[Peace-discuss] A new left/right antiwar movement?
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Tue Mar 22 22:00:39 CDT 2011
Whom do you mean by "Randists"?
~ followers of Ayn Rand, like Alan Greenspan - responsible for the housing
bubble, but who pointed out (correctly) that the invasion of Iraq was about oil?
~ followers of Ron Paul, by way of reference to his son, Rand Paul?
~ some other movement/group?
On 3/22/11 9:17 PM, Corey Mattson wrote:
> My opposition to a coalition with the Right has little to do with Absolute
> Ideological Purity. This is a straw man argument. I, and others with my view,
> work quite closely with people from my union, progressive organizations,
> veteran's organizations, etc. I'm opposed to such a coalition because it can
> damage the sort of anti-war coalition we should be trying to build - including
> working people, involving unions, racially inclusive, etc. And, frankly, I'm
> not interested in helping the Randists build their movement and be able to put
> forward their own reactionary agenda.
>
> Until we get hundreds of thousands, millions of people, in the streets, the
> wars will continue. I really don't see that coming from the Tea Party, since
> they only protest government spending when it is for human need. As for
> individual Libertarians and Republicans, I believe the strength of our
> movement comes from its independence from business politicians. We shouldn't
> subordinate an anti-war movement to any politicians or party groups, whether
> they be Ron Paul, the Democrats, the Libertarian Party, or MoveOn.
>
> --- Corey
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:39 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson ÖìÎÈÉ" <ewj at pigs.ag
> <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>> wrote:
>
> 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 ÖìÎÈÉ 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 ÖìÎÈÉ 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 ¡ª though these days it would have to
>>>>>>>> be at least a $64 billion question ¡ª 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 ¨C including any kind of strategic bombing ¨C
>>>>>>>> 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 ¡ª
>>>>>>>> though these days it would have to be at least a $64 billion
>>>>>>>> question ¡ª 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110322/89e03bd3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list