From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 1 01:35:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 01:35:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The latest from Standing Rock, brace yourselves Message-ID: Update from Standing Rock volunteer- Deborah MacKay Friends, I have returned from Standing Rock with my mind blown, my heart broken and my spirit troubled with foreboding of a deepening tragedy. Volunteering as a legal observer with the Water Protector Legal Collective I witnessed several confrontations between Water Protectors (WP) and law enforcement: national guard, sheriffs and private security (LE). On 1/18/17 - 1/19/17 I observed WP with their hands in the air chanting “hands up don’t shoot” being fired upon at a range of 10 to 15 feet. Tear gas canisters and rubber bullets ( rubber bullets are regular bullets covered in rubber) were used against unarmed WP who had been singing and praying. I observed national guard chasing WP off the Backwater bridge, firing at people running away. I heard people choking and gagging from tear gas. I saw access to the WP medic vehicles being blocked. I spoke with medics and WP who described bullets penetrating flesh and causing terrible injuries, including to one media person who nearly lost his finger when his camera was targeted. I talked with a media person and was told of 4 media people on the bridge that night, 3 had their recording devices shot and the 4th, his hand. I saw a photo of a sheriff aiming a rifle directly at a media woman who was standing apart from the crowd. I heard testimony of the back of the medic pickup truck being awash in blood after evacuating wounded. I watched, and then, inadvertently became a part of, WP being forced off the bridge by national guard who were hiding behind WP vehicles parked along the road and firing rubber bullets at fleeing people. Many people were shot in the back, the neck, the head. When LE fired at people at close range, many were shot in the genitals or in the face. I received information about DAPL security breaching the short wave radio channels of the WP with taunts such as ”come out and fight like men you faggots or we will come to Camp and fuck your women.” There are some young warriors, who, without the support of their elders, many who want the camps cleared to mitigate the economic and social damage being suffered by the local community in having the bridge closed, have vowed to not leave the camps or to let the last section of pipeline be built. Driving away from the area on Monday I saw a convoy of construction vehicles heading to the drill pad. Last night an indigenous website live streamed reports of drilling and construction noises coming from the drill pad. Without the eyes of a free press these attacks and trespasses continue, with the human rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples denied. The UN Committee on Transnational Corporations and Human Right Abuses was in Standing Rock this week to take testimony of the many transgressions against people: crop dusters spraying poison pesticides and fertilizers on the camps; hair samples indicating the presence of these chemicals; people who have been injured, beat up, arrested, strip searched; media and medics being targeted by snipers; (one medic told me he stopped wearing his Red Cross vest due to medics being targeted); praying people being attacked and the refusal of DAPL and our government to abide by the Rule of Law. The vets who came in Dec to stand down against these crimes need to be on the ground there now, right now. We need to stand up for our brothers and our sisters, for their way of life and, I believe, for our social contract as a democracy which is now threatened. Please share this so word gets out what is happening, thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 1 01:35:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 01:35:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The latest from Standing Rock, brace yourselves Message-ID: Update from Standing Rock volunteer- Deborah MacKay Friends, I have returned from Standing Rock with my mind blown, my heart broken and my spirit troubled with foreboding of a deepening tragedy. Volunteering as a legal observer with the Water Protector Legal Collective I witnessed several confrontations between Water Protectors (WP) and law enforcement: national guard, sheriffs and private security (LE). On 1/18/17 - 1/19/17 I observed WP with their hands in the air chanting “hands up don’t shoot” being fired upon at a range of 10 to 15 feet. Tear gas canisters and rubber bullets ( rubber bullets are regular bullets covered in rubber) were used against unarmed WP who had been singing and praying. I observed national guard chasing WP off the Backwater bridge, firing at people running away. I heard people choking and gagging from tear gas. I saw access to the WP medic vehicles being blocked. I spoke with medics and WP who described bullets penetrating flesh and causing terrible injuries, including to one media person who nearly lost his finger when his camera was targeted. I talked with a media person and was told of 4 media people on the bridge that night, 3 had their recording devices shot and the 4th, his hand. I saw a photo of a sheriff aiming a rifle directly at a media woman who was standing apart from the crowd. I heard testimony of the back of the medic pickup truck being awash in blood after evacuating wounded. I watched, and then, inadvertently became a part of, WP being forced off the bridge by national guard who were hiding behind WP vehicles parked along the road and firing rubber bullets at fleeing people. Many people were shot in the back, the neck, the head. When LE fired at people at close range, many were shot in the genitals or in the face. I received information about DAPL security breaching the short wave radio channels of the WP with taunts such as ”come out and fight like men you faggots or we will come to Camp and fuck your women.” There are some young warriors, who, without the support of their elders, many who want the camps cleared to mitigate the economic and social damage being suffered by the local community in having the bridge closed, have vowed to not leave the camps or to let the last section of pipeline be built. Driving away from the area on Monday I saw a convoy of construction vehicles heading to the drill pad. Last night an indigenous website live streamed reports of drilling and construction noises coming from the drill pad. Without the eyes of a free press these attacks and trespasses continue, with the human rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples denied. The UN Committee on Transnational Corporations and Human Right Abuses was in Standing Rock this week to take testimony of the many transgressions against people: crop dusters spraying poison pesticides and fertilizers on the camps; hair samples indicating the presence of these chemicals; people who have been injured, beat up, arrested, strip searched; media and medics being targeted by snipers; (one medic told me he stopped wearing his Red Cross vest due to medics being targeted); praying people being attacked and the refusal of DAPL and our government to abide by the Rule of Law. The vets who came in Dec to stand down against these crimes need to be on the ground there now, right now. We need to stand up for our brothers and our sisters, for their way of life and, I believe, for our social contract as a democracy which is now threatened. Please share this so word gets out what is happening, thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 1 16:59:34 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:59:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps nominee for justice to the US Supreme Court Message-ID: Trump nominates ultra-right justice to US Supreme Court By Patrick Martin 1 February 2017 President Donald Trump has chosen an ultra-right acolyte of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to fill the vacancy created by Scalia’s death a year ago, nominating Neil Gorsuch, a federal appellate judge from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, Colorado. Trump unveiled the nomination in a prime-time television production Tuesday night that had been hyped for several days but seemed anticlimactic, lasting only 15 minutes. The former reality television impresario sought to build suspense for the event by inviting the two “finalists” to Washington for the occasion, although he did not complete the degrading spectacle by forcing the runner-up, Judge Thomas Hardiman of the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania, to make an appearance. Gorsuch has all the right-wing credentials to be Trump’s selection. He is a reliable vote against abortion and for all manner of legal privileges and exemptions for religious groups and institutions; he is a proven defender of the police against democratic rights; and he has sided with businesses against consumers and workers in the vast majority of such cases he heard. The judge comes from right-wing Republican stock. His mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was appointed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, and given the task of dismantling antipollution regulations. When the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives sought EPA records of how money in the so-called Superfund for cleaning up toxic waste was being spent, Gorsuch defied congressional subpoenas, was cited for contempt and was eventually forced to resign. The newly nominated justice describes himself as an “originalist” and a “textualist,” both terms embraced by Scalia, the longtime leader of the reactionary bloc on the Supreme Court. These terms were employed to give Scalia’s ultra-right jurisprudence a constitutional gloss, but they did not denote any intellectually consistent approach. Scalia’s method was entirely arbitrary: in cases of critical importance to the ruling class, he would start from the desired outcome, and work backwards to the necessary premises, while claiming to discern in the original text of the constitution, written in 1789, a literal meaning applicable to issues in a vastly more complex, mass society. The most notorious example of this cynical approach was the 5-4-majority decision in Bush v. Gore, which halted the vote counting in Florida and awarded the 2000 presidential election to the Republican. Scalia invented an “equal protection” argument, supposedly rooted in the 14th Amendment but not raised by lawyers for either side, and which the court majority declared should be applied only once. The result of Scalia’s initiative was to install as president the candidate who lost the popular vote by half a million votes. Now Scalia’s replacement is being selected by a president who lost the popular vote by a much wider margin, nearly three million votes. Besides his professed admiration for Scalia, Gorsuch has another, equally reactionary judicial mentor. In his brief remarks accepting the nomination, he cited the great honor of having clerked for appellate court judge David Sentelle, now semi-retired. Sentelle was named to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second-highest US court, by Ronald Reagan, with arch-reactionary US Senator Jesse Helms as his principal sponsor. Sentelle would go on to form part of the 2-1 decision in 1990 quashing all charges against the two main conspirators in the Iran-Contra affair, Lt. Col. Oliver North and Admiral John Poindexter, who ran and oversaw the illegal Reagan administration effort to arm the Contra terrorists fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Four years later, Sentelle headed a three-member special judicial panel that decided to remove independent counsel Robert Fiske, who had been appointed to investigate charges against President Bill Clinton involving the Whitewater real estate deal, and had found no basis for any criminal prosecution. Fiske was replaced by Kenneth Starr, former Reagan solicitor general and a ferocious ultra-right partisan, who transformed the independent counsel probe into a five-year witch-hunt that culminated in Clinton’s impeachment. By citing both Scalia and Sentelle in his remarks, Gorsuch was sending a clear message to the ultra-right wing of the Republican Party: He may have spoken softly and diplomatically to the television audience in accepting the nomination, but he has learned his trade at the feet of experienced and deeply reactionary judicial operatives. In his ten years on the appeals court, Gorsuch has had several cases involving bogus claims of religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act mandate that employers provide health plans that include birth-control coverage. He was part of the right-wing majority in the Hobby Lobby case, later upheld 5-4 by the Supreme Court, in which the evangelical family that owned the company claimed that it would violate their religious beliefs to allow their employees to have insurance coverage that included birth control. The Supreme Court has been operating with only eight justices instead of nine for the past year because Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings or take a vote on the nomination of Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland, the right-wing Democrat nominated by Barack Obama last March. Their purpose was to keep the vacancy open in case a Republican should win the presidential election and be able to fill it. Neither Obama nor the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, made any serious effort to force a vote on Garland and, given his right-wing, pro-business record, there was little popular support or even interest in the issue. Senate Democrats are expected to proceed in a similarly spineless and cowardly fashion in relation to the Gorsuch nomination. He will receive all the courtesies of the Senate, including private meetings with key Democrats, a rubber stamp from the Judiciary Committee, and enough Democratic votes to insure his installation as the ninth member of the court. While Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has threatened a filibuster, and the rhetoric has been amplified in the wake of mass protests against Trump’s executive order banning refugees and visitors from seven majority-Muslim countries, this is entirely for show. When George W. Bush nominated Gorsuch for a seat on the Tenth Circuit in 2006, not a single Democratic senator voted against him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Feb 1 18:08:06 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:08:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Motivated Reasoning: A Philosopher On Confirmation Bias References: Message-ID: a.k.a. bigotry, in more advanced cases From: NPR > Subject: NPR.org - Motivated Reasoning: A Philosopher On Confirmation Bias Date: February 1, 2017 at 11:43:16 AM CST To: > r-szoke at illinois.edu has sent you the following story: Motivated Reasoning: A Philosopher On Confirmation Bias [NPR] Ron thought you would be interested in this story Message: F Y I Motivated Reasoning: A Philosopher On Confirmation Bias Jonathan Ellis, a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, talks about confirmation bias and its impact on our daily lives. Read this story This email was sent by: NPR,1111 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC, 20002, United States. This message was sent to r-szoke at illinois.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 1 18:10:33 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:10:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war flyer for Saturday Message-ID: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/15420933_10208540622932903_4873907131868161648_n.jpg?oh=61fd172e7c348c30e014a218835286fb&oe=5913A299] Carl G. Estabrook 9 mins [Text of a flyer prepared for distribution at the regular monthly AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 4 Feb., 2-4pm, Main & Neil in Champaign; editorial suggestions welcome.] ============================= NO MUSLIM BAN! NO CHINA WAR! President Trump must break with the policies of his predecessors. “I and the public know / What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.” --W. H. Auden [1] NO MUSLIM BAN. President Trump’s restrictions on entry to the US - designed to lessen the chance of terrorist attacks on Americans - are approved by a majority of Americans, but he is going about it in the wrong way. “In War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?” (2002), William Blum, former State Department employee and historian of US interventions, puts it as follows: “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize - very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions - including the awful bombings - have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but – oddly enough – a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions...” [2] NO CHINA WAR. A war between the greatest military power and the world's second largest economy is no longer unthinkable. The media is beating the drums of war as the world is being primed to regard China as a new enemy. The disputed islands in the South China Sea have become a flashpoint for war between China and America. American bases form a giant noose encircling China with missiles, bombers, warships all the way from Australia through the Pacific to Asia and beyond. A stereotype of communist dictatorship is widely spread by the US, preventing from understanding China as it is. The Chinese government is not trying to run the world. They want to keep America from dominating the region. The US massive military build-up is known in Washington as the ‘pivot to Asia’. The target is China. President Obama in 2011 said that creating an American presence in the Asia Pacific was his "top priority.” For America's unchallenged arms industry, the annual prize is huge profits from almost $600 billion of military spending - but the smartest weapons need enemies. With the current situation in the South China Sea, the danger of confrontation grows by the day. [3] ANTI-WAR GROUPS HERE & ABROAD CALL ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, human rights, and respect for the sovereignty of other nations; end war provocations In Europe and Asia; ~ (2) end the wars (in the Mideast and elsewhere) and stop US drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut US military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring US troops (and weapons) home; and withdraw US ‘special forces’ - death squads - sent into 70% of the world’s countries; ~ (4) stop US support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at “AWARE of Champaign Urbana Illinois” ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cge at shout.net Wed Feb 1 18:14:32 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:14:32 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for Saturday's AWARE peace demonstration Message-ID: <385a6c15ad44583efa0bb9c3eecb4c7a@shout.net> [Text of a flyer prepared for distribution at the regular monthly AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 4 February, 2-4pm, Main & Neil in Champaign; editorial suggestions welcome.] ============================= NO MUSLIM BAN! NO CHINA WAR! President Trump must break with the policies of his predecessors. “I and the public know / What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.” --W. H. Auden [1] NO MUSLIM BAN. President Trump’s restrictions on entry to the US - designed to lessen the chance of terrorist attacks on Americans - are approved by a majority of Americans, but he is going about it in the wrong way. In "War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?” (2002), William Blum, former State Department employee and historian of US interventions, puts it as follows: “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize - very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions - including the awful bombings - have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but – oddly enough – a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions...” [2] NO CHINA WAR. A war between the greatest military power and the world's second largest economy is no longer unthinkable. The media is beating the drums of war as the world is being primed to regard China as a new enemy. The disputed islands in the South China Sea have become a flashpoint for war between China and America. American bases form a giant noose encircling China with missiles, bombers, warships all the way from Australia through the Pacific to Asia and beyond. A stereotype of communist dictatorship is widely spread by the US, preventing from understanding China as it is. The Chinese government is not trying to run the world. They want to keep America from dominating the region. The US massive military build-up is known in Washington as the ‘pivot to Asia’. The target is China. President Obama in 2011 said that creating an American presence in the Asia Pacific was his "top priority.” For America's unchallenged arms industry, the annual prize is huge profits from almost $600 billion of military spending - but the smartest weapons need enemies. With the current situation in the South China Sea, the danger of confrontation grows by the day. [3] ANTI-WAR GROUPS HERE & ABROAD CALL ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, human rights, and respect for the sovereignty of other nations; end war provocations In Europe and Asia; ~ (2) end the wars (in the Mideast and elsewhere) and stop US drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut US military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring US troops (and weapons) home; and withdraw US ‘special forces’ - death squads - sent into 70% of the world’s countries; ~ (4) stop US support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at “AWARE of Champaign Urbana Illinois” ================================================================================= From brussel at illinois.edu Thu Feb 2 02:49:28 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 02:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war flyer for Saturday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2BEF4A41-956D-47DE-A3B0-6F8781971FAD@illinois.edu> This is a fine cogent statement, I might also add, were there space, that the threat of war is perhaps greatest with respect to Iran, not to speak of the unresolved conflict in Ukraine, a failed state propped up by the U.S. and its NATO clients. On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/15420933_10208540622932903_4873907131868161648_n.jpg?oh=61fd172e7c348c30e014a218835286fb&oe=5913A299] Carl G. Estabrook 9 mins [Text of a flyer prepared for distribution at the regular monthly AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 4 Feb., 2-4pm, Main & Neil in Champaign; editorial suggestions welcome.] ============================= NO MUSLIM BAN! NO CHINA WAR! President Trump must break with the policies of his predecessors. “I and the public know / What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.” --W. H. Auden [1] NO MUSLIM BAN. President Trump’s restrictions on entry to the US - designed to lessen the chance of terrorist attacks on Americans - are approved by a majority of Americans, but he is going about it in the wrong way. “In War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?” (2002), William Blum, former State Department employee and historian of US interventions, puts it as follows: “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize - very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions - including the awful bombings - have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but – oddly enough – a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions...” [2] NO CHINA WAR. A war between the greatest military power and the world's second largest economy is no longer unthinkable. The media is beating the drums of war as the world is being primed to regard China as a new enemy. The disputed islands in the South China Sea have become a flashpoint for war between China and America. American bases form a giant noose encircling China with missiles, bombers, warships all the way from Australia through the Pacific to Asia and beyond. A stereotype of communist dictatorship is widely spread by the US, preventing from understanding China as it is. The Chinese government is not trying to run the world. They want to keep America from dominating the region. The US massive military build-up is known in Washington as the ‘pivot to Asia’. The target is China. President Obama in 2011 said that creating an American presence in the Asia Pacific was his "top priority.” For America's unchallenged arms industry, the annual prize is huge profits from almost $600 billion of military spending - but the smartest weapons need enemies. With the current situation in the South China Sea, the danger of confrontation grows by the day. [3] ANTI-WAR GROUPS HERE & ABROAD CALL ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, human rights, and respect for the sovereignty of other nations; end war provocations In Europe and Asia; ~ (2) end the wars (in the Mideast and elsewhere) and stop US drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut US military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring US troops (and weapons) home; and withdraw US ‘special forces’ - death squads - sent into 70% of the world’s countries; ~ (4) stop US support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at “AWARE of Champaign Urbana Illinois” ### _______________________________________________ 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: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Feb 2 04:41:44 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:41:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war flyer for Saturday In-Reply-To: <2BEF4A41-956D-47DE-A3B0-6F8781971FAD@illinois.edu> References: <2BEF4A41-956D-47DE-A3B0-6F8781971FAD@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <8A0A9057-DA68-42C7-9665-A63524C01569@illinois.edu> Thanks, Mort. I agree about Iran - and the connected matters of the KSA & Yemen - but US policy seems unclear, despite Flynn’s ’notice’ today (& worrisome contacts with/comments on KSA). As Karen described on AWARE ON THE AIR yesterday, the Heavy Thinkers on US fp (mainly Kissinger) are doing ‘divide-et-impera’ dances around Iran-Russia-China, but the administration hasn't quite figured out who’s naughty and who’s nice. (Altho’ the phone call with Putin suggests the US wants the other two to be considered naughty.) Hard to get this into a brief flyer, especially when it seems that the administration hasn’t made up its collective mind (or Steve Bannon’s?) yet. And Porky’s killing more people, to try to get DC’s attention - but MSM has so poisoned the Ukrainian wells that we dassen't drink… —CGE > On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This is a fine cogent statement, I might also add, were there space, that the threat of war is perhaps greatest with respect to Iran, not to speak of the unresolved conflict in Ukraine, a failed state propped up by the U.S. and its NATO clients. > > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Carl G. Estabrook >> 9 mins >> [Text of a flyer prepared for distribution at the regular monthly AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 4 Feb., 2-4pm, Main & Neil in Champaign; editorial suggestions welcome.] >> ============================= >> NO MUSLIM BAN! NO CHINA WAR! >> President Trump must break with the policies of his predecessors. >> “I and the public know / What all schoolchildren learn, >> Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.” --W. H. Auden >> [1] NO MUSLIM BAN. President Trump’s restrictions on entry to the US - designed to lessen the chance of terrorist attacks on Americans - are approved by a majority of Americans, but he is going about it in the wrong way. “In War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?” (2002), William Blum, former State Department employee and historian of US interventions, puts it as follows: >> “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize - very publicly and very sincerely - to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions - including the awful bombings - have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but – oddly enough – a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions...” >> [2] NO CHINA WAR. A war between the greatest military power and the world's second largest economy is no longer unthinkable. The media is beating the drums of war as the world is being primed to regard China as a new enemy. The disputed islands in the South China Sea have become a flashpoint for war between China and America. American bases form a giant noose encircling China with missiles, bombers, warships all the way from Australia through the Pacific to Asia and beyond. >> A stereotype of communist dictatorship is widely spread by the US, preventing from understanding China as it is. The Chinese government is not trying to run the world. They want to keep America from dominating the region. >> The US massive military build-up is known in Washington as the ‘pivot to Asia’. The target is China. President Obama in 2011 said that creating an American presence in the Asia Pacific was his "top priority.” For America's unchallenged arms industry, the annual prize is huge profits from almost $600 billion of military spending - but the smartest weapons need enemies. With the current situation in the South China Sea, the danger of confrontation grows by the day. >> [3] ANTI-WAR GROUPS HERE & ABROAD CALL ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TO >> ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, human rights, and respect for the sovereignty of other nations; end war provocations In Europe and Asia; >> ~ (2) end the wars (in the Mideast and elsewhere) and stop US drone assassinations; >> ~ (3) cut US military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring US troops (and weapons) home; and withdraw US ‘special forces’ - death squads - sent into 70% of the world’s countries; >> ~ (4) stop US support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and >> ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. >> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at “AWARE of Champaign Urbana Illinois” >> ### >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 12:44:12 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:44:12 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ask Congress for hearings into botched raid in Yemen Message-ID: Done without sufficient intel, support, or backup plan, T-Rump ordered counter-terrorism raid that killed one American soldier and several Yemeni civilians. Ask Congress to hold hearings and hold POTUS responsible. Deb Sent from my iPhone From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Feb 2 13:45:40 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:45:40 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ask Congress for hearings into botched raid in Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10352116-4E3E-49E6-9296-5FEA6344005E@illinois.edu> > Was the US military's primary purpose in this action to enmesh the new administration into the murderous (and illegal) policies of the old one? "Both the New York Times and Reuters carried quotes from unnamed military officials that seemed to shift blame for the mission to Trump and his inner team. It would be an extraordinary development for a president, who is commander-in-chief, to be briefed against in such detail... "US military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations. "The mission had been prepared under the Obama administration but it had not been approved. "The civilian dead included an eight-year-old girl, Nawar al-Awlaki, according to her family, who may have been an US citizen. Her father was al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a September 2011 US drone strike in Yemen. "The Centcom statement, said: 'A team designated by the operational task force commander has concluded that civilian noncombatants likely were killed in the midst of a firefight during a 29 January raid in Yemen, and that casualties may include children. “'The known possible civilian casualties appear to have been potentially caught up in aerial gunfire that was called in to assist US forces in contact against a determined enemy that included armed women firing from prepared fighting positions and US special operations members receiving fire from all sides, including from houses and other buildings.' "Centcom insisted the raid resulted in the seizure of material and information that is providing valuable intelligence. "US Air Force colonel John Thomas said: 'Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has a horrifying history of hiding women and children within militant operating areas and terrorist camps, and continuously shows a callous disregard for innocent lives. That’s what makes cases like these so especially tragic' [sic]…" —CGE > On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Done without sufficient intel, support, or backup plan, T-Rump ordered counter-terrorism raid that killed one American soldier and several Yemeni civilians. > > Ask Congress to hold hearings and hold POTUS responsible. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > 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: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Feb 2 14:58:14 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:58:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ask Congress for hearings into botched raid in Yemen In-Reply-To: <10352116-4E3E-49E6-9296-5FEA6344005E@illinois.edu> References: <10352116-4E3E-49E6-9296-5FEA6344005E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Al Qaeda, and the US government show disregard for the lives of anyone who is in their way. Civilians, including women and children are targets whether collateral damage or not. There is no excuse for the US to be waging war on the poorest nation in the world, where thousands are starved to death because they can’t get aid, food, or water. Those we or our proxies, the Saudi’s don’t bomb, we starve. The Obama Administration has been conducting these atrocities for years, whether with our troops or by support with weapons, training, logistics, to the Saudi’s or “rebel groups, moderate terrorists” whoever carries out our goals of “regime change” and destruction. The American people have slept and ignored all. It is now however, as of January 20th, on Trumps watch, he and his administration are now responsible. We listened for eight years to people excusing Obama, “he’s such a nice guy, he really wants peace, he’s cool and says nice things, they make him do it,” blah, blah, propaganda. No more, the mask is off, with Trump the US must take responsibility, no excuses, for “our” actions. On Feb 2, 2017, at 05:45, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Was the US military's primary purpose in this action to enmesh the new administration into the murderous (and illegal) policies of the old one? "Both the New York Times and Reuters carried quotes from unnamed military officials that seemed to shift blame for the mission to Trump and his inner team. It would be an extraordinary development for a president, who is commander-in-chief, to be briefed against in such detail... "US military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations. "The mission had been prepared under the Obama administration but it had not been approved. "The civilian dead included an eight-year-old girl, Nawar al-Awlaki, according to her family, who may have been an US citizen. Her father was al-Qaida propagandist and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a September 2011 US drone strike in Yemen. "The Centcom statement, said: 'A team designated by the operational task force commander has concluded that civilian noncombatants likely were killed in the midst of a firefight during a 29 January raid in Yemen, and that casualties may include children. “'The known possible civilian casualties appear to have been potentially caught up in aerial gunfire that was called in to assist US forces in contact against a determined enemy that included armed women firing from prepared fighting positions and US special operations members receiving fire from all sides, including from houses and other buildings.' "Centcom insisted the raid resulted in the seizure of material and information that is providing valuable intelligence. "US Air Force colonel John Thomas said: 'Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has a horrifying history of hiding women and children within militant operating areas and terrorist camps, and continuously shows a callous disregard for innocent lives. That’s what makes cases like these so especially tragic' [sic]…" —CGE On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss > wrote: Done without sufficient intel, support, or backup plan, T-Rump ordered counter-terrorism raid that killed one American soldier and several Yemeni civilians. Ask Congress to hold hearings and hold POTUS responsible. Deb Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Feb 2 19:21:33 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:21:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump References: <58937712.000001C0@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: This is the most plausible commentary on the 2016 national election I have seen. Subject: NYTimes.com: The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump Date: February 2, 2017 at 12:14:42 PM CST To: > Reply-To: > Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [cid:B7470A73-4A69-4B33-ABED-333884FC28A4] [cid:6AF830CF-5EAF-409F-85F3-44AA1E783B31] CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump BY THOMAS B. EDSALL All wars have unintended consequences, including culture wars. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2k2vcjh Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect at nytimes.com to your address book. ADVERTISEMENT Note the relative absence of the usual bluffing, faking & pontificating about “the real issue,” or what made any group of voters vote the way they did. Here, it was more cultural (“values”) than economic, but they were of course intertwined. We saw another example of how the “little people,” looking for a national savior or political messiah, will turn to an authoritarian "strong man” or caudillo instead of socialism. I think an unspeakable issue underneath all the complaints about “political correctness” was resentment of all the fierce talk about “white privilege,” while all they could perceive was “black privilege”: affirmative action, welfare entitlements, special exemptions, etc. ~~ Ron [cid:57B459EE-1146-49C2-8BE4-9E4FC4D93E46][cid:A941DAA7-3EA4-4070-BBB9-60FE351E48FE] [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1486059282172003®i_id=0] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nytlogo194x27.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3762 bytes Desc: nytlogo194x27.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 02edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3598 bytes Desc: 02edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thanks for Donald!.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 111745 bytes Desc: Thanks for Donald!.jpeg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thanks, Jesus!.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 93221 bytes Desc: Thanks, Jesus!.jpeg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Feb 2 20:35:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 20:35:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <58937712.000001C0@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com>, Message-ID: Right and the lack of jobs, the poverty inaccessible opportunities had nothing to do with it .. Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone. ------ Original message------ From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 1:22 PM To: Peace-discuss AWARE; Subject:[Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump This is the most plausible commentary on the 2016 national election I have seen. Subject: NYTimes.com: The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump Date: February 2, 2017 at 12:14:42 PM CST To: > Reply-To: > Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [cid:B7470A73-4A69-4B33-ABED-333884FC28A4] [cid:6AF830CF-5EAF-409F-85F3-44AA1E783B31] CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump BY THOMAS B. EDSALL All wars have unintended consequences, including culture wars. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2k2vcjh Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect at nytimes.com to your address book. ADVERTISEMENT Note the relative absence of the usual bluffing, faking & pontificating about "the real issue," or what made any group of voters vote the way they did. Here, it was more cultural ("values") than economic, but they were of course intertwined. We saw another example of how the "little people," looking for a national savior or political messiah, will turn to an authoritarian "strong man" or caudillo instead of socialism. I think an unspeakable issue underneath all the complaints about "political correctness" was resentment of all the fierce talk about "white privilege," while all they could perceive was "black privilege": affirmative action, welfare entitlements, special exemptions, etc. ~~ Ron [cid:57B459EE-1146-49C2-8BE4-9E4FC4D93E46][cid:A941DAA7-3EA4-4070-BBB9-60FE351E48FE] [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1486059282172003®i_id=0] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nytlogo194x27.gif Type: image/gif Size: 3762 bytes Desc: nytlogo194x27.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 02edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3598 bytes Desc: 02edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thanks for Donald!.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 111745 bytes Desc: Thanks for Donald!.jpeg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Thanks, Jesus!.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 93221 bytes Desc: Thanks, Jesus!.jpeg URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Feb 2 20:54:44 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:54:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <58937712.000001C0@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: And identity politics seems to be re-christened “postmaterialism” - which strangely increases throughout the 40 years of neoliberalism (ca. 1975-presetn), while wages (increasing 1945-75) are flat, inequality grows at an accelerating rate, and the life chances of the majority are reduced, in comparison with their parents’ generation. > On Feb 2, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Right and the lack of jobs, the poverty inaccessible opportunities had nothing to do with it .. > > Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone. > > ------ Original message------ > From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 1:22 PM > To: Peace-discuss AWARE; > Subject:[Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump > > This is the most plausible commentary on the 2016 national election I have seen. > >> Subject: NYTimes.com: The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump >> Date: February 2, 2017 at 12:14:42 PM CST >> To: >> Reply-To: >> >> >> Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: >> <02edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg> >> CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER >> The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump >> BY THOMAS B. EDSALL >> >> All wars have unintended consequences, including culture wars. >> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2k2vcjh >> Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options >> To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect at nytimes.com to your address book. >> ADVERTISEMENT >> > Note the relative absence of the usual bluffing, faking & pontificating about “the real issue,” or what made any group of voters > vote the way they did. Here, it was more cultural (“values”) than economic, but they were of course intertwined. > > We saw another example of how the “little people,” looking for a national savior or political messiah, will turn to an authoritarian "strong man” > or caudillo instead of socialism. I think an unspeakable issue underneath all the complaints about “political correctness” was resentment of all the fierce talk > about “white privilege,” while all they could perceive was “black privilege”: affirmative action, welfare entitlements, special exemptions, etc. > ~~ Ron > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 22:53:29 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 22:53:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <58937712.000001C0@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: <1698245296.3458663.1486076009819@mail.yahoo.com> Somehow, when many of the top 10% in income were turning their attention to post-materialism and personal fulfillment, reflecting the Maslow hierarchy of needs, as noted by one commenter to the Edsall article, the share of national income garnered by that 10% increased from 30 to 40%, from 1980-2014. It's amazing what the wealthy can accomplish without trying. But, also as noted by Piketty/Saez/Zucman, from whom this data derives, while labor income drove inequality during the 80s and 90s, capital income has largely driven it in this century, to the point where 2/3 of the income of the 1% is derived from investments. So, you see, there is plenty of time to climb the Maslow hierarchy while the wealthy increasingly live off their investments. But they do have to take time out, whichever party is in power, to ensure that the policies and regulations/deregulations continue to maintain or increase their piece of the pie. And of course, the "white populists" are denigrated for not getting with the cultural program. If you can stand it, here is the abstract for the research on which Edsall based his article: Rising support for populist parties has disrupted the politics of many Western societies. What explains this phenomenon? Two theories are examined here. Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism -- the economic insecurity perspective -- emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies. Alternatively, the cultural backlash thesis suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change. To consider these arguments, Part I develops the conceptual and theoretical framework. Part II of the study uses the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) to identify the ideological location of 268 political parties in 31 European countries. Part III compares the pattern of European party competition at national-level. Part IV uses the pooled European Social Survey 1-6 (2002-2014) to examine the cross-national evidence at individual level for the impact of the economic insecurity and cultural values as predictors of voting for populist parties. Part V summarizes the key findings and considers their implications. Overall, we find the most consistent evidence supporting the cultural backlash thesis. Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash by Ronald Inglehart, Pippa Norris :: SSRN | | | | | | | | | | | Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Ba... Rising support for populist parties has disrupted the politics of many Western societies. What explains this phe... | | | | On Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:07 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: And identity politics seems to be re-christened “postmaterialism” - which strangely increases throughout the 40 years of neoliberalism (ca. 1975-presetn), while wages (increasing 1945-75) are flat, inequality grows at an accelerating rate, and the life chances of the majority are reduced, in comparison with their parents’ generation. > On Feb 2, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Right and the lack of jobs, the poverty inaccessible opportunities had nothing to do with it .. > > Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone. > > ------ Original message------ > From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 1:22 PM > To: Peace-discuss AWARE; > Subject:[Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump > > This is the most plausible commentary on the 2016 national election I have seen. > >> Subject: NYTimes.com: The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump >> Date: February 2, 2017 at 12:14:42 PM CST >> To: >> Reply-To: >> >>  >> Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu:    >> <02edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg>    >> CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER >> The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump >> BY THOMAS B. EDSALL >> >> All wars have unintended consequences, including culture wars. >> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2k2vcjh >> Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options >> To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect at nytimes.com to your address book. >> ADVERTISEMENT >> > Note the relative absence of the usual bluffing, faking & pontificating about “the real issue,” or what made any group of voters > vote the way they did.  Here, it was more cultural (“values”) than economic, but they were of course intertwined. > > We saw another example of how the “little people,” looking for a national savior or political messiah, will turn to an authoritarian "strong man” > or caudillo instead of socialism.  I think an unspeakable issue underneath all the complaints about “political correctness” was resentment of all the fierce talk > about “white privilege,” while all they could perceive was “black privilege”: affirmative action, welfare entitlements, special exemptions, etc. >    ~~ Ron > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Feb 2 23:02:10 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:02:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 3 White Racist Judeo-Christians Shedding Crocodile Tears for Muslims of Color:TOMORROW: "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" Message-ID: Federalist Society ---------------------------------------------- The Illinois Federalist Society have always been a Gang of Die-Hard Bigots and Racists against our Students and Faculty of Color. Yale Law Mafia Mazzone is their "Faculty Advisor" and a Member himself. The Feddies are a Gang of Right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, elitist, warmongering and totalitarian judges, lawyers and law professors. Wexler is a die-hard NeoCon Zionist. She took a Grant from the die-hard NeoCon Zionist "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" to go over and watch and learn how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians for two weeks. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Turner, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 3:54 PM To: Law * College of Law Community Subject: TOMORROW: "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" The College of Law will host a panel discussion at noon tomorrow to discuss the domestic and international legal aspects of President Trump's executive order on immigration. The discussion, titled "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration," will provide the campus and the community with an in-depth and scholarly analysis of the President's executive order on immigration and the legal and policy questions it has generated or is likely to generate. The event is free and open to the public. Doors will open at 11:40 a.m. The University of Illinois College of Law presents: "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" A panel discussion moderated by Professor Lesley Wexler. Panel leaders include: Professor Jason Mazzone Professor Colleen Murphy Friday, February 3 12 p.m. Max L. Rowe Auditorium College of Law Building Co-hosted by: American Constitution Society Federalist Society Immigration Law Society International Students Association Free and open to the public. Doors will open at 11:40 a.m. Lunch will be provided for session attendees. FOR MORE INFORMATION: College of Law Panel Event -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Feb 2 23:13:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:13:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 3 White Racist Judeo-Christians Shedding Crocodile Tears for Muslims of Color:TOMORROW: "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" Message-ID: Almost all of the lawyers involved in the Bush Jr torture scandal are members of the Federalist Society. Thanks to the Federalist Society, the Muslim world--58 states and 1.25 billion people-- believe that the United States is a nation of sadists and sexual perverts. In fact, it is the Feddies who are the sadists and sexual perverts. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ From: archive at blythe.org on behalf of nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Sent: Sun 6/27/2004 12:25 PM To: nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com Subject: [NYTr] Federalist Society Hijacking Justice Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Francis Boyle HIJACKING JUSTICE: FEDDIES EMERGE, OCTOBER 1999 S P E C I A L R E P O R T H I J A C K I N G J U S T I C E The Federalist Society, a Right-wing network of lawyers, judges and supporters, is undoing civil rights and other gains made through the courts BY GEORGE E. CURRY & TREVOR W. COLEMAN WHEN BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS BEING ARGUED, a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson suggested that the court should rule against the plaintiffs in the landmark school desegregation case. While making the case for maintaining segregated schools, the clerk sent a memo to his boss saying, "It is about time the Court faced the fact that white people in the South don't like the colored people." That clerk was William Rehnquist, now chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Seeking to put his own ultraconservatives on the Supreme Court with Rehnquist, President Ronald Reagan -- who had appointed more than half of the sitting federal judges by the time he left office -- considered nominating Lino A. Graglia, a controversial University of Texas law professor, as a federal appeals court judge for the 5th Circuit. But the nomination, which had been backed by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, was jettisoned after Graglia acknowledged that he had referred to African-Americans as "pickaninnies." The American Bar Association found the law professor "not qualified" to serve on the federal bench. Reagan did nominate Robert H. Bork, a former Yale law professor, who was on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Bork had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calling it "an unwanted intrusion on the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate." After bitter debate, the Senate rejected his nomination in 1987 by a vote of 58 to 42. Far from fading into the background, Bork, Meese, and to a lesser extent, Graglia, are key players in the Federalist Society, a powerful Right-wing network intent on restricting the power of courts, often at the expense of African-Americans and other people of color, the poor, women and the disadvantaged. The organization actively seeks to limit "judicial activism" and reverse Supreme Court landmark rulings since the New Deal, especially those issued in the 1960s and '70s. Special targets include the 1966 Miranda decision that provides certain rights for suspected criminals, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling legalizing abortion and recent civil rights legislation. Founded in 1982 by three law students, the Federalist Society has grown into one of the most influential institutions in America. Four of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court -- Clarence Thomas, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy -- are close affiliates of the Federalist Society. So are Donald P. Hodel, former president of the Christina Coalition, and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. The Federalist Society's board of trustees is co-chaired by Bork and U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch -- one of the most conservative members on Capitol Hill. Other trustees include former Attorney General Meese, William Bradford Reynolds, who was assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Reagan Administration, sought to have court-ordered affirmative action programs overturned, and C. Boyden Gray, former President Bush's chief White House attorney, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In a world being reshaped by the Federalist Society, conservative law students have formed chapters on campuses across the nation. After graduation, they clerk for conservative judges and then go on to become high-ranking government officials, partners in major law firms, prosecutors, law school professors and judges at the local, state and federal level. In short, the Federalist Society is on the verge of hijacking the judicial system. "This is more than an attack on affirmative action being spear-headed by the Federalist Society lawyers," observes Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois. "They want to go beyond getting rid of affirmative action. They want to go back to Brown vs. Board of Education. "We have Justice Antonin Scalia (who advised the Federalist Society at its inception and later hired two of its three founders as his law clerks), who two years ago gave a public lecture at Columbia Law School where he stated if Brown vs. Board of Education was to be presented to him today, he would rule against the plaintiff. In other words, this was a threat that if Brown vs. Board of Education was voted on before the Supreme Court, he would overturn it." That type of thinking disturbs Lawrence E. Walsh. Before becoming president of the American Bar Association in 1975, Walsh chaired an ABA panel that approved President Nixon's choices of federal appeals judges, Clement Haynesworth and G. Harold Carswell, to serve on the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Senate rejected Haynesworth because of conflict-of-interest fears. The following year, Carswell was rejected by the Senate after it was disclosed that he had given a speech as a lawyer expressing his "vigorous belief in the principles of White supremacy." "My concern is there is going to be a cleavage in the courts between the Federalist Society members and nonmembers," says Walsh, a former federal judge. "Anything that perpetuates that kind of ideological cleavage is not good for the unity of the court system. Ideally, it seems to me that judges should avoid memberships [in politically and substantively motivated organizations] but, of course, they don't do that." In fact, the ABA, in one of its publications on judicial independence, concludes: "A judge's impartiality and ability to interpret and apply the laws fairly are integral to the administration of justice." But a judge's membership in an organization -- whether it's the American Civil Liberties Union on the Left or the Federalist Society on the Right -- can influence whether a judge is perceived as being unbiased, a critical element in a judicial system that prides itself on being fair. Harold D. Pope, president of the National Bar Association, says: "People who are opposing the expansion of rights and opportunities for all people in this society we feel are working against America's best interest. We would hope that all jurists, no matter what their prior political persuasion, would deal objectively with the facts of law as they come before them, as they were sworn to do so when they first sat on the bench." The expansion of the Federalist Society, which has adopted a silhouette of James Madison as its symbol, comes at a time when the legal community is worried about a loss of public confidence. An ABA special committee on judicial independence issued a report in August titled "Protecting the Bulwark of the Republic: Ensuring Public Support of the Judicial Process." The report states, "According to the ABA survey, only about half of the respondents believed that our justice system treats men and women equally. Even fewer believed that courts treat members of different ethnic groups or wealthy and poor people the same." The report continues, "As [former] ABA President [Philip S.] Anderson recently stated: "We must work on this problem for as long as it takes to make our profession equally open and our system of justice equally responsive to all members of our society, regardless of color. This is the ultimate challenge to the integrity of the rule of law in America.'" But the Federalist Society is interested in a challenge of a different kind. To its credit, the organization operates with an open and very public agenda. On its web page, for example, it lays out its conservative agenda. "The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities." Even conservative write Michael Lind would call this 19th-century view "the Confederate theory of the Constitution." Speakers at one national Federalist Society-sponsored lawyers convention proposed far-reaching judicial reforms that included the abolition of judicial review, limiting the powers of federal courts and stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain matters. Mary Frances Berry, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is worried about more than theory. "What is scary about the Federalist Society is that it is antiquated and atavistic," she says. "Their views on natural law, libertarianism and the limited power of government to respond when people are being discriminated against is scary -- for African-Americans, especially. The more people you have who expose those views on the court, the more dangerous it becomes for every one of our lives." In this book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover Up, Walsh writes: "In calling for the narrow construction of constitutional grants of governmental power, the Federalist Society seemed to speak for right-wing Republicans. I was especially troubled that one of White House Counsel Boyden Gray's assistants had openly declared that no one who was not a member of the Federalist Society had received a judicial appointment from President Bush." Brian W. Jones, a San Francisco lawyer and member of the Federalist Society, believes that his group is being maligned. "I reject out of hand that Federalists are hostile to civil rights," says Jones, an African-American who was deputy legal affairs secretary to California Gov. Pete Wilson and former counsel to Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee. "Most members of the Federalist Society would agree that the government has no business making racial distinctions of any kind among its citizens. I would argue that is a very credible view of civil rights. "On civil rights and civil liberty issues, Federalist Society judges tend to have a more limited view of the federal government's authority to respond to a whole range of questions. For conservatives, the first question with any inquiry into responding to social problems is: Where does the authority lie, with the federal government or state and local governments?" Another African-American, Gerald Reynolds, is vice chairman of membership for the Federalist Society. "There are some people who embrace this principle of racial neutrality," says the Kansas City, Mo., lawyer. "This debate flows from principles and not from animosity toward Blacks." The national office of the Federalist Society in Washington, D.C., refused to provide the names of judges on its membership list. However, some of the organization's records were obtained by Emerge from other sources. An examination of Federalist Society documents for 1997 and 1998, the most current information available at press time, reveals the extent that the group has penetrated the courts. When looking at the board of directors of local chapters, officers, their advisory panels and membership lists, it is clear that when one goes to court seeking justice, he or she is increasingly likely to have a judge affiliated with the Federalist Society handling the case. During the period studied, that was true whether one was entering a courtroom in New York, Michigan or Alabama. (The titles of persons listed hereafter reflect the positions they held at the time the records were compiled by the Federalist Society; some of the judges have since been elevated to a higher court.) In New York state, judges serving as officers, directors or advisers to the local chapters included Thomas P. Griesa, chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, as well as District Judges Shirley Wohl Kram, Lawrence M. McKenna and John E. Sprizzo. A U.S. Appeals Court Judge for the Second Circuit, Dennis G. Jacobs, was also among that group. The Long Island advisory board included U.S. District Judge Michael Fiechter, U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Gregory W. Carman and State Supreme Court Judges Jack Dunne and Ute Lally. In Michigan, judges aligned with the Federalist Society included James L. Ryan and Richard F. Suhreinrich of the U.S. Court of Appeals; Federal District Judges Paul V. Gadola, David W. McKeague, Gerald E. Rosen and Lawrence P. Zatkoff; and U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan. State Supreme Court Justices Clifford W. Taylor and Elizabeth A. Weaver were listed as advisers to the Detroit chapter. So were Maura D. Corrigan, chief judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, along with fellow judges Stephen J. Markman, Henry W. Saad, and Robert Young Jr. (an African-American who has since been elevated to the Michigan Supreme Court). The chief judge of the Washtenaw County Circuit Court in Grand Rapids, Kurtis T. Wilder (another African-Americana who is now on the Michigan Court of Appeals), and Wayne County Circuit Judges Sean Cox, Michael J. Talbot and Brian Zahra helped complete the list. Local chapters in Alabama were advised by Perry O. Hooper Sr., chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, along with Associate Justices J. Gorman Houston, Harold See and A. Hugh Maddox. U.S. Sen. Jefferson B. Sessions III also supported the organization. (Sessions was nominated to become a federal judge in 1986 but was blocked when it was disclosed that he had called the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union "un-American" and "communist-inspired," and said they "force civil rights down the throats of people." Referring to the Ku Klux Klan, he reportedly said, "I used to think they're OK," until he learned that some Klansmen were "pot smokers." Sessions contended the remarks were either made in jest or had been misinterpreted.) Additional supporters listed included Randall T. Shepard, chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court; Craig Enoch, chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court; South Carolina Attorney General Charles Molony Condon; Alabama Attorney General William Pryor (who has links on his web page to the Federalist Society and the conservative Washington Legal Foundation), Pennsylvania Attorney General D. Michael Fisher; Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and Clarence Thomas' wife, Virginia, a former aide to House majority leader Richard Armey, and who now works for the Heritage Foundation. As the presiding officials in courts, judges wield broad power. For example, U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr., who sits on the advisory board of the Mississippi chapter of the Federalist Society, presided over the Ayers desegregation case. In 1975, Jake Ayers Sr., a Mississippi sharecropper, sued the state on behalf of his son, charging that the state's higher education system discriminated against African-Americans and historically Black colleges. In 1987, Biggers upheld the state College Board's contention that Mississippi's higher education system was no longer racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court reversed Biggers in 1991 and ordered him to remove any vestiges of past discrimination. The power of the Federalist Society is not limited to the judiciary, which would be concern enough. Its tentacles extend deep into corporate America. Listed members of its business advisory council included John Stewart Bryan, III, chairman, president and C.E.O. of Media General Cable; John G. Medlin Jr., board chair of Wachovia Corp., an interstate bank holding company; Geneva Steel C.E.O. Joseph Cannon and Robert L. Strickland, chairman of Lowe's Companies. Also affiliated with the Federalist Society are Brian J. Brille and David Panton of Morgan Stanley financial services in New York; William Haraf of Bank of America in San Francisco; Chris Ekren of Sony Corp. in San Jose, Calif.; Frank Blake of General Electric in Schenechtedy, N.Y.; Philip R. Lochner Jr., senior vice president, Time Warner Inc. in New York; William Kemp of General Motors in Warren, Mich.; Edward Whelan of GTE Corp.'s Washington office; David Askin of Exxon Co. in Baytown, Texas; Marsha Rabiteau of Dow Chemical in Midland, Mich.; F. James Tennies, chief administrative officer at Legg Mason for asset management in Baltimore; Jodi Balsam, counsel for operations and litigation for the National Football League and Tom Donahue of Metropolitan Life. Even federal employees in the Clinton administration were included in Federalist Society documents: Paul-Noel Chretien of the Justice Department; Theodore Cooperstein of the FBI; Carol Crawford of the International Trade Commission; Kevin Martin of the Federal Communications Commission and Christopher Holleman of the U.S. Small Business Administration. William Saunders of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also backs the Society. Many of the nation's blue-chip law firms have attorneys associated with the Federalist Society. Those listed included lawyers in the Washington, D.C. law firms of Arnold and Porter; Covington & Burling; Steptoe & Johnson; Hogan & Hartson; Patton, Boaggs & Blow; and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. New York law firms with lawyers associated with the Federalist Society include: Cravath, Swaine & Moore; White & Case and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. In Boston, one law firm -- Hale and Door -- has at least 10 attorneys affiliated with the Federalist Society. The list of law professors associated with the society included Ronald A. Cass, dean of Boston University's law school; Michael Young of Columbia University; John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley; Eugene Volokh of UCLA; Northwestern University professors Gary Lawson, Daniel D. Polsby and Stephen B. Presser; Robert P. George of Princeton; Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame; Gordon B. Baldwin of the University of Wisconsin, Olan B. Lowry of Temple; Johathan Macey and Richard Painter of Cornell; Ronald D. Rotunda of the University of Illinois; Gerald T. Dunn of St. Louis University and Thomas Morgan of George Washington University. The University of Virginia, one of the best law schools in the nation, has quite a few Federalist Society professors or sympathizers on its faculty, including John Norton Moore, Robert Turner, Erika Worth Harris and Lillian BeVier. "People have to understand, whether they like lawyers or not, law schools have an enormous amount of power, whether it's power for good or evil. Unfortunately, what we are seeing under the Federalist Society is law schools and legal education being used to promote racism, bigotry and Right-wing politics. These people believe in the Bell Curve," says Prof. Boyle of the University of Illinois, referring to a controversial theory by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein about the supposed low intelligence level of some non-Whites. "You have to understand that. Just as the Federalist Society did to the federal judiciary, they are now trying to do to law schools." Boyle and others say this is done by establishing well-endowed law professorships and speaking tours for the true believers. "Where they once were scholars with Right-wing foundations like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, they are now getting credentialed as law professors," he notes. No comparable movement exists among progressives, which may explain why civil rights groups and liberals are doing such a feeble job defending affirmative action. "We've got to realize that while we have been dillydallying in law schools with critical race theories and penetrating the Law Review, all this is chump change to [Federalists]," observes Berry, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "It's like we were out playing whiffle ball while they were exercising power." The Federalist Society was founded 17 years ago by Yale Law School student Steven G. Calabresi and two counterparts at the University of Chicago School of Law, Lee Liberman and David McIntosh. All three were undergraduates together at Yale. Upset with what they perceived as liberal bias, the three decided to form an organization for conservative law students. Yale professors Robert H. Bork and Ralph K. Winter, both of whom would be appointed to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, served as advisers to the Yale chapter. In Chicago, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia served in a similar capacity. The contacts the three made as students have proven to be invaluable. Calabresi, in addition to clerking for Bork and Winter, clerked for Scalia at the Supreme Court. He is now a law professor at Northwestern University. Liberman gave up a post in the Justice Department also to clerk for Scalia. She is now Lee Liberman Otis and is chief counsel for Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), who founded a Federalist Society chapter at Harvard. McIntosh was a special assistant to Ed Meese when he was Reagan's attorney general; he is a three-term Republican Congressman who's considering running for governor of Indiana. In addition to a board of trustees, the society has a board of directors, co-chaired by Calabresi and McIntosh. The Federalist pipeline is a well-oiled old boy -- and sometimes girl -- network. For example, Brent O. Hatch, the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, clerked for Robert Bork when he was a federal judge in Washington, D.C. After working in the Justice Department, young Hatch was appointed general counsel of the National Endowment for the Humanities at the age of 28. He is treasurer of the Federalist Society's board of directors. The organization has been funded by wealthy conservatives, such as Richard Mellon Scaife, who is vice chair of the Heritage Foundation's board, and another board member, Holland Coors, a member of the conservative Coors family. Many contributions are made through foundations that give to Right-wing causes, including the John M. Olin Foundation in New York, the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee and the Deer Creek Foundation in St. Louis. The Federalists have direct ties to Right-wing think tanks seeking to dismantle affirmative action at the local, state and federal levels. The Center for Individual Rights, which successfully argued the Hopwood case that banned affirmative action at the University of Texas, represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending against the University of Michigan and were lawyers for supporters of Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action measure in California. The Washington Legal Foundation sued the University of Maryland, forcing it to drop its Benjamin Banneker scholarships for African-American scholars; the Southeastern Legal Foundation is leading an all-out assault on affirmative action in Atlanta, and the Institute for Justice led the attack on Lani Guinier, then a University of Pennsylvania law professor, who was President Clinton's first choice to be assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights. Clint Bolick, the group's vice president, dismissed Guinier as a "quota queen," and the eventual nominee, Deval L. Patrick, as a "quota king." He also led the opposition to the appointment of Bill Lann Lee, who was later named acting assistant attorney general for civil rights. When first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said that there was a "vast Right-wing conspiracy" afoot that had been hounding her husband since he first announced for president, some Right-wingers almost laughingly dismissed her charges. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr called the comments "nonsense." And Boston Herald columnist Joe Fitzgerald said the first lady had "wandered into paranoia." But information developed by the Institute for Democracy Studies, a nonprofit research and education organization in New York, confirms that the first lady was on the mark. In the executive summary of its report, "The Assault on Affirmative Action: An Organized Challenge to Racial and Gender Justice," the organization notes, "Once a month at the Heritage Foundation, representatives of the nation's leading conservative law groups get together for a 'luncheon.' This so-called Public Interest Legal Group meeting is just one of several monthly gatherings that right-wing law groups hold." The report continues: "These meetings serve the purpose of avoiding duplication of effort, airing future plans, and providing guidance for an appropriate organizational division of labor." In an interview with Emerge, Todd G. Young, director of research and communications for the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation, confirms that Right-wing groups collaborate. "We read each other's briefs (as they are filed) and when there are updates published by other groups," he says. "Although we are separate entities, we share some common understandings about the Constitutions and our (mission) statements are really almost identical for the organizations." Of its recent lawsuit against Atlanta's affirmative action program, Young notes: "We're refining the definition of what it means to enjoy equal protection under the law and the first step is to end any government-sanctioned discrimination, such as affirmative action programs or racial preference programs. It's philosophically inconsistent to say it was bad then [in the 1950s and 1960s] but it's OK now." Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell says it's not OK to discard programs devised to address discrimination against African-Americans. "Conservative legal interest groups, such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, are striking at the very heart of the civil rights gains of the '50s and '60s," explains Campbell. "These groups are, in essence, a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits and use different language, but it's the same old racism -- just old wine in new bottles." The Federalist Society takes its name from The Federalist papers, 85 articles originally published in New York newspapers between 1787 and 1788. The authors -- Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison -- were attempting to gain popular support for the adoption of a new Constitution. "Is The Federalist the key to what the Constitution's framers and adopters intended it to mean and how they expected it to function?" asked R. B. Bernstein, a constitutional historian who wrote the foreword to The Federalist, a recent reissue of the papers. "This subset of the original-intent controversy tends to pit many historians, who remain dubious about original-intent arguments, against many legal scholars, who seek a way to limit judicial discretion by anchoring constitutional interpretation in the Constitution's origins." Bernstein argued that the public should not look at the essays, all written under one pen name, as the definitive word on how the Constitution should be interpreted. "Jay was not a delegate to the Federal Convention, which framed the Constitution...[Hamilton] left the Convention in July, not returning until two weeks before its close in September. And Madison...found himself outvoted on a host of major issues," Bernstein noted. Moreover, as The Federalist papers became the classic commentary on the Constitution, the three men publicly identified themselves as the authors. Even that was not without controversy. Before his ill-fated duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton tried to take credit for writing papers 18-20, 49-58 and 62-63. Madison made an identical claim of authorship, which was verified through a computer analysis in 1964. The most damning fact about today's Federalists is that they advocate a limited role for the federal government, while the early founders were interested in establishing a strong central government. Some civil rights leaders, including Theodore M. Shaw, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., view the rhetoric of the modern-day Federalists as smokescreen for an assault on civil rights. "It's ideologically out of the mainstream and a part of the radically conservative agenda and the radically conservative agenda has never served the interest of African-Americans," Shaw says. Hilary O. Shelton, Washington bureau chief of the NAACP, is less charitable: "They are not conservative. They are very consistent with the Council of Conservative Citizens," a White supremacy group that has featured Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) as speakers. Surprisingly, some of the harshest criticism of Federalist Society members has come from Republicans. For example, former Attorney General Meese, a main player in the Federalist movement, has been criticized by some of his colleagues in the Reagan administration. According to The Washington Post, James A. Baker III and Michael K. Deaver referred to Meese as the "Big Bigot," and conservatives referred to his top assistant, T. Kenneth Cribb Jr., as the "Baby Bigot." Cribb sits on the board of directors of the Federalist Society and is a trustee of the Scaife Foundation, a major contributor to the Federalist Society and other Right-wing causes. Graglia, who has taught at the University of Texas since 1966, touched off a controversy two years ago, when he said, "Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academically competitive with Whites in selective institutions." According to Graglia, "It is the result primarily of cultural effects. Failure is not looked upon with disgrace." He maintains his membership in the Federalist Society. "They certainly are unenthusiastic about civil rights laws," he says of his organization. "Richard Epstein [a law professor at the University of Chicago] thinks we will be better off if civil rights laws were all repealed. These people do believe, as I believe, that so-called civil rights have gone too far and are not civil rights at all." Because so many of the Federalist Society members are seen as opposing civil rights, some people are not quick to accept their professed interest in color-blind justice. U.S. Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit observes, "We had the Civil War over states' rights. There is no question we are going back to the pre-Civil War view of governments." Former federal Judge Lawrence Walsh puts it more bluntly. "The impression I have is they are trying to return to the 18th century and undo the work of the Supreme Court since the New Deal," Walsh says. "And I think it is wrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-commitment with a political dogma, whether it's the Ku Klux Klan or the Federalist Society." Additional reporting by Lottie L. Joiner * To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt at blythe.org ================================================================= Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 5:02 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Karen Aram ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green Subject: 3 White Racist Judeo-Christians Shedding Crocodile Tears for Muslims of Color:TOMORROW: "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" Federalist Society ---------------------------------------------- The Illinois Federalist Society have always been a Gang of Die-Hard Bigots and Racists against our Students and Faculty of Color. Yale Law Mafia Mazzone is their "Faculty Advisor" and a Member himself. The Feddies are a Gang of Right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, elitist, warmongering and totalitarian judges, lawyers and law professors. Wexler is a die-hard NeoCon Zionist. She took a Grant from the die-hard NeoCon Zionist "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" to go over and watch and learn how Israel inflicts war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Palestinians for two weeks. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Turner, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 3:54 PM To: Law * College of Law Community > Subject: TOMORROW: "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" The College of Law will host a panel discussion at noon tomorrow to discuss the domestic and international legal aspects of President Trump's executive order on immigration. The discussion, titled "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration," will provide the campus and the community with an in-depth and scholarly analysis of the President's executive order on immigration and the legal and policy questions it has generated or is likely to generate. The event is free and open to the public. Doors will open at 11:40 a.m. The University of Illinois College of Law presents: "President Trump's Executive Order on Immigration" A panel discussion moderated by Professor Lesley Wexler. Panel leaders include: Professor Jason Mazzone Professor Colleen Murphy Friday, February 3 12 p.m. Max L. Rowe Auditorium College of Law Building Co-hosted by: American Constitution Society Federalist Society Immigration Law Society International Students Association Free and open to the public. Doors will open at 11:40 a.m. Lunch will be provided for session attendees. FOR MORE INFORMATION: College of Law Panel Event -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 3 03:08:04 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:08:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration Saturday Message-ID: Please join us, AWARE, this Saturday, to protest the continuing wars, now under the Trump Administration………at the corner of Church and Neil St. downtown Champaign, Il. We have flyers and signs available. 2:00-4:00pm [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/c0.72.640.337/s526x296/16387134_10155051988772502_8438407069793961035_n.jpg?oh=a2101e8504aba638ae5ae538f712bb93&oe=5908EAEC] FEB4 Going Anti-War Demonstration Sat 2 PM CST · Main and Neil, downtown Champaign 15 people interested · 4 people going -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 3 03:08:04 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:08:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration Saturday Message-ID: Please join us, AWARE, this Saturday, to protest the continuing wars, now under the Trump Administration………at the corner of Church and Neil St. downtown Champaign, Il. We have flyers and signs available. 2:00-4:00pm [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/c0.72.640.337/s526x296/16387134_10155051988772502_8438407069793961035_n.jpg?oh=a2101e8504aba638ae5ae538f712bb93&oe=5908EAEC] FEB4 Going Anti-War Demonstration Sat 2 PM CST · Main and Neil, downtown Champaign 15 people interested · 4 people going -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 3 13:13:23 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:13:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Announcing End Racism Hub - new website References: Message-ID: Reply-To: Amy Felty > END RACISM HUB A new website is up and running. Check out this link to see community events about understanding and eliminating racism and other prejudices that divide us. https://sites.google.com/site/endracismhub/calendar If you or your organization would like to add events, click the “contact” link to the left of the calendar. Or email Amy Felty at asfelty at gmail.com. Please help spread the news about this website by sending the link to your friends and groups. *** Please invite people to the next community showing of the film Racial Taboo. Sunday, March 12, 2017 McKinley Presbyterian Church and Foundation 809 S. 5th Street (on Daniel Street between 4th and 5th) Champaign, IL Doors open - 2:00 pm Film begins - 2:30 pm Discussion - 3:30 pm This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Racial Taboo group discussion notification list · 1914 Clover Lane · Champaign, Il 61821 · USA [Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Feb 4 14:17:38 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:17:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport Message-ID: Ditto and In Spades for the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty. Ditto and in Spades for everyone on this Campus and in this Town who supported Wise {sic!} for illegally firing Salaita and throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no means of support. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, told Pravda.Ru his opinion on the Democrats' protests: 'After exterminating countless Muslims all over the world in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Palestinians in Gaza by means of their Zionist Surrogate Israel during the Obama administration, the Democrats are now shedding some Crocodile Tears over Muslims like the Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just did. As a front organization for the Zionist Lobby in America, the Democratic Party in the United States has absolutely no credibility whatsoever when it comes to Muslims, Islam, and the Islamic World. There were not even Crocodile Tears shed by the Democrats for the 1.8 Million Palestinians in Gaza most of whom are Muslims being serially slaughtered with massive Zionist support worldwide including the Democratic Party in the United States and courtesy of US weapons, equipment and supplies to Israel. In fact the Zionist Democrats have always cheered on their ally Zionist Israel when it comes to genociding Palestinians'. - See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/americas/01-02-2017/136758-usa-0/#sthash.AZJym41S.dpuf http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/americas/01-02-2017/136758-usa-0/ From cge at shout.net Sat Feb 4 15:30:23 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:30:23 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for this week In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: Carl Estabrook and David Green discuss the news of the week and its coverage by the media on Friday, February 3, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rdioxQpP5E&list=TLGGtGtN6PhKahQwNDAyMjAxNw A Coup-Coup edition. From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Feb 4 15:49:57 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 15:49:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And as I said before: The Acting Dean of the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty Columbo issued a public letter fully supporting Wise {sic!} illegally firing Salaita and throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no means of support. That together with their invitation to Killer Koh to get Killary elected president should show you how viscerally and viciously anti-Muslim the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty really is. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:18 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Karen Aram ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green Subject: FW: US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport Ditto and In Spades for the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty. Ditto and in Spades for everyone on this Campus and in this Town who supported Wise {sic!} for illegally firing Salaita and throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no means of support. