[Peace-discuss] A new left/right antiwar movement?
"E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"
ewj at pigs.ag
Tue Mar 22 19:39:09 CDT 2011
The "No, No, No, Absolutely No" that would have been my knee-jerk
response was probably too strong a statement. And after all, the
American Pharoahs have proven willing to proceed on their own. Abstain
may have been the most peaceful and quietistic form of No, although a
principled veto directed to the right ventricle seems appropriate to me.
No use to be rude about it. Let the other guy wear the millstone on his
ardourous neck.
On 2011-3-23 7:54, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> --The inscrutable and amoral world of geopolitics/foreign relations.
> The inscrutable oriental mind (?) comes to mind.
>
> On Mar 22, 2011, at 6:28 PM, E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森 wrote:
>
>> 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/20110323/5ba0361e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list