbing alliance
>>> with the fringe Anti-War movement."
>>>
>>> URL to article:
>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/21/rep-ron-paul-wins-another-republican-presidential-straw-poll/
>>>
>>> URLs in this post:
>>>
>>> [1] Republican Liberty Caucus of California:
>>> http://www.rlc.org/2011/03/21/ca-gop-convention/
>>> [2] straw poll conducted at the Conservative Political Action
>>> Conference:
>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/12/ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-poll/
>>> [3] said his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
>>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/congressman-ron-paul-slams-obama-hes-a-warmonger/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/22/11 10:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>> The so-called Tea Party is as we know a mood rather than a
>>>> movement, much less a party, and is even more various than the
>>>> anti-war movement. Unlike the antiwar movement, it has moneyed
>>>> interests (such as the Koch brothers) and traditional political
>>>> groups that re trying to co-opt it.
>>>>
>>>> But we can't simply ignore the anti-war currents within the
>>>> TP/Libertarians, e.g.
>>>>
>>>> ~ the Ron Paul movement: Paul won the straw poll for president at
>>>> both recent CPACs; he's been consistently anti-war,
>>>> anti-intervention, anti-Pentagon.
>>>>
>>>> ~ <antiwar.com <http://antiwar.com>>, one of the best sites on the
>>>> web, is a Libertarian site.
>>>>
>>>> ~ paleo-conservative elements, such as the journal American
>>>> Conservative, have been against the neo-con wars in principle from
>>>> the beginning; Pat Buchanan has attacked the Libyan adventure as
>>>> unconstitutional (which it is).
>>>>
>>>> For the anti-war movement itself, the co-option has already taken
>>>> place, by the Democrats and Obama. We forget that the Democrats
>>>> were given control of Congress in 2006 specifically to end the war,
>>>> as they recognized. The firing of Rumsfeld after the election was
>>>> the administration's recognition of the fact. But the Democrats
>>>> quite consciously and cynically pissed it way - e.g., with
>>>> "timelines" - when they could have de-funded the wars (which
>>>> required only 41 votes in the Senate) in the SE Asia and LA were
>>>> finally defunded. Then the coup-de-grace was provided by Obama's
>>>> smiling lies and the foolish trust that so many people who should
>>>> have known better put in him.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that the antiwar movement of the 1960s grew up in
>>>> opposition to both business parties. There were attempts to co-opt
>>>> it, notably by Robert Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Nixon (whom Obama
>>>> much resembles in this regard) was elected in 1968 as the "peace
>>>> candidate" because in part it was widely believed that he had "a
>>>> secret plan for ending the war."
>>>>
>>>> Events of this week have shown once again how much a new antiwar
>>>> movement of that sort is required. The percent of the population
>>>> opposed to the administration's wars is now about where it was in
>>>> 1968.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Carl
>>>>
>>>> On 3/22/11 9:13 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>>>>> I support what Iraq Veterans Against the War did in Madison on
>>>>> March 12 --- bring the anti-war cause to our natural allies,
>>>>> workers and students /fighting/ the Tea Party. When I was in
>>>>> Madison February 19th, there were about 1,000 Tea Party
>>>>> counter-demonstrators to our 80,000. Those 1,000 Tea Party
>>>>> activists were way more than any of their number ever protesting
>>>>> the war.
>>>>>
>>>>> An anti-war Tea Party movement? Where is it? Fledgling right-wing
>>>>> libertarian groups clearly haven't been that successful in
>>>>> bringing them to the anti-war cause. It's not worth diluting the
>>>>> substance of our opposition to the war to attract a handful of
>>>>> libertarians who are opposed to the war for the wrong reasons and
>>>>> are our enemy on practically every other issue. In the proposed
>>>>> movement to "Stop the War, Stop the Spending," what are
>>>>> left-wingers supposed to say when their right-wing partners attack
>>>>> the poor, bust our unions, and make U.S. capitalism even more
>>>>> savage and inhumane?
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, in the piece below, David Boaz gets the timeline wrong
>>>>> as to when the anti-war movement weakened, and I believe he does
>>>>> it purposefully for political points. The anti-war movement was
>>>>> already seriously weakened by 2006, maybe as early as 2005, as
>>>>> demoralization set in. Surely hopes in a electoral victory played
>>>>> a role, but there was no sudden death of the movement upon Obama's
>>>>> election. If Boaz is going to blame the Democrats for the
>>>>> movement's demise, he should at least get it right. I suspect that
>>>>> he wasn't involved in the anti-war movement back then and wouldn't
>>>>> know what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Corey
>>>>> Bloomington-Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook
>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [From a director of the 'libertarian' Cato Institute.]