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, told Pravda.Ru his opinion on the Democrats' protests: 'After exterminating countless Muslims all over the world in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Palestinians in Gaza by means of their Zionist Surrogate Israel during the Obama administration, the Democrats are now shedding some Crocodile Tears over Muslims like the Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just did. As a front organization for the Zionist Lobby in America, the Democratic Party in the United States has absolutely no credibility whatsoever when it comes to Muslims, Islam, and the Islamic World. There were not even Crocodile Tears shed by the Democrats for the 1.8 Million Palestinians in Gaza most of whom are Muslims being serially slaughtered with massive Zionist support worldwide including the Democratic Party in the United States and courtesy of US weapons, equipment and supplies to Israel. In fact the Zionist Democrats have always cheered on their ally Zionist Israel when it comes to genociding Palestinians'. - See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/americas/01-02-2017/136758-usa-0/#sthash.AZJym41S.dpuf http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/americas/01-02-2017/136758-usa-0/ From cge at shout.net Sat Feb 4 18:13:27 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:13:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Someone has sent you a message from News-Gazette.com Message-ID: <20170204181327.1ABD626152@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 4 18:26:44 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 18:26:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Someone has sent you a message from News-Gazette.com In-Reply-To: <20170204181327.1ABD626152@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> References: <20170204181327.1ABD626152@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> Message-ID: Maybe, what we should do, is insist Carol, who is most likely to win, support all three of those issues of concern. I think its a better use of our time, given our limited budget and numbers. Also the fact that many members of AWARE support Carol’s candidacy, it might, if nothing else enlighten those democrats who aren’t aware. On Feb 4, 2017, at 10:13, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Message from sender: Whoever the Democrats nominate to oppose Republican incumbent Davis, s/he will undoubtedly support the positions of the Clinton campaign on war and the economy. The Prairiegreens should instead offer a candidate for Congress who supports [1] the Green New Deal ; [2] bringing all US troops (and weapons) home; and [3] Medicare for all and free education (a la Bernie Sanders). We should begin looking for a candidate like that to back. -- CGE [News-Gazette.com] Published on News-Gazette.com (http://www.news-gazette.com) Home > Carol Ammons: 'Open' to congressional run ________________________________ Carol Ammons: 'Open' to congressional run Asked this morning about the possibility of running against Rodney Davis in the 2018 election, the state representative said she's considering it. Tom’s Mailbag goes live at 2 p.m. Fridays (submit questions here [1]). A hot topic this week: Rodney Davis, who appeared on WDWS 1400-AM on Friday morning. A sample .. ________________________________ Source URL: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-02-03/carol-ammons-open-congressional-run.html Links: [1] http://www.news-gazette.com/section/toms-mailbag.html _______________________________________________ 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: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Feb 4 18:35:20 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 12:35:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Someone has sent you a message from News-Gazette.com In-Reply-To: References: <20170204181327.1ABD626152@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> Message-ID: <48FB8CE7-1289-4950-88B0-049EEE9FF10D@illinois.edu> That would be a collapse as regrettable as Bernie Sanders’. Neither Carol nor any other local Democrat nominee would support those three points. —CGE > On Feb 4, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Maybe, what we should do, is insist Carol, who is most likely to win, support all three of those issues of concern. I think its a better use of our time, given our limited budget and numbers. > Also the fact that many members of AWARE support Carol’s candidacy, it might, if nothing else enlighten those democrats who aren’t aware. > > On Feb 4, 2017, at 10:13, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Message from sender: >> >> Whoever the Democrats nominate to oppose Republican incumbent Davis, s/he will undoubtedly support the positions of the Clinton campaign on war and the economy. >> >> The Prairiegreens should instead offer a candidate for Congress who supports >> >> [1] the Green New Deal >; >> [2] bringing all US troops (and weapons) home; and >> [3] Medicare for all and free education (a la Bernie Sanders). >> >> We should begin looking for a candidate like that to back. -- CGE >> >> >> Published on News-Gazette.com (http://www.news-gazette.com ) >> >> Home > Carol Ammons: 'Open' to congressional run >> Carol Ammons: 'Open' to congressional run >> >> Asked this morning about the possibility of running against Rodney Davis in the 2018 election, the state representative said she's considering it. >> >> Tom’s Mailbag goes live at 2 p.m. Fridays (submit questions here [1]). A hot topic this week: Rodney Davis, who appeared on WDWS 1400-AM on Friday morning. A sample .. >> >> Source URL: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-02-03/carol-ammons-open-congressional-run.html >> Links: >> [1] http://www.news-gazette.com/section/toms-mailbag.html >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 18:57:31 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 18:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Someone has sent you a message from News-Gazette.com In-Reply-To: <48FB8CE7-1289-4950-88B0-049EEE9FF10D@illinois.edu> References: <20170204181327.1ABD626152@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> <48FB8CE7-1289-4950-88B0-049EEE9FF10D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <148436155.1377428.1486234651373@mail.yahoo.com> Whether the past is prologue or not in this instance, if Carol runs she should be given a chance to endorse these points in no uncertain terms, so there would be no question of accountability. It will or would be interesting to see the reaction of establishment Democrats to her candidacy and its potential effect on her platform. Beyond that, David Gill, as reported the other day, is making noises that he is considering running as a Democrat again. DG On Saturday, February 4, 2017 12:35 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: That would be a collapse as regrettable as Bernie Sanders’. Neither Carol nor any other local Democrat nominee would support those three points. —CGE On Feb 4, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Maybe, what we should do, is insist Carol, who is most likely to win, support all three of those issues of concern. I think its a better use of our time, given our limited budget and numbers. Also the fact that many members of AWARE support Carol’s candidacy, it might, if nothing else enlighten those democrats who aren’t aware. On Feb 4, 2017, at 10:13, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Message from sender: Whoever the Democrats nominate to oppose Republican incumbent Davis, s/he will undoubtedly support the positions of the Clinton campaign on war and the economy. The Prairiegreens should instead offer a candidate for Congress who supports   [1] the Green New Deal ; [2] bringing all US troops (and weapons) home; and [3] Medicare for all and free education (a la Bernie Sanders).  We should begin looking for a candidate like that to back. -- CGE Published on News-Gazette.com (http://www.news-gazette.com) Home > Carol Ammons: 'Open' to congressional run Carol Ammons: 'Open' to congressional run Asked this morning about the possibility of running against Rodney Davis in the 2018 election, the state representative said she's considering it.Tom’s Mailbag goes live at 2 p.m. Fridays (submit questions here [1]). A hot topic this week: Rodney Davis, who appeared on WDWS 1400-AM on Friday morning. A sample ..Source URL: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-02-03/carol-ammons-open-congressional-run.htmlLinks: [1]  http://www.news-gazette.com/section/toms-mailbag.html _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Feb 4 20:42:23 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 20:42:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And notice that for four years Killer Koh was the Legal Architect and Spear Carrier of the Obama/Clinton mass extermination of Muslims of Color around the world. I brought this to the attention of the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty in the Summer of 2015. And how did the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty respond? They brought Killer Koh out here to get Killary elected president ten days later. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 9:50 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Karen Aram ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green Subject: RE: US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport And as I said before: The Acting Dean of the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty Columbo issued a public letter fully supporting Wise {sic!} illegally firing Salaita and throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no means of support. That together with their invitation to Killer Koh to get Killary elected president should show you how viscerally and viciously anti-Muslim the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty really is. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:18 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Karen Aram ; Jay Becker ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Swanson ; Dave Trippel ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Mildred O'brien ; David Johnson ; Joe Lauria ; David Green Subject: FW: US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport Ditto and In Spades for the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty. Ditto and in Spades for everyone on this Campus and in this Town who supported Wise {sic!} for illegally firing Salaita and throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no means of support. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:12 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, told Pravda.Ru his opinion on the Democrats' protests: 'After exterminating countless Muslims all over the world in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Palestinians in Gaza by means of their Zionist Surrogate Israel during the Obama administration, the Democrats are now shedding some Crocodile Tears over Muslims like the Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just did. As a front organization for the Zionist Lobby in America, the Democratic Party in the United States has absolutely no credibility whatsoever when it comes to Muslims, Islam, and the Islamic World. There were not even Crocodile Tears shed by the Democrats for the 1.8 Million Palestinians in Gaza most of whom are Muslims being serially slaughtered with massive Zionist support worldwide including the Democratic Party in the United States and courtesy of US weapons, equipment and supplies to Israel. In fact the Zionist Democrats have always cheered on their ally Zionist Israel when it comes to genociding Palestinians'. - See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/americas/01-02-2017/136758-usa-0/#sthash.AZJym41S.dpuf http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/americas/01-02-2017/136758-usa-0/ From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Feb 4 23:00:03 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:00:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <1698245296.3458663.1486076009819@mail.yahoo.com> References: <58937712.000001C0@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <1698245296.3458663.1486076009819@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <960C35E0-8CD4-4B6D-94E6-9FE542E8AE09@illinois.edu> "How did America pass so quickly from Obama to Trump? The glib left-wing answer, that the country is deeply racist, is half-true but explains too much and too little. This racist country voted for Obama twice. A fairer explanation might go back to the financial collapse of 2008 when Americans had a general fear and were shocked by what the banks and financial firms had done to us. ‘In an atmosphere primed for a populist backlash’, as John Judis wrote, Obama ‘allowed the right to define the terms’. The revolt of 2008-9 was against the financial community and anyone in cahoots with them, but the new president declined to name a villain: when he invited 13 CEOs to the White House in April 2009, he began by saying he was the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks, and ended by reassuring them that they would all work together. No culprit would be named and no sacrifice called for. Trump emerged early as an impresario of the anger, a plutocrat leading the people’s revolt against plutocracy. The most credible explanation for the popular turn to the right – there are plenty of examples of people who voted twice for Obama but then for Trump – was offered by the Italian legal scholar Ugo Mattei. As he sees it, the resemblances between Trump and Berlusconi run deep, and in both cases the appeal derives from popular cynicism more than credulity. The voters have come to understand that the big banks, along with investment companies like Goldman Sachs and transnational corporations, are sovereignties as powerful as states and in some cases more powerful. By vesting a billionaire with extraordinary power, therefore, the voters are going straight to the relevant authority and cutting out the middle man – the politician.” [David Bromwich, "Act One, Scene One,” LRB 39:4 · 16 February 2017] > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > > Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 1:22 PM > > To: Peace-discuss AWARE; > > Subject:[Peace-discuss] The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump > > > > This is the most plausible commentary on the 2016 national election I have seen. > > > >> Subject: NYTimes.com: The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump > >> Date: February 2, 2017 at 12:14:42 PM CST > >> To: > >> Reply-To: > >> > >> > >> Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: > >> <02edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg> > >> CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER > >> The Peculiar Populism of Donald Trump > >> BY THOMAS B. EDSALL > >> > >> All wars have unintended consequences, including culture wars. > >> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2k2vcjh > >> Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options > >> To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect at nytimes.com to your address book. > >> ADVERTISEMENT > >> > > Note the relative absence of the usual bluffing, faking & pontificating about “the real issue,” or what made any group of voters > > vote the way they did. Here, it was more cultural (“values”) than economic, but they were of course intertwined. > > > > We saw another example of how the “little people,” looking for a national savior or political messiah, will turn to an authoritarian "strong man” > > or caudillo instead of socialism. I think an unspeakable issue underneath all the complaints about “political correctness” was resentment of all the fierce talk > > about “white privilege,” while all they could perceive was “black privilege”: affirmative action, welfare entitlements, special exemptions, etc. > > ~~ Ron From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 03:59:13 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 03:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] What Happened at Vaughn Prison (Heather Thompson) References: <841581011.1634780.1486267153457.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <841581011.1634780.1486267153457@mail.yahoo.com> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/vaughn-prison-hostage-attica-uprising/ Yesterday, scores of men in Delaware’s largest prison, the Vaughn Correctional Center, took over one of the buildings in their facility. The prison, built in 1971 and known for its serious overuse of solitary confinement, is one of the state’s most severely overcrowded and punitive facilities.Hoping to push the state to improve living conditions at Vaughn, the prisoners didn’t just take control of building C — they also took guards hostage. And to make the public aware of why they were protesting, they called the media: We’re trying to explain the reasons for doing what we’re doing. Donald Trump. Everything that he did. All the things that he’s doing now. We know that the institution is going to change for the worse. We know the institution is going to change for the worse. We got demands that you need to pay attention to, that you need to listen to and you need to let them know. Education, we want education first and foremost. We want a rehabilitation program that works for everybody. We want the money to be allocated so we can know exactly what is going on in the prison, the budget. Over the next few hours, the men in Vaughn released all but two of the hostages and let nineteen prisoners who wanted to, leave the building as well. Meanwhile, law enforcement had begun amassing outside of the prison.At dawn, the police stormed the facility.By 7 AM, the ground outside the prison was littered with prisoners laying facedown on the concrete with their hands behind their back. One of the hostages was on her way to the hospital. Tragically, the other was dead.That’s all we really know. Reliant on information funneled straight through the prison officials’ PR machine, and with no access to the men inside, we have no idea what the fallout from this rebellion is or might be.This lack of transparency is typical — and it has terrible consequences.The history of prison rebellions in this country shows we should be very cautious when we have to depend on state officials to tell us what happened, or is still happening, in any penal facility experiencing unrest.Take Attica. Just three weeks ago, guards placed the New York State facility under complete lockdown. According to corrections officials, this was in reaction to a series of fights that had broken out between prisoners there. The men in this facility remained under lockdown for several days — it’s unclear how many — and each undoubtedly had his small cell “tossed”: his property thrown about and destroyed as guards searched for “contraband.” According to Attica’s correction officer union, the lockdown was necessary “to get to the root of what happened.”But there’s plenty of reason to doubt the guards’ account of the unrest and their subsequent actions, just as there are reasons to be very worried about what’s happening to the men at Vaughn right now.Again, Attica is instructive. Forty-six years ago, Attica was the site of one of the most dramatic prison uprisings in American history. On September 9, 1971, nearly 1,300 men rose up in protest against the prison’s awful conditions. But rather than recognize the cause of the crisis, and work to address it, the State of New York sent in hundreds of troopers, who severely shot 128 men and killed 39 — prisoners and prison guards alike.Today, in prisons across the country, the conditions that sparked the Attica uprising are even worse. Prisons are more overcrowded. Food rations are meager and, since meal services are often contracted out to for-profit companies, that food is sometimes spoiled and rotten. Medical care is substandard and, again thanks to privatization, is often legally negligent. Prisoners are kept for long periods of time in solitary confinement and face serious physical abuse — often accompanied by racial epithets and threats — from officers who already retain utter control over them.So when we hear prisoners are on lockdown for fighting — rather than for revolting against deplorable living conditions — or when we witness another forcible retaking of a penal facility, we should be both skeptical and concerned.Correction officials have a history of painting prisoners as violent thugs and insisting that authorities’ only aim is to restore order and safety for all. At Attica, prison officials have a long and well-documented track record of lying about the men in their charge and literally torturing those who dare to rebel. The Case of Kinross It isn’t simply Attica’s history that should make us concerned about what might be transpiring now at Vaughn. Just this past September, on the forty-fifth anniversary of the Attica rebellion, prisoners throughout the US went on strike against forced prison labor and the terrible conditions in which they live.Not surprisingly, corrections officials once again tried to spin this unrest by stressing the illegitimacy of the prisoners’ actions: these were but violent criminals who had gone on a rampage, and they would be dealt with accordingly.The men and women in these facilities relay a very different story.Thanks to the efforts of several family members of prisoners — as well as a local organization called Michigan Abolition and Prisoner Solidarity (MAPS) — we have a much clearer picture of what transpired at one prison in particular: Michigan’s Kinross Correctional Facility.For starters, we now know that before the men in Kinross launched a formal work stoppage, they had made several attempts to peacefully convey their demand for more humane living conditions.As one man explained in a December 20 letter to MAPS, he and his fellow prisoners had grown desperate “to be treated as human beings not like animals in a cage.” The prisoners at Kinross live in terribly overcrowded facilities — “8 men in a cube made for 4” — and routinely endure “racist statements like don’t let me get the whip back out from you!”They were even forbidden from hugging their children during prison visits, apart from hello and goodbye. “Imagine a child looking, coming to hug, and a voice on intercom forbidding child to do so?” the same prisoner wrote. “Child looks at Dad wondering if he’s diseased or what? And can’t touch their father?”Increasingly in despair over their situation, prisoners chose block representatives to bring their grievances to the administration. But when they did, several prisoners report, guards destroyed their meager personal possessions and moved them to another facility.The men then tried to press their concerns through a series of peaceful demonstrations of unity. “Everyone stood in front of their perspective units for the last 30 min of afternoon yard,” another Kinross prisoner wrote, describing one such action. “It was to let KCF administration know that we were fed up and things had to change.” Still nothing changed.So they planned a strike for September 9. Their hope? That a broader nonviolent action might attract the public’s attention and perhaps, finally, win them some improvements.According to numerous letters, the strike went off peacefully, both when the men refused to show up to work on September 9, and the next day when they amassed in the yard and met with administrators. Prison administrators promised to address at least some of the grievances they voiced that day, and the prisoners agreed to return to their cells.But after they did so, the prisoners were rushed by a heavily armed Emergency Response Team (at a state expense of nearly a million dollars).Chaos and terror ensued. Prisoners were tear gassed and made to stand for hours outside in the freezing rain, and prison property was destroyed.According to corrections officials, it was an all-out riot. But, as one of the prisoner’s insists, what made it violent and ugly was prison management’s choice to retaliate. “Regardless of what KCF staff claim,” he wrote, “this could have been prevented. If anything they incited a riot by lying about what they were going to do to change things.” Another Kinross prisoner echoed that account: “The administration went to the media and lied to the public about the demonstration, and tried to make it seem like we was the problem.”Those on the outside never heard these stories. Instead, they were assured that order was being restored and steps were being taken to ensure the safety of staff and inmates alike. The troublemakers who had caused the “riot” would be moved into segregation, where they would face charges for what they had done. All would soon be well again.But all, according to scores of Kinross’s prisoners, is hardly well. While even prison officials concede that, as one prisoner noted, “It was nothing but property damage,” these men have suffered severe retaliation.“Prisoners were held in terrible conditions in temporarily reopened units,” MAPS spokesperson Alejo Stark reports, and although “more than a hundred prisoners were transferred and released from the hole [solitary] after several weeks, an estimated 150 prisoners are still in the hole” at their new facilities and now face “punishments of one to two years in very harsh administrative segregation conditions.”As one prisoner described: They put me in unit 5 in the observation cell 125. The cell was a mess. The cell smelled like urine and feces, the toilet hadn’t been flushed in over two months the floor was sticky and unbearable. The toilet had been stained from all the waste in it . . . Over time I cleaned the place up, but the stain in the toilet bowl is there for life. After 70 days of people watching me use the toilet they finally moved me down the hall from where I was. Standing With Prisoners >From Attica in 1971 to Kinross in 2016 to Vaughn in 2017, our nation’s prisons are the picture of barbarity. Prisoners are beaten, degraded, starved, and treated as less than human. They effectively lose their right to due process, and have no protection from cruel and unusual punishment.According to Joe Miano, an official with the New York State Corrections Officers Police Benevolent Association, Attica’s lockdown last month was “a clear example of the increasingly high levels of violence and dangerous weapons plaguing our prisons.”But according to the human beings locked in this prison and others across the country, the real issue remains one of overcrowding and abuse.At Vaughn Correctional Center, inmates have complained for years about their prison environment.“They just got to the point where they’re fed up,” a former inmate told the News Journal. “If [the Department of Correction] is worried about the officers and not their demands, if nothing changes, I guarantee there will be another hostage situation in a different building.”While state officials and the prison guard union would prefer to keep those conditions hidden behind the prison walls, it’s up to us to demand transparency and stand with the prisoners daring to affirm their humanity.As one prisoner at Kinross wrote: “We need help, I’m shouting out from this 8×10 cell, help us! Don’t let them quiet our voice be an amplifier for us, don’t let what they are doing to us and throughout the M. D. O. C. fade into oblivion.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 5 17:57:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:57:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: I'm no David Green, but I do want equal time...this from Tuesday's AWARE program. References: <001a1143d3f875786e0547cc1f44@google.com> Message-ID: [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] karenaram at hotmail.com has shared a video playlist with you on YouTube. I'm no David Green, but I think I should have equal time, to relate some of the info. that I did on the program. [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-dDo3lhb9Tw/hqdefault.jpg] 135 videos [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9Kuj4Owu92Q/mqdefault.jpg] [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HW05xTqZBms/mqdefault.jpg] [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hfKuzvyu81s/mqdefault.jpg] AWARE on the Air PLAYLIST by UPTV6 Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 5 17:57:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:57:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: I'm no David Green, but I do want equal time...this from Tuesday's AWARE program. References: <001a1143d3f875786e0547cc1f44@google.com> Message-ID: [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] karenaram at hotmail.com has shared a video playlist with you on YouTube. I'm no David Green, but I think I should have equal time, to relate some of the info. that I did on the program. [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-dDo3lhb9Tw/hqdefault.jpg] 135 videos [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9Kuj4Owu92Q/mqdefault.jpg] [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HW05xTqZBms/mqdefault.jpg] [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hfKuzvyu81s/mqdefault.jpg] AWARE on the Air PLAYLIST by UPTV6 Help center • Report spam ©2017 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 14:50:14 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] No Ban! No Wall! No War! References: <757920788.2602013.1486392614583.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <757920788.2602013.1486392614583@mail.yahoo.com> "If a new anti-war movement emerged from the resistance to Trump it would have the potential to shake the entire system. So the Democrats try to focus as narrowly as they can on Trump’s social and psychological pathologies while waiting to make up for their loses in the 2018 mid-term elections as the default party. The corporate media follows suit." No Ban! No Wall! No War? | | | | | | | | | | | No Ban! No Wall! No War? As I watched the corporate news on demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban, I was struck by the fact that on-g... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Feb 6 16:11:33 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:11:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] No Ban! No Wall! No War! In-Reply-To: <757920788.2602013.1486392614583@mail.yahoo.com> References: <757920788.2602013.1486392614583.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <757920788.2602013.1486392614583@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0A6AC5AF-FB46-4E4A-8D85-8DFE6DC752E2@illinois.edu> That’s a crucial point - and why the neocon/Democrats insist Trump's personalty is the issue. It isn’t. The issue is whether the establishment can cozen or coerce Trump into following the criminal war policies of the Obama adminstration. Our demand - as it was a half-century ago - should be to bring all US troops (and military materiel) home. From southeast Asia then, from southwest Asia now. > On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:50 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "If a new anti-war movement emerged from the resistance to Trump it would have the potential to shake the entire system. So the Democrats try to focus as narrowly as they can on Trump’s social and psychological pathologies while waiting to make up for their loses in the 2018 mid-term elections as the default party. The corporate media follows suit." > > No Ban! No Wall! No War? > > > No Ban! No Wall! No War? > As I watched the corporate news on demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban, I was struck by the fact that on-g... > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Feb 6 16:20:52 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:20:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] No Ban! No Wall! No War! In-Reply-To: <0A6AC5AF-FB46-4E4A-8D85-8DFE6DC752E2@illinois.edu> References: <757920788.2602013.1486392614583.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <757920788.2602013.1486392614583@mail.yahoo.com> <0A6AC5AF-FB46-4E4A-8D85-8DFE6DC752E2@illinois.edu> Message-ID: David, a terrific article, should be read by all. On Feb 6, 2017, at 08:11, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: That’s a crucial point - and why the neocon/Democrats insist Trump's personalty is the issue. It isn’t. The issue is whether the establishment can cozen or coerce Trump into following the criminal war policies of the Obama adminstration. Our demand - as it was a half-century ago - should be to bring all US troops (and military materiel) home. From southeast Asia then, from southwest Asia now. On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:50 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: "If a new anti-war movement emerged from the resistance to Trump it would have the potential to shake the entire system. So the Democrats try to focus as narrowly as they can on Trump’s social and psychological pathologies while waiting to make up for their loses in the 2018 mid-term elections as the default party. The corporate media follows suit." No Ban! No Wall! No War? No Ban! No Wall! No War? As I watched the corporate news on demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban, I was struck by the fact that on-g... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Feb 6 16:24:19 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:24:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] No Ban! No Wall! No War! In-Reply-To: References: <757920788.2602013.1486392614583.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <757920788.2602013.1486392614583@mail.yahoo.com> <0A6AC5AF-FB46-4E4A-8D85-8DFE6DC752E2@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <40E18978-F8F2-49B9-A3C6-E95995CC8B77@illinois.edu> "Baiting Iran: How Trump Risks Inflaming the Middle East," by Patrick Cockburn > > On Feb 6, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > David, a terrific article, should be read by all. > > >> On Feb 6, 2017, at 08:11, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> That’s a crucial point - and why the neocon/Democrats insist Trump's personalty is the issue. It isn’t. >> >> The issue is whether the establishment can cozen or coerce Trump into following the criminal war policies of the Obama adminstration. >> >> Our demand - as it was a half-century ago - should be to bring all US troops (and military materiel) home. >> >> From southeast Asia then, from southwest Asia now. >> >> >>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:50 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> "If a new anti-war movement emerged from the resistance to Trump it would have the potential to shake the entire system. So the Democrats try to focus as narrowly as they can on Trump’s social and psychological pathologies while waiting to make up for their loses in the 2018 mid-term elections as the default party. The corporate media follows suit." >>> >>> No Ban! No Wall! No War? >>> >>> >>> No Ban! No Wall! No War? >>> As I watched the corporate news on demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban, I was struck by the fact that on-g... >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 16:35:45 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:35:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US Democrats cry over slaughtered Muslims? - PravdaReport In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis or anyone, Does anybody have credible lists of the nations now possessing chemical and/or biological weapons? Thanks! David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Feb 6 17:54:11 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:54:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dampening Wall Street Trump euphoria Message-ID: <70CD25BC-F60F-4E17-AB3E-B2171F1EDBD4@illinois.edu> Goldman Sachs warns of impending Wall Street slump : How ironic ! The balance of risks "are less positively tilted than they appeared shortly after the election," Goldman said, which may blunt the force of future growth. Such criticism of Trump's policies so early into his presidency could be shocking, but it is even more ironic in that is comes from the same Wall Street bank Trump has tapped to fill at least five top jobs in his administration. — Newsmax/Finance 2.5.17 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Feb 6 18:09:28 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 12:09:28 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dampening Wall Street Trump euphoria In-Reply-To: <70CD25BC-F60F-4E17-AB3E-B2171F1EDBD4@illinois.edu> References: <70CD25BC-F60F-4E17-AB3E-B2171F1EDBD4@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <646A9B59-EF59-40C0-8122-9F64BA601110@illinois.edu> It’s a threat - to those who might oppose pro-Wall St. ‘reforms’ in the new administration. (See Steve Bannon’s attacks on ‘crony capitalism.’) Cf. the Obama administration’s drawing down the price of oil in order to hamper the Russian economy. —CGE > On Feb 6, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Goldman Sachs warns of impending Wall Street slump : How ironic ! > > The balance of risks "are less positively tilted than they appeared shortly after the election," Goldman said, which may blunt the force of future growth. > > Such criticism of Trump's policies so early into his presidency could be shocking, but it is even more ironic in that is comes from the same Wall Street bank Trump has tapped to fill at least five top jobs in his administration. > > — Newsmax/Finance 2.5.17 > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 21:56:03 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:56:03 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tuesday 1pm @ YMCA: "What does the ban mean for Africa? "Center for African Studies forum Tues. Feb. 7- 1 p.m. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7864ada7-5eca-6256-831b-2987cba2d85b@gmail.com> Event tomorrow -- Tue Feb 7th, 1:00pm at University YMCA *"What does 'The Ban' Mean for Africa?** **Conversations about Immigration, Foreign-ness, and Resistance"* Panel about the recent executive order targeting immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations, including Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Moderator: Prof. Faranak Miraftab (Urban & Regional Planning) Panelists: Prof. Teresa Barnes (History), Dr. Maimouna Barro (Center for African Studies), Mor Gueye (Education), Brenda Sanya (Education), Angela Williams (CSAMES) ​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 543474 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Announce mailing list Announce at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/announce-communitycourtwatch From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Feb 6 22:09:02 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 22:09:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Tuesday 1pm @ YMCA: "What does the ban mean for Africa? "Center for African Studies forum Tues. Feb. 7- 1 p.m. In-Reply-To: <7864ada7-5eca-6256-831b-2987cba2d85b@gmail.com> References: <7864ada7-5eca-6256-831b-2987cba2d85b@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Stuart I won’t be able to go, but perhaps someone who is going, can point out the perfect solution to “fear of terrorists,” is to stop creating them. This concern over refugees, is to stop creating them. If the US stops our wars of imperialism we might not have either. People could live in their own lands in peace and harmony, without being massacred for their resources by the imperialist, western powers. On Feb 6, 2017, at 13:56, Stuart Levy via Peace > wrote: Event tomorrow -- Tue Feb 7th, 1:00pm at University YMCA "What does 'The Ban' Mean for Africa? Conversations about Immigration, Foreign-ness, and Resistance" Panel about the recent executive order targeting immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations, including Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Moderator: Prof. Faranak Miraftab (Urban & Regional Planning) Panelists: Prof. Teresa Barnes (History), Dr. Maimouna Barro (Center for African Studies), Mor Gueye (Education), Brenda Sanya (Education), Angela Williams (CSAMES) ​ _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Feb 7 02:33:58 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:33:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Trump=2C_the_CIA=85?= Message-ID: FYI. Powerful arguments. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-trump-and-his-war-on-terrorism/5571722 From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 14:26:00 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Disgusting NYT editorial References: <5132922.3837248.1486477560565.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5132922.3837248.1486477560565@mail.yahoo.com> This has to be read to be believed, I guess. They do not allow you to copy and past, thus only the link. The liberal intelligentsia is beyond incorrigible in its penchant for violence in the name of American exceptionalism. Blaming America First | | | | | | | | | | | Blaming America First By The Editorial Board Why does President Trump keep saying the United States is as bad as Russia? | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Tue Feb 7 14:38:53 2017 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:38:53 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Tuesday 1pm @ YMCA: "What does the ban mean for Africa? "Center for African Studies forum Tues. Feb. 7- 1 p.m. In-Reply-To: References: <7864ada7-5eca-6256-831b-2987cba2d85b@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Karen for these insights. I’m going, and will try to represent them. > On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Thanks Stuart > > I won’t be able to go, but perhaps someone who is going, can point out the perfect solution to “fear of terrorists,” is to stop creating them. > > This concern over refugees, is to stop creating them. > > If the US stops our wars of imperialism we might not have either. People could live in their own lands in peace and harmony, without being massacred for their resources by the imperialist, western powers. > > > >> On Feb 6, 2017, at 13:56, Stuart Levy via Peace > wrote: >> >> Event tomorrow -- Tue Feb 7th, 1:00pm at University YMCA >> >> "What does 'The Ban' Mean for Africa? >> Conversations about Immigration, Foreign-ness, and Resistance" >> >> Panel about the recent executive order targeting immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations, including Libya, Somalia and Sudan. >> >> Moderator: Prof. Faranak Miraftab (Urban & Regional Planning) >> Panelists: Prof. Teresa Barnes (History), Dr. Maimouna Barro (Center for African Studies), Mor Gueye (Education), Brenda Sanya (Education), Angela Williams (CSAMES) >> >> >> ​ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Feb 7 15:44:02 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:44:02 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Disgusting NYT editorial In-Reply-To: <5132922.3837248.1486477560565@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5132922.3837248.1486477560565.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <5132922.3837248.1486477560565@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <333D6440-AFE8-45C5-A16B-D286E53A2C36@illinois.edu> The wonderful Caitlin Johnstone restores some sanity - and morality: http://www.newslogue.com/debate/327 "The President of the United States saying 'You think our country’s so innocent?' to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News was one of the best things that’s ever happened. For years Republicans have been moronically bashing Obama for a completely made up “apology tour” wherein they pretend the President went around apologizing for America’s war crimes and heinous abuses, and meanwhile Democrats were rightly calling Bush a bloodthirsty monster while wrongly ignoring Obama’s bloodbaths all across the globe. And now the establishment Democrats are eagerly embracing the leftover evil neocons from the Bush administration as they form an alliance against Trump..." > On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:26 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This has to be read to be believed, I guess. They do not allow you to copy and past, thus only the link. The liberal intelligentsia is beyond incorrigible in its penchant for violence in the name of American exceptionalism. > > > Blaming America First > > > > > Blaming America First > By The Editorial Board > Why does President Trump keep saying the United States is as bad as Russia? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Feb 7 18:01:16 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:01:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Disgusting NYT editorial In-Reply-To: <333D6440-AFE8-45C5-A16B-D286E53A2C36@illinois.edu> References: <5132922.3837248.1486477560565.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <5132922.3837248.1486477560565@mail.yahoo.com> <333D6440-AFE8-45C5-A16B-D286E53A2C36@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <6F87DC47-CEA8-409F-B282-8EB35D6295F3@illinois.edu> So, what does Caitlin Johnstone really know about Putin that makes him so horrible in her eyes? Does she have to take this tack to make her opinions acceptable? On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The wonderful Caitlin Johnstone restores some sanity - and morality: http://www.newslogue.com/debate/327 "The President of the United States saying 'You think our country’s so innocent?' to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News was one of the best things that’s ever happened. For years Republicans have been moronically bashing Obama for a completely made up “apology tour” wherein they pretend the President went around apologizing for America’s war crimes and heinous abuses, and meanwhile Democrats were rightly calling Bush a bloodthirsty monster while wrongly ignoring Obama’s bloodbaths all across the globe. And now the establishment Democrats are eagerly embracing the leftover evil neocons from the Bush administration as they form an alliance against Trump..." On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:26 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: This has to be read to be believed, I guess. They do not allow you to copy and past, thus only the link. The liberal intelligentsia is beyond incorrigible in its penchant for violence in the name of American exceptionalism. Blaming America First [https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/23/logos/nytimes.png] Blaming America First By The Editorial Board Why does President Trump keep saying the United States is as bad as Russia? _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Feb 7 18:40:07 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:40:07 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Disgusting NYT editorial In-Reply-To: <6F87DC47-CEA8-409F-B282-8EB35D6295F3@illinois.edu> References: <5132922.3837248.1486477560565.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <5132922.3837248.1486477560565@mail.yahoo.com> <333D6440-AFE8-45C5-A16B-D286E53A2C36@illinois.edu> <6F87DC47-CEA8-409F-B282-8EB35D6295F3@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I’m afraid you’re right. > On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > So, what does Caitlin Johnstone really know about Putin that makes him so horrible in her eyes? Does she have to take this tack to make her opinions acceptable? > >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> The wonderful Caitlin Johnstone restores some sanity - and morality: >> >> http://www.newslogue.com/debate/327 >> >> "The President of the United States saying 'You think our country’s so innocent?' to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News was one of the best things that’s ever happened. For years Republicans have been moronically bashing Obama for a completely made up “apology tour” wherein they pretend the President went around apologizing for America’s war crimes and heinous abuses, and meanwhile Democrats were rightly calling Bush a bloodthirsty monster while wrongly ignoring Obama’s bloodbaths all across the globe. And now the establishment Democrats are eagerly embracing the leftover evil neocons from the Bush administration as they form an alliance against Trump..." >> >>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:26 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> This has to be read to be believed, I guess. They do not allow you to copy and past, thus only the link. The liberal intelligentsia is beyond incorrigible in its penchant for violence in the name of American exceptionalism. >>> >>> >>> Blaming America First >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Blaming America First >>> By The Editorial Board >>> Why does President Trump keep saying the United States is as bad as Russia? >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Feb 7 20:55:49 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:55:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Disgusting NYT editorial In-Reply-To: References: <5132922.3837248.1486477560565.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <5132922.3837248.1486477560565@mail.yahoo.com> <333D6440-AFE8-45C5-A16B-D286E53A2C36@illinois.edu> <6F87DC47-CEA8-409F-B282-8EB35D6295F3@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Primarily, foil the Clinton administration’s plans to ruin the post-Soviet economy and reduce Russia into a producer of raw materials, under the control of foreign capital. Before Putin, the US almost succeeded: even the Russian life-expectancy fell. No surprise he’s hated by the US political establishment (and loved by the Russians). > On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Good question, what has Putin done that no one likes or trusts him? > > >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 10:40, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> I’m afraid you’re right. >> >> >>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: >>> >>> So, what does Caitlin Johnstone really know about Putin that makes him so horrible in her eyes? Does she have to take this tack to make her opinions acceptable? >>> >>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> The wonderful Caitlin Johnstone restores some sanity - and morality: >>>> >>>> http://www.newslogue.com/debate/327 >>>> >>>> "The President of the United States saying 'You think our country’s so innocent?' to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News was one of the best things that’s ever happened. For years Republicans have been moronically bashing Obama for a completely made up “apology tour” wherein they pretend the President went around apologizing for America’s war crimes and heinous abuses, and meanwhile Democrats were rightly calling Bush a bloodthirsty monster while wrongly ignoring Obama’s bloodbaths all across the globe. And now the establishment Democrats are eagerly embracing the leftover evil neocons from the Bush administration as they form an alliance against Trump..." >>>> >>>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:26 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This has to be read to be believed, I guess. They do not allow you to copy and past, thus only the link. The liberal intelligentsia is beyond incorrigible in its penchant for violence in the name of American exceptionalism. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Blaming America First >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Blaming America First >>>>> By The Editorial Board >>>>> Why does President Trump keep saying the United States is as bad as Russia? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 23:58:09 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 23:58:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stephen Walt responds to Amy Goodman References: <1768603290.153093.1486511889653.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1768603290.153093.1486511889653@mail.yahoo.com> AMY GOODMAN: "We’ve got a lot of killers. You think our country is so innocent?" Professor Stephen Walt, your response? STEPHEN WALT: Well, first of all, Trump is, in fact, correct that the United States has made a lot of mistakes in its foreign policy, and some of those mistakes have had real human consequences. So that’s correct. The problem here is that, first of all, he’s equating Russian behavior with our behavior, and I think there are some clear differences. But more importantly, he’s using our mistakes to excuse what Russia may be doing today. My mom used to tell me that two wrongs don’t make a right. And for him to essentially say, "Well, it’s OK what Russia is doing. It’s OK to prosecute, persecute, possibly murder journalists. It’s OK to destabilize other countries. It’s OK to invade the sovereign territory of other countries, etc., because, after all, we’ve done similar things," is not, it seems to me, a constructive way to approach our relationship with Russia. And it’s certainly not a way to try and improve our relations with other countries. If we’ve made mistakes in the past, then what we should be doing is learning from them and not repeating them, as opposed to using them as a way to excuse the behavior of countries that, you know, we have to deal with. And we have to establish a reasonably constructive relationship, but one that’s also based on mutual respect. (no follow-up from Goodman) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Feb 8 00:11:50 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:11:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stephen Walt responds to Amy Goodman In-Reply-To: <1768603290.153093.1486511889653@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1768603290.153093.1486511889653.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1768603290.153093.1486511889653@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E62B908-061D-4F66-B757-04AD68332071@illinois.edu> I’ve long thought Walt to be an air-head. > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:58 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > AMY GOODMAN: "We’ve got a lot of killers. You think our country is so innocent?" Professor Stephen Walt, your response? > > STEPHEN WALT: Well, first of all, Trump is, in fact, correct that the United States has made a lot of mistakes in its foreign policy, and some of those mistakes have had real human consequences. So that’s correct. > > The problem here is that, first of all, he’s equating Russian behavior with our behavior, and I think there are some clear differences. But more importantly, he’s using our mistakes to excuse what Russia may be doing today. My mom used to tell me that two wrongs don’t make a right. And for him to essentially say, "Well, it’s OK what Russia is doing. It’s OK to prosecute, persecute, possibly murder journalists. It’s OK to destabilize other countries. It’s OK to invade the sovereign territory of other countries, etc., because, after all, we’ve done similar things," is not, it seems to me, a constructive way to approach our relationship with Russia. And it’s certainly not a way to try and improve our relations with other countries. If we’ve made mistakes in the past, then what we should be doing is learning from them and not repeating them, as opposed to using them as a way to excuse the behavior of countries that, you know, we have to deal with. And we have to establish a reasonably constructive relationship, but one that’s also based on mutual respect. > > (no follow-up from Goodman) > _______________________________________________ > 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: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 02:37:09 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:37:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] mainstream protestant churches are denouncing Trump's anti-immigrant actions Message-ID: Dear Peace-Discuss, Mainstream Christian organizations are denouncing President Trump's anti-immigrant actions as un-Christian. As for the threat to punish the communities, they say they are "especially concerned about the explicit targeting of communities determined to help those in need [Sanctuary Cities]. Such policies are antithetical to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and will not be celebrated as progress." We all kind of knew the churches would denounce the President's actions, but still it restores my faith in humanity. -karen medina ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Social Justice Agency of The United Methodist Church Stands With Immigrants and Refugees Rejects policies that deny dignity and worth February 01, 2017 Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, the Trump administration took executive action to expand the U.S.-Mexico border wall, increase the powers of immigration law enforcement and cut federal funding for sanctuary cities. The administration is expected to announce further action to halt the acceptance of refugees, and discriminate against Muslim refugees seeking asylum. The General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church calls upon all policy makers to work for just and compassionate migration policies that affirm the worth, dignity, and inherent value and rights of all persons regardless of nationality or legal status. (2016 Book of Resolutions, #3281 “Welcoming the Migrant to the United States”) Supportive of churches offering sanctuary to migrants, Church and Society is especially concerned about the explicit targeting of communities determined to help those in need. Such policies are antithetical to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and will not be celebrated as progress. “As followers of Jesus, we reject in the strongest terms efforts to expand the U.S.-Mexico border wall, penalize communities providing sanctuary, halt refugee resettlement or impose a religious test for those facing forced migration,” said the Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe, General Secretary of the General Board of Church and Society. “Immigrants and refugees sit in our pews and are behind the pulpit. United Methodists around the world are loving their neighbors by welcoming refugees and immigrants into their congregations and communities,” Henry-Crowe continued. “We call on our political leaders and policy makers to follow their lead and compassionately welcome our sisters and brothers.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 8 13:27:29 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:27:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chilling Message-ID: First paragraph, second sentence is chilling. * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » In speech at Florida Air Force base Trump appeals to the military against the press and the courts 8 February 2017 In an extraordinary appearance Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, President Donald Trump dispensed with democratic protocol to deliver a political speech. He denounced the press and implicitly suggested the formation of a presidential-military alliance against the courts and the Constitution. In his brief remarks, Trump lavished praise on the Central Command and Special Forces Command troops that are based at MacDill. He began by thanking the military for its lopsided vote in his favor in last November’s election. “And I saw those numbers—and you like me and I like you,” he said. He continued: “And we’re going to be loading [MacDill] up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment… We’re going to load you up.” He returned to this theme several times, stating at one point, “We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States…” Invoking the specter of “radical Islamic terrorists,” he darkly accused the press of deliberately downplaying the threat. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even being reported and, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” Following this suggestion that the press is aiding and abetting the terrorists, Trump promoted his anti-immigrant measures, without referring to them directly, and implicitly criticized the courts for temporarily blocking his anti-Muslim travel ban. “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country… You’ve been seeing what’s been going on over the last few days. We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in—not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.” The speech followed his tweets denouncing the judge who ruled against his travel ban and blaming any future terror attack on the “court system.” His top political aide, the fascist Stephen Bannon, has meanwhile told the press to “shut up.” Trump’s speech comes in the midst of an intense conflict within the state over foreign policy and national security questions, involving not only the travel ban but also new attacks by the Democrats and much of the media for his supposed “softness” toward Russia. It also takes place in the context of ongoing demonstrations across the country and internationally in opposition to his racist immigration measures and other antidemocratic policies. The MacDill event marks a milestone in the long-term strengthening of the role of the armed forces in US political life and erosion of the constitutional principle of civilian control. Trump has packed his administration with retired generals, including James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of defense, Michael Flynn as national security adviser, and John Kelly as head of the Homeland Security Department. The latter appointment for the first time places a military man at the head of a sprawling apparatus for domestic repression established as the internal component of the “war on terror.” These developments follow the sinister incident, which remains unexplained and virtually unreported by the media, that occurred toward the beginning of Trump’s inaugural address. Ten officers from the various services lined up behind Trump and remained there long enough for the image of the new president flanked by uniformed military men to be broadcast across the country and internationally. This was no accident, but rather a calculated maneuver devised by Trump and advisers such as Bannon to present an image of a quasi-military government, prepared to crack down on opposition at home and wage war against multiple enemies abroad. The immense growth in the size, power and political influence of the military is not something new or unique to the Trump administration. Rather, as with every other manifestation of the decay of American democracy, with the Trump presidency a protracted process of decline has reached a qualitatively new stage. Twenty-five years of unending war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union have vastly increased the power of the military brass. The consolidation of a professional military has increasingly isolated the armed forces from civilian society, creating a distinct social caste that asserts its independent interests in the affairs of state ever more aggressively. The greater the level of social inequality, the more widespread the alienation of the working masses from the entire political system, the more the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to base itself on the military. Already in the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court handed the White House to George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote, by shutting down a vote recount in Florida, Democrat Al Gore agreed to Republican demands that illegal military votes in Florida, mainly for Bush, be counted. Both Bush and Barack Obama set records for the number of speeches they gave to military audiences. With Trump’s chauvinist “America First” government of generals and billionaires, the semi-criminal financial oligarchy bares its teeth and removes the mask of democratic niceties. In the press and among the think tank strategists of the ruling class, the demise of the bedrock constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is being openly discussed and debated. The headlines of articles on the subject that have appeared since Trump’s election include: “Is Civilian Control of the Military in Jeopardy?” (The American Conservative), “The ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ Fallacy” (Defense One), and “Trump is surrounding himself with generals. That’s dangerous” (Washington Post). An article published by Foreign Policy in December by Georgetown University Professor Rosa Brooks argues that civilian control of the military has “become a rule of aesthetics, not ethics, and its invocation is a soothing ritual that makes us feel better without accomplishing anything of value.” The Democratic Party will not oppose the further politicization of the military and militarization of politics. On the contrary, in recent days media outlets aligned with the Democrats have presented the military brass as a democratic check on Trump’s fascistic impulses. The New York Times responded to Trump’s elevation of Bannon to the National Security Council and demotion of the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by urging Trump to seek advice in matters of war and peace from “more thoughtful experienced hands” such as Defense Secretary Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford. The Atlantic magazine published an article with the headline “Are Trump’s Generals Mounting a Defense of Democratic Institutions?” There is no faction of the ruling class or its political representatives, Democratic or Republican, that will defend democratic rights. The collapse of American democracy, as with democratic institutions all over the world, is the outcome of the mortal crisis of American and world capitalism. It is up to the working class to take the lead in the defense of basic rights through an independent struggle for political power and socialism. Barry Grey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 15:20:27 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:20:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chilling barely begins to describe this article and situation. I invite everyone to attend the workshop at Channing Murray Saturday Feb 11 2-4 pm on building progressive power in the age of Trump. Featured speakers are Urbana Alderman Aaron Ammons and local activist Jared Miller. Thanks for sharing, Karen. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > First paragraph, second sentence is chilling. > > Print > Leaflet > Feedback > Share » > In speech at Florida Air Force base > Trump appeals to the military against the press and the courts > 8 February 2017 > In an extraordinary appearance Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, President Donald Trump dispensed with democratic protocol to deliver a political speech. He denounced the press and implicitly suggested the formation of a presidential-military alliance against the courts and the Constitution. > In his brief remarks, Trump lavished praise on the Central Command and Special Forces Command troops that are based at MacDill. He began by thanking the military for its lopsided vote in his favor in last November’s election. “And I saw those numbers—and you like me and I like you,” he said. > He continued: “And we’re going to be loading [MacDill] up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment… We’re going to load you up.” He returned to this theme several times, stating at one point, “We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States…” > Invoking the specter of “radical Islamic terrorists,” he darkly accused the press of deliberately downplaying the threat. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even being reported and, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” > Following this suggestion that the press is aiding and abetting the terrorists, Trump promoted his anti-immigrant measures, without referring to them directly, and implicitly criticized the courts for temporarily blocking his anti-Muslim travel ban. > “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country… You’ve been seeing what’s been going on over the last few days. We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in—not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.” > The speech followed his tweets denouncing the judge who ruled against his travel ban and blaming any future terror attack on the “court system.” His top political aide, the fascist Stephen Bannon, has meanwhile told the press to “shut up.” > Trump’s speech comes in the midst of an intense conflict within the state over foreign policy and national security questions, involving not only the travel ban but also new attacks by the Democrats and much of the media for his supposed “softness” toward Russia. > It also takes place in the context of ongoing demonstrations across the country and internationally in opposition to his racist immigration measures and other antidemocratic policies. > The MacDill event marks a milestone in the long-term strengthening of the role of the armed forces in US political life and erosion of the constitutional principle of civilian control. Trump has packed his administration with retired generals, including James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of defense, Michael Flynn as national security adviser, and John Kelly as head of the Homeland Security Department. The latter appointment for the first time places a military man at the head of a sprawling apparatus for domestic repression established as the internal component of the “war on terror.” > These developments follow the sinister incident, which remains unexplained and virtually unreported by the media, that occurred toward the beginning of Trump’s inaugural address. Ten officers from the various services lined up behind Trump and remained there long enough for the image of the new president flanked by uniformed military men to be broadcast across the country and internationally. This was no accident, but rather a calculated maneuver devised by Trump and advisers such as Bannon to present an image of a quasi-military government, prepared to crack down on opposition at home and wage war against multiple enemies abroad. > The immense growth in the size, power and political influence of the military is not something new or unique to the Trump administration. Rather, as with every other manifestation of the decay of American democracy, with the Trump presidency a protracted process of decline has reached a qualitatively new stage. > Twenty-five years of unending war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union have vastly increased the power of the military brass. The consolidation of a professional military has increasingly isolated the armed forces from civilian society, creating a distinct social caste that asserts its independent interests in the affairs of state ever more aggressively. > The greater the level of social inequality, the more widespread the alienation of the working masses from the entire political system, the more the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to base itself on the military. Already in the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court handed the White House to George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote, by shutting down a vote recount in Florida, Democrat Al Gore agreed to Republican demands that illegal military votes in Florida, mainly for Bush, be counted. > Both Bush and Barack Obama set records for the number of speeches they gave to military audiences. With Trump’s chauvinist “America First” government of generals and billionaires, the semi-criminal financial oligarchy bares its teeth and removes the mask of democratic niceties. > In the press and among the think tank strategists of the ruling class, the demise of the bedrock constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is being openly discussed and debated. > The headlines of articles on the subject that have appeared since Trump’s election include: “Is Civilian Control of the Military in Jeopardy?” (The American Conservative), “The ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ Fallacy” (Defense One), and “Trump is surrounding himself with generals. That’s dangerous” (Washington Post). An article published by Foreign Policy in December by Georgetown University Professor Rosa Brooks argues that civilian control of the military has “become a rule of aesthetics, not ethics, and its invocation is a soothing ritual that makes us feel better without accomplishing anything of value.” > The Democratic Party will not oppose the further politicization of the military and militarization of politics. On the contrary, in recent days media outlets aligned with the Democrats have presented the military brass as a democratic check on Trump’s fascistic impulses. The New York Times responded to Trump’s elevation of Bannon to the National Security Council and demotion of the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by urging Trump to seek advice in matters of war and peace from “more thoughtful experienced hands” such as Defense Secretary Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford. > The Atlantic magazine published an article with the headline “Are Trump’s Generals Mounting a Defense of Democratic Institutions?” > There is no faction of the ruling class or its political representatives, Democratic or Republican, that will defend democratic rights. The collapse of American democracy, as with democratic institutions all over the world, is the outcome of the mortal crisis of American and world capitalism. It is up to the working class to take the lead in the defense of basic rights through an independent struggle for political power and socialism. > Barry Grey > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 8 15:50:40 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:50:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The article comes from the World Socialist Website. They are opposed to war, Democrat and Republican Parties alike. On Feb 8, 2017, at 07:20, Debra Schrishuhn > wrote: Chilling barely begins to describe this article and situation. I invite everyone to attend the workshop at Channing Murray Saturday Feb 11 2-4 pm on building progressive power in the age of Trump. Featured speakers are Urbana Alderman Aaron Ammons and local activist Jared Miller. Thanks for sharing, Karen. Deb Sent from my iPhone On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: First paragraph, second sentence is chilling. * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » In speech at Florida Air Force base Trump appeals to the military against the press and the courts 8 February 2017 In an extraordinary appearance Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, President Donald Trump dispensed with democratic protocol to deliver a political speech. He denounced the press and implicitly suggested the formation of a presidential-military alliance against the courts and the Constitution. In his brief remarks, Trump lavished praise on the Central Command and Special Forces Command troops that are based at MacDill. He began by thanking the military for its lopsided vote in his favor in last November’s election. “And I saw those numbers—and you like me and I like you,” he said. He continued: “And we’re going to be loading [MacDill] up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment… We’re going to load you up.” He returned to this theme several times, stating at one point, “We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States…” Invoking the specter of “radical Islamic terrorists,” he darkly accused the press of deliberately downplaying the threat. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even being reported and, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” Following this suggestion that the press is aiding and abetting the terrorists, Trump promoted his anti-immigrant measures, without referring to them directly, and implicitly criticized the courts for temporarily blocking his anti-Muslim travel ban. “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country… You’ve been seeing what’s been going on over the last few days. We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in—not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.” The speech followed his tweets denouncing the judge who ruled against his travel ban and blaming any future terror attack on the “court system.” His top political aide, the fascist Stephen Bannon, has meanwhile told the press to “shut up.” Trump’s speech comes in the midst of an intense conflict within the state over foreign policy and national security questions, involving not only the travel ban but also new attacks by the Democrats and much of the media for his supposed “softness” toward Russia. It also takes place in the context of ongoing demonstrations across the country and internationally in opposition to his racist immigration measures and other antidemocratic policies. The MacDill event marks a milestone in the long-term strengthening of the role of the armed forces in US political life and erosion of the constitutional principle of civilian control. Trump has packed his administration with retired generals, including James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of defense, Michael Flynn as national security adviser, and John Kelly as head of the Homeland Security Department. The latter appointment for the first time places a military man at the head of a sprawling apparatus for domestic repression established as the internal component of the “war on terror.” These developments follow the sinister incident, which remains unexplained and virtually unreported by the media, that occurred toward the beginning of Trump’s inaugural address. Ten officers from the various services lined up behind Trump and remained there long enough for the image of the new president flanked by uniformed military men to be broadcast across the country and internationally. This was no accident, but rather a calculated maneuver devised by Trump and advisers such as Bannon to present an image of a quasi-military government, prepared to crack down on opposition at home and wage war against multiple enemies abroad. The immense growth in the size, power and political influence of the military is not something new or unique to the Trump administration. Rather, as with every other manifestation of the decay of American democracy, with the Trump presidency a protracted process of decline has reached a qualitatively new stage. Twenty-five years of unending war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union have vastly increased the power of the military brass. The consolidation of a professional military has increasingly isolated the armed forces from civilian society, creating a distinct social caste that asserts its independent interests in the affairs of state ever more aggressively. The greater the level of social inequality, the more widespread the alienation of the working masses from the entire political system, the more the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to base itself on the military. Already in the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court handed the White House to George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote, by shutting down a vote recount in Florida, Democrat Al Gore agreed to Republican demands that illegal military votes in Florida, mainly for Bush, be counted. Both Bush and Barack Obama set records for the number of speeches they gave to military audiences. With Trump’s chauvinist “America First” government of generals and billionaires, the semi-criminal financial oligarchy bares its teeth and removes the mask of democratic niceties. In the press and among the think tank strategists of the ruling class, the demise of the bedrock constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is being openly discussed and debated. The headlines of articles on the subject that have appeared since Trump’s election include: “Is Civilian Control of the Military in Jeopardy?” (The American Conservative), “The ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ Fallacy” (Defense One), and “Trump is surrounding himself with generals. That’s dangerous” (Washington Post). An article published by Foreign Policy in December by Georgetown University Professor Rosa Brooks argues that civilian control of the military has “become a rule of aesthetics, not ethics, and its invocation is a soothing ritual that makes us feel better without accomplishing anything of value.” The Democratic Party will not oppose the further politicization of the military and militarization of politics. On the contrary, in recent days media outlets aligned with the Democrats have presented the military brass as a democratic check on Trump’s fascistic impulses. The New York Times responded to Trump’s elevation of Bannon to the National Security Council and demotion of the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by urging Trump to seek advice in matters of war and peace from “more thoughtful experienced hands” such as Defense Secretary Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford. The Atlantic magazine published an article with the headline “Are Trump’s Generals Mounting a Defense of Democratic Institutions?” There is no faction of the ruling class or its political representatives, Democratic or Republican, that will defend democratic rights. The collapse of American democracy, as with democratic institutions all over the world, is the outcome of the mortal crisis of American and world capitalism. It is up to the working class to take the lead in the defense of basic rights through an independent struggle for political power and socialism. Barry Grey _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 8 16:03:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:03:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Drone Campaign News - February 2017 References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: Reply-To: Drone Campaign Network > Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/f4b7a7e4e1dc9a526bdcef140/images/haead_of_march.jpg] Drone Campaign Network February 2017 newsletter This is the Drone Campaign Network's email newsletter containing the latest information, campaign updates and links to resources to help you campaign on the growing use of armed drones. Please forward this email on to anyone who may be interested. To receive our email newsletter, sign up via our website here. To let us know of any actions you are planning to include in the next newsletter, contact us at dronecampaignnetwork at riseup.net ________________________________ February 2017 1. recent actions 2. future events 3. drone news ________________________________ 1. Recent Actions December 19th - demonstrations at Elbit Systems There was co-ordinated actions at 3 Elbit Systems sites at Shenstone, Crawley and Oldham on December 19th. Elbit is Israel’s largest arms company. It manufactures drones, systems for military aircraft, armed remote control boats, and military land vehicles. [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/f4b7a7e4e1dc9a526bdcef140/images/295a59e4-bbea-4c25-8735-b7df4d2e3d6e.jpg] 2.Future Events Fly Kites Not Drones March 21st The Persian New Year, March 21st, has become established as an excellent time to remember the millions of young people for whom the threat of drone strikes means an end to the simple pleasure of kite flying; a time when we can fly kites in solidarity with them. If you would like to make your own kites or run a workshop or simply find out more information see www.flykitesnotdrones.org (there is an excellent video in workshop 3). Let us know of any kite flying events you are organising this year and we can include them in the next newsletter or on our website. Or join the big demonstration at RAF Waddington, five miles south of Lincoln on Saturday 18th March 1pm -3pm. There are regular buses from Lincoln and Grantham to the base, from which the British armed Reaper drone is controlled. Don't forget your kite! [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/f4b7a7e4e1dc9a526bdcef140/images/b7ca6fce-0c05-4359-b10a-8593311b395b.jpg] 3. Drone News a. Legality of British drone strikes On 11th January the Attorney General gave an important speech on the legality of UK pre-emptive drone strikes. A detailed analysis by Drone Wars UK looked at how Britain was following the lead of the US in attempting to re-define the understanding of ‘imminent’ to enable the expansion of the ability to undertake pre-emptive armed attacks and that no evidence of an actual or specific attack was necessary. b. Drone Proliferation Many more countries, as well as The US, the UK and Israel are now using armed drones. Most are buying from China but some countries like Turkey and Iran have developed their own. In the last 15 months there have been drone strikes undertaken by Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, UAE, Turkey and possibly Egypt. see here for more information. It is highly likely that other countries will acquire the technology and begin launching drone strikes over the next 18 months, including European countries. The implications for global peace and security of multiple nations using drones to launch cross border strikes is very serious. Canada too is planning to buy them. c. Drone Development And finally the US military have test launched 103 miniature swarming drones from a fighter jet. The small Perdix drones have a wingspan of 12", operate autonomously and share a distributed brain. See them in action. *********************************************************************************** To let us know of any actions you are planning to include in the next newsletter, contact us at dronecampaignnetwork at riseup.net Copyright © 2017 Drone Campaign Network, All rights reserved. Signed up for emails at our website or at an information event Our mailing address is: Drone Campaign Network c/o Peace House 19 Paradise Street Oxford, Eng OX1 1LD United Kingdom Add us to your address book [Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 8 16:03:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:03:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Drone Campaign News - February 2017 References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: Reply-To: Drone Campaign Network > Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/f4b7a7e4e1dc9a526bdcef140/images/haead_of_march.jpg] Drone Campaign Network February 2017 newsletter This is the Drone Campaign Network's email newsletter containing the latest information, campaign updates and links to resources to help you campaign on the growing use of armed drones. Please forward this email on to anyone who may be interested. To receive our email newsletter, sign up via our website here. To let us know of any actions you are planning to include in the next newsletter, contact us at dronecampaignnetwork at riseup.net ________________________________ February 2017 1. recent actions 2. future events 3. drone news ________________________________ 1. Recent Actions December 19th - demonstrations at Elbit Systems There was co-ordinated actions at 3 Elbit Systems sites at Shenstone, Crawley and Oldham on December 19th. Elbit is Israel’s largest arms company. It manufactures drones, systems for military aircraft, armed remote control boats, and military land vehicles. [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/f4b7a7e4e1dc9a526bdcef140/images/295a59e4-bbea-4c25-8735-b7df4d2e3d6e.jpg] 2.Future Events Fly Kites Not Drones March 21st The Persian New Year, March 21st, has become established as an excellent time to remember the millions of young people for whom the threat of drone strikes means an end to the simple pleasure of kite flying; a time when we can fly kites in solidarity with them. If you would like to make your own kites or run a workshop or simply find out more information see www.flykitesnotdrones.org (there is an excellent video in workshop 3). Let us know of any kite flying events you are organising this year and we can include them in the next newsletter or on our website. Or join the big demonstration at RAF Waddington, five miles south of Lincoln on Saturday 18th March 1pm -3pm. There are regular buses from Lincoln and Grantham to the base, from which the British armed Reaper drone is controlled. Don't forget your kite! [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/f4b7a7e4e1dc9a526bdcef140/images/b7ca6fce-0c05-4359-b10a-8593311b395b.jpg] 3. Drone News a. Legality of British drone strikes On 11th January the Attorney General gave an important speech on the legality of UK pre-emptive drone strikes. A detailed analysis by Drone Wars UK looked at how Britain was following the lead of the US in attempting to re-define the understanding of ‘imminent’ to enable the expansion of the ability to undertake pre-emptive armed attacks and that no evidence of an actual or specific attack was necessary. b. Drone Proliferation Many more countries, as well as The US, the UK and Israel are now using armed drones. Most are buying from China but some countries like Turkey and Iran have developed their own. In the last 15 months there have been drone strikes undertaken by Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, UAE, Turkey and possibly Egypt. see here for more information. It is highly likely that other countries will acquire the technology and begin launching drone strikes over the next 18 months, including European countries. The implications for global peace and security of multiple nations using drones to launch cross border strikes is very serious. Canada too is planning to buy them. c. Drone Development And finally the US military have test launched 103 miniature swarming drones from a fighter jet. The small Perdix drones have a wingspan of 12", operate autonomously and share a distributed brain. See them in action. *********************************************************************************** To let us know of any actions you are planning to include in the next newsletter, contact us at dronecampaignnetwork at riseup.net Copyright © 2017 Drone Campaign Network, All rights reserved. Signed up for emails at our website or at an information event Our mailing address is: Drone Campaign Network c/o Peace House 19 Paradise Street Oxford, Eng OX1 1LD United Kingdom Add us to your address book [Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Feb 8 19:17:22 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:17:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Against this, Trump (and Bannon) are being excoriated by the (bipartisan) political establisnment for daring to tamper with the organization of the of the National Security Council, to which the president’s private army (’special forces’) reports. (“The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence sat on the principals committee under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. President George W. Bush stipulated that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA director (the predecessor to the Director of National Intelligence) 'shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed' in his 2001 memo. Trump’s memo says this pretty much verbatim. Outrage on this particular change, or rather reversal, is overblown. Despite being regular members under Obama, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not attend every principals committee, nor did he under Bush, according to Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor and former adviser to the National Security Council under George W. Bush.” [politifact]) But it’s primarily another stick to beat Trump with. Obama directed more than 70,000 ‘special operations forces’ - American death squads - active in more than 70% of the countries in the world; their activities included ‘rendition’ - kidnapping - torture, and murder. His drone assassinations - called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - killed more than 6,000 people, including US citizens and hundreds of children. And in two presidential terms of war-making (the first time that’s ever happened) he attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush). Trump ran against Obama and Clinton’s war-mongering, but the political establishment is working hysterically to cozen or coerce him back into their murderous policies (as the raid in Yemen shows). They may succeed. > On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Chilling barely begins to describe this article and situation. I invite everyone to attend the workshop at Channing Murray Saturday Feb 11 2-4 pm on building progressive power in the age of Trump. Featured speakers are Urbana Alderman Aaron Ammons and local activist Jared Miller. > > Thanks for sharing, Karen. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > >> In speech at Florida Air Force base >> Trump appeals to the military against the press and the courts >> 8 February 2017 >> In an extraordinary appearance Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, President Donald Trump dispensed with democratic protocol to deliver a political speech. He denounced the press and implicitly suggested the formation of a presidential-military alliance against the courts and the Constitution. >> In his brief remarks, Trump lavished praise on the Central Command and Special Forces Command troops that are based at MacDill. He began by thanking the military for its lopsided vote in his favor in last November’s election. “And I saw those numbers—and you like me and I like you,” he said. >> He continued: “And we’re going to be loading [MacDill] up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment… We’re going to load you up.” He returned to this theme several times, stating at one point, “We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States…” >> Invoking the specter of “radical Islamic terrorists,” he darkly accused the press of deliberately downplaying the threat. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even being reported and, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” >> Following this suggestion that the press is aiding and abetting the terrorists, Trump promoted his anti-immigrant measures, without referring to them directly, and implicitly criticized the courts for temporarily blocking his anti-Muslim travel ban. >> “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country… You’ve been seeing what’s been going on over the last few days. We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in—not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.” >> The speech followed his tweets denouncing the judge who ruled against his travel ban and blaming any future terror attack on the “court system.” His top political aide, the fascist Stephen Bannon, has meanwhile told the press to “shut up.” >> Trump’s speech comes in the midst of an intense conflict within the state over foreign policy and national security questions, involving not only the travel ban but also new attacks by the Democrats and much of the media for his supposed “softness” toward Russia. >> It also takes place in the context of ongoing demonstrations across the country and internationally in opposition to his racist immigration measures and other antidemocratic policies. >> The MacDill event marks a milestone in the long-term strengthening of the role of the armed forces in US political life and erosion of the constitutional principle of civilian control. Trump has packed his administration with retired generals, including James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of defense, Michael Flynn as national security adviser, and John Kelly as head of the Homeland Security Department. The latter appointment for the first time places a military man at the head of a sprawling apparatus for domestic repression established as the internal component of the “war on terror.” >> These developments follow the sinister incident, which remains unexplained and virtually unreported by the media, that occurred toward the beginning of Trump’s inaugural address. Ten officers from the various services lined up behind Trump and remained there long enough for the image of the new president flanked by uniformed military men to be broadcast across the country and internationally. This was no accident, but rather a calculated maneuver devised by Trump and advisers such as Bannon to present an image of a quasi-military government, prepared to crack down on opposition at home and wage war against multiple enemies abroad. >> The immense growth in the size, power and political influence of the military is not something new or unique to the Trump administration. Rather, as with every other manifestation of the decay of American democracy, with the Trump presidency a protracted process of decline has reached a qualitatively new stage. >> Twenty-five years of unending war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union have vastly increased the power of the military brass. The consolidation of a professional military has increasingly isolated the armed forces from civilian society, creating a distinct social caste that asserts its independent interests in the affairs of state ever more aggressively. >> The greater the level of social inequality, the more widespread the alienation of the working masses from the entire political system, the more the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to base itself on the military. Already in the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court handed the White House to George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote, by shutting down a vote recount in Florida, Democrat Al Gore agreed to Republican demands that illegal military votes in Florida, mainly for Bush, be counted. >> Both Bush and Barack Obama set records for the number of speeches they gave to military audiences. With Trump’s chauvinist “America First” government of generals and billionaires, the semi-criminal financial oligarchy bares its teeth and removes the mask of democratic niceties. >> In the press and among the think tank strategists of the ruling class, the demise of the bedrock constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is being openly discussed and debated. >> The headlines of articles on the subject that have appeared since Trump’s election include: “Is Civilian Control of the Military in Jeopardy?” (The American Conservative), “The ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ Fallacy” (Defense One), and “Trump is surrounding himself with generals. That’s dangerous” (Washington Post). An article published by Foreign Policy in December by Georgetown University Professor Rosa Brooks argues that civilian control of the military has “become a rule of aesthetics, not ethics, and its invocation is a soothing ritual that makes us feel better without accomplishing anything of value.” >> The Democratic Party will not oppose the further politicization of the military and militarization of politics. On the contrary, in recent days media outlets aligned with the Democrats have presented the military brass as a democratic check on Trump’s fascistic impulses. The New York Times responded to Trump’s elevation of Bannon to the National Security Council and demotion of the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by urging Trump to seek advice in matters of war and peace from “more thoughtful experienced hands” such as Defense Secretary Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford. >> The Atlantic magazine published an article with the headline “Are Trump’s Generals Mounting a Defense of Democratic Institutions?” >> There is no faction of the ruling class or its political representatives, Democratic or Republican, that will defend democratic rights. The collapse of American democracy, as with democratic institutions all over the world, is the outcome of the mortal crisis of American and world capitalism. It is up to the working class to take the lead in the defense of basic rights through an independent struggle for political power and socialism. >> Barry Grey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trump-intervene.