[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: Congress: no $$ for war without debate & vote

Tue Nov 18 18:24:47 EST 2014

"You'd pay to know what you really think" - JR ("Bob") Dobbs

Opinion polls seem to be a monitoring system and data device for
the Amerikan propaganda system.

Opinion polls are a sort of post-training assessment tool
that allows the propaganda machine to monitor how well
the populace is taking up the memes, and how
well the memes have become integrated into the response.

The dog salivates on command.
The bell system they say.
Opinion polls ring the bell.
School's out.
The masses drool.

(I think that could be a Haiku with some work.)

Islamic State is perhaps Not just a bunch of good guys poorly understood,
but I can surely understand why they should be angry.

One is hard put to say that those in opposition to Islamic State is
really "better" than Islamic State.

"Movin' on" probably ought to change its name to Shameless.

But perhaps folks know that's what it means.

On 11/19/2014 05:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
> Bob--
>
> You contrast the "ultra-left" with "reform efforts"; the terms are 
> yours, not in general use.
>
> Is it your view that the ultra-left are those who say that the 
> president shouldn't be killing people, but reform efforts disagree and 
> say he just shouldn't be killing so many, or that he should be doing 
> it with Congressional approbation?
>
> In my youth, we didn't say, "Hey, hey, LBJ, you killed too many kids 
> today (you should have killed just enough)."
>
> We should oppose approval for Obama's killing, even if it's backhanded.
>
> Kathy Kelly writes as follows (from the last AWARE leaflet):
>
> ================
> STOP THE KILLING
>
> /“I want to make a special appeal to soldiers, national guardsmen, and 
> policemen: each of you is one of us. The peasants you kill are your 
> own brothers and sisters. When you hear a man telling you to kill, 
> remember God’s words, ‘thou shalt not kill.’ No soldier is obliged to 
> obey a law contrary to the law of God. In the name of God, in the name 
> of our tormented people, I beseech you, I implore you; in the name of 
> God I command you to stop the repression.”
> /--Abp. Óscar Romero of San Salvador, 23 March 1980, the day before he 
> was shot and killed while saying mass - by US-trained 
> paramilitary soldiers, during the Carter administration’s attempt to 
> suppress the revolution in El Salvador
>
> As we approach the nightmare of renewed, expanded US war in Iraq, I 
> think of Archbishop Romero’s words and example. Romero aligned 
> himself, steadily, with the most impoverished people in El Salvador, 
> learning about their plight by listening to them every weekend in the 
> program he hosted on Salvadoran radio. With ringing clarity, he spoke 
> out on their behalf, and he jeopardized his life challenging the 
> elites, the military and the paramilitaries in El Salvador.
>
> I believe we should try very hard to hear the grievances of people in 
> Iraq and the region, including those who have joined the Islamic 
> State, regarding US policies and wars that have radically affected 
> their lives and well-being over the past three decades. It could be 
> that many of the Iraqis who are fighting with Islamic State forces 
> lived through Saddam Hussein’s oppression when he received 
> enthusiastic support from the US during the Iran-Iraq war in the 
> 1980s. Many may be survivors of the US Desert Storm bombing in 
> 1991, which destroyed every electrical facility across Iraq. When the 
> US insisted on imposing crushing and murderous economic sanctions on 
> Iraq for the next 13 years, these sanctions directly contributed to 
> the deaths of a half million children under age five. The children who 
> died should have been teenagers now; are some of the Islamic State 
> fighters the brothers or cousins of the children who were punished to 
> death by economic sanctions? Presumably many of these fighters 
> lived through the US-led 2003 Shock and Awe invasion and bombing of 
> Iraq and the chaos the US chose to create afterwards by using a 
> war-shattered country as some sort of free market experiment; they’ve 
> endured the repressive corruption of the regime the US helped install 
> in Saddam’s place.
> *
> The United Nations should take over the response to the Islamic 
> State, and people should continue to pressure the US and its allies to 
> leave the response not merely to the U.N. but to its most 
> democratic constituent body, the General Assembly.*
>
> But facing the bloody mess that has developed in Iraq and Syria, I 
> think Archbishop Romero’s exhortation to the Salvadoran soldiers 
> pertains directly to US people. Suppose these words were slightly 
> rewritten: I want to make a special appeal to the people of the United 
> States. Each of you is one of us. The peoples you kill are your own 
> brothers and sisters. When you hear a person telling you to kill, 