>>>>>
>>>>> "...the $64,000 question — though these days it would have to
>>>>> be at least a $64 billion question — could a new antiwar
>>>>> movement hook up with the Tea Party movement in a Stop the
>>>>> War, Stop the Spending revolt?"
>>>>>
>>>>> What Ever Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
>>>>> David Boaz - March 21, 2011
>>>>>
>>>>> About 100 antiwar protesters, including Daniel Ellsberg of
>>>>> Pentagon Papers fame, were arrested Saturday outside the White
>>>>> House in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the
>>>>> U.S.-led war in Iraq. It’s a far cry from the Bush years, when
>>>>> hundreds of thousands or millions marched against the war, and
>>>>> the New York Times declared “world public opinion” against the
>>>>> war a second superpower. Will President Obama‘s military
>>>>> incursion in a third Muslim country revive the antiwar movement?
>>>>>
>>>>> On a street corner in Washington, D.C., outside the Cato
>>>>> Institute, there’s a metal box that controls traffic signals.
>>>>> During the Bush years there was hardly a day that it didn’t
>>>>> sport a poster advertising an antiwar march or simply
>>>>> denouncing President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. But
>>>>> the marches and the posters seemed to stop on election day 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe antiwar organizers assumed that they had elected the man
>>>>> who would stop the war. After all, Barack Obama rose to power
>>>>> on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his
>>>>> promise to end it. But after two years in the White House he
>>>>> has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars.
>>>>>
>>>>> In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, “I will promise you this,
>>>>> that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am
>>>>> president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our
>>>>> troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take
>>>>> that to the bank.” Speaking of Iraq in February 2008,
>>>>> candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I
>>>>> will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our
>>>>> troops home.” The following month, under fire from Hillary
>>>>> Clinton, he reiterated, “I was opposed to this war in 2002….I
>>>>> have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I
>>>>> will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans
>>>>> began to slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic
>>>>> nomination, he also proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that
>>>>> generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our
>>>>> children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, however, he has tripled President Bush’s troop levels
>>>>> in Afghanistan, and we have been fighting there for more than
>>>>> nine years. The Pentagon has declared “the official end to
>>>>> Operation Iraqi Freedom and combat operations by United States
>>>>> forces in Iraq,” but we still have 50,000 troops there, hardly
>>>>> what Senator Obama promised.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now Libya. In various recent polls more than two-thirds of
>>>>> Americans have opposed military intervention in Libya. No
>>>>> doubt many of them voted for President Obama.
>>>>>
>>>>> There’s another issue with the Libyan intervention: the
>>>>> president’s authority to take the country to war without
>>>>> congressional authorization. As many bloggers noted over the
>>>>> weekend, in 2007 Barack Obama told Charlie Savage of the
>>>>> Boston Globe,
>>>>>
>>>>> The President does not have power under the Constitution to
>>>>> unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that
>>>>> does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the
>>>>> nation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Candidate Hillary Clinton spoke similarly:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of
>>>>> course the President must take appropriate action to defend
>>>>> us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to
>>>>> authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take
>>>>> military action – including any kind of strategic bombing –
>>>>> against Iran without congressional authorization.
>>>>>
>>>>> And candidate Joe Biden:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or
>>>>> the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war
>>>>> and the use of force.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine words indeed. Will their supporters call them on their
>>>>> apparent reversal?
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in
>>>>> the United States and around the world was driven as much by
>>>>> antipathy to George W. Bush as by actual opposition to war and
>>>>> intervention. Indeed, a University of Michigan study of
>>>>> antiwar protesters found that Democrats tended to withdraw
>>>>> from antiwar activity as Obama found increasing political
>>>>> success and then took office. Independents and members of
>>>>> third parties came to make up a larger share of a smaller
>>>>> movement. Reason.tv looked at the dwindling antiwar movement
>>>>> two months ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> With his launch of a third military action, President Obama
>>>>> seems to have forgotten a point made by Temple University
>>>>> professor Jan C. Ting: “Wars are easy to begin, but hard to
>>>>> end.” Americans haven’t forgotten, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say that the war in
>>>>> Afghanistan hasn’t been worth fighting, a number that has
>>>>> soared since early 2010. Where are their leaders? Where are
>>>>> the senators pushing for withdrawal? Where are the
>>>>> organizations? Could a new, non-Democratic antiwar movement do
>>>>> to Obama what the mid-2000s movement did to Bush? And the
>>>>> $64,000 question — though these days it would have to be at
>>>>> least a $64 billion question — could a new antiwar movement
>>>>> hook up with the Tea Party movement in a Stop the War, Stop
>>>>> the Spending revolt?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110323/3bbcd523/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list