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 117325 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Feb 8 19:23:47 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:23:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: His drone assassinations - called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - killed more than 6,000 people, including US citizens and hundreds of children. Yeah and the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty became Accessories After the Fact to these War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity when they invited Killer Koh to come in here and justify them on October 28 in order to get Killary elected president 10 days later. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:17 PM To: Debra Schrishuhn Cc: Peace Discuss ; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Chilling Against this, Trump (and Bannon) are being excoriated by the (bipartisan) political establisnment for daring to tamper with the organization of the of the National Security Council, to which the president’s private army (’special forces’) reports. (“The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence sat on the principals committee under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. President George W. Bush stipulated that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA director (the predecessor to the Director of National Intelligence) 'shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed' in his 2001 memo. Trump’s memo says this pretty much verbatim. Outrage on this particular change, or rather reversal, is overblown. Despite being regular members under Obama, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not attend every principals committee, nor did he under Bush, according to Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor and former adviser to the National Security Council under George W. Bush.” [politifact]) But it’s primarily another stick to beat Trump with. Obama directed more than 70,000 ‘special operations forces’ - American death squads - active in more than 70% of the countries in the world; their activities included ‘rendition’ - kidnapping - torture, and murder. His drone assassinations - called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - killed more than 6,000 people, including US citizens and hundreds of children. And in two presidential terms of war-making (the first time that’s ever happened) he attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush). Trump ran against Obama and Clinton’s war-mongering, but the political establishment is working hysterically to cozen or coerce him back into their murderous policies (as the raid in Yemen shows). They may succeed. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2820E.90C79E40] On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss > wrote: Chilling barely begins to describe this article and situation. I invite everyone to attend the workshop at Channing Murray Saturday Feb 11 2-4 pm on building progressive power in the age of Trump. Featured speakers are Urbana Alderman Aaron Ammons and local activist Jared Miller. Thanks for sharing, Karen. Deb Sent from my iPhone On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: In speech at Florida Air Force base Trump appeals to the military against the press and the courts 8 February 2017 In an extraordinary appearance Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, President Donald Trump dispensed with democratic protocol to deliver a political speech. He denounced the press and implicitly suggested the formation of a presidential-military alliance against the courts and the Constitution. In his brief remarks, Trump lavished praise on the Central Command and Special Forces Command troops that are based at MacDill. He began by thanking the military for its lopsided vote in his favor in last November’s election. “And I saw those numbers—and you like me and I like you,” he said. He continued: “And we’re going to be loading [MacDill] up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment… We’re going to load you up.” He returned to this theme several times, stating at one point, “We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States…” Invoking the specter of “radical Islamic terrorists,” he darkly accused the press of deliberately downplaying the threat. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even being reported and, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” Following this suggestion that the press is aiding and abetting the terrorists, Trump promoted his anti-immigrant measures, without referring to them directly, and implicitly criticized the courts for temporarily blocking his anti-Muslim travel ban. “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country… You’ve been seeing what’s been going on over the last few days. We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in—not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.” The speech followed his tweets denouncing the judge who ruled against his travel ban and blaming any future terror attack on the “court system.” His top political aide, the fascist Stephen Bannon, has meanwhile told the press to “shut up.” Trump’s speech comes in the midst of an intense conflict within the state over foreign policy and national security questions, involving not only the travel ban but also new attacks by the Democrats and much of the media for his supposed “softness” toward Russia. It also takes place in the context of ongoing demonstrations across the country and internationally in opposition to his racist immigration measures and other antidemocratic policies. The MacDill event marks a milestone in the long-term strengthening of the role of the armed forces in US political life and erosion of the constitutional principle of civilian control. Trump has packed his administration with retired generals, including James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of defense, Michael Flynn as national security adviser, and John Kelly as head of the Homeland Security Department. The latter appointment for the first time places a military man at the head of a sprawling apparatus for domestic repression established as the internal component of the “war on terror.” These developments follow the sinister incident, which remains unexplained and virtually unreported by the media, that occurred toward the beginning of Trump’s inaugural address. Ten officers from the various services lined up behind Trump and remained there long enough for the image of the new president flanked by uniformed military men to be broadcast across the country and internationally. This was no accident, but rather a calculated maneuver devised by Trump and advisers such as Bannon to present an image of a quasi-military government, prepared to crack down on opposition at home and wage war against multiple enemies abroad. The immense growth in the size, power and political influence of the military is not something new or unique to the Trump administration. Rather, as with every other manifestation of the decay of American democracy, with the Trump presidency a protracted process of decline has reached a qualitatively new stage. Twenty-five years of unending war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union have vastly increased the power of the military brass. The consolidation of a professional military has increasingly isolated the armed forces from civilian society, creating a distinct social caste that asserts its independent interests in the affairs of state ever more aggressively. The greater the level of social inequality, the more widespread the alienation of the working masses from the entire political system, the more the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to base itself on the military. Already in the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court handed the White House to George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote, by shutting down a vote recount in Florida, Democrat Al Gore agreed to Republican demands that illegal military votes in Florida, mainly for Bush, be counted. Both Bush and Barack Obama set records for the number of speeches they gave to military audiences. With Trump’s chauvinist “America First” government of generals and billionaires, the semi-criminal financial oligarchy bares its teeth and removes the mask of democratic niceties. In the press and among the think tank strategists of the ruling class, the demise of the bedrock constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is being openly discussed and debated. The headlines of articles on the subject that have appeared since Trump’s election include: “Is Civilian Control of the Military in Jeopardy?” (The American Conservative), “The ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ Fallacy” (Defense One), and “Trump is surrounding himself with generals. That’s dangerous” (Washington Post). An article published by Foreign Policy in December by Georgetown University Professor Rosa Brooks argues that civilian control of the military has “become a rule of aesthetics, not ethics, and its invocation is a soothing ritual that makes us feel better without accomplishing anything of value.” The Democratic Party will not oppose the further politicization of the military and militarization of politics. On the contrary, in recent days media outlets aligned with the Democrats have presented the military brass as a democratic check on Trump’s fascistic impulses. The New York Times responded to Trump’s elevation of Bannon to the National Security Council and demotion of the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by urging Trump to seek advice in matters of war and peace from “more thoughtful experienced hands” such as Defense Secretary Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford. The Atlantic magazine published an article with the headline “Are Trump’s Generals Mounting a Defense of Democratic Institutions?” There is no faction of the ruling class or its political representatives, Democratic or Republican, that will defend democratic rights. The collapse of American democracy, as with democratic institutions all over the world, is the outcome of the mortal crisis of American and world capitalism. It is up to the working class to take the lead in the defense of basic rights through an independent struggle for political power and socialism. Barry Grey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 117325 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Feb 8 19:38:32 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:38:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilling References: Message-ID: The Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color verges on genocide against them. Ditto for Illinois Nazis Law Faculty. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:24 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G ; Debra Schrishuhn Cc: Peace Discuss ; Peace Subject: RE: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Chilling His drone assassinations - called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - killed more than 6,000 people, including US citizens and hundreds of children. Yeah and the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty became Accessories After the Fact to these War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity when they invited Killer Koh to come in here and justify them on October 28 in order to get Killary elected president 10 days later. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:17 PM To: Debra Schrishuhn > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Chilling Against this, Trump (and Bannon) are being excoriated by the (bipartisan) political establisnment for daring to tamper with the organization of the of the National Security Council, to which the president’s private army (’special forces’) reports. (“The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence sat on the principals committee under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. President George W. Bush stipulated that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA director (the predecessor to the Director of National Intelligence) 'shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed' in his 2001 memo. Trump’s memo says this pretty much verbatim. Outrage on this particular change, or rather reversal, is overblown. Despite being regular members under Obama, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not attend every principals committee, nor did he under Bush, according to Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor and former adviser to the National Security Council under George W. Bush.” [politifact]) But it’s primarily another stick to beat Trump with. Obama directed more than 70,000 ‘special operations forces’ - American death squads - active in more than 70% of the countries in the world; their activities included ‘rendition’ - kidnapping - torture, and murder. His drone assassinations - called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - killed more than 6,000 people, including US citizens and hundreds of children. And in two presidential terms of war-making (the first time that’s ever happened) he attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush). Trump ran against Obama and Clinton’s war-mongering, but the political establishment is working hysterically to cozen or coerce him back into their murderous policies (as the raid in Yemen shows). They may succeed. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D28210.A1A74FB0] On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss > wrote: Chilling barely begins to describe this article and situation. I invite everyone to attend the workshop at Channing Murray Saturday Feb 11 2-4 pm on building progressive power in the age of Trump. Featured speakers are Urbana Alderman Aaron Ammons and local activist Jared Miller. Thanks for sharing, Karen. Deb Sent from my iPhone On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: In speech at Florida Air Force base Trump appeals to the military against the press and the courts 8 February 2017 In an extraordinary appearance Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, President Donald Trump dispensed with democratic protocol to deliver a political speech. He denounced the press and implicitly suggested the formation of a presidential-military alliance against the courts and the Constitution. In his brief remarks, Trump lavished praise on the Central Command and Special Forces Command troops that are based at MacDill. He began by thanking the military for its lopsided vote in his favor in last November’s election. “And I saw those numbers—and you like me and I like you,” he said. He continued: “And we’re going to be loading [MacDill] up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment… We’re going to load you up.” He returned to this theme several times, stating at one point, “We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States…” Invoking the specter of “radical Islamic terrorists,” he darkly accused the press of deliberately downplaying the threat. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even being reported and, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” Following this suggestion that the press is aiding and abetting the terrorists, Trump promoted his anti-immigrant measures, without referring to them directly, and implicitly criticized the courts for temporarily blocking his anti-Muslim travel ban. “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country… You’ve been seeing what’s been going on over the last few days. We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in—not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.” The speech followed his tweets denouncing the judge who ruled against his travel ban and blaming any future terror attack on the “court system.” His top political aide, the fascist Stephen Bannon, has meanwhile told the press to “shut up.” Trump’s speech comes in the midst of an intense conflict within the state over foreign policy and national security questions, involving not only the travel ban but also new attacks by the Democrats and much of the media for his supposed “softness” toward Russia. It also takes place in the context of ongoing demonstrations across the country and internationally in opposition to his racist immigration measures and other antidemocratic policies. The MacDill event marks a milestone in the long-term strengthening of the role of the armed forces in US political life and erosion of the constitutional principle of civilian control. Trump has packed his administration with retired generals, including James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of defense, Michael Flynn as national security adviser, and John Kelly as head of the Homeland Security Department. The latter appointment for the first time places a military man at the head of a sprawling apparatus for domestic repression established as the internal component of the “war on terror.” These developments follow the sinister incident, which remains unexplained and virtually unreported by the media, that occurred toward the beginning of Trump’s inaugural address. Ten officers from the various services lined up behind Trump and remained there long enough for the image of the new president flanked by uniformed military men to be broadcast across the country and internationally. This was no accident, but rather a calculated maneuver devised by Trump and advisers such as Bannon to present an image of a quasi-military government, prepared to crack down on opposition at home and wage war against multiple enemies abroad. The immense growth in the size, power and political influence of the military is not something new or unique to the Trump administration. Rather, as with every other manifestation of the decay of American democracy, with the Trump presidency a protracted process of decline has reached a qualitatively new stage. Twenty-five years of unending war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union have vastly increased the power of the military brass. The consolidation of a professional military has increasingly isolated the armed forces from civilian society, creating a distinct social caste that asserts its independent interests in the affairs of state ever more aggressively. The greater the level of social inequality, the more widespread the alienation of the working masses from the entire political system, the more the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to base itself on the military. Already in the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court handed the White House to George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote, by shutting down a vote recount in Florida, Democrat Al Gore agreed to Republican demands that illegal military votes in Florida, mainly for Bush, be counted. Both Bush and Barack Obama set records for the number of speeches they gave to military audiences. With Trump’s chauvinist “America First” government of generals and billionaires, the semi-criminal financial oligarchy bares its teeth and removes the mask of democratic niceties. In the press and among the think tank strategists of the ruling class, the demise of the bedrock constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is being openly discussed and debated. The headlines of articles on the subject that have appeared since Trump’s election include: “Is Civilian Control of the Military in Jeopardy?” (The American Conservative), “The ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ Fallacy” (Defense One), and “Trump is surrounding himself with generals. That’s dangerous” (Washington Post). An article published by Foreign Policy in December by Georgetown University Professor Rosa Brooks argues that civilian control of the military has “become a rule of aesthetics, not ethics, and its invocation is a soothing ritual that makes us feel better without accomplishing anything of value.” The Democratic Party will not oppose the further politicization of the military and militarization of politics. On the contrary, in recent days media outlets aligned with the Democrats have presented the military brass as a democratic check on Trump’s fascistic impulses. The New York Times responded to Trump’s elevation of Bannon to the National Security Council and demotion of the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by urging Trump to seek advice in matters of war and peace from “more thoughtful experienced hands” such as Defense Secretary Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford. The Atlantic magazine published an article with the headline “Are Trump’s Generals Mounting a Defense of Democratic Institutions?” There is no faction of the ruling class or its political representatives, Democratic or Republican, that will defend democratic rights. The collapse of American democracy, as with democratic institutions all over the world, is the outcome of the mortal crisis of American and world capitalism. It is up to the working class to take the lead in the defense of basic rights through an independent struggle for political power and socialism. Barry Grey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 117325 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Feb 8 19:42:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:42:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilling References: Message-ID: Article III (c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention criminalizes: “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide.” And Article III (e) criminalizes: “Complicity in genocide.” Such are the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:39 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Debra Schrishuhn' Cc: 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Peace' Subject: RE: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Chilling The Obama/Clinton/KillerKoh drone murder campaign against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color verges on genocide against them. Ditto for Illinois Nazis Law Faculty. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:24 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G >; Debra Schrishuhn > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: RE: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Chilling His drone assassinations - called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - killed more than 6,000 people, including US citizens and hundreds of children. Yeah and the Illinois Nazis Law Faculty became Accessories After the Fact to these War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity when they invited Killer Koh to come in here and justify them on October 28 in order to get Killary elected president 10 days later. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 1:17 PM To: Debra Schrishuhn > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Chilling Against this, Trump (and Bannon) are being excoriated by the (bipartisan) political establisnment for daring to tamper with the organization of the of the National Security Council, to which the president’s private army (’special forces’) reports. (“The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence sat on the principals committee under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. President George W. Bush stipulated that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA director (the predecessor to the Director of National Intelligence) 'shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed' in his 2001 memo. Trump’s memo says this pretty much verbatim. Outrage on this particular change, or rather reversal, is overblown. Despite being regular members under Obama, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not attend every principals committee, nor did he under Bush, according to Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor and former adviser to the National Security Council under George W. Bush.” [politifact]) But it’s primarily another stick to beat Trump with. Obama directed more than 70,000 ‘special operations forces’ - American death squads - active in more than 70% of the countries in the world; their activities included ‘rendition’ - kidnapping - torture, and murder. His drone assassinations - called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - killed more than 6,000 people, including US citizens and hundreds of children. And in two presidential terms of war-making (the first time that’s ever happened) he attacked eight countries (two more than George Bush). Trump ran against Obama and Clinton’s war-mongering, but the political establishment is working hysterically to cozen or coerce him back into their murderous policies (as the raid in Yemen shows). They may succeed. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D28211.3D84E460] On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss > wrote: Chilling barely begins to describe this article and situation. I invite everyone to attend the workshop at Channing Murray Saturday Feb 11 2-4 pm on building progressive power in the age of Trump. Featured speakers are Urbana Alderman Aaron Ammons and local activist Jared Miller. Thanks for sharing, Karen. Deb Sent from my iPhone On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: In speech at Florida Air Force base Trump appeals to the military against the press and the courts 8 February 2017 In an extraordinary appearance Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, President Donald Trump dispensed with democratic protocol to deliver a political speech. He denounced the press and implicitly suggested the formation of a presidential-military alliance against the courts and the Constitution. In his brief remarks, Trump lavished praise on the Central Command and Special Forces Command troops that are based at MacDill. He began by thanking the military for its lopsided vote in his favor in last November’s election. “And I saw those numbers—and you like me and I like you,” he said. He continued: “And we’re going to be loading [MacDill] up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment… We’re going to load you up.” He returned to this theme several times, stating at one point, “We will make a historic financial investment in the Armed Forces of the United States…” Invoking the specter of “radical Islamic terrorists,” he darkly accused the press of deliberately downplaying the threat. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not even being reported and, in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” Following this suggestion that the press is aiding and abetting the terrorists, Trump promoted his anti-immigrant measures, without referring to them directly, and implicitly criticized the courts for temporarily blocking his anti-Muslim travel ban. “We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country… You’ve been seeing what’s been going on over the last few days. We need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in—not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country.” The speech followed his tweets denouncing the judge who ruled against his travel ban and blaming any future terror attack on the “court system.” His top political aide, the fascist Stephen Bannon, has meanwhile told the press to “shut up.” Trump’s speech comes in the midst of an intense conflict within the state over foreign policy and national security questions, involving not only the travel ban but also new attacks by the Democrats and much of the media for his supposed “softness” toward Russia. It also takes place in the context of ongoing demonstrations across the country and internationally in opposition to his racist immigration measures and other antidemocratic policies. The MacDill event marks a milestone in the long-term strengthening of the role of the armed forces in US political life and erosion of the constitutional principle of civilian control. Trump has packed his administration with retired generals, including James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of defense, Michael Flynn as national security adviser, and John Kelly as head of the Homeland Security Department. The latter appointment for the first time places a military man at the head of a sprawling apparatus for domestic repression established as the internal component of the “war on terror.” These developments follow the sinister incident, which remains unexplained and virtually unreported by the media, that occurred toward the beginning of Trump’s inaugural address. Ten officers from the various services lined up behind Trump and remained there long enough for the image of the new president flanked by uniformed military men to be broadcast across the country and internationally. This was no accident, but rather a calculated maneuver devised by Trump and advisers such as Bannon to present an image of a quasi-military government, prepared to crack down on opposition at home and wage war against multiple enemies abroad. The immense growth in the size, power and political influence of the military is not something new or unique to the Trump administration. Rather, as with every other manifestation of the decay of American democracy, with the Trump presidency a protracted process of decline has reached a qualitatively new stage. Twenty-five years of unending war following the dissolution of the Soviet Union have vastly increased the power of the military brass. The consolidation of a professional military has increasingly isolated the armed forces from civilian society, creating a distinct social caste that asserts its independent interests in the affairs of state ever more aggressively. The greater the level of social inequality, the more widespread the alienation of the working masses from the entire political system, the more the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to base itself on the military. Already in the 2000 election, in which the Supreme Court handed the White House to George W. Bush, the loser of the popular vote, by shutting down a vote recount in Florida, Democrat Al Gore agreed to Republican demands that illegal military votes in Florida, mainly for Bush, be counted. Both Bush and Barack Obama set records for the number of speeches they gave to military audiences. With Trump’s chauvinist “America First” government of generals and billionaires, the semi-criminal financial oligarchy bares its teeth and removes the mask of democratic niceties. In the press and among the think tank strategists of the ruling class, the demise of the bedrock constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is being openly discussed and debated. The headlines of articles on the subject that have appeared since Trump’s election include: “Is Civilian Control of the Military in Jeopardy?” (The American Conservative), “The ‘Civilian Control of the Military’ Fallacy” (Defense One), and “Trump is surrounding himself with generals. That’s dangerous” (Washington Post). An article published by Foreign Policy in December by Georgetown University Professor Rosa Brooks argues that civilian control of the military has “become a rule of aesthetics, not ethics, and its invocation is a soothing ritual that makes us feel better without accomplishing anything of value.” The Democratic Party will not oppose the further politicization of the military and militarization of politics. On the contrary, in recent days media outlets aligned with the Democrats have presented the military brass as a democratic check on Trump’s fascistic impulses. The New York Times responded to Trump’s elevation of Bannon to the National Security Council and demotion of the director of national intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by urging Trump to seek advice in matters of war and peace from “more thoughtful experienced hands” such as Defense Secretary Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dunford. The Atlantic magazine published an article with the headline “Are Trump’s Generals Mounting a Defense of Democratic Institutions?” There is no faction of the ruling class or its political representatives, Democratic or Republican, that will defend democratic rights. The collapse of American democracy, as with democratic institutions all over the world, is the outcome of the mortal crisis of American and world capitalism. It is up to the working class to take the lead in the defense of basic rights through an independent struggle for political power and socialism. Barry Grey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 117325 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From paulmueth at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 22:30:23 2017 From: paulmueth at yahoo.com (Mueth Paul) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:30:23 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Current issue of Public i In-Reply-To: <850067782.3828254.1485709892659@mail.yahoo.com> References: <850067782.3828254.1485709892659.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <850067782.3828254.1485709892659@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Awaiting your article That's to anyone who sees this Sent from my iPad > On Jan 29, 2017, at 11:11 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://publici.ucimc.org/ > > Unfortunately, with the exception of the opening of Belden Fields article, the current issue fails to address the neoliberal origins of Trump's victory. In fact, the word neoliberalism is absent from the entire issue. > > The interesting and informative article by Janice Jayes about militarism fails to mention the neoconservative foreign policy that Trump, in his erratic and personal way, has rejected, to the consternation of Thomas Friedman and Charles Krauthammer alike. > > The opening article by Brett Kaplan unfortunately quotes Van Jones about the "whitelash" of Trump voters. That seems to me a mischaracterization (and gratuitous denigration) of economically struggling voters who could not find a reason to vote for the neoliberal warmongering feminist that was put forward by the Democratic Party after their apparatchiks dispensed with Bernie Sanders. I wonder if Van Jones would appreciate the term "blacklash" to describe protestors in Ferguson in 2014. > > The article by Michael Rothberg about anti-semitism does not resonate with me in the least. Notwithstanding Bannon and the alt-right, anti-semitism has nothing to do with any of this in any meaningful sense. The fancy quotations about anti-semitism in relation to European fascism are interesting, but have nothing whatsoever to do with Trump's appeal to the beleaguered working class of this country, or a coherent response. It may be comforting to some that anti-semitism is now seen as being back on the political far right where it rightfully belongs, but that is hardly relevant to the issues at hand. (BTW, I do not agree either with the emphasis on anti-semitism that is currently being promoted by Jewish Voice for Peace). > > The specter of no-longer-relevant anti-semitism was historically used against the black power movement, and of course against the pro-Palestine movement. There is no reason to revive this canard in the current context, even against Trump and his Jewish settler-loving son-in-law. > > A lot of organizing good can come out of the current situation; but not without a more coherent analysis of the material origins of this context. I agree with what Carl Estabrook said on our most recent edition of News from Neptune: we need to get over Donald Trump; we need to get over the Democratic Party; I would add that we need to get over progressivism, i.e. neoliberal progressivism, as it is currently being articulated, as critqued by Nancy Fraser. > > Of course I appreciate the concerns of those who now feel threatened and intimidated. But I would also hope that the next issue of the Public i will begin to get down to business, so to speak. > _______________________________________________ > 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: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 14:59:54 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:59:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ramzy Baroud References: <404560612.1710921.1486652394529.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <404560612.1710921.1486652394529@mail.yahoo.com> Libya was the richest in Africa, and relatively stable until Hillary Clinton decided otherwise. Clinton was Secretary of State during Obama’s first term in office.In 2011, she craved for war. A ‘New York Times’ report citing 50 top US officials, left no doubt that Clinton was the ‘catalyst’ in the decision to go to war.Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, furious about her support for a ‘broader mission’ in Libya, told Obama and Clinton that his army was already engaged in enough wars.“Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?” Gates had reportedly said.Now, we are being led to believe that the war enthusiasts of the past are peacemakers, because Trump’s antics are simply too much to bear.The hypocrisy of it all should be obvious, but some insist on ignoring it.Party tribalism and gender politics aside, Trump is a mere extension and a natural progression of previous US administrations’ agendas that launched avoidable, unjust wars, embedded fear, fanned the flames of Islamophobia, hate for immigrants, etc.There is hardly a single bad deed that Trump has carried – or intends to carry out – that does not have roots in another policy championed by previous administrations. The Uncomfortable Truth: Are We Hating Donald Trump for the Wrong Reasons? | | | | | | | | | | | The Uncomfortable Truth: Are We Hating Donald Trump for the Wrong Reasons? I fear that many of us are hating Donald Trump for the wrong reasons. Multitudes are being swayed by mainstream ... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Feb 9 15:45:49 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:45:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fighting Trump In-Reply-To: <404560612.1710921.1486652394529@mail.yahoo.com> References: <404560612.1710921.1486652394529.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <404560612.1710921.1486652394529@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <19B6D34F-17E4-4460-84FC-DE87E8872FD6@illinois.edu> Caitlin Johnstone: "You Can’t Fight Trump Without Understanding The Anti-Globalization Movement” > Globalization is of course an aspect of neoliberalism, the elite economic program that has dominated US and world politics for 40 years. "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." --Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations From the article: "I doubt any of the hyperventilating Democrats who are breathlessly gasping that Trump is the next Adolf Hitler have taken a moment to reflect on the fact that Hitler was not exactly the posterboy for non-interventionism. Trump has been advocating non-interventionism so extensively that some critics have been accusing him of isolationism, which, if you haven’t figured it out yet, is kind of the exact opposite of trying to conquer the world and make everyone look like Ryan Gosling. Non-interventionism happens to be an essential part of both the progressive and anti-globalist movements; if you support America’s policy of military interventionism and world-policing, you are not progressive, you are a war hawk like Clinton and Bush… "Of course, you could just insist [that Trump's supporters are] racist and sexist and stupid and you’re better than all of them and be done with it. I’m sure that’s what a lot of liberals are content with doing. They’re enjoying the drama and the sense of self-righteousness and nothing will unstick them from their new favorite hobby of Trump bashing…" —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Feb 9 17:10:33 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:10:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR SAT. FEB. 11th In-Reply-To: <007901d282f7$61611110$24233330$@comcast.net> References: <007901d282f7$61611110$24233330$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <008401d282f7$702e9640$508bc2c0$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY FEBRUARY 11th 11 AM - 1PM U.S. Central Time WRFU - 104.5 FM and webcast LIVE worldwide at www.wrfu.net Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, Hosts of the PEOPLE'S HISTORY HOUR radio program - The People's History Hour is a progressive left-themed program that discusses historical and current topics. It is on air on 104.5 FM WRFU- Radio Free Urbana / www.wrfu.net Sunday evenings from 6pm to 7pm. Also- DECATUR IL. ATTORNEY BILL FABER - Will discuss legal issues important for Working people as well as his battles as a Working class City Council representative on the Decatur city council, that is dominated by corporate special interests. Stay tuned after the World Labor Hour for THE UNION EDGE with Host Charles Showalter, broadcast from Pittsburgh Pa. WRFU 104.5 FM - Radio Free Urbana - Corporate free community radio for the people. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Feb 9 17:25:21 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:25:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Amnesty International Message-ID: Given what appears to be propaganda in relation to Syria by Amnesty International, and promoted by Democracy Now, this is an important examination of the organization and who they represent Amnesty International: Imperialist Tool By Prof. Francis A. Boyle 23 October, 2012 Countercurrents.org Dear Amnesty Friends: I am in receipt of the response by three members of the AIUSA Middle East Coordination Group to my message that was entitled "NGOs As Western Tools." You will note that they never denied any of the basic facts set forth in my original message. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and murdered 20,000 Arabs/Muslims with the full support of the United States, both Amnesty International and AIUSA said absolutely nothing at all despite vigorous efforts by AIUSA Members to get them both to say and to do anything. When it became clear that AIUSA was not going to say or do anything about Israel's wholesale slaughter of Arabs/Muslims in Lebanon because of the marked pro-Israel bias by the AIUSA Staff, Board, and Funders, I called the Irish Nobel Peace Prize Winner Sean MacBride at his home in Dublin and asked him to intervene with AI/London. What little AI/London said and did about 20,000 Arabs/Muslims in Lebanon murdered by Israel with the full support of the United States was due to Sean MacBride. MacBride then convinced the then AI Secretary General to appoint me a Consultant to Amnesty International on the human rights situation in the Middle East. In that capacity, I attended the founding meeting of what would become the AIUSA Middle East Coordination Group. In other words, I was one of the founders of the AIUSA Mid-East Co-Group, some of whose members are now defending its work. At that founding meeting I said quite emphatically that Amnesty International and AIUSA would have absolutely no credibility whatsoever in the Middle East unless they dealt forthrightly and vigorously with violations of the human rights of Arabs and Muslims by Israel, and, in particular, Israeli atrocities against the People of Lebanon and the Palestinian People. Soon thereafter, I found out that the Members of the AIUSA Mid-East Co-Group had been instructed to have nothing more to do with me by a direct order coming from the AIUSA Board of Directors. It is fair to say that Amnesty International has quite recently released some reports dealing with Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinian People and the Lebanese People. But Israel has been consistently murdering, torturing and destroying the Palestinian People since at least the time when the occupation of their lands began in 1967--and with the full support of the United States Government. And only now has Amnesty International got around to condemning it. Almost a decade ago while on the AIUSA Board, I tried to get AI/London and AIUSA to act on the basis of the infamous Landau Report whereby the Israeli Government officially sanctioned torture against Palestinians. Over a decade ago while on the AIUSA Board, I pointed out that this made Israel the only state in the world to officially sanction torture. It is nice to see that a decade later Amnesty International has finally agreed with me and said something about it. Likewise, Israel has been rampaging around Lebanon with the full support of the United States to the grave detriment of the Lebanese People and Palestinians living there since at least the time when Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1978. The primary reason why Amnesty International has put out these latest reports condemning Israeli human rights violations in Lebanon and against the Palestinian People after decades of silence is because there are now several other human rights organizations which have acted against Israel when AI/London and AIUSA refused to act because of their marked pro-Israel bias. When it comes to protecting the human rights of Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs/Muslims from atrocities by Israel, the United States, and Britain, AI/London and AIUSA have always been too little, too late, and on purpose. While on the AIUSA Board I once saw the itinerary drawn up by AIUSA for the visit to the United States by the then AI Secretary General coming from London. On the list was almost every major pro-Israel group in New York and Washington and about one Arab Group. Given their standard operating procedures, I am confident the pro-Israel groups threatened the AI Secretary General that they would have their members withhold or reduce their contributions to AI and AIUSA if AI/London did not reign in its pathetic, pitiful, and meager criticisms of Israel. While I was on the AIUSA Board, AIUSA paid about 20% of the budget for AI/London. He who pays the piper calls the tune. You will also note that the three AIUSA Mid-East Co-Group members' response to my original message said absolutely nothing at all about the scandalous Kuwaiti Dead Babies Report and Campaign that both Amnesty International and AIUSA used for the purpose of promoting war against Iraq. As a Member of the AIUSA Board, I received a pre-publication copy of the Dead Babies Report. I read it immediately and quite carefully. First, this report contained technical errors that should have precluded its publication. Second, even if all these sensational allegations had been true, it was clear that publication of this report at that critical moment in time (December 1990) would only be used by the United States and Britain to monger for war against Iraq. I expressed these opinions in the strongest terms possible and that this report should not be published because it was inaccurate; or that if for some reason it were to be published, it must be accompanied by an errata sheet. Amnesty International published the Dead Babies Report anyway despite my vigorous objections, and launched their Disinformation Campaign against Iraq. From this episode I could only conclude that AI/London deliberately intended the Dead-Babies Report and Campaign to be used in order to tip the balance in favor of war against Iraq. This is exactly what happened. In January of 1991 the United States Senate voted in favor of war against Iraq by only five or six votes. Several Senators publicly stated that the AI/AIUSA Dead Babies Report and Campaign had influenced their votes in favor of war against Iraq. That genocidal war waged by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, inter alia, during the months of January and February 1991, killed at a minimum 200,000 Iraqis, half of whom were civilians. Amnesty International shall always have the blood of the Iraqi People on its hands! Once it became clear that there never were any dead babies in Kuwait as alleged by Amnesty International, AI/London proceeded to engage in a massive coverup of the truth. For all I know, the same people at AI/London who waged this Dead-Babies Disinformation Campaign against Iraq are still at AI/London producing more disinformation against Arab/Muslim states in the Middle East in order to further the political and economic interests of the United States, Britain, and Israel. Because of its Dead-Babies Disinformation Campaign against Iraq and its ensuing coverup, Amnesty International will never have any credibility in the Middle East! During the past eight years, about 1.5 million People in Iraq have died as a result of genocidal sanctions imposed upon them primarily at the behest of the United States and Britain, including in that number about 500,000 dead Iraqi children. While on the AIUSA Board of Directors, I tried to get them and AI/London to do something about this genocidal embargo against the People of Iraq, and especially against the Iraqi Children. Both AI/London and AIUSA adamantly refused to act despite the grievous harm that their Dead-Babies Disinformation Campaign had inflicted upon the People of Iraq. It was clear to me at the time that there was no way AI/London and AIUSA were going to take on Britain and the United States on behalf of the completely innocent People of Iraq. Now we are told that there is something in the AI Mandate that precludes AI action against such genocidal economic embargoes. Of course this is nonsense. While I served on the AIUSA Board, one of our Board Chairs personally put me in charge of handling Mandate issues for the AIUSA Board. I know all about the Mandate. It was my responsibility. Generally put, when AI/London and AIUSA want to take action on a matter because it will bring them publicity, money, members, and "influence," they pay no attention whatsoever to their so-called Mandate. Likewise, when AI/London and AIUSA decide for political or economic reasons that they will not work on human rights problem, they trot out their so-called Mandate to justify non-action. The same type of bogus argument was used by AI/London and AIUSA to prevent the organizations and their memberships from taking any effective action against the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa that had been oppressing millions of Black People for decades. To the best of my knowledge, Amnesty International is the only human rights organization in the entire world to have refused to condemn apartheid and work against it. The spurious argument made here was that Amnesty International could take no position on a type of government. But the truth of the matter was that Amnesty International is headquartered in London, and AIUSA is headquartered in New York and Washington. The biggest political supporters of the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa were the governments of Britain, the United States, and Israel. Likewise, the biggest sources of economic investments in the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa came from Britain and the United States. Once again, he who pays the piper calls the tune. There was no way AI/London and AIUSA were ever going to work against the political and economic interests of Britain, the United States, and Israel operating together in support of the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. So AI/London and AIUSA concocted this spurious rationale for non-action. The same is being done today by AI/London and AIUSA to justify their non-action in light of the genocidal economic embargo imposed now primarily by the United States and Britain against the People of Iraq. There is no way AI/London and AIUSA will ever act against the political and economic interests of the United States, Britain, and Israel in the Middle East, and certainly not on behalf of the People of Iraq, whose blood AI and AIUSA now have on their hands. Notice too how this latest specious justification for AI non-action fits in quite neatly with the strategic objectives of the United States around the world. Right now the United States Government is primarily responsible for imposing genocidal economic sanctions against the People of Iraq, the People of Cuba, and the People of North Korea. Amnesty International will do nothing at all about it. In other words, by their deliberate non-action AI and AIUSA are supporting the genocidal policies of the United States, Britain and Israel against these Third World countries--just as AI and AIUSA supported the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa by their deliberate non-action. If you want to do effective human rights work in opposition to the imperial, colonial and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, or Israel, there is no point working with Amnesty International or AIUSA. You will simply be wasting your time, your efforts, your resources, and your enthusiasm. Permit me to further substantiate this assertion that Amnesty International and AIUSA are imperialist tools by reference to other areas of the world. It is well known that AI/London has done little effective work to help Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. As Sean MacBride once said: Amnesty International will never treat Irish Catholics fairly so long as it is headquartered in London. The long and sordid history of AI/London non-action in the face of genocidal violations of the most fundamental human rights of Irish Catholics living in Northern Ireland by Britain is well known among Irish Americans and Irish People living in Ireland, Northern Ireland, and around the world. For example, a letter by a former AI Secretary-General sabotaged public support for the defense of Joe Doherty here in the United States. Just recently, it required a massive internet campaign to force AI/London to do anything at all to save the life of Loinnir McAliskey and to obtain the freedom of Roisin McAliskey. Let me now move from the British colony in Northern Ireland to the American colony in Puerto Rico. While I was still on the AIUSA Board, a fellow Board Member asked me to draft a resolution for adoption by the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of AIUSA calling for a comprehensive AI Campaign against human rights violations by the United States in Puerto Rico. This resolution passed the AIUSA/AGM overwhelmingly, and without any dissent that I could detect. I was then invited by Amnesty International/Puerto Rico to give the Keynote Address at their Annual General Meeting in San Juan on the subject of the right of Puerto Rican political prisoners in American jails to be treated as prisoners of war. Immediately thereafter, AI/London and AIUSA applied massive pressure on AI/Puerto Rico to prevent this speech. AI/Puerto Rico refused to cave in. I went down to Puerto Rico to attend their AGM, gave the Keynote Address, and also investigated U.S. human rights violations in Puerto Rico, including torture, summary executions and disappearances. Upon my return home, AIUSA attempted to stiff me out of my expenses despite the fact that I was attending the AI/Puerto Rico AGM in my official capacity as an invited AIUSA Board Member. Perhaps I missed it due to the press of other duties at the time, but I am not aware of any comprehensive Amnesty International Campaign against U.S. human rights abuses in Puerto Rico as overwhelmingly called for by the AIUSA/AGM. Finally, let me say a few words about the deliberate non-action of AI/London and AIUSA on behalf of indigenous peoples living in the United States and its imperial ally, Canada. Back when I was on the AIUSA Board, AI/London decided to launch an international campaign on behalf of indigenous peoples. As usual, I received a pre-publication copy of the campaign material. On reading it, I immediately noticed that almost nothing was to be done to help the indigenous peoples living in the United States and Canada. I protested this to AI/London and AIUSA, and demanded that the indigenous peoples living in the United States and Canada be added as an integral part of this campaign. To the best of my knowledge, this was never done. I leave it to the indigenous peoples living in the United States and Canada to decide for themselves how helpful AI/London and AIUSA have been to them. I will not belabor the obvious any longer in this brief Memorandum. But based upon my over sixteen years of experience having dealt with AI/London and AIUSA at the highest levels, it is clear to me that both organizations manifest a consistent pattern and practice of following the lines of the foreign policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel. You can certainly see this in all of AI's non-work with respect to the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Puerto Rico, South Africa, indigenous peoples living in North America, etc. Effectively, Amnesty International and AIUSA function as tools for the imperialist, colonial and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel. There are many people of good will and good faith working at the grassroots level of Amnesty International and AIUSA who genuinely believe that they are doing meaningful and effective work to protect human rights around the world. But at the top of these two organizations you will find a self-perpetuating clique of co-opted Elites who deliberately shape and direct the work of AI and AIUSA so as to either affirmatively support, or else not seriously undercut, the imperial, colonial, and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel. The Leadership Elites of AI/London and AIUSA have always considered themselves to be the so-called "loyal opposition" to the imperial, colonial, and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain and Israel. I would ask the people at the grassroots of AI and AIUSA whether you want to continue being part of the "loyal opposition" to imperialism, colonialism and genocide perpetrated by the United States, Britain and Israel? It is not for me to tell those people of good faith and good will currently working with AI/London and AIUSA what to do. But I have found other organizations to work with and support. Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law, Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-92), Co-Founder AIUSA Middle East Coordination Group, Consultant to Amnesty International on the Middle East July 31, 1998 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Feb 9 17:25:21 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:25:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Amnesty International Message-ID: Given what appears to be propaganda in relation to Syria by Amnesty International, and promoted by Democracy Now, this is an important examination of the organization and who they represent Amnesty International: Imperialist Tool By Prof. Francis A. Boyle 23 October, 2012 Countercurrents.org Dear Amnesty Friends: I am in receipt of the response by three members of the AIUSA Middle East Coordination Group to my message that was entitled "NGOs As Western Tools." You will note that they never denied any of the basic facts set forth in my original message. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and murdered 20,000 Arabs/Muslims with the full support of the United States, both Amnesty International and AIUSA said absolutely nothing at all despite vigorous efforts by AIUSA Members to get them both to say and to do anything. When it became clear that AIUSA was not going to say or do anything about Israel's wholesale slaughter of Arabs/Muslims in Lebanon because of the marked pro-Israel bias by the AIUSA Staff, Board, and Funders, I called the Irish Nobel Peace Prize Winner Sean MacBride at his home in Dublin and asked him to intervene with AI/London. What little AI/London said and did about 20,000 Arabs/Muslims in Lebanon murdered by Israel with the full support of the United States was due to Sean MacBride. MacBride then convinced the then AI Secretary General to appoint me a Consultant to Amnesty International on the human rights situation in the Middle East. In that capacity, I attended the founding meeting of what would become the AIUSA Middle East Coordination Group. In other words, I was one of the founders of the AIUSA Mid-East Co-Group, some of whose members are now defending its work. At that founding meeting I said quite emphatically that Amnesty International and AIUSA would have absolutely no credibility whatsoever in the Middle East unless they dealt forthrightly and vigorously with violations of the human rights of Arabs and Muslims by Israel, and, in particular, Israeli atrocities against the People of Lebanon and the Palestinian People. Soon thereafter, I found out that the Members of the AIUSA Mid-East Co-Group had been instructed to have nothing more to do with me by a direct order coming from the AIUSA Board of Directors. It is fair to say that Amnesty International has quite recently released some reports dealing with Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinian People and the Lebanese People. But Israel has been consistently murdering, torturing and destroying the Palestinian People since at least the time when the occupation of their lands began in 1967--and with the full support of the United States Government. And only now has Amnesty International got around to condemning it. Almost a decade ago while on the AIUSA Board, I tried to get AI/London and AIUSA to act on the basis of the infamous Landau Report whereby the Israeli Government officially sanctioned torture against Palestinians. Over a decade ago while on the AIUSA Board, I pointed out that this made Israel the only state in the world to officially sanction torture. It is nice to see that a decade later Amnesty International has finally agreed with me and said something about it. Likewise, Israel has been rampaging around Lebanon with the full support of the United States to the grave detriment of the Lebanese People and Palestinians living there since at least the time when Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1978. The primary reason why Amnesty International has put out these latest reports condemning Israeli human rights violations in Lebanon and against the Palestinian People after decades of silence is because there are now several other human rights organizations which have acted against Israel when AI/London and AIUSA refused to act because of their marked pro-Israel bias. When it comes to protecting the human rights of Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs/Muslims from atrocities by Israel, the United States, and Britain, AI/London and AIUSA have always been too little, too late, and on purpose. While on the AIUSA Board I once saw the itinerary drawn up by AIUSA for the visit to the United States by the then AI Secretary General coming from London. On the list was almost every major pro-Israel group in New York and Washington and about one Arab Group. Given their standard operating procedures, I am confident the pro-Israel groups threatened the AI Secretary General that they would have their members withhold or reduce their contributions to AI and AIUSA if AI/London did not reign in its pathetic, pitiful, and meager criticisms of Israel. While I was on the AIUSA Board, AIUSA paid about 20% of the budget for AI/London. He who pays the piper calls the tune. You will also note that the three AIUSA Mid-East Co-Group members' response to my original message said absolutely nothing at all about the scandalous Kuwaiti Dead Babies Report and Campaign that both Amnesty International and AIUSA used for the purpose of promoting war against Iraq. As a Member of the AIUSA Board, I received a pre-publication copy of the Dead Babies Report. I read it immediately and quite carefully. First, this report contained technical errors that should have precluded its publication. Second, even if all these sensational allegations had been true, it was clear that publication of this report at that critical moment in time (December 1990) would only be used by the United States and Britain to monger for war against Iraq. I expressed these opinions in the strongest terms possible and that this report should not be published because it was inaccurate; or that if for some reason it were to be published, it must be accompanied by an errata sheet. Amnesty International published the Dead Babies Report anyway despite my vigorous objections, and launched their Disinformation Campaign against Iraq. From this episode I could only conclude that AI/London deliberately intended the Dead-Babies Report and Campaign to be used in order to tip the balance in favor of war against Iraq. This is exactly what happened. In January of 1991 the United States Senate voted in favor of war against Iraq by only five or six votes. Several Senators publicly stated that the AI/AIUSA Dead Babies Report and Campaign had influenced their votes in favor of war against Iraq. That genocidal war waged by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, inter alia, during the months of January and February 1991, killed at a minimum 200,000 Iraqis, half of whom were civilians. Amnesty International shall always have the blood of the Iraqi People on its hands! Once it became clear that there never were any dead babies in Kuwait as alleged by Amnesty International, AI/London proceeded to engage in a massive coverup of the truth. For all I know, the same people at AI/London who waged this Dead-Babies Disinformation Campaign against Iraq are still at AI/London producing more disinformation against Arab/Muslim states in the Middle East in order to further the political and economic interests of the United States, Britain, and Israel. Because of its Dead-Babies Disinformation Campaign against Iraq and its ensuing coverup, Amnesty International will never have any credibility in the Middle East! During the past eight years, about 1.5 million People in Iraq have died as a result of genocidal sanctions imposed upon them primarily at the behest of the United States and Britain, including in that number about 500,000 dead Iraqi children. While on the AIUSA Board of Directors, I tried to get them and AI/London to do something about this genocidal embargo against the People of Iraq, and especially against the Iraqi Children. Both AI/London and AIUSA adamantly refused to act despite the grievous harm that their Dead-Babies Disinformation Campaign had inflicted upon the People of Iraq. It was clear to me at the time that there was no way AI/London and AIUSA were going to take on Britain and the United States on behalf of the completely innocent People of Iraq. Now we are told that there is something in the AI Mandate that precludes AI action against such genocidal economic embargoes. Of course this is nonsense. While I served on the AIUSA Board, one of our Board Chairs personally put me in charge of handling Mandate issues for the AIUSA Board. I know all about the Mandate. It was my responsibility. Generally put, when AI/London and AIUSA want to take action on a matter because it will bring them publicity, money, members, and "influence," they pay no attention whatsoever to their so-called Mandate. Likewise, when AI/London and AIUSA decide for political or economic reasons that they will not work on human rights problem, they trot out their so-called Mandate to justify non-action. The same type of bogus argument was used by AI/London and AIUSA to prevent the organizations and their memberships from taking any effective action against the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa that had been oppressing millions of Black People for decades. To the best of my knowledge, Amnesty International is the only human rights organization in the entire world to have refused to condemn apartheid and work against it. The spurious argument made here was that Amnesty International could take no position on a type of government. But the truth of the matter was that Amnesty International is headquartered in London, and AIUSA is headquartered in New York and Washington. The biggest political supporters of the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa were the governments of Britain, the United States, and Israel. Likewise, the biggest sources of economic investments in the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa came from Britain and the United States. Once again, he who pays the piper calls the tune. There was no way AI/London and AIUSA were ever going to work against the political and economic interests of Britain, the United States, and Israel operating together in support of the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. So AI/London and AIUSA concocted this spurious rationale for non-action. The same is being done today by AI/London and AIUSA to justify their non-action in light of the genocidal economic embargo imposed now primarily by the United States and Britain against the People of Iraq. There is no way AI/London and AIUSA will ever act against the political and economic interests of the United States, Britain, and Israel in the Middle East, and certainly not on behalf of the People of Iraq, whose blood AI and AIUSA now have on their hands. Notice too how this latest specious justification for AI non-action fits in quite neatly with the strategic objectives of the United States around the world. Right now the United States Government is primarily responsible for imposing genocidal economic sanctions against the People of Iraq, the People of Cuba, and the People of North Korea. Amnesty International will do nothing at all about it. In other words, by their deliberate non-action AI and AIUSA are supporting the genocidal policies of the United States, Britain and Israel against these Third World countries--just as AI and AIUSA supported the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa by their deliberate non-action. If you want to do effective human rights work in opposition to the imperial, colonial and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, or Israel, there is no point working with Amnesty International or AIUSA. You will simply be wasting your time, your efforts, your resources, and your enthusiasm. Permit me to further substantiate this assertion that Amnesty International and AIUSA are imperialist tools by reference to other areas of the world. It is well known that AI/London has done little effective work to help Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. As Sean MacBride once said: Amnesty International will never treat Irish Catholics fairly so long as it is headquartered in London. The long and sordid history of AI/London non-action in the face of genocidal violations of the most fundamental human rights of Irish Catholics living in Northern Ireland by Britain is well known among Irish Americans and Irish People living in Ireland, Northern Ireland, and around the world. For example, a letter by a former AI Secretary-General sabotaged public support for the defense of Joe Doherty here in the United States. Just recently, it required a massive internet campaign to force AI/London to do anything at all to save the life of Loinnir McAliskey and to obtain the freedom of Roisin McAliskey. Let me now move from the British colony in Northern Ireland to the American colony in Puerto Rico. While I was still on the AIUSA Board, a fellow Board Member asked me to draft a resolution for adoption by the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of AIUSA calling for a comprehensive AI Campaign against human rights violations by the United States in Puerto Rico. This resolution passed the AIUSA/AGM overwhelmingly, and without any dissent that I could detect. I was then invited by Amnesty International/Puerto Rico to give the Keynote Address at their Annual General Meeting in San Juan on the subject of the right of Puerto Rican political prisoners in American jails to be treated as prisoners of war. Immediately thereafter, AI/London and AIUSA applied massive pressure on AI/Puerto Rico to prevent this speech. AI/Puerto Rico refused to cave in. I went down to Puerto Rico to attend their AGM, gave the Keynote Address, and also investigated U.S. human rights violations in Puerto Rico, including torture, summary executions and disappearances. Upon my return home, AIUSA attempted to stiff me out of my expenses despite the fact that I was attending the AI/Puerto Rico AGM in my official capacity as an invited AIUSA Board Member. Perhaps I missed it due to the press of other duties at the time, but I am not aware of any comprehensive Amnesty International Campaign against U.S. human rights abuses in Puerto Rico as overwhelmingly called for by the AIUSA/AGM. Finally, let me say a few words about the deliberate non-action of AI/London and AIUSA on behalf of indigenous peoples living in the United States and its imperial ally, Canada. Back when I was on the AIUSA Board, AI/London decided to launch an international campaign on behalf of indigenous peoples. As usual, I received a pre-publication copy of the campaign material. On reading it, I immediately noticed that almost nothing was to be done to help the indigenous peoples living in the United States and Canada. I protested this to AI/London and AIUSA, and demanded that the indigenous peoples living in the United States and Canada be added as an integral part of this campaign. To the best of my knowledge, this was never done. I leave it to the indigenous peoples living in the United States and Canada to decide for themselves how helpful AI/London and AIUSA have been to them. I will not belabor the obvious any longer in this brief Memorandum. But based upon my over sixteen years of experience having dealt with AI/London and AIUSA at the highest levels, it is clear to me that both organizations manifest a consistent pattern and practice of following the lines of the foreign policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel. You can certainly see this in all of AI's non-work with respect to the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Puerto Rico, South Africa, indigenous peoples living in North America, etc. Effectively, Amnesty International and AIUSA function as tools for the imperialist, colonial and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel. There are many people of good will and good faith working at the grassroots level of Amnesty International and AIUSA who genuinely believe that they are doing meaningful and effective work to protect human rights around the world. But at the top of these two organizations you will find a self-perpetuating clique of co-opted Elites who deliberately shape and direct the work of AI and AIUSA so as to either affirmatively support, or else not seriously undercut, the imperial, colonial, and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain, and Israel. The Leadership Elites of AI/London and AIUSA have always considered themselves to be the so-called "loyal opposition" to the imperial, colonial, and genocidal policies of the United States, Britain and Israel. I would ask the people at the grassroots of AI and AIUSA whether you want to continue being part of the "loyal opposition" to imperialism, colonialism and genocide perpetrated by the United States, Britain and Israel? It is not for me to tell those people of good faith and good will currently working with AI/London and AIUSA what to do. But I have found other organizations to work with and support. Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law, Board of Directors, Amnesty International USA (1988-92), Co-Founder AIUSA Middle East Coordination Group, Consultant to Amnesty International on the Middle East July 31, 1998 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Thu Feb 9 19:33:25 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:33:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] morally superiority -- say it proud References: Message-ID: Check out the link. Incredible? I think that the guy, Trump, can be trusted in nothing. Simply put, he’s deficient in so many ways, and probably unstable. Begin forwarded message: From: David Swanson > Subject: [ufpj-activist] morally superiority -- say it proud Date: February 9, 2017 at 12:15:50 PM CST To: David Swanson > Putin proposed more nuclear disarmament. Trump said no. Democrats sat immobilized by their Putin-bashing. http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/in-call-with-putin-trump-denounced-obama-era-nuclear-arms-treaty-sources/ Remember when Trump said he'd push for nuclear disarmament from Russia? He didn't even learn what treaties exist, much less propose anything. But non-Muricans suck! -- David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/brussel%40illinois.edu You are subscribed as: brussel at illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Feb 9 20:05:40 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:05:40 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] morally superiority -- say it proud In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Swanson’s been all over the map recently; and this is in fact a Reuters account: I don’t think they've been much better than the NYT & CNN in re slanted accounts of Trump/Putin. And Trump’s instability may be part character, part art - like Falstaff, "not only witty in himself, but the cause / that wit is in other men…” (Perhaps he resembles Falstaff in other ways, as well.) Then there’s this: “[Pepe Escobar] T. REX AND LAVROV - THE NEW BROMANCE? Maria [Zakharova - Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman] said today there's a strong possibility of a Lavrov-T.Rex meeting in Bonn next week, Thurs and Fri, during the G20 foreign ministerial get-together. John Kerry will be green with envy.” The Democrats/neocons will go even crazier at the sign of any Trump-Putin deals (which may deter or encourage Trump…) —CGE > On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:33 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Check out the link. Incredible? I think that the guy, Trump, can be trusted in nothing. Simply put, he’s deficient in so many ways, and probably unstable. > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: David Swanson > >> Subject: [ufpj-activist] morally superiority -- say it proud >> Date: February 9, 2017 at 12:15:50 PM CST >> To: David Swanson > >> >> Putin proposed more nuclear disarmament. Trump said no. Democrats sat immobilized by their Putin-bashing. http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/in-call-with-putin-trump-denounced-obama-era-nuclear-arms-treaty-sources/ >> >> Remember when Trump said he'd push for nuclear disarmament from Russia? He didn't even learn what treaties exist, much less propose anything. >> >> But non-Muricans suck! >> >> >> -- >> >> David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org . Swanson's books include War Is A Lie . He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org . He hosts Talk Nation Radio . He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. >> Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook . >> _______________________________________________ >> ufpj-activist mailing list >> >> Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org >> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist >> >> To Unsubscribe >> Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org >> Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/brussel%40illinois.edu >> >> You are subscribed as: brussel at illinois.edu > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Feb 9 20:54:03 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:54:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Exuberance on Wall St. & @ Goldman Sachs Message-ID: Goldman’s No. 1 is so bullish on Wall Street, he coined his own term for it By MARK DECAMBRE WSJ, Feb 9, 2017 3:33 p.m. ET Goldman’s shares have gained by about a third since the Nov. 8 presidential election . . . Blankfein & Co., have been big beneficiaries of Trump’s policy agenda, including those aimed at peeling back aspects of the Dodd-Frank bank reform act that were written into law in the wake of the 2008-09 financial crisis. Also, a number of Goldman alum are among Trump’s confidants and cabinet members, including the bank’s former No. 2, Gary Cohn, who is now director of the president’s National Economic Council; Steven Mnuchin, nominee for Treasury secretary; and chief strategist to the president, Steve Bannon. And Goldman, along with the rest of the banking sector, has rallied sharply, gaining 33% since the Nov. 8 election win by Trump, compared with a 7.3% gain for the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.60% and roughly 10% rises for the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.60% and the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, +0.59% over the same period. Those three stock-market benchmarks all hit intraday records on Thursday. . . . [cid:C780B2F5-265D-41EE-BB22-733F3A0BA4F1] Karl, taking a dim view of it all . . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Karl, taking a dim view ....jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5078 bytes Desc: Karl, taking a dim view ....jpg URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Feb 9 21:00:51 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:00:51 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Exuberance on Wall St. & @ Goldman Sachs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FDC326D-CFCF-46C5-A7A1-40372241C755@illinois.edu> All the more reason to press for single-payer healthcare, a universal basic income, and a wealth (not income) tax. The Democrats of course won’t do that, so the campaign for economic justice will have to be 'extra-parliamentary.' > On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Goldman’s No. 1 is so bullish on Wall Street, he coined his own term for it > By MARK DECAMBRE > WSJ, Feb 9, 2017 3:33 p.m. ET > Goldman’s shares have gained by about a third since the Nov. 8 presidential election > > . . . > Blankfein & Co., have been big beneficiaries of Trump’s policy agenda, including those aimed at peeling back aspects of the Dodd-Frank bank reform act that were written into law in the wake of the 2008-09 financial crisis. Also, a number of Goldman alum are among Trump’s confidants and cabinet members, including the bank’s former No. 2, Gary Cohn, who is now director of the president’s National Economic Council; Steven Mnuchin, nominee for Treasury secretary; and chief strategist to the president, Steve Bannon. > And Goldman, along with the rest of the banking sector, has rallied sharply, gaining 33% since the Nov. 8 election win by Trump, compared with a 7.3% gain for the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.60% and roughly 10% rises for the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.60% and the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, +0.59% over the same period. Those three stock-market benchmarks all hit intraday records on Thursday. > . . . > > > > Karl, taking a dim view of it all . . . > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From jbw292002 at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 23:14:41 2017 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:14:41 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=5BPeace=5D_Tom_Perez_Apologizes_for_Te?= =?utf-8?q?lling_Truth=2C_Shows_Why_Dems=E2=80=99_Flaws_Urgently_Ne?= =?utf-8?q?ed_Attention?= In-Reply-To: <4FDED3AE-E7F0-4CFA-8B94-AF8AC4C9DF88@gmail.com> References: <4FDED3AE-E7F0-4CFA-8B94-AF8AC4C9DF88@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, that was right on. John Sent from my desktop computer On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Bravo! Spreading it far and wide--thanks > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > Nail this to the church door, so he who runs may read. > > https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for > -telling-the-truth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/ > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 23:15:11 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 23:15:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mike Davis: The Great God Trump and the White Working Class References: <658034351.2226509.1486682111284.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <658034351.2226509.1486682111284@mail.yahoo.com> This long and ambitious is article is the best analysis I've seen of the political/economic/electoral forces that brought Trump to power: The Great God Trump and the White Working Class | | | | | | | | | | | The Great God Trump and the White Working Class The political and social war that is now inevitable in the United States could shape the character of the rest o... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 21:12:33 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:12:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 11am Sat, Crystal Lake Park: Three Spinners - Rally for Refugees and Immigrants In-Reply-To: <9efba37d595197c9f748af57a.1d69a12041.20170210173855.f3a42747e6.3492ab53@mail68.atl91.mcsv.net> References: <9efba37d595197c9f748af57a.1d69a12041.20170210173855.f3a42747e6.3492ab53@mail68.atl91.mcsv.net> Message-ID: <4ebd3159-03ea-2036-4de0-f57626c1fc55@gmail.com> Three Spinners, the group which has been working to welcome Syrian refugees in Champaign-Urbana, is having a rally tomorrow - NO HATE NO FEAR REFUGEES ARE WELCOME HERE Time: 11am - 2pm, Saturday Feb. 11th Place: Large Pavilion in Crystal Lake Park They're also holding a sign-making party *tonight*, Friday Feb. 10th at 7pm, at St. Andrew's Campus Lutheran Center (909 S. Wright, Champaign). Details below. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: 🚩 Rally for Refugees and Immigrants Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:39:01 +0000 From: Three Spinners Reply-To: Three Spinners To: Stuart 🚩 Rally for Refugees and Immigrants Providing provides clothing, food, support, language training, and job preparation for refugees families in the U.S. View this email in your browser Three Spinners Inc. Yesterday, in a unanimous decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied President Trump’s appeal seeking to reinstate the ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations! While this is great news, as it means resettlement can continue, our work is far from over. The ruling does not address the ethical or transparency concerns involved with “extreme vetting” or modify Trump’s cap of 50,000 refugees, a huge reduction from Obama’s 2017 target of 110,000. Join us tomorrow at the Large Pavilion in Crystal Lake Park to keep this momentum going. Let us continue to support one another through these troubling times by reaffirming our commitment to keep our doors open to people of all faiths, especially those seeking refuge. Due to the amazing responses of attendees, we have incurred quite a bit of fees in hosting this rally, which we are more than happy to do. This event is free to the public, but if you would like to make a donation, it would be a great help! Donations collected will also be used to sponsor families for resettlement. *Donate Now* OTHER WAYS TO HELP We are in need of volunteers to direct parking and assist with cleanup. Contact us via email if you are interested in helping. WHERE TO PARK There are two small lots available off of Park St. and the Champaign County Fairgrounds just across from the park has generously allowed us to make use of their parking lot. Please feel free to use any of these lots.*Do not park in the grass.* We recommend car-pooling or using public transportation. In preparation for the Rally for Refugees and Immigrants, Saint Andrew's Lutheran Campus Center will be hosting a Sign Making Party tonight at 7. Come on out to help make signs -- and join us at the rally on Saturday if you can! Supplies will be available, but feel free to bring your own as well! /Copyright © 2017 Three Spinners Inc., NFP, All rights reserved./ You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website. *Our mailing address is:* Three Spinners Inc., NFP PO Box 8453 Champaign, Il 61826 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 10 23:42:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 23:42:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Greens' article in todays NG Message-ID: ome » Opinion » Letters to the Editor Trump continues assault on people Fri, 02/10/2017 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette Those who identify with the political left and progressivism (not the same) need to consider several perspectives. President Donald Trump will likely extend the depredations that neoliberal capitalism has inflicted on the American working class for four decades, but at no greater velocity than his predecessors, Republican or Democrat. Neoliberalism — consisting of financialization (Wall Street-driven wealth accumulation), governmental austerity and increased income inequality benefiting the top 10 percent — has long been the consensus among the "power elite" and in administrative academia. President Barack Obama was no exception, except in sleight of hand. The African-American working class was no less devastated by his policies than those of his predecessors, whether in terms of income or police harassment and incarceration. Obama, a servant of bankers, lifted no finger to challenge the structural conditions of "his people" (or anyone else). While progressives and leftists are right to counter the demonization of immigrants, we should also consider that our country's history is one of collective exploitation of immigrant and slave labor, related to the more general exploitation of what is now called the "white working class." We must recognize the real grievances of those affected by the intentional divide-and-conquer anti-labor strategies of the ruling class, and their very real effects on those (including most white women) who had no economic reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Finally, we must recognize that the refugee crisis is a result of global American aggression since World War II. We must support closing our foreign bases and bringing all troops home. DAVID GREEN Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 10 23:42:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 23:42:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Greens' article in todays NG Message-ID: ome » Opinion » Letters to the Editor Trump continues assault on people Fri, 02/10/2017 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette Those who identify with the political left and progressivism (not the same) need to consider several perspectives. President Donald Trump will likely extend the depredations that neoliberal capitalism has inflicted on the American working class for four decades, but at no greater velocity than his predecessors, Republican or Democrat. Neoliberalism — consisting of financialization (Wall Street-driven wealth accumulation), governmental austerity and increased income inequality benefiting the top 10 percent — has long been the consensus among the "power elite" and in administrative academia. President Barack Obama was no exception, except in sleight of hand. The African-American working class was no less devastated by his policies than those of his predecessors, whether in terms of income or police harassment and incarceration. Obama, a servant of bankers, lifted no finger to challenge the structural conditions of "his people" (or anyone else). While progressives and leftists are right to counter the demonization of immigrants, we should also consider that our country's history is one of collective exploitation of immigrant and slave labor, related to the more general exploitation of what is now called the "white working class." We must recognize the real grievances of those affected by the intentional divide-and-conquer anti-labor strategies of the ruling class, and their very real effects on those (including most white women) who had no economic reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Finally, we must recognize that the refugee crisis is a result of global American aggression since World War II. We must support closing our foreign bases and bringing all troops home. DAVID GREEN Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Feb 10 23:54:07 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:54:07 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Greens' article in todays NG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A consideration of the question David raises: "The Choices for the Left in the Age of Trump” by BORIS KAGARLITSKY http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/07/the-choices-for-the-left-in-the-age-of-trump/ —CGE > On Feb 10, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > » Opinion » Letters to the Editor > Trump continues assault on people > > Fri, 02/10/2017 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette > > Those who identify with the political left and progressivism (not the same) need to consider several perspectives. > > President Donald Trump will likely extend the depredations that neoliberal capitalism has inflicted on the American working class for four decades, but at no greater velocity than his predecessors, Republican or Democrat. > > Neoliberalism — consisting of financialization (Wall Street-driven wealth accumulation), governmental austerity and increased income inequality benefiting the top 10 percent — has long been the consensus among the "power elite" and in administrative academia. > > President Barack Obama was no exception, except in sleight of hand. The African-American working class was no less devastated by his policies than those of his predecessors, whether in terms of income or police harassment and incarceration. Obama, a servant of bankers, lifted no finger to challenge the structural conditions of "his people" (or anyone else). > > While progressives and leftists are right to counter the demonization of immigrants, we should also consider that our country's history is one of collective exploitation of immigrant and slave labor, related to the more general exploitation of what is now called the "white working class." > > We must recognize the real grievances of those affected by the intentional divide-and-conquer anti-labor strategies of the ruling class, and their very real effects on those (including most white women) who had no economic reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. > > Finally, we must recognize that the refugee crisis is a result of global American aggression since World War II. We must support closing our foreign bases and bringing all troops home. > > DAVID GREEN > Champaign > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Feb 10 23:54:07 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:54:07 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Greens' article in todays NG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A consideration of the question David raises: "The Choices for the Left in the Age of Trump” by BORIS KAGARLITSKY http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/07/the-choices-for-the-left-in-the-age-of-trump/ —CGE > On Feb 10, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > » Opinion » Letters to the Editor > Trump continues assault on people > > Fri, 02/10/2017 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette > > Those who identify with the political left and progressivism (not the same) need to consider several perspectives. > > President Donald Trump will likely extend the depredations that neoliberal capitalism has inflicted on the American working class for four decades, but at no greater velocity than his predecessors, Republican or Democrat. > > Neoliberalism — consisting of financialization (Wall Street-driven wealth accumulation), governmental austerity and increased income inequality benefiting the top 10 percent — has long been the consensus among the "power elite" and in administrative academia. > > President Barack Obama was no exception, except in sleight of hand. The African-American working class was no less devastated by his policies than those of his predecessors, whether in terms of income or police harassment and incarceration. Obama, a servant of bankers, lifted no finger to challenge the structural conditions of "his people" (or anyone else). > > While progressives and leftists are right to counter the demonization of immigrants, we should also consider that our country's history is one of collective exploitation of immigrant and slave labor, related to the more general exploitation of what is now called the "white working class." > > We must recognize the real grievances of those affected by the intentional divide-and-conquer anti-labor strategies of the ruling class, and their very real effects on those (including most white women) who had no economic reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. > > Finally, we must recognize that the refugee crisis is a result of global American aggression since World War II. We must support closing our foreign bases and bringing all troops home. > > DAVID GREEN > Champaign > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 15:55:38 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:55:38 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] cosponsorship? Tue 2/28 Muslim American Society event Message-ID: <528f05ff-1adc-cb83-9d86-9d76ff6cd226@gmail.com> Heard from Ahmed Taha of *Muslim American Society:* on*Tuesday, Feb. 28th,* for Black History Month, they're doing an event - two speakers including sociologist Evelyn Reynolds, and someone coming down from Chicago, and an award to Rebecca Ginsburg for her Education Justice Project work. They are inviting activist groups around the area to (a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly, for a minute or two, to let community members know what they're up to and encourage them to join in. Cosponsorship wouldn't involve money, just encouraging our members to come to the event. AWARE is invited. *Should we agree to cosponsor* - and offer to speak? I think this could be a good bridge-building thing to do. They'd like to know by this weekend, since they're drawing up the flyer now, which will list cosponsoring groups. Maybe we can talk about this at Sunday's AWARE meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Feb 11 16:09:54 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:09:54 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] cosponsorship? Tue 2/28 Muslim American Society event In-Reply-To: <528f05ff-1adc-cb83-9d86-9d76ff6cd226@gmail.com> References: <528f05ff-1adc-cb83-9d86-9d76ff6cd226@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C69CCE6-50AE-4E5B-9B94-1CAEFC8EFAA4@illinois.edu> What is their position/platform? It seems like we should "(a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly” on anti-war themes. If we were to speak for a minute or two, we could read our flyer from last week’s demonstration (appended). —CGE > On Feb 11, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Heard from Ahmed Taha of Muslim American Society: on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, for Black History Month, they're doing an event - two speakers including sociologist Evelyn Reynolds, and someone coming down from Chicago, and an award to Rebecca Ginsburg for her Education Justice Project work. > > They are inviting activist groups around the area to (a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly, for a minute or two, to let community members know what they're up to and encourage them to join in. > > Cosponsorship wouldn't involve money, just encouraging our members to come to the event. > > AWARE is invited. Should we agree to cosponsor - and offer to speak? > > I think this could be a good bridge-building thing to do. > > They'd like to know by this weekend, since they're drawing up the flyer now, which will list cosponsoring groups. Maybe we can talk about this at Sunday's AWARE meeting. > _______________________________________________ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer-201702.