> remember God’s words, "thou shalt not kill." No soldier is obliged to 
> obey a law contrary to the law of God. In the name of God, in the name 
> of our tormented people, I beseech you, I implore you … I command you 
> to stop the repression.
>
> The war on the Islamic State will distract us from what the US has 
> done and is doing to create further despair, in Iraq, and to enlist 
> new recruits for the Islamic State. The Islamic State is the echo of 
> the last war the US waged in Iraq, the so-called "Shock and Awe" 
> bombing and invasion. *The emergency is not the Islamic State but war.*
>
> We in the US must give up our notions of exceptionalism; recognize the 
> economic and societal misery our country caused in Iraq; recognize 
> that we are a perpetually war-crazed nation; seek to make reparations; 
> and find dramatic, clear ways to insist that Romero’s words be heard: 
> *Stop the killing.*
>
> --Kathy Kelly, 19 October 2014
> [This article first appeared on Telesur English. Kathy Kelly 
> (Kathy at vcnv.org <mailto:Kathy at vcnv.org>) co-coordinates Voices for 
> Creative Nonviolence in Chicago.}
> =======================
>
> ###
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Robert Naiman naiman.uiuc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> [sf-core] 
> <sf-core-noreply at yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:sf-core-noreply at yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Karen,
>>
>> You rationalize ignoring Congress on the grounds that Congress "does 
>> not represent the people." But according to public opinion polls, the 
>> American public supports airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. 
>> If Congress supports airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, then 
>> according to these opinion polls, Congress IS representing the people.
>>
>> If you look around, you will see that people who have a possibility 
>> of achieving something concrete in the political system on other 
>> issues take objective reality as a starting point. It's a symptom of 
>> weakness that the peace movement in the United States doesn't have 
>> strong institutions to try to defend its interests in the political 
>> system, as other reform interests do. In this vacuum, the ideological 
>> ultra-left has more sway. I suspect, in fact, that the ultra-left has 
>> a tendency to cotton to anti-war issues precisely because it's an 
>> arena where ultra-left, anti-reform voices perceive that they can 
>> have more sway. In the labor movement, in the environmental movement, 
>> in the women's rights movement, ultra-left voices are a fly on an 
>> elephant. One can easily ignore them, it's obvious that they have 
>> little hope of significant impact. But in the anti-war movement, 
>> there is no elephant. In this context, a culture has developed of 
>> more indulgence of ultra-left voices, even though they have no more 
>> prospect of accomplishing anything concrete in this arena than 
>> they do in any other arena. These ultra-left voices have a tendency 
>> to try to gain a hearing for themselves by attacking reform efforts, 
>> rather than by organizing their own efforts.
>>
>> Robert Naiman
>> Policy Director
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>> (202) 448-2898 x1
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Karen 
>> Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert, we at AWARE have held monthly demonstrations against war for 
>> a long time, including many in addition to the regular monthly ones. 
>> We also have a table at the market almost every other week throughout 
>> the year disseminating anti-war literature, and on the AWARE tv 
>> program we promote contacting our government leaders in respect to 
>> "war". I have only been involved with AWARE for a year and half, but 
>> others have been active for years, and perhaps could better address 
>> your question.
>> To be clear, I support, sign and circulate most of your petitions, 
>> but though it may appear petti to denigrate this particular one, it 
>> does in essence reflect the divide between the Left in America. That 
>> is, the sense that Congress does not represent the people, but rather 
>> the lobbyists representing the 1%. Yes Obama set a precedent last 
>> year by going to Congress for funding, but its not just about the 
>> funding. The debate tends to be when and how to wage war, how to 
>> finance it, not whether we should have it.
>> Last year Congress successfully refused strikes on Syria, out of mere 
>> opposition to Obama, I congratulate you on your successful efforts at 
>> the time, but this year they have a "perfect villain", to rally 
>> behind in spite of their opposition to the President.
>> The issue should be "no war" period. Not about funding it, there are 
>> always ways around funding.
>>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:03:59 -0600
>> To: karenaram at hotmail.com
