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

Thu Nov 20 23:11:07 EST 2014

"Iraq War III's 'opponents' in Congress are fine with it lasting a few years or more <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO0jLd_MaDM …>"

--David Swanson ‏<@davidcnswanson>

On Nov 19, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:

> Karen--
> 
> Bob encourages support for Obama's war by way of false alternatives. In his article <www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27478-5-billion-for-iraq-syria-war-three-reasons-to-oppose> he writes
> 
> ~ 1. "Do [you] agree with President Obama that US ground troops should not be committed to combat? Or do [you say that] 'boots on the ground' are necessary?"
> 
> The US has ground troops in Iraq, as it has continuously since 2003, but the distinction (between ground troops and air attacks) is not very important. The US fought the Vietnam war without ever committing US ground troops to combat in North Vietnam; we withdrew ground troops from the South after eight years (1965-73); and we still managed to kill 4 million people (including more than 58,000 Americans).
> 
> ~ 2. "Do [you] agree with President Obama that the use of US military force should be limited to confronting ISIS and Al Qaeda? Or do [you] demand that the US military attack the military forces of the Syrian government?"
> 
> The US is doing more than "confronting ISIS and Al Qaeda" - that's the US propaganda line. The US continues to to use mass murder to attempt to control the region with the world's largest concentration of energy resources, gas and oil. The tactical configuration of US military operations varies, but US killing continues. Obama continues to demand the removal of the Syrian government. Russian diplomacy stopped his bombing campaign in Syria a year ago, but now he's conducting it under cover of "confronting ISIS."
> 
> I think Kathy Kelly has got it right:
> 
>      "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 ... 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 ... Stop the killing."
> 
> Noam Chomsky, to the same effect:
> 
>       "There are ways to respond [to ISIS] diplomatically, one conceivable possibility - conceivable - is to act in accordance with the law. There is a [regime?] of international law - that’s in principle: it debars the use of force or the threat of force in international affairs, except under authorization by the UN Security Council. 
>       "A law-abiding state would go to the Security Council, ask for a declaration by the Security Council of a threat to peace, and request the Security Council to organize direct response to it. And that could be done. The U.S. could then participate in it, but so could Iran. Remember, look at the Iraqi Foreign Office, what they want is for Iran to become involved. It’s a major military force. If it did enter it would probably wipe out ISIS in no time. But the U.S. won’t permit that. 
>     "The U.S.-run coalition, which is in violation of basic international law, excludes Iran, excludes the PKK and its affiliates, which apparently are doing the ground-fighting - according to the U.S., they are terrorist group. Turkey, which is closest U.S. ally, is opposed to them. The central U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia - that’s been the source of funding, the main source of the funding of ISIS, but also it’s the ideological source. It’s the Wahabi-Salafi extremists, that’s radical Islamic doctrines, which are kind of a fringe of Islam. in Saudi Arabia - a fringe of that radical doctrine is ISIS. So, this coalition is kind of a meaningless coalition, apart from being illegal. There would be ways of handling - at least approaching - the problem legally, which could work."
> 
> Instead, American liberals continue to support Obama's war, pretending as he does that he's "not really doing it." They should oppose it instead. 
> 
> --CGE
> 
> 
> On Nov 19, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
>> I think there are two different issues here. 
>> One issue is the amount of power that has been taken away from the people affected by the decisions.
>> The other issue is war and the legality of war.
>> 
>> Robert is correct in calling for people to act on the first issue.
>> 
>> -Karen Evans Medina Levy
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>> 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 
>>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20141120/85f7698b/attachment.html>