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 3578 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 16:13:41 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:13:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] cosponsorship? Tue 2/28 Muslim American Society event In-Reply-To: <4C69CCE6-50AE-4E5B-9B94-1CAEFC8EFAA4@illinois.edu> References: <528f05ff-1adc-cb83-9d86-9d76ff6cd226@gmail.com> <4C69CCE6-50AE-4E5B-9B94-1CAEFC8EFAA4@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I support Carl’s suggestion, and he who wrote the flyer should read the flyer. On Feb 11, 2017, at 08:09, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What is their position/platform? It seems like we should "(a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly” on anti-war themes. If we were to speak for a minute or two, we could read our flyer from last week’s demonstration (appended). —CGE On Feb 11, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: Heard from Ahmed Taha of Muslim American Society: on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, for Black History Month, they're doing an event - two speakers including sociologist Evelyn Reynolds, and someone coming down from Chicago, and an award to Rebecca Ginsburg for her Education Justice Project work. They are inviting activist groups around the area to (a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly, for a minute or two, to let community members know what they're up to and encourage them to join in. Cosponsorship wouldn't involve money, just encouraging our members to come to the event. AWARE is invited. Should we agree to cosponsor - and offer to speak? I think this could be a good bridge-building thing to do. They'd like to know by this weekend, since they're drawing up the flyer now, which will list cosponsoring groups. Maybe we can talk about this at Sunday's AWARE meeting. _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Feb 11 16:17:27 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:17:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] cosponsorship? Tue 2/28 Muslim American Society event In-Reply-To: References: <528f05ff-1adc-cb83-9d86-9d76ff6cd226@gmail.com> <4C69CCE6-50AE-4E5B-9B94-1CAEFC8EFAA4@illinois.edu> Message-ID: (90% of the words in the flyer are Bill Blum’s and John Pilger’s…) > On Feb 11, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I support Carl’s suggestion, and he who wrote the flyer should read the flyer. > >> On Feb 11, 2017, at 08:09, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> What is their position/platform? >> >> It seems like we should "(a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly” on anti-war themes. >> >> If we were to speak for a minute or two, we could read our flyer from last week’s demonstration (appended). >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Feb 11, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Heard from Ahmed Taha of Muslim American Society: on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, for Black History Month, they're doing an event - two speakers including sociologist Evelyn Reynolds, and someone coming down from Chicago, and an award to Rebecca Ginsburg for her Education Justice Project work. >>> >>> They are inviting activist groups around the area to (a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly, for a minute or two, to let community members know what they're up to and encourage them to join in. >>> >>> Cosponsorship wouldn't involve money, just encouraging our members to come to the event. >>> >>> AWARE is invited. Should we agree to cosponsor - and offer to speak? >>> >>> I think this could be a good bridge-building thing to do. >>> >>> They'd like to know by this weekend, since they're drawing up the flyer now, which will list cosponsoring groups. Maybe we can talk about this at Sunday's AWARE meeting. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 16:22:25 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:22:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] cosponsorship? Tue 2/28 Muslim American Society event In-Reply-To: References: <528f05ff-1adc-cb83-9d86-9d76ff6cd226@gmail.com> <4C69CCE6-50AE-4E5B-9B94-1CAEFC8EFAA4@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Thats probably why I like it so much, but since they can’t be here……… On Feb 11, 2017, at 08:17, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: (90% of the words in the flyer are Bill Blum’s and John Pilger’s…) On Feb 11, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: I support Carl’s suggestion, and he who wrote the flyer should read the flyer. On Feb 11, 2017, at 08:09, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What is their position/platform? It seems like we should "(a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly” on anti-war themes. If we were to speak for a minute or two, we could read our flyer from last week’s demonstration (appended). —CGE On Feb 11, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: Heard from Ahmed Taha of Muslim American Society: on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, for Black History Month, they're doing an event - two speakers including sociologist Evelyn Reynolds, and someone coming down from Chicago, and an award to Rebecca Ginsburg for her Education Justice Project work. They are inviting activist groups around the area to (a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly, for a minute or two, to let community members know what they're up to and encourage them to join in. Cosponsorship wouldn't involve money, just encouraging our members to come to the event. AWARE is invited. Should we agree to cosponsor - and offer to speak? I think this could be a good bridge-building thing to do. They'd like to know by this weekend, since they're drawing up the flyer now, which will list cosponsoring groups. Maybe we can talk about this at Sunday's AWARE meeting. _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Feb 12 01:41:01 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 01:41:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A puppet of the 1% ? Message-ID: Notes on the 1% "A Republican megadonor and the 'perfect little puppet'" — http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republican-megadonor-and-the-perfect-little-puppet — from the gambling tycoon who has stated that his “only issue is Israel” . . . but reportedly is seeking to build more casinos in China — which may help explain Trump’s sudden revival of the “one China policy.” ~~ Ron Szoke Whilom Peace & Equality Activist (Ret.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Feb 12 04:56:59 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:56:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Things to Come Message-ID: <939D4991-CCE4-4F15-836C-6E2CF52E29A2@illinois.edu> Apocalypse Soon? Bannon Wants A War And He Will Use Jesus to Get One Conservative Christians displayed great readiness, in the U.S. 2016 presidential election, to dispense with Jesus for reasons of political expedience.... Read the entire article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bannon-trump-the-ultra-conservative-roman-catholic_us_589b6d50e4b02bbb1816c257 A response: http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/fake-news-huffpo-gets-church-militant-wrong#.WJ_S9bzoAQg.email ~~ Ron Szoke Whilom Peace & Equality Activist (Ret.) _______________ [cid:C1579D52-997B-446B-BECF-CAB437527846] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: XP Facebook posts.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18310 bytes Desc: XP Facebook posts.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 12 14:11:43 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:11:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Data on the travel ban. Message-ID: Samuel Payne February 10 at 10:01pm I complied some lists: Only one country is specifically mentioned in Donald Trump's executive order (known widely as the #MuslimBan): Syria Here's a list of all the 'travel ban' countries (the other 6 are included by referencing language from previous Obama legislation): Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Libya Here's another list from The Council on Foreign Relations of countries that the US admits to dropping bombs on in 2016: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan Here's a list of countries whose citizens attacked the US on 9/11: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates The country with which the administration of Barack Obama authorized the largest arms deal in the history of the world: Saudi Arabia Here's a list of Muslim majority countries NOT included in the travel ban: Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cocos Islands, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mayotte, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Western Sahara. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 12 14:18:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:18:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] cosponsorship? Tue 2/28 Muslim American Society event In-Reply-To: <4C69CCE6-50AE-4E5B-9B94-1CAEFC8EFAA4@illinois.edu> References: <528f05ff-1adc-cb83-9d86-9d76ff6cd226@gmail.com> <4C69CCE6-50AE-4E5B-9B94-1CAEFC8EFAA4@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Stuart, if they want to know by this weekend then perhaps you should go ahead and tell them “Yes, AWARE will co sponsor,” and “yes we will have a couple of people speak.” We always have people to speak. Carl reading the recent flyer is only one. Since you, Carl and I have already agreed this is a good idea. We need not wait until the meeting this evening. I can’t imagine either David G., David J. or Karen ML not supporting it. On Feb 11, 2017, at 08:09, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What is their position/platform? It seems like we should "(a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly” on anti-war themes. If we were to speak for a minute or two, we could read our flyer from last week’s demonstration (appended). —CGE On Feb 11, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: Heard from Ahmed Taha of Muslim American Society: on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, for Black History Month, they're doing an event - two speakers including sociologist Evelyn Reynolds, and someone coming down from Chicago, and an award to Rebecca Ginsburg for her Education Justice Project work. They are inviting activist groups around the area to (a) cosponsor and (b) speak briefly, for a minute or two, to let community members know what they're up to and encourage them to join in. Cosponsorship wouldn't involve money, just encouraging our members to come to the event. AWARE is invited. Should we agree to cosponsor - and offer to speak? I think this could be a good bridge-building thing to do. They'd like to know by this weekend, since they're drawing up the flyer now, which will list cosponsoring groups. Maybe we can talk about this at Sunday's AWARE meeting. _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Feb 13 18:24:55 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:24:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: A Globes Article (F Y I) References: <201702131726.v1DHQEkT021479@pps03.cites.illinois.edu> Message-ID: <51BE179D-AEDF-4C3E-A01E-7E57DBE5594A@illinois.edu> From: > Subject: A Globes Article (F Y I) Date: February 13, 2017 at 11:25:37 AM CST To: > [http://images.globes.co.il/images/en/logo.png] [F-35 stealth fighter Photo: PR] Lockheed Martin spends over $1b in Israel Lockheed Martin has spent over $1 billion on reciprocal procurement since 2010 when Israel signed deals for F-35 fighter jets. Yuval Azulai 12/02/2017 For the whole article please click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Feb 13 20:16:48 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:16:48 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Southern Poverty Law Center' Message-ID: A recent dispute on this list about SPLC is updated by a Facebook thread from Doug Henwood (Left Business Observer). ============ [Doug Henwood] Maybe this would be a good time for Morris Dees & the Southern Poverty Law Center to spend some of the $328 million hoard it's accumulated over the years: www.splcenter.org [Kelly Grotke] they are "protecting themselves from inflation", you know. Seriously, that was on their 2014 return. [Gregory Smith] Wow. Dees gets paid $330K per year?! [Doug Henwood] A pal who went to his house to get interviewed said it felt like a pre-Civil War plantation, complete with black yard workers. [Gregory Smith] How in the world did they rack up $328million in "private equity investments?" [Doug Henwood] They hardly spend any money on anything but fundraising. They send out fundraising appeals based on things like a reborn KKK - utter crap - and the dollars pour in from gullible Yankees. Ken Silverstein did the definitive work on this years ago, and I don't think anything's changed. [Doug Henwood] Almost $400,000 if you count the supplemental compensation. Getting rich off poverty and systemic bigotry! ============ —CGE From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Feb 13 20:16:48 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:16:48 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Southern Poverty Law Center' Message-ID: A recent dispute on this list about SPLC is updated by a Facebook thread from Doug Henwood (Left Business Observer). ============ [Doug Henwood] Maybe this would be a good time for Morris Dees & the Southern Poverty Law Center to spend some of the $328 million hoard it's accumulated over the years: www.splcenter.org [Kelly Grotke] they are "protecting themselves from inflation", you know. Seriously, that was on their 2014 return. [Gregory Smith] Wow. Dees gets paid $330K per year?! [Doug Henwood] A pal who went to his house to get interviewed said it felt like a pre-Civil War plantation, complete with black yard workers. [Gregory Smith] How in the world did they rack up $328million in "private equity investments?" [Doug Henwood] They hardly spend any money on anything but fundraising. They send out fundraising appeals based on things like a reborn KKK - utter crap - and the dollars pour in from gullible Yankees. Ken Silverstein did the definitive work on this years ago, and I don't think anything's changed. [Doug Henwood] Almost $400,000 if you count the supplemental compensation. Getting rich off poverty and systemic bigotry! ============ —CGE From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Feb 13 20:25:04 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:25:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Southern Poverty Law Center' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Corrected link: > > On Feb 13, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > A recent dispute on this list about SPLC is updated by a Facebook thread from Doug Henwood (Left Business Observer). > > ============ > [Doug Henwood] Maybe this would be a good time for Morris Dees & the Southern Poverty Law Center to spend some of the $328 million hoard it's accumulated over the years: > www.splcenter.org > > [Kelly Grotke] they are "protecting themselves from inflation", you know. Seriously, that was on their 2014 return. > > [Gregory Smith] Wow. Dees gets paid $330K per year?! > > [Doug Henwood] A pal who went to his house to get interviewed said it felt like a pre-Civil War plantation, complete with black yard workers. > > [Gregory Smith] How in the world did they rack up $328million in "private equity investments?" > > [Doug Henwood] They hardly spend any money on anything but fundraising. They send out fundraising appeals based on things like a reborn KKK - utter crap - and the dollars pour in from gullible Yankees. Ken Silverstein did the definitive work on this years ago, and I don't think anything's changed. > > [Doug Henwood] Almost $400,000 if you count the supplemental compensation. Getting rich off poverty and systemic bigotry! > ============ > > —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Feb 13 20:25:04 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:25:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Southern Poverty Law Center' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Corrected link: > > On Feb 13, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > A recent dispute on this list about SPLC is updated by a Facebook thread from Doug Henwood (Left Business Observer). > > ============ > [Doug Henwood] Maybe this would be a good time for Morris Dees & the Southern Poverty Law Center to spend some of the $328 million hoard it's accumulated over the years: > www.splcenter.org > > [Kelly Grotke] they are "protecting themselves from inflation", you know. Seriously, that was on their 2014 return. > > [Gregory Smith] Wow. Dees gets paid $330K per year?! > > [Doug Henwood] A pal who went to his house to get interviewed said it felt like a pre-Civil War plantation, complete with black yard workers. > > [Gregory Smith] How in the world did they rack up $328million in "private equity investments?" > > [Doug Henwood] They hardly spend any money on anything but fundraising. They send out fundraising appeals based on things like a reborn KKK - utter crap - and the dollars pour in from gullible Yankees. Ken Silverstein did the definitive work on this years ago, and I don't think anything's changed. > > [Doug Henwood] Almost $400,000 if you count the supplemental compensation. Getting rich off poverty and systemic bigotry! > ============ > > —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 00:47:16 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:47:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] TODAY: Help me press Durbin, Duckworth in Chicago on Saudi-Yemen war powers In-Reply-To: <3840728295.1695191126@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <3840728295.1695191126@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: <121fb80d-3eb5-e509-f1e6-eb4074692abe@gmail.com> Hello Robert, We talked at AWARE last Sunday about actions we might take, and it occurred to us: should we try to send a delegation to Rodney Davis' office, urging him to support the use of the War Powers Act, and hold our new president to the anti-interventionism that he ran on? Davis likely wouldn't do it, but it could be good for him to hear that his constituents care. Would you be interested in participating if we did? On 2/7/17 1:39 PM, Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy wrote: > Just Foreign Policy > Just Foreign Policy > > > > Dear Stuart, > > President Trump has already "*increased logistical support* > " > for the Saudi bombing of Houthis in Yemen. [1] Trump Administration > officials are threatening to conduct *drone strikes against the > Houthis* > . > [2] But *Congress never authorized this war*. Under the War Powers > Resolution, a *single Member of Congress* could force a debate and > vote on what Trump is doing. Unfortunately, we haven't got a single > Member of Congress to agree to do this yet. > > That’s why I'm going to visit the offices of *Senator Durbin* and > *Senator Duckworth* in Chicago today. I'm going to deliver the > Illinois signatures on *this petition > *, > urging Durbin and Duckworth to stand up on Saudi-Yemen war powers > before Trump can further escalate the war. > > *Here's how you can help:* > > 1. *Call* Durbin's Chicago office at *312-353-4952* and/or Duckworth's > Chicago office at *(312) 886-3506*. When you reach a staffer or leave > a message, you can say: > > "I urge Senator Durbin and Senator Duckworth to invoke the War > Powers Resolution to force Congressional debate on Trump's > escalation of the Saudi war in Yemen." > > When you've made your call(s), *please report that here > .* > > > 2. *Sign and share our petition > * > if you haven't already. If you already signed and shared, please share > it again. > > Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, > > Robert Naiman > Just Foreign Policy > > *If you think our work is important, support us with a $17 donation.* > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate > > References: > 1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-trump-idUSKBN15M1HP > 2. "Yemen Is the First Battleground in Trump’s Confrontation With > Iran: The administration has its sights set on checkmating Tehran’s > ambitions across the region. Iran’s proxies in Yemen are in the > crosshairs," Foreign Policy, February 3, > http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/03/yemen-is-the-first-battleground-in-trumps-confrontation-with-iran/ > > Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy > > > © 2016 Just Foreign Policy > > Click here to unsubscribe > > > empowered by Salsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Feb 14 00:52:11 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:52:11 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] TODAY: Help me press Durbin, Duckworth in Chicago on Saudi-Yemen war powers In-Reply-To: <121fb80d-3eb5-e509-f1e6-eb4074692abe@gmail.com> References: <3840728295.1695191126@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> <121fb80d-3eb5-e509-f1e6-eb4074692abe@gmail.com> Message-ID: Absolutely. Turn every stone. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Stuart Levy wrote: > Hello Robert, > > We talked at AWARE last Sunday about actions we might take, and it > occurred to us: should we try to send a delegation to Rodney Davis' office, > urging him to support the use of the War Powers Act, and hold our new > president to the anti-interventionism that he ran on? > > Davis likely wouldn't do it, but it could be good for him to hear that his > constituents care. > > Would you be interested in participating if we did? > > On 2/7/17 1:39 PM, Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy wrote: > > [image: Just Foreign Policy] > > > > Dear Stuart, > > President Trump has already "*increased logistical support* > " > for the Saudi bombing of Houthis in Yemen. [1] Trump Administration > officials are threatening to conduct *drone strikes against the Houthis* > . > [2] But *Congress never authorized this war*. Under the War Powers > Resolution, a *single Member of Congress* could force a debate and vote > on what Trump is doing. Unfortunately, we haven't got a single Member of > Congress to agree to do this yet. > > That’s why I'm going to visit the offices of *Senator Durbin* and *Senator > Duckworth* in Chicago today. I'm going to deliver the Illinois signatures > on *this petition > *, > urging Durbin and Duckworth to stand up on Saudi-Yemen war powers before > Trump can further escalate the war. > > *Here's how you can help:* > > 1. *Call* Durbin's Chicago office at *312-353-4952 <(312)%20353-4952>* > and/or Duckworth's Chicago office at *(312) 886-3506 <(312)%20886-3506>*. > When you reach a staffer or leave a message, you can say: > > "I urge Senator Durbin and Senator Duckworth to invoke the War Powers > Resolution to force Congressional debate on Trump's escalation of the Saudi > war in Yemen." > > When you've made your call(s), *please report that here > .* > > 2. *Sign and share our petition > * > if you haven't already. If you already signed and shared, please share it > again. > > Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, > > Robert Naiman > Just Foreign Policy > > *If you think our work is important, support us with a $17 donation.* > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate > > > References: > 1. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-trump-idUSKBN15M1HP > 2. "Yemen Is the First Battleground in Trump’s Confrontation With Iran: > The administration has its sights set on checkmating Tehran’s ambitions > across the region. Iran’s proxies in Yemen are in the crosshairs," Foreign > Policy, February 3, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/ > 02/03/yemen-is-the-first-battleground-in-trumps-confrontation-with-iran/ > > [image: Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy] > > > © 2016 Just Foreign Policy > > Click here to unsubscribe > > [image: empowered by Salsa] > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 03:55:36 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:55:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ethnographic perspective on rural Wisconsin References: <1476957900.5467566.1487044536231.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1476957900.5467566.1487044536231@mail.yahoo.com> Booked: Capitalizing on Rural Resentment, with Katherine J. Cramer Timothy Shenk February 7, 2017 Scott Walker campaigns for president in front of Joey's Diner in Amherst, New Hampshire (Michael Vadon / Flickr) Booked is a monthly series of Q&As with authors by contributing editor Timothy Shenk. For this edition, Tim spoke with Katherine J. Cramer about her new book, The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker (University of Chicago Press, 2016).  Timothy Shenk: Let’s start with the title. Your book is called The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. If you were republishing it today, I imagine that a few revisions would let you change “Scott Walker” to “Donald Trump.” But before we move to the president, what are “the politics of resentment”?Katherine J. Cramer: My book focuses on resentment among people in rural areas of Wisconsin toward our major metropolitan areas of Milwaukee and Madison between 2007 and 2012, during the Great Recession and the presidency of Barack Obama. Many people I spoke to believed that their communities had seen a decades-long recession even before the Great Recession started in 2008. Both the Great Recession and the decades-long increase in inequality that started in the 1970s likely increased a sense among rural Wisconsinites that resources were distributed unfairly.So the politics of resentment, then, involves political actors generating support by tapping into intergroup divides fueled by perceptions of distributive injustice. There are two main parts to this: the existence of perspectives of resentment and the actions of political elites that exploit those perspectives. When a substantial portion of the population perceives that they are not getting their fair share, and that this is the result of people in power giving their share to those who are less deserving, we are on fertile ground for a politics of “us versus them.” Political actors can step in and validate that resentment and make promises to stop the flow of resources, power, and respect to the undeserving. Situations of economic and cultural insecurity seem especially ripe for the success of this kind of politics.Shenk: Just as important to the analysis as the politics of resentment is your notion of “rural consciousness.” What is rural consciousness, and how did it shape the worldviews of the people you researched?Cramer: The rural consciousness that underpins the particular type of politics of resentment that I write about is composed of two things: identity as a rural person or a person from a small town, and a sense of distributive injustice. That sense of distributive injustice involves thinking that people in rural communities do not get their fair share of power, resources, or respect. I heard in many small communities that Wisconsin has basically two parts: the metro areas of Madison and Milwaukee, and then the rest of the state.People describing this map to me would argue that all of the decisions are made in Madison (the state capitol) or in Milwaukee (the industrial center) and communicated outward, with little attention paid to rural areas. They also perceived that they paid more than their fair share of taxes—that urban decision-makers imposed high taxes but spent those funds disproportionately on Madison and Milwaukee, not on smaller communities like their own.The final component of the perspective of injustice may be the most important: a perception that people in small towns and rural places do not receive their fair share of respect. Many people in such places would tell me stories about their interactions with urbanites in which they felt disrespected, misunderstood, or just plain ignored. Or they would describe portrayals of rural residents that they came across via news media or popular culture that to them showed a fundamental misunderstanding of their way of life and what they valued.The stories of distributive injustice seemed to be most intense in tourist communities, where local residents come into close contact with visitors—often from the metropolitan areas within Wisconsin, from the neighboring Twin Cities in Minnesota or from Chicago. They see urbanites spending large sums of money on vacation amenities like champagne and fancy coffee drinks. They see the construction of expensive vacation homes and watch as their property taxes go up as a result.Shenk: “I went into this project with a love of Wisconsin,” you write. “I came out of it with a deep concern for the nature of democracy in this state and in the United States in general.” Why?Cramer: Although I have lived much of my life in Wisconsin, I was surprised by the level of resentment I encountered toward the cities. The pervasiveness and intensity of that resentment concern me. But what’s even more concerning than the mere existence of this resentment is politicians’ building campaigns on it. Scott Walker tapped into our rural versus urban divide, and Donald Trump has done the same.The rural versus urban divide I observed is profound: it is related to partisan divisions, but also racial divisions, social class divisions, perceptions of who has power over cultural production, who is morally superior, perceptions of government workers and private workers. These divides act like an unlit match in dry haystack—a politician need only create a spark in one part of this division and the rest of it can catch fire.Shenk: As the rest of the country learned in November, the party loyalties of rural voters in states like Wisconsin are unusually flexible. While partisan differences have grown increasingly entrenched in the last decade, they’ve helped deliver wins to Barack Obama, Scott Walker, and Donald Trump. Why are their preferences so unstable?Cramer: I have two answers to this question—one that helps understand what might be the common thread that explains how a given person could vote for Obama, Walker, and Trump, and another that questions whether that did in fact happen on a large scale.We don’t actually know to what extent voters for Obama switched parties and voted for Trump in 2016. We have to distinguish changes among individual voters from changes at the aggregate level. Twenty-two of the seventy-two counties in Wisconsin voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016. But I have not yet seen convincing evidence that these flips occurred because the same people voted for different parties across those two elections. It could, instead, be primarily due to different people turning out in those two elections.However, in my fieldwork, I have heard people claim to vote for both Obama and Trump. The explanation for this is, in short, the desire for change.A wide variety of people I spent time with saw in Obama in 2008 (and in 2012 to a lesser extent) the possibility of a different kind of politician. His calls for unity, and perhaps even his racial background, signaled to people that he represented something different. Trump promised change too, albeit in a dramatically different way. His was not the change of common ground, but of ushering in a completely different way of doing business. Many of the counties that flipped in Wisconsin are places in which I encountered the intense disenchantment with “politics as usual,” and a perception held by people in rural areas that they are routinely overlooked by people in power. The message of change that these two very different candidates conveyed may have appealed to people with the desire for something dramatically different.Shenk: The contrast between Obama and Trump is obvious, but the gap between Walker and Trump is almost as striking. Walker is a classic conservative—Mitt Romney with a more populist affect. Trump might end up governing in that style, but he certainly didn’t campaign that way. How did two figures who are so different both manage to win over rural Wisconsin?Cramer: This is a question I am dwelling on in my current fieldwork. But the work I’ve done since the election suggests that the common element in the appeal of Walker and Trump is the way they each tapped into a desire to curtail spending on “undeserving” others. Walker provided targets of blame—notably, public employees—that helped support his broader smaller government platform.As far back as 2007 I was hearing people talk about public employees as inefficient, lazy bureaucrats who enjoy more generous health care and pension benefits than their counterparts in the private sector. Nationally, that narrative has been gaining steam for decades. Alexis Walker brought to my attention an American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees document from 1936 that noted that public employees were being called “tax eaters.”Walker portrayed public employees as the “haves” and private employees as the “have nots” and in that way helped generate support for reducing funding for public employees—and instituting a broader austerity program, cutting budgets for a variety of government programs from the state university system to the Department of Natural Resources.Trump was not a small government candidate, but his platform fit a similar pattern to Walker’s. He, too, portrayed certain social groups as undeserving, and promised to stop the flow of resources—and attention and respect—to those groups. He was not as focused on public employees, but instead targeted immigrants and Muslims. Just as Walker did in 2010, Trump gave people targets of blame for their economic and cultural anxieties, and thereby mobilized support.Shenk: Since the election, supporters of Bernie Sanders have claimed that he would have done better than Hillary Clinton with the type of voters you studied. Skeptics have argued Democrats who tend to win elections in rural America actually have a much more centrist profile than Clinton, let alone Sanders. Does your research bear either side out? You write that for your subjects, “their sense of themselves as rural folks” took precedence over “their identity as workers.” What space does that leave for economic populism in Democratic strategizing?Cramer: Bernie Sanders did very well in our rural counties in the Democratic primary. He won seventy-one of the seventy-two counties, and 56.6 percent of the vote. It is hard to say whether that support would have carried through to the general election.But, looking to the future, there are a few sentiments that suggest to me that the Republican Party does not have a lock on rural Wisconsin. In my fieldwork I have occasionally encountered union members or former union members in rural communities who openly express gratitude for the protections and advocacy that his or her union has provided. There is also more recognition than I would have expected that economic inequality is a documented phenomenon—and that this is not a desirable state of affairs.When I hear support for the idea of unions, or distaste for economic inequality, it is typically part of a broader perspective that powerful institutions and systems are abusing ordinary people. Those institutions and systems almost always include government. I encounter a pervasive sense that whatever government is doing, it is not working for “people like me.” When I ask groups, “Which party best represents the interests of people around here?” the immediate answer, almost universally, is “neither.” That to me, suggests that the candidate, or the party, that can convey to people that they understand the challenges that people face in their everyday life, and genuinely have the desire to listen to and address those challenges, can win support. I do not find that people identify with the Republican Party. People are only drawn to its current message.Shenk: Against the grain of much commentary both before and after the election, you contend that rural politics can’t be reduced to racism. “I observed little overt racism in rural Wisconsin,” you write. “But I heard ample amounts of it in urban and suburban settings.” Can you talk more about that dynamic? And has it changed at all over the last eight years, first under Obama and then Trump?Cramer: In the United States, questions about the distribution of power, resources, and respect have been related to race from the beginning. It is an excruciating fact that our economy was built on slave labor. The debate over the role of the federal government in redistribution that followed the Civil War was tainted with the use of racism to try to drive a wedge between freed African Americans and rural whites. So our conversations in this country about who should get what are always tainted with racism. That is a given.However, attributing political choices to racism alone tends to rely on a host of heuristics that make us tune out the complexity of the situation and move us further from understanding it. Yes, racism is a part of the story when we notice people resenting city dwellers: in our segregated Wisconsin, the vast majority of people of color lives in cities. But this resentment is also about resenting white professionals, the urban elite, and public employees.Boiling it all down to racism overlooks why these other perspectives are so politically powerful. When there all of these overlapping battle lines—partisanship, race, class, public versus private employees—tapping into one dimension can activate the others.In the wake of the election, this question has often been posed as, “Was it economic anxiety or racism that drove support for Trump?” My response is that in the understandings of the world that I heard among Trump supporters, the two components were intertwined. When people are telling me that they perceive that people like them, in places like their community, do not receive their fair share, and that their fair share is going to people who are less deserving, that is a sentiment in which there is often racism and there is economic anxiety.Finally, one can ask, and probably should ask: how can racism not be a motivating factor in voting for Trump, who was endorsed by the KKK, said horrific things, and made shocking policy pledges about immigrants and Muslims? Many of the Trump supporters I have listened to are uncomfortable with Trump’s racism. Their distaste for Hillary Clinton and their desire for change, they say, led them to look past Trump’s racist words and policies and vote for him anyway. That ability to recognize racism, be uncomfortable with it, and nevertheless vote in favor of it should give us pause.But calling it racism and leaving it at that does little to move us toward an understanding of the complex array of forces that led to a KKK-endorsed candidate winning a presidential election in 2016.Shenk: Since the election, pieces on Trump voters seem to have fallen into two categories. One agrees with Trump that he could shoot an innocent person in broad daylight and his backers would still love him; the other portrays Trump’s support as more tentative, which leaves open the possibility that it could recede quickly if he doesn’t deliver on whatever his voters were looking for. Obviously, the answer depends on who you’re looking at: Trump has die-hards and more tepid backers. But which position have you encountered the most in your research?Cramer: I think I have mainly encountered the more tepid backers. Time will tell. I am very interested to listen to how people who voted for him interpret his cabinet choices and his policy proposals and other actions once in office. One of the things I will be watching for is how voters’ affinity for Trump over time is a function of his behavior, and to what extent it is a function of the opposition to Trump. Ironically, opposition to Trump may strengthen support among his backers if the opposition clarifies and magnifies battle lines.Shenk: Critics have argued that 2016 did to political science what 2008 did to economics. Yascha Mounk, for example, has taken the discipline to task for having “overestimated the forces of stability time and again, failing to foresee Brexit, the chaos wrought in the Philippines by Rodrigo Duterte, and the serious threat posed to Polish democracy by its populist government, among other developments”—and that was before Trump was elected. As a political scientist who warned about the dangers of this kind of populist upheaval, what do you think about the standing of your profession as a whole? Is it basically sound, or is a review of intellectual fundamentals overdue?Cramer: I think that the election will have a very positive effect on my discipline. I believe it will hasten a change that has been taking place for some years now, and that is the move toward rewarding and respecting research that has direct practical application and is communicated in publicly accessible venues. Much of what we do is highly specialized and technical, but there is also a lot of energy these days, especially among younger scholars, on making our work available, and legible, to the public through venues like The Monkey Cage blog at the Washington Post, Vox, and the journal Perspectives on Politics. This election and the types of analysis it has spurred, I think, will encourage this trend to continue.I am also hopeful that we will see an increase in support for ethnographic work. Political science is a discipline in which prestige is routinely given to scholars who use the most advanced statistical methods and approaches most easily characterized as scientific. My approach to public opinion fits neither of those bills. But a few well-regarded scholars have encouraged me to continue pursuing the ethnographic work that I do. My sense is that even more political scientists now recognize that ethnography is a useful tool in our attempts to understand political behavior. I am hopeful that this will signal to graduate students and earlier career scholars that the discipline will reward their attempts to incorporate ethnography in their work.Katherine J. Cramer is professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and the author of The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker (University of Chicago Press, 2016). Timothy Shenk is a Carnegie Fellow at New America and a book review editor at Dissent. He is the author of Maurice Dobb: Political Economist. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 14 17:51:18 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:51:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: UI ethics chief says Kennedy's email is legal, as it stands In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So notice with one email the UI/Springfield “ethics” apparatchiks hop to it. But when the College of Law invites Killer Koh out here on October 28 to get Killary elected President ten days later and pay him $5K for doing so, they do nothing. Just shows you the total hypocrisy surrounding “ethics” at the University of Illinois. We are now as corrupt as the sports programs have always been. Fab Ed Norton Professor of Law Carl Schmitt College of Law: “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!” Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: News-Gazette.com Posted on: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 7:00 AM Author: digital.media Subject: UI ethics chief says Kennedy's email is legal, as it stands But if UI employees make a campaign contribution from the letter or forward it to other people, they could be found in violation of the state ethics act. SPRINGFIELD — Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Kennedy did not violate state ethics laws by sending an email last week to University of Illinois employees on their UI accounts. read more View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 01:02:02 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:02:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA plans for Syria dating back to the 80's Message-ID: New Declassified CIA Memo Presents Blueprint for Syrian Regime Collapse By Brad Hoff - February 14, 2017 Bashar and Hafiz al-Assad; Manfred Schweda/thisfabtrek.com. Image used with permission. A newly declassified CIA document explored multiple scenarios of Syrian regime collapse at a time when Hafez al-Assad’s government was embroiled in a covert “dirty war” with Israel and the West, and in the midst of a diplomatic crisis which marked an unprecedented level of isolation for Syria. The 24-page formerly classified memo entitled Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change was produced in July 1986, and had high level distribution within the Reagan administration and to agency directors, including presidential advisers, the National Security Council, and the US ambassador to Syria. The memo appears in the CIA’s latest CREST release (CIA Records Search Tool) of over 900,000 recently declassified documents. A “severely restricted” report - Advertisement - The memo’s cover letter, drafted by the CIA’s Director of Global Issues (the report itself was prepared by the division’s Foreign Subversion and Instability Center), introduces the purpose of presenting “a number of possible scenarios that could lead to the ouster of President Assad or other dramatic change in Syria.” It further curiously warns that, “Because the analysis out of context is susceptible to misunderstanding, external distribution has been severely restricted.” The report’s narrowed distribution list (sent to specific named national security heads, not entire agencies) indicates that it was considered at the highest levels of the Reagan administration. The coming sectarian war for Syria The intelligence report’s contents contain some striking passages which seem remarkably consistent with events as they unfolded decades later at the start of the Syrian war in 2011: Although we judge that fear of reprisals and organizational problems make a second Sunni challenge unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of Sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. In most instances the regime would have the resources to crush a Sunni opposition movement, but we believe widespread violence among the populace could stimulate large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or munity, setting the stage for civil war. [pg.2] The “second Sunni challenge” is a reference to the Syrian government’s prior long running war against a Muslim Brotherhood insurgency which culminated in the 1982 Hama Massacre. While downplaying the nationalist and pluralistic composition of the ruling Ba’ath party, the report envisions a renewal and exploitation of sectarian fault lines pitting Syria’s Sunni population against its Alawite leadership: Sunnis make up 60 percent of the Syrian officer corps but are concentrated in junior officer ranks; enlisted men are predominantly Sunni conscripts. We believe that a renewal of communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis could inspire Sunnis in the military to turn against the regime. [pg.12] Regime change and the Muslim Brotherhood The possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood spearheading another future armed insurgency leading to regime change is given extensive focus. While the document’s tone suggests this as a long term future scenario (especially considering the Brotherhood suffered overwhelming defeat and went completely underground in Syria by the mid-1980’s), it is considered one of the top three “most likely” drivers of regime change (the other scenarios include “Succession Power Struggle” and “Military Reverses Spark a Coup”). The potential for revival of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “militant faction” is introduced in the following: Although the Muslim Brotherhood’s suppression drastically reduced armed dissidence, we judge a significant potential still exists for another Sunni opposition movement. In part the Brotherhood’s role was to exploit and orchestrate opposition activity by other organized groups… These groups still exist, and under proper leadership they could coalesce into a large movement… …young professionals who formed the base of support for the militant faction of the Muslim Brotherhood; and remnants of the Brotherhood itself who could become leaders in a new Sunni opposition movement… [pp.13-14] The Brotherhood’s role is seen as escalating the potential for initially small Sunni protest movements to morph into violent sectarian civil war: Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence… Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups… Mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of Sunni community leaders as well as on those engaged in protests. Regime efforts to restore order would founder if government violence against protestors inspired broad-based communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis. [pp.19-20] The CIA report describes the final phase of an evolving sectarian war which witnesses the influx of fighters and weapons from neighboring countries. Consistent with a 1983 secret report that called for a US covert operation to utilize then US-allied Iraq as a base of attack on Syria, the 1986 analysis says, “Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war”: A general campaign of Alawi violence against Sunnis might push even moderate Sunnis to join the opposition. Remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood–some returning from exile in Iraq–could provide a core of leadership for the movement. Although the regime has the resources to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on Sunni civilians might prompt large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war. [pp.20-21] A Sunni regime serving Western economic interests While the document is primarily a theoretical exploration projecting scenarios of Syrian regime weakening and collapse (its purpose is analysis and not necessarily policy), the authors admit of its “purposefully provocative” nature (see PREFACE) and closes with a list desired outcomes. One provocative outcome describes a pliant “Sunni regime” serving US economic interests: In our view, US interests would be best served by a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates. Business moderates would see a strong need for Western aid and investment to build Syria’s private economy, thus opening the way for stronger ties to Western governments. [pg. 24] Ironically, the Syrian government would accuse the United States and its allies of covert subversion within Syria after a string of domestic bombings created diplomatic tensions during the mid-1980’s. Dirty tricks and diplomacy in the 1980’s According to Patrick Seale’s landmark book, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, 1986 was a year that marked Syria’s greatest isolation among world powers as multiple diplomatic crises and terror events put Syria more and more out in the cold. The year included “the Hindawi affair”—a Syrian intelligence sponsored attempt to hijack and bomb an El Al flight to Tel Aviv—and may or may not have involved Nezar Hindawi working as a double agent on behalf of Israel. The foiled plot brought down international condemnation on Syria and lives on as one of the more famous and bizarre terror conspiracies in history. Not only were Syria and Israel once again generally on the brink of war in 1986, but a string of “dirty tricks” tactics were being utilized by Syria and its regional enemies to shape diplomatic outcomes primarily in Lebanon and Jordan. In March and April of 1986 (months prior to the distribution of the CIA memo), a string of still largely unexplained car bombs rocked Damascus and at least 5 towns throughout Syria, leaving over 200 civilians dead in the most significant wave of attacks since the earlier ’79-’82 war with the Muslim Brotherhood (also see BBC News recount the attacks). Patrick Seale’s book speculates of the bombings that, “It may not have been unconnected that in late 1985 the NSC’s Colonel Oliver North and Amiram Nir, Peres’s counter-terrorism expert, set up a dirty tricks outfit to strike back at the alleged sponsors of Middle East terrorism.”* Consistency with future WikiLeaks files The casual reader of Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change will immediately recognize a strategic thinking on Syria that looks much the same as what is revealed in national security memos produced decades later in the run up to the current war in Syria. When US cables or intelligence papers talk regime change in Syria they usually strategize in terms of exploiting sectarian fault lines. In a sense, this is the US national security bureaucracy’s fall-back approach to Syria. One well-known example is contained in a December 2006 State Dept. cable sent from the US embassy in Syria (subsequently released by WikiLeaks). The cable’s stated purpose is to explore Syrian regime vulnerabilities and weaknesses to exploit (in similar fashion to the 1986 CIA memo): PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Another section of the 2006 cable explains precisely the same scenario laid out in the 1986 memo in describing the increased “possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction” on the part of the regime.: ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING: The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like [former Vice President Abdul Halim] Khaddam and [younger brother of Hafez] Rif’at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime’s paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction. And ironically, Rif’at Asad and Khaddam are both mentioned extensively in the 1986 memo as key players during a speculative future “Succession Power Struggle.” [p.15] An Islamic State in Damascus? While the 1986 CIA report makes a case in its concluding paragraph for “a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates” in Syria, the authors acknowledge that the collapse of the Ba’ath state could actually usher in the worst of all possible outcomes for Washington and the region: “religious zealots” might seek to establish “an Islamic Republic”. The words take on a new and special importance now, after the rise of ISIS: Although Syria’s secular traditions would make it extremely difficult for religious zealots to establish an Islamic Republic, should they succeed they would likely deepen hostilities with Israel and provide support and sanctuary to terrorists groups. [pg.24] What continues to unfold in Syria has apparently surpassed even the worst case scenarios of intelligence planners in the 1980’s. Tinkering with regime change has proven itself to be the most dangerous of all games. *Seale, Patrick. Asad of Syria : the struggle for the Middle East (Berkeley, CA : University of California Press, 1989)p.474. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 01:02:02 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:02:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA plans for Syria dating back to the 80's Message-ID: New Declassified CIA Memo Presents Blueprint for Syrian Regime Collapse By Brad Hoff - February 14, 2017 Bashar and Hafiz al-Assad; Manfred Schweda/thisfabtrek.com. Image used with permission. A newly declassified CIA document explored multiple scenarios of Syrian regime collapse at a time when Hafez al-Assad’s government was embroiled in a covert “dirty war” with Israel and the West, and in the midst of a diplomatic crisis which marked an unprecedented level of isolation for Syria. The 24-page formerly classified memo entitled Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change was produced in July 1986, and had high level distribution within the Reagan administration and to agency directors, including presidential advisers, the National Security Council, and the US ambassador to Syria. The memo appears in the CIA’s latest CREST release (CIA Records Search Tool) of over 900,000 recently declassified documents. A “severely restricted” report - Advertisement - The memo’s cover letter, drafted by the CIA’s Director of Global Issues (the report itself was prepared by the division’s Foreign Subversion and Instability Center), introduces the purpose of presenting “a number of possible scenarios that could lead to the ouster of President Assad or other dramatic change in Syria.” It further curiously warns that, “Because the analysis out of context is susceptible to misunderstanding, external distribution has been severely restricted.” The report’s narrowed distribution list (sent to specific named national security heads, not entire agencies) indicates that it was considered at the highest levels of the Reagan administration. The coming sectarian war for Syria The intelligence report’s contents contain some striking passages which seem remarkably consistent with events as they unfolded decades later at the start of the Syrian war in 2011: Although we judge that fear of reprisals and organizational problems make a second Sunni challenge unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of Sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. In most instances the regime would have the resources to crush a Sunni opposition movement, but we believe widespread violence among the populace could stimulate large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or munity, setting the stage for civil war. [pg.2] The “second Sunni challenge” is a reference to the Syrian government’s prior long running war against a Muslim Brotherhood insurgency which culminated in the 1982 Hama Massacre. While downplaying the nationalist and pluralistic composition of the ruling Ba’ath party, the report envisions a renewal and exploitation of sectarian fault lines pitting Syria’s Sunni population against its Alawite leadership: Sunnis make up 60 percent of the Syrian officer corps but are concentrated in junior officer ranks; enlisted men are predominantly Sunni conscripts. We believe that a renewal of communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis could inspire Sunnis in the military to turn against the regime. [pg.12] Regime change and the Muslim Brotherhood The possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood spearheading another future armed insurgency leading to regime change is given extensive focus. While the document’s tone suggests this as a long term future scenario (especially considering the Brotherhood suffered overwhelming defeat and went completely underground in Syria by the mid-1980’s), it is considered one of the top three “most likely” drivers of regime change (the other scenarios include “Succession Power Struggle” and “Military Reverses Spark a Coup”). The potential for revival of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “militant faction” is introduced in the following: Although the Muslim Brotherhood’s suppression drastically reduced armed dissidence, we judge a significant potential still exists for another Sunni opposition movement. In part the Brotherhood’s role was to exploit and orchestrate opposition activity by other organized groups… These groups still exist, and under proper leadership they could coalesce into a large movement… …young professionals who formed the base of support for the militant faction of the Muslim Brotherhood; and remnants of the Brotherhood itself who could become leaders in a new Sunni opposition movement… [pp.13-14] The Brotherhood’s role is seen as escalating the potential for initially small Sunni protest movements to morph into violent sectarian civil war: Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence… Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups… Mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of Sunni community leaders as well as on those engaged in protests. Regime efforts to restore order would founder if government violence against protestors inspired broad-based communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis. [pp.19-20] The CIA report describes the final phase of an evolving sectarian war which witnesses the influx of fighters and weapons from neighboring countries. Consistent with a 1983 secret report that called for a US covert operation to utilize then US-allied Iraq as a base of attack on Syria, the 1986 analysis says, “Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war”: A general campaign of Alawi violence against Sunnis might push even moderate Sunnis to join the opposition. Remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood–some returning from exile in Iraq–could provide a core of leadership for the movement. Although the regime has the resources to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on Sunni civilians might prompt large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war. [pp.20-21] A Sunni regime serving Western economic interests While the document is primarily a theoretical exploration projecting scenarios of Syrian regime weakening and collapse (its purpose is analysis and not necessarily policy), the authors admit of its “purposefully provocative” nature (see PREFACE) and closes with a list desired outcomes. One provocative outcome describes a pliant “Sunni regime” serving US economic interests: In our view, US interests would be best served by a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates. Business moderates would see a strong need for Western aid and investment to build Syria’s private economy, thus opening the way for stronger ties to Western governments. [pg. 24] Ironically, the Syrian government would accuse the United States and its allies of covert subversion within Syria after a string of domestic bombings created diplomatic tensions during the mid-1980’s. Dirty tricks and diplomacy in the 1980’s According to Patrick Seale’s landmark book, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, 1986 was a year that marked Syria’s greatest isolation among world powers as multiple diplomatic crises and terror events put Syria more and more out in the cold. The year included “the Hindawi affair”—a Syrian intelligence sponsored attempt to hijack and bomb an El Al flight to Tel Aviv—and may or may not have involved Nezar Hindawi working as a double agent on behalf of Israel. The foiled plot brought down international condemnation on Syria and lives on as one of the more famous and bizarre terror conspiracies in history. Not only were Syria and Israel once again generally on the brink of war in 1986, but a string of “dirty tricks” tactics were being utilized by Syria and its regional enemies to shape diplomatic outcomes primarily in Lebanon and Jordan. In March and April of 1986 (months prior to the distribution of the CIA memo), a string of still largely unexplained car bombs rocked Damascus and at least 5 towns throughout Syria, leaving over 200 civilians dead in the most significant wave of attacks since the earlier ’79-’82 war with the Muslim Brotherhood (also see BBC News recount the attacks). Patrick Seale’s book speculates of the bombings that, “It may not have been unconnected that in late 1985 the NSC’s Colonel Oliver North and Amiram Nir, Peres’s counter-terrorism expert, set up a dirty tricks outfit to strike back at the alleged sponsors of Middle East terrorism.”* Consistency with future WikiLeaks files The casual reader of Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change will immediately recognize a strategic thinking on Syria that looks much the same as what is revealed in national security memos produced decades later in the run up to the current war in Syria. When US cables or intelligence papers talk regime change in Syria they usually strategize in terms of exploiting sectarian fault lines. In a sense, this is the US national security bureaucracy’s fall-back approach to Syria. One well-known example is contained in a December 2006 State Dept. cable sent from the US embassy in Syria (subsequently released by WikiLeaks). The cable’s stated purpose is to explore Syrian regime vulnerabilities and weaknesses to exploit (in similar fashion to the 1986 CIA memo): PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Another section of the 2006 cable explains precisely the same scenario laid out in the 1986 memo in describing the increased “possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction” on the part of the regime.: ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING: The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like [former Vice President Abdul Halim] Khaddam and [younger brother of Hafez] Rif’at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime’s paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction. And ironically, Rif’at Asad and Khaddam are both mentioned extensively in the 1986 memo as key players during a speculative future “Succession Power Struggle.” [p.15] An Islamic State in Damascus? While the 1986 CIA report makes a case in its concluding paragraph for “a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates” in Syria, the authors acknowledge that the collapse of the Ba’ath state could actually usher in the worst of all possible outcomes for Washington and the region: “religious zealots” might seek to establish “an Islamic Republic”. The words take on a new and special importance now, after the rise of ISIS: Although Syria’s secular traditions would make it extremely difficult for religious zealots to establish an Islamic Republic, should they succeed they would likely deepen hostilities with Israel and provide support and sanctuary to terrorists groups. [pg.24] What continues to unfold in Syria has apparently surpassed even the worst case scenarios of intelligence planners in the 1980’s. Tinkering with regime change has proven itself to be the most dangerous of all games. *Seale, Patrick. Asad of Syria : the struggle for the Middle East (Berkeley, CA : University of California Press, 1989)p.474. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 02:37:17 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:37:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Who is afraid of peace in Afghanistan? References: <001a113fec403a86ec054884bd1e@google.com> Message-ID: Oriental Review ________________________________ Who is afraid of peace in Afghanistan? Posted: 14 Feb 2017 12:55 AM PST The six-nation conference on Afghanistan due to be held in Moscow on Wednesday – including Russia, China, India, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – is already in the US’ crosshairs. A Voice of America commentary has accused that by taking this initiative, “Russia is more interested in undermining the United States than in solving the regional […] You are subscribed to email updates from Oriental Review. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 02:37:17 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:37:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Who is afraid of peace in Afghanistan? References: <001a113fec403a86ec054884bd1e@google.com> Message-ID: Oriental Review ________________________________ Who is afraid of peace in Afghanistan? Posted: 14 Feb 2017 12:55 AM PST The six-nation conference on Afghanistan due to be held in Moscow on Wednesday – including Russia, China, India, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – is already in the US’ crosshairs. A Voice of America commentary has accused that by taking this initiative, “Russia is more interested in undermining the United States than in solving the regional […] You are subscribed to email updates from Oriental Review. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 18:48:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:48:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The West shot itself in the foot over Syria" Message-ID: HomeOp-Edge ‘Echoes of failure: West shot itself in the foot over Syria’ Published time: 15 Feb, 2017 15:48 Get short URL [‘Echoes of failure: West shot itself in the foot over Syria’] 1 The West was confident the Assad government would fall, but it didn’t happen because it has retained a very solid base of support within the Syrian population, says anti-war activist Richard Becker from the ANSWER Coalition. Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German ambassador to the UK and the country's ex-Deputy Foreign Minister, accused the West of failure in Syria in response to a question from RT Deutsch. He said Western governments had no real plan how to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad when they were calling for his removal. Читать [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/819870660507955202/aIKukPJE_normal.jpg]RT ✔@RT_com 'Our country is being destroyed by outsiders, Western countries are not doing anything' - aunt of drowned Syrian boy https://on.rt.com/830q 05:34 - 13 февраля 2017 [Photo published for West ‘did nothing’ to end war in Syria, says aunt of drowned Syrian boy — RT News] West ‘did nothing’ to end war in Syria, says aunt of drowned Syrian boy — RT News The Western countries have done nothing to resolve the Syrian crisis, pursuing their false narrative instead, while the real situation in Syria stays underreported, the aunt of a Syrian refugee... rt.com * * 180180 Ретвитов * 168168 отметок «Нравится» RT: What do you think of Ischinger's comments that the West has “shot itself in the foot” over Syria by insisting Assad goes but without having a proper plan for his removal? Richard Becker: They are the echoes of failure. The West, in particular, the US, British, French governments, the Turkish government, the Saudi government and others, they were all confident in summer 2011 the Assad-led government would fall. They said so over and over again. They said it was just a matter of time. It didn’t happen. And it didn’t happen because the government has retained a very solid base of support within the population of Syria. Even before it was getting assistance from outside, it was somewhat able to stabilize the situation under very difficult circumstances. But the idea that the West did not intervene enough, that Turkey didn’t intervene enough, Britain, France, the US, and Qatar, and other Gulf monarchies - supposedly in the name of the democracy, I would add parenthetically - didn’t do enough is just a ridiculous statement. They did a great deal to try to bring down the government; to destroy Syria in the way they destroyed Libya. That intervention is really unforgivable. Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере [Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере] Читать [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/819870660507955202/aIKukPJE_normal.jpg]RT ✔@RT_com US admits using toxic depleted #uranium against ISIS in #Syriahttps://on.rt.com/835t 11:26 - 14 февраля 2017 * * 206206 Ретвитов * 116116 отметок «Нравится» RT: The West has repeatedly insisted that Assad must go, but did Western leaders ever have a serious plan to remove Assad? RB: They believe that what they were doing, in their towering imperial arrogance, and you can hear it in the voices [of some leaders.] They were quite confident that they were succeeding; that all of the foreign fighters going in through Turkey, all the weaponry that was coming in from Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, all the training and weaponry that was coming directly from the CIA – from the US, from the former colonizers of the region – Britain and France. The idea that they didn’t do anything, they didn’t have an effective plan – they believed that they were going to succeed. They believed the government and state in Syria was going to collapse under all of their pressure, and that was a great deal of pressure. But because of the Iraq war particularly the US was not in a position, Obama did not believe, he was not in a position to launch an all-out war against Syria, to send in ground troops, or even to establish a no-fly zone, although, he came very close to that in September 2013. Again, they were quite confident that their very energetic efforts were going to bring down the government, and they failed. RT: Officials have insisted coalition operations were conducted with great care, so as not to cause civilian casualties. However, we've seen a lot of civilian casualties after US-led coalition air strikes. What can we read into that? RB: They always claim that. They have been claiming it for decades now – all the way back to the Vietnam War. In Iraq it was all precision weaponry, and it wasn’t, and it isn’t, and it really can’t be. Many of the attacks were directly on civilian areas, and the airstrikes that were carried out in many, many parts of Syria inflicted a great deal of death and destruction, and you would think from the Western media reports, that all the causalities in Syria have been at the hands of the Syrian government. In fact, that is very, very far from true. It is not that the Syrian government hasn’t its army, hasn’t also inflicted some civilian causalities, there is no question about that. But probably a quarter of all the deaths in Syria have been Syrian Arab Army causalities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 18:48:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:48:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "The West shot itself in the foot over Syria" Message-ID: HomeOp-Edge ‘Echoes of failure: West shot itself in the foot over Syria’ Published time: 15 Feb, 2017 15:48 Get short URL [‘Echoes of failure: West shot itself in the foot over Syria’] 1 The West was confident the Assad government would fall, but it didn’t happen because it has retained a very solid base of support within the Syrian population, says anti-war activist Richard Becker from the ANSWER Coalition. Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German ambassador to the UK and the country's ex-Deputy Foreign Minister, accused the West of failure in Syria in response to a question from RT Deutsch. He said Western governments had no real plan how to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad when they were calling for his removal. Читать [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/819870660507955202/aIKukPJE_normal.jpg]RT ✔@RT_com 'Our country is being destroyed by outsiders, Western countries are not doing anything' - aunt of drowned Syrian boy https://on.rt.com/830q 05:34 - 13 февраля 2017 [Photo published for West ‘did nothing’ to end war in Syria, says aunt of drowned Syrian boy — RT News] West ‘did nothing’ to end war in Syria, says aunt of drowned Syrian boy — RT News The Western countries have done nothing to resolve the Syrian crisis, pursuing their false narrative instead, while the real situation in Syria stays underreported, the aunt of a Syrian refugee... rt.com * * 180180 Ретвитов * 168168 отметок «Нравится» RT: What do you think of Ischinger's comments that the West has “shot itself in the foot” over Syria by insisting Assad goes but without having a proper plan for his removal? Richard Becker: They are the echoes of failure. The West, in particular, the US, British, French governments, the Turkish government, the Saudi government and others, they were all confident in summer 2011 the Assad-led government would fall. They said so over and over again. They said it was just a matter of time. It didn’t happen. And it didn’t happen because the government has retained a very solid base of support within the population of Syria. Even before it was getting assistance from outside, it was somewhat able to stabilize the situation under very difficult circumstances. But the idea that the West did not intervene enough, that Turkey didn’t intervene enough, Britain, France, the US, and Qatar, and other Gulf monarchies - supposedly in the name of the democracy, I would add parenthetically - didn’t do enough is just a ridiculous statement. They did a great deal to try to bring down the government; to destroy Syria in the way they destroyed Libya. That intervention is really unforgivable. Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере [Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере] Читать [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/819870660507955202/aIKukPJE_normal.jpg]RT ✔@RT_com US admits using toxic depleted #uranium against ISIS in #Syriahttps://on.rt.com/835t 11:26 - 14 февраля 2017 * * 206206 Ретвитов * 116116 отметок «Нравится» RT: The West has repeatedly insisted that Assad must go, but did Western leaders ever have a serious plan to remove Assad? RB: They believe that what they were doing, in their towering imperial arrogance, and you can hear it in the voices [of some leaders.] They were quite confident that they were succeeding; that all of the foreign fighters going in through Turkey, all the weaponry that was coming in from Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, all the training and weaponry that was coming directly from the CIA – from the US, from the former colonizers of the region – Britain and France. The idea that they didn’t do anything, they didn’t have an effective plan – they believed that they were going to succeed. They believed the government and state in Syria was going to collapse under all of their pressure, and that was a great deal of pressure. But because of the Iraq war particularly the US was not in a position, Obama did not believe, he was not in a position to launch an all-out war against Syria, to send in ground troops, or even to establish a no-fly zone, although, he came very close to that in September 2013. Again, they were quite confident that their very energetic efforts were going to bring down the government, and they failed. RT: Officials have insisted coalition operations were conducted with great care, so as not to cause civilian casualties. However, we've seen a lot of civilian casualties after US-led coalition air strikes. What can we read into that? RB: They always claim that. They have been claiming it for decades now – all the way back to the Vietnam War. In Iraq it was all precision weaponry, and it wasn’t, and it isn’t, and it really can’t be. Many of the attacks were directly on civilian areas, and the airstrikes that were carried out in many, many parts of Syria inflicted a great deal of death and destruction, and you would think from the Western media reports, that all the causalities in Syria have been at the hands of the Syrian government. In fact, that is very, very far from true. It is not that the Syrian government hasn’t its army, hasn’t also inflicted some civilian causalities, there is no question about that. But probably a quarter of all the deaths in Syria have been Syrian Arab Army causalities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 20:49:45 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gareth Porter on Trump, Iran References: <940243525.36846.1487191785546.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <940243525.36846.1487191785546@mail.yahoo.com> "In the end, the main contours of US policy toward Iran have always reflected the views and the interests of the permanent national security state far more than the ideas of the president. That fact has ensured unending US hostility toward Iran, but it also very likely means continuity rather than radical shifts in policy under Trump." Why Trump’s Iran Policy Will Be Much Like Obama’s | | | | | | | | | | | Why Trump’s Iran Policy Will Be Much Like Obama’s The first public pronouncements by President Donald Trump’s administration on Iran have created the widespread i... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Feb 16 16:05:23 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:05:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] It's Over Message-ID: I know many won’t get this, but for those that do…….. * Home * Latest articles * RSS * Contact * Saker support * Saker Community * Brothers in Arms * News Sources [The Vineyard of the Saker] * ALL NEWS * WAR NEWS 2017-02-15 * WATCH 2017-02-15 * SANDBOX 2017-02-16 * SCOTTS 2017-01-22 * SELECT CMMT 2017-01-13 * CAFE 2017-02-16 * NEWS RSS SAKER MESSAGE: * Saker message – I need an administrative assistant! * Saker message – I need an administrative assistant! * Saker message – I need an administrative assistant! The Neocons and the “deep state” have neutered the Trump Presidency, it’s over folks! (UPDATED 2x) 43212 ViewsFebruary 14, 2017 283 Comments Less than a month ago I warned that a ‘color revolution ‘ was taking place in the USA. My first element of proof was the so-called “investigation” which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump’s candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation. Trump accepted it. Now let’s immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump’s national security policy. For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover, the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests. That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC. The Neocon run ‘deep state’ has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking “stars” and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous “you are fired!” to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us all. Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.? Today, Trump has shown us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn’s resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don’t care about reality. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump’s hero. And Trump betrayed him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the ‘deep state’ only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be. Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again. It’s over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy, the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him ‘an idiot‘. The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won’t – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight. The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns out that he is a doormat – very good for the EU. Where does all this leave us – the millions of anonymous ‘deplorables’ who try as best we can to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice? I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had – hopes. No expectations, just hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington ‘swamp’ will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of solace in two undeniable facts: 1. Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency. 2. In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist Empire. Just like Erdogan’ purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump ‘color revolution’ has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of the USA. The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka “the basket of deplorables”) the Neocons have had to show they true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that ‘more of the same’ was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality. Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not “great again”, but at least stronger, a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from the others. That’s over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at any level. I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the ‘color revolution’ started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine? Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns. Today Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try minimize it all. But the reality is that barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it’s over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen. I see very dark clouds on the horizon. The Saker UPDATE1: Just to stress an important point: the disaster is not so much that Flynn is out but what Trump’s caving in to the Neocon tells us about Trump’s character (or lack thereof). Ask yourself – after what happened to Flynn, would you stick your neck out for Trump? UPDATE2: Just as predicted – the Neocons are celebrating and, of course, doubling-down: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Feb 16 16:05:23 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:05:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] It's Over Message-ID: I know many won’t get this, but for those that do…….. * Home * Latest articles * RSS * Contact * Saker support * Saker Community * Brothers in Arms * News Sources [The Vineyard of the Saker] * ALL NEWS * WAR NEWS 2017-02-15 * WATCH 2017-02-15 * SANDBOX 2017-02-16 * SCOTTS 2017-01-22 * SELECT CMMT 2017-01-13 * CAFE 2017-02-16 * NEWS RSS SAKER MESSAGE: * Saker message – I need an administrative assistant! * Saker message – I need an administrative assistant! * Saker message – I need an administrative assistant! The Neocons and the “deep state” have neutered the Trump Presidency, it’s over folks! (UPDATED 2x) 43212 ViewsFebruary 14, 2017 283 Comments Less than a month ago I warned that a ‘color revolution ‘ was taking place in the USA. My first element of proof was the so-called “investigation” which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump’s candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation. Trump accepted it. Now let’s immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump’s national security policy. For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover, the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests. That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC. The Neocon run ‘deep state’ has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking “stars” and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous “you are fired!” to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us all. Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.? Today, Trump has shown us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn’s resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don’t care about reality. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump’s hero. And Trump betrayed him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the ‘deep state’ only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be. Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again. It’s over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy, the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him ‘an idiot‘. The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won’t – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight. The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns out that he is a doormat – very good for the EU. Where does all this leave us – the millions of anonymous ‘deplorables’ who try as best we can to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice? I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had – hopes. No expectations, just hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington ‘swamp’ will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of solace in two undeniable facts: 1. Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency. 2. In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist Empire. Just like Erdogan’ purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump ‘color revolution’ has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of the USA. The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka “the basket of deplorables”) the Neocons have had to show they true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that ‘more of the same’ was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality. Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not “great again”, but at least stronger, a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from the others. That’s over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at any level. I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the ‘color revolution’ started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine? Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns. Today Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try minimize it all. But the reality is that barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it’s over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen. I see very dark clouds on the horizon. The Saker UPDATE1: Just to stress an important point: the disaster is not so much that Flynn is out but what Trump’s caving in to the Neocon tells us about Trump’s character (or lack thereof). Ask yourself – after what happened to Flynn, would you stick your neck out for Trump? UPDATE2: Just as predicted – the Neocons are celebrating and, of course, doubling-down: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Feb 16 16:29:45 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] An American "strongman" was predicted in 1998 -- 2/13/17 References: <1127128055403.1101151826392.79207.0.410334JL.2002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <17AF643D-F63B-4D70-A55F-990409929BDD@illinois.edu> Rorty on the coming Caesar, c. 1998 Begin forwarded message: From: "Delanceyplace.com " > Subject: the rise of an american "strongman" was predicted in 1998 -- 2/13/17 Date: February 13, 2017 at 2:45:40 AM CST To: > Reply-To: > [Email] [Facebook] [Twitter] [Google+] [LinkedIn] [Pinterest] [Reddit] [http://files.constantcontact.com/8d173c16001/27c2f997-d844-4a64-bd9e-e0e5c3a37751.png] [http://files.constantcontact.com/8d173c16001/dee53e65-620f-425a-aa0d-80f7990ff05c.png] Today's selection -- from Achieving Our Country by Richard Rorty. In 1979, children from the top socioeconomic quarter of Ameri­can families were four times more likely to get a college de­gree than those from the bottom quarter; now they are 10 times more likely. In 1998, American philosopher and academic Richard Rorty wrote of the emerging political and social divisions in America and predicted the emergence of a "strongman" in American politics. Whether readers agree or disagree with Rorty's writings [which include some statements more pungent than those included below], the fact that he wrote so directly about this phenomenon almost 20 years ago is intriguing and merits reflection: "[America's] newly acquired cultural cosmopolitanism is limited to the richest twenty-five percent of Americans. The new economic cosmopolitanism presages a future in which the other 75 percent of Americans will find their standard of living steadily shrinking. ... "Sometime in the Seventies, American middle-class ideal­ism went into a stall. Under Presidents Carter and Clinton, the Democratic Party has survived by distancing itself from the unions and from any mention of redistribution, and moving into a sterile vacuum called the 'center.' The party no longer has a visible, noisy left wing -- a wing with which the intellectuals can identify and on which the unions can rely for support. ... "Union mem­bers in the United States have watched factory after factory close, only to reopen in Slovenia, Thailand, or Mexico. It is no wonder that they see the result of international free trade as prosperity for managers and stockholders, a better stan­dard of living for workers in developing countries, and a very much worse standard of living for American workers. It would be no wonder if they saw the American leftist intelli­gentsia as on the side of the managers and stockholders -- as sharing the same class interests. For we intellectuals, who are mostly academics, are ourselves quite well insulated, at least in the short run, from the effects of globalization. To make things worse, we often seem more interested in the workers of the developing world than in the fate of our fellow citizens. ... [http://files.constantcontact.com/8d173c16001/03ee5879-6aec-4535-8a27-7cb60951f55b.jpg] Cover of "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis published in 1935 "Edward Luttwak ... [suggests] that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their gov­ernment is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers -- themselves desperately afraid of being downsized -- are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for any­one else. "At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for -- someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureau­crats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmod­ernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis' novel It Can't Happen Here may then be played out. For once such a strongman takes of­fice, nobody can predict what will happen. ... "One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. ... All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unaccept­able to its students will come flooding back. All the resent­ment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. ... "After my imagined strongman takes charge, he will quickly [betray the expectations of his supporters (editor's note)] make his peace with the international super-rich. ... People will wonder why there was so little resistance to his evitable rise. Where, they will ask, was the American Left? Why was it only rightists like [Pat] Buchanan who spoke to the workers about the consequences of globalization? Why could not the Left channel the mounting rage of the newly dispossessed?" [https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51QRN6J8EAL._SL160_.jpg] Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America Author: Richard Rorty Publisher Harvard University Press Copyright 1998 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College Pages: 86-91 [https://imgssl.constantcontact.com/letters/images/amazon_buy1.gif]If you wish to read further: Buy Now [http://files.constantcontact.com/8d173c16001/d5852a81-689d-48ee-8a9c-83cf9632aed9.jpg] About Us DelanceyPlace.com is a brief daily email with an excerpt or quote we view as interesting or noteworthy. Please subscribe here. Delanceyplace.com, 1735 Market Street, Suite 2501, Philadelphia, PA 19103 SafeUnsubscribe™ r-szoke at illinois.edu Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by daily at delanceyplace.com in collaboration with [Constant Contact] Try it free today -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Feb 16 23:42:23 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:42:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Check out this story on Foreign Policy References: Message-ID: > > The United States Used Depleted Uranium in Syria - http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/ From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Feb 17 00:15:09 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:15:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump attacks the war party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The political establishmentarians who have dominated all US administrations for 40 years has killed millions of people around the world. They are now terrified that the new administration will not continue their war policies and so are working desperately to bring it down. Now the (semi-)neoliberal White House is challenging the neocon CIA, the center of the war party: >. "If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well / It were done quickly…" —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 17 12:26:33 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:26:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From the WSWS.ORG, Trumps press conference reveals frightening conflict..... Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The Trump press conference: A ferocious conflict within the ruling elite 17 February 2017 The news conference given by Donald Trump Thursday afternoon was extraordinary and unprecedented. The event took on a surreal character as, for more than 75 minutes, the US president traded insults with journalists and otherwise engaged in a bitter battle with his nemeses in the media. It is not comparable to anything seen before in modern American history, even at the height of the Watergate crisis. In witnessing such a spectacle, it is always necessary to uncover the rational content, the underlying political dynamic. In this case, the press conference gave expression to a vicious conflict within the American ruling class over foreign policy as the United States hurtles toward war. The news conference was initially called to announce Trump’s new pick for labor secretary, but this took up only one minute of the event. Trump began with a litany of achievements and actions he has taken since his inauguration, which was largely directed at the ruling elite in an appeal for support. The stock market has “hit record numbers,” corporate regulations are being eliminated, immigrants are being targeted for deportation, and Trump has ordered a “massive rebuilding” of the US military, among other right-wing measures. However, from the media, channeling the US intelligence apparatus, questions focused almost exclusively on the ties of the Trump administration to Russia and the circumstances behind the forced resignation earlier this week of Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, over his pre-inauguration telelphone conversation with the Russian ambassador. Trump responded with a diatribe in which the media served as a stand-in for his real opponents in the US ruling elite, comprising the bulk of the permanent military-intelligence apparatus that really runs the government, regardless of which party controls the White House or majorities in Congress. He repeatedly denounced what he called “illegal leaks” to the media from sources within the intelligence agencies. It was remarkable that when Trump directly denounced the media as a mouthpiece for the intelligence agencies, there was no attempt to rebut him. Everyone knows it is true. Likewise, when he flatly denied any contact between his campaign and Russian intelligence agencies, not a single reporter could cite evidence to the contrary. In the course of the press conference, Trump blurted out a number of astonishing comments that point to the extreme dangers facing the entire world. Responding to questions about what he would do about a Russian ship conducting surveillance operations in international waters off the coast of Connecticut—the same type of operations US warships conduct on a much larger scale off the coasts of Russia and China—Trump said, “The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say ‘oh, it’s so great.’” He continued, “If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, ‘Oh, isn’t that wonderful.’” Trump pointed out the implications of such a clash, given that Russia and the United States have the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. “We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they,” he said. “I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it: a nuclear holocaust would be like no other.” In other words, there are ongoing discussions, at the highest levels of the American government, about a potential nuclear war with Russia, for which preparations are well advanced. When challenged by one reporter on why there was no response by the US government to a series of what he called “provocations” by Russia—largely consisting of incidents provoked by US and NATO war maneuvers along Russia’s borders—Trump replied, “I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do. I don’t talk about military response.” He expanded on this theme, declaring that he would not talk about military operations in Iraq, North Korea, Iran or anywhere else. “You know why? Because they shouldn’t know. And eventually, you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.” Such conflicts within the ruling elite over foreign policy are usually fought out behind the scenes, as with discontent within the military-intelligence apparatus over Obama’s retreat from a direct military intervention in Syria in 2013, when he failed to enforce his so-called “red line” against the government of Bashar al-Assad. This time, however, the conflict has exploded into the open. Aside from the specific form that the debate within the US state apparatus has taken, it is an expression of an underlying crisis of the entire capitalist order. Twenty-five years of unending war are metastasizing, with extreme rapidity, into a major conflict involving large nation-states. National security journals are full of articles in which there is open discussion about war with Russia, in which the question is not if, but when and how. Trump, on the other hand, has focused his attention on China. In either case, the consequences are incalculable. What was perhaps most striking is how remote the entire press conference was from the sentiments and concerns of the vast majority of the American population. There was virtually no questioning at the press conference about Trump’s war against immigrant workers or the nationwide day of protest by immigrants and their supporters that was taking place at the same time. Those participating in the mass protests that have erupted since Trump’s inauguration are not motivated by a desire to launch a war with Russia, but by hatred of Trump’s authoritarian, anti-democratic policies and the oligarchic government that he has set up. Trump’s critics in the Democratic Party and media, however, are responding to powerful sections of the US ruling elite who welcome Trump’s ultra-reactionary domestic policies—tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, deregulation of corporations, attacks on democratic rights, persecution of immigrants—but regard his posture of seeking better relations with Russia as intolerable. The Democrats have responded with passive handwringing while Trump has assembled his cabinet of billionaires, ex-generals and right-wing fanatics, and issued a series of reactionary and unconstitutional executive orders. But when given the opportunity to attack Trump as soft on Russia, they engage in savage witch-hunting that recalls nothing so much as McCarthyism. There is no faction with the American ruling class that is opposed to imperialist war. In the struggle to prevent war, it is up to the working class to intervene independently, opposing both factions in the US ruling elite, both Trump and the line-up of the CIA, the media and the Democratic Party. Patrick Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 17 12:26:33 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:26:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From the WSWS.ORG, Trumps press conference reveals frightening conflict..... Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The Trump press conference: A ferocious conflict within the ruling elite 17 February 2017 The news conference given by Donald Trump Thursday afternoon was extraordinary and unprecedented. The event took on a surreal character as, for more than 75 minutes, the US president traded insults with journalists and otherwise engaged in a bitter battle with his nemeses in the media. It is not comparable to anything seen before in modern American history, even at the height of the Watergate crisis. In witnessing such a spectacle, it is always necessary to uncover the rational content, the underlying political dynamic. In this case, the press conference gave expression to a vicious conflict within the American ruling class over foreign policy as the United States hurtles toward war. The news conference was initially called to announce Trump’s new pick for labor secretary, but this took up only one minute of the event. Trump began with a litany of achievements and actions he has taken since his inauguration, which was largely directed at the ruling elite in an appeal for support. The stock market has “hit record numbers,” corporate regulations are being eliminated, immigrants are being targeted for deportation, and Trump has ordered a “massive rebuilding” of the US military, among other right-wing measures. However, from the media, channeling the US intelligence apparatus, questions focused almost exclusively on the ties of the Trump administration to Russia and the circumstances behind the forced resignation earlier this week of Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, over his pre-inauguration telelphone conversation with the Russian ambassador. Trump responded with a diatribe in which the media served as a stand-in for his real opponents in the US ruling elite, comprising the bulk of the permanent military-intelligence apparatus that really runs the government, regardless of which party controls the White House or majorities in Congress. He repeatedly denounced what he called “illegal leaks” to the media from sources within the intelligence agencies. It was remarkable that when Trump directly denounced the media as a mouthpiece for the intelligence agencies, there was no attempt to rebut him. Everyone knows it is true. Likewise, when he flatly denied any contact between his campaign and Russian intelligence agencies, not a single reporter could cite evidence to the contrary. In the course of the press conference, Trump blurted out a number of astonishing comments that point to the extreme dangers facing the entire world. Responding to questions about what he would do about a Russian ship conducting surveillance operations in international waters off the coast of Connecticut—the same type of operations US warships conduct on a much larger scale off the coasts of Russia and China—Trump said, “The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say ‘oh, it’s so great.’” He continued, “If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, ‘Oh, isn’t that wonderful.’” Trump pointed out the implications of such a clash, given that Russia and the United States have the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. “We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they,” he said. “I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it: a nuclear holocaust would be like no other.” In other words, there are ongoing discussions, at the highest levels of the American government, about a potential nuclear war with Russia, for which preparations are well advanced. When challenged by one reporter on why there was no response by the US government to a series of what he called “provocations” by Russia—largely consisting of incidents provoked by US and NATO war maneuvers along Russia’s borders—Trump replied, “I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do. I don’t talk about military response.” He expanded on this theme, declaring that he would not talk about military operations in Iraq, North Korea, Iran or anywhere else. “You know why? Because they shouldn’t know. And eventually, you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.” Such conflicts within the ruling elite over foreign policy are usually fought out behind the scenes, as with discontent within the military-intelligence apparatus over Obama’s retreat from a direct military intervention in Syria in 2013, when he failed to enforce his so-called “red line” against the government of Bashar al-Assad. This time, however, the conflict has exploded into the open. Aside from the specific form that the debate within the US state apparatus has taken, it is an expression of an underlying crisis of the entire capitalist order. Twenty-five years of unending war are metastasizing, with extreme rapidity, into a major conflict involving large nation-states. National security journals are full of articles in which there is open discussion about war with Russia, in which the question is not if, but when and how. Trump, on the other hand, has focused his attention on China. In either case, the consequences are incalculable. What was perhaps most striking is how remote the entire press conference was from the sentiments and concerns of the vast majority of the American population. There was virtually no questioning at the press conference about Trump’s war against immigrant workers or the nationwide day of protest by immigrants and their supporters that was taking place at the same time. Those participating in the mass protests that have erupted since Trump’s inauguration are not motivated by a desire to launch a war with Russia, but by hatred of Trump’s authoritarian, anti-democratic policies and the oligarchic government that he has set up. Trump’s critics in the Democratic Party and media, however, are responding to powerful sections of the US ruling elite who welcome Trump’s ultra-reactionary domestic policies—tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, deregulation of corporations, attacks on democratic rights, persecution of immigrants—but regard his posture of seeking better relations with Russia as intolerable. The Democrats have responded with passive handwringing while Trump has assembled his cabinet of billionaires, ex-generals and right-wing fanatics, and issued a series of reactionary and unconstitutional executive orders. But when given the opportunity to attack Trump as soft on Russia, they engage in savage witch-hunting that recalls nothing so much as McCarthyism. There is no faction with the American ruling class that is opposed to imperialist war. In the struggle to prevent war, it is up to the working class to intervene independently, opposing both factions in the US ruling elite, both Trump and the line-up of the CIA, the media and the Democratic Party. Patrick Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Feb 17 12:36:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:36:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From the WSWS.ORG, Trumps press conference reveals frightening conflict..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Conclusion. America’s “Unlimited Imperialism” It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the “Pacific” would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and then the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of: (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention” or its avatar “responsibility to protect.” Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Jr./Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration established the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. Trump is just the Iron Fist of White Racist Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism all over the world. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): “The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…” It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. We must resist! Up the rebels! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 6:27 AM To: Peace Discuss ; Peace ; Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace] From the WSWS.ORG, Trumps press conference reveals frightening conflict..... · Print · Leaflet · Feedback · Share » The Trump press conference: A ferocious conflict within the ruling elite 17 February 2017 The news conference given by Donald Trump Thursday afternoon was extraordinary and unprecedented. The event took on a surreal character as, for more than 75 minutes, the US president traded insults with journalists and otherwise engaged in a bitter battle with his nemeses in the media. It is not comparable to anything seen before in modern American history, even at the height of the Watergate crisis. In witnessing such a spectacle, it is always necessary to uncover the rational content, the underlying political dynamic. In this case, the press conference gave expression to a vicious conflict within the American ruling class over foreign policy as the United States hurtles toward war. The news conference was initially called to announce Trump’s new pick for labor secretary, but this took up only one minute of the event. Trump began with a litany of achievements and actions he has taken since his inauguration, which was largely directed at the ruling elite in an appeal for support. The stock market has “hit record numbers,” corporate regulations are being eliminated, immigrants are being targeted for deportation, and Trump has ordered a “massive rebuilding” of the US military, among other right-wing measures. However, from the media, channeling the US intelligence apparatus, questions focused almost exclusively on the ties of the Trump administration to Russia and the circumstances behind the forced resignation earlier this week of Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, over his pre-inauguration telelphone conversation with the Russian ambassador. Trump responded with a diatribe in which the media served as a stand-in for his real opponents in the US ruling elite, comprising the bulk of the permanent military-intelligence apparatus that really runs the government, regardless of which party controls the White House or majorities in Congress. He repeatedly denounced what he called “illegal leaks” to the media from sources within the intelligence agencies. It was remarkable that when Trump directly denounced the media as a mouthpiece for the intelligence agencies, there was no attempt to rebut him. Everyone knows it is true. Likewise, when he flatly denied any contact between his campaign and Russian intelligence agencies, not a single reporter could cite evidence to the contrary. In the course of the press conference, Trump blurted out a number of astonishing comments that point to the extreme dangers facing the entire world. Responding to questions about what he would do about a Russian ship conducting surveillance operations in international waters off the coast of Connecticut—the same type of operations US warships conduct on a much larger scale off the coasts of Russia and China—Trump said, “The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say ‘oh, it’s so great.’” He continued, “If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, ‘Oh, isn’t that wonderful.’” Trump pointed out the implications of such a clash, given that Russia and the United States have the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. “We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they,” he said. “I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it: a nuclear holocaust would be like no other.” In other words, there are ongoing discussions, at the highest levels of the American government, about a potential nuclear war with Russia, for which preparations are well advanced. When challenged by one reporter on why there was no response by the US government to a series of what he called “provocations” by Russia—largely consisting of incidents provoked by US and NATO war maneuvers along Russia’s borders—Trump replied, “I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do. I don’t talk about military response.” He expanded on this theme, declaring that he would not talk about military operations in Iraq, North Korea, Iran or anywhere else. “You know why? Because they shouldn’t know. And eventually, you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.” Such conflicts within the ruling elite over foreign policy are usually fought out behind the scenes, as with discontent within the military-intelligence apparatus over Obama’s retreat from a direct military intervention in Syria in 2013, when he failed to enforce his so-called “red line” against the government of Bashar al-Assad. This time, however, the conflict has exploded into the open. Aside from the specific form that the debate within the US state apparatus has taken, it is an expression of an underlying crisis of the entire capitalist order. Twenty-five years of unending war are metastasizing, with extreme rapidity, into a major conflict involving large nation-states. National security journals are full of articles in which there is open discussion about war with Russia, in which the question is not if, but when and how. Trump, on the other hand, has focused his attention on China. In either case, the consequences are incalculable. What was perhaps most striking is how remote the entire press conference was from the sentiments and concerns of the vast majority of the American population. There was virtually no questioning at the press conference about Trump’s war against immigrant workers or the nationwide day of protest by immigrants and their supporters that was taking place at the same time. Those participating in the mass protests that have erupted since Trump’s inauguration are not motivated by a desire to launch a war with Russia, but by hatred of Trump’s authoritarian, anti-democratic policies and the oligarchic government that he has set up. Trump’s critics in the Democratic Party and media, however, are responding to powerful sections of the US ruling elite who welcome Trump’s ultra-reactionary domestic policies—tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, deregulation of corporations, attacks on democratic rights, persecution of immigrants—but regard his posture of seeking better relations with Russia as intolerable. The Democrats have responded with passive handwringing while Trump has assembled his cabinet of billionaires, ex-generals and right-wing fanatics, and issued a series of reactionary and unconstitutional executive orders. But when given the opportunity to attack Trump as soft on Russia, they engage in savage witch-hunting that recalls nothing so much as McCarthyism. There is no faction with the American ruling class that is opposed to imperialist war. In the struggle to prevent war, it is up to the working class to intervene independently, opposing both factions in the US ruling elite, both Trump and the line-up of the CIA, the media and the Democratic Party. Patrick Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Feb 17 12:36:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:36:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From the WSWS.ORG, Trumps press conference reveals frightening conflict..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Conclusion. America’s “Unlimited Imperialism” It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the “Pacific” would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and then the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of: (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention” or its avatar “responsibility to protect.” Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Jr./Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration established the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. Trump is just the Iron Fist of White Racist Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism all over the world. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): “The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…” It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. We must resist! Up the rebels! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 6:27 AM To: Peace Discuss ; Peace ; Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace] From the WSWS.ORG, Trumps press conference reveals frightening conflict..... · Print · Leaflet · Feedback · Share » The Trump press conference: A ferocious conflict within the ruling elite 17 February 2017 The news conference given by Donald Trump Thursday afternoon was extraordinary and unprecedented. The event took on a surreal character as, for more than 75 minutes, the US president traded insults with journalists and otherwise engaged in a bitter battle with his nemeses in the media. It is not comparable to anything seen before in modern American history, even at the height of the Watergate crisis. In witnessing such a spectacle, it is always necessary to uncover the rational content, the underlying political dynamic. In this case, the press conference gave expression to a vicious conflict within the American ruling class over foreign policy as the United States hurtles toward war. The news conference was initially called to announce Trump’s new pick for labor secretary, but this took up only one minute of the event. Trump began with a litany of achievements and actions he has taken since his inauguration, which was largely directed at the ruling elite in an appeal for support. The stock market has “hit record numbers,” corporate regulations are being eliminated, immigrants are being targeted for deportation, and Trump has ordered a “massive rebuilding” of the US military, among other right-wing measures. However, from the media, channeling the US intelligence apparatus, questions focused almost exclusively on the ties of the Trump administration to Russia and the circumstances behind the forced resignation earlier this week of Trump’s national security advisor, Michael Flynn, over his pre-inauguration telelphone conversation with the Russian ambassador. Trump responded with a diatribe in which the media served as a stand-in for his real opponents in the US ruling elite, comprising the bulk of the permanent military-intelligence apparatus that really runs the government, regardless of which party controls the White House or majorities in Congress. He repeatedly denounced what he called “illegal leaks” to the media from sources within the intelligence agencies. It was remarkable that when Trump directly denounced the media as a mouthpiece for the intelligence agencies, there was no attempt to rebut him. Everyone knows it is true. Likewise, when he flatly denied any contact between his campaign and Russian intelligence agencies, not a single reporter could cite evidence to the contrary. In the course of the press conference, Trump blurted out a number of astonishing comments that point to the extreme dangers facing the entire world. Responding to questions about what he would do about a Russian ship conducting surveillance operations in international waters off the coast of Connecticut—the same type of operations US warships conduct on a much larger scale off the coasts of Russia and China—Trump said, “The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water. Everyone in this country’s going to say ‘oh, it’s so great.’” He continued, “If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, ‘Oh, isn’t that wonderful.’” Trump pointed out the implications of such a clash, given that Russia and the United States have the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. “We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they,” he said. “I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it: a nuclear holocaust would be like no other.” In other words, there are ongoing discussions, at the highest levels of the American government, about a potential nuclear war with Russia, for which preparations are well advanced. When challenged by one reporter on why there was no response by the US government to a series of what he called “provocations” by Russia—largely consisting of incidents provoked by US and NATO war maneuvers along Russia’s borders—Trump replied, “I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do. I don’t talk about military response.” He expanded on this theme, declaring that he would not talk about military operations in Iraq, North Korea, Iran or anywhere else. “You know why? Because they shouldn’t know. And eventually, you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.” Such conflicts within the ruling elite over foreign policy are usually fought out behind the scenes, as with discontent within the military-intelligence apparatus over Obama’s retreat from a direct military intervention in Syria in 2013, when he failed to enforce his so-called “red line” against the government of Bashar al-Assad. This time, however, the conflict has exploded into the open. Aside from the specific form that the debate within the US state apparatus has taken, it is an expression of an underlying crisis of the entire capitalist order. Twenty-five years of unending war are metastasizing, with extreme rapidity, into a major conflict involving large nation-states. National security journals are full of articles in which there is open discussion about war with Russia, in which the question is not if, but when and how. Trump, on the other hand, has focused his attention on China. In either case, the consequences are incalculable. What was perhaps most striking is how remote the entire press conference was from the sentiments and concerns of the vast majority of the American population. There was virtually no questioning at the press conference about Trump’s war against immigrant workers or the nationwide day of protest by immigrants and their supporters that was taking place at the same time. Those participating in the mass protests that have erupted since Trump’s inauguration are not motivated by a desire to launch a war with Russia, but by hatred of Trump’s authoritarian, anti-democratic policies and the oligarchic government that he has set up. Trump’s critics in the Democratic Party and media, however, are responding to powerful sections of the US ruling elite who welcome Trump’s ultra-reactionary domestic policies—tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, deregulation of corporations, attacks on democratic rights, persecution of immigrants—but regard his posture of seeking better relations with Russia as intolerable. The Democrats have responded with passive handwringing while Trump has assembled his cabinet of billionaires, ex-generals and right-wing fanatics, and issued a series of reactionary and unconstitutional executive orders. But when given the opportunity to attack Trump as soft on Russia, they engage in savage witch-hunting that recalls nothing so much as McCarthyism. There is no faction with the American ruling class that is opposed to imperialist war. In the struggle to prevent war, it is up to the working class to intervene independently, opposing both factions in the US ruling elite, both Trump and the line-up of the CIA, the media and the Democratic Party. Patrick Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 13:08:03 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:08:03 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Check out this story on Foreign Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The story is not well written. It was written by an activist with AirWar.org and I have complained to Foreign Policy. There are assertions within the story that are not accurate. The basic premise, that USAF fired 30mm kinetic energy penetrator rounds in Syria to destroy ISIS tank trucks is most likely accurate. That was most likely a mistake because if you are firing at something, you want 100% of the rounds that you put on target to be effective and mixing four DU rounds that do nothing more than punch small holes in fuel tankers with one HEI (high explosive incendiary) round that blows a much larger hole in the tanker with its explosive charge and ignites the oil with the incendiary charge means that 80% of what you hit the target with is not effective. I have asked CENTCOM if they are investigating, but don't know if they will deign to give me a reply. I suspect that they had no purely incendiary round drums available to load to the A10s flying these two missions. To me, that seems very odd since DU rounds have not been effective against any target that A10s have flown against since the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 so all Combat Mix belts should have been withdrawn from ready ammunition inventory. DU was maligned by Saddam Hussein's propagandists which controlled all news out of Iraq prior to the fall of Hussein's regime in 2003. The basic lies that they propagated have been bought into by anti-war activists around the world. There is no actual medical evidence to support any of the many claims about cancers or birth defects. On the contrary, intensive monitoring of over a thousand veterans who actually were hit by DU in friendly fire incidents has found no such medical effects. Uranium is a heavy metal. As a result, just like other heavy metals such as lead, it is toxic. None of the claims made about DU actually discuss the true toxic effects of an overdose of uranium. A person once tried to kill himself by taking such an overdose, but he was treated for uranium poisoning and survived with still functioning kidneys, the first organ to fail due to uranium poisoning. Uranium is radioactive, but it is so weakly radioactive that it has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years, the age of the Earth calculated by using Uranium - Lead decay dating. This article is achieving its intended effect - arousing people around the world to anger, people who have no idea of what they are talking about. Roger Helbig independent researcher into DU, the lies about it and the liars who tell them since your local friend Douglas Lind Rokke in Urbana personally lied about me in 2004 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > The United States Used Depleted Uranium in Syria - > http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used- > depleted-uranium-in-syria/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 13:36:20 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:36:20 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Check out this story on Foreign Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is what I sent to Foreign Policy - apparently, I sent it to the wrong part - I have not yet looked for the "reporter"'s personal e-mail. He works for a biased organization so I would not presume him to be objective. I had presumed Foreign Policy to be objective, but this is not really their story. I am disappointed that your headline claims DU is a toxic material. Pretty > much anything used as a projectile is toxic - lead is toxic, copper is > toxic, DU is no more toxic than these. It is just far more maligned, > mainly falsely by groups such as the ICBUW which is itself falsely named > since there is no such thing as a Uranium Weapon. A DU kinetic energy > penetrator is not a weapon; it is a bullet. The ICBUW though wanted to > pretend that DU is a weapon of mass destruction and it has done well > financially for itself, whatever that really is since they are not a > registered charity in the UK where they are based in Manchester. You want > to do a good well researched story with no bias, find out exactly what the > ICBUW is, where the money comes from, where it goes, and how it came to > be. You will find a very fascinating story that really needs to be told > about this manipulative group. > I later sent them this addendum Just read the story in more depth - where is evidence that 1 million rounds of DU or even of Combat Mix were fired in Iraq in 2003? - do you have such evidence or is it just supposition? There have been false claims that DU rounds were fired in Somalia, in Libya, in Afghanistan and by the Israelis in Gaza and Lebanon, so I am very concerned that articles claiming to be accurately reported are in fact accurate and not based on a source such as the ICBUW, which is where I strongly suspect Airwars, which does not appear particularly credible to me, got their information. I have also written the Associate Professor quoted in the article questioning what she personally knows about depleted uranium. She has not yet replied. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 17 14:44:29 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:44:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Check out this story on Foreign Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger I look forward to hearing their reply. If the information reported in Foreign Policy is inaccurate I wish to be informed. I read it in other publications as well, but thought Foreign Policy to be the most credible source. On Feb 17, 2017, at 05:36, Roger Helbig > wrote: Here is what I sent to Foreign Policy - apparently, I sent it to the wrong part - I have not yet looked for the "reporter"'s personal e-mail. He works for a biased organization so I would not presume him to be objective. I had presumed Foreign Policy to be objective, but this is not really their story. I am disappointed that your headline claims DU is a toxic material. Pretty much anything used as a projectile is toxic - lead is toxic, copper is toxic, DU is no more toxic than these. It is just far more maligned, mainly falsely by groups such as the ICBUW which is itself falsely named since there is no such thing as a Uranium Weapon. A DU kinetic energy penetrator is not a weapon; it is a bullet. The ICBUW though wanted to pretend that DU is a weapon of mass destruction and it has done well financially for itself, whatever that really is since they are not a registered charity in the UK where they are based in Manchester. You want to do a good well researched story with no bias, find out exactly what the ICBUW is, where the money comes from, where it goes, and how it came to be. You will find a very fascinating story that really needs to be told about this manipulative group. I later sent them this addendum Just read the story in more depth - where is evidence that 1 million rounds of DU or even of Combat Mix were fired in Iraq in 2003? - do you have such evidence or is it just supposition? There have been false claims that DU rounds were fired in Somalia, in Libya, in Afghanistan and by the Israelis in Gaza and Lebanon, so I am very concerned that articles claiming to be accurately reported are in fact accurate and not based on a source such as the ICBUW, which is where I strongly suspect Airwars, which does not appear particularly credible to me, got their information. I have also written the Associate Professor quoted in the article questioning what she personally knows about depleted uranium. She has not yet replied. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 17 14:51:54 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 14:51:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Check out this story on Foreign Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’m sorry, I don’t know anyone by the name of Rokke, nor do I have any knowledge of statements made against you. As to the article in relation to Depleted Uranium, I welcome information refuting the claims that the US used Depleted Uranium in Syria given the damage it does to people, children, newborns. As to people being angry around the world over the use of DU, well maybe it’s about time, people especially here in the US are angry in respect to our use of bombs, guns, and terrorism killing people in the Middle East and North Africa in order to control their resources, even if we aren’t using DU. On Feb 17, 2017, at 05:08, Roger Helbig > wrote: The story is not well written. It was written by an activist with AirWar.org and I have complained to Foreign Policy. There are assertions within the story that are not accurate. The basic premise, that USAF fired 30mm kinetic energy penetrator rounds in Syria to destroy ISIS tank trucks is most likely accurate. That was most likely a mistake because if you are firing at something, you want 100% of the rounds that you put on target to be effective and mixing four DU rounds that do nothing more than punch small holes in fuel tankers with one HEI (high explosive incendiary) round that blows a much larger hole in the tanker with its explosive charge and ignites the oil with the incendiary charge means that 80% of what you hit the target with is not effective. I have asked CENTCOM if they are investigating, but don't know if they will deign to give me a reply. I suspect that they had no purely incendiary round drums available to load to the A10s flying these two missions. To me, that seems very odd since DU rounds have not been effective against any target that A10s have flown against since the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 so all Combat Mix belts should have been withdrawn from ready ammunition inventory. DU was maligned by Saddam Hussein's propagandists which controlled all news out of Iraq prior to the fall of Hussein's regime in 2003. The basic lies that they propagated have been bought into by anti-war activists around the world. There is no actual medical evidence to support any of the many claims about cancers or birth defects. On the contrary, intensive monitoring of over a thousand veterans who actually were hit by DU in friendly fire incidents has found no such medical effects. Uranium is a heavy metal. As a result, just like other heavy metals such as lead, it is toxic. None of the claims made about DU actually discuss the true toxic effects of an overdose of uranium. A person once tried to kill himself by taking such an overdose, but he was treated for uranium poisoning and survived with still functioning kidneys, the first organ to fail due to uranium poisoning. Uranium is radioactive, but it is so weakly radioactive that it has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years, the age of the Earth calculated by using Uranium - Lead decay dating. This article is achieving its intended effect - arousing people around the world to anger, people who have no idea of what they are talking about. Roger Helbig independent researcher into DU, the lies about it and the liars who tell them since your local friend Douglas Lind Rokke in Urbana personally lied about me in 2004 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > The United States Used Depleted Uranium in Syria - http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/ _______________________________________________ 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: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Feb 17 16:44:17 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:44:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Which Washington Crimes Matter Most? References: Message-ID: FYI. Well worth repeating. But the question remains, why did Trump agree to getting rid of Flynn? Begin forwarded message: From: David Swanson > Subject: [ufpj-activist] Which Washington Crimes Matter Most? Date: February 15, 2017 at 8:27:42 AM CST To: David Swanson > Which Washington Crimes Matter Most? By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/node/5446 Michael Flynn participated in mass murder and destruction in Afghanistan and Iraq, advocated for torture, and manufactured false cases for war against Iran. He and anyone who appointed him to office and kept him there should be removed from and disqualified for public service. (Though I still appreciate his blurting out the obvious regarding the counterproductive results of drone murders.) Many would say that prosecuting Al Capone for tax fraud was a good move if he couldn't be prosecuted for murder. But what if Al Capone had been funding an orphanage on the side, and the state had prosecuted him for that? Or what if the state hadn't prosecuted him, but a rival gang had taken him out? Are all take-downs of major criminals good ones? Do they all deter the right activities by up-and-coming criminals? Michael Flynn was not removed by public demand, by representative action in Congress, by public impeachment proceedings, or by criminal prosecution (though that may follow). He was removed by an unaccountable gang of spies and killers, and for the offense of seeking friendlier relations with the world's other major nuclear-armed government. Now, in a certain sense, he was taken down for other related offenses, just as Bill Clinton was not technically impeached for sex. Flynn lied. He may have committed perjury. He may have obstructed justice. He supposedly made himself susceptible to blackmail, although the logic of Russia wishing to reveal its own secret and punish those who help it seems weak. Flynn also dealt with a foreign government on behalf of an election campaign. Some of these are very serious charges. If you removed all liars from the U.S. government, you'd suddenly have room in their empty offices to house all the homeless, but even the selective punishment of lying has a certain merit. And electoral campaign dealings with foreign governments has a nasty history including Nixon's sabotaging of peace in Vietnam, Reagan's sabotaging of the release of U.S. hostages in Iran, etc. But what did Flynn supposedly talk about with the Russian ambassador, before or after the election? Nobody accuses him of trying to keep a war going or people locked up. He's accused of talking about removing sanctions, possibly including sanctions used to punish Russia for things it did not do. The notion that Russia was the aggressor in Ukraine or invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea on the model of the U.S. invasion of Baghdad is simply false. The idea that Russia hacked Democratic Party emails and gave them to WikiLeaks is a claim for which we have not been shown credible, non-ludicrous evidence. Despite somebody leaking it every time Donald Trump blows his nose, nobody has yet leaked actual evidence of this supposed Russian crime. Then there's what members of the U.S. public tell you that it's obvious Flynn simply must also have talked about. Supposedly he must have arranged for Russia to steal the U.S. election for Trump, either by informing the U.S. public of the crimes and abuses of the Democratic Party in its members own words, which supposedly swayed huge numbers of voters -- though there's no evidence Russia did this or that it had this impact, and a better informed electorate is a stronger democracy, not one that has been "attacked" -- or by somehow directly altering vote counts or manipulating our minds or something. If anything along these lines were proven it would be serious indeed, although it would be one of a great many fatal flaws in the U.S. electoral system alongside legalized bribery, corporate media, the electoral college, gerrymandering, unverifiable counting, open intimidation, purging of rolls, etc. And then, finally, there's what journalists and members of the public will tell you Flynn's offense consists of, once it's been established that Russia is evil. He was friendly with Russia. His colleagues in the White House love Russia. They've visited Russia. They've met with other U.S. business tycoons in Russia. They're planning business deals with Russians. And so on. Now, I'm opposed to corrupt business deals, if they are corrupt, anywhere. And if Russian fossil fuels, like Canadian and U.S. fossil fuels, don't stay in the ground, we're all going to die. But the U.S. media treats U.S. business deals in other countries as ordinary respectable plundering. Any association with anything Russia has become a sign of high treason. Coincidentally or not, that is exactly what weapons profiteers say they want. Is what they want good for us? Is there a legitimate reason to be taking their route toward punishing people in power, when other routes stand wide open with plush red carpets unrolled from massive golden doorways? -- David Swanson, who has already answered your concerns about impeaching Trump at http://firedonaldtrump.org, is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/brussel%40illinois.edu You are subscribed as: brussel at illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 01:32:12 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:32:12 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Check out this story on Foreign Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This part of your message to me is what is not accurate - it is all propaganda, but extremely widespread and well believed propaganda - "As to the article in relation to Depleted Uranium, I welcome information refuting the claims that the US used Depleted Uranium in Syria given the damage it does to people, children, newborns. " Rokke was very active speaking and still does - he is all over the internet but lies through his teeth - he and colleague Leuren K Moret referred to the "1943 Memorandum to General Groves" (which I think that one of them or someone that they know created) that is actually a forged document. They claim that it shows that US Army knew that DU was extremely hazardous back in 1943. Rokke further claimed in radio interview by Sunny Miller then of Traprock Peace Center, now an artist in Indiana, that many of the soldiers he served with in cleaning up DU after the Gulf War have died due to the effects noted in this memo. The memo is a forgery. It consists of four pages, one each from four different documents. I have found one of the documents by painstakingly going through microfilms at the UC Berkeley library; then I found that those microfilms have been put on line. That document was written in 1944 after the supposed October 1943 document was prepared. It further is the basis for the secret radiological monitoring of the D-Day invasion because the US and UK, knowing that splitting of the atom was first scientifically discovered in Germany, expected that the Germans might have operating atomic piles (nuclear reactors) and might have been able to create large quantities of fission products and use those as an unseen but deadly area denial weapon. This document was one of the first things I researched after I began my research into DU. It still is in the Wikipedia - the Talk Page contains my extensive comments. this is the page I found (see my comments in Talk section) - the file was probably released by the DOE in the 90's - I can not verify that because those files are not on the internet and I can not go to the archive in Maryland to research the physical files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Groves_memo_30oct43_p2.GIF Now you believe this *given the damage it does to people, children, newborns*. - why do you believe this? I know of no legitimate research that confirms this - I know of substantial research that refutes it - these claims were the centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's propaganda, but as you have shown they still abound. Every anti-war person in the world probably believes it as Gospel. Roger When you have a gun that fires 6000 rounds per minute, you are talking of at most perhaps three aircraft (probably more like two) that were mistakenly loaded with "Combat Mix" with DU penetrator rounds, which are most most likely just below or at ground level in reasonably intact condition since none of them hit a tank or heavily armored vehicle. These present no threat to the environment or people at all. Uranium simply is not that radioactive. U-238, aka DU is the weakest naturally occurring radioactive elemental isotope. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > I’m sorry, I don’t know anyone by the name of Rokke, nor do I have any > knowledge of statements made against you. > > As to the article in relation to Depleted Uranium, I welcome information > refuting the claims that the US used Depleted Uranium in Syria given the > damage it does to people, children, newborns. > > As to people being angry around the world over the use of DU, well maybe > it’s about time, people especially here in the US are angry in respect to > our use of bombs, guns, and terrorism killing people in the Middle East and > North Africa in order to control their resources, even if we aren’t using > DU. > > On Feb 17, 2017, at 05:08, Roger Helbig wrote: > > The story is not well written. It was written by an activist with > AirWar.org and I have complained to Foreign Policy. > There are assertions within the story that are not accurate. The basic > premise, that USAF fired 30mm kinetic energy penetrator rounds in Syria to > destroy ISIS tank trucks is most likely accurate. That was most likely a > mistake because if you are firing at something, you want 100% of the rounds > that you put on target to be effective and mixing four DU rounds that do > nothing more than punch small holes in fuel tankers with one HEI (high > explosive incendiary) round that blows a much larger hole in the tanker > with its explosive charge and ignites the oil with the incendiary charge > means that 80% of what you hit the target with is not effective. I have > asked CENTCOM if they are investigating, but don't know if they will deign > to give me a reply. I suspect that they had no purely incendiary round > drums available to load to the A10s flying these two missions. To me, that > seems very odd since DU rounds have not been effective against any target > that A10s have flown against since the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 so > all Combat Mix belts should have been withdrawn from ready ammunition > inventory. > > DU was maligned by Saddam Hussein's propagandists which controlled all > news out of Iraq prior to the fall of Hussein's regime in 2003. The basic > lies that they propagated have been bought into by anti-war activists > around the world. There is no actual medical evidence to support any of > the many claims about cancers or birth defects. On the contrary, intensive > monitoring of over a thousand veterans who actually were hit by DU in > friendly fire incidents has found no such medical effects. Uranium is a > heavy metal. As a result, just like other heavy metals such as lead, it is > toxic. None of the claims made about DU actually discuss the true toxic > effects of an overdose of uranium. A person once tried to kill himself by > taking such an overdose, but he was treated for uranium poisoning and > survived with still functioning kidneys, the first organ to fail due to > uranium poisoning. Uranium is radioactive, but it is so weakly radioactive > that it has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years, the age of the Earth > calculated by using Uranium - Lead decay dating. > > This article is achieving its intended effect - arousing people around the > world to anger, people who have no idea of what they are talking about. > > Roger Helbig > > independent researcher into DU, the lies about it and the liars who tell > them since your local friend Douglas Lind Rokke in Urbana personally lied > about me in 2004 > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> > The United States Used Depleted Uranium in Syria - >> http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-d >> epleted-uranium-in-syria/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 02:28:54 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:28:54 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Check out this story on Foreign Policy (More on 1943 Memo to Groves) Message-ID: More on Memo to Groves, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Groves_memo_30oct43_p1.GIF this page contains my statement regarding this memo and the "Talk" page contains extensive discussion originally posted elsewhere by the late Gary F. Giesecke and my efforts to find the original pages in context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Groves_memo_30oct43_p1.GIF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Groves_memo_30oct43_p3.GIF - this page from Wikipedia was deleted in 2014 but may still be referenced elsewhere. In relooking for the original Wikipedia article, I found an image link to page on Peter Eyre's site - https://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/the-issues-relating-to-depleted-uranium-and-other-illegal-weapons/groves-memo-manhattan30oct43a_3/#comment-20643 as I recall that name is not a real name, but you might find this article on Eyre's site to be somewhat indicative of the degree to which he ascertains fact - I need to look into my old files to see more about Eyre, but I believe he was quite active in making claims about what DU does - https://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2014/08/ - his PayPal link appears to have been removed and he has not got a contact page. Roger On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Roger Helbig wrote: > This part of your message to me is what is not accurate - it is all > propaganda, but extremely widespread and well believed propaganda - > > "As to the article in relation to Depleted Uranium, I welcome information > refuting the claims that the US used Depleted Uranium in Syria given the > damage it does to people, children, newborns. " > > Rokke was very active speaking and still does - he is all over the > internet but lies through his teeth - he and colleague Leuren K Moret > referred to the "1943 Memorandum to General Groves" (which I think that one > of them or someone that they know created) that is actually a forged > document. They claim that it shows that US Army knew that DU was extremely > hazardous back in 1943. Rokke further claimed in radio interview by Sunny > Miller then of Traprock Peace Center, now an artist in Indiana, that many > of the soldiers he served with in cleaning up DU after the Gulf War have > died due to the effects noted in this memo. The memo is a forgery. It > consists of four pages, one each from four different documents. I have > found one of the documents by painstakingly going through microfilms at the > UC Berkeley library; then I found that those microfilms have been put on > line. That document was written in 1944 after the supposed October 1943 > document was prepared. It further is the basis for the secret radiological > monitoring of the D-Day invasion because the US and UK, knowing that > splitting of the atom was first scientifically discovered in Germany, > expected that the Germans might have operating atomic piles (nuclear > reactors) and might have been able to create large quantities of fission > products and use those as an unseen but deadly area denial weapon. This > document was one of the first things I researched after I began my research > into DU. It still is in the Wikipedia - the Talk Page contains my > extensive comments. > > this is the page I found (see my comments in Talk section) - the file was > probably released by the DOE in the 90's - I can not verify that because > those files are not on the internet and I can not go to the archive in > Maryland to research the physical files > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Groves_memo_30oct43_p2.GIF > > Now you believe this > > *given the damage it does to people, children, newborns*. - why do you > believe this? I know of no legitimate research that confirms this - I know > of substantial research that refutes it - these claims were the centerpiece > of Saddam Hussein's propaganda, but as you have shown they still abound. > Every anti-war person in the world probably believes it as Gospel. > > Roger > > When you have a gun that fires 6000 rounds per minute, you are talking of > at most perhaps three aircraft (probably more like two) that were > mistakenly loaded with "Combat Mix" with DU penetrator rounds, which are > most most likely just below or at ground level in reasonably intact > condition since none of them hit a tank or heavily armored vehicle. These > present no threat to the environment or people at all. Uranium simply is > not that radioactive. U-238, aka DU is the weakest naturally occurring > radioactive elemental isotope. > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > >> I’m sorry, I don’t know anyone by the name of Rokke, nor do I have any >> knowledge of statements made against you. >> >> As to the article in relation to Depleted Uranium, I welcome information >> refuting the claims that the US used Depleted Uranium in Syria given the >> damage it does to people, children, newborns. >> >> As to people being angry around the world over the use of DU, well maybe >> it’s about time, people especially here in the US are angry in respect to >> our use of bombs, guns, and terrorism killing people in the Middle East and >> North Africa in order to control their resources, even if we aren’t using >> DU. >> >> On Feb 17, 2017, at 05:08, Roger Helbig wrote: >> >> The story is not well written. It was written by an activist with >> AirWar.org and I have complained to Foreign Policy. >> There are assertions within the story that are not accurate. The basic >> premise, that USAF fired 30mm kinetic energy penetrator rounds in Syria to >> destroy ISIS tank trucks is most likely accurate. That was most likely a >> mistake because if you are firing at something, you want 100% of the rounds >> that you put on target to be effective and mixing four DU rounds that do >> nothing more than punch small holes in fuel tankers with one HEI (high >> explosive incendiary) round that blows a much larger hole in the tanker >> with its explosive charge and ignites the oil with the incendiary charge >> means that 80% of what you hit the target with is not effective. I have >> asked CENTCOM if they are investigating, but don't know if they will deign >> to give me a reply. I suspect that they had no purely incendiary round >> drums available to load to the A10s flying these two missions. To me, that >> seems very odd since DU rounds have not been effective against any target >> that A10s have flown against since the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 so >> all Combat Mix belts should have been withdrawn from ready ammunition >> inventory. >> >> DU was maligned by Saddam Hussein's propagandists which controlled all >> news out of Iraq prior to the fall of Hussein's regime in 2003. The basic >> lies that they propagated have been bought into by anti-war activists >> around the world. There is no actual medical evidence to support any of >> the many claims about cancers or birth defects. On the contrary, intensive >> monitoring of over a thousand veterans who actually were hit by DU in >> friendly fire incidents has found no such medical effects. Uranium is a >> heavy metal. As a result, just like other heavy metals such as lead, it is >> toxic. None of the claims made about DU actually discuss the true toxic >> effects of an overdose of uranium. A person once tried to kill himself by >> taking such an overdose, but he was treated for uranium poisoning and >> survived with still functioning kidneys, the first organ to fail due to >> uranium poisoning. Uranium is radioactive, but it is so weakly radioactive >> that it has a half-life of 4.5 Billion years, the age of the Earth >> calculated by using Uranium - Lead decay dating. >> >> This article is achieving its intended effect - arousing people around >> the world to anger, people who have no idea of what they are talking about. >> >> Roger Helbig >> >> independent researcher into DU, the lies about it and the liars who tell >> them since your local friend Douglas Lind Rokke in Urbana personally lied >> about me in 2004 >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> > >>> > The United States Used Depleted Uranium in Syria - >>> http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-d >>> epleted-uranium-in-syria/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From brussel at illinois.edu Sat Feb 18 02:53:42 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:53:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Israel-Palestine Message-ID: <563A8140-AF38-4D85-AF6C-3613AA253C32@illinois.edu> The position stated in the article linked to below has also been effectively explained on DemocracyNow’s interview recent with Glenn Greenwald: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/16/farewell-to-doublespeak-israels-terrifying-vision-for-the-future/ I wonder whether is Chomsky is still singing the same forlorn tune with respect to a two state solution… —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Feb 18 03:42:24 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:42:24 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Israel-Palestine In-Reply-To: <563A8140-AF38-4D85-AF6C-3613AA253C32@illinois.edu> References: <563A8140-AF38-4D85-AF6C-3613AA253C32@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <14D13B5D-DEE9-4351-A2F4-5DF1120F10DB@illinois.edu> Did you see Neve Gordon’s more upbeat reading? D. Green & I discussed it a bit on tonight’s News from Neptune: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/trumps-one-state-option/ (BTW Chomsky has said for a while he prefers a ‘no-state’ solution: he’s an anarchist who points out the virtues of the Ottoman empire...) —CGE > On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:53 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The position stated in the article linked to below has also been effectively explained on DemocracyNow’s interview recent with Glenn Greenwald: > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/16/farewell-to-doublespeak-israels-terrifying-vision-for-the-future/ > > I wonder whether is Chomsky is still singing the same forlorn tune with respect to a two state solution… > > —mkb > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 11:08:27 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 03:08:27 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peter Eyre Message-ID: In my earlier e-mail I mentioned that I recalled that Peter Eyre was a fake name. Attached is Word file that contains my comments about Eyre's article on Iranian PressTV - this discusses many of the false beliefs about the effects of depleted uranium that abound on the internet. I have also attached a Word file that discusses false claims made by Eyre and many others including Christopher Busby that Israel used DU-tipped bunker buster bombs in Lebanon. It refers to the UNEP report that shows this not to be true. Roger I expect that Peter Eyre, who claimed to be a Mid-East consultant never actually existed and is a fake name for someone like Busby or perhaps Rokke or his mouthpiece Bob Nichols who is known to be not credible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Peter Eyre Piece on PressTV.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 53158 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Eyre is Pathetic.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15911 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 15:48:11 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:48:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US usage of Depleted Uranium Message-ID: Roger, In your, per usual, support for the US corporate war machine, you have inundated this Peace List and me with information disputing the use of depleted uranium by the US military. You have maligned Lauren Moret if not on this list but in emails to Press TV Bccing me, as well as comments in reference to David Rokke a former member of AWARE, for what purpose I don’t know. Anything I post to this website represents me, not other members of AWARE, as we are not a homogenous group other than our opposition to war. As I said, if you can come up with evidence, other than your own opinion, worthy though it maybe given your military background and knowledge of weaponry, to refute the article in Foreign Policy in respect to the use of DU in Syria in 2015, I welcome it. However, you should be contacting and communicating with CENTCOMs’ Maj. Josh Jacques who is quoted in the Foreign Policy article, before inundating us with information that deviates from the topic and acts as a distraction. Repeated below from “Foreign Policy” the essence of the article: "U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airways and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles* in the country’s eastern desert." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 16:05:06 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:05:06 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US usage of Depleted Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You jump to conclusions - I have nothing to do with corporations - and you are the one pushing lies and the name is Douglas Lind Rokke, who probably may very well have been a member of your group, but still is a liar who used a forged document as part of his lies - you are now casting aspersions at me just because I do not share all of your anti-war views. I am vehemently opposed to nuclear war and to the latest occupant of the White House. You believe DU causes cancers and birth defects. I know better. I know how those false claims came to be and I have painstakingly written my concerns to you - I don't just shovel out what comes into my inbox with no underlying research. Roger On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > Roger, > > In your, per usual, support for the US corporate war machine, you have > inundated this Peace List and me with information disputing the use of > depleted uranium by the US military. You have maligned Lauren Moret if not > on this list but in emails to Press TV Bccing me, as well as comments in > reference to David Rokke a former member of AWARE, for what purpose I don’t > know. > Anything I post to this website represents me, not other members of AWARE, > as we are not a homogenous group other than our opposition to war. > > As I said, if you can come up with evidence, other than your own opinion, > worthy though it maybe given your military background and knowledge of > weaponry, to refute the article in Foreign Policy in respect to the use of > DU in Syria in 2015, I welcome it. > > However, you should be contacting and communicating with CENTCOMs’ Maj. > Josh Jacques who is quoted in the Foreign Policy article, before inundating > us with information that deviates from the topic and acts as a distraction. > Repeated below from “Foreign Policy” the essence of the article: > > "U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told *Airways* > and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing > depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on > Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles* in the country’s > eastern desert." > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Feb 18 16:06:24 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:06:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US usage of Depleted Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just gave a lengthy interview to RT/UK on this yesterday if you can find it. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:48 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Peace-discuss ; Peace Subject: [Peace] The US usage of Depleted Uranium Roger, In your, per usual, support for the US corporate war machine, you have inundated this Peace List and me with information disputing the use of depleted uranium by the US military. You have maligned Lauren Moret if not on this list but in emails to Press TV Bccing me, as well as comments in reference to David Rokke a former member of AWARE, for what purpose I don’t know. Anything I post to this website represents me, not other members of AWARE, as we are not a homogenous group other than our opposition to war. As I said, if you can come up with evidence, other than your own opinion, worthy though it maybe given your military background and knowledge of weaponry, to refute the article in Foreign Policy in respect to the use of DU in Syria in 2015, I welcome it. However, you should be contacting and communicating with CENTCOMs’ Maj. Josh Jacques who is quoted in the Foreign Policy article, before inundating us with information that deviates from the topic and acts as a distraction. Repeated below from “Foreign Policy” the essence of the article: "U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airways and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles* in the country’s eastern desert." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 16:11:14 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:11:14 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US usage of Depleted Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, ,knowing nothing, you are the perfect interviewee for propagandists like RT. I am sure they did not ask you how much U-238 (aka DU) that you ingested, inhaled or drank in yesterday. Yes, everyone, every single one of does this every single day of your life and so does every other human being on the planet. All of our ancestors all the way back to protohuman have done it as well and every human being who ever lives on Planet Earth will do so as well. Roger On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *I just gave a lengthy interview to RT/UK on this yesterday if you can > find it. fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Karen > Aram via Peace > *Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:48 AM > *To:* Roger Helbig > *Cc:* Peace-discuss ; Peace < > peace at anti-war.net> > *Subject:* [Peace] The US usage of Depleted Uranium > > > > Roger, > > > > In your, per usual, support for the US corporate war machine, you have > inundated this Peace List and me with information disputing the use of > depleted uranium by the US military. You have maligned Lauren Moret if not > on this list but in emails to Press TV Bccing me, as well as comments in > reference to David Rokke a former member of AWARE, for what purpose I don’t > know. > > Anything I post to this website represents me, not other members of AWARE, > as we are not a homogenous group other than our opposition to war. > > > > As I said, if you can come up with evidence, other than your own opinion, > worthy though it maybe given your military background and knowledge of > weaponry, to refute the article in Foreign Policy in respect to the use of > DU in Syria in 2015, I welcome it. > > > > However, you should be contacting and communicating with CENTCOMs’ Maj. > Josh Jacques who is quoted in the Foreign Policy article, before inundating > us with information that deviates from the topic and acts as a distraction. > Repeated below from “Foreign Policy” the essence of the article: > > > > "U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told *Airways* > and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing > depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on > Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles* in the country’s > eastern desert." > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Feb 18 16:12:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:12:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US usage of Depleted Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeeze Roger. I notice no one bothers to ask you for interviews on anything. You just like to pimp out on behalf of the nuclear power industry. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 10:11 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The US usage of Depleted Uranium Yeah, ,knowing nothing, you are the perfect interviewee for propagandists like RT. I am sure they did not ask you how much U-238 (aka DU) that you ingested, inhaled or drank in yesterday. Yes, everyone, every single one of does this every single day of your life and so does every other human being on the planet. All of our ancestors all the way back to protohuman have done it as well and every human being who ever lives on Planet Earth will do so as well. Roger On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: I just gave a lengthy interview to RT/UK on this yesterday if you can find it. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:48 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Peace-discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] The US usage of Depleted Uranium Roger, In your, per usual, support for the US corporate war machine, you have inundated this Peace List and me with information disputing the use of depleted uranium by the US military. You have maligned Lauren Moret if not on this list but in emails to Press TV Bccing me, as well as comments in reference to David Rokke a former member of AWARE, for what purpose I don’t know. Anything I post to this website represents me, not other members of AWARE, as we are not a homogenous group other than our opposition to war. As I said, if you can come up with evidence, other than your own opinion, worthy though it maybe given your military background and knowledge of weaponry, to refute the article in Foreign Policy in respect to the use of DU in Syria in 2015, I welcome it. However, you should be contacting and communicating with CENTCOMs’ Maj. Josh Jacques who is quoted in the Foreign Policy article, before inundating us with information that deviates from the topic and acts as a distraction. Repeated below from “Foreign Policy” the essence of the article: "U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesman Maj. Josh Jacques told Airways and Foreign Policy that 5,265 armor-piercing 30 mm rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were shot from Air Force A-10 fixed-wing aircraft on Nov. 16 and Nov. 22, 2015, destroying about 350 vehicles* in the country’s eastern desert." _______________________________________________ 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: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 18:06:58 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 18:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russian Dissident Slams U.S. Media and the Left References: <1444772607.268271.1487441218191.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1444772607.268271.1487441218191@mail.yahoo.com> Russian Dissident Slams U.S. Media and the Left by Amitabh PalFebruary 23, 2015 Russian dissident intellectual Boris Kagarlitsky says that the American understanding of Russia is simplistic and deeply flawed.Kagarlitsky, who spent more than a year as a political prisoner under the Soviets, came to Madison recently to speak at the University of Wisconsin at the invitation of the Havens Center. I interviewed Kagarlitsky at the downtown hotel where he was staying.The American media reporting on Russia and the Ukraine “reflects the weakness of the American left,” Kagarlitsky told me, “and the left’s lack of understanding of Russia in class and social terms.”As a result, Kagarlitsky says, U.S. media coverage of Russians amounts to a collection of stereotypes.“The whole of Russian society is seen as just one reactionary mass with a slave psychology,” he says. “In actuality, there is a shifting public opinion in Russia, most often moving in a direction opposite from the West.”Kagarlitsky was imprisoned for a couple of days and endured beating under Boris Yeltsin’s regime in 1993 for opposing Yeltsin’s dissolution of the Russian Parliament. President Vladimir Putin hasn’t yet sent Kagarlitsky to jail. But Kagarlitsky’s house was searched a couple of years ago, possibly due to his links to protests that summer in Moscow. Contrary to Putin’s image in the United States, Kagarlitsky actually sees him as a weak leader.“The illusion is that Putin is in charge, while he isn’t,” Kagarlitsky says. “Putin’s greatest strength is his weakness, because competing factions of the elite can influence him. He’s a manager of compromise.”Kagarlitsky compares Putin to the kings of the early modern period in Europe, who stayed in power by playing off of disagreements between different factions.“Whenever there is a crisis, Putin disappears for a few days,” Kagarlitsky adds. “He reappears three or four days later with a strong statement. The key stakeholders such as the oligarchic groups are able to tell him during that time what they want.”And, Kagarlitsky adds, Putin has had to take into account what the silent Russian majority wants, too, which is why he hasn’t cut social welfare spending. Kagarlitsky views Putin’s invasion of the Crimea through the same prism.“Russian policy there changes every two weeks, since different power elites have different interests,” Kagarlitsky says. “What is well known is that the rebels have received arms and ammunition from Russia, but what is not so well known is that the Ukrainian military has also received almost as much military equipment from Russia. This is because different Russian elite groups have been supplying different sides.”Kagarlitsky calls the conflict in the Ukraine “a Russian civil war being fought outside Russia.” The other driving force in the Ukraine, Kagarlitsky says, is Russian public opinion.“Support in Russia is really strong for the Eastern Ukraine separatists,” he says.Kagarlitsky is pessimistic about the future of U.S.–Russia relations.“There’s no way out right now if Ukraine is the major topic,” he says. “The Americans don’t want the conflict resolved, even though Angela Merkel is having second thoughts.”“Ukraine is looking to Washington to make the Germans give them aid,” he adds. “The Europeans are fed up.”And the situation is made worse, Kagarlitsky says, because of the imposition of austerity measures on Ukraine by institutions such as the IMF.“The international community has to fix Ukraine,” he says. “Instead, IMF conditionalities are destroying it further.”This, he adds, is part of a relentless expansion that is an inherent feature of free-market economics. Russian elites, distrustful of the West, see Russia’s move into the Ukraine as “a defensive move against Western expansion,” he says.“This geographical expansion into new markets has happened in different phases,” he says. “First, it was Latin America, and then Asia, North Africa, and East Asia. Accompanying this is a project to take already existing markets and reshape them, such as in the ex-Soviet countries.”Kagarlitsky has lived in both the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia, and draws interesting comparisons between the two.“Individual consumption is dramatically better under Putin than in the USSR,” he says. “The problem is with the lack of social services. Plus, upward mobility is decreasing, and the economy is structurally weaker than back then.”Kagarlitsky’s memories of the Soviet Union include being imprisoned for thirteen months on charges of anti-Soviet activities for being the editor of an underground publication.“It was not so bad,” Kagarlitsky recalls wryly. “I was young, and I educated myself by constantly reading. The prison had a good library consisting of books confiscated from Stalin’s victims.”Amitabh Pal is managing editor of  The Progressive. http://progressive.org/dispatches/russian-dissident-slams-u.s.