>> CC: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; cge at shout.net; sf-core at yahoogroups.com
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Congress: no $$ for war without debate & 
>> vote
>> From: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>
>> I look forward to receiving invitations on this list to future public 
>> activities in Champaign-Urbana on the war attempting to engage 
>> Congress, organized by Carl and Karen.
>>
>> So far, I see nothing going on. Is there a lot of activity going on 
>> in C-U that I don't know about? Why aren't invitations to these 
>> wonderful activities being posted on this list?
>>
>>
>> Robert Naiman
>> Policy Director
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>> (202) 448-2898 x1
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Karen 
>> Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I  agree with Carl, while  I understand how one might feel that going 
>> to war without congressional approval is wrong, and we should request 
>> congressional approval as a matter of process, in hopes that 
>> funding war will be rejected, nonetheless I agree that the "big 
>> picture" requires we insist on no war rather than permission or 
>> funding for war.
>>
>> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:52:11 -0600
>> To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>> CC: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; sf-core at yahoogroups.com; occupy.cu at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Congress: no $$ for war without debate & 
>> vote
>> From: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>
>>
>> We should urge our representative and senators to oppose any funding 
>> for war, period.
>>
>> A Congressional "authorization for the use of force" cannot make mass 
>> murder legal under international law.
>>
>> America's criminal war-making (and provocations of Russia and China) 
>> is in aid of the economic advantage of the American one percent - via 
>> their control of the Eurasian economy - and monstrously dangerous to 
>> the rest of the world, including Americans, who pay for it.
>>
>> We should instead call upon the Congress to institute impeachment 
>> proceedings against the war-makers in the US government, starting 
>> with the President.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Robert Naiman <noreply at list.moveon.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear C. G. Estabrook,
>>
>> The Pentagon has requested $5 billion in new funding for the new war 
>> in Iraq and Syria. But Congress has not yet debated and voted on an 
>> authorization for the use of military force [AUMF] [1], and budget 
>> watchdog groups say the Pentagon can easily find the money in the 
>> massive budgets it already has. [2]
>>
>> Urge your Representative and Senators to oppose any new funding for 
>> war in Iraq and Syria until Congress has debated and voted on an 
>> authorization for the use of force and the Pentagon has explained why 
>> it needs more money on top of the massive budgets it already has, by 
>> signing our petition at MoveOn.
>>
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/no-war-money-without-debate
>>
>> I explained why the idea of Congress giving the Pentagon new tax 
>> dollars for the war before Congress debates and votes on an AUMF is 
>> outrageous six ways from Sunday in a piece at Truthout. You can 
>> read and share that here:
>>
>> http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27478-5-billion-for-iraq-syria-war-three-reasons-to-oppose
>>
>> Here is the text of our petition at MoveOn:
>> "Members of Congress should oppose any new funding for war in Iraq 
>> and Syria until Congress has debated and voted on an Authorization 
>> for the Use of Military Force [AUMF] and the Pentagon has 
>> explained why it needs more money on top of the massive budgets it 
>> already has."
>> Urge your Representative and Senators to stand up for transparency 
>> and accountability by signing and sharing our petition:
>>
>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/no-war-money-without-debate
>>
>> Thanks for all you do to help end, limit, and constrain war using 
>> democracy and the rule of law,
>>
>> Robert Naiman
>> Just Foreign Policy
>>
>> References:
>> 1. “Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine: We're in ISIS war 'without legal 
>> authority,'” Laura Koran and Ashley Killough, CNN, November 12, 
>> 2014,http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/tim-kaine-isis/index.html
>> 2. “The Pentagon's Budget Bamboozle: Lawmakers should look very 
>> closely at the latest Pentagon funding request,” Ryan Alexander, 
>> Taxpayers for Common Sense, U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 12, 
>> 2014, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/11/12/congress-should-look-closely-at-pentagon-overseas-funding-requests 
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20141119/a8a44d5e/attachment-0001.html>