-media-left/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 18:48:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 18:48:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interview with former US Secretary of Defense Wm. Perry Message-ID: In a symbolic warning about how close the world stands to suffering a nuclear catastrophe, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. The existential threat now poses a greater danger to humanity than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The standoff between Russia the US, the world’s biggest nuclear powers, as well as regional conflicts and the threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material, can all lead to disastrous consequences. With global politics growing more unstable, are nuclear arms still the strongest deterrent to global war, or are they the biggest menace to the security of the world? And, with a new president in the White House, how will America’s nuclear arms policy evolve? We ask former US Secretary of Defense Dr. William Perry. Follow @SophieCo_RT Sophie Shevardnadze: Former US Secretary of Defense, William Perry, welcome to the show, great to have you with us. Mr. Perry, I remember, ten years ago at the Munich security conference, President Putin warned of growing global instability - wars in the Middle East, NATO expansion and a nuclear arms race. This was a decade ago - why have things got only worse during this time? William Perry: I think, both the US and Russia have found themselves engaged in a war of words. Rhetoric has been increasingly belligerent, and also, military buildups and threats of military buildups. I think that has put us on a dangerous path, and I'm hoping that President Trump and President Putin will be able to find a way of getting us out on a safer path, relevant to the security of both of our countries. SS: President Trump has called for the expansion of America’s nuclear capabilities on one occasion, on another he’s called for reducing nukes ‘very substantially’ - so which is it going to be? WP: I think, we won’t really know what President Trump is going to do on defense issues, on security issues, until he submits his first defense budget in a few months. Then we will see whether he’s willing to spend additional funds for defense, which will compete, of course, with other pressures of the economy - and particular, what he will do relevant to the nuclear weapons. I think, on the nuclear weapons, he has said he’s going to maintain strong military, but that very much depends on what Russia is doing on nuclear weapons. There’s a possibility for both Russia and the US to increase spending on nuclear weapons, which seems in the direction we’re heading now. Not only that will be costly for both countries, but also dangerous for both countries. There’s a distinct possibility that President Trump and President Putin can decide in the interest of both our nations to decrease the emphasis and decrease the spending on nuclear weapons. That not only will allow both countries to improve their economy, but I think, more importantly, it will lower the danger for both counties. SS: You keep warning people that the chance of a nuclear crisis is greater now than it was when you were Clinton’s Defense Minister. But false alarms happened then, too, and it didn't lead to nuclear war - what is different now? WP: What is different now is that, besides the danger of a nuclear war, there’s a danger of either US or Russia miscalculating or blundering into nuclear war. Quite clear to me that neither country wants a nuclear war and will deliberately start a nuclear war. The danger now is the same as the danger in the Cold War, that we will blunder into a nuclear war, as we almost did, for example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But beyond those dangers, which are like the dangers of the Cold War, there are new dangers: one of them is a possibility of nuclear terrorism and of course, the nuclear bomb set up by a terror group could go off in Moscow or in Washington or in New York or in Saint-Petersburg - so that danger’s new, it didn't exist during the Cold War. Beyond that, there’s a danger of regional nuclear war, for example, between India and Pakistan. So, there are new dangers that didn’t exist during the Cold War. So, the danger of some kind of nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War. We can do many things to reduce those dangers, but what’s really important is for the United States and Russia to understand that these nuclear dangers are a danger to both of our countries and find a way of working together to lower the dangers. SS: According to an Associated Press report, the personnel who man America's nukes are poorly trained and have to use retro tech to run the systems - including 8-inch floppy disks. Why neglect maintaining their nuclear deterrent? WP: I think those accounts are exaggerated, but I am concerned that both in the United States and Russia that the people who have been manning nuclear sites for many-many years now don’t have the motivation or perhaps even skills to do it properly - so, that’s one of the reasons for finding a way of lowering the dangers.. Particular, I put a great emphasis on a danger of our ground-based missiles, ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missile because they are the danger of an accidental war starting - that is, if either Russian alert system or American alert system makes a mistake and falsely indicates an attack on the way. then there’s an emphasis on either President to make a rapid decision to launch his ICBMs before the other side’s ICBMs will land, and of course, if his alert system is wrong, if there’s a false alarm - then that President would’ve accidentally started a nuclear war. Now, this is not some academic possibility - there’s been at least 2 false alarms in Russia that I know about, and at least 3 false alarms that I know about in the US. That’s a very serious consideration. This is not likely to happen, it’s low probability, but it’s a low probability of an outcome that will be truly catastrophic. SS: Now, you’ve mentioned nuclear terrorism. After last year’s terror attacks in Brussels there were reports that terrorists are trying to infiltrate Belgium's nuclear facilities. Belgium is also one of the European locations for American tactical nukes - with the growing threat in Europe, are American nukes becoming a potential target? Are they sufficiently secured? WP: I believe the danger of nuclear terror attack does not come from terror group getting either American nuclear weapons or Russian nuclear weapons, because security for both of them is very-very good. The danger is that the terror group could get the fissile material, the fuel, highly enriched uranium, and if they could get that, if they could buy it or steal it - and this is not as well protected as weapons are - then, they could themselves make a crude, improvised nuclear bomb. Crude, but still quite effective. It then can be delivered in a missile, it could be delivered in a delivery truck, and if they could do that, then there’s a danger of nuclear bomb going off in Moscow or in Washington. So, United States and Russia have this common danger, this common threat and we should be working together to do everything we can to lower the danger of a terror group getting either bomb or even a fissile material from which you can make a bomb. SS: So you don’t see a danger in a terrorist group infiltrating a nuclear facility? WP: I could never say that’s impossible, but I’d say that’s a much lower danger than the danger of terror group getting the fissile material. That means that we should focus on the risk that is the greatest, and that, to me, is the greatest risk we’re facing today from a terror groups. SS: A Pentagon advisory board proposed building smaller nuclear weapons for ‘limited use’ - but are the smaller yields and better targeting also making nukes more tempting to use? Even to use first, not just in retaliation? WP: I am totally opposed to any emphasis on so-called “tactical nuclear weapons”, I think that’s very dangerous. Either in Russia or in the US, the thought that because the yield is lower that the danger of a nuclear war is lower - is, I think, invalid. Once one side uses a nuclear weapon, even if it is a so-called “tactical” nuclear weapon, there’s no guarantee that we will not escalate into a general nuclear war. So, to me, it is very dangerous assumption to believe that you could use lower yield nuclear weapons without escalating into a general nuclear war. By the way, the so-called lower yield nuclear weapon is still many kilotonnes - so, we’re still talking about an explosion with devastating consequences. So, in sum, I am opposed to tactical nuclear weapons, and I’m very doubtful that the use of a tactical nuclear weapons will not, in fact, escalate into a general nuclear war. SS: Now, you’ve mentioned India and Pakistan - what would be the consequences of a regional nuclear war? WP: We have to define “limited” very carefully, because both India and Pakistan have more than a 100 nuclear weapons, perhaps 200, and if they use even half of their arsenals against each other, on the cities - there will be tens of millions of casualties in India and Pakistan. So, it will be a really catastrophic event. Beyond that, the dirt and the fumes from the fire in these cities will go to the atmosphere and change the composition of the atmosphere, probably lowering the temperatures around the planet, for one or two degree. That, in turn, could cause widespread crop failure and so the effect would not only be profound on India and Pakistan, but actually, unlimited nuclear war of that magnitude could affect people all over the planet. SS: Both Democrats and Republicans alike are vehement about keeping up the confrontation with Russia, despite Trump’s conciliatory mood. Sometimes this stance goes a bit off key - like when Congresswoman Maxine Waters scolded Putin for invading Korea. How knowledgeable are the people who make decisions on these policies, can they be trusted to steer it the right way? WP: We have to trust our leaders: they are our leaders and they are going to be for years to come. On one hopeful note, I believe, is that President Trump says very explicitly - he wants to have a dialogue with President Putin. I think that would be very positive, if that happens. In my judgement there are many issues between the US and Russia which would be very difficult to resolve, but the issues of nuclear weapons... We should be able to discuss and come up with actions that are mutually beneficial. The danger of a nuclear terror group is to both countries, nuclear bomb can go off in either Moscow or Washington. The danger of nuclear proliferation is for both countries. So we should be able to find it possible to work together to reduce the dangers to both of us, even though that we cannot work on issues that we disagree, we've ought to be able to work together on issues on which we agree, and President Trump has made it very clear that he would like to do that, and so I think there's possible opening here after years of no constructive dialogue between the US and Russia on nuclear issues - and now, it's a possibility that we will have that dialogue. I, very much, look forward to that. SS: Trump’s proposed easing of sanctions for good deals with President Putin - like a nuclear arms reduction treaty. Will he be strong enough to overcome the opposition from his own administration to “making deals” with Putin? WP: I don't have any ability to forecast what negotiation tactics that President Trump might use with President Putin. The extent to which sanctions, for example, would be on the table? I believe, from what I hear and understand that President Trump will be willing to put everything on the table and so there's the possibility of a new beginning, a new opening in negotiations which could be constructive for both countries. Both President Putin and President Trump will be wanting to advance the cause of each of their own nations, but in the case of nuclear dangers, it is a mutual interest between the US and Russia to lower those dangers. So, there's an area, where, I think there's every possibility of being able to lower dangers. I must say, though, that for success in this area, the two leaders have to be able to do what I would call "separate the variables" - that is, have to be able to separate out issues on which they cannot agree, which is basic disagreement, from the issues that they do have common interests and can agree - so not let the issues where they disagree get in a way of coming to agreements on the areas where they agree. SS: What makes you think this piecemeal approach to diplomacy will work? WP: I'm not sure it will work, but I said, 'can work', and we can hope that the two leaders will find a way of making it work. Even if we cannot agree on Ukraine, even if we cannot agree on Syria - we ought to be able to agree on nuclear dangers to both of us, to both of our countries. We ought to be able to agree on taking actions and steps to lower those dangers. Those are in the interest of both countries, there's no conflict there. They don't have to be able to agree on everything to agree on something, and particularly to agree on something that's very important to both of us. SS: Today thousands of NATO troops are amassed close to Russia’s border - in the biggest military buildup since the Cold War, already spurring an arms race - is anybody realistically planning to go to war with Russia? And if not - because I don't think anyone is - what’s the point of this military buildup? What's your take? WP: I'm very clear that NATO has no plans or intentions of going to war with Russia. That's the last thing anybody in NATO wants. The purpose of the troops there are for better or for worse - the purpose of the troops there is to deter Russia from taking any military action against the Baltic nations, for example. Have Russia not intended to do that, those troops don't need to be there. In fact, as far as NATO is concerned, they'd rather not have to deploy the troops there. So, one of the thing - besides coming to the agreement on nuclear issues, that possibility that President Putin and President Trump have - it also will be very good to talk about what they can do, to lower the tensions in the Baltics, and, in particular, have both Russian troops move away from the border and have NATO troops move back. That would be, I think, beneficial for the security of both countries, if they get agreed to do that. SS: But Moscow, you know, Moscow has said time and time again that it finds plans to put a missile defense system in Europe unacceptable, and that it will deploy more missiles in response, take other retaliatory steps - why are Western leaders so eager to push this system through even though they know perfectly well it will only lead to more tension and escalation in Europe? WP: I must say that I, myself, believe it was a mistake for the US to deploy the ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. I do not believe that the systems we have deployed there in any significant way threatens the Russian nuclear deterrence. It is much too small and the Russian nuclear deterrence force is much too large. But I can see, and I know talking to many Russian colleagues, I can see that that deployment is a concern to Russia. That, again, seems to me as something President Putin and President Trump ought to be able to discuss. The idea of the United States backing away from, reducing at least, the emphasize on the ballistic missile defense system in Europe, or, maybe, make some sort of assurances about not building up that capability in way that would threaten Russia - if we can come to some kind of agreement like that, that would also be a benefit to our securities. I do not know whether President Putin and Trump are going to discuss that issue. It seems to me as an issue open for discussion and one which is a possibility for making some agreements that could improve the securities of both of our countries. SS: But, you know, the thing is that, unfortunately, the Russians and the Chinese, they don't buy when Washington says that missile defense 'is not aimed' at them. I mean, how can the US convince Russia or China that it doesn't have hostile intent, if that's true? WP: It's very difficult to convince another side of your intent. On the other hand, it's very straightforward to determine the capabilities, and it is quite clear that the ballistic missile defense system deployed in Europe has virtually no capabilities against the Russian nuclear deterrent. The Russian nuclear deterrent is too large, too powerful, to widely dispersed geographically to be significantly affected by it. I do understand the Russians consider it an affront to put that kind of a defense system too close to their borders. But, in fact, the technical people in Russia as well as the technical people in the US understand that Russian nuclear deterrence is far too big and far too capable to be significantly affected by this defense system. SS: Trump took some heat after he called NATO ‘obsolete’ - but he’s specified it’s because the alliance is not fighting terrorism. While countering Russia in the Baltics is aimed at a hypothetical threat, the growing threat of ISIS, terrorism in Europe and the US are real. In response to Trump’s criticism, NATO members are already promising to up their defense spending - will Trump be able to breath new life into the alliance, make it focus on a threat other than Russia? WP: I cannot forecast what Trump's actions on NATO will be based on what he has said so far. There's a real possibility, though, of improving the capabilities of NATO relative to very real and very significant terrorist threat. And that, to me, seems what the direction of the improvements should be. SS: General Mattis nicknamed ‘Mad Dog’ is a fan of ‘continued American engagement in the world’, while Donald Trump really is not - how do you see that contradiction playing out? WP: In the US, of course, the President has the final say on national security decisions, but he is profoundly influenced by his Secretary of Defense recommendations, and I know General Mattis very well, he's an intelligent, temperate, thoughtful person. He, I think, will be a strong and stabilizing influence in the Defense Department. By the way, the term "Mad Dog" is something he himself is very unhappy with, and that does not in any way actually describe the person, who is really quite temperate and intelligent. I think that General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, will be a positive and a constructive and a tempering influence on President Trump. He will offer sound advice, which, I think, will be in the direction of more security and more stability in the world. SS: I want to talk a bit about Iran's nuclear deal. This deal with Iran was Obama’s top success. The Trump Administration imposed new economic sanctions on Iran, the President has repeatedly criticised the Iran nuclear deal and wants it renegotiated. It’s a multilateral agreement, it took years to negotiate - will Trump be able to rewrite it? What happens if the US drops the deal altogether? WP: I do not believe that dropping the Iran deal is a good idea. I do not believe we can re-negotiate Iran deal. It's a multilateral negotiations, it took the action of many countries, including the United States and Russia, countries in Europe, China, to get that agreement. So, re-negotiating this, I think, is quite unrealistic. Dropping the agreement, I think, would be a very big mistake. I would hope that President Trump, as he studies that problem, will come to more temperate view on how to deal with the Iran nuclear agreement. General Mattis has recommended to him that we not drop the nuclear Iran deal, and I hope that recommendation will, in fact, prevail, as we go forward. SS: Dr. Perry, thank you very much for this lovely interview. We were talking to Dr. William Perry, former US Defense Secretary, discussing America's military posture under President Trump and the dangers nuclear weapons pose in today's world. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I'll see you next time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 19:44:50 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 19:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interview with former US Secretary of Defense Wm. Perry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1091207185.313561.1487447090720@mail.yahoo.com> William Perry was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Defense, and if I recall correctly he was discussed in Andrew Cockburn's Killchain. It would be interesting to know his relationship with Brezezinski in that historical context re Afghanistan etc. A Cal Tech product, he was the technocrat's technocrat for sure. In any event, it appears that he (like Carter) has become a relatively sensible voice in the current context. On Saturday, February 18, 2017 12:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: In a symbolic warning about how close the world stands to suffering a nuclear catastrophe, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. The existential threat now poses a greater danger to humanity than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The standoff between Russia the US, the world’s biggest nuclear powers, as well as regional conflicts and the threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material, can all lead to disastrous consequences. With global politics growing more unstable, are nuclear arms still the strongest deterrent to global war, or are they the biggest menace to the security of the world? And, with a new president in the White House, how will America’s nuclear arms policy evolve? We ask former US Secretary of Defense Dr. William Perry.Follow @SophieCo_RT Sophie Shevardnadze: Former US Secretary of Defense, William Perry, welcome to the show, great to have you with us. Mr. Perry,  I remember, ten years ago at the Munich security conference, President Putin warned of growing global instability - wars in the Middle East, NATO expansion and a nuclear arms race. This was a decade ago - why have things got only worse during this time? William Perry: I think, both the US and Russia have found themselves engaged in a war of words. Rhetoric has been increasingly belligerent, and also, military buildups and threats of military buildups. I think that has put us on a dangerous path, and I'm hoping that President Trump and President Putin will be able to find a way of getting us out on a safer path, relevant to the security of both of our countries.SS:   President Trump has called for the expansion of America’s nuclear capabilities on one occasion, on another he’s called for reducing nukes ‘very substantially’ - so which is it going to be?WP:  I think, we won’t really know what President Trump is going to do on defense issues, on security issues, until he submits his first defense budget in a few months. Then we will see whether he’s willing to spend additional funds for defense, which will compete, of course, with other pressures of the economy - and particular, what he will do relevant to the nuclear weapons. I think, on the nuclear weapons, he has said he’s going to maintain strong military, but that very much depends on what Russia is doing on nuclear weapons. There’s a possibility for both Russia and the US to increase spending on nuclear weapons, which seems in the direction we’re heading now. Not only that will be costly for both countries, but also dangerous for both countries. There’s a distinct possibility that President Trump and President Putin can decide in the interest of both our nations to decrease the emphasis and decrease the spending on nuclear weapons. That not only will allow both countries to improve their economy, but I think, more importantly, it will lower the danger for both counties.SS:    You keep warning people that the chance of a nuclear crisis is greater now than it was when you were Clinton’s Defense Minister. But false alarms happened then, too, and it didn't lead to nuclear war - what is different now?WP:  What is different now is that, besides the danger of a nuclear war, there’s a danger of either US or Russia miscalculating or blundering into nuclear war. Quite clear to me that neither country wants a nuclear war and will deliberately start a nuclear war. The danger now is the same as the danger in the Cold War, that we will blunder into a nuclear war, as we almost did, for example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But beyond those dangers, which are like the dangers of the Cold War, there are new dangers: one of them is a possibility of nuclear terrorism and of course, the nuclear bomb set up by a terror group could go off in Moscow or in Washington or in New York or in Saint-Petersburg - so that danger’s new, it didn't exist during the Cold War. Beyond that, there’s a danger of regional nuclear war, for example, between India and Pakistan. So, there are new dangers that didn’t exist during the Cold War. So, the danger of some kind of nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War. We can do many things to reduce those dangers, but what’s really important is for the United States and Russia to understand that these nuclear dangers are a danger to both of our countries and find a way of working together to lower the dangers.SS:   According to an Associated Press report, the personnel who man America's nukes are poorly trained and have to use retro tech to run the systems - including 8-inch floppy disks. Why neglect maintaining their nuclear deterrent?WP: I think those accounts are exaggerated, but I am concerned that both in the United States and Russia that the people who have been manning nuclear sites for many-many years now don’t have the motivation or perhaps even skills to do it properly - so, that’s one of the reasons for finding a way of lowering the dangers.. Particular, I put a great emphasis on a danger of our ground-based missiles, ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missile because they are the danger of an accidental war starting - that is, if either Russian alert system or American alert system makes a mistake and falsely indicates an attack on the way. then there’s an emphasis on either President to make a rapid decision to launch his ICBMs before the other side’s ICBMs will land, and of course, if his alert system is wrong, if there’s a false alarm - then that President would’ve accidentally started a nuclear war. Now, this is not some academic possibility - there’s been at least 2 false alarms in Russia that I know about, and at least 3 false alarms that I know about in the US. That’s a very serious consideration. This is not likely to happen, it’s low probability, but it’s a low probability of an outcome that will be truly catastrophic.SS:   Now, you’ve mentioned nuclear terrorism. After last year’s terror attacks in Brussels there were reports that terrorists are trying to infiltrate Belgium's nuclear facilities. Belgium is also one of the European locations for American tactical nukes - with the growing threat in Europe, are American nukes becoming a potential target? Are they sufficiently secured?WP: I believe the danger of nuclear terror attack does not come from terror group getting either American nuclear weapons or Russian nuclear weapons, because security for both of them is very-very good. The danger is that the terror group could get the fissile material, the fuel, highly enriched uranium, and if they could get that, if they could buy it or steal it - and this is not as well protected as weapons are - then, they could themselves make a crude, improvised nuclear bomb. Crude, but still quite effective. It then can be delivered in a missile, it could be delivered in a delivery truck, and if they could do that, then there’s a danger of nuclear bomb going off in Moscow or in Washington. So, United States and Russia have this common danger, this common threat and we should be working together to do everything we can to lower the danger of a terror group getting either bomb or even a fissile material from which you can make a bomb.SS:  So you don’t see a danger in a terrorist group infiltrating a nuclear facility?WP: I could never say that’s impossible, but I’d say that’s a much lower danger than the danger of terror group getting the fissile material. That means that we should focus on the risk that is the greatest, and that, to me, is the greatest risk we’re facing today from a terror groups.SS:  A Pentagon advisory board proposed building smaller nuclear weapons for ‘limited use’ - but are the smaller yields and better targeting also making nukes more tempting to use? Even to use first, not just in retaliation?WP: I am totally opposed to any emphasis on so-called “tactical nuclear weapons”, I think that’s very dangerous. Either in Russia or in the US, the thought that because the yield is lower that the danger of a nuclear war is lower - is, I think, invalid. Once one side uses a nuclear weapon, even if it is a so-called “tactical” nuclear weapon, there’s no guarantee that we will not escalate into a general nuclear war. So, to me, it is very dangerous assumption to believe that you could use lower yield nuclear weapons without escalating into a general nuclear war. By the way, the so-called lower yield nuclear weapon is still many kilotonnes - so, we’re still talking about an explosion with devastating consequences. So, in sum, I am opposed to tactical nuclear weapons, and I’m very doubtful that the use of a tactical nuclear weapons will not, in fact, escalate into a general nuclear war.SS:  Now, you’ve mentioned India and Pakistan - what would be the consequences of a regional nuclear war?WP: We have to define “limited” very carefully, because both India and Pakistan have more than a 100 nuclear weapons, perhaps 200, and if they use even half of their arsenals against each other,  on the cities - there will be tens of millions of casualties in India and Pakistan. So, it will be a really catastrophic event. Beyond that, the dirt and the fumes from the fire in these cities will go to the atmosphere and change the composition of the atmosphere, probably lowering the temperatures around the planet, for one or two degree. That, in turn, could cause widespread crop failure and so the effect would not only be profound on India and Pakistan, but actually, unlimited nuclear war of that magnitude could affect people all over the planet.SS:  Both Democrats and Republicans alike are vehement about keeping up the confrontation with Russia, despite Trump’s conciliatory mood. Sometimes this stance goes a bit off key - like when Congresswoman Maxine Waters scolded Putin for invading Korea. How knowledgeable are the people who make decisions on these policies, can they be trusted to steer it the right way?WP: We have to trust our leaders: they are our leaders and they are going to be for years to come. On one hopeful note, I believe, is that President Trump says very explicitly - he wants to have a dialogue with President Putin. I think that would be very positive, if that happens. In my judgement there are many issues between the US and Russia which would be very difficult to resolve, but the issues of nuclear weapons... We should be able to discuss and come up with actions that are mutually beneficial. The danger of a nuclear terror group is to both countries, nuclear bomb can go off in either Moscow or Washington. The danger of nuclear proliferation is for both countries. So we should be able to find it possible to work together to reduce the dangers to both of us, even though that we cannot work on issues that we disagree, we've ought to be able to work together on issues on which we agree, and President Trump has made it very clear that he would like to do that, and so I think there's possible opening here after years of no constructive dialogue between the US and Russia on nuclear issues - and now, it's a possibility that we will have that dialogue. I, very much, look forward to that.SS:  Trump’s proposed easing of sanctions for good deals with President Putin - like a nuclear arms reduction treaty. Will he be strong enough to overcome the opposition from his own administration to “making deals” with Putin?WP: I don't have any ability to forecast what negotiation tactics that President Trump might use with President Putin. The extent to which sanctions, for example, would be on the table? I believe, from what I hear and understand that President Trump will be willing to put everything on the table and so there's the possibility of a new beginning, a new opening in negotiations which could be constructive for both countries. Both President Putin and President Trump will be wanting to advance the cause of each of their own nations, but in the case of nuclear dangers, it is a mutual interest between the US and Russia to lower those dangers. So, there's an area, where, I think there's every possibility of being able to lower dangers. I must say, though, that for success in this area, the two leaders have to be able to do what I would call "separate the variables" - that is, have to be able to separate out issues on which they cannot agree, which is basic disagreement, from the issues that they do have common interests and can agree - so not let the issues where they disagree get in a way of coming to agreements on the areas where they agree.SS:  What makes you think this piecemeal approach to diplomacy will work?WP: I'm not sure it will work, but I said, 'can work', and we can hope that the two leaders will find a way of making it work. Even if we cannot agree on Ukraine, even if we cannot agree on Syria - we ought to be able to agree on nuclear dangers to both of us, to both of our countries. We ought to be able to agree on taking actions and steps to lower those dangers. Those are in the interest of both countries, there's no conflict there. They don't have to be able to agree on everything to agree on something, and particularly to agree on something that's very important to both of us.SS:  Today thousands of NATO troops are amassed close to Russia’s border - in the biggest military buildup since the Cold War, already spurring an arms race - is anybody realistically planning to go to war with Russia? And if not - because I don't think anyone is - what’s the point of this military buildup? What's your take?WP: I'm very clear that NATO has no plans or intentions of going to war with Russia. That's the last thing anybody in NATO wants. The purpose of the troops there are for better or for worse - the purpose of the troops there is to deter Russia from taking any military action against the Baltic nations, for example. Have Russia not intended to do that, those troops don't need to be there. In fact, as far as NATO is concerned, they'd rather not have to deploy the troops there. So, one of the thing - besides coming to the agreement on nuclear issues, that possibility that President Putin and President Trump have - it also will be very good to talk about what they can do, to lower the tensions in the Baltics, and, in particular, have both Russian troops move away from the border and have NATO troops move back. That would be, I think, beneficial for the security of both countries, if they get agreed to do that.SS:  But Moscow, you know, Moscow has said time and time again that it finds plans to put a missile defense system in Europe unacceptable, and that it will deploy more missiles in response, take other retaliatory steps - why are Western leaders so eager to push this system through even though they know perfectly well it will only lead to more tension and escalation in Europe?WP: I must say that I, myself, believe it was a mistake for the US to deploy the ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. I do not believe that the systems we have deployed there in any significant way threatens the Russian nuclear deterrence. It is much too small and the Russian nuclear deterrence force is much too large. But I can see, and I know talking to many Russian colleagues, I can see that that deployment is a concern to Russia. That, again, seems to me as something President Putin and President Trump ought to be able to discuss. The idea of the United States backing away from, reducing at least, the emphasize on the ballistic missile defense system in Europe, or, maybe, make some sort of assurances about not building up that capability in way that would threaten Russia - if we can come to some kind of agreement like that, that would also be a benefit to our securities. I do not know whether President Putin and Trump are going to discuss that issue. It seems to me as an issue open for discussion and one which is a possibility for making some agreements that could improve the securities of both of our countries.SS:  But, you know, the thing is that, unfortunately, the Russians and the Chinese, they don't buy when Washington says that missile defense 'is not aimed' at them. I mean, how can the US convince Russia or China that it doesn't have hostile intent, if that's true?WP: It's very difficult to convince another side of your intent. On the other hand, it's very straightforward to determine the capabilities, and it is quite clear that the ballistic missile defense system deployed in Europe has virtually no capabilities against the Russian nuclear deterrent. The Russian nuclear deterrent is too large, too powerful, to widely dispersed geographically to be significantly affected by it. I do understand the Russians consider it an affront to put that kind of a defense system too close to their borders. But, in fact, the technical people in Russia as well as the technical people in the US understand that Russian nuclear deterrence is far too big and far too capable to be significantly affected by this defense system.SS:  Trump took some heat after he called NATO ‘obsolete’ - but he’s specified it’s because the alliance is not fighting terrorism. While countering Russia in the Baltics is aimed at a hypothetical threat, the growing threat of ISIS, terrorism in Europe and the US are real.  In response to Trump’s criticism, NATO members are already promising to up their defense spending - will Trump be able to breath new life into the alliance, make it focus on a threat other than Russia?WP: I cannot forecast what Trump's actions on NATO will be based on what he has said so far. There's a real possibility, though, of improving the capabilities of NATO relative to very real and very significant terrorist threat. And that, to me, seems what the direction of the improvements should be.SS:  General Mattis nicknamed ‘Mad Dog’ is a fan of ‘continued American engagement in the world’, while Donald Trump really is not - how do you see that contradiction playing out?WP: In the US, of course, the President has the final say on national security decisions, but he is profoundly influenced by his Secretary of Defense recommendations, and I know General Mattis very well, he's an intelligent, temperate, thoughtful person. He, I think, will be a strong and stabilizing influence in the Defense Department. By the way, the term "Mad Dog" is something he himself is very unhappy with, and that does not in any way actually describe the person, who is really quite temperate and intelligent. I think that General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, will be a positive and a constructive and a tempering influence on President Trump. He will offer sound advice, which, I think, will be in the direction of more security and more stability in the world.SS:  I want to talk a bit about Iran's nuclear deal. This deal with Iran was Obama’s top success. The Trump Administration imposed new economic sanctions on Iran, the President has repeatedly criticised the Iran nuclear deal and wants it renegotiated. It’s a multilateral agreement, it took years to negotiate - will Trump be able to rewrite it? What happens if the US drops the deal altogether?WP: I do not believe that dropping the Iran deal is a good idea. I do not believe we can re-negotiate Iran deal. It's a multilateral negotiations, it took the action of many countries, including the United States and Russia, countries in Europe, China, to get that agreement. So, re-negotiating this, I think, is quite unrealistic. Dropping the agreement, I think, would be a very big mistake. I would hope that President Trump, as he studies that problem, will come to more temperate view on how to deal with the Iran nuclear agreement. General Mattis has recommended to him that we not drop the nuclear Iran deal, and I hope that recommendation will, in fact, prevail, as we go forward.SS:  Dr. Perry, thank you very much for this lovely interview. We were talking to Dr. William Perry, former US Defense Secretary, discussing America's military posture under President Trump and the dangers nuclear weapons pose in today's world. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I'll see you next time. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 21:36:13 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:36:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interview with former US Secretary of Defense Wm. Perry In-Reply-To: <1091207185.313561.1487447090720@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1091207185.313561.1487447090720@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wm. Perry was Clinton’s Secretary for Defense, an engineer, and a former military man, he is now very concerned over the use of tactical or “small” weapons we are developing, as well as the potential for nuclear war as a result of an “accident.” The threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material to create their own nuclear bombs is also a concern. He is hopeful that President Trump with the advice of Gen. Mattis will develop a dialog with Russia to prevent a catastrophe from happening. I recommend everyone read this interview in its entirety or view it on RT with SophieCo.RT. where our many former government leaders now have a voice, warning the world of the very real dangers facing us today. On Feb 18, 2017, at 11:44, David Green > wrote: William Perry was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Defense, and if I recall correctly he was discussed in Andrew Cockburn's Killchain. It would be interesting to know his relationship with Brezezinski in that historical context re Afghanistan etc. A Cal Tech product, he was the technocrat's technocrat for sure. In any event, it appears that he (like Carter) has become a relatively sensible voice in the current context. On Saturday, February 18, 2017 12:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: In a symbolic warning about how close the world stands to suffering a nuclear catastrophe, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. The existential threat now poses a greater danger to humanity than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The standoff between Russia the US, the world’s biggest nuclear powers, as well as regional conflicts and the threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material, can all lead to disastrous consequences. With global politics growing more unstable, are nuclear arms still the strongest deterrent to global war, or are they the biggest menace to the security of the world? And, with a new president in the White House, how will America’s nuclear arms policy evolve? We ask former US Secretary of Defense Dr. William Perry. Follow @SophieCo_RT Sophie Shevardnadze: Former US Secretary of Defense, William Perry, welcome to the show, great to have you with us. Mr. Perry, I remember, ten years ago at the Munich security conference, President Putin warned of growing global instability - wars in the Middle East, NATO expansion and a nuclear arms race. This was a decade ago - why have things got only worse during this time? William Perry: I think, both the US and Russia have found themselves engaged in a war of words. Rhetoric has been increasingly belligerent, and also, military buildups and threats of military buildups. I think that has put us on a dangerous path, and I'm hoping that President Trump and President Putin will be able to find a way of getting us out on a safer path, relevant to the security of both of our countries. SS: President Trump has called for the expansion of America’s nuclear capabilities on one occasion, on another he’s called for reducing nukes ‘very substantially’ - so which is it going to be? WP: I think, we won’t really know what President Trump is going to do on defense issues, on security issues, until he submits his first defense budget in a few months. Then we will see whether he’s willing to spend additional funds for defense, which will compete, of course, with other pressures of the economy - and particular, what he will do relevant to the nuclear weapons. I think, on the nuclear weapons, he has said he’s going to maintain strong military, but that very much depends on what Russia is doing on nuclear weapons. There’s a possibility for both Russia and the US to increase spending on nuclear weapons, which seems in the direction we’re heading now. Not only that will be costly for both countries, but also dangerous for both countries. There’s a distinct possibility that President Trump and President Putin can decide in the interest of both our nations to decrease the emphasis and decrease the spending on nuclear weapons. That not only will allow both countries to improve their economy, but I think, more importantly, it will lower the danger for both counties. SS: You keep warning people that the chance of a nuclear crisis is greater now than it was when you were Clinton’s Defense Minister. But false alarms happened then, too, and it didn't lead to nuclear war - what is different now? WP: What is different now is that, besides the danger of a nuclear war, there’s a danger of either US or Russia miscalculating or blundering into nuclear war. Quite clear to me that neither country wants a nuclear war and will deliberately start a nuclear war. The danger now is the same as the danger in the Cold War, that we will blunder into a nuclear war, as we almost did, for example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But beyond those dangers, which are like the dangers of the Cold War, there are new dangers: one of them is a possibility of nuclear terrorism and of course, the nuclear bomb set up by a terror group could go off in Moscow or in Washington or in New York or in Saint-Petersburg - so that danger’s new, it didn't exist during the Cold War. Beyond that, there’s a danger of regional nuclear war, for example, between India and Pakistan. So, there are new dangers that didn’t exist during the Cold War. So, the danger of some kind of nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War. We can do many things to reduce those dangers, but what’s really important is for the United States and Russia to understand that these nuclear dangers are a danger to both of our countries and find a way of working together to lower the dangers. SS: According to an Associated Press report, the personnel who man America's nukes are poorly trained and have to use retro tech to run the systems - including 8-inch floppy disks. Why neglect maintaining their nuclear deterrent? WP: I think those accounts are exaggerated, but I am concerned that both in the United States and Russia that the people who have been manning nuclear sites for many-many years now don’t have the motivation or perhaps even skills to do it properly - so, that’s one of the reasons for finding a way of lowering the dangers.. Particular, I put a great emphasis on a danger of our ground-based missiles, ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missile because they are the danger of an accidental war starting - that is, if either Russian alert system or American alert system makes a mistake and falsely indicates an attack on the way. then there’s an emphasis on either President to make a rapid decision to launch his ICBMs before the other side’s ICBMs will land, and of course, if his alert system is wrong, if there’s a false alarm - then that President would’ve accidentally started a nuclear war. Now, this is not some academic possibility - there’s been at least 2 false alarms in Russia that I know about, and at least 3 false alarms that I know about in the US. That’s a very serious consideration. This is not likely to happen, it’s low probability, but it’s a low probability of an outcome that will be truly catastrophic. SS: Now, you’ve mentioned nuclear terrorism. After last year’s terror attacks in Brussels there were reports that terrorists are trying to infiltrate Belgium's nuclear facilities. Belgium is also one of the European locations for American tactical nukes - with the growing threat in Europe, are American nukes becoming a potential target? Are they sufficiently secured? WP: I believe the danger of nuclear terror attack does not come from terror group getting either American nuclear weapons or Russian nuclear weapons, because security for both of them is very-very good. The danger is that the terror group could get the fissile material, the fuel, highly enriched uranium, and if they could get that, if they could buy it or steal it - and this is not as well protected as weapons are - then, they could themselves make a crude, improvised nuclear bomb. Crude, but still quite effective. It then can be delivered in a missile, it could be delivered in a delivery truck, and if they could do that, then there’s a danger of nuclear bomb going off in Moscow or in Washington. So, United States and Russia have this common danger, this common threat and we should be working together to do everything we can to lower the danger of a terror group getting either bomb or even a fissile material from which you can make a bomb. SS: So you don’t see a danger in a terrorist group infiltrating a nuclear facility? WP: I could never say that’s impossible, but I’d say that’s a much lower danger than the danger of terror group getting the fissile material. That means that we should focus on the risk that is the greatest, and that, to me, is the greatest risk we’re facing today from a terror groups. SS: A Pentagon advisory board proposed building smaller nuclear weapons for ‘limited use’ - but are the smaller yields and better targeting also making nukes more tempting to use? Even to use first, not just in retaliation? WP: I am totally opposed to any emphasis on so-called “tactical nuclear weapons”, I think that’s very dangerous. Either in Russia or in the US, the thought that because the yield is lower that the danger of a nuclear war is lower - is, I think, invalid. Once one side uses a nuclear weapon, even if it is a so-called “tactical” nuclear weapon, there’s no guarantee that we will not escalate into a general nuclear war. So, to me, it is very dangerous assumption to believe that you could use lower yield nuclear weapons without escalating into a general nuclear war. By the way, the so-called lower yield nuclear weapon is still many kilotonnes - so, we’re still talking about an explosion with devastating consequences. So, in sum, I am opposed to tactical nuclear weapons, and I’m very doubtful that the use of a tactical nuclear weapons will not, in fact, escalate into a general nuclear war. SS: Now, you’ve mentioned India and Pakistan - what would be the consequences of a regional nuclear war? WP: We have to define “limited” very carefully, because both India and Pakistan have more than a 100 nuclear weapons, perhaps 200, and if they use even half of their arsenals against each other, on the cities - there will be tens of millions of casualties in India and Pakistan. So, it will be a really catastrophic event. Beyond that, the dirt and the fumes from the fire in these cities will go to the atmosphere and change the composition of the atmosphere, probably lowering the temperatures around the planet, for one or two degree. That, in turn, could cause widespread crop failure and so the effect would not only be profound on India and Pakistan, but actually, unlimited nuclear war of that magnitude could affect people all over the planet. SS: Both Democrats and Republicans alike are vehement about keeping up the confrontation with Russia, despite Trump’s conciliatory mood. Sometimes this stance goes a bit off key - like when Congresswoman Maxine Waters scolded Putin for invading Korea. How knowledgeable are the people who make decisions on these policies, can they be trusted to steer it the right way? WP: We have to trust our leaders: they are our leaders and they are going to be for years to come. On one hopeful note, I believe, is that President Trump says very explicitly - he wants to have a dialogue with President Putin. I think that would be very positive, if that happens. In my judgement there are many issues between the US and Russia which would be very difficult to resolve, but the issues of nuclear weapons... We should be able to discuss and come up with actions that are mutually beneficial. The danger of a nuclear terror group is to both countries, nuclear bomb can go off in either Moscow or Washington. The danger of nuclear proliferation is for both countries. So we should be able to find it possible to work together to reduce the dangers to both of us, even though that we cannot work on issues that we disagree, we've ought to be able to work together on issues on which we agree, and President Trump has made it very clear that he would like to do that, and so I think there's possible opening here after years of no constructive dialogue between the US and Russia on nuclear issues - and now, it's a possibility that we will have that dialogue. I, very much, look forward to that. SS: Trump’s proposed easing of sanctions for good deals with President Putin - like a nuclear arms reduction treaty. Will he be strong enough to overcome the opposition from his own administration to “making deals” with Putin? WP: I don't have any ability to forecast what negotiation tactics that President Trump might use with President Putin. The extent to which sanctions, for example, would be on the table? I believe, from what I hear and understand that President Trump will be willing to put everything on the table and so there's the possibility of a new beginning, a new opening in negotiations which could be constructive for both countries. Both President Putin and President Trump will be wanting to advance the cause of each of their own nations, but in the case of nuclear dangers, it is a mutual interest between the US and Russia to lower those dangers. So, there's an area, where, I think there's every possibility of being able to lower dangers. I must say, though, that for success in this area, the two leaders have to be able to do what I would call "separate the variables" - that is, have to be able to separate out issues on which they cannot agree, which is basic disagreement, from the issues that they do have common interests and can agree - so not let the issues where they disagree get in a way of coming to agreements on the areas where they agree. SS: What makes you think this piecemeal approach to diplomacy will work? WP: I'm not sure it will work, but I said, 'can work', and we can hope that the two leaders will find a way of making it work. Even if we cannot agree on Ukraine, even if we cannot agree on Syria - we ought to be able to agree on nuclear dangers to both of us, to both of our countries. We ought to be able to agree on taking actions and steps to lower those dangers. Those are in the interest of both countries, there's no conflict there. They don't have to be able to agree on everything to agree on something, and particularly to agree on something that's very important to both of us. SS: Today thousands of NATO troops are amassed close to Russia’s border - in the biggest military buildup since the Cold War, already spurring an arms race - is anybody realistically planning to go to war with Russia? And if not - because I don't think anyone is - what’s the point of this military buildup? What's your take? WP: I'm very clear that NATO has no plans or intentions of going to war with Russia. That's the last thing anybody in NATO wants. The purpose of the troops there are for better or for worse - the purpose of the troops there is to deter Russia from taking any military action against the Baltic nations, for example. Have Russia not intended to do that, those troops don't need to be there. In fact, as far as NATO is concerned, they'd rather not have to deploy the troops there. So, one of the thing - besides coming to the agreement on nuclear issues, that possibility that President Putin and President Trump have - it also will be very good to talk about what they can do, to lower the tensions in the Baltics, and, in particular, have both Russian troops move away from the border and have NATO troops move back. That would be, I think, beneficial for the security of both countries, if they get agreed to do that. SS: But Moscow, you know, Moscow has said time and time again that it finds plans to put a missile defense system in Europe unacceptable, and that it will deploy more missiles in response, take other retaliatory steps - why are Western leaders so eager to push this system through even though they know perfectly well it will only lead to more tension and escalation in Europe? WP: I must say that I, myself, believe it was a mistake for the US to deploy the ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. I do not believe that the systems we have deployed there in any significant way threatens the Russian nuclear deterrence. It is much too small and the Russian nuclear deterrence force is much too large. But I can see, and I know talking to many Russian colleagues, I can see that that deployment is a concern to Russia. That, again, seems to me as something President Putin and President Trump ought to be able to discuss. The idea of the United States backing away from, reducing at least, the emphasize on the ballistic missile defense system in Europe, or, maybe, make some sort of assurances about not building up that capability in way that would threaten Russia - if we can come to some kind of agreement like that, that would also be a benefit to our securities. I do not know whether President Putin and Trump are going to discuss that issue. It seems to me as an issue open for discussion and one which is a possibility for making some agreements that could improve the securities of both of our countries. SS: But, you know, the thing is that, unfortunately, the Russians and the Chinese, they don't buy when Washington says that missile defense 'is not aimed' at them. I mean, how can the US convince Russia or China that it doesn't have hostile intent, if that's true? WP: It's very difficult to convince another side of your intent. On the other hand, it's very straightforward to determine the capabilities, and it is quite clear that the ballistic missile defense system deployed in Europe has virtually no capabilities against the Russian nuclear deterrent. The Russian nuclear deterrent is too large, too powerful, to widely dispersed geographically to be significantly affected by it. I do understand the Russians consider it an affront to put that kind of a defense system too close to their borders. But, in fact, the technical people in Russia as well as the technical people in the US understand that Russian nuclear deterrence is far too big and far too capable to be significantly affected by this defense system. SS: Trump took some heat after he called NATO ‘obsolete’ - but he’s specified it’s because the alliance is not fighting terrorism. While countering Russia in the Baltics is aimed at a hypothetical threat, the growing threat of ISIS, terrorism in Europe and the US are real. In response to Trump’s criticism, NATO members are already promising to up their defense spending - will Trump be able to breath new life into the alliance, make it focus on a threat other than Russia? WP: I cannot forecast what Trump's actions on NATO will be based on what he has said so far. There's a real possibility, though, of improving the capabilities of NATO relative to very real and very significant terrorist threat. And that, to me, seems what the direction of the improvements should be. SS: General Mattis nicknamed ‘Mad Dog’ is a fan of ‘continued American engagement in the world’, while Donald Trump really is not - how do you see that contradiction playing out? WP: In the US, of course, the President has the final say on national security decisions, but he is profoundly influenced by his Secretary of Defense recommendations, and I know General Mattis very well, he's an intelligent, temperate, thoughtful person. He, I think, will be a strong and stabilizing influence in the Defense Department. By the way, the term "Mad Dog" is something he himself is very unhappy with, and that does not in any way actually describe the person, who is really quite temperate and intelligent. I think that General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, will be a positive and a constructive and a tempering influence on President Trump. He will offer sound advice, which, I think, will be in the direction of more security and more stability in the world. SS: I want to talk a bit about Iran's nuclear deal. This deal with Iran was Obama’s top success. The Trump Administration imposed new economic sanctions on Iran, the President has repeatedly criticised the Iran nuclear deal and wants it renegotiated. It’s a multilateral agreement, it took years to negotiate - will Trump be able to rewrite it? What happens if the US drops the deal altogether? WP: I do not believe that dropping the Iran deal is a good idea. I do not believe we can re-negotiate Iran deal. It's a multilateral negotiations, it took the action of many countries, including the United States and Russia, countries in Europe, China, to get that agreement. So, re-negotiating this, I think, is quite unrealistic. Dropping the agreement, I think, would be a very big mistake. I would hope that President Trump, as he studies that problem, will come to more temperate view on how to deal with the Iran nuclear agreement. General Mattis has recommended to him that we not drop the nuclear Iran deal, and I hope that recommendation will, in fact, prevail, as we go forward. SS: Dr. Perry, thank you very much for this lovely interview. We were talking to Dr. William Perry, former US Defense Secretary, discussing America's military posture under President Trump and the dangers nuclear weapons pose in today's world. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I'll see you next time. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sat Feb 18 22:12:00 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 22:12:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Interview with former US Secretary of Defense Wm. Perry In-Reply-To: References: <1091207185.313561.1487447090720@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The fundmental purpose of the neocon segment of the U.S. government is to weaken Russia (and China), knowing that militarily—in non-nuclear terms—“we"—U.S. and NATO" are far superior militarily and economically. We can push the envelope against Russia as we have been doing with proxy conflicts. There is a great danger there. For example, in Ukraine a conflagration would weaken Russia without affecting U.S. or NATO much militarily. How much would Russia be willing to take on this front? How would it consider responding? Against a far stronger military US-NATO structure, would it consider nuclear weapons? A similar scenario could be present in Syria, or analogous arguments could be applied to the far east area. Wm. Perry does not discuss these aspects of our new cold war. On Feb 18, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Wm. Perry was Clinton’s Secretary for Defense, an engineer, and a former military man, he is now very concerned over the use of tactical or “small” weapons we are developing, as well as the potential for nuclear war as a result of an “accident.” The threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material to create their own nuclear bombs is also a concern. He is hopeful that President Trump with the advice of Gen. Mattis will develop a dialog with Russia to prevent a catastrophe from happening. I recommend everyone read this interview in its entirety or view it on RT with SophieCo.RT. where our many former government leaders now have a voice, warning the world of the very real dangers facing us today. On Feb 18, 2017, at 11:44, David Green > wrote: William Perry was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Defense, and if I recall correctly he was discussed in Andrew Cockburn's Killchain. It would be interesting to know his relationship with Brezezinski in that historical context re Afghanistan etc. A Cal Tech product, he was the technocrat's technocrat for sure. In any event, it appears that he (like Carter) has become a relatively sensible voice in the current context. On Saturday, February 18, 2017 12:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: In a symbolic warning about how close the world stands to suffering a nuclear catastrophe, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. The existential threat now poses a greater danger to humanity than at any time since the height of the Cold War. The standoff between Russia the US, the world’s biggest nuclear powers, as well as regional conflicts and the threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material, can all lead to disastrous consequences. With global politics growing more unstable, are nuclear arms still the strongest deterrent to global war, or are they the biggest menace to the security of the world? And, with a new president in the White House, how will America’s nuclear arms policy evolve? We ask former US Secretary of Defense Dr. William Perry. Follow @SophieCo_RT Sophie Shevardnadze: Former US Secretary of Defense, William Perry, welcome to the show, great to have you with us. Mr. Perry, I remember, ten years ago at the Munich security conference, President Putin warned of growing global instability - wars in the Middle East, NATO expansion and a nuclear arms race. This was a decade ago - why have things got only worse during this time? William Perry: I think, both the US and Russia have found themselves engaged in a war of words. Rhetoric has been increasingly belligerent, and also, military buildups and threats of military buildups. I think that has put us on a dangerous path, and I'm hoping that President Trump and President Putin will be able to find a way of getting us out on a safer path, relevant to the security of both of our countries. SS: President Trump has called for the expansion of America’s nuclear capabilities on one occasion, on another he’s called for reducing nukes ‘very substantially’ - so which is it going to be? WP: I think, we won’t really know what President Trump is going to do on defense issues, on security issues, until he submits his first defense budget in a few months. Then we will see whether he’s willing to spend additional funds for defense, which will compete, of course, with other pressures of the economy - and particular, what he will do relevant to the nuclear weapons. I think, on the nuclear weapons, he has said he’s going to maintain strong military, but that very much depends on what Russia is doing on nuclear weapons. There’s a possibility for both Russia and the US to increase spending on nuclear weapons, which seems in the direction we’re heading now. Not only that will be costly for both countries, but also dangerous for both countries. There’s a distinct possibility that President Trump and President Putin can decide in the interest of both our nations to decrease the emphasis and decrease the spending on nuclear weapons. That not only will allow both countries to improve their economy, but I think, more importantly, it will lower the danger for both counties. SS: You keep warning people that the chance of a nuclear crisis is greater now than it was when you were Clinton’s Defense Minister. But false alarms happened then, too, and it didn't lead to nuclear war - what is different now? WP: What is different now is that, besides the danger of a nuclear war, there’s a danger of either US or Russia miscalculating or blundering into nuclear war. Quite clear to me that neither country wants a nuclear war and will deliberately start a nuclear war. The danger now is the same as the danger in the Cold War, that we will blunder into a nuclear war, as we almost did, for example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But beyond those dangers, which are like the dangers of the Cold War, there are new dangers: one of them is a possibility of nuclear terrorism and of course, the nuclear bomb set up by a terror group could go off in Moscow or in Washington or in New York or in Saint-Petersburg - so that danger’s new, it didn't exist during the Cold War. Beyond that, there’s a danger of regional nuclear war, for example, between India and Pakistan. So, there are new dangers that didn’t exist during the Cold War. So, the danger of some kind of nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War. We can do many things to reduce those dangers, but what’s really important is for the United States and Russia to understand that these nuclear dangers are a danger to both of our countries and find a way of working together to lower the dangers. SS: According to an Associated Press report, the personnel who man America's nukes are poorly trained and have to use retro tech to run the systems - including 8-inch floppy disks. Why neglect maintaining their nuclear deterrent? WP: I think those accounts are exaggerated, but I am concerned that both in the United States and Russia that the people who have been manning nuclear sites for many-many years now don’t have the motivation or perhaps even skills to do it properly - so, that’s one of the reasons for finding a way of lowering the dangers.. Particular, I put a great emphasis on a danger of our ground-based missiles, ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missile because they are the danger of an accidental war starting - that is, if either Russian alert system or American alert system makes a mistake and falsely indicates an attack on the way. then there’s an emphasis on either President to make a rapid decision to launch his ICBMs before the other side’s ICBMs will land, and of course, if his alert system is wrong, if there’s a false alarm - then that President would’ve accidentally started a nuclear war. Now, this is not some academic possibility - there’s been at least 2 false alarms in Russia that I know about, and at least 3 false alarms that I know about in the US. That’s a very serious consideration. This is not likely to happen, it’s low probability, but it’s a low probability of an outcome that will be truly catastrophic. SS: Now, you’ve mentioned nuclear terrorism. After last year’s terror attacks in Brussels there were reports that terrorists are trying to infiltrate Belgium's nuclear facilities. Belgium is also one of the European locations for American tactical nukes - with the growing threat in Europe, are American nukes becoming a potential target? Are they sufficiently secured? WP: I believe the danger of nuclear terror attack does not come from terror group getting either American nuclear weapons or Russian nuclear weapons, because security for both of them is very-very good. The danger is that the terror group could get the fissile material, the fuel, highly enriched uranium, and if they could get that, if they could buy it or steal it - and this is not as well protected as weapons are - then, they could themselves make a crude, improvised nuclear bomb. Crude, but still quite effective. It then can be delivered in a missile, it could be delivered in a delivery truck, and if they could do that, then there’s a danger of nuclear bomb going off in Moscow or in Washington. So, United States and Russia have this common danger, this common threat and we should be working together to do everything we can to lower the danger of a terror group getting either bomb or even a fissile material from which you can make a bomb. SS: So you don’t see a danger in a terrorist group infiltrating a nuclear facility? WP: I could never say that’s impossible, but I’d say that’s a much lower danger than the danger of terror group getting the fissile material. That means that we should focus on the risk that is the greatest, and that, to me, is the greatest risk we’re facing today from a terror groups. SS: A Pentagon advisory board proposed building smaller nuclear weapons for ‘limited use’ - but are the smaller yields and better targeting also making nukes more tempting to use? Even to use first, not just in retaliation? WP: I am totally opposed to any emphasis on so-called “tactical nuclear weapons”, I think that’s very dangerous. Either in Russia or in the US, the thought that because the yield is lower that the danger of a nuclear war is lower - is, I think, invalid. Once one side uses a nuclear weapon, even if it is a so-called “tactical” nuclear weapon, there’s no guarantee that we will not escalate into a general nuclear war. So, to me, it is very dangerous assumption to believe that you could use lower yield nuclear weapons without escalating into a general nuclear war. By the way, the so-called lower yield nuclear weapon is still many kilotonnes - so, we’re still talking about an explosion with devastating consequences. So, in sum, I am opposed to tactical nuclear weapons, and I’m very doubtful that the use of a tactical nuclear weapons will not, in fact, escalate into a general nuclear war. SS: Now, you’ve mentioned India and Pakistan - what would be the consequences of a regional nuclear war? WP: We have to define “limited” very carefully, because both India and Pakistan have more than a 100 nuclear weapons, perhaps 200, and if they use even half of their arsenals against each other, on the cities - there will be tens of millions of casualties in India and Pakistan. So, it will be a really catastrophic event. Beyond that, the dirt and the fumes from the fire in these cities will go to the atmosphere and change the composition of the atmosphere, probably lowering the temperatures around the planet, for one or two degree. That, in turn, could cause widespread crop failure and so the effect would not only be profound on India and Pakistan, but actually, unlimited nuclear war of that magnitude could affect people all over the planet. SS: Both Democrats and Republicans alike are vehement about keeping up the confrontation with Russia, despite Trump’s conciliatory mood. Sometimes this stance goes a bit off key - like when Congresswoman Maxine Waters scolded Putin for invading Korea. How knowledgeable are the people who make decisions on these policies, can they be trusted to steer it the right way? WP: We have to trust our leaders: they are our leaders and they are going to be for years to come. On one hopeful note, I believe, is that President Trump says very explicitly - he wants to have a dialogue with President Putin. I think that would be very positive, if that happens. In my judgement there are many issues between the US and Russia which would be very difficult to resolve, but the issues of nuclear weapons... We should be able to discuss and come up with actions that are mutually beneficial. The danger of a nuclear terror group is to both countries, nuclear bomb can go off in either Moscow or Washington. The danger of nuclear proliferation is for both countries. So we should be able to find it possible to work together to reduce the dangers to both of us, even though that we cannot work on issues that we disagree, we've ought to be able to work together on issues on which we agree, and President Trump has made it very clear that he would like to do that, and so I think there's possible opening here after years of no constructive dialogue between the US and Russia on nuclear issues - and now, it's a possibility that we will have that dialogue. I, very much, look forward to that. SS: Trump’s proposed easing of sanctions for good deals with President Putin - like a nuclear arms reduction treaty. Will he be strong enough to overcome the opposition from his own administration to “making deals” with Putin? WP: I don't have any ability to forecast what negotiation tactics that President Trump might use with President Putin. The extent to which sanctions, for example, would be on the table? I believe, from what I hear and understand that President Trump will be willing to put everything on the table and so there's the possibility of a new beginning, a new opening in negotiations which could be constructive for both countries. Both President Putin and President Trump will be wanting to advance the cause of each of their own nations, but in the case of nuclear dangers, it is a mutual interest between the US and Russia to lower those dangers. So, there's an area, where, I think there's every possibility of being able to lower dangers. I must say, though, that for success in this area, the two leaders have to be able to do what I would call "separate the variables" - that is, have to be able to separate out issues on which they cannot agree, which is basic disagreement, from the issues that they do have common interests and can agree - so not let the issues where they disagree get in a way of coming to agreements on the areas where they agree. SS: What makes you think this piecemeal approach to diplomacy will work? WP: I'm not sure it will work, but I said, 'can work', and we can hope that the two leaders will find a way of making it work. Even if we cannot agree on Ukraine, even if we cannot agree on Syria - we ought to be able to agree on nuclear dangers to both of us, to both of our countries. We ought to be able to agree on taking actions and steps to lower those dangers. Those are in the interest of both countries, there's no conflict there. They don't have to be able to agree on everything to agree on something, and particularly to agree on something that's very important to both of us. SS: Today thousands of NATO troops are amassed close to Russia’s border - in the biggest military buildup since the Cold War, already spurring an arms race - is anybody realistically planning to go to war with Russia? And if not - because I don't think anyone is - what’s the point of this military buildup? What's your take? WP: I'm very clear that NATO has no plans or intentions of going to war with Russia. That's the last thing anybody in NATO wants. The purpose of the troops there are for better or for worse - the purpose of the troops there is to deter Russia from taking any military action against the Baltic nations, for example. Have Russia not intended to do that, those troops don't need to be there. In fact, as far as NATO is concerned, they'd rather not have to deploy the troops there. So, one of the thing - besides coming to the agreement on nuclear issues, that possibility that President Putin and President Trump have - it also will be very good to talk about what they can do, to lower the tensions in the Baltics, and, in particular, have both Russian troops move away from the border and have NATO troops move back. That would be, I think, beneficial for the security of both countries, if they get agreed to do that. SS: But Moscow, you know, Moscow has said time and time again that it finds plans to put a missile defense system in Europe unacceptable, and that it will deploy more missiles in response, take other retaliatory steps - why are Western leaders so eager to push this system through even though they know perfectly well it will only lead to more tension and escalation in Europe? WP: I must say that I, myself, believe it was a mistake for the US to deploy the ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. I do not believe that the systems we have deployed there in any significant way threatens the Russian nuclear deterrence. It is much too small and the Russian nuclear deterrence force is much too large. But I can see, and I know talking to many Russian colleagues, I can see that that deployment is a concern to Russia. That, again, seems to me as something President Putin and President Trump ought to be able to discuss. The idea of the United States backing away from, reducing at least, the emphasize on the ballistic missile defense system in Europe, or, maybe, make some sort of assurances about not building up that capability in way that would threaten Russia - if we can come to some kind of agreement like that, that would also be a benefit to our securities. I do not know whether President Putin and Trump are going to discuss that issue. It seems to me as an issue open for discussion and one which is a possibility for making some agreements that could improve the securities of both of our countries. SS: But, you know, the thing is that, unfortunately, the Russians and the Chinese, they don't buy when Washington says that missile defense 'is not aimed' at them. I mean, how can the US convince Russia or China that it doesn't have hostile intent, if that's true? WP: It's very difficult to convince another side of your intent. On the other hand, it's very straightforward to determine the capabilities, and it is quite clear that the ballistic missile defense system deployed in Europe has virtually no capabilities against the Russian nuclear deterrent. The Russian nuclear deterrent is too large, too powerful, to widely dispersed geographically to be significantly affected by it. I do understand the Russians consider it an affront to put that kind of a defense system too close to their borders. But, in fact, the technical people in Russia as well as the technical people in the US understand that Russian nuclear deterrence is far too big and far too capable to be significantly affected by this defense system. SS: Trump took some heat after he called NATO ‘obsolete’ - but he’s specified it’s because the alliance is not fighting terrorism. While countering Russia in the Baltics is aimed at a hypothetical threat, the growing threat of ISIS, terrorism in Europe and the US are real. In response to Trump’s criticism, NATO members are already promising to up their defense spending - will Trump be able to breath new life into the alliance, make it focus on a threat other than Russia? WP: I cannot forecast what Trump's actions on NATO will be based on what he has said so far. There's a real possibility, though, of improving the capabilities of NATO relative to very real and very significant terrorist threat. And that, to me, seems what the direction of the improvements should be. SS: General Mattis nicknamed ‘Mad Dog’ is a fan of ‘continued American engagement in the world’, while Donald Trump really is not - how do you see that contradiction playing out? WP: In the US, of course, the President has the final say on national security decisions, but he is profoundly influenced by his Secretary of Defense recommendations, and I know General Mattis very well, he's an intelligent, temperate, thoughtful person. He, I think, will be a strong and stabilizing influence in the Defense Department. By the way, the term "Mad Dog" is something he himself is very unhappy with, and that does not in any way actually describe the person, who is really quite temperate and intelligent. I think that General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, will be a positive and a constructive and a tempering influence on President Trump. He will offer sound advice, which, I think, will be in the direction of more security and more stability in the world. SS: I want to talk a bit about Iran's nuclear deal. This deal with Iran was Obama’s top success. The Trump Administration imposed new economic sanctions on Iran, the President has repeatedly criticised the Iran nuclear deal and wants it renegotiated. It’s a multilateral agreement, it took years to negotiate - will Trump be able to rewrite it? What happens if the US drops the deal altogether? WP: I do not believe that dropping the Iran deal is a good idea. I do not believe we can re-negotiate Iran deal. It's a multilateral negotiations, it took the action of many countries, including the United States and Russia, countries in Europe, China, to get that agreement. So, re-negotiating this, I think, is quite unrealistic. Dropping the agreement, I think, would be a very big mistake. I would hope that President Trump, as he studies that problem, will come to more temperate view on how to deal with the Iran nuclear agreement. General Mattis has recommended to him that we not drop the nuclear Iran deal, and I hope that recommendation will, in fact, prevail, as we go forward. SS: Dr. Perry, thank you very much for this lovely interview. We were talking to Dr. William Perry, former US Defense Secretary, discussing America's military posture under President Trump and the dangers nuclear weapons pose in today's world. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I'll see you next time. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 23:34:19 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 23:34:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More on depleted uranium Message-ID: At the risk of irritating Roger further, I found this on the Anti-War.com website in relation to the article from Foreign Policy. Numerous studies have found that depleted uranium is particularly harmful when the dust is inhaled by the victim. A University of Southern Maine study discovered that: …DU damages DNA in human lung cells. The team, led by John Pierce Wise, exposed cultures of the cells to uranium compounds at different concentrations. The compounds caused breaks in the chromosomes within cells and stopped them from growing and dividing healthily. ‘These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could possibly result in lung cancer,’ the team wrote in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. We should remember that the United States is engaged in military activities in Syria in violation of international and US law. There is no Congressional authorization for US military action against ISIS in Syria and the United Nations has not authorized military force in violation of Syria’s sovereignty either. The innocent citizens of Syria will be forced to endure increased risks of cancer, birth defects, and other disease related to exposure to radioactive materials. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of the enrichment of uranium to fuel nuclear power plants and has a half-life in the hundreds of millions of years. Damage to Syrian territory will thus continue long after anyone involved in current hostilities is dead. Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 00:03:56 2017 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 18:03:56 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] More on depleted uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Who is Roger, and why is he irritated? I'm pretty sure that many of our own soldiers have been exposed to depleted uranium in our various middle eastern military "adventures". John Wason On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: At the risk of irritating Roger further, I found this on the Anti-War.com > website in relation to the article from Foreign > Policy. > > Numerous studies have found that depleted uranium is particularly harmful > when the dust is inhaled by the victim. A University of Southern Maine > study discovered > > that: > > *…DU damages DNA in human lung cells. The team, led by John Pierce Wise, > exposed cultures of the cells to uranium compounds at different > concentrations.* > > *The compounds caused breaks in the chromosomes within cells and stopped > them from growing and dividing healthily. ‘These data suggest that exposure > to particulate DU may pose a significant [DNA damage] risk and could > possibly result in lung cancer,’ the team wrote in the journal Chemical > Research in Toxicology.* > > We should remember that the United States is engaged in military > activities in Syria in violation of international and US law. There is no > Congressional authorization for US military action against ISIS in Syria > and the United Nations has not authorized military force in violation of > Syria’s sovereignty either. > > The innocent citizens of Syria will be forced to endure increased risks of > cancer, birth defects, and other disease related to exposure to radioactive > materials. Depleted uranium is the byproduct of the enrichment of uranium > to fuel nuclear power plants and has a half-life in the hundreds of > millions of years. Damage to Syrian territory will thus continue long after > anyone involved in current hostilities is dead. > > *Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & > Prosperity . Reprinted from The Ron Paul > Institute for Peace & Prosperity.* > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Feb 19 04:43:58 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 04:43:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?French_politics=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <9B02A286-0390-4AE0-BA85-112A567D834F@illinois.edu> I you want to know about what is happening in France, and how it relates to what has been happening here, read Diana Johnstone’s report: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/ —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 17:53:38 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] This stupid and racist woman teaches history at the U of I?? References: <314120289.704004.1487526818356.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <314120289.704004.1487526818356@mail.yahoo.com> Guest Commentary: Requiem for the American Century Sun, 02/19/2017 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette By KRISTIN HOGANSONThere are so many tremors emanating from the White House these days that it can be hard to grasp the magnitude of the tectonic shifts underway, especially in U.S. foreign policy. We are witnessing more than a change of administration or a rightward pendulum shift, we are witnessing the end of an era. Historians will debate the role of the United States in the century that bears its name, but the label was apt in one respect: the American Century lasted for 100 years.The publishing magnate Henry R. Luce coined the phrase American Century in 1941, hoping to rally the United States against fascist aggression, but the dawn of the American Century can be traced back to 1917, the year the United States entered World War I. Then-President Woodrow Wilson anticipated Luce's missionary aspirations for remaking the world along more open, cooperative and democratic lines. Although his vision was marred by the conviction that self-determination was the province of white men, it provided a compelling counterpoint to autocratic rule. Although formulated in opposition to Bolshevik promises to the working class, the Fourteen Points and League of Nations Covenant provided a compelling alternative to rat-filled trenches and poison gas. Economic openness, collective security and self-government would lead to a better world. Though the war that had brought American doughboys to Europe was shot through with terror of every kind, the next one, warned Wilson, would be worse.Wilson lost his struggles over the League of Nations and with them, the prospect of a lasting peace. But the United States, which had emerged from the war as the world's greatest economic power, remained a pivotal player on the world stage. Its recommitment to global leadership during World War II breathed new life into the Wilsonian vision. Realizing that the Second World War had indeed been worse than the first and that the next to come was unimaginable, U.S. leaders shaped the postwar world according to Wilson's three core principles.To advance the free enterprise understood as conducive to peace and prosperity, the United States put its weight behind the mother of all multilateral trade agreements, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. To advance collective security, it signed on to the United Nations and a series of mutual defense pacts, NATO chief among them.To advance democracy, it stood fast against authoritarian communist regimes, rolled back its own white supremacist policies, and proclaimed its commitment to decolonization.The American Century was not always the century that downtrodden people desired. The Cold War burned too hot, especially on Third World battlefields, such as those in Korea and Vietnam. The United States worked shamelessly with right-wing dictators, from Guatemala to Indonesia and Iran. The pax Americana was a pox Americana for many on the opposing side and for those with an eye on the environmental consequences of unbridled American consumption.Yet in singing its requiem, we must acknowledge that the American Century saw an astonishing reduction in poverty, especially in Asia, the Pacific and the Western Hemisphere. Its guiding structures prevented an all-out superpower conflagration, giving rise to the concept of limited war. Many people and corporations in the United States did quite well financially, as seen in the pool of billionaires now available for Cabinet duty. Democracy, in its messy glory, pressed forward around the world. Iron curtains, concrete walls and razor wire fences came down. The American Century saw the enshrinement of human rights in the laws of liberal nations. Voting rights, women's rights, gay rights, labor rights, the right to not be tortured: All are monuments of this era.If there was a key word for the American Century, it was freedom: freedom of conscience and of speech, freedom from want and from fear. Freedom of movement. The free world. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States quickly declared itself the winner of the Cold War — perhaps too quickly from our current perspective — but the real winner at the time was the democratic, capitalist coalition forged by the United States. Continuing on as the leader of that coalition, the United States stuck to its stated commitments to freedom, but with more emphasis on free enterprise and freedom from taxes than on freedom from want.In setting forth his vision for U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump hearkened back to the sentiment that Luce strove to counter: America first. Trump's version of America first is not the Wilsonian version that placed the United States at the forefront of a collaborative world. Rejecting the core conviction that U.S. fortunes have been intertwined with those of our allies, Trump has offered a different take on America first: Only America first.This is not the open, win-win world of collective action that Wilson envisioned. It is a world of wobbly defense pacts and ruptures in good neighbor relations nurtured over decades. The Trans-Pacific Hail Mary pass, aimed at checking China's ascent, has gone down; NAFTA is also on the block, to the chagrin of Illinois farmers who have benefitted from its terms. After cozying up to Vladimir Putin during the campaign, President Trump spoke of human freedom just once in his inaugural address, referring to it not as an animating principle, but as an old wisdom, remembered by soldiers. He promised anxious Americans that they would be protected by their military, police and God in this unilateralist new era, but he offered little reassurance to democratic allies, much less Muslim refugees, among them the military translators who have risked their lives for our troops. With his pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, President Trump seems determined to provoke a firestorm.No wall, no matter how high, can make us safer than the world order that our president is ripping up. For all its shortcomings, the American Century was a far better deal than the one in the making. Students of history should remember these dates: 1917-2017. They will be useful in future tests.Kristin Hoganson is a professor of history at the University of Illinois.http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-02-19/guest-commentary-requiem-american-century.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 18:40:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:40:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] This stupid and racist woman teaches history at the U of I?? In-Reply-To: <314120289.704004.1487526818356@mail.yahoo.com> References: <314120289.704004.1487526818356.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <314120289.704004.1487526818356@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I just now finished reading it, text book history 101, right out of George Orwell’s 1984. I doubt she is stupid or even racist, just clueless, and propagandized. This is an example of the robotic education that is being fed to American students throughout our education system and by the news media, memorized facts and dates, analysis always being “America the Great”, with “yes we make mistakes sometimes, blah, blah, but our intentions were good.” The overly simplistic analysis being, oh we just need to replace Trump with a Democrat and all will be right with the world. David, I hope you and others I have cc’d will respond with a deeper and more comprehensive analysis, for all those who know not why, some of us are appalled. If this is what students are learning, we’re doomed. On Feb 19, 2017, at 09:53, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Guest Commentary: Requiem for the American Century Sun, 02/19/2017 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette By KRISTIN HOGANSON There are so many tremors emanating from the White House these days that it can be hard to grasp the magnitude of the tectonic shifts underway, especially in U.S. foreign policy. We are witnessing more than a change of administration or a rightward pendulum shift, we are witnessing the end of an era. Historians will debate the role of the United States in the century that bears its name, but the label was apt in one respect: the American Century lasted for 100 years. The publishing magnate Henry R. Luce coined the phrase American Century in 1941, hoping to rally the United States against fascist aggression, but the dawn of the American Century can be traced back to 1917, the year the United States entered World War I. Then-President Woodrow Wilson anticipated Luce's missionary aspirations for remaking the world along more open, cooperative and democratic lines. Although his vision was marred by the conviction that self-determination was the province of white men, it provided a compelling counterpoint to autocratic rule. Although formulated in opposition to Bolshevik promises to the working class, the Fourteen Points and League of Nations Covenant provided a compelling alternative to rat-filled trenches and poison gas. Economic openness, collective security and self-government would lead to a better world. Though the war that had brought American doughboys to Europe was shot through with terror of every kind, the next one, warned Wilson, would be worse. Wilson lost his struggles over the League of Nations and with them, the prospect of a lasting peace. But the United States, which had emerged from the war as the world's greatest economic power, remained a pivotal player on the world stage. Its recommitment to global leadership during World War II breathed new life into the Wilsonian vision. Realizing that the Second World War had indeed been worse than the first and that the next to come was unimaginable, U.S. leaders shaped the postwar world according to Wilson's three core principles. To advance the free enterprise understood as conducive to peace and prosperity, the United States put its weight behind the mother of all multilateral trade agreements, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. To advance collective security, it signed on to the United Nations and a series of mutual defense pacts, NATO chief among them. To advance democracy, it stood fast against authoritarian communist regimes, rolled back its own white supremacist policies, and proclaimed its commitment to decolonization. The American Century was not always the century that downtrodden people desired. The Cold War burned too hot, especially on Third World battlefields, such as those in Korea and Vietnam. The United States worked shamelessly with right-wing dictators, from Guatemala to Indonesia and Iran. The pax Americana was a pox Americana for many on the opposing side and for those with an eye on the environmental consequences of unbridled American consumption. Yet in singing its requiem, we must acknowledge that the American Century saw an astonishing reduction in poverty, especially in Asia, the Pacific and the Western Hemisphere. Its guiding structures prevented an all-out superpower conflagration, giving rise to the concept of limited war. Many people and corporations in the United States did quite well financially, as seen in the pool of billionaires now available for Cabinet duty. Democracy, in its messy glory, pressed forward around the world. Iron curtains, concrete walls and razor wire fences came down. The American Century saw the enshrinement of human rights in the laws of liberal nations. Voting rights, women's rights, gay rights, labor rights, the right to not be tortured: All are monuments of this era.If there was a key word for the American Century, it was freedom: freedom of conscience and of speech, freedom from want and from fear. Freedom of movement. The free world. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States quickly declared itself the winner of the Cold War — perhaps too quickly from our current perspective — but the real winner at the time was the democratic, capitalist coalition forged by the United States. Continuing on as the leader of that coalition, the United States stuck to its stated commitments to freedom, but with more emphasis on free enterprise and freedom from taxes than on freedom from want. In setting forth his vision for U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump hearkened back to the sentiment that Luce strove to counter: America first. Trump's version of America first is not the Wilsonian version that placed the United States at the forefront of a collaborative world. Rejecting the core conviction that U.S. fortunes have been intertwined with those of our allies, Trump has offered a different take on America first: Only America first. This is not the open, win-win world of collective action that Wilson envisioned. It is a world of wobbly defense pacts and ruptures in good neighbor relations nurtured over decades. The Trans-Pacific Hail Mary pass, aimed at checking China's ascent, has gone down; NAFTA is also on the block, to the chagrin of Illinois farmers who have benefitted from its terms. After cozying up to Vladimir Putin during the campaign, President Trump spoke of human freedom just once in his inaugural address, referring to it not as an animating principle, but as an old wisdom, remembered by soldiers. He promised anxious Americans that they would be protected by their military, police and God in this unilateralist new era, but he offered little reassurance to democratic allies, much less Muslim refugees, among them the military translators who have risked their lives for our troops. With his pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, President Trump seems determined to provoke a firestorm. No wall, no matter how high, can make us safer than the world order that our president is ripping up. For all its shortcomings, the American Century was a far better deal than the one in the making. Students of history should remember these dates: 1917-2017. They will be useful in future tests. Kristin Hoganson is a professor of history at the University of Illinois. http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-02-19/guest-commentary-requiem-american-century.html _______________________________________________ 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: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 18:56:00 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:56:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chris Hedges interviews Dr. Margaret Flowers in relation to US Healthcare yesterday. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/377845-us-health-care-system/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Feb 19 20:13:48 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:13:48 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?French_politics=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <9B02A286-0390-4AE0-BA85-112A567D834F@illinois.edu> References: <9B02A286-0390-4AE0-BA85-112A567D834F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The first thing I’ve seen that makes sense of it. > On Feb 18, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I you want to know about what is happening in France, and how it relates to what has been happening here, read Diana Johnstone’s report: > http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/ > > —mkb > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From cge at shout.net Sun Feb 19 20:23:16 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:23:16 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] This stupid and racist woman teaches history at the U of I?? In-Reply-To: References: <314120289.704004.1487526818356.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <314120289.704004.1487526818356@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <89ae22fc6aaeafbe1c55917e859d1226@shout.net> It's US political establishment mythology. A soi-disant professional historian should be ashamed of regaling us with such jingoistic nonsense. --CGE On 2017-02-19 12:40, Karen Aram wrote: > I just now finished reading it, text book history 101, right out of > George Orwell’s 1984. > > I doubt she is stupid or even racist, just clueless, and > propagandized. This is an example of the robotic education that is > being fed to American students throughout our education system and by > the news media, memorized facts and dates, analysis always being > “America the Great”, with “yes we make mistakes sometimes, blah, > blah, but our intentions were good.” The overly simplistic analysis > being, oh we just need to replace Trump with a Democrat and all will > be right with the world. > > David, I hope you and others I have cc’d will respond with a deeper > and more comprehensive analysis, for all those who know not why, some > of us are appalled. > > If this is what students are learning, we’re doomed. > >> On Feb 19, 2017, at 09:53, David Green via Peace-discuss >> wrote: >> >> GUEST COMMENTARY: REQUIEM FOR THE AMERICAN CENTURY >> >> Sun, 02/19/2017 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette [1] >> >> [2] [3] [4] >> BY KRISTIN HOGANSON >> There are so many tremors emanating from the White House these days >> that it can be hard to grasp the magnitude of the tectonic shifts >> underway, especially in U.S. foreign policy. We are witnessing more >> than a change of administration or a rightward pendulum shift, we >> are witnessing the end of an era. Historians will debate the role of >> the United States in the century that bears its name, but the label >> was apt in one respect: the American Century lasted for 100 years. >> The publishing magnate Henry R. Luce coined the phrase American >> Century in 1941, hoping to rally the United States against fascist >> aggression, but the dawn of the American Century can be traced back >> to 1917, the year the United States entered World War I. >> Then-President Woodrow Wilson anticipated Luce's missionary >> aspirations for remaking the world along more open, cooperative and >> democratic lines. Although his vision was marred by the conviction >> that self-determination was the province of white men, it provided a >> compelling counterpoint to autocratic rule. Although formulated in >> opposition to Bolshevik promises to the working class, the Fourteen >> Points and League of Nations Covenant provided a compelling >> alternative to rat-filled trenches and poison gas. Economic >> openness, collective security and self-government would lead to a >> better world. Though the war that had brought American doughboys to >> Europe was shot through with terror of every kind, the next one, >> warned Wilson, would be worse. >> Wilson lost his struggles over the League of Nations and with them, >> the prospect of a lasting peace. But the United States, which had >> emerged from the war as the world's greatest economic power, >> remained a pivotal player on the world stage. Its recommitment to >> global leadership during World War II breathed new life into the >> Wilsonian vision. Realizing that the Second World War had indeed >> been worse than the first and that the next to come was >> unimaginable, U.S. leaders shaped the postwar world according to >> Wilson's three core principles. >> To advance the free enterprise understood as conducive to peace and >> prosperity, the United States put its weight behind the mother of >> all multilateral trade agreements, the General Agreement on Tariffs >> and Trade. To advance collective security, it signed on to the >> United Nations and a series of mutual defense pacts, NATO chief >> among them. >> To advance democracy, it stood fast against authoritarian communist >> regimes, rolled back its own white supremacist policies, and >> proclaimed its commitment to decolonization. >> The American Century was not always the century that downtrodden >> people desired. The Cold War burned too hot, especially on Third >> World battlefields, such as those in Korea and Vietnam. The United >> States worked shamelessly with right-wing dictators, from Guatemala >> to Indonesia and Iran. The pax Americana was a pox Americana for >> many on the opposing side and for those with an eye on the >> environmental consequences of unbridled American consumption. >> Yet in singing its requiem, we must acknowledge that the American >> Century saw an astonishing reduction in poverty, especially in Asia, >> the Pacific and the Western Hemisphere. Its guiding structures >> prevented an all-out superpower conflagration, giving rise to the >> concept of limited war. Many people and corporations in the United >> States did quite well financially, as seen in the pool of >> billionaires now available for Cabinet duty. Democracy, in its messy >> glory, pressed forward around the world. Iron curtains, concrete >> walls and razor wire fences came down. The American Century saw the >> enshrinement of human rights in the laws of liberal nations. Voting >> rights, women's rights, gay rights, labor rights, the right to not >> be tortured: All are monuments of this era.If there was a key word >> for the American Century, it was freedom: freedom of conscience and >> of speech, freedom from want and from fear. Freedom of movement. The >> free world. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States >> quickly declared itself the winner of the Cold War — perhaps too >> quickly from our current perspective — but the real winner at the >> time was the democratic, capitalist coalition forged by the United >> States. Continuing on as the leader of that coalition, the United >> States stuck to its stated commitments to freedom, but with more >> emphasis on free enterprise and freedom from taxes than on freedom >> from want. >> >> In setting forth his vision for U.S. foreign policy, President >> Donald Trump hearkened back to the sentiment that Luce strove to >> counter: America first. Trump's version of America first is not the >> Wilsonian version that placed the United States at the forefront of >> a collaborative world. Rejecting the core conviction that U.S. >> fortunes have been intertwined with those of our allies, Trump has >> offered a different take on America first: Only America first. >> This is not the open, win-win world of collective action that Wilson >> envisioned. It is a world of wobbly defense pacts and ruptures in >> good neighbor relations nurtured over decades. The Trans-Pacific >> Hail Mary pass, aimed at checking China's ascent, has gone down; >> NAFTA is also on the block, to the chagrin of Illinois farmers who >> have benefitted from its terms. After cozying up to Vladimir Putin >> during the campaign, President Trump spoke of human freedom just >> once in his inaugural address, referring to it not as an animating >> principle, but as an old wisdom, remembered by soldiers. He promised >> anxious Americans that they would be protected by their military, >> police and God in this unilateralist new era, but he offered little >> reassurance to democratic allies, much less Muslim refugees, among >> them the military translators who have risked their lives for our >> troops. With his pledge to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, >> President Trump seems determined to provoke a firestorm. >> No wall, no matter how high, can make us safer than the world order >> that our president is ripping up. For all its shortcomings, the >> American Century was a far better deal than the one in the making. >> Students of history should remember these dates: 1917-2017. They >> will be useful in future tests. >> _Kristin Hoganson is a professor of history at the University of >> Illinois._ >> >> > http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-02-19/guest-commentary-requiem-american-century.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://www.news-gazette.com/author/news-gazette > [2] > https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-02-19/guest-commentary-requiem-american-century.html > [3] > https://twitter.com/share?url=http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-02-19/guest-commentary-requiem-american-century.html&text=Guest%20Commentary:%20Requiem%20for%20the%20American%20Century > [4] http://www.news-gazette.com/printmail/1512249 From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 20:49:54 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 20:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?French_politics=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <9B02A286-0390-4AE0-BA85-112A567D834F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1945134321.814745.1487537394635@mail.yahoo.com> The Piketty translator and observer of French politics, Art Goldhammer, was recently interviewed by Doug Henwood on these matters. He wasn't so dismissive of the Socialist candidate as Johnstone, FWIW. Johnstone's critique of the Universal Basic Income is noteworthy in this context. In any event, Goldhammer thinks that there is no chance that Le Pen will win a runoff against any of her possible opponents. DG On Sunday, February 19, 2017 2:15 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The first thing I’ve seen that makes sense of it. On Feb 18, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: I you want to know about what is happening in France, and how it relates to what has been happening here, read Diana Johnstone’s report:http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/ —mkb _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Feb 19 20:56:10 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:56:10 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?French_politics=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <1945134321.814745.1487537394635@mail.yahoo.com> References: <9B02A286-0390-4AE0-BA85-112A567D834F@illinois.edu> <1945134321.814745.1487537394635@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Like Brexit - and Trump… I think I should suggest British friends (who can bret on such things) get money down on Le Pen at Paddy Power or Ladbrokes. —CGE > On Feb 19, 2017, at 2:49 PM, David Green wrote: > > The Piketty translator and observer of French politics, Art Goldhammer, was recently interviewed by Doug Henwood on these matters. He wasn't so dismissive of the Socialist candidate as Johnstone, FWIW. Johnstone's critique of the Universal Basic Income is noteworthy in this context. In any event, Goldhammer thinks that there is no chance that Le Pen will win a runoff against any of her possible opponents. > > DG > > > On Sunday, February 19, 2017 2:15 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > The first thing I’ve seen that makes sense of it. > > >> On Feb 18, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >> > I you want to know about what is happening in France, and how it relates to what has been happening here, read Diana Johnstone’s report: > http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/ > > —mkb > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Feb 19 20:58:06 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:58:06 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?French_politics=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <9B02A286-0390-4AE0-BA85-112A567D834F@illinois.edu> <1945134321.814745.1487537394635@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <95DAAE5E-1A6D-46A7-A52E-B309C05BB7A7@illinois.edu> (That's rhotic for “bet.”) > On Feb 19, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Like Brexit - and Trump… > > I think I should suggest British friends (who can bret on such things) get money down on Le Pen at Paddy Power or Ladbrokes. > > —CGE > >> On Feb 19, 2017, at 2:49 PM, David Green wrote: >> >> The Piketty translator and observer of French politics, Art Goldhammer, was recently interviewed by Doug Henwood on these matters. He wasn't so dismissive of the Socialist candidate as Johnstone, FWIW. Johnstone's critique of the Universal Basic Income is noteworthy in this context. In any event, Goldhammer thinks that there is no chance that Le Pen will win a runoff against any of her possible opponents. >> >> DG >> >> >> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 2:15 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> The first thing I’ve seen that makes sense of it. >> >> >>> On Feb 18, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >> I you want to know about what is happening in France, and how it relates to what has been happening here, read Diana Johnstone’s report: >> http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/ >> >> —mkb >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 21:16:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:16:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Counterpunch article explaining all in relation to Flynn's resignation Message-ID: Its over, we are now headed for WW3. Trump’s ego had him thinking he could beat the Deep State or the Permanent National Security State. Silly, narcissistic man, any good intentions he may have had in relation to foreign policy, that of bringing peace to the world, now down the drain. One thing I had not considered was: "the taking on of Russia and Iran, in order to weaken China. I was hoping that the attempts to merely drive a wedge between China and Russia while just weakening Iran would require more time, and given Russia and China saw through that thinly veiled strategy, it wouldn’t work. See:"Trump’s opponents within the ruling class insist that US foreign policy must target Russia with the aim of weakening the Putin regime or overthrowing it. This is deemed a prerequisite for taking on the challenge posed by China.” So, we’re back to the Obama/Hillary Administration plans for perpetual war. FEBRUARY 17, 2017 Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper by MIKE WHITNEY * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] The Flynn fiasco is not about national security advisor Michael Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador. It’s much deeper than that. It’s about Russia. It’s about Putin. It’s about the explosive rise of China and the world’s biggest free trade zone that will eventually stretch from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It’s about the one country in the world that is obstructing Washington’s plan for global domination. (Russia) And, it’s about the future; which country will be the key player in the world’s most prosperous and populous region, Asia. That’s what’s at stake, and that’s what the Flynn controversy is really all about. Many readers are familiar with the expression “pivot to Asia”, but do they know what it means? It means the United States has embarked on an ambitious plan to extend its military grip and market power over the Eurasian landmass thus securing its position as the world’s only superpower into the next century. The pivot is Washington’s top strategic priority. As Hillary Clinton said in 2011: “Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests… Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia… The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade…. we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011) In other words, it’s pivot or bust. Those are the only two options. Naturally, ruling elites in the US have chosen the former over the latter, which means they are committed to a strategy that will inevitably pit the US against a nuclear-armed adversary, Russia. Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, wanted to normalize relations with Russia. He rejected the flagrantly hostile approach of the US foreign policy establishment. That’s why he had to be removed. And, that’s why he’s been so viciously attacked in the media and why the threadbare story about his contacts with the Russian ambassador were used to force his resignation. This isn’t about the law and it isn’t about the truth. It’s about bare-knuckle geopolitics and global hegemony. Flynn got in the way of the pivot, so Flynn had to be eliminated. End of story. Here’s a clip from an article by Robert Parry: “Flynn’s real “offense” appears to be that he favors détente with Russia rather than escalation of a new and dangerous Cold War. Trump’s idea of a rapprochement with Moscow – and a search for areas of cooperation and compromise – has been driving Official Washington’s foreign policy establishment crazy for months and the neocons, in particular, have been determined to block it. Though Flynn has pandered to elements of the neocon movement with his own hysterical denunciations of Iran and Islam in general, he emerged as a key architect for Trump’s plans to seek a constructive relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Meanwhile, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks have invested heavily in making Putin the all-purpose bête noire to justify a major investment in new military hardware and in pricy propaganda operations.” (“Trump Caves on Flynn’s resignation“, Consortium News) US foreign policy is not developed willy-nilly. It emerges as the consensus view of various competing factions within the permanent national security state. And, although there are notable differences between the rival factions (either hardline or dovish) there appears to be unanimity on the question of Russia. There is virtually no constituency within the political leadership of either of the two major parties (or their puppetmaster supporters in the deep state) for improving relations with Russia. None. Russia is blocking Washington’s eastward expansion, therefore, Russia must be defeated. Here’s more from the World Socialist Web Site: “US imperialism seeks to counter its declining world economic position by exploiting its unchallenged global military dominance. It sees as the principal roadblocks to its hegemonic aims the growing economic and military power of China and the still-considerable strength of Russia, possessor of the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal, the largest reserves of oil and gas, and a critical geographical position at the center of the Eurasian land mass. Trump’s opponents within the ruling class insist that US foreign policy must target Russia with the aim of weakening the Putin regime or overthrowing it. This is deemed a prerequisite for taking on the challenge posed by China. Numerous Washington think tanks have developed scenarios for military conflicts with Russian forces in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in the Baltic States and in cyberspace. The national security elite is not prepared to accept a shift in orientation away from the policy of direct confrontation with Russia along the lines proposed by Trump, who would like for the present to lower tensions with Russia in order to focus first on China.” (“Behind the Flynn resignation and Trump crisis: A bitter conflict over imperialist policy“, WSWS) Foreign policy elites believe the US and its NATO allies can engage Russia in a shooting war without it expanding into a regional conflict and without an escalation into a nuclear conflagration. It’s a risky calculation but, nevertheless, it is the rationale behind the persistent build up of troops and weaponry on Russia’s western perimeter. Take a look at this from the Independent: “Thousands of Nato troops have amassed close to the border with Russia as part of the largest build-up of Western troops neighbouring Moscow’s sphere of influence since the Cold War…Tanks and heavy armoured vehicles, plus Bradley fighting vehicles and Paladin howitzers, are also in situ and British Typhoon jets from RAF Conningsby will be deployed to Romania this summer to contribute to Nato’s Southern Air Policing mission… Kremlin officials claim the build-up is the largest since the Second World War.” (“The map that shows how many Nato troops are deployed along Russia’s border“, The Independent) Saber-rattling and belligerence have cleared the way for another world war. Washington thinks the conflict can be contained, but we’re nor so sure. The inexperienced Trump– who naively believed that the president sets his own foreign policy–has now learned that that’s not the case. The Flynn slap-down, followed by blistering attacks in the media and threats of impeachment, have left Trump shaken to the core. As a result, he has done a speedy about-face and swung into damage control-mode. On Tuesday, he tried to extend the olive branch by tweeting that “Crimea was taken by Russia” and by offering to replace Flynn with a trusted insider who will not veer from the script prepared by the foreign policy establishment. Check out this blurb on the Foreign Policy magazine website on Wednesday: “President Donald Trump offered the job of national security advisor to retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward on Monday night…If, as expected, Harward accepts the job today, he is likely to bring in his own team, from deputy on down, with a focus on national security types with some experience under their belts… Harward also would work well with Defense Secretary James Mattis. When Mattis was chief of Central Command, Harward was his deputy. Mattis trusted him enough to put him in charge of planning for war with Iran. Mattis has urged Harward to take the NSA job. If Harward becomes NSA, Mattis would emerge from the Flynn mess in a uniquely powerful position: He would have two of his former deputies at the table in some meetings. The other one is John Kelly, now secretary for Homeland Security, who was his number two when Mattis commanded a Marine division early in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.” (“A Mattis protégé poised to take the helm of Trump’s NSC,” Foreign Policy) In other words, Trump is relinquishing control over foreign policy and returning it to trusted insiders who will comply with pre-set elitist guidelines. Trump’s sudden metamorphosis was apparent in another story that appeared in Wednesday’s news, this time related to Rex Tillerson and General Joseph Dunford. Here’s a clip from CNN: “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford meet face to face with their Russian counterparts Thursday, as the Trump administration evaluates the future direction of US-Russian relations….But even as Tillerson’s plane was taking off in Washington, the Pentagon announced the meeting between Dunford and his Russian counterpart Valeriy Gerasimov, which will take place Thursday in Baku, Azerbaijan…. “The military leaders will discuss a variety of issues including the current state of U.S.-Russian military relations …Trump’s envoys have been expressing positions more keeping with previous US policies. … Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, indicated the US would maintain sanctions on Russia for annexing Crimea in 2014. She condemned what she called the “Russian occupation” of the Ukrainian territory… The US has deployed thousands of troops and tanks to Poland and Romania in recent weeks, while other NATO allies have sent troops to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. “There is a common message from the President, from his security team, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, that they stay strongly committed to NATO,” he added. Let’s summarize: The sanctions will remain, the tanks are on the border, the commitment to NATO has been reinforced, and Dunford is going to explain Washington’s strategic objectives to his Russian counterpart in clear, unambiguous language. There will be no room for Tillerson, who is on friendly terms with Putin, to change the existing policy or to normalize relations; Dunford, Haley, and Defense Secretary James Mattis will make sure of that. As for Trump, it’s clear by the Crimea tweet, the sacking of Flynn and the (prospective) appointment of Harward, that he’s running scared and is doing everything in his power to get out of the hole he’s dug for himself. There’s no way of knowing whether he’ll be allowed to carry on as before or if he’ll be forced to throw other allies, like Bannon or Conway, under the bus. I would expect the purge to continue and to eventually include Trump himself. But that’s just a guess. The hope that Trump would bring an element of sanity to US foreign policy has now been extinguished. The so called “Trump Revolution” has fizzled out before it ever began. In contrast, the military buildup along Russia’s western flank continues apace. Join the debate on Facebook MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney at msn.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 21:20:11 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:20:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?French_politics=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <95DAAE5E-1A6D-46A7-A52E-B309C05BB7A7@illinois.edu> References: <9B02A286-0390-4AE0-BA85-112A567D834F@illinois.edu> <1945134321.814745.1487537394635@mail.yahoo.com> <95DAAE5E-1A6D-46A7-A52E-B309C05BB7A7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: We need to listen to our bookie Carl. He has been right, not once but twice. > On Feb 19, 2017, at 12:58, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > (That's rhotic for “bet.”) > >> On Feb 19, 2017, at 2:56 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Like Brexit - and Trump… >> >> I think I should suggest British friends (who can bret on such things) get money down on Le Pen at Paddy Power or Ladbrokes. >> >> —CGE >> >>> On Feb 19, 2017, at 2:49 PM, David Green wrote: >>> >>> The Piketty translator and observer of French politics, Art Goldhammer, was recently interviewed by Doug Henwood on these matters. He wasn't so dismissive of the Socialist candidate as Johnstone, FWIW. Johnstone's critique of the Universal Basic Income is noteworthy in this context. In any event, Goldhammer thinks that there is no chance that Le Pen will win a runoff against any of her possible opponents. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 2:15 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> >>> The first thing I’ve seen that makes sense of it. >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>> I you want to know about what is happening in France, and how it relates to what has been happening here, read Diana Johnstone’s report: >>> http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/ >>> >>> —mkb >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 21:25:51 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 21:25:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Counterpunch article explaining all in relation to Flynn's resignation References: Message-ID: Its over, we are now headed for WW3. Trump’s ego had him thinking he could beat the Deep State or the Permanent National Security State. Silly, narcissistic man, any good intentions he may have had in relation to foreign policy, that of bringing peace to the world, now down the drain. One thing I had not considered was: “the taking on of Russia and Iran, in order to weaken Russia or overthrow Putin, thus weakening China. I was hoping that the attempts to merely drive a wedge between China and Russia while just going after Iran would require more time, and given Russia and China saw through that thinly veiled strategy, it wouldn’t work. See: "Trump’s opponents within the ruling class insist that US foreign policy must target Russia with the aim of weakening the Putin regime or overthrowing it. This is deemed a prerequisite for taking on the challenge posed by China.” So, we’re back to the Obama/Hillary Administration plans for perpetual war. FEBRUARY 17, 2017 Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper by MIKE WHITNEY * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] The Flynn fiasco is not about national security advisor Michael Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador. It’s much deeper than that. It’s about Russia. It’s about Putin. It’s about the explosive rise of China and the world’s biggest free trade zone that will eventually stretch from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It’s about the one country in the world that is obstructing Washington’s plan for global domination. (Russia) And, it’s about the future; which country will be the key player in the world’s most prosperous and populous region, Asia. That’s what’s at stake, and that’s what the Flynn controversy is really all about. Many readers are familiar with the expression “pivot to Asia”, but do they know what it means? It means the United States has embarked on an ambitious plan to extend its military grip and market power over the Eurasian landmass thus securing its position as the world’s only superpower into the next century. The pivot is Washington’s top strategic priority. As Hillary Clinton said in 2011: “Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests… Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia… The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade…. we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011) In other words, it’s pivot or bust. Those are the only two options. Naturally, ruling elites in the US have chosen the former over the latter, which means they are committed to a strategy that will inevitably pit the US against a nuclear-armed adversary, Russia. Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, wanted to normalize relations with Russia. He rejected the flagrantly hostile approach of the US foreign policy establishment. That’s why he had to be removed. And, that’s why he’s been so viciously attacked in the media and why the threadbare story about his contacts with the Russian ambassador were used to force his resignation. This isn’t about the law and it isn’t about the truth. It’s about bare-knuckle geopolitics and global hegemony. Flynn got in the way of the pivot, so Flynn had to be eliminated. End of story. Here’s a clip from an article by Robert Parry: “Flynn’s real “offense” appears to be that he favors détente with Russia rather than escalation of a new and dangerous Cold War. Trump’s idea of a rapprochement with Moscow – and a search for areas of cooperation and compromise – has been driving Official Washington’s foreign policy establishment crazy for months and the neocons, in particular, have been determined to block it. Though Flynn has pandered to elements of the neocon movement with his own hysterical denunciations of Iran and Islam in general, he emerged as a key architect for Trump’s plans to seek a constructive relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Meanwhile, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks have invested heavily in making Putin the all-purpose bête noire to justify a major investment in new military hardware and in pricy propaganda operations.” (“Trump Caves on Flynn’s resignation“, Consortium News) US foreign policy is not developed willy-nilly. It emerges as the consensus view of various competing factions within the permanent national security state. And, although there are notable differences between the rival factions (either hardline or dovish) there appears to be unanimity on the question of Russia. There is virtually no constituency within the political leadership of either of the two major parties (or their puppetmaster supporters in the deep state) for improving relations with Russia. None. Russia is blocking Washington’s eastward expansion, therefore, Russia must be defeated. Here’s more from the World Socialist Web Site: “US imperialism seeks to counter its declining world economic position by exploiting its unchallenged global military dominance. It sees as the principal roadblocks to its hegemonic aims the growing economic and military power of China and the still-considerable strength of Russia, possessor of the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal, the largest reserves of oil and gas, and a critical geographical position at the center of the Eurasian land mass. Trump’s opponents within the ruling class insist that US foreign policy must target Russia with the aim of weakening the Putin regime or overthrowing it. This is deemed a prerequisite for taking on the challenge posed by China. Numerous Washington think tanks have developed scenarios for military conflicts with Russian forces in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in the Baltic States and in cyberspace. The national security elite is not prepared to accept a shift in orientation away from the policy of direct confrontation with Russia along the lines proposed by Trump, who would like for the present to lower tensions with Russia in order to focus first on China.” (“Behind the Flynn resignation and Trump crisis: A bitter conflict over imperialist policy“, WSWS) Foreign policy elites believe the US and its NATO allies can engage Russia in a shooting war without it expanding into a regional conflict and without an escalation into a nuclear conflagration. It’s a risky calculation but, nevertheless, it is the rationale behind the persistent build up of troops and weaponry on Russia’s western perimeter. Take a look at this from the Independent: “Thousands of Nato troops have amassed close to the border with Russia as part of the largest build-up of Western troops neighbouring Moscow’s sphere of influence since the Cold War…Tanks and heavy armoured vehicles, plus Bradley fighting vehicles and Paladin howitzers, are also in situ and British Typhoon jets from RAF Conningsby will be deployed to Romania this summer to contribute to Nato’s Southern Air Policing mission… Kremlin officials claim the build-up is the largest since the Second World War.” (“The map that shows how many Nato troops are deployed along Russia’s border“, The Independent) Saber-rattling and belligerence have cleared the way for another world war. Washington thinks the conflict can be contained, but we’re nor so sure. The inexperienced Trump– who naively believed that the president sets his own foreign policy–has now learned that that’s not the case. The Flynn slap-down, followed by blistering attacks in the media and threats of impeachment, have left Trump shaken to the core. As a result, he has done a speedy about-face and swung into damage control-mode. On Tuesday, he tried to extend the olive branch by tweeting that “Crimea was taken by Russia” and by offering to replace Flynn with a trusted insider who will not veer from the script prepared by the foreign policy establishment. Check out this blurb on the Foreign Policy magazine website on Wednesday: “President Donald Trump offered the job of national security advisor to retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward on Monday night…If, as expected, Harward accepts the job today, he is likely to bring in his own team, from deputy on down, with a focus on national security types with some experience under their belts… Harward also would work well with Defense Secretary James Mattis. When Mattis was chief of Central Command, Harward was his deputy. Mattis trusted him enough to put him in charge of planning for war with Iran. Mattis has urged Harward to take the NSA job. If Harward becomes NSA, Mattis would emerge from the Flynn mess in a uniquely powerful position: He would have two of his former deputies at the table in some meetings. The other one is John Kelly, now secretary for Homeland Security, who was his number two when Mattis commanded a Marine division early in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.” (“A Mattis protégé poised to take the helm of Trump’s NSC,” Foreign Policy) In other words, Trump is relinquishing control over foreign policy and returning it to trusted insiders who will comply with pre-set elitist guidelines. Trump’s sudden metamorphosis was apparent in another story that appeared in Wednesday’s news, this time related to Rex Tillerson and General Joseph Dunford. Here’s a clip from CNN: “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford meet face to face with their Russian counterparts Thursday, as the Trump administration evaluates the future direction of US-Russian relations….But even as Tillerson’s plane was taking off in Washington, the Pentagon announced the meeting between Dunford and his Russian counterpart Valeriy Gerasimov, which will take place Thursday in Baku, Azerbaijan…. “The military leaders will discuss a variety of issues including the current state of U.S.-Russian military relations …Trump’s envoys have been expressing positions more keeping with previous US policies. … Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, indicated the US would maintain sanctions on Russia for annexing Crimea in 2014. She condemned what she called the “Russian occupation” of the Ukrainian territory… The US has deployed thousands of troops and tanks to Poland and Romania in recent weeks, while other NATO allies have sent troops to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. “There is a common message from the President, from his security team, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, that they stay strongly committed to NATO,” he added. Let’s summarize: The sanctions will remain, the tanks are on the border, the commitment to NATO has been reinforced, and Dunford is going to explain Washington’s strategic objectives to his Russian counterpart in clear, unambiguous language. There will be no room for Tillerson, who is on friendly terms with Putin, to change the existing policy or to normalize relations; Dunford, Haley, and Defense Secretary James Mattis will make sure of that. As for Trump, it’s clear by the Crimea tweet, the sacking of Flynn and the (prospective) appointment of Harward, that he’s running scared and is doing everything in his power to get out of the hole he’s dug for himself. There’s no way of knowing whether he’ll be allowed to carry on as before or if he’ll be forced to throw other allies, like Bannon or Conway, under the bus. I would expect the purge to continue and to eventually include Trump himself. But that’s just a guess. The hope that Trump would bring an element of sanity to US foreign policy has now been extinguished. The so called “Trump Revolution” has fizzled out before it ever began. In contrast, the military buildup along Russia’s western flank continues apace. Join the debate on Facebook MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney at msn.com. _______________________________________________ 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: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Feb 20 13:47:43 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:47:43 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] No Support to the Democrats, Republicans, or Any Party of the Bosses Message-ID: <002401d28b7f$ea2079b0$be616d10$@comcast.net> In my opinion, the best resolution on the issue was passed by Painters Local 10 in Portland last August. Unfortunately, the left ignored it. But here it is again: International Union of Painters and Allied Trades LOCAL UNION NO. 10 11105 N.E. SANDY BLVD. PORTLAND, OREGON 97220 Website: www.iupatdc5.org PHONE: (503) 257-0589 ● FAX: (503) 262-5358 ● OOWL: (503) 262-5347 __________________________________________________ No Support to the Democrats, Republicans, or Any Party of the Bosses Whereas the bosses have two parties to represent their class while the millions of working people have none, and Whereas the Democratic president Barack Obama sent the U.S. Coast Guard to enforce scabbing against the International Longshore and Warehouse Union during the 2013-14 lock-out of northwest dock workers, and Whereas the Democratic governor Kate Brown opposed and undercut the movement for a $15 minimum wage across Oregon, and Whereas in 2014 Democrats in Congress joined with Republicans to pass a disastrous pension "reform," allowing the bosses to escape their obligations and cheat our retirees, and Whereas the two presidencies of the Democrat Barack Obama have been eight years of unending war in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, causing untold human suffering, millions of refugees, and attacks on our democratic rights at home, and Whereas the Democratic Party in power has deported some 5 million immigrants, a record, and Whereas across the country, from Oakland to Baltimore, police under Democratic mayors regularly murder black men and women with impunity, and Whereas the 2016 presidential election offers us the "choice" between a raving, bigoted clown and a career representative of Wall Street, and Whereas the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Virginia governor Tim Kaine, supports union- busting "right to work" laws, and Whereas Democrats and Republicans are and have always been strike-breaking, war-making parties of the bosses, and Whereas so long as the labor movement supports one or another party of the bosses, we will be playing a losing game, therefore be it Resolved that IUPAT Local 10 does not support the Democrats, Republicans, or any bosses' parties or politicians, and Resolved that we call on the International Union to repudiate its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, and Resolved that we call on the labor movement to break from the Democratic Party, and build a class- struggle workers party Approved at the August 17, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Membership The board of directors of the nurses in Minnesota, MNA, “calls upon the NNU, [the National Nurses Union] the AFL-CIO and the wider labor movement to start an intense discussion about workplace education and information meetings and protest action on May Day, May 1, 2017, including a discussion within the AFL-CIO about a call for a nationwide strike that day.” In Philadelphia, the nurses organized in TUHNA, passed a resolution committing to “initiate a discussion within PASNAP,” their statewide union in Pennsylvania, “about the concrete steps necessary to build the resistance against the new administration’s rightwing agenda and to pivot that defensive struggle to an offensive one to win improved Medicare for All.” Small beginnings, I know, but we have to start somewhere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 17:52:02 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 17:52:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Response to Kristin Hoganson References: <1540433925.1548286.1487613122938.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1540433925.1548286.1487613122938@mail.yahoo.com> Versions of this response have been sent to the Daily Illini, the News-Gazette, and the Public I, all in accordance with their concision requirements. Kristin Hoganson has been copied on this message. University ofIllinois History Professor justifies a century of American aggressionDavid Green This letter is provoked by the disgust and sadness that Ifelt upon reading a commentary in the local News-Gazetteon February 19th by Professor of History Kristin Hoganson, titled“Requiem for the American Century.”This letter is not to be construed as a personal attack on amember of a department which includes several individuals whom I have beenprivileged to call friends over the 18 years I have lived here. During these yearsI have written and spoken regularly in local media regarding militarism,economic inequality, racism, and Israel/Palestine. My professional backgroundis as an educator, social researcher, and policy analyst. My political identityis as an antiwar activist and socialist. Hoganson laments the passing of an American Centurycharacterized by “freedom of conscience and of speech, freedom from want andfear. Freedom of movement. The free world.” This transparent falsehood isconsistent with her general support for U.S. warmaking and subversion sinceWorld War 1, while admitting in passing that our wars against Korea and Vietnam“burned to hot.” This is an unfortunate description of our government’s murderof millions of innocent people, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the MiddleEast, for what the record clearly shows to be the goals of global economic andmilitary domination, ongoing. For the past four decades, these aggressive(neoconservative) policies have been joined with neoliberal policies promotingradically increased economic inequality, at home and abroad. Hoganson supportscorporate-driven and rapacious “free trade” agreements which are central to aneoliberal agenda that has nothing to do with freedom or democracy.In sum, Hoganson offers an innocent narrative of Americanexceptionalism that is false, implicitly racist, and explicitly elitist. Whileshe aligns her views with general disdain for President Trump, she tellingly criticizeshis most reasonable policies: his opposition to war with Russia, and to theTrans-Pacific Partnership. That all of this is argued within liberal and feminist frameworksis revealing of our current ideological impasse, within academia and beyond. Studentsand other community members deserve the self-critical historical facts andanalyses that will move us beyond long-term nightmarish realities and triumphalistdogmatism. Ironically, Hoganson’s “requiem” augurs and implicitlysupports continued destruction, of our species and our planet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Feb 20 17:55:08 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 17:55:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Advice from the odious Mr. Zbig References: <58AB2577.000001E9@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: Why the World Needs a Trump Doctrine Date: February 20, 2017 at 11:20:55 AM CST To: > Reply-To: > Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/20/opinion/20brzezinski/20brzezinski-thumbStandard.jpg] Op-Ed Contributors Why the World Needs a Trump Doctrine By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI and PAUL WASSERMAN Chaos and incoherence in American foreign policy are a threat to global stability. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2llQfN1 Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect at nytimes.com to your address book. Advertisement Copyright 2017 | The New York Times Company | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1487611255891636®i_id=0] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 19:20:29 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:20:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Advice from the odious Mr. Zbig In-Reply-To: References: <58AB2577.000001E9@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: Any attempt at reading the full text of this statement by Zbig. has me retching. The man who advised Carter to arm the Taliban thus giving us Al Qaida now evolved into ISIS with the loss of millions of lives. The destruction and war with not just two nations under the Bush Administration, but an additional six under the Obama Administration, for whom he was an “unofficial” advisor. Zbigniew Brzezinski is a war criminal. He is also responsible an advisor to the Reagan Administration as well The neocon, neoliberals don’t care who is President as long as he follows their instructions. Trump doesn’t follow instructions, or at least until he allowed Flynn to resign for what breaking the Logan Act? Something nobody noticed when it was Obama, Eisenhower and many other Presidents? Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chess Board,” clearly lays out the strategy, for which he is given credit, of containment of Eurasia which the Obama/Hillary team were following and would continue if the Democrats had regained power. No fan of Trumps domestic policies, nonetheless nuclear war is something that needs to be contained, and at least Trump and Flynn were making the effort. On Feb 20, 2017, at 09:55, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: Why the World Needs a Trump Doctrine Date: February 20, 2017 at 11:20:55 AM CST To: > Reply-To: > Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/02/20/opinion/20brzezinski/20brzezinski-thumbStandard.jpg] Op-Ed Contributors Why the World Needs a Trump Doctrine By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI and PAUL WASSERMAN Chaos and incoherence in American foreign policy are a threat to global stability. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2llQfN1 Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect at nytimes.com to your address book. Advertisement Copyright 2017 | The New York Times Company | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1487611255891636®i_id=0] _______________________________________________ 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: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 01:18:05 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 01:18:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Globalisation and Economic Nationalism References: <2015094146.1922143.1487639885156.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2015094146.1922143.1487639885156@mail.yahoo.com> Globalisation and Economic Nationalism Posted on February 20, 2017 by Yves Smith By Italo Colantone, Assistant Professor of Economics, Bocconi University and Piero Stanig, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Bocconi University. Originally published at VoxEU There has been a revival of nationalism in western democracies. The outcome of the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump as president of the US are two major manifestations of this tendency. In Europe this trend began in the 1990s, and it has been associated with increasing support for radical right parties (Mudde 2007).In recent paper, we show that globalisation is a key determinant of this phenomenon (Colantone and Stanig 2017). We focus on the competitive shock created by the surge in imports from China between 1988 and 2007. This shock has had a heterogeneous impact across European regions that depends on the historical composition of employment in the region. Using data on legislative elections in 15 western European countries, we find that stronger regional exposure to the import shock determines an increase in support for nationalist parties, a general shift to the right in the electorate, and an increase in support for radical right parties. The policy proposals of these parties tend to bundle support for domestic free market policies with a strong protectionist stance, a combination that has come to be referred to as ‘economic nationalism’. As parties offering this policy mix become increasingly successful, we might see the end – and possibly even a reversal – of globalization. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue Feb 21 04:33:38 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 04:33:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama ranked as 12th-best president in poll of historians References: <1d78f56735153a03e8ed1491134330c8@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <333C81C9-E688-48DF-BBEF-52E3AF642F2E@illinois.edu> From: FOX31 Denver > Subject: [Shared Post] Obama ranked as 12th-best president in poll of historians Date: February 20, 2017 at 9:23:36 PM CST To: > R S (r-szoke at illinois.edu) shared a post from FOX31 Denver [http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/17e52d5bd05a36821dc7d1d5f90e105c?s=32&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Femails%2Fblavatar.png] [http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c59b96a970e6a53082f74280fbd948cd?s=50&d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D50&r=G] Obama ranked as 12th-best president in poll of historians by Web Staff WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama was ranked as the 12th best U.S. president overall in a poll of historians conducted by C-SPAN. The Presidential Historians Survey was released ahead of Presidents Day and had 91 historians rank all 43 former presidents in 10 categories. Obama ranked third for "Pursued Equal Justice […] Read more of this post Web Staff | February 20, 2017 at 11:58 am | Categories: National/World News| URL: http://via.kdvr.com/rxThQ Change your email settings at Manage Notifications. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://kdvr.com/2017/02/20/obama-ranked-as-12th-best-president-in-poll-of-historians/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 12:35:45 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 06:35:45 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 7pm Feb 28th - Black History Month with Muslim American Society-UC Message-ID: <1ba3c684-b7ad-a24b-24f0-c491c6ec5e0b@gmail.com> Muslim American Society Urbana-Champaign's 4th Annual Black History Month celebration *Black Lives Matter* *Inspiring Movement for Social Justice* ** **When: *7:00PM, Tuesday, Feb. 28th* Where: Room 100, Gregory Hall, U of Illinois campus, 810 S. Wright St, Urbana Speakers include * *Prof. Evelyn Reynolds* Associate Professor at Parkland College, and Founder of the Black Lives Matter Champaign chapter * *Ustadh Ubaydullah Evans* Executive Director, American Learning Institute for Islam And the MAS fourth annual community service and social justice award will be presented to *Dr. Rebecca Ginsburg,* associate professor and director of the *Education Justice Project *The public is welcome! Pizza and snacks will be served. Cosponsors include: Muslim Students Association UIUC; Education Justice Project; Black Lives Matter Champaign-Urbana; Parkland Social Justice Club; Umma UIUC; the public i; First Followers; Build Programs Not Jails; AWARE; Central Illinois Industrial Workers of the World; and others. For more information: activism at masurbana-Champaign.org or: www.masuc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Tue Feb 21 15:08:26 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:08:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gene Gilmore, RIP Message-ID: <15a61376af3-21a0-d66@webprd-a106.mail.aol.com> Peace Discuss:Those who were around these parts during the anti-Vietnam war/peace movement will remember Gene and Virginia Gilmore, members of the Friends Community and intrepid force in opposition to the war and nuclear weapons, for social justice and civil rights.  Gene was a Professor of Communications at the U. of I. and journalist at several national newspapers, an Urbana City Councilman, member of the American Friends Committee and ACLU.  After retirement he lived in California near their son, where Gene died January 15 of this year, a month shy of his 97th birthday (Obituary in News Gazette January 19).  Ginny survives. Many of our activities, planning and prayer meetings were conducted at the old Friends Meeting House near campus at the corner of Lincoln and Green in Urbana, where an apartment house now stands adjoining a Marathon or Mobil gas station.  A peace tree planting in the back yard marking 30 years after the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima has long since been surplanted.  It was at the Meeting House that I first met Herb Schiller, a professor of communications and sociology in California, a friend of Gene's, who used to spend summers visiting Urbana where Herb had family connections (his son Dan became a professor of Library Science and Information at U. of I.).  I recall Herb's discussion of corporate media takeover and the empirical direction of American foreign policy, and articles he used to write for the Nation magazine.  Other sparks of activism after the Vietnam war were the Sanctuary Movement and opposition to nuclear weapons buildup, the Nuclear Freeze movement led  by Kay Bridgeford, who still lives in Champaign.  Those were heady days of activism, thanks to Gene and Ginny.Midge O'Brien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Feb 21 15:14:46 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:14:46 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gene Gilmore, RIP In-Reply-To: <15a61376af3-21a0-d66@webprd-a106.mail.aol.com> References: <15a61376af3-21a0-d66@webprd-a106.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: Thanks for recalling our past, Midge. Our solidarity with with these people used to be called 'the communion of saints.’ They’re an encouragement in dark days. —CGE > On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Mildred O'brien via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Peace Discuss: > > Those who were around these parts during the anti-Vietnam war/peace movement will remember Gene and Virginia Gilmore, members of the Friends Community and intrepid force in opposition to the war and nuclear weapons, for social justice and civil rights. Gene was a Professor of Communications at the U. of I. and journalist at several national newspapers, an Urbana City Councilman, member of the American Friends Committee and ACLU. After retirement he lived in California near their son, where Gene died January 15 of this year, a month shy of his 97th birthday (Obituary in News Gazette January 19). Ginny survives. > > Many of our activities, planning and prayer meetings were conducted at the old Friends Meeting House near campus at the corner of Lincoln and Green in Urbana, where an apartment house now stands adjoining a Marathon or Mobil gas station. A peace tree planting in the back yard marking 30 years after the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima has long since been surplanted. It was at the Meeting House that I first met Herb Schiller, a professor of communications and sociology in California, a friend of Gene's, who used to spend summers visiting Urbana where Herb had family connections (his son Dan became a professor of Library Science and Information at U. of I.). I recall Herb's discussion of corporate media takeover and the empirical direction of American foreign policy, and articles he used to write for the Nation magazine. > > Other sparks of activism after the Vietnam war were the Sanctuary Movement and opposition to nuclear weapons buildup, the Nuclear Freeze movement led by Kay Bridgeford, who still lives in Champaign. > > Those were heady days of activism, thanks to Gene and Ginny. > > Midge O'Brien > _______________________________________________ > 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: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 15:33:55 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 15:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] C. J. Hopkins References: <1507238683.2439302.1487691235763.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1507238683.2439302.1487691235763@mail.yahoo.com> "And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they’re sincere or not) has capitalized on people’s discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where “Chinese” investors own “American” companies that manufacture goods for “European” markets by paying “Thai” workers three dollars a day to enrich “American” hedge fund crooks whose “British” bankers stash their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while “American” workers pay their taxes so that the “United States” can give billions of dollars to “Israelis” and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn’t possibly care any less about the common people who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don’t quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them or their families." Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution | | | | | | | | | | | Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution So the global capitalist ruling classes’ neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty goo... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Feb 21 16:04:45 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:04:45 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] C. J. Hopkins In-Reply-To: <1507238683.2439302.1487691235763@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1507238683.2439302.1487691235763.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1507238683.2439302.1487691235763@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The best one-paragraph description of the present situation I’ve seen. —CGE > On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:33 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they’re sincere or not) has capitalized on people’s discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where “Chinese” investors own “American” companies that manufacture goods for “European” markets by paying “Thai” workers three dollars a day to enrich “American” hedge fund crooks whose “British” bankers stash their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while “American” workers pay their taxes so that the “United States” can give billions of dollars to “Israelis” and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn’t possibly care any less about the common people who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don’t quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them or their families.” > > > Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution So the global capitalist ruling classes’ neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty goo... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 17:26:55 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:26:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] C. J. Hopkins In-Reply-To: References: <1507238683.2439302.1487691235763.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1507238683.2439302.1487691235763@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yes, it does sum it up well. On Feb 21, 2017, at 08:04, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The best one-paragraph description of the present situation I’ve seen. —CGE On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:33 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: "And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they’re sincere or not) has capitalized on people’s discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where “Chinese” investors own “American” companies that manufacture goods for “European” markets by paying “Thai” workers three dollars a day to enrich “American” hedge fund crooks whose “British” bankers stash their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while “American” workers pay their taxes so that the “United States” can give billions of dollars to “Israelis” and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn’t possibly care any less about the common people who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don’t quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them or their families.” Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution So the global capitalist ruling classes’ neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty goo... _______________________________________________ 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: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 03:41:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:41:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: My letter last week to the News-Gazette, in relation to Sanctuary Cities. References: <20170216172604.F0CD226153@web-2.prod.news-gazette.com> Message-ID: > For those in fear of Sanctuary Cities being defunded, as has been pointed out, the President must go through Congress, and it then goes to the States. It was a threat made by the Reagan Administration in the eighties. > > For those concerned we are breaking “Federal Laws” by being Sanctuary Cities, it needs to be recognized that our Federal Government has been breaking its own laws for decades. Whether our interventions conducted as false flags seeking regime change or by dropping bombs, sanctions that starve, or occupation in the name of “freedom." We are therefore responsible for the thousands of lives lost and destroyed, in at least seven nations. Those same seven nations for whom we now have a ban on their nationals. > > For those who are undocumented, the real fear is what is happening now with the first ICE raids under Trump, arresting nearly 700 immigrants in five days across the nation. A quarter of those arrested had no criminal records. > > The Obama administration was responsible for the deportation of 2.7 million immigrants, more than any previous administration, and rejected numerous appeals to grant a blanket pardon to shield both DREAMERS and legal permanent residents from deportation. > > Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals the (DACA) program, was provided for those who were brought to the United States as children and granted a two-year, renewable reprieve from deportation under the (DACA) program. > > The Trump administration is now in possession of the fingerprints and addresses of all 750,000 DREAMERS. Up to 8 million people are potential targets for deportation under Trumps January executive orders. > > According to Zaina Green of the World Socialist Website, "David Ward, Director of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents, speaking on FOX and Friends Monday, said that last weeks ICE raids were “probably planned months ago under the Obama administration, but now being launched under the Trump administration.” > > Since the Holocaust, the question has been asked, “how could it happen, a round up of neighbors being deported often with little notice or concern?” No one is suggesting that the current deportations taking place of the undocumented, is comparable to sending people off to concentration camps or gas chambers, but sending people over borders to the unknown, is nonetheless cruel. The US interred American citizens during WW2, because they were ethnically Japanese, a shameful incident along with so many others, whether genocide of native Americans or slavery and barbarism against of African Americans, is this going to be another blot on our record? > > They may not have been successful, but at least the Netherlands made the attempt at an organized, coordinated effort to save the “Jews within their nation,” and they will be forever remembered “as having at least tried.” > > Urbana as a Sanctuary City, will be remembered as having at least “tried." Hopefully we will be successful, where other cities may not be so well remembered. > > > > > > This email is automatically generated - please do not reply to this email. > > - The News-Gazette From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 09:53:18 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 03:53:18 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Where's Rodney?" rally Thursday (tomorrow) at Davis' Champaign office Message-ID: let's make sure Rodney Davis knows what we think of his plan to never hold an in-person town hall in C-U! "Where's Rodney?" rally at Rodney Davis' Champaign office Host: Debra Schrishuhn Times: Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM CST Location: outside Davis office, 2004 Fox Dr, Champaign, IL 2004 Fox Dr Champaign, IL 61820 Bring your own sign or carry one of our new "Healthcare is a Human Right/Medicare for All" signs. Be there! Thanks, Deb From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Feb 23 05:57:53 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:57:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More on confirmation bias . . . Message-ID: <66DE022F-A8AD-4896-8337-991E8D100EC0@illinois.edu> ... tenacity, face-saving, dogmatism, bigotry & the like. That’s What You Think http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 24 15:39:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:39:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration at Rodney David Office yesterday in respect to Healthcare. Message-ID: Thank you Deb for holding this demo. and thanks to those who were able to attend. Thanks to Julie for speaking on my behalf. http://foxillinois.com/news/local/protesters-still-looking-for-answers-from-rep-davis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Feb 24 16:02:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:02:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration at Rodney Davis Office yesterday in respect to Healthcare. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 24, 2017, at 07:39, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Thank you Deb for holding this demo. and thanks to those who were able to attend. Thanks to Julie for speaking on my behalf. http://foxillinois.com/news/local/protesters-still-looking-for-answers-from-rep-davis _______________________________________________ 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: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 13:32:17 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 13:32:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. Message-ID: Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria By Bill Van Auken 25 February 2017 The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.” The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.” According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting. Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.” Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.” Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military. The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East. In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.” Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country. “The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.” Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces. Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government. As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes. The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape. The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians. “This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group. Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.” As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 15:04:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:04:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the best articles I've read in respect to current issues, and solutions.. By Gus Woods in The Public I Message-ID: ← Fighting Mass Incarceration Under Trump: New Strategies, New Alliance Orange Crush: The Rise of Tactical Teams in Prison → The Extremes of Struggle at the Monster’s Heart: The Black Working Class and Socioeconomic Realities under Obama’s Neoliberalism Posted on February 2017 by Augustus Wood “International capitalism cannot be destroyed without the extremes of struggle. The entire colonial world is watching the blacks inside the U.S…We are on the inside. We are the only ones who can get at the monster’s heart…” — George L. Jackson [http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/George-Jackson-150x150.jpg]The African-American working class lives in a perpetual state of crisis as our material and social conditions continue to deteriorate to their lowest points in our history. As Black Studies scholar-activist Sundiata Cha-Jua argues, this “New Nadir” is the result of the holistic nature of racial oppression: it operates at an institutional, individual, and cultural scale. All three levels, expanded through neoliberal capital accumulation, consistently produce living standards that negate basic human needs. Our Current Moment As of January 2017, the black labor force participation rate stands at 62.4%; thus, over 1/3 of the African-American population eligible to work is unemployed or no longer actively seeking employment. The wage gap between blacks and whites has widened to 26.7%, its worst rate in four decades. Over 25% of African Americans live in concentrated poverty (neighborhoods or tracts where 40% or more of the residents fall below the federal poverty threshold of $24,000 a year for a family of four), while many other blacks that average between $25,000 and $35,000 a year attempt to survive under similar economic constraints. The 2007-2008 housing bubble resulted in black household net worth decreasing between 53% and 61%, with future generations facing very little chance of recovery. As public education embraces for-profit policies through charter school expansion, tuition inflation, and slashing programs, working-class people continue to be priced out of education unless they obtain devastating debt. Socially sanctioned anti-black violence occurs at a higher frequency than lynchings during the first Nadir in the 1890s. Working-class black people and those that have fallen out of the class structure (lumpenproletariat) continue to be disproportionately surveilled, incarcerated, and murdered by state and private forces. We comprise 40% of the U.S. carceral state and over 33% of the civilians killed by police. This is where we are at the current moment. Reactionary Robots: The Function of Liberal Reformism Unfortunately, liberal reformists and pseudo-leftists promote identity politics to subdue criticisms of this apartheid structure. As a result, the dominant narrative of struggle in the United States follows five consistent strands: 1) devoid of criticism of the political economy, 2) hierarchal in approach to oppressed groups, 3) opposed to militant resistance tactics (urban rebellion, labor strikes, armed self-defense), 4) possesses no legitimate ties to international working class struggles against war and imperialism, and 5) is dedicated solely to electoral politics, symbolic protests, and capital investment as the solutions to social ills. As scholar Adolph Reed Jr. argues, identity politics is inherently counterproductive to revolutionary principles, because it disguises objectively right-wing, neoliberal ideology with superficially “progressive” politics centered on social constructs like race, gender, and sexuality, rather than on material conditions and structuralism. This is not a condemnation of current movements for social equality; instead, I argue that liberal interpretations of the social realities of the oppressed actively suppress the role of the structure (i.e. capital accumulation) in creating and maintaining these social constructs. Race, gender, and sexual discrimination must be analyzed in a genuine intersectional manner, as inextricably linked to the material conditions of which they are constituted. Liberal reformists also exonerate Barack Obama’s neoliberal agenda by propagandizing him as a symbolic icon for being the first black president. Although the United States has acted as the heart for neoliberal imperialism for decades, Obama played a pivotal role in expanding this dominance in the financialization of the global economy and the transoceanic exploitation and destruction of black and brown communities. As writer Joseph Kishore argues, Obama’s legacy is war and repression. He swelled George W. Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to grotesque levels, unleashed bombing in Libya, bloodied Syria, supported Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen, and issued drone strikes that killed over 3,000 people, with 80% of the murdered being untargeted civilians. Obama’s military forces were deployed in 138 nations, or 70% of the world! Obama’s legacy must also include his contradictory stance on democratic rights. He often spoke favorably for democracy, but also stated that he had the authority to assassinate anyone, including U.S. citizens, without due process. He publicly criticized torture, but rewarded Bush torture proponents with positions in his regime. He prosecuted and imprisoned more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined, including Edward Snowden, who exposed the unconstitutional NSA spying program. Obama recognized racial problems in policing, yet he expanded police militarization, upheld police brutality in court, and publicly demonized black rebels and activists as “criminals” for the 2015 Baltimore Rebellion. Lastly, Obama deepened class warfare through policies that extended both the power of the capitalist class and hardships for the working class. Following the Great Recession, Obama refused to assist struggling homeowners; instead, he restored the wealth of the financial aristocracy by bailing out banks and corporations. Over his presidency, Obama oversaw a rise in aggregate corporate profits from $671 billion at the end of 2008 to $1.63 trillion in 2016 and in the wealth of the 400 richest Americans from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion. Concurrently, the Obama administration replaced 95% of livable-wage, skilled, working-class jobs lost during the Recession with semi-skilled, part-time jobs. This results in workers falling out of the proletarian class and swelling the sub-working class, where wages are not enough to match rising costs of living. Finally, Obama’s Affordable Care Act provided substandard health services that people could not afford, shifted costs to individuals, and secured higher profits for insurance companies. Consequently, these policies, alongside the Democratic Party’s alienation of black and white working class voters, and white supremacist Stephen K. Bannon’s populist, economic nationalism discourse, contributed heavily to the presidential election of fascist Donald Trump. The Extremes of Struggle The black masses at the heart of this monster must transition towards “the extremes of struggle.” In this new moment unseen in history, it is imperative that we develop a concise, working-class perspective and socialist principles to oppose not only Trump, but the system that produced him, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. We must treat the Trump regime not as an evil aberration in an otherwise democratic society, but instead as the outcome of widening socioeconomic inequality and repression under decades of Democrat and Republican rule. To transform the system, we must link anti-discrimination activism to the fight for equal living standards and the fight against exploitation, war, poverty, and state-sponsored violence. At the intellectual level, it is our responsibility to write and teach political education that emphasizes a critique of structure, capital accumulation, and the social constructs that protect capital. At the grassroots level, we must develop agency-laden institutions: spaces in the community that house organizational and cultural resources for collective action. Local leaders must utilize these institutions to train residents for survival programs, such as meal services, carpools, community banking, amenities-sharing programs, freedom schools, and self-defense. Within these workspaces, kinship networks develop between individuals, resulting in a natural inclination to build collectivity and generate ideas of self-emancipation. Our pressing task is to abandon liberal reformist demands for recognition within the current system. We can no longer organize alongside factions like the Democratic Party whose interests clash directly with our interests. We must invest our time and resources in alternative political organizations and media that publicize our actual material realities. As Frantz Fanon stated, we, the masses, have to truly believe that everything depends on us, because there is no famous individual that will take responsibility; the ultimate goal is complete self-determination for us all. This entry was posted in African American, African Americans, Labor/Economics. Bookmark the permalink. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Feb 25 15:27:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:27:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well at least Trump was honest about it: We are there to steal their oil. Unlike Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama who all lied about it. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 7:32 AM To: Peace-discuss List ; Peace Subject: [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria By Bill Van Auken 25 February 2017 The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.” The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.” According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting. Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.” Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.” Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military. The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East. In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.” Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country. “The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.” Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces. Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government. As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes. The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape. The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians. “This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group. Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.” As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Feb 25 15:34:24 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:34:24 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Encourage the president to go to the beach instead. "We’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas while allowing our own infrastructure to fall into total disrepair and decay. In the Middle East, we’ve spent as of four weeks ago $6 trillion. Think of it. And, by the way, the Middle East is in much worse shape than it was 15 years ago. If our Presidents would have gone to the beach for 15 years, we would be in much better shape than we are right now…” --Donald Trump at CPAC, 24 February 2017 —CGE > On Feb 25, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Well at least Trump was honest about it: We are there to steal their oil. Unlike Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama who all lied about it. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 7:32 AM > To: Peace-discuss List ; Peace > Subject: [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. > > Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria > By Bill Van Auken > 25 February 2017 > The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. > According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.” > The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.” > According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting. > Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.” > Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.” > Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military. > The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East. > In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.” > Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country. > “The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.” > Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces. > Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government. > As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes. > The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape. > The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians. > “This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group. > Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.” > As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians. > > WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 16:09:40 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:09:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, we do have to give Trump credit for his honesty in relation to US foreign policy, that being, to control and steal their resources. No nonsense that we are “saving” people by bombing, and killing them. On Feb 25, 2017, at 07:27, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well at least Trump was honest about it: We are there to steal their oil. Unlike Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama who all lied about it. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 7:32 AM To: Peace-discuss List >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria By Bill Van Auken 25 February 2017 The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.” The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.” According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting. Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.” Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.” Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military. The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East. In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.” Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country. “The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.” Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces. Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government. As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes. The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape. The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians. “This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group. Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.” As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Feb 25 16:12:31 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:12:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: American Unlimited Imperialism Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the “Pacific” would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention”/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): “The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind… “ It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:10 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List ; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. Yes, we do have to give Trump credit for his honesty in relation to US foreign policy, that being, to control and steal their resources. No nonsense that we are “saving” people by bombing, and killing them. On Feb 25, 2017, at 07:27, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Well at least Trump was honest about it: We are there to steal their oil. Unlike Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama who all lied about it. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 7:32 AM To: Peace-discuss List >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria By Bill Van Auken 25 February 2017 The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.” The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.” According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting. Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.” Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.” Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military. The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East. In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.” Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country. “The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.” Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces. Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government. As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes. The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape. The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians. “This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group. Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.” As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 16:13:13 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:13:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Our flyer, for next Saturday’s demo? > On Feb 25, 2017, at 07:34, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Encourage the president to go to the beach instead. > > "We’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas while allowing our own infrastructure to fall into total disrepair and decay. In the Middle East, we’ve spent as of four weeks ago $6 trillion. Think of it. And, by the way, the Middle East is in much worse shape than it was 15 years ago. If our Presidents would have gone to the beach for 15 years, we would be in much better shape than we are right now…” --Donald Trump at CPAC, 24 February 2017 > > —CGE > > >> On Feb 25, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Well at least Trump was honest about it: We are there to steal their oil. Unlike Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama who all lied about it. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace >> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 7:32 AM >> To: Peace-discuss List ; Peace >> Subject: [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. >> >> Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria >> By Bill Van Auken >> 25 February 2017 >> The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. >> According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.” >> The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.” >> According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting. >> Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.” >> Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.” >> Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military. >> The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East. >> In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.” >> Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country. >> “The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.” >> Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces. >> Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government. >> As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes. >> The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape. >> The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians. >> “This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group. >> Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.” >> As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians. >> >> WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 16:22:04 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:22:04 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. Message-ID: Flyer - yes!  -- Stuart -------- Original message --------From: Karen Aram via Peace Date: 2/25/17 09:13 (GMT-07:00) To: "Carl G. Estabrook" Cc: Peace-discuss List , Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] This is something we should all be   protesting, and soon, very soon. Our flyer, for next Saturday’s demo? > On Feb 25, 2017, at 07:34, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Encourage the president to go to the beach instead. > > "We’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas while allowing our own infrastructure to fall into total disrepair and decay. In the Middle East, we’ve spent as of four weeks ago $6 trillion. Think of it. And, by the way, the Middle East is in much worse shape than it was 15 years ago. If our Presidents would have gone to the beach for 15 years, we would be in much better shape than we are right now…” --Donald Trump at CPAC, 24 February 2017 > > —CGE > > >> On Feb 25, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Well at least Trump was honest about it: We are there to steal their oil. Unlike Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama who all lied about it. fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace >> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 7:32 AM >> To: Peace-discuss List ; Peace >> Subject: [Peace] This is something we should all be protesting, and soon, very soon. >> >> Pentagon prepares for bigger, bloodier war in Iraq and Syria >> By Bill Van Auken >> 25 February 2017 >> The Pentagon has prepared recommendations to be submitted to President Donald Trump at the beginning of next week for a major escalation of the US military intervention in Iraq and Syria. >> According to unnamed US officials cited Friday by the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is expected to include “sending additional troops to Iraq and Syria” and “loosening battlefield restrictions” to “ease rules designed to minimize civilian casualties.” >> The new battle plans stem from an executive order signed by Trump on January 28 giving the Pentagon 30 days to a deliver a “preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.” >> According to independent estimates, as many as 8,000 civilians have already died in air strikes carried out by US and allied warplanes against targets in both Syria and Iraq, even as the Pentagon routinely denies the vast majority of reported deaths of unarmed men, women and children resulting from US bombings. The new policy to be rolled out next week, which the Journal reports is aimed at “increasing the number and rate of operations,” will inevitably entail a horrific intensification of this bloodletting. >> Speaking before the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, said that the Pentagon would be presenting Trump with a “political-military plan” to deal not only with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to “advance our long-term interests in the region.” >> Referring to the intense contradictions besetting the US intervention in the region, which has relied on the use of Kurdish militias as proxy ground troops in Syria, even as Washington’s NATO ally, Turkey, has intervened to militarily counter their influence, Dunford insisted that Washington “can’t be paralyzed by tough choices.” >> Pointing to the regional scope of the planned US military escalation, Dunford echoed earlier bellicose rhetoric from the administration against Iran, listing it alongside Russia, China, North Korea and “transnational violent extremism” as the major targets of the US military. >> The US military commander stated that “the major export of Iran is actually malign influence across the region.” He said that the US military buildup against Iran was designed to “make sure we have freedom of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz, and that we deter conflict and crisis in the region, and that we advance our interest to include our interest in dealing with violent extremism of all forms.” All of these alleged aims are pretexts for continuous US provocations aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence and furthering the drive for US hegemony in the Middle East. >> In relation to Iraq, Dunford signaled US intentions to maintain a US military occupation long after the campaign against ISIS is completed. He referred to a “dialog about a long-term commitment to grow the capacity, maintain the capacity of the Iraqi security forces,” adding that Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider Abadi had spoken of “the international community continuing to support defense capacity building.” >> Dunford’s comments echoed those of Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis during a trip earlier this week to Baghdad. While disavowing Trump’s crude comments last month—“We’re not in Iraq to seize anybody’s oil,” Mattis said—he also suggested that plans are being developed for a permanent US military presence in the country. >> “The Iraqi people, the Iraqi military and the Iraqi political leadership recognizes what they’re up against and the value of the coalition and the partnership in particular with the United States,” Mattis told reporters Monday. “I imagine we’ll be in this fight for a while and we’ll stand by each other.” >> Currently, Washington has more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq and another 500 Special Forces troops operating inside Syria. These forces are backed by tens of thousands of military contractors as well as other military units that are rotated in and out of the region. The plan to be presented next week will likely involve the deployment of thousands more US combat forces. >> Trump has repeatedly indicated his support for establishing “safe zones” in Syria, an intervention that would require large numbers of US soldiers backed by air power to seize and control swathes of Syrian territory. It would also entail threats of military confrontation with Russian warplanes operating in support of the Syrian government. >> As the Pentagon prepares its plans for military escalation in the region, US ground forces have reportedly entered Mosul, operating on the front lines with Iraqi forces in the bloody offensive to retake Iraq’s second-largest city from ISIS. American Special Forces “advisers” joined Iraqi troops Thursday in the first incursion into western Mosul, with the retaking of the Mosul International Airport as well as a nearby military base. The operation was conducted with close air support from US warplanes. >> The airport and the base, located in the southern part of western Mosul, are to be used as the launching pad for a major assault into the most densely populated area of the city, where an estimated three quarters of a million civilians are trapped with no means of escape. >> The International Rescue Committee warned that this stage of the offensive would represent the “most dangerous phase” for civilians. >> “This will be a terrifying moment for the 750,000 people still in the west of the city, and there is a real danger that the battle will be raging around them for weeks and possibly months to come,” said Jason Kajer, the Iraq acting country director for the humanitarian group. >> Referring to the increasingly desperate plight of civilians in western Mosul, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s field coordinator in Erbil, Dany Merhy, said: “Supply routes have been cut from that side of the city and people have been facing shortages of food, water, fuel and medicine. We can only imagine the state people will be in.” >> As in previous US-backed offensives against Fallujah and Ramadi, Mosul faces the prospect of being reduced to rubble. It is in this city where the proposed changes in the “rules of engagement” will find their first expression in the elevated slaughter of Iraqi civilians. >> >> WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:03:57 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:03:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] An excellent 30 minute program on RT's Crosstalk Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/378475-pro-war-intolerant-liberalism/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 19:40:29 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:40:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps "going to the beach comment" Message-ID: Bruce Fein 8 hrs · "Further proof that the multi-trillion dollar military industrial counterterrorism complex controls President Donald Trump. At CPAC, Trump derided our spending $6 trillion in the Middle East to put it in "much worse shape" than it was 15 years ago. “If our presidents would have gone to the beach for 15 years, we would be in much better shape than we are right now, that I can tell you." "But Trump is bettering the folly of his predecessors that he correctly denounced. He is doing more of the same--more troops, more spending, creating more enemies daily by indiscriminate killings, supporting radical Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, and fiercely refusing to articulate a definition of victory beyond the disastrous body-count yardstick of Vietnam. What Trump is doing in the Middle East is what General Westmoreland asked for after the Tet Offensive that brought NVA tanks into our Embassy compound: an escalation of tactics with no strategy and proven over long years to be as calamitous as General Custer's at the Battle of Little Bighorn. Indeed, South Vietnam sported a model democracy compared with the antediluvian, despotic regimes with which we are snugly allied in the Middle East. " "Depend upon it. President Trump will get his General Westmoreland Waterloo by playing puppet of the multi-trillion dollar military industrial counterterrorism complex. He insists that he is putting American citizens first, and that he is representing the United States, not the globe. Then why is he treating American soldiers like cannon fodder in the Middle East in the name of policing the entire world while sneering at American invincible self-defense featuring 100 percent of our rank-and-file soldiers deployed in the United States to protect their friends and families and given pay increases from the staggering savings derived starving the parasitic multi-trillion dollar military industrial counterterrorism complex dragon?” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 22:59:44 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:59:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 7pm Feb 28th, Gregory Hall, UIUC - Black History Month with Muslim American Society-UC In-Reply-To: <1ba3c684-b7ad-a24b-24f0-c491c6ec5e0b@gmail.com> References: <1ba3c684-b7ad-a24b-24f0-c491c6ec5e0b@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3528eb09-f1c6-8962-d8ef-14a23b180742@gmail.com> Muslim American Society Urbana-Champaign's 4th Annual Black History Month celebration (AWARE is a co-sponsor) *Black Lives Matter* *Inspiring Movement for Social Justice* ** **When: *7:00PM, Tuesday, Feb. 28th* Where: Room 100, Gregory Hall, U of Illinois campus, 810 S. Wright St, Urbana Speakers include * *Prof. Evelyn Reynolds* Associate Professor at Parkland College, and Founder of the Black Lives Matter Champaign chapter * *Ustadh Ubaydullah Evans* Executive Director, American Learning Institute for Islam And the MAS fourth annual community service and social justice award will be presented to *Dr. Rebecca Ginsburg,* associate professor and director of the *Education Justice Project *The public is welcome! Pizza and snacks will be served. Cosponsors include: Muslim Students Association UIUC; Education Justice Project; Black Lives Matter Champaign-Urbana; Parkland Social Justice Club; Umma UIUC; the public i; First Followers; Build Programs Not Jails; AWARE; Students for Justice in Palestine UIUC; U of I Divest. For more information: activism at masurbana-Champaign.org or: www.masuc.org Flyer below! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: poster.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 485951 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 00:31:43 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul References: <1930112282.1443434.1488069103440.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1930112282.1443434.1488069103440@mail.yahoo.com> February 24, 2017 Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul by Jonathan Taylor I see a lot of angry and depressed liberals these days despairing about what has happened to their world.  The promised coronation of the Queen of Chaos was cancelled and we got (insert insulting nickname of choice) instead. Just the other day I saw a spokesperson from Resist Fascism! or some similarly named group screaming at Fox News viewers that Trump is not only Hitler (old news) but that he will in fact be worse than Hitler. Worse than Hitler? Do we even have a threat level color for that?As I puzzle to make sense of the daily media hyperventilating, I think back a few years to the relatively tranquil Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012. At the time I was not making myself many friends. I’d harangue anyone who would listen that we had a unique occasion to – if we could just get together, man! – put someone in the White House who would permanently dismantle the American War Machine.  I’m talking of course about perennial libertarian hopeful, Ron Paul. In his 2012 primary run in particular Paul made some astonishing promises that I’m pretty sure he meant to at least try to keep. For one, he was going to slash the US military budget in half. Along with that, no more unnecessary wars. For icing on the cake he was going to shutter the CIA’s entire operations wing, making The Company nothing more than an intelligence gathering analytical department. And NSA mass surveillance would soon be a thing of the past.In other words, Paul was planning to kill off the Deep State. Nobody knew this term then but almost everyone does now. While the original meaning was a bit more precise, the people who run the government from the shadows and have recently been hard at work making up stories about peeing Russian prostitutes while plotting a neocon-backed coup.There were a few on the left receptive to Dr. Paul’s message. My support for him increased when I attended one of his rallies on my campus and noticed that his crowd was far more diverse than very fake news had led me to believe.  Tailoring his message to the college students in attendance, Paul explained that his highest priority was ending US military intervention abroad. He said that while he had a dim view of entitlements (no surprise there) he had no plans to suddenly cut them. In fact he said that would be cruel, or something along those lines, showing more compassion for the poor than libertarians are normally known for or than neoliberal Democrats actually have.But the vast majority of people I talked to just couldn’t make this leap of faith. First of all, he was a Republican and obviously the Democratic party inspires such rapturous devotion that it is impossible to even contemplate not voting for whoever’s turn it this time round. Second, those entitlements.  I explained that Paul said he wasn’t going to cut them, at least not right away, but that didn’t matter because he was going to cut them right away according to the always accurate corporate news media and DailyKos. Third, and most importantly, the racist newsletters.Some twenty years prior someone associated with then Congressman Paul had put out some newsletters with racist content in his name. Paul didn’t write them but likely approved them, despite later disavowing their content. The Democrats, fearing Paul poaching voters from the left enthused about his support for legalizing drugs and ending daily drone attacks, ran with this story as hard as they could. Before long, I was being told with authority that Ron Paul was literally a Nazi. (Fortunately people weren’t being encouraged to punch anyone the media called a Nazi yet since Ron Paul is rather old and frail). He is also in fact white, much like Hitler. So of course at the end of the day his main objective must be to kill Jews and blacks, possibly by cutting the Departments of Education and Energy. When I would protest this narrative I started getting righteous rejoinders, like “what are you, a (Jewish) Nazi? Paul is an old white guy from Texas. He may have racist thoughts in his head! The fact his policies might prevent wars that cost millions of non-white lives doesn’t change that fact, man.”So, despite kind words and hints of cooperation from Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich and a bit of consideration from consistently anti-war publications such as Counterpunch, few Democrats crossed over and supported him and Paul was trounced in the primary both times. All according to liberal plans. And the rest is history. With the aid of the redoubtable Ms. Clinton, President Obama destroyed Libya and sponsored a coup in Honduras in his first term. Then he helped  further destroy Syria and helped launch a coup in Ukraine in his second.And the destruction of Syria and Libya and subsequent chaos led to the beginning of the ongoing refugee crisis and the growth and consolidation of territory by ISIS, who according to Wikileaks were funded by our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Qatar with the direct knowledge of Secretary Clinton and President Obama, if not by the US directly. Which caused untold deaths and an enormous human rights catastrophe fueling even more of an exodus.As the genuinely shell-shocked war refugees poured into European countries ill-prepared to absorb them, economic migrants and perhaps some opportunists blended in. Europe’s problems integrating immigrant Muslim populations weren’t new, but the sheer numbers created a host of new tensions throughout the continent, and the increased Islamist attacks related to ISIS in France, Germany, Turkey, Switzerland, Belgium, and elsewhere didn’t help. Predictably, the cumulative effect of these fairly enormous changes increased the popularity of far right movements all over the continent. And helped the rise of one Donald J Trump.Why is Trump now president? One would need to write books about all that happened in the campaign but the prevailing narratives of “Russian hacking”, FBI interference, or the Great Meme War and deplorable power of Kek don’t tell the entire story (though those are all entertaining fake news stories to be sure). The real underlying causes lie in the enormous geopolitical consequences of the Obama presidency’s disastrous foreign policy, and Bush’s before them.Imagine a Paul presidency. If Syria is not subjected to a vicious, interminable civil war, with the US funding “moderate rebels” like Al Qaeda, Syrian refugees don’t pour out of the country into Europe. Nativism stays around previous levels. ISIS may still exist but as a smaller regional terror army, and European jihadi attacks would be fewer and farther between. As Gaddafi told the world, Libya was the bulwark stopping mass population movements and jihadists across the Mediterranean into Europe. If Libya had not been destabilized, the refugee crisis would have either not occurred or been significantly smaller in scope.Trump’s campaign success was built in large part around his talk about immigration and terrorism, and to a lesser extent, American interventionism. Trump brutally and frankly expressed fears about what was happening in Europe and promised the public that only he would make sure it never happened here.  Whatever us educated types think about the complex relationship between Middle East conflict, mass Muslim immigration, and terrorism matters less than what the electorate thinks. And they think that these things are related to each other and thus the less we have of each of them the better off we will be.Trump was only able to leverage that message into victory because of what was happening on the ground in Europe and the Mideast.  Each bone-chilling new ISIS video reinforced his message, and he invoked them consistently. Each news story about no-go zones or mass sexual assaults in Europe raised his numbers in the polls. Each major terrorist attack in Europe or the US brought his campaign back from the edge of defeat. Throw in what looked like honest questioning of the insanity of our foreign policies in the Middle East and an espousal of anti-interventionism , particularly in regards to Russia, whom Americans generally couldn’t care less about and would really prefer not to engage in a nuclear exchange with, and he started to look like the saner of the two candidates. Given Trump’s personality, this was a remarkable achievement. But at least here was someone who seemed to realize what a mess had been made by our Middle East policies, running against one of the architects of the mess herself.So if you’re angry or scared about Trump right now, or praying for a Deep State coup that would destroy American democracy for once and for all, please remember that you had not one but two chances to put partisanship aside and join a movement to elect the most major party anti-war candidate in decades. And none of this would have happened.But I forgot. Newsletters. Jonathan Taylor is professor of Geography at California State University, Fullerton.     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Feb 26 12:46:43 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:46:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Rumble at the Temple References: <61854989.1690.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: An article clarifying why many of those who have spent a long time in Asia, have little or no respect for either the Monarchy or Monks. This is Thailand, but the same applies to Burma etc. It’s politics, greed, and the involvement in killings etc. Begin forwarded message: From: Uglytruth-Thailand > Subject: [New post] Rumble at the Temple Date: February 25, 2017 at 22:47:18 PST To: karenaram at hotmail.com New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] Rumble at the Temple by uglytruththailand Giles Ji Ungpakorn [1328008185] Prayut with his favourite fascist monk Following the appointment of Umporn Prasattapong, Abbot of Wat Ratchabopit as the new Supreme Patriarch, the cog-wheels of the military junta are turning in unison with those of the fascist monk “Putta-Isara”. The military have now launched a full scale attack on the Dammakeye Buddhist sect. [1423051905-11905-o] Umporn was appointed by Generalissimo Prayut, although according to procedure, he was officially appointed by King Wachiralongkorn. We all know how much Wachiralongkorn knows about or follows Buddhist teachings! [njpus24ncqkx5e1d7edjovv1x8n06whgrv1ypxalbk9][560621-9] Previously the guy in line for the top monk job was Chuang Sudprasert, the abbot of Wat Pak Nam and acting Supreme Patriarch, but he was accused by the Department of Special Investigation of forging documents over the importation of old classic cars in order to avoid tax. Previously Chuang had praised Prayut’s military junta in July 2014, hoping to become Supreme Patriarch. Chuang was believed to be close to the monks from the Dammakeye (Dhammakaya) sect. [660601-topic-ix-0] Dammakeye is a huge sect with a massive flying saucer shaped temple just north of Bangkok. It is steeped in scandal and accusations of accumulating untold riches. Urban middle class followers believe that the more you donate, the more merit you acquire. They also believe that people are poor because they sinned in their past life. Rich and powerful people have supported this sect for in the past. [03ecbf] Chaiboon Sittipon or “Tammachayo”, abbot of Dammakeye, is currently trying to avoid arrest on corruption charges. Prayut used his dictatorial “Article 44” to order the police to invade the Dammakeye compound in a failed attempt to arrest him. Hundreds of Dammakeye monks and followers had a number of confrontations with the police. One man has tragically taken his own life in protest against this crack-down. Many are rightly questioning whether “Tammachayo”, or anyone else for that matter, can ever get a fair trial in the junta controlled courts. The military dictatorship has also used Article 44 to place a police general in the post of director of the national office of Buddhism. [%e0%b8%9b%e0%b8%b4%e0%b8%94%e0%b8%98%e0%b8%a3%e0%b8%a3%e0%b8%a1%e0%b8%81%e0%b8%b2%e0%b8%a29-e1487487337515] We must condemn the military junta for using its illegitimate power to try to crush Dammakeye. People should be free to believe or not to believe in any religion of their choosing. We must also condemn any Buddhist monks, including supporters of Dammakeye, who incite hatred towards Muslims. The extremist anti-Muslim Burmese monk "Wirathu" has come out in support of Dammakeye. Make no mistake, the side-lining of the abbot of Wat Pak Nam for the top monk job and the invasion of Dammakeye is totally about politics and little to do with corruption or Buddhist morals. After all, the junta has remained very quiet about the corruption of Generalissimo Prayut’s relatives and the fact that top generals and their allies are getting paid for their various jobs, even though they never turn up to do any work or attend meetings. The abbot of Wat Pak Nam was deemed unacceptable to the junta because Prayut’s favourite fascist monk, Putta-Isara, and the yellow shirts, did not want the Pak Nam and Dammakeye factions to be in a position of power. We should never forget that fascist monk Putta-Isara helped to wreck the February 2014 elections alongside Sutep’s mob. Putta-Isara’s followers used fire arms to intimidate those wishing to vote. Because he is Generalissimo Prayut’s favourite monk, he was recently allowed a free hand to demonstrate in the streets while others were prohibited. He has also accused Dammakeye of wanting to “overthrow the monarchy”, a standard charge against one’s opponents in Thailand. After Prayut’s strong-arm tactics against Dammakeye, Putta-Isara publically thanked him. [An anti-government protester shoots his rifle, hidden it inside a sack, toward pro-government protesters during clashes in Bangkok February 1, 2014. Dozens of gunshots and at least two explosions raised tension amid anti-government protests in Thailand's capital on Saturday, a day ahead of a general election seen as incapable of restoring stability in the deeply polarised country. REUTERS/Nir Elias (THAILAND - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)] All this fighting between Buddhist sects and the involvement of the military junta, merely strengthen the argument that religion should be totally separated from the state and that religious hierarchies and top positions like the Supreme Patriarch, should be abolished. uglytruththailand | February 26, 2017 at 6:47 am | Tags: Buddhist Monks, Dammakeye, Fascist Monks, Giles Ji Ungpkorn, Military junta, Putta-Isara, Supreme Patriarch, Thai politics | Categories: Thai politics | URL: http://wp.me/p4bxj7-rg Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/rumble-at-the-temple/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 16:34:04 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria? References: <563435974.1768792.1488126844617.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <563435974.1768792.1488126844617@mail.yahoo.com> February 24, 2017 Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria? by David Morgan London. The success of Donald J Trump in the US presidential elections is a reflection of a deep crisis in the two-party political system as well as divisions in the American ruling class. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats were able to muster a credible candidate from among mainstream politics who could command the loyalties of the party membership let along convince the great mass of the American public that they had what it takes to be president. The rise of the “Democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders neatly paralleled the rise of the populist “anti-politician” Donald Trump.But while Sanders arguably destroyed his entire credibility by endorsing Hillary Clinton so fulsomely Trump has continued to be an insurgent inside the White House to the dismay and anger of large swathes of the left and the media, many of whose star pundits have been exposed by WikiLeaks as being close allies of the Clinton campaign. CNN and others have infamously been taunted by Trump as “fake news” and “very fake news”.A media desperate to dig for dirt and prepared to invent no-holds barred stories designed simply to discredit Trump largely for his alleged Russian connections also provides much fuel for angry protests which have frequently turned violent. The irony is that this vehement opposition works in favour of Trump’s populist ideology as expressed in key campaign pledges about “draining the swamp” of vested interest groups and standing up for hard working Americans against the remote “liberal elite” in Washington. More important is how the billionaire Trump has been able to succeed in portraying himself as a “man of the people” because his rise is an indication of the left’s failure to put up a credible candidate or develop a programme to inspire the people, notwithstanding the example of the brief glory of Sanders.Particularly appalling has been the grotesque anti-Russian tirades in an attempt to brand Trump as a “traitor” ripe for impeachment. For the record, all Trump has ever stated is an intention to improve relations with Moscow expressing the view that the two powerful nations should “get along together”, and work, for example, to eliminate ISIS and secure a lasting peace in Syria. Possibly the real reasons that Trump might want to improve US relations with Russia have less to do with personal financial connections, as his critics allege, but part of a calculated response to Russia’s “Eurasian turn” in recent years and designed to detach Moscow from its strengthening strategic and economic alliance with China and Iran; based on an understanding that they would one day form a mighty bloc capable of challenging US supremacy on the world stage not least with regards to the role of the dollar as the main global currency for pegging exchange rates. Regrettably, such considerations are rarely considered by Trump’s overexcited critics who largely eschew political analysis.Most disgracefully of all, the left has willingly joined in the anti-Russian feeding frenzy. Michael Moore, showing no scruples about employing the language of Senator McCarthy, called Trump a “Russian traitor…squatting in our oval office” and demanded his immediate impeachment.Trump has been derided as a “traitor” simply for enunciating mildly détente sounding sympathies, while his opponents’ arguments have become ever more incoherent, irrational and downright dangerous. It is as if they’d be ready to risk war with Russia if it meant getting rid of Trump. It is unsurprising that the likes of Senator John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who share a worldview where Cold War is a permanent fixture, would seek to taint Trump with a “stooge of Putin” tag, but to witness celebrated leftists like Moore trying to outdo the neocons in venom is surely quite sickening. Trump has demonstrated a degree of tenacity in resisting the climate of fear that the left and liberals alike have concocted around alleged Russian links. The fabricated stories about Moscow manipulation and infiltration of this, that and the other are simply incredible. They are carrying on as if Russia was still the Soviet Union and a Communist country when in truth it poses no tangible threat to anyone; but why is it that much of the left can’t ever admit this?The stark truth is that the left has long ago lost its way politically and the near mass hysteria that has greeted Trump’s victory is just the latest symptom of a sick and enfeebled politics. Much of the left seems to have long given up on serious politics well before the Soviet collapse in 1991 which marked the final end of the 20th century’s most ambitious socialist experiment, “actually existing socialism” as it was called. Rather than expending our precious energies in futile and pointless protests, let’s ask the question why the left seems bereft of genuinely radical ideas these days and totally incapable of developing a credible programme when it is most urgently needed? The people deserve to be offered a choice of an alternative to neoliberal austerity and heartless globalisation. Why leave it to Trump to fill the vacuum?Sadly those left fractions, whose kneejerk political solution is to organise an obligatory protest action where slogans, such as “Dump Trump”, are chanted ad nauseum, have become an obstacle to the advance of socialism.  They are denying the necessary discussion needed to find socialist solutions to meet the many dilemmas and challenges that confront us today whether they are homelessness, low pay, urban decay, environmental pollution, the health crisis or the rising costs of education. The mass rallies held in the UK against Trump’s election and the proposed state visit seem simply self-indulgent.Once there was a time when the cadres of the Stop the War Coalition had just cause and urgency to plan protest rallies against illegal wars initiated by American presidents; millions of people heard their call and came onto the streets; now virtually the same cadres with ranks much depleted are reduced to screaming abuse at a president because they disapprove of his character rather than his policies. Trump’s challenge to the warmongering neo-cons over Russia has to be brushed under the carpet by the anti-war movement as it reinvents itself as bedfellows of Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and Tony Blair.The Freudian term “displacement” describes an unconscious defence mechanism whereby the human mind substitutes an aim or a subject for a reality that it is too afraid to confront because it is perceived as too dangerous or too destabilising to address openly.Displacement precisely explains the political reaction to Trump’s victory. Constant protest has become a great displacement exercise adopted by people to avoid contemplating the real reasons why the left has been eclipsed by a resurgent populist right seen in America with Trump, and now occurring across Europe in different hues and in places as far afield as India.This anti-Trump hysteria has become a kind of collective psychosis like tulip fever or cases like the 19th century railway mania or the South Sea Bubble as described in the classic 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds written by Charles Mackay, who cited several examples of public hysteria as evidence of how people will believe the oddest things and frequently behave entirely irrationally especially when acting in groups.David Morgan is a journalist, editor‎ and researcher based in London. His writing has appeared in  Live Encounters Magazine, London Progressive Journal, Morning Star and the Socialist History Society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Feb 26 17:46:27 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:46:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria? In-Reply-To: <563435974.1768792.1488126844617@mail.yahoo.com> References: <563435974.1768792.1488126844617.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <563435974.1768792.1488126844617@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: And here’s a dark but not implausible account of the result of US’ liberals mass hysteria: http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/mcmaster-takes-charge-trump-relinquishes-control-of-foreign-policy/ > On Feb 26, 2017, at 10:34 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > February 24, 2017 > Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria? > > by David Morgan > > London. > > The success of Donald J Trump in the US presidential elections is a reflection of a deep crisis in the two-party political system as well as divisions in the American ruling class. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats were able to muster a credible candidate from among mainstream politics who could command the loyalties of the party membership let along convince the great mass of the American public that they had what it takes to be president. The rise of the “Democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders neatly paralleled the rise of the populist “anti-politician” Donald Trump. > But while Sanders arguably destroyed his entire credibility by endorsing Hillary Clinton so fulsomely Trump has continued to be an insurgent inside the White House to the dismay and anger of large swathes of the left and the media, many of whose star pundits have been exposed by WikiLeaks as being close allies of the Clinton campaign. CNN and others have infamously been taunted by Trump as “fake news” and “very fake news”. > A media desperate to dig for dirt and prepared to invent no-holds barred stories designed simply to discredit Trump largely for his alleged Russian connections also provides much fuel for angry protests which have frequently turned violent. The irony is that this vehement opposition works in favour of Trump’s populist ideology as expressed in key campaign pledges about “draining the swamp” of vested interest groups and standing up for hard working Americans against the remote “liberal elite” in Washington. More important is how the billionaire Trump has been able to succeed in portraying himself as a “man of the people” because his rise is an indication of the left’s failure to put up a credible candidate or develop a programme to inspire the people, notwithstanding the example of the brief glory of Sanders. > Particularly appalling has been the grotesque anti-Russian tirades in an attempt to brand Trump as a “traitor” ripe for impeachment. For the record, all Trump has ever stated is an intention to improve relations with Moscow expressing the view that the two powerful nations should “get along together”, and work, for example, to eliminate ISIS and secure a lasting peace in Syria. Possibly the real reasons that Trump might want to improve US relations with Russia have less to do with personal financial connections, as his critics allege, but part of a calculated response to Russia’s “Eurasian turn” in recent years and designed to detach Moscow from its strengthening strategic and economic alliance with China and Iran; based on an understanding that they would one day form a mighty bloc capable of challenging US supremacy on the world stage not least with regards to the role of the dollar as the main global currency for pegging exchange rates. Regrettably, such considerations are rarely considered by Trump’s overexcited critics who largely eschew political analysis. > Most disgracefully of all, the left has willingly joined in the anti-Russian feeding frenzy. Michael Moore, showing no scruples about employing the language of Senator McCarthy, called Trump a “Russian traitor…squatting in our oval office” and demanded his immediate impeachment. > Trump has been derided as a “traitor” simply for enunciating mildly détente sounding sympathies, while his opponents’ arguments have become ever more incoherent, irrational and downright dangerous. It is as if they’d be ready to risk war with Russia if it meant getting rid of Trump. It is unsurprising that the likes of Senator John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who share a worldview where Cold War is a permanent fixture, would seek to taint Trump with a “stooge of Putin” tag, but to witness celebrated leftists like Moore trying to outdo the neocons in venom is surely quite sickening. Trump has demonstrated a degree of tenacity in resisting the climate of fear that the left and liberals alike have concocted around alleged Russian links. The fabricated stories about Moscow manipulation and infiltration of this, that and the other are simply incredible. They are carrying on as if Russia was still the Soviet Union and a Communist country when in truth it poses no tangible threat to anyone; but why is it that much of the left can’t ever admit this? > The stark truth is that the left has long ago lost its way politically and the near mass hysteria that has greeted Trump’s victory is just the latest symptom of a sick and enfeebled politics. Much of the left seems to have long given up on serious politics well before the Soviet collapse in 1991 which marked the final end of the 20th century’s most ambitious socialist experiment, “actually existing socialism” as it was called. Rather than expending our precious energies in futile and pointless protests, let’s ask the question why the left seems bereft of genuinely radical ideas these days and totally incapable of developing a credible programme when it is most urgently needed? The people deserve to be offered a choice of an alternative to neoliberal austerity and heartless globalisation. Why leave it to Trump to fill the vacuum? > Sadly those left fractions, whose kneejerk political solution is to organise an obligatory protest action where slogans, such as “Dump Trump”, are chanted ad nauseum, have become an obstacle to the advance of socialism. They are denying the necessary discussion needed to find socialist solutions to meet the many dilemmas and challenges that confront us today whether they are homelessness, low pay, urban decay, environmental pollution, the health crisis or the rising costs of education. The mass rallies held in the UK against Trump’s election and the proposed state visit seem simply self-indulgent. > Once there was a time when the cadres of the Stop the War Coalition had just cause and urgency to plan protest rallies against illegal wars initiated by American presidents; millions of people heard their call and came onto the streets; now virtually the same cadres with ranks much depleted are reduced to screaming abuse at a president because they disapprove of his character rather than his policies. Trump’s challenge to the warmongering neo-cons over Russia has to be brushed under the carpet by the anti-war movement as it reinvents itself as bedfellows of Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and Tony Blair. > The Freudian term “displacement” describes an unconscious defence mechanism whereby the human mind substitutes an aim or a subject for a reality that it is too afraid to confront because it is perceived as too dangerous or too destabilising to address openly. > Displacement precisely explains the political reaction to Trump’s victory. Constant protest has become a great displacement exercise adopted by people to avoid contemplating the real reasons why the left has been eclipsed by a resurgent populist right seen in America with Trump, and now occurring across Europe in different hues and in places as far afield as India. > This anti-Trump hysteria has become a kind of collective psychosis like tulip fever or cases like the 19th century railway mania or the South Sea Bubble as described in the classic 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds written by Charles Mackay, who cited several examples of public hysteria as evidence of how people will believe the oddest things and frequently behave entirely irrationally especially when acting in groups. > David Morgan is a journalist, editor‎ and researcher based in London. His writing has appeared in Live Encounters Magazine, London Progressive Journal, Morning Star and the Socialist History Society. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cge at shout.net Sun Feb 26 18:12:15 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:12:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Requiem for the American Century' Message-ID: <20170226181215.0A6BE26928@web-2.prod.news-gazette.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Feb 26 21:17:57 2017 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 15:17:57 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Champaign County Dems: On March 22, endorse referenda campaign to save our county nursing home References: Message-ID: <67FEB341-FD4F-48C0-80B5-AF0D1CDD0121@newsfromneptune.com> Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert Naiman > Date: February 26, 2017 at 2:35:04 PM CST > To: Robert Naiman > Subject: Champaign County Dems: On March 22, endorse referenda campaign to save our county nursing home > Reply-To: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > > Brothers and sisters, > > On April 4, Champaign County voters will vote in referenda to decide whether to save our Champaign County Nursing Home. On March 22, Champaign County Democrats will vote on whether to endorse the referenda campaign to save our nursing home. > > > > When the Vermillion County nursing home was privatized, the new management dramatically cut the staff, contradicting promises they had made to county officials. [1] Three years later, the nursing home was being cited by the state for life-threatening abuses. [2] Over the years, the Champaign County nursing home has tended to thousands of residents. [3] But now, the Champaign County Chamber of Commerce wants to privatize our nursing home. [4]. We know where this would lead: more cuts in services for people who need them. > > > > Urge Members of the Champaign County Democratic Central Committee to vote on March 22 to endorse the referenda campaign to save our nursing home by signing our petition at MoveOn: > > > > http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/champaigncodems-vote?r_by=1135580 > > > > Thanks for all you do for justice, > > > > Robert Naiman > > Champaign County Democratic Central Committee, Cunningham 18 > > > > References: > > 1. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-08-01/complete-shock-vermilion-manor-sale-costs-39-jobs.html > > 2. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-01-10/danville-nursing-home-cited-state-twice-last-three-months.html > 3. http://foxillinois.com/news/local/late-nursing-home-residents-son-looks-to-raise-funds-for-home > > 4. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-02-24/champaign-chamber-favors-selling-county-nursing-home.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 22:20:48 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:20:48 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Champaign County Dems: On March 22, endorse referenda campaign to save our county nursing home Message-ID: <9sfa0dsp5x59vn6jp3otu5fa.1488147109607@email.android.com> To save the nursing home:* YES to tax increase.* NO to letting the county put the nursing home up for sale. If the state of illinois were paying the medicare bills, the nursing home would not be in so much trouble right now.  The federal government gives the medicare money to the state. The state has to pay it out. Illinois has NOT been paying it out.  The nursing home takes more medicare and Medicaid people than privatized nursing homes -karen medina -------- Original message --------From: "C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" Date: 2/26/17 15:17 (GMT-06:00) To: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Champaign County Dems: On March 22, endorse referenda campaign to save our county nursing home Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Robert Naiman Date: February 26, 2017 at 2:35:04 PM CST To: Robert Naiman Subject: Champaign County Dems: On March 22, endorse referenda campaign to save our county nursing home Reply-To: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Brothers and sisters,  On April 4, Champaign County voters will vote in referenda to decide whether to save our Champaign County Nursing Home. On March 22, Champaign County Democrats will vote on whether to endorse the referenda campaign to save our nursing home.   When the Vermillion County nursing home was privatized, the new management dramatically cut the staff, contradicting promises they had made to county officials. [1] Three years later, the nursing home was being cited by the state for life-threatening abuses. [2] Over the years, the Champaign County nursing home has tended to thousands of residents. [3] But now, the Champaign County Chamber of Commerce wants to privatize our nursing home. [4]. We know where this would lead: more cuts in services for people who need them.   Urge Members of the Champaign County Democratic Central Committee to vote on March 22 to endorse the referenda campaign to save our nursing home by signing our petition at MoveOn: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/champaigncodems-vote?r_by=1135580   Thanks for all you do for justice, Robert NaimanChampaign County Democratic Central Committee, Cunningham 18 References: 1. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-08-01/complete-shock-vermilion-manor-sale-costs-39-jobs.html 2. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-01-10/danville-nursing-home-cited-state-twice-last-three-months.html 3. http://foxillinois.com/news/local/late-nursing-home-residents-son-looks-to-raise-funds-for-home 4. http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-02-24/champaign-chamber-favors-selling-county-nursing-home.html     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 04:16:40 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 04:16:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Marilyn Young (1937-2017) References: <1761107062.2102293.1488169000644.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1761107062.2102293.1488169000644@mail.yahoo.com> Our continuous task must be to make war visible, vivid, an inescapable part of the country’s self-consciousness, as inescapable a subject of study as it is a reality.” Marilyn Young, 2011 Historian and activist Marilyn B. Young died at her home in New York on February 19. A longtime professor at New York University, she was a towering figure in the history of US foreign relations, a celebrated critical historian of the Vietnam War and US intervention overseas. But her prominence as a scholar was matched by the strength of her political convictions, and by her unwavering use of her public platform to fight misogyny, US empire, and unending war.Young’s political consciousness was sparked as a teenager in Brooklyn. She was sixteen when the funeral for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was held in her neighborhood, at the IJ Morris funeral home on Church Avenue in Brownsville. Though the chapel — the biggest in the city — held only 500 people, some 10,000 gathered there, filling the streets around the neighborhood landmark, and around Young’s apartment building.Many of the activists who had defended the Rosenbergs were there; a ticket to the service is among WEB Du Bois’s personal papers. As the crowd swelled throughout the day, Young ventured out on to her fire escape to watch and listen, she recounted to her friend Barbara Weinstein — until her father yelled, “Get back inside! The FBI is taking pictures!” Young recalled this moment as a political awakening.She left Brooklyn for Vassar College, among the last generation who would attend Vassar as an exclusively women’s college. She worked as a managing editor for the college newspaper, where editorials under her direction denounced the red-baiting rhetoric of the Eisenhower administration and heralded the formation of new campus groups dedicated to civil rights. Already in 1954, still her freshman year, she had an eye to the world beyond the United States, as she reported on “an increase in the number of women participating in the job of running this far-flung empire of ours.”Young’s commitment to fighting against war was evident even in these early days, as she emphasized the message of a speaker invited to campus, printing in bold, “We must work for peace. The best brains in the country do nothing but prepare for war.” When she was invited with a group of college newspaper editors to a press conference with then Vice-President Nixon in 1956, she found herself overwhelmed at his ability to evade any real questioning. “Barring the use of objectionable language,” she wrote, “I find myself unable to articulate my disgust, my horror and my fear after seeing Nixon in action. He is shifty and he is dangerous.”After she graduated from Vassar, she was granted a full scholarship to study at Harvard, in her own telling, “provided she learned Chinese and wrote a thesis in the field of US-East Asian relations.” Under the supervision of Ernest May and John King Fairbank, she produced a dissertation on the making of US policy toward the so-called “China market” in the late nineteenth century.The book that resulted, The Rhetoric of Empire, published in 1968, expanded a school of thought inaugurated by William Appleman Williams that considered the material causes of US expansionism. But it also took ideology seriously to demonstrate the flaws in traditional realist thinking.In the book’s acknowledgments, she thanked three close friends for their input: Dorothy Borg, a historian of US–China relations whose work with the Institute of Pacific Relations was targeted by McCarthy; Sara Ruddick, the feminist philosopher, whom she had befriended at Vassar, and whose work redefined the concept of mothering; and Howard Zinn, who brought the idea of “peoples’ history” to a mass audience. This was the scholarly community that Young always cultivated: those who would use their scholarship in the fight for social justice.As the US war in Vietnam escalated, Young’s politics were sharpened, and she combined her interest in the international with a focus on the domestic — in the household sense.She later wrote for a Vassar feminist newspaper that for so many women, “education meant the possibility of being the world’s most interesting wives and mothers.” But in the context of the growing mobilizations against the war, she wrote, “For the first time, I began to see that conflicts about class and gender on a personal level had a larger systemic expression. The name of the system was not simply capitalism, it was patriarchy as well.”Her feminism was unrelenting and a vital part of her politics. She reclaimed the mantle of the feminist killjoy in 1979, before such a move was cool, chiding those in the movement who persisted in making sexist jokes: “You must remember that while you are just having what you consider to be a little idle and harmless fun, we are fighting for self determination and self-identity. After the feminist revolution we’ll all sit around and have a good laugh, but until then, you’ll just have to either accept our anger or our terms.”This feminism suffused her scholarly work as she examined revolutionary moments around the world, especially in the volume Promissory Notes: Women and the Transition to Socialism, co-edited with Rayna Rapp and Sonia Kruks. The book looked critically at women’s positions in socialist and revolutionary societies in the second and third worlds, working to push these “unfinished” revolutions toward real equality.During the Nixon presidency, Young turned her focus from China specifically to the broader contours of US empire, editing American Expansionism, a 1973 volume of revisionist and New Left historical analyses. Although the term expansionism was backward-looking, the collection announced the emergent critical consensus of a new generation of historians who no longer took their task to be unhesitating support for US foreign policy.Over more than a century, the essays showed, US foreign policy had been directed toward the steady accretion of greater territory and a widening sphere of influence. To heal national wounds after the Civil War, imperial conquest beckoned. Further, the authors grappled with the contending and concomitant processes of “formal” and “informal” empire that characterized the moment.It was later, with a bit more historical distance, that Young helped usher in a new approach to understanding the US war in Vietnam with a single letter, in the title of the 1990 book for which she is arguably most famous, The Vietnam Wars.As a deeply perceptive critic of the murderous folly of US efforts in Southeast Asia, she urged recognition that the United States was not the only, or even the primary, actor. Plural, the wars were not all about US objectives and their opposition, nor was the suffering felt only by the United States. This elegant shift in perspective has become commonplace, and scholars today can no longer ignore the complexity it admitted.Young constantly reminded us, however, that willful misunderstanding of history is a political issue, not simply a scholarly one. She recalled how, as far back as the beginning of the Lyndon Johnson administration, while an assistant professor, she could grasp what it took Robert S. McNamara, at the top of the command chain, decades to admit: Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist. The White House had access to abundant information informing them that US troops were entering a plural political situation, irreducible to the Manichaeism of Cold War hostilities.But, she wrote in her withering way, “it made no difference.” The administration sidelined reputable social-scientific research that showed the “insurgency” in South Vietnam to be more than simply a Communist conspiracy. The problem was that such a finding did not correspond to US strategy (nor did it answer General William Westmoreland’s pressing question about the so-called “Viet Cong,” “do they believe in God?”).In recent years, Francis M. Bator, a high-ranking Johnson administration official, considered his own experiences in light of a few decades of historiography about Vietnam. His essay concluded that expansion of the war effort was the president’s way to appeal to legislators reluctant to support his domestic agenda. In response, Young lamented, “To argue, as Bator seems to, that the only way forward domestically was to yield to mindless militarism and chauvinism is a radical indictment of the American system.”An attraction to militarism runs deep in the United States, but Young never gave up believing that it could be overcome. Political organizing and political persuasion through careful presentation of uncomfortable truths was crucial.To share such truths with wide audiences was therefore important to her, and doing so demonstrated her fearlessness. After Henry A. Kissinger lied during a high-profile conference on the wars in Southeast Asia, claiming in front of hundreds that the aerial bombing he coordinated in Cambodia was confined to a small five-mile strip, Young used her platform to correct him. To the gathered luminaries she read out the exact tonnage of bombs dropped, 230,516, and the number of bombing sites, 113,716. The numbers spoke for themselves.She was also a vocal opponent of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, and helped form the group Historians Against the War, in 2003. Together with Lloyd Gardner, she edited The New American Empire in 2005, which was subtitled “A Twenty-First Century Teach-in on US Foreign Policy.” The book brought together historians and analysts of Bush’s unilateralism to unmask the interests served by US intervention — and put historical scholarship, once again, in the service of activism.This was followed quickly by another volume, Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam; Or, How Not to Learn from the Past, which skewered the bad historical analogies and unlearned lessons then shaping the debate about the ongoing war: “History is too important,” they wrote, “to be left to the manipulations of Washington think-tank theorists and their sponsors.”Young’s convictions remained steadfast, even as her historian’s eye led her to rethink terms. In recent years, she recognized that debates around imperialism, which had been reignited by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, risked exhaustion. She turned toward even simpler terminology: war.Since her childhood, she wrote, the United States had been at war. The invention of the “limited war,” which did not demand the mobilization of all sectors of American society and economy, nor require express and considered permission of the legislative branch, had allowed war to become unlimited.The consequences for both the United States and the world were grave. Surveying the Cold War, she reminded us in 2012 that “the wars were not really limited and were never cold and in many places have not ended — in Latin America, in Africa, in East, South, and Southeast Asia.” As President Obama turned toward an even more chaste form of unlimited war by drone strike, Young would suggest that perhaps the best term to describe her approach to foreign policy was simply “anti-interventionist.”In 2011, she became the president of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, publishers of the venerable, if staid, journal Diplomatic History. Only the third woman to hold the position, she was instrumental in making a historically male-dominated organization much more welcoming not only to women, but to a range of historical perspectives that had long been excluded from the field of foreign relations history — a field that, as she wrote in 2002, so often “takes America at its own word.”The countless students she mentored, formally and informally, found her wise, generous, and always forthright. She pulled no punches, and she was as direct in a graduate seminar as she was on a public stage. As a writer and a teacher, she pushed generations of scholars to forefront the political implications of their work, imploring her fellow historians “to speak and write so that a time of war not be mistaken for peacetime, nor waging war for making peace.”To those of us lucky enough to study with her, she was more than a mentor: she was a model, of a scholarly life lived in the pursuit of peace and justice, at home and abroad. As we take up her mantle, Young’s legacy will live on.Marilyn Young (1937–2017) | | | | | | | | | | | Marilyn Young (1937–2017) Militarism runs deep in the United States, but historian Marilyn Young never gave up believing that it could be ... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 15:13:28 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Becasue I slept too well References: <1794368947.2460211.1488208408563.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1794368947.2460211.1488208408563@mail.yahoo.com> Because I went to bed early and slept well, I was up at 6:30, too early for a retired person who doesn't have to be at his volunteer "job" until 9:30. So I turned on Amy Goodman at 7 and watched the whole damn thing. It's quite a spectacle to see this program become a caricature of identity politics. It's quite something to witness criticism of Trump for not attending the "correspondents" dinner (even Reagan phoned in during his assassination recovery period). If only we had a counterfactual history, in which we could see what the "progressive" response to Clinton would have been. Or what Clinton would say at the "correspondents" dinner. Yes, discrimination is a serious issue; but no, opposition to discrimination doesn't address fundamental issues. But it does facilitate an air of condescension that surpasses what I thought even liberals and progressives are capable of. 60 minutes of that is a cruel and unusual way to start my day. Tonight I'm staying up really late. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 02:28:55 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 02:28:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet References: <010301d2912c$9ec70f80$dc552e80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5B714D05-39D3-462B-9EFB-8A7C8200A44B@illinois.edu> Informative history. Read the comments as well. Begin forwarded message: From: Alice Slater > Subject: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet Date: February 27, 2017 at 1:06:36 PM CST To: >, 'Ufpj-activist' >, 'code pink' >, 'Medea Benjamin' >, ann Wright >, > Here is the link to the article: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ________________________________ [AVG logo] This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 03:15:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 03:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen Message-ID: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: "The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security." So why don't we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to "prevent" the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 03:15:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 03:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen Message-ID: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: "The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security." So why don't we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to "prevent" the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 04:33:37 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 20:33:37 -0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet In-Reply-To: <5B714D05-39D3-462B-9EFB-8A7C8200A44B@illinois.edu> References: <010301d2912c$9ec70f80$dc552e80$@gmail.com> <5B714D05-39D3-462B-9EFB-8A7C8200A44B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Like your "so-called" objective journalist source - a Russian Ukranian - really objective - right - bet she and/or this website that claims to be news helped try to cover up the Russian shootdown of the Malaysian airliner over the Ukraine - and what about the possible connection to Trump campaign to Russian intelligence before the election - On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Informative history. Read the comments as well. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Alice Slater > *Subject: **[ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet* > *Date: *February 27, 2017 at 1:06:36 PM CST > *To: *, 'Ufpj-activist' < > ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org>, 'code pink' < > codepinknewyork at yahoogroups.com>, 'Medea Benjamin' < > medea.benjamin at gmail.com>, ann Wright , < > ufpj-disarm at yahoogroups.com> > > Here is the link to the article: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/ > a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: AVG logo] > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. > www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > ufpj-activist mailing list > > Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org > List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist > > To Unsubscribe > Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org > Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj- > activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com > > You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 04:37:33 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 04:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet In-Reply-To: <5B714D05-39D3-462B-9EFB-8A7C8200A44B@illinois.edu> References: <010301d2912c$9ec70f80$dc552e80$@gmail.com> <5B714D05-39D3-462B-9EFB-8A7C8200A44B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1490366325.3177684.1488256653444@mail.yahoo.com> Freeland is a strange character. I first heard of her when Bill Moyers interviewed her: Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privileges | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com | | | | | | | | | | | Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privil... Journalists Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland discuss how far America’s super-rich will go to keep the One Perce... | | | | On Monday, February 27, 2017 8:29 PM, "Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss" wrote: Informative history. Read the comments as well. Begin forwarded message: From:Alice Slater Subject:[ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet Date:February 27, 2017 at 1:06:36 PM CST To:, 'Ufpj-activist' , 'code pink' , 'Medea Benjamin' , ann Wright , Here is the link to the article: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ | | This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.  www.avg.com | _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe        Send email to:  ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org        Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 13:08:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:08:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman ; Karen Aram ; David Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 13:08:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:08:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman ; Karen Aram ; David Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 13:43:07 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:43:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 13:43:07 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:43:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 14:05:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:05:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that you can use if you wish. But I got to go Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s off to work I go! Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit At the Illinois Nazis Law School Fab. Ed Norton Professor of Law Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: vanessa beeley ; Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman ; David Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir Subject: Re: Yemen Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 14:05:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:05:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that you can use if you wish. But I got to go Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s off to work I go! Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit At the Illinois Nazis Law School Fab. Ed Norton Professor of Law Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: vanessa beeley ; Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman ; David Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir Subject: Re: Yemen Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vanessab7717 at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 09:22:21 2017 From: vanessab7717 at gmail.com (vanessa beeley) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:22:21 +0100 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > *Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security > Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the > US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. > But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security > Council meeting under UN Charter article 99:* > > “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council > any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of > international peace and security.” > > > > So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General > to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular > the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation > under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide > against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vanessab7717 at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 09:22:21 2017 From: vanessab7717 at gmail.com (vanessa beeley) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:22:21 +0100 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > *Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security > Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the > US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. > But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security > Council meeting under UN Charter article 99:* > > “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council > any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of > international peace and security.” > > > > So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General > to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular > the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation > under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide > against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 15:19:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:19:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will leave it to those who have experience drafting appeals of this nature. On Feb 28, 2017, at 06:05, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that you can use if you wish. But I got to go Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s off to work I go! Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit At the Illinois Nazis Law School Fab. Ed Norton Professor of Law Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: vanessa beeley >; Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 15:19:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:19:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will leave it to those who have experience drafting appeals of this nature. On Feb 28, 2017, at 06:05, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that you can use if you wish. But I got to go Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s off to work I go! Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit At the Illinois Nazis Law School Fab. Ed Norton Professor of Law Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: vanessa beeley >; Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vanessab7717 at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 15:39:09 2017 From: vanessab7717 at gmail.com (vanessa beeley) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:39:09 +0100 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Will try to get something put together later today UK time :-) On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > I will leave it to those who have experience drafting appeals of this > nature. > > > On Feb 28, 2017, at 06:05, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > *Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a > Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today > until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then > we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that > you can use if you wish.* > *But I got to go* > *Hi Ho!* > *Hi Ho!* > *It’s off to work I go!* > *Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit* > *At the Illinois Nazis Law School* > *Fab.* > *Ed Norton Professor of Law* > > *Fab.* > > *Francis A. Boyle* > *Law Building* > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > *(personal comments only*) > > *From:* Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* vanessa beeley ; Peace Discuss < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List > ; Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>; David Green ; C. G. > Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad > Alwazir > *Subject:* Re: Yemen > > Francis, > > Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t > > PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley > > > > > On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > *Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab.* > > *Francis A. Boyle* > *Law Building* > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > *(personal comments only*) > > *From:* vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; > Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>; Karen Aram ; David > Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla > Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir > *Subject:* Re: Yemen > > Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on > 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty > much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can > put forward a recommendation? > > Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org > > and Carla Ortiz to this email list. > > V x > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > *Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security > Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the > US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. > But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security > Council meeting under UN Charter article 99:* > “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council > any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of > international peace and security.” > > So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General > to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular > the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation > under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide > against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. > > *Francis A. Boyle* > *Law Building* > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > *(personal comments only*) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vanessab7717 at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 15:39:09 2017 From: vanessab7717 at gmail.com (vanessa beeley) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:39:09 +0100 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Will try to get something put together later today UK time :-) On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > I will leave it to those who have experience drafting appeals of this > nature. > > > On Feb 28, 2017, at 06:05, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > *Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a > Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today > until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then > we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that > you can use if you wish.* > *But I got to go* > *Hi Ho!* > *Hi Ho!* > *It’s off to work I go!* > *Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit* > *At the Illinois Nazis Law School* > *Fab.* > *Ed Norton Professor of Law* > > *Fab.* > > *Francis A. Boyle* > *Law Building* > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > *(personal comments only*) > > *From:* Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* vanessa beeley ; Peace Discuss < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List > ; Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>; David Green ; C. G. > Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad > Alwazir > *Subject:* Re: Yemen > > Francis, > > Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t > > PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley > > > > > On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > *Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab.* > > *Francis A. Boyle* > *Law Building* > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > *(personal comments only*) > > *From:* vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Cc:* Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; > Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>; Karen Aram ; David > Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla > Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir > *Subject:* Re: Yemen > > Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on > 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty > much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can > put forward a recommendation? > > Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org > > and Carla Ortiz to this email list. > > V x > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > *Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security > Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the > US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. > But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security > Council meeting under UN Charter article 99:* > “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council > any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of > international peace and security.” > > So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General > to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular > the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation > under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide > against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. > > *Francis A. Boyle* > *Law Building* > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > *(personal comments only*) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 15:51:45 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok. Great. Will see if I am up to reviewing it here after day long teaching by 6pm Chicago time. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:39 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman ; David Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir Subject: Re: Yemen Will try to get something put together later today UK time :-) On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: I will leave it to those who have experience drafting appeals of this nature. On Feb 28, 2017, at 06:05, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that you can use if you wish. But I got to go Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s off to work I go! Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit At the Illinois Nazis Law School Fab. Ed Norton Professor of Law Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: vanessa beeley >; Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 15:51:45 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:51:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok. Great. Will see if I am up to reviewing it here after day long teaching by 6pm Chicago time. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:39 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace Discuss ; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List ; Robert Naiman ; David Green ; C. G. Estabrook ; Carla Ortiz ; Mohammad Alwazir Subject: Re: Yemen Will try to get something put together later today UK time :-) On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: I will leave it to those who have experience drafting appeals of this nature. On Feb 28, 2017, at 06:05, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok Karen. Maybe you and Vanessa and Bob and others can put together a Draft Appeal for circulation on the internet. I am teaching all day today until 6pm. But I could review it later tonight or tomorrow for sure. Then we put it out. And Vanessa you already have my comments on genocide that you can use if you wish. But I got to go Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s off to work I go! Shoveling Carl Schmitt’s Shit At the Illinois Nazis Law School Fab. Ed Norton Professor of Law Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:43 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: vanessa beeley >; Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Francis, Count me in, and let me know where we go from here, what to do, etc.t PS I’m a big fan of Vanessa Beeley On Feb 28, 2017, at 05:08, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Sure Vanessa. Go right ahead. And keep up the good work. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: vanessa beeley [mailto:vanessab7717 at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 3:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List >; Robert Naiman >; Karen Aram >; David Green >; C. G. Estabrook >; Carla Ortiz >; Mohammad Alwazir > Subject: Re: Yemen Great idea! I am in. I am attending [I hope] an IHRC meeting in Lebanon on 24/25 March, where I will be speaking up for the Houthis as it is pretty much organised by Hadi's illegitimate government. Would be great if I can put forward a recommendation? Also adding Mohammad Al Wazir of www.arwarights.org and Carla Ortiz to this email list. V x On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Ok. MoveOn (ie., Soros) have their Campaign to pressure UN Security Council Members to convene a meeting of the Security Council over the US/UK/Saudi et al. genocide against Yemen and in particular the Houthis. But the United Nations Secretary General can also convene a UN Security Council meeting under UN Charter article 99: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” So why don’t we start a campaign to pressure the new UN Secretary General to deal with the US/UK/Saudi genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis under UN Charter article 99 and by reference to the obligation under Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to “prevent” the genocide against the Yemenis and in particular the Houthis. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Feb 28 18:09:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:09:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Resisters to Militarism on Trial Today -- Interviews Available Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:09 PM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: Resisters to Militarism on Trial Today -- Interviews Available Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:ipa at accuracy.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:56 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Resisters to Militarism on Trial Today -- Interviews Available [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=16387df5f2dd69a613390fe2ab676539b7e5db24&distributionId=521892&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Resisters to Militarism on Trial Today The New York Times reports: "Trump to Seek $54 Billion Increase in Military Spending." On March 19, 2015, on the 12th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, seven members of the Upstate Drone Action Coalition were arrested at Hancock Air Base outside Syracuse, New York. The group states that the protesters "were nonviolently protesting Hancock’s lethal and illegal use of MQ9 Reaper drones over Afghanistan and elsewhere. "The seven deployed huge (7x4 feet) replicas of four books across the main entrance of Hancock, the home of the 174th Attack Wing of the New York National Guard -- a major hunter/killer Reaper drone hub. The books were: the UN Charter; Jeremy Scahill’s Dirty Wars; NYU and Stanford Law School’s "Living Under Drones;" and Reprieve’s human rights report “You Never Die Twice." "Five of the seven [protesters] are charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration (a misdemeanor requiring a jury and carrying a maximum one-year sentence), trespass, and two counts of disorderly conduct. ... Originally scheduled for trial in late November 2016, the trial was postponed until February 28 so a new jury pool could be called in order to assure [James Ricks, who is an African American Muslim] a 'jury of his peers'." JAMES RICKS, cell: (607) 280-7794, chavoc32 at gmail.com One of the defendants, Ricks said today: "I first started doing social activism work when my child witnessed someone getting shot by a police officer. I became active with the Shawn Greenwood Truth and Reconciliation group, named for the person who was shot. It was there that someone from the Catholic Worker told me about an anti drone killing meeting. "I learned that our government is assassinating people in other countries and this violates the UN Charter -- which, as a treaty, the Constitution says is the supreme law of the land. But the judges and police are ignoring that. We're working to uphold such laws. Our country isn't supposed to use violence or even the threat of violence without proper authorization, which it didn't get when it invaded Iraq. "Yesterday I saw George W. Bush on TV talking about how power is seductive and corrosive. Well, he illegally invaded Iraq and was never held to meaningful account. "Everyone in our group takes an oath of nonviolence when we try to expose what they are doing at this military base. "I also do this because I went to Pakistan to learn more about drone killing. People were so friendly -- they so want to build a better relationship with people in the U.S. ... "And now it's troubling that Trump is calling for more military spending. He's appealing to people's anger over many of the wrong things. "Targeted assassinations with these drone wars are war crimes. Too many people have become distracted or overwhelmed and just ignore this -- or actually celebrate war crimes as some kind of patriotic victory. It's not and we need to work to stop it." ELLEN GRADY, (607) 279-8303, demottgrady6 at gmail.com Grady is part of the Ithaca New York Catholic Worker movement, which has been a key part of organizing against the U.S. government killer drone assassinations program outside Hancock Air Force Base in upstate New York. ED KINANE, (315) 478-4571, edkinane at verizon.net Kinane is author of several pieces on drone assassinations for Truthout, including "Exposing The Killer Drones Of Hancock Airbases's 174th Attack Wing," "Drone Surveillance Is No Longer Just 'Over There'" and "Weaponized Drones And The Phony 'War On Terror'." [https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif] DANIEL BURNS and Fr. BILL PICKARD, cell: (570) 498-3789, FrPickard at stjosephscenter.org Burns stated: “Drone warfare kills many innocents, including children. As a father of three beautiful children, I’m morally obligated to try and stop drone warfare. People of conscience must do everything in our power to stop such violations of human rights and international law.” For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 February 28, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org DECLARATION OF FRANCIS A. BOYLE Pursuant to 28 USC 1746, Francis A. Boyle declares under penalty of perjury: 1. I am a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Illinois. I hold a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and an A.M. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Government, where I specialized in International Political Science and its relationship to International Law. I graduated from the same Harvard Ph.D. Program that produced Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington et al. before me. My resume is attached to this Declaration and is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. I am an expert in International Law and Foreign Policy. I have studied, read, taught, and written extensively in these areas, and have been qualified as an expert witness in several courts across the country and abroad. I also currently teach a course on The Constitutional Law of U.S. Foreign Affairs. Previously, I taught the course here on Criminal Law for several years. 3. I have been qualified as an Expert and testified in U.S. military court-martial proceedings involving (1) U.S.M.C. Corporal Jeff Paterson (1990); (2) U.S. Army Captain Doctor Yolanda Huet-Vaugn (1991); (3) U.S. Army Captain Lawrence Rockwood (1995); (4) U.S. Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia (2003); and (5) U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada (2006). 4. In 1983 the United States Military Academy at West Point invited me to lecture and debate before their 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear Deterrence on the subject of Nuclear Deterrence and International Law. The audience consisted of about 200 high-level officials from the United States government in charge of U.S. nuclear weapons policies, both military and civilian. Sitting in the audience for my entire presentation was the 3-Star General in charge of War Operations at the Pentagon. 5. Starting in October of 2001, the United States war against Afghanistan has been and still is an illegal war of aggression that violates the United Nations Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). Therefore the U.S. war against Afghanistan constitutes a Nuremberg Crime against Peace against the State of Afghanistan, its Taliban Government, Taliban government officials, Taliban combatants, and the citizens of Afghanistan. The reasons for these conclusions are set forth in two scholarly essays I have published: George Bush, Jr., September 11 and the Rule of Law, in my book The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence 16-39 (Clarity Press: 2002); and No War Against Afghanistan!, in my book Tackling America’s Toughest Questions 24-38 (Clarity Press: 2009). I have attached copies of these essays to this Declaration and hereby incorporate them by reference. 6. In addition, I also wish to draw to the Court’s attention the memoirs by Richard A. Clark, Chairman of the Counter-terrorism Security Group at the White House under President George Bush Jr. on September 11, 2001, Against All Enemies (2004), at page 24: “When later in the discussion [on the evening of Sept. 11, with Bush and his crisis advisors], Secretary Rumsfeld noted that international law allowed the use of force only to prevent future attacks and not for retribution, Bush nearly bit his head off. ‘No,’ the President yelled in the narrow conference room, ‘I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.’” (Emphasis added.) 7. The Nuremberg Crime Against Peace has been expressly incorporated into Department of the Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956), which in relevant part provides as follows: Section II. CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise: a. Crimes against peace. b. Crimes against humanity. c. War crimes. …. 8. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) was drafted for the United States Army by then Major Richard R. Baxter. Professor Baxter later taught me his course on The Laws of War at Harvard Law School. I was the top student in his class and Professor Baxter recommended me for my current position as a law professor. Professor Baxter was later elected a Judge on the International Court of Justice, the so-called World Court of the United Nations System. While he was alive, Professor Baxter was generally considered to be the world’s leading expert on the Laws of War. 9. Therefore, I am uniquely qualified to testify concerning the relevance of the Laws of War to these proceedings. The Defendants have asked me to testify. I have agreed to testify. I hereby respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify at this trial. 10. Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force including and especially by means of drones supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. 11. These and other U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine by means of drones and otherwise constitute Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. 12. Wherefore I most respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify in these proceedings. 13. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I am prepared to testify under oath and answer questions on these and related matters. Most respectfully submitted by, FRANCIS ANTHONY BOYLE Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) Signed this 23rd day of January 2014, at Champaign, Illinois Attachments . Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. And apparently even if the supposed combatants are located within the United States of America. 11. These U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine have been officially authorized, approved, and justified by, among others: 1. President Barack Obama, Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and thus Commander-in-Chief of everyone involved in these proceedings except for civilians.. President Obama is a distinguished graduate of the Harvard Law School and used to teach law at the University of Chicago Law School. 2. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, including but not limited to a March 2012 speech he delivered at Northwestern Law School in Chicago, Illinois at the specific request of their Dean Daniel Rodriguez and for which he received standing ovations by the Northwestern Law Professors in attendance. 3. General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Defense, Mr. Jeh Johnson. 4. Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, Yale Law Dean and Law Professor Harold Koh, who has now returned to teach at Yale Law School. 5. Mr. John Brennan, Counter-terrorism Advisor to President Obama at the White House and now Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency as confirmed by the United States Senate. 6. Two Law Professors working for the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel: Harvard Law Professor David Barron, who has now returned to teach at Harvard Law School; and Georgetown Law Professor Martin Lederman, who has now returned to teach at Georgetown Law School. 7. Numerous Members of the Honorable United States House of Representatives and Numerous Members of the Honorable United States Senate, many of whom are distinguished Lawyers with substantial Legal Experience and Credentials. Disclaimer: This email was sent to francis.a.boyle at gma Institute for Public Accuracy, 980 National Press Building, Washington, DC, 20045, United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 130 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 18:49:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:49:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet In-Reply-To: <1490366325.3177684.1488256653444@mail.yahoo.com> References: <010301d2912c$9ec70f80$dc552e80$@gmail.com> <5B714D05-39D3-462B-9EFB-8A7C8200A44B@illinois.edu> <1490366325.3177684.1488256653444@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: She was a regular on CNN and Bill Maher programs, back in the day when I watched those programs, I don’t recall her ever challenging “power”. On Feb 27, 2017, at 20:37, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Freeland is a strange character. I first heard of her when Bill Moyers interviewed her: Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privileges | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privil... Journalists Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland discuss how far America’s super-rich will go to keep the One Perce... On Monday, February 27, 2017 8:29 PM, "Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss" > wrote: Informative history. Read the comments as well. Begin forwarded message: From: Alice Slater > Subject: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet Date: February 27, 2017 at 1:06:36 PM CST To: >, 'Ufpj-activist' >, 'code pink' >, 'Medea Benjamin' >, ann Wright >, > Here is the link to the article: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ________________________________ [AVG logo] This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 18:49:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:49:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet In-Reply-To: <1490366325.3177684.1488256653444@mail.yahoo.com> References: <010301d2912c$9ec70f80$dc552e80$@gmail.com> <5B714D05-39D3-462B-9EFB-8A7C8200A44B@illinois.edu> <1490366325.3177684.1488256653444@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: She was a regular on CNN and Bill Maher programs, back in the day when I watched those programs, I don’t recall her ever challenging “power”. On Feb 27, 2017, at 20:37, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Freeland is a strange character. I first heard of her when Bill Moyers interviewed her: Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privileges | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland on the One Percent's Power and Privil... Journalists Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland discuss how far America’s super-rich will go to keep the One Perce... On Monday, February 27, 2017 8:29 PM, "Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss" > wrote: Informative history. Read the comments as well. Begin forwarded message: From: Alice Slater > Subject: [ufpj-activist] A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet Date: February 27, 2017 at 1:06:36 PM CST To: >, 'Ufpj-activist' >, 'code pink' >, 'Medea Benjamin' >, ann Wright >, > Here is the link to the article: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ________________________________ [AVG logo] This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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: