From bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jul 1 00:34:07 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (Anne Parkinson) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:34:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: <8683FD46-5C6D-42B5-8B65-CCAF6BD2C0F1@illinois.edu> References: <8683FD46-5C6D-42B5-8B65-CCAF6BD2C0F1@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1978343906.925453.1530405247706@mail.yahoo.com> Have you all seen the digital map in this article of ICE detention facilities holding children? https://www.wired.com/story/ice-is-everywhere-using-library-science-to-map-child-separation/ On Saturday, June 30, 2018 11:17 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: https://ocasio2018.com/issues [...] A Peace Economy  Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. [...] Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: https://www.antiwar.com/blog/ 2018/06/28/as-election-day- approached-alexandria-ocasio- cortez-removed-antiwar- foreign-policy-section-from- her-we ______________________________ _________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jul 1 00:34:07 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (Anne Parkinson) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:34:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: <8683FD46-5C6D-42B5-8B65-CCAF6BD2C0F1@illinois.edu> References: <8683FD46-5C6D-42B5-8B65-CCAF6BD2C0F1@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1978343906.925453.1530405247706@mail.yahoo.com> Have you all seen the digital map in this article of ICE detention facilities holding children? https://www.wired.com/story/ice-is-everywhere-using-library-science-to-map-child-separation/ On Saturday, June 30, 2018 11:17 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: https://ocasio2018.com/issues [...] A Peace Economy  Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. [...] Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: https://www.antiwar.com/blog/ 2018/06/28/as-election-day- approached-alexandria-ocasio- cortez-removed-antiwar- foreign-policy-section-from- her-we ______________________________ _________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jul 1 02:04:26 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:04:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune Message-ID: That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans.  Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PMTo: Karen Aram;Cc: Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy wrote: It is there right now. The antiwar.com thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it.  So she did, and the statement is there. I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved.  He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too.  -- Stuart -------- Original message -------- From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Naiman , peace-discuss at anti-war.net Cc: peace , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: https://ocasio2018.com/issues [...] A Peace Economy  Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. [...] Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jul 1 02:04:26 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:04:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune Message-ID: That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans.  Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PMTo: Karen Aram;Cc: Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy wrote: It is there right now. The antiwar.com thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it.  So she did, and the statement is there. I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved.  He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too.  -- Stuart -------- Original message -------- From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Naiman , peace-discuss at anti-war.net Cc: peace , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: https://ocasio2018.com/issues [...] A Peace Economy  Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. [...] Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 1 02:13:38 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:13:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought Message-ID: To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. From ewj at pigs.ag Sun Jul 1 03:31:54 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:31:54 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sun Jul 1 03:31:54 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 11:31:54 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 1 03:34:00 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:34:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> References: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: Partisan taint my butt. Who is this turkey? 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: ewj [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 10:32 PM To: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss ; Boyle, Francis A ; Brussel, Morton K Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 1 03:38:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Depraved Sociopath Bill Kristol Very Excited About Recent Iran Developments References: <139971992.4853.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: New post on Caitlin Johnstone [https://i1.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cropped-caitlinpic1.jpg?resize=32%2C32&ssl=1] [http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/12152988a68a6d4dae7506812444c18f?s=50&d=monsterid&r=G] Depraved Sociopath Bill Kristol Very Excited About Recent Iran Developments by Caitlin Johnstone One year after the CIA escalated covert operations in Iran, the protests across Iran are reportedly beginning to get more violent. This is happening on the same day the Iranian terror cult MEK hosted Rudolph Giuliani and Newt Gingrich in a pro-regime change rally that was so sparsely attended that half the audience consisted of bused-in Europeans unaffiliated with the cause. "We are now realistically being able to see an end to the regime in Iran,” said Giuliani, who earlier this year infamously led a "Regime change! Regime change!" chant at a related MEK event. “The mullahs must go, the ayatollah must go, and they must be replaced by a democratic government which Madam Rajavi represents,” Giuliani said in reference to MEK cult leader Maryam Rajavi. “Freedom is right around the corner," added Giuliani, who is currently serving as President Trump's lawyer. "Next year I want to have this convention in Tehran!” MEK expert @joanne_stocker estimates that @AmbJohnBolton has been paid upwards of $180K by the group to speak at its events. Now he's in a position to advocate for it from inside the White House. @RichardEngel#OnAssignment pic.twitter.com/kxoi2FQ5dn — On Assignment with Richard Engel (@OARichardEngel) May 27, 2018 So things appear to be escalating. We saw very similar situations in the lead-up to both Libya and Syria, right up to and including the shady ties with the suspiciously well-funded extremist group. We can expect the CIA operations, propaganda and psyops to combine with the effects of starvation sanctions in a way which leads to widespread chaos, which we can expect to see erupt into violence of disputed origin, which we can then expect to see blamed solely on Tehran, which we can then expect to see elicit calls for humanitarian interventionism. Just like Libya and Syria. If the formula ain't broke, why fix it? And the bloodthirsty warmongers of Washington couldn't be more thrilled. "A democratic Iran not only would free Iranians from repressive theocracy but produce closer ties between our two countries; real security, economic , and moral benefits for both Iranians and Americans," contributed Michael McFaul, an ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration. "Very true," tweeted Iraq war architect and PNAC founder William Kristol. "And great to see a bipartisan consensus for regime change in Iran! (It would be happily ironic if, totally inadvertently, tough sanctions followed by the JCPOA followed by withdrawal from the deal caused so much whiplash that the regime crumbled.)" This is Bill. Bill is always wrong about everything. Bill has always supported regime change in Iran. Don't be like Bill. https://t.co/ABOm4Opd1l — Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) June 30, 2018 The word "bipartisan" is a popular buzzword in establishment politics, because since the two-headed uniparty has worked so hard creating the illusion of opposition among its leaders and very real hatred across America's fake political divide, the sight of these two groups getting together on something can be spun to give the impression that it must be a very commonsense and important pro-human agenda. Really, though, what it generally means in practice is neoconservative Republicans and neoconservative Democrats getting together to do something horrible. Bill Kristol used his influence in the Bush administration to advance the agenda that his Project for the New American Century think tank had laid out several years earlier for US military-enforced planetary domination. It began with the catastrophic and unforgivable invasion of Iraq, but according to US General Wesley Clark the plan once if got through to the Pentagon was to take out six more governments after that: Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran. Kristol lost some credibility as the actual horror of what the Iraq invasion had unleashed upon the world began to really sink in to social consciousness, but since 2016 he has rehabilitated his image by forming a close anti-Trump alliance with the birthplace of neoconservatism: the Democratic Party. Kristol is now one of #Resistance Twitter's most popular pundits and a regular guest analyst on liberal cable TV due to his staunch support for neoconservative policies that this administration claims to oppose, including escalations against Russia. Bill Kristol wants to rape Iran. Bill Kristol has always wanted to rape Iran. Bill Kristol has advocated disastrous regime change intervention after disastrous regime change intervention throughout his entire corrupt, blood-soaked career, and he has always been wrong. Every single time. If the regime change cheerleading of this virulent Never-Trump neoconservative failmeister doesn't tell Trump supporters that they're on the wrong side of this issue, I don't know what will. __________________ Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat onPatreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. [https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*-GntS1j0aPf3kBsb.png] Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 Caitlin Johnstone | July 1, 2018 at 2:36 am | Tags: bill kristol, Iran, neocon, protests | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1gh Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/07/01/depraved-sociopath-bill-kristol-very-excited-about-recent-iran-developments/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sun Jul 1 05:01:44 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 13:01:44 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <1530421302549.mzi4udtlpdortohz2qhmdqcv@android.mail.163.com> dr. e. wayne johnson, at your servicks, F. Partisan taint or just plain ol' democrat dementia. The Russians are coming. The RUSSIANS are coming! As if there was anything for them to get... On 2018-07-01 11:34 , Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Wrote: Partisan taint my butt. Who is this turkey? 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: ewj [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 10:32 PM To: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss ; Boyle, Francis A ; Brussel, Morton K Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. _______________________________________________ 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 grapes17 at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 05:29:10 2018 From: grapes17 at gmail.com (James M.) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:29:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Big thanks to all that helped put this together. Truly a great guest for this community. On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all > agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a > single note. > > Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis > Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link > once the film is uploaded to UTube. > > While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting > herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one > comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. > > I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to > “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, > in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. > > The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I > would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been > working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an > even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. > > Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, > Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. > > Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and > reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s > meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China > will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way > business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. > > Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a > sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and > diplomacy is conducted. > > The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, > one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. > > Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all > concerned. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 05:33:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:33:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> References: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <71C50C4A-841B-4028-B960-EB39DD81B6FA@gmail.com> By ‘partisan taint,’ do you mean acceptance of the ‘Russiagate' nonsense, Wayne? There is a lot of that going around, but AWARE has managed to remain relatively free of it, even if Codepink hasn’t. —CGE > On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:31 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. > > > > On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. > > Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. > > While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. > > I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. > > The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. > > Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. > > Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. > > Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. > > The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. > > Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 05:33:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:33:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> References: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <71C50C4A-841B-4028-B960-EB39DD81B6FA@gmail.com> By ‘partisan taint,’ do you mean acceptance of the ‘Russiagate' nonsense, Wayne? There is a lot of that going around, but AWARE has managed to remain relatively free of it, even if Codepink hasn’t. —CGE > On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:31 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. > > > > On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. > > Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. > > While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. > > I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. > > The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. > > Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. > > Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. > > Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. > > The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. > > Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 1 05:54:25 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" —CGE > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > To: Karen Aram; > Cc: Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >> >> >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy wrote: >> >>> >>> It is there right now. >>> >>> The antiwar.com thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >>> >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Stuart >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> To: Robert Naiman , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> Cc: peace , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sun Jul 1 05:54:25 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 00:54:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" —CGE > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > To: Karen Aram; > Cc: Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >> >> >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy wrote: >> >>> >>> It is there right now. >>> >>> The antiwar.com thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >>> >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Stuart >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> To: Robert Naiman , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> Cc: peace , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sun Jul 1 06:16:33 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:16:33 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: <71C50C4A-841B-4028-B960-EB39DD81B6FA@gmail.com> References: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com><71C50C4A-841B-4028-B960-EB39DD81B6FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1530425786879.prqll11oz10qgg5w4en5blmf@android.mail.163.com> agreed. On 2018-07-01 13:33 , C G Estabrook Wrote: By ‘partisan taint,’ do you mean acceptance of the ‘Russiagate' nonsense, Wayne? There is a lot of that going around, but AWARE has managed to remain relatively free of it, even if Codepink hasn’t. —CGE On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:31 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sun Jul 1 06:16:33 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 14:16:33 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: <71C50C4A-841B-4028-B960-EB39DD81B6FA@gmail.com> References: <1530415911098.goikhwavrfbnt5fojhkztcc5@android.mail.163.com><71C50C4A-841B-4028-B960-EB39DD81B6FA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1530425786879.prqll11oz10qgg5w4en5blmf@android.mail.163.com> agreed. On 2018-07-01 13:33 , C G Estabrook Wrote: By ‘partisan taint,’ do you mean acceptance of the ‘Russiagate' nonsense, Wayne? There is a lot of that going around, but AWARE has managed to remain relatively free of it, even if Codepink hasn’t. —CGE On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:31 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: it is unfortunate that CodePink, and even AWARE, bears a partisan taint but we can thankful for any good that is done. On 2018-07-01 10:13 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 1 07:16:40 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:16:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> Karen— I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive propaganda of the corporate media. Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including ‘Russiagate.’ As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist these Democrats - and their sympathizers. —CGE > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. > > Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. > > While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. > > I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. > > The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. > > Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. > > Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. > > Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. > > The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. > > Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 1 12:47:17 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:47:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> References: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Carl I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before. I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its the US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a “winner take all,” scenario.] When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies. Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully expect Russia to follow. Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation. > On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Karen— > > I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive propaganda of the corporate media. > > Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including ‘Russiagate.’ > > As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." > > That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. > > Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” > > Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist these Democrats - and their sympathizers. > > —CGE > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. >> >> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. >> >> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. >> >> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. >> >> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. >> >> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. >> >> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. >> >> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. >> >> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. >> >> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Jul 1 13:24:20 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 08:24:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <28A852C1-56D0-4214-B30C-7CFD7CD5513B@illinois.edu> No, I don’t think you’re being hesitant. By ‘hesitation’ I meant your "slight disagreement … in respect to Russia.” Your disagreement is quite appropriate. Since WWII, Russia and China been at the heart of US foreign policy (and perhaps earlier, a la Mackinder). The paramount concern of the US has been that no ‘peer competitor’ (in Brzezinski’s phrase) arise in Eurasia. In the 70 years since the end of WWII, the US has killed more than 20 million people in wars designed to maintain the global economic hegemony that the US obtained as the only undamaged major country in World War II. George Kennan pointed out in a "top secret” State Department memo in1948, “...we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction." Fifty years ago, after the 1967 war that destroyed secular Arab nationalism, the US adopted Israel as our 'stationary aircraft carrier' in the Mideast, in order to use control of energy flows out of the Persian Gulf as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. Forty years ago, the US gathered Muslim radicals, armed them, and sent them into Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) in order to destroy Russian influence in 'Pipelinistan.' (See .) These events were bracketed by the US coup against the government of Iran in 1953 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - international crimes the US leaders of which would have been hanged, were the Nuremberg rules applied. So today the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa. We remain, as ML King said long ago, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - for the profits of the US 1%. That’s worth disagreeing about. —CGE > On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Carl > > I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before. > > I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its the US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a “winner take all,” scenario.] > > When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies. > > Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully expect Russia to follow. > > Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation. > > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Karen— >> >> I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive propaganda of the corporate media. >> >> Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including ‘Russiagate.’ >> >> As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." >> >> That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. >> >> Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >> >> Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist these Democrats - and their sympathizers. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> >>> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. >>> >>> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. >>> >>> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. >>> >>> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. >>> >>> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. >>> >>> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. >>> >>> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. >>> >>> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. >>> >>> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. >>> >>> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 1 13:38:17 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:38:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: <28A852C1-56D0-4214-B30C-7CFD7CD5513B@illinois.edu> References: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> <28A852C1-56D0-4214-B30C-7CFD7CD5513B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yes, everything in relation to US FP, the nations we are destroying in the Magreb, Asia, and soon the Sahel, is about control of Russia, and China. And, they know it very well. In fact, our military knows war with Iran would be a disaster which is why they are focusing on internal regime change by way of sanctions, interventions, and propaganda. In the meantime with Africom in all but one nation of Africa, we can see much of the same across the Sahel that we’ve seen across the Magreb. That is not to say “war” with Iran is not a potential threat. Anything can happen, and bombing them to create chaos, and ensure they don’t go nuclear is likely a goal. A guess on my part. > On Jul 1, 2018, at 06:24, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > No, I don’t think you’re being hesitant. By ‘hesitation’ I meant your "slight disagreement … in respect to Russia.” Your disagreement is quite appropriate. > > Since WWII, Russia and China been at the heart of US foreign policy (and perhaps earlier, a la Mackinder). The paramount concern of the US has been that no ‘peer competitor’ (in Brzezinski’s phrase) arise in Eurasia. > > In the 70 years since the end of WWII, the US has killed more than 20 million people in wars designed to maintain the global economic hegemony that the US obtained as the only undamaged major country in World War II. George Kennan pointed out in a "top secret” State Department memo in1948, > > “...we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction." > > Fifty years ago, after the 1967 war that destroyed secular Arab nationalism, the US adopted Israel as our 'stationary aircraft carrier' in the Mideast, in order to use control of energy flows out of the Persian Gulf as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. > > Forty years ago, the US gathered Muslim radicals, armed them, and sent them into Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) in order to destroy Russian influence in 'Pipelinistan.' (See .) > > These events were bracketed by the US coup against the government of Iran in 1953 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - international crimes the US leaders of which would have been hanged, were the Nuremberg rules applied. > > So today the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa. We remain, as ML King said long ago, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - for the profits of the US 1%. > > That’s worth disagreeing about. —CGE > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before. >> >> I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its the US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a “winner take all,” scenario.] >> >> When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies. >> >> Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully expect Russia to follow. >> >> Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> Karen— >>> >>> I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive propaganda of the corporate media. >>> >>> Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including ‘Russiagate.’ >>> >>> As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." >>> >>> That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. >>> >>> Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>> >>> Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist these Democrats - and their sympathizers. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. >>>> >>>> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. >>>> >>>> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. >>>> >>>> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. >>>> >>>> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. >>>> >>>> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. >>>> >>>> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. >>>> >>>> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. >>>> >>>> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. >>>> >>>> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 1 16:58:23 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 11:58:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> <28A852C1-56D0-4214-B30C-7CFD7CD5513B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: You guys are all totally missing the boat on what Medea said and what she meant. All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That's all. Russia is a country that has interests. China is a country that has interests. Every country has interests, as they perceive them. There is no government in the world, no matter how progressive or militant or opposed to the U.S., that will not take its own interests as they perceive them into account in confronting the U.S. That includes Cuba under Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, Ecuador under Rafael Correa, Bolivia under Evo Morales. None of them will fight the U.S. every time. They will choose their battles, taking their own interests into account as they perceive them. That's all Medea was saying. Russia went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. China went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. You can't assume that these people are going to resist the U.S. at a particular juncture, even if they say they will, if they perceive it to be in their interests not to. John Bolton would trade confrontation with Russia for Russian cooperation against Iran in a heartbeat. What price would Putin demand in exchange for what? Who can say that they know that for sure? Russia was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until Russia sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. The U.S. was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until the U.S. sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. What's the difference? The U.S. has tremendous power in the international system, particularly when it focuses on one goal - like messing with Iran - at the expense of others - like messing with North Korea. That's what makes the current situation so dangerous with respect to Iran and the Middle East, particularly, right now, Yemen, because that's where the U.S. is "confronting Iran" right now, even though [because?] the Iranian role in Yemen is small. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Yes, everything in relation to US FP, the nations we are destroying in the > Magreb, Asia, and soon the Sahel, is about control of Russia, and China. > And, they know it very well. > > In fact, our military knows war with Iran would be a disaster which is why > they are focusing on internal regime change by way of sanctions, > interventions, and propaganda. > > In the meantime with Africom in all but one nation of Africa, we can see > much of the same across the Sahel that we’ve seen across the Magreb. That > is not to say “war” with Iran is not a potential threat. Anything can > happen, and bombing them to create chaos, and ensure they don’t go nuclear > is likely a goal. A guess on my part. > > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 06:24, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > No, I don’t think you’re being hesitant. By ‘hesitation’ I meant your > "slight disagreement … in respect to Russia.” Your disagreement is quite > appropriate. > > > > Since WWII, Russia and China been at the heart of US foreign policy (and > perhaps earlier, a la Mackinder). The paramount concern of the US has been > that no ‘peer competitor’ (in Brzezinski’s phrase) arise in Eurasia. > > > > In the 70 years since the end of WWII, the US has killed more than 20 > million people in wars designed to maintain the global economic hegemony > that the US obtained as the only undamaged major country in World War II. > George Kennan pointed out in a "top secret” State Department memo in1948, > > > > “...we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its > population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and > the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of > envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a > pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of > disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we > will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our > attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national > objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the > luxury of altruism and world-benefaction." > > > > Fifty years ago, after the 1967 war that destroyed secular Arab > nationalism, the US adopted Israel as our 'stationary aircraft carrier' in > the Mideast, in order to use control of energy flows out of the Persian > Gulf as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. > > > > Forty years ago, the US gathered Muslim radicals, armed them, and sent > them into Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) in order to destroy > Russian influence in 'Pipelinistan.' (See 1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/>.) > > > > These events were bracketed by the US coup against the government of > Iran in 1953 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - international crimes the > US leaders of which would have been hanged, were the Nuremberg rules > applied. > > > > So today the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, > Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of > the Mideast and North Africa. We remain, as ML King said long ago, "the > greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - for the profits of the > US 1%. > > > > That’s worth disagreeing about. —CGE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> Carl > >> > >> I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in > disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before. > >> > >> I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its the > US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see > “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when > they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the > people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which > opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a > “winner take all,” scenario.] > >> > >> When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: > Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him > moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed > island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was > ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, > but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, > targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen > by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as > survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the > competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies. > >> > >> Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on > Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they > are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best > interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully > expect Russia to follow. > >> > >> Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is > no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>> > >>> Karen— > >>> > >>> I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a > discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive > propaganda of the corporate media. > >>> > >>> Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance > of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including > ‘Russiagate.’ > >>> > >>> As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist > too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." > >>> > >>> That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the > dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia > and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. > >>> > >>> Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the > Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the > presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon > generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - > taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that > he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are > terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United > States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with > Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their > panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however > unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” > >>> > >>> Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows > how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist > these Democrats - and their sympathizers. > >>> > >>> —CGE > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all > agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a > single note. > >>>> > >>>> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. > Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send > the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. > >>>> > >>>> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of > putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do > have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. > >>>> > >>>> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to > “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, > in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. > >>>> > >>>> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, > as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have > been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia > having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. > >>>> > >>>> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US > influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been > surrounded by Nato. > >>>> > >>>> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and > reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s > meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China > will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way > business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. > >>>> > >>>> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is > not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and > diplomacy is conducted. > >>>> > >>>> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control > Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. > >>>> > >>>> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all > concerned. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jul 1 17:40:24 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:40:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune Message-ID: Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand,  is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts,  America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible.  That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history.  A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires. The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest  Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far.  Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. EstabrookDate: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AMTo: bjornsona at ameritech.net;Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" —CGE > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > To: Karen Aram; > Cc: Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >> >> >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy wrote: >> >>> >>> It is there right now. >>> >>> The antiwar.com thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >>> >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Stuart >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> To: Robert Naiman , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> Cc: peace , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jul 1 17:40:24 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:40:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune Message-ID: Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand,  is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts,  America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible.  That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history.  A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires. The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest  Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far.  Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Carl G. EstabrookDate: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AMTo: bjornsona at ameritech.net;Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" —CGE > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > To: Karen Aram; > Cc: Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >> >> >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy wrote: >> >>> >>> It is there right now. >>> >>> The antiwar.com thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >>> >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Stuart >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> To: Robert Naiman , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> Cc: peace , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 1 17:46:59 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:46:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> <28A852C1-56D0-4214-B30C-7CFD7CD5513B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Robert, Yes precisely, Russia like all other nations has its interests, and that interest is its own survival, if Iran goes under US control, Russia’s survival is in jeopardy. In respect to Russia, Medea said, “no, we can’t trust Russia” This was in respect to support for Iran, when Prof. Boyle announced China’s decision “not to support US sanctions on Iran.” As you point out: "All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That’s all." I understand your point, but as I keep pointing out, support for Iran is paramount to Russia’s survival. This alone is the reason I believe Russia and China will jointly support Iran, carefully and slowly in respect to “sanctions” rather than with open confrontation. When the Iranian government appears to be falling, due to those sanctions, with the potential for a US puppet being put in place, they will step in. I think we can all agree one of the most dangerous situations has been Russia s protection of Syria from the US insurgency, another necessity, due to Russia’s interests and US intervention and meddling. As to the US being the most powerful nation in the world, yes our military power, the US empire is dying, and everyone knows that, at least in other parts of the world. There is nothing more dangerous than a cornered beast, or a retreating army. On Jul 1, 2018, at 09:58, Robert Naiman > wrote: You guys are all totally missing the boat on what Medea said and what she meant. All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That's all. Russia is a country that has interests. China is a country that has interests. Every country has interests, as they perceive them. There is no government in the world, no matter how progressive or militant or opposed to the U.S., that will not take its own interests as they perceive them into account in confronting the U.S. That includes Cuba under Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, Ecuador under Rafael Correa, Bolivia under Evo Morales. None of them will fight the U.S. every time. They will choose their battles, taking their own interests into account as they perceive them. That's all Medea was saying. Russia went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. China went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. You can't assume that these people are going to resist the U.S. at a particular juncture, even if they say they will, if they perceive it to be in their interests not to. John Bolton would trade confrontation with Russia for Russian cooperation against Iran in a heartbeat. What price would Putin demand in exchange for what? Who can say that they know that for sure? Russia was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until Russia sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. The U.S. was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until the U.S. sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. What's the difference? The U.S. has tremendous power in the international system, particularly when it focuses on one goal - like messing with Iran - at the expense of others - like messing with North Korea. That's what makes the current situation so dangerous with respect to Iran and the Middle East, particularly, right now, Yemen, because that's where the U.S. is "confronting Iran" right now, even though [because?] the Iranian role in Yemen is small. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Yes, everything in relation to US FP, the nations we are destroying in the Magreb, Asia, and soon the Sahel, is about control of Russia, and China. And, they know it very well. In fact, our military knows war with Iran would be a disaster which is why they are focusing on internal regime change by way of sanctions, interventions, and propaganda. In the meantime with Africom in all but one nation of Africa, we can see much of the same across the Sahel that we’ve seen across the Magreb. That is not to say “war” with Iran is not a potential threat. Anything can happen, and bombing them to create chaos, and ensure they don’t go nuclear is likely a goal. A guess on my part. > On Jul 1, 2018, at 06:24, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > No, I don’t think you’re being hesitant. By ‘hesitation’ I meant your "slight disagreement … in respect to Russia.” Your disagreement is quite appropriate. > > Since WWII, Russia and China been at the heart of US foreign policy (and perhaps earlier, a la Mackinder). The paramount concern of the US has been that no ‘peer competitor’ (in Brzezinski’s phrase) arise in Eurasia. > > In the 70 years since the end of WWII, the US has killed more than 20 million people in wars designed to maintain the global economic hegemony that the US obtained as the only undamaged major country in World War II. George Kennan pointed out in a "top secret” State Department memo in1948, > > “...we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction." > > Fifty years ago, after the 1967 war that destroyed secular Arab nationalism, the US adopted Israel as our 'stationary aircraft carrier' in the Mideast, in order to use control of energy flows out of the Persian Gulf as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. > > Forty years ago, the US gathered Muslim radicals, armed them, and sent them into Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) in order to destroy Russian influence in 'Pipelinistan.' (See .) > > These events were bracketed by the US coup against the government of Iran in 1953 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - international crimes the US leaders of which would have been hanged, were the Nuremberg rules applied. > > So today the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa. We remain, as ML King said long ago, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - for the profits of the US 1%. > > That’s worth disagreeing about. —CGE > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before. >> >> I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its the US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a “winner take all,” scenario.] >> >> When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies. >> >> Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully expect Russia to follow. >> >> Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>> Karen— >>> >>> I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive propaganda of the corporate media. >>> >>> Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including ‘Russiagate.’ >>> >>> As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." >>> >>> That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. >>> >>> Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>> >>> Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist these Democrats - and their sympathizers. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. >>>> >>>> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. >>>> >>>> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. >>>> >>>> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. >>>> >>>> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. >>>> >>>> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. >>>> >>>> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. >>>> >>>> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. >>>> >>>> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. >>>> >>>> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 1 17:51:40 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:51:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > —CGE > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > To: Karen Aram; > > Cc: Robert Naiman > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It is there right now. > >>> > >>> The > antiwar.com > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. > >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- Stuart > >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > >>> To: Robert Naiman > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > >>> Cc: peace > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > >>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > >>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > >>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman > >>>> Policy Director > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> > (202) 448-2898 > x1 > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sun Jul 1 17:51:40 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:51:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > —CGE > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > To: Karen Aram; > > Cc: Robert Naiman > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It is there right now. > >>> > >>> The > antiwar.com > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. > >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- Stuart > >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > >>> To: Robert Naiman > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > >>> Cc: peace > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > >>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > >>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > >>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman > >>>> Policy Director > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> > (202) 448-2898 > x1 > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 17:55:40 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:55:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Depraved Sociopath Bill Kristol Very Excited About Recent Iran Developments Message-ID: Caitlin Johnstone's invocation of Bill Kristol's alliance with the over-riding establishment, in relation to Trump's qualified resistance (especially in regard to Iran & Israel vis a vis N. Korea) is historically ironic and evocative. Bill's father, Irving Kristol, established the neo-conservative movement primarily in relation to domestic issues; a reaction to the Civil Rights movement and black demands. He worked with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Michael Novak, and Nathan Glazer to promote a notion of white ethnic solidarity--a perceived break from the "melting pot"--as a means of both denying and defending white structural privilege, and muting the radical effects of opposition to the Vietnam War and Black Power. As neoconservatism evolved into the 1970s, it became more identified with the continuation of the Cold War, promoted by Senator Henry Jackson. Irving Kristol (and Norman Podhoretz) was central in this evolution. Along with that, of course, was support for Israel post-1967, and the discovery of the new demon, the Palestinians and Arabs, as part of Cold War opponents. Thus the "white ethnics" (Reagan Democrats) were secured for USFP goals post-Vietnam. Trump's father and Trump himself (NYC, Central Park 5, etc.) were/are part of the white ethnic "revival;" but Trump, operating in a very different economic context, got elected partly by taking the "white ethnics" (white working class) off the dominant (Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol) reservation, in terms of both trade and USFP. But Bill Kristol and the Israel Lobby (both Adelson (Repub) & Saban (Dem)) are working hard to bring him back on the reservation, with Javanka etc. But *only *demonizing Trump misses these historical ironies and subtleties, and dismisses/abandons the "white working class" and its own structural travails. Which is not to say that Trump evokes any confidence in terms of his ability to resist, if you want to call it that, the neoliberal/neoconservative agenda of Kristol and others. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 1 18:11:12 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:11:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> <28A852C1-56D0-4214-B30C-7CFD7CD5513B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I agree that the overall interests of both Russia and China would seem to suggest that they will not go too far now in helping Trump against Iran. Russia and China went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran under Obama when the context was a stated U.S. policy of trying to achieve a deal on Iran's nuclear program along the lines of the international consensus: Iran agrees on restrictions and increased inspections in exchange for lifting of multilateral sanctions. That deal was achieved. Now, on behalf of the U.S., Trump has unilaterally reneged on that deal. It's hard to see what the interest of Russia and/or China would be now in helping Trump renege on the deal. But that just describes this particular juncture, one in which relations between the U.S. and both Russia and China are very strained because of the actions of the U.S. on multiple fronts. So far, despite his rhetoric of wanting to improve U.S. relations with Russia, Trump has actually escalated in Ukraine compared to Obama. Trump started arming the Ukraine government, which Obama refused to do. Trump has started a trade war with China. [I'm not complaining about Trump's trade war with China, I actually kind of like it, just stating an objective fact.] If the U.S. were willing to drop these anti-Russia and anti-China policies, what would Russia and China be willing to do in exchange? That's hard to predict. Of course, the Trump Administration is constrained by multiple factors in the degree to which it can drop its anti-Russia and anti-China policies [including, yes, by Congressional Democrats who support these anti-Russia and anti-China policies.] Whether Trump is capable of offering Russia and/or China sufficient inducements to collaborate against Iran is a function both of what price they think would be fair and whether Trump is willing and capable of paying such a price. But there's nothing *intrinsic *about Russia or China or any other country that would stop them from collaborating with Trump against Iran, if they were rewarded to a degree they considered sufficient for doing so. And the whole point of this is: as U.S. citizens, we can't rely on any other country to constrain our government. We have to take responsibility for our government. We have to take responsibility for constraining it, acting on the assumption that no foreign government can be trusted to constrain it. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Robert, > > Yes precisely, Russia like all other nations has its interests, and that > interest is its own survival, if Iran goes under US control, Russia’s > survival is in jeopardy. > > In respect to Russia, Medea said, “no, we can’t trust Russia” This was in > respect to support for Iran, when Prof. Boyle announced China’s decision > “not to support US sanctions on Iran.” > > As you point out: > > "*All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump > on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That’s all."* > > > I understand your point, but as I keep pointing out, support for Iran is > paramount to Russia’s survival. This alone is the reason I believe Russia > and China will jointly support Iran, carefully and slowly in respect to > “sanctions” rather than with open confrontation. > > When the Iranian government appears to be falling, due to those sanctions, > with the potential for a US puppet being put in place, they will step in. > > I think we can all agree one of the most dangerous situations has been > Russia s protection of Syria from the US insurgency, another necessity, due > to Russia’s interests and US intervention and meddling. > > As to the US being the most powerful nation in the world, yes our military > power, the US empire is dying, and everyone knows that, at least in other > parts of the world. There is nothing more dangerous than a cornered beast, > or a retreating army. > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 09:58, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > You guys are all totally missing the boat on what Medea said and what she > meant. > > All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on > U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That's all. > > Russia is a country that has interests. China is a country that has > interests. Every country has interests, as they perceive them. > > There is no government in the world, no matter how progressive or militant > or opposed to the U.S., that will not take its own interests as they > perceive them into account in confronting the U.S. That includes Cuba under > Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, Ecuador under Rafael Correa, > Bolivia under Evo Morales. None of them will fight the U.S. every time. > They will choose their battles, taking their own interests into account as > they perceive them. That's all Medea was saying. Russia went along with > U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. China went along with U.S. > sanctions against Iran in the past. You can't assume that these people are > going to resist the U.S. at a particular juncture, even if they say they > will, if they perceive it to be in their interests not to. > > John Bolton would trade confrontation with Russia for Russian cooperation > against Iran in a heartbeat. What price would Putin demand in exchange for > what? Who can say that they know that for sure? > > Russia was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until Russia sold out > the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to > do so. The U.S. was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until the U.S. > sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their > interests to do so. What's the difference? > > The U.S. has tremendous power in the international system, particularly > when it focuses on one goal - like messing with Iran - at the expense of > others - like messing with North Korea. That's what makes the current > situation so dangerous with respect to Iran and the Middle East, > particularly, right now, Yemen, because that's where the U.S. is > "confronting Iran" right now, even though [because?] the Iranian role in > Yemen is small. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Yes, everything in relation to US FP, the nations we are destroying in >> the Magreb, Asia, and soon the Sahel, is about control of Russia, and >> China. And, they know it very well. >> >> In fact, our military knows war with Iran would be a disaster which is >> why they are focusing on internal regime change by way of sanctions, >> interventions, and propaganda. >> >> In the meantime with Africom in all but one nation of Africa, we can see >> much of the same across the Sahel that we’ve seen across the Magreb. That >> is not to say “war” with Iran is not a potential threat. Anything can >> happen, and bombing them to create chaos, and ensure they don’t go nuclear >> is likely a goal. A guess on my part. >> >> >> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 06:24, Carl G. Estabrook >> wrote: >> > >> > No, I don’t think you’re being hesitant. By ‘hesitation’ I meant your >> "slight disagreement … in respect to Russia.” Your disagreement is quite >> appropriate. >> > >> > Since WWII, Russia and China been at the heart of US foreign policy >> (and perhaps earlier, a la Mackinder). The paramount concern of the US has >> been that no ‘peer competitor’ (in Brzezinski’s phrase) arise in Eurasia. >> > >> > In the 70 years since the end of WWII, the US has killed more than 20 >> million people in wars designed to maintain the global economic hegemony >> that the US obtained as the only undamaged major country in World War II. >> George Kennan pointed out in a "top secret” State Department memo in1948, >> > >> > “...we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its >> population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and >> the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of >> envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a >> pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of >> disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we >> will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our >> attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national >> objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the >> luxury of altruism and world-benefaction." >> > >> > Fifty years ago, after the 1967 war that destroyed secular Arab >> nationalism, the US adopted Israel as our 'stationary aircraft carrier' in >> the Mideast, in order to use control of energy flows out of the Persian >> Gulf as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. >> > >> > Forty years ago, the US gathered Muslim radicals, armed them, and sent >> them into Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) in order to destroy >> Russian influence in 'Pipelinistan.' (See > 1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/>.) >> > >> > These events were bracketed by the US coup against the government of >> Iran in 1953 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - international crimes the >> US leaders of which would have been hanged, were the Nuremberg rules >> applied. >> > >> > So today the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, >> Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of >> the Mideast and North Africa. We remain, as ML King said long ago, "the >> greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - for the profits of the >> US 1%. >> > >> > That’s worth disagreeing about. —CGE >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> Carl >> >> >> >> I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in >> disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before. >> >> >> >> I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its >> the US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see >> “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when >> they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the >> people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which >> opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a >> “winner take all,” scenario.] >> >> >> >> When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: >> Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him >> moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed >> island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was >> ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, >> but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, >> targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen >> by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as >> survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the >> competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies. >> >> >> >> Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on >> Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they >> are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best >> interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully >> expect Russia to follow. >> >> >> >> Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is >> no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Karen— >> >>> >> >>> I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a >> discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive >> propaganda of the corporate media. >> >>> >> >>> Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance >> of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including >> ‘Russiagate.’ >> >>> >> >>> As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist >> too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." >> >>> >> >>> That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the >> dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia >> and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. >> >>> >> >>> Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the >> Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the >> presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon >> generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - >> taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that >> he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are >> terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United >> States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with >> Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their >> panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however >> unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >> >>> >> >>> Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows >> how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist >> these Democrats - and their sympathizers. >> >>> >> >>> —CGE >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d >> all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a >> single note. >> >>>> >> >>>> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. >> Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send >> the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. >> >>>> >> >>>> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of >> putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do >> have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to >> “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, >> in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. >> >>>> >> >>>> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against >> Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They >> have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia >> having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. >> >> >>>> >> >>>> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US >> influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been >> surrounded by Nato. >> >>>> >> >>>> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and >> reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s >> meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China >> will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way >> business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. >> >>>> >> >>>> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is >> not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and >> diplomacy is conducted. >> >>>> >> >>>> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control >> Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. >> >>>> >> >>>> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all >> concerned. >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> 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 >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 18:38:30 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:38:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought In-Reply-To: References: <2BC8BBD0-31F9-4608-BFA1-783FF8BBCBDE@illinois.edu> <28A852C1-56D0-4214-B30C-7CFD7CD5513B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The US has been torturing Iran for 65 years - with a US-sponsored coup, a US-sponsored dictator, and then a US-sponsored war with Iraq; it continues to do so today. The paramount goal of US foreign policy for generations has been to prevent the economic unification of Eurasia, which would reduce its exploitation by the US 1%. That’s what the unpleasantness with the Japanese in the 1940s was about, as well as subsequent US wars in East and Southeast Asia (Korea, Vietnam). (See the 'Open Door Policy,’ 1899; the great reversal of more than century of US policy was the ‘loss of China‘ in 1949.) US control of the Mideast has as a paramount goal the control of world oil flows, which the Pentagon calls “off-shore control" of China (hence the contest for the S. China Sea, the ornament of HRC’s State Secretaryship). The US should of course withdraw its troops and weapons from the Mideast, close the thousand US bases ringing Russia and China (Russia has a dozen foreign bases; China has one), and cooperate with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Belt and Road Initiative, instead of its present policy of war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. The US is willing to kill a lot of people to prevent the development of Iran (and Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan) outside of US control, and the Democrats (and Democrat front groups) support that policy. (The JCPOA was an attempt to establish that control: the carrot to match the stick: the Democrats in Congress could insist that the administration observe it - and cut off funding until they do - but they aren’t.) Russia’s defense of Syria against the the Obama administration's murderous attempt at 'regime-change’ seems to have been successful; it’s hard to imagine that the same would not be the case with Iran. It’s the task of the anti-war movement on the US to expose the pro-war machinations of the Democrats and the other elements of the war party - perhaps particularly of the soi-disant Democrat ‘progressives.’As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy.” —CGE > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:46 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Robert, > > Yes precisely, Russia like all other nations has its interests, and that interest is its own survival, if Iran goes under US control, Russia’s survival is in jeopardy. > > In respect to Russia, Medea said, “no, we can’t trust Russia” This was in respect to support for Iran, when Prof. Boyle announced China’s decision “not to support US sanctions on Iran.” > > As you point out: > >> "All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That’s all." > > I understand your point, but as I keep pointing out, support for Iran is paramount to Russia’s survival. This alone is the reason I believe Russia and China will jointly support Iran, carefully and slowly in respect to “sanctions” rather than with open confrontation. > > When the Iranian government appears to be falling, due to those sanctions, with the potential for a US puppet being put in place, they will step in. > > I think we can all agree one of the most dangerous situations has been Russia s protection of Syria from the US insurgency, another necessity, due to Russia’s interests and US intervention and meddling. > > As to the US being the most powerful nation in the world, yes our military power, the US empire is dying, and everyone knows that, at least in other parts of the world. There is nothing more dangerous than a cornered beast, or a retreating army. > > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 09:58, Robert Naiman wrote: >> >> You guys are all totally missing the boat on what Medea said and what she meant. >> >> All she was saying was: you can't assume that Russia will resist Trump on U.S. sanctions and pressure against Iran. That's all. >> >> Russia is a country that has interests. China is a country that has interests. Every country has interests, as they perceive them. >> >> There is no government in the world, no matter how progressive or militant or opposed to the U.S., that will not take its own interests as they perceive them into account in confronting the U.S. That includes Cuba under Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, Ecuador under Rafael Correa, Bolivia under Evo Morales. None of them will fight the U.S. every time. They will choose their battles, taking their own interests into account as they perceive them. That's all Medea was saying. Russia went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. China went along with U.S. sanctions against Iran in the past. You can't assume that these people are going to resist the U.S. at a particular juncture, even if they say they will, if they perceive it to be in their interests not to. >> >> John Bolton would trade confrontation with Russia for Russian cooperation against Iran in a heartbeat. What price would Putin demand in exchange for what? Who can say that they know that for sure? >> >> Russia was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until Russia sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. The U.S. was allied with the Kurds in northern Syria, until the U.S. sold out the Kurds to the Turks, because they thought it suited their interests to do so. What's the difference? >> >> The U.S. has tremendous power in the international system, particularly when it focuses on one goal - like messing with Iran - at the expense of others - like messing with North Korea. That's what makes the current situation so dangerous with respect to Iran and the Middle East, particularly, right now, Yemen, because that's where the U.S. is "confronting Iran" right now, even though [because?] the Iranian role in Yemen is small. >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> Yes, everything in relation to US FP, the nations we are destroying in the Magreb, Asia, and soon the Sahel, is about control of Russia, and China. And, they know it very well. >> >> In fact, our military knows war with Iran would be a disaster which is why they are focusing on internal regime change by way of sanctions, interventions, and propaganda. >> >> In the meantime with Africom in all but one nation of Africa, we can see much of the same across the Sahel that we’ve seen across the Magreb. That is not to say “war” with Iran is not a potential threat. Anything can happen, and bombing them to create chaos, and ensure they don’t go nuclear is likely a goal. A guess on my part. >> >> >> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 06:24, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> > >> > No, I don’t think you’re being hesitant. By ‘hesitation’ I meant your "slight disagreement … in respect to Russia.” Your disagreement is quite appropriate. >> > >> > Since WWII, Russia and China been at the heart of US foreign policy (and perhaps earlier, a la Mackinder). The paramount concern of the US has been that no ‘peer competitor’ (in Brzezinski’s phrase) arise in Eurasia. >> > >> > In the 70 years since the end of WWII, the US has killed more than 20 million people in wars designed to maintain the global economic hegemony that the US obtained as the only undamaged major country in World War II. George Kennan pointed out in a "top secret” State Department memo in1948, >> > >> > “...we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction." >> > >> > Fifty years ago, after the 1967 war that destroyed secular Arab nationalism, the US adopted Israel as our 'stationary aircraft carrier' in the Mideast, in order to use control of energy flows out of the Persian Gulf as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. >> > >> > Forty years ago, the US gathered Muslim radicals, armed them, and sent them into Afghanistan (before the Russian invasion) in order to destroy Russian influence in 'Pipelinistan.' (See .) >> > >> > These events were bracketed by the US coup against the government of Iran in 1953 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - international crimes the US leaders of which would have been hanged, were the Nuremberg rules applied. >> > >> > So today the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa. We remain, as ML King said long ago, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" - for the profits of the US 1%. >> > >> > That’s worth disagreeing about. —CGE >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 7:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> >> >> Carl >> >> >> >> I don’t believe I’m being hesitant at all, rather bold, to be in disagreement with Medea, but I have disagreed with great people before. >> >> >> >> I do not see this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I believe its the US assumption that something is either “right or wrong,” and we see “playing both sides” as duplicitous. As I’ve explained to Europeans, when they question why Americans never take into consideration the “will of the people” its because we don’t have a parliamentary system, within which opposing groups are forced to work together. With Americans its always a “winner take all,” scenario.] >> >> >> >> When small vulnerable nations, non nuclear, play both sides, for ex: Duerte, of the Philippines says awful things about America, we see him moving closer to China, along with the ICC decision related to the disputed island in the South China Sea, giving the island to the Philippines was ignored by him. Yes, he closed down some US military bases in the south, but has he yet closed them down in the north, the most important ones, targetting China, I don’t think so. We see his FP as duplicitous. Its seen by Asians as survival, working with others in partnership is seen as survival, as opposed to the US marketing strategy of “killing the competition.” Our FP is similar to our marketing strategies. >> >> >> >> Putin, and Lavrov are very smart people, and though I’m no expert on Russian culture, nor do I know who is behind the scenes, I don’t think they are going to allow Iran be taken over by the US, its in their best interests and a matter of survival. China has taken the lead, and I fully expect Russia to follow. >> >> >> >> Just as many believe China will save Venezuela, if they don’t there is no hope for that impoverished, oil rich nation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 00:16, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Karen— >> >>> >> >>> I think your hesitation is appropriate and should lead us to a discussion of US relations with Russia and China, against the massive propaganda of the corporate media. >> >>> >> >>> Many American liberals display a ‘partisan taint’ in their acceptance of the Democrat party’s account of foreign relations, including ‘Russiagate.’ >> >>> >> >>> As Bruce Dixon points out, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy." >> >>> >> >>> That’s not only wrong but dangerous, in that it undermines the dismantling of the last administration's war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the S. China Sea. >> >>> >> >>> Perhaps that’s easier to see away from the US media miasma: the Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the presidential election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >> >>> >> >>> Sen. Durbin’s letter to VP Pence (posted on the AWARE fb page) shows how deep and dangerous the taint is. The anti-war movement needs to resist these Democrats - and their sympathizers. >> >>> >> >>> —CGE >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> To all those present today at Medea Benjamin’s talk. I think we’d all agree, it was excellent, and she covered everything so well, without a single note. >> >>>> >> >>>> Special thanks go to Deb Schrishulm for making it happen. Prof. Francis Boyle for introduction,Robert Naiman for his coverage. I will send the link once the film is uploaded to UTube. >> >>>> >> >>>> While I am very impressed with Medea’s coverage, her experience of putting herself on the line so many times. I’m reading her book now, I do have one comment that I wasn’t able to make earlier at the event. >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a slight disagreement with Medea, and others in respect to “Russia." The assumption that “Russia cannot be trusted” was the statement, in respect to Russia supporting Iran and opposing US sanctions. >> >>>> >> >>>> The fact that China has refused to support US sanctions against Iran, as I would expect, means that Russia will go along with China. They have been working closely in all areas related to US hegemony, with Russia having an even greater stake in Iran remaining independent of US influence. >> >>>> >> >>>> Look at a map, its geopolitical, if Iran comes under US influence/control, Russia knows they are next, they’ve already been surrounded by Nato. >> >>>> >> >>>> Even North Korea agreeing to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and reuniting with South Korea, according to Pepe Escobar, is due to N.Korea’s meeting with Russia, China has Russia act as the middle man, while China will likely act as the middleman between Russia and Iran. That is the way business is conducted in Asia. North Korea, has always been about China. >> >>>> >> >>>> Putin or Lavrov, visiting Israel, or Xi Jinping visiting anyone, is not a sign of disloyalty or betrayal of a friend, it’s the way business and diplomacy is conducted. >> >>>> >> >>>> The nuclear deal with Iran, was never the end of US plans to control Iran, one way or another, and this was known before Trump was elected. >> >>>> >> >>>> Just my thoughts, I could be wrong, but I hope I’m right for all concerned. >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> 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 >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 1 18:48:16 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:48:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold > so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or > domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you > understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called > conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, > we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being > facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic > direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the > mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The > One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate > owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE > Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, > Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, > millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have > demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few > Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those > labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will > just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports > "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain > fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that > means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the > 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 > billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know > all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a > staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show > last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, > debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get > out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There > was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; > > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert > Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News > from Neptune > > > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- > analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how > socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she > has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make > us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with > an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and > officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and > when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to > the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of > magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the > left to do those things. > > > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives > from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure > out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their > individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left > institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an > acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party > predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, > lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some > people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne > corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the > Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years > ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > ------ Original message------ > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > > To: Karen Aram; > > > Cc: Robert Naiman > > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays > News from Neptune > > > > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka- > pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my- > position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that > she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say > is good enough for me. > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> It is there right now. > > >>> > > >>> The > > antiwar.com > > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately > removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is > there. > > >>> > > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson > says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his > readers to let her know they do too. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- Stuart > > >>> > > >>> -------- Original message -------- > > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > > >>> To: Robert Naiman > > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > > > >>> Cc: peace > > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays > News from Neptune > > >>> > > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been > put back? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> A Peace Economy > > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled > itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. > As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, > Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of > civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage > from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. > Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global > refugee crisis. > > >>>> > > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for > good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American > prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, > Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 > trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon > “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for > 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror > and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to > the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have > never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted > unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > > >>>> > > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. > While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us > as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the > "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that > perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > > >>>> > > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're > opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our > image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. > We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, > and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 > > x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day- > approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar- > foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 1 18:48:16 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:48:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold > so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or > domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you > understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called > conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, > we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being > facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic > direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the > mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The > One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate > owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE > Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, > Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, > millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have > demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few > Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those > labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will > just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports > "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain > fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that > means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the > 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 > billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know > all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a > staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show > last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, > debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get > out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There > was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; > > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert > Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News > from Neptune > > > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- > analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how > socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she > has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make > us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with > an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and > officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and > when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to > the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of > magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the > left to do those things. > > > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives > from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure > out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their > individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left > institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an > acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party > predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, > lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some > people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne > corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the > Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years > ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > ------ Original message------ > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > > To: Karen Aram; > > > Cc: Robert Naiman > > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays > News from Neptune > > > > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka- > pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my- > position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that > she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say > is good enough for me. > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> It is there right now. > > >>> > > >>> The > > antiwar.com > > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately > removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is > there. > > >>> > > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson > says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his > readers to let her know they do too. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- Stuart > > >>> > > >>> -------- Original message -------- > > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > > >>> To: Robert Naiman > > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > > > >>> Cc: peace > > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays > News from Neptune > > >>> > > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been > put back? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> A Peace Economy > > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled > itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. > As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, > Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of > civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage > from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. > Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global > refugee crisis. > > >>>> > > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for > good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American > prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, > Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 > trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon > “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for > 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror > and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to > the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have > never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted > unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > > >>>> > > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. > While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us > as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the > "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that > perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > > >>>> > > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're > opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our > image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. > We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, > and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 > > x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day- > approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar- > foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 20:08:50 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 15:08:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. DG On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic > economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at > the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for > it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority > for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that > was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the > deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was > going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic > policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. > > Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. > And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic > presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. > This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class > Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on > trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame > them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the > election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame > duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not > what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a > lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have > killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an > amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by > the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor > delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't > campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left > a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was > going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would > go along to make it happen. > > But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, > etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, > nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a > collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one > except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic > leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to > get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the > unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna > to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can > get votes in the House on war and peace. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> >> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >> > >> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >> > >> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >> > >> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such >> a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show >> last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >> > >> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > >> > ------ Original message------ >> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News >> from Neptune >> > >> > >> https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >> > >> > >> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >> left to do those things. >> > >> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >> > >> > —CGE >> > >> > >> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years >> ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >> > > >> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > > >> > > ------ Original message------ >> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >> > > To: Karen Aram; >> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >> News from Neptune >> > > >> > > >> > >> https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >> > >> > > >> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that >> she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say >> is good enough for me. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> It is there right now. >> > >>> >> > >>> The >> > antiwar.com >> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >> there. >> > >>> >> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson >> says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his >> readers to let her know they do too. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -- Stuart >> > >>> >> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >> > >> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > >> > >>> Cc: peace >> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >> News from Neptune >> > >>> >> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been >> put back? >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A Peace Economy >> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for >> good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American >> prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, >> Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 >> trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to >> the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have >> never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. >> While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us >> as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the >> "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that >> perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're >> opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Robert Naiman >> > >>>> Policy Director >> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >> > >>>> >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > (202) 448-2898 >> > x1 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 20:08:50 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 15:08:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. DG On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic > economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at > the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for > it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority > for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that > was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the > deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was > going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic > policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. > > Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. > And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic > presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. > This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class > Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on > trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame > them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the > election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame > duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not > what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a > lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have > killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an > amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by > the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor > delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't > campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left > a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was > going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would > go along to make it happen. > > But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, > etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, > nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a > collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one > except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic > leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to > get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the > unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna > to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can > get votes in the House on war and peace. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> >> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >> > >> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >> > >> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >> > >> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such >> a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show >> last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >> > >> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > >> > ------ Original message------ >> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News >> from Neptune >> > >> > >> https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >> > >> > >> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >> left to do those things. >> > >> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >> > >> > —CGE >> > >> > >> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years >> ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >> > > >> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > > >> > > ------ Original message------ >> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >> > > To: Karen Aram; >> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >> News from Neptune >> > > >> > > >> > >> https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >> > >> > > >> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that >> she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say >> is good enough for me. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> It is there right now. >> > >>> >> > >>> The >> > antiwar.com >> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >> there. >> > >>> >> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson >> says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his >> readers to let her know they do too. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -- Stuart >> > >>> >> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >> > >> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > >> > >>> Cc: peace >> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >> News from Neptune >> > >>> >> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been >> put back? >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A Peace Economy >> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for >> good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American >> prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, >> Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 >> trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to >> the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have >> never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. >> While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us >> as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the >> "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that >> perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're >> opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Robert Naiman >> > >>>> Policy Director >> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >> > >>>> >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > (202) 448-2898 >> > x1 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 1 22:24:23 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:24:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. That doesn't seem like a bad start. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than > the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and > personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident > agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic >> economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at >> the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for >> it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority >> for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that >> was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the >> deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was >> going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic >> policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >> >> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >> go along to make it happen. >> >> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, >> etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, >> nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a >> collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one >> except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic >> leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to >> get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >> get votes in the House on war and peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>> > >>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>> > >>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>> > >>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such >>> a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show >>> last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>> > >>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > >>> > ------ Original message------ >>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>> News from Neptune >>> > >>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>> > >>> > >>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>> left to do those things. >>> > >>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>> > >>> > —CGE >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years >>> ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > > >>> > > ------ Original message------ >>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>> News from Neptune >>> > > >>> > > >>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka- >>> pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my- >>> position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>> > >>> > > >>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>> to say is good enough for me. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> It is there right now. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The >>> > antiwar.com >>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>> there. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson >>> says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his >>> readers to let her know they do too. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -- Stuart >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> > >>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > >>> > >>> Cc: peace >>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > >>> >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been >>> put back? >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for >>> good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American >>> prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, >>> Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 >>> trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. >>> While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us >>> as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the >>> "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that >>> perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>> > >>>> Policy Director >>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>> > >>>> >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > (202) 448-2898 >>> > x1 >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day- >>> approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar- >>> foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 1 22:24:23 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:24:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. That doesn't seem like a bad start. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than > the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and > personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident > agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic >> economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at >> the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for >> it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority >> for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that >> was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the >> deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was >> going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic >> policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >> >> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >> go along to make it happen. >> >> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, >> etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, >> nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a >> collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one >> except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic >> leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to >> get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >> get votes in the House on war and peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>> > >>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>> > >>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>> > >>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such >>> a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show >>> last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>> > >>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > >>> > ------ Original message------ >>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>> News from Neptune >>> > >>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>> > >>> > >>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>> left to do those things. >>> > >>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>> > >>> > —CGE >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years >>> ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > > >>> > > ------ Original message------ >>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>> News from Neptune >>> > > >>> > > >>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka- >>> pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my- >>> position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>> > >>> > > >>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>> to say is good enough for me. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> It is there right now. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The >>> > antiwar.com >>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>> there. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson >>> says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his >>> readers to let her know they do too. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -- Stuart >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> > >>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > >>> > >>> Cc: peace >>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > >>> >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been >>> put back? >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for >>> good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American >>> prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, >>> Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 >>> trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. >>> While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us >>> as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the >>> "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that >>> perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>> > >>>> Policy Director >>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>> > >>>> >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > (202) 448-2898 >>> > x1 >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day- >>> approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar- >>> foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 02:16:16 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 21:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fair enough; at least he's not beholden to the black caucus. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 5:24 PM Robert Naiman wrote: > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any > of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic >>> economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at >>> the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for >>> it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority >>> for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that >>> was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the >>> deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was >>> going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic >>> policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >>> >>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>> go along to make it happen. >>> >>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, >>> etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, >>> nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a >>> collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one >>> except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic >>> leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to >>> get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>> > >>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>> > >>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>> > >>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>> > >>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > >>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > >>>> > >>>> https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>> left to do those things. >>>> > >>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>> > >>>> > —CGE >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>> Republican. >>>> > > >>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > > >>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> The >>>> > antiwar.com >>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>> there. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>> > >>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > >>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>> > >>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>> been put back? >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> > >>>> >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>> > x1 >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> > >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 02:16:16 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2018 21:16:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fair enough; at least he's not beholden to the black caucus. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 5:24 PM Robert Naiman wrote: > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any > of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic >>> economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at >>> the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for >>> it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority >>> for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that >>> was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the >>> deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was >>> going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic >>> policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >>> >>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>> go along to make it happen. >>> >>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, >>> etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, >>> nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a >>> collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one >>> except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic >>> leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to >>> get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>> > >>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>> > >>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>> > >>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>> > >>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > >>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > >>>> > >>>> https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>> left to do those things. >>>> > >>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>> > >>>> > —CGE >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>> Republican. >>>> > > >>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > > >>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> The >>>> > antiwar.com >>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>> there. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>> > >>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > >>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>> > >>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>> been put back? >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> > >>>> >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>> > x1 >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> > >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 06:04:49 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 01:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5b39c071.1c69fb81.87ca3.7f1d@mx.google.com> Good point, Robert.  -Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Date: 7/1/18 17:24 (GMT-06:00) To: David Green Cc: Peace Discuss , "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" , Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves.  Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary.  That doesn't seem like a bad start.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. DG On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President.  Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen.  But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand,  is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts,  America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history.  A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest  Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > —CGE > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans.  Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > To: Karen Aram; > > Cc: Robert Naiman > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >  wrote: > >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >  wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It is there right now. > >>> > >>> The > antiwar.com >  thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it.  So she did, and the statement is there. > >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved.  He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  -- Stuart > >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > >>> To: Robert Naiman > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > >>> Cc: peace > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > >>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > >>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > >>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman > >>>> Policy Director > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> >  naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > >>>> > (202) 448-2898 >  x1 > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 07:29:29 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 02:29:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Medea's talk today. Food for thought Message-ID: <5b39d449.1c69fb81.49bb4.a24a@mx.google.com> I think I understand part of what you are saying, Karen Aram, though since you never sign your emails it is hard to tell if the message is from you.   You are saying that Russia will support Iran because Russia's future is tied to Iran's future.  I agree that Iran's resistance to US pressure helps protect Russia. Are you suggesting that if Iran's current government fails and a new replacement Iranian government would be so compliant to the united states that it would allow US military bases? I guess i don't see that possibility.  Iran sees what we did to Iraq.  -Karen Medina null -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 2 13:30:57 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: > At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. > > Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. > > But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; > > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > ------ Original message------ > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > > To: Karen Aram; > > > Cc: Robert Naiman > > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> It is there right now. > > >>> > > >>> The > > antiwar.com > > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. > > >>> > > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- Stuart > > >>> > > >>> -------- Original message -------- > > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > > >>> To: Robert Naiman > > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > > > >>> Cc: peace > > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > >>> > > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> A Peace Economy > > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > > >>>> > > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > > >>>> > > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > > >>>> > > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 > > x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 2 13:30:57 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: > At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. > > Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. > > But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; > > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > ------ Original message------ > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > > To: Karen Aram; > > > Cc: Robert Naiman > > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> It is there right now. > > >>> > > >>> The > > antiwar.com > > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. > > >>> > > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- Stuart > > >>> > > >>> -------- Original message -------- > > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > > >>> To: Robert Naiman > > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > > > >>> Cc: peace > > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > >>> > > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> A Peace Economy > > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > > >>>> > > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > > >>>> > > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > > >>>> > > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 > > x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 2 14:20:12 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:20:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >. Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE > On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: > At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. > > Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. > > But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; > > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > ------ Original message------ > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > > To: Karen Aram; > > > Cc: Robert Naiman > > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> It is there right now. > > >>> > > >>> The > > antiwar.com > > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. > > >>> > > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- Stuart > > >>> > > >>> -------- Original message -------- > > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > > >>> To: Robert Naiman > > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > > > >>> Cc: peace > > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > >>> > > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> A Peace Economy > > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > > >>>> > > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > > >>>> > > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > > >>>> > > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 > > x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 2 14:20:12 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:20:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >. Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE > On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: > At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. > > Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. > > But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; > > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > > > —CGE > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > ------ Original message------ > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > > To: Karen Aram; > > > Cc: Robert Naiman > > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> It is there right now. > > >>> > > >>> The > > antiwar.com > > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. > > >>> > > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- Stuart > > >>> > > >>> -------- Original message -------- > > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > > >>> To: Robert Naiman > > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > > > >>> Cc: peace > > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > >>> > > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> A Peace Economy > > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > > >>>> > > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. > > >>>> > > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. > > >>>> > > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. > > >>>> > > >>>> [...] > > >>>> > > >>>> Robert Naiman > > >>>> Policy Director > > >>>> Just Foreign Policy > > >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 > > x1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > >>>> > > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we > > > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 2 14:39:59 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:39:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism. But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of > Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both > Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s > opposition to them gained him votes. > > And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and > Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were > unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in > Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: news/2017-07-11/new-study-suggests-war-lust-may-have- > cost-hillary-clinton-election>. > > Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies > - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the > Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political > establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and > economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given > Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as > Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the > the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. > > Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: > attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party > will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) > > But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to > mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if > the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party > were, they’d reject them.—CGE > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any > of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic >>> economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at >>> the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for >>> it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority >>> for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that >>> was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the >>> deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was >>> going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic >>> policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >>> >>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>> go along to make it happen. >>> >>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, >>> etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, >>> nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a >>> collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one >>> except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic >>> leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to >>> get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>> > >>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>> > >>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>> > >>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>> > >>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > >>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > >>>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>> left to do those things. >>>> > >>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>> > >>>> > —CGE >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>> Republican. >>>> > > >>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > > >>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes- >>>> dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position- >>>> statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> The >>>> > antiwar.com >>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>> there. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>> > >>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > >>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>> > >>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>> been put back? >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> > >>>> >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>> > x1 >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-appr >>>> oached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign- >>>> policy-section-from-her-we >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> > >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 2 14:39:59 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:39:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism. But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of > Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both > Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s > opposition to them gained him votes. > > And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and > Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were > unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in > Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: news/2017-07-11/new-study-suggests-war-lust-may-have- > cost-hillary-clinton-election>. > > Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies > - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the > Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political > establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and > economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given > Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as > Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the > the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. > > Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: > attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party > will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) > > But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to > mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if > the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party > were, they’d reject them.—CGE > > > On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any > of us can say about ourselves. > > Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. > > That doesn't seem like a bad start. > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic >>> economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at >>> the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for >>> it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority >>> for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that >>> was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the >>> deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was >>> going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic >>> policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >>> >>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>> go along to make it happen. >>> >>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, >>> etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, >>> nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a >>> collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one >>> except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic >>> leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to >>> get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>> > >>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>> > >>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>> > >>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>> > >>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > >>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > >>>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>> left to do those things. >>>> > >>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>> > >>>> > —CGE >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>> Republican. >>>> > > >>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> > > >>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>> News from Neptune >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes- >>>> dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position- >>>> statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> The >>>> > antiwar.com >>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>> there. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>> > >>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> > >>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>> > >>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>> been put back? >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> [...] >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> > >>>> >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>> > x1 >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-appr >>>> oached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign- >>>> policy-section-from-her-we >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> > >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 2 15:08:21 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:08:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the party’s real commitments remain what they have been. As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy.” —CGE > On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" > > Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. > > Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. > > There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism. > > But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. > > And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >. > > Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. > > Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) > > But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE > > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. >> >> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >> >> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >> >> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. >> >> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> > >> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >> > >> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >> > >> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >> > >> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >> > >> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > >> > ------ Original message------ >> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; >> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; >> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >> > >> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >> > >> > >> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. >> > >> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >> > >> > —CGE >> > >> > >> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >> > > >> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > > >> > > ------ Original message------ >> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >> > > To: Karen Aram; >> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >> > > >> > > >> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >> > >> > > >> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> It is there right now. >> > >>> >> > >>> The >> > antiwar.com >> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >> > >>> >> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -- Stuart >> > >>> >> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >> > >> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > >> > >>> Cc: peace >> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >> > >>> >> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A Peace Economy >> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Robert Naiman >> > >>>> Policy Director >> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >> > >>>> >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > (202) 448-2898 >> > x1 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 2 15:08:21 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:08:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the party’s real commitments remain what they have been. As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy.” —CGE > On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" > > Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. > > Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. > > There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism. > > But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. > > And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >. > > Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. > > Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) > > But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE > > >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. >> >> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >> >> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >> >> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. >> >> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> > >> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >> > >> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >> > >> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >> > >> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >> > >> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > >> > ------ Original message------ >> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; >> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; >> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >> > >> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >> > >> > >> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. >> > >> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >> > >> > —CGE >> > >> > >> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >> > > >> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> > > >> > > ------ Original message------ >> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >> > > To: Karen Aram; >> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >> > > >> > > >> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >> > >> > > >> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> It is there right now. >> > >>> >> > >>> The >> > antiwar.com >> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >> > >>> >> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -- Stuart >> > >>> >> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >> > >> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> > >> > >>> Cc: peace >> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >> > >>> >> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> A Peace Economy >> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> [...] >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Robert Naiman >> > >>>> Policy Director >> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >> > >>>> >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > >>>> >> > (202) 448-2898 >> > x1 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >> > >>>> >> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >> > >> > >>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 2 15:32:41 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what? Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House. The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero. The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns. You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is impotent. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? > > The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the > party’s real commitments remain what they have been. > > As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just > with an imperialist foreign policy.” > > —CGE > > > On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" > > Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. > > Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the > campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she > won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. > > There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic > Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also > "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because > that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and > militarism. > > But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't > going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such > erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of > holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of >> Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both >> Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s >> opposition to them gained him votes. >> >> And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and >> Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were >> unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in >> Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: > s/2017-07-11/new-study-suggests-war-lust-may-have-cost- >> hillary-clinton-election>. >> >> Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal >> policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism >> in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US >> political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the >> Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t >> succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the >> Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, >> as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. >> >> Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: >> attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party >> will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) >> >> But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to >> mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if >> the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party >> were, they’d reject them.—CGE >> >> >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any >> of us can say about ourselves. >> >> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >> >> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >>> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >>> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >>> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their >>>> domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you >>>> look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat >>>> voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating >>>> authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even >>>> though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished >>>> negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could >>>> see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on >>>> domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a >>>> Democratic President. >>>> >>>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>>> go along to make it happen. >>>> >>>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the >>>> AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and >>>> peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. >>>> Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to >>>> no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House >>>> Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't >>>> been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>>>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>>>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>>>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>>> > >>>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>>>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>>>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>>>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>>>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>>>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>>>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>>> > >>>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>>> > >>>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>>> > >>>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>> > >>>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>>> News from Neptune >>>>> > >>>>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>>>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>>> left to do those things. >>>>> > >>>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>>>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>>>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>>>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>>> > >>>>> > —CGE >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>>> Republican. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>>> News from Neptune >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes- >>>>> dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statemen >>>>> t-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>>> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic >>>>> party. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> The >>>>> > antiwar.com >>>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>>> there. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>>> been put back? >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>>>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>>>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>>>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>>> > x1 >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-appr >>>>> oached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-poli >>>>> cy-section-from-her-we >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> > >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 2 15:32:41 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what? Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House. The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero. The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns. You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is impotent. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? > > The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the > party’s real commitments remain what they have been. > > As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just > with an imperialist foreign policy.” > > —CGE > > > On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" > > Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. > > Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the > campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she > won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. > > There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic > Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also > "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because > that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and > militarism. > > But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't > going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such > erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of > holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of >> Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both >> Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s >> opposition to them gained him votes. >> >> And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and >> Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were >> unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in >> Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: > s/2017-07-11/new-study-suggests-war-lust-may-have-cost- >> hillary-clinton-election>. >> >> Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal >> policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism >> in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US >> political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the >> Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t >> succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the >> Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, >> as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. >> >> Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: >> attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party >> will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) >> >> But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to >> mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if >> the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party >> were, they’d reject them.—CGE >> >> >> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any >> of us can say about ourselves. >> >> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >> >> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >>> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >>> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >>> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their >>>> domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you >>>> look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat >>>> voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating >>>> authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even >>>> though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished >>>> negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could >>>> see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on >>>> domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a >>>> Democratic President. >>>> >>>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>>> go along to make it happen. >>>> >>>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the >>>> AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and >>>> peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. >>>> Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to >>>> no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House >>>> Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't >>>> been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold >>>>> so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or >>>>> domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you >>>>> understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>>> > >>>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the >>>>> mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The >>>>> One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate >>>>> owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE >>>>> Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, >>>>> Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, >>>>> millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>>> > >>>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>>> > >>>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>>> > >>>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>> > >>>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>>> News from Neptune >>>>> > >>>>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>>>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>>> left to do those things. >>>>> > >>>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives >>>>> from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure >>>>> out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their >>>>> individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>>> > >>>>> > —CGE >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>>> Republican. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>>> News from Neptune >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes- >>>>> dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statemen >>>>> t-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>>> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic >>>>> party. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> The >>>>> > antiwar.com >>>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>>> there. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>>> been put back? >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs >>>>> to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression >>>>> have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted >>>>> unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>>> > x1 >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-appr >>>>> oached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-poli >>>>> cy-section-from-her-we >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> > >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 2 15:42:31 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Corral dissident democrats into supporting a neoliberal and neoconservative party, of course. And you choose to do that because they have ‘tanks and airplanes’? > On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" > > Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what? > > Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House. > > The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero. > > The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. > > The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns. > > You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is impotent. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? > > The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the party’s real commitments remain what they have been. > > As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy.” > > —CGE > > >> On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" >> >> Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. >> >> Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. >> >> There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism. >> >> But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. >> >> And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >. >> >> Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. >> >> Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) >> >> But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE >> >> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. >>> >>> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >>> >>> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >>> >>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. >>> >>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> > >>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>> > >>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>> > >>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>> > >>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>> > >>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > >>> > ------ Original message------ >>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; >>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; >>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > >>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>> > >>> > >>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. >>> > >>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>> > >>> > —CGE >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > > >>> > > ------ Original message------ >>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > > >>> > > >>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>> > >>> > > >>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> It is there right now. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The >>> > antiwar.com >>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -- Stuart >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> > >>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > >>> > >>> Cc: peace >>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > >>> >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>> > >>>> Policy Director >>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>> > >>>> >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > (202) 448-2898 >>> > x1 >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 2 15:42:31 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Corral dissident democrats into supporting a neoliberal and neoconservative party, of course. And you choose to do that because they have ‘tanks and airplanes’? > On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" > > Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what? > > Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House. > > The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero. > > The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. > > The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns. > > You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is impotent. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? > > The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the party’s real commitments remain what they have been. > > As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy.” > > —CGE > > >> On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" >> >> Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. >> >> Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. >> >> There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism. >> >> But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. >> >> And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >. >> >> Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. >> >> Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) >> >> But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE >> >> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves. >>> >>> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >>> >>> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President. >>> >>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen. >>> >>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> > >>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>> > >>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>> > >>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>> > >>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>> > >>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > >>> > ------ Original message------ >>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net ; >>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net ; >>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > >>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>> > >>> > >>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. >>> > >>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>> > >>> > —CGE >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> > > >>> > > ------ Original message------ >>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > > >>> > > >>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>> > >>> > > >>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>> > wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> It is there right now. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> The >>> > antiwar.com >>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is there. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -- Stuart >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>> > >>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> > >>> > >>> Cc: peace >>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>> > >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune >>> > >>> >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> [...] >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>> > >>>> Policy Director >>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>> > >>>> >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > (202) 448-2898 >>> > x1 >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-approached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-policy-section-from-her-we >>> > >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> > >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 16:56:06 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:56:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US military and Kurdish forces Message-ID: <220BB75B-8080-4DC7-9A5C-FBFF3F54AF30@gmail.com> http://www.aina.org/news/20180701114143.htm The US military - illegally in Syria - has a variety of relations with different Kurdish groups. And US support for ISIS and Al-Qaeda - 'jihadists’ - is well-known, but not in the US. The US support for sometime competing sides in Syria is in aid of its long-time goal of weakening or bringing down the Syrian government, its quondam ally (the CIA used to employ the Damascus government’s torturers, in the Gina Haspel style). The US means to demonstrate what happens to governments who don’t follow US orders regarding oil flows from the Mideast, which the US wishes to control as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. We’re willing to kill a lot of people for that. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 16:56:06 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:56:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US military and Kurdish forces Message-ID: <220BB75B-8080-4DC7-9A5C-FBFF3F54AF30@gmail.com> http://www.aina.org/news/20180701114143.htm The US military - illegally in Syria - has a variety of relations with different Kurdish groups. And US support for ISIS and Al-Qaeda - 'jihadists’ - is well-known, but not in the US. The US support for sometime competing sides in Syria is in aid of its long-time goal of weakening or bringing down the Syrian government, its quondam ally (the CIA used to employ the Damascus government’s torturers, in the Gina Haspel style). The US means to demonstrate what happens to governments who don’t follow US orders regarding oil flows from the Mideast, which the US wishes to control as a weapon against our economic rivals from Germany to China. We’re willing to kill a lot of people for that. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 2 17:14:06 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:14:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune Message-ID: You're implying that I support Democrats indiscriminately. But I don't. This move is part of your ongoing attempts to erase distinctions. This is how the ultra-left is a de facto ally of the corporatist-militarist faction of the national-Congressional Democratic Party. Nobody you know is pounding harder on Pelosi-Hoyer-Engel right now than me. You oppose that project, because for you all Democrats are the same, so you see that project as a threat, instead of supporting it. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Corral dissident democrats into supporting a neoliberal and > neoconservative party, of course. > > And you choose to do that because they have ‘tanks and airplanes’? > > > > On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" > > Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what? > > Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House. > > The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if > Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero. > > The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. > > The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns. > > You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is > impotent. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? >> >> The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the >> party’s real commitments remain what they have been. >> >> As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just >> with an imperialist foreign policy.” >> >> —CGE >> >> >> On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" >> >> Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. >> >> Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the >> campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she >> won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. >> >> There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic >> Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also >> "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because >> that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and >> militarism. >> >> But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't >> going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such >> erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of >> holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of >>> Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both >>> Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s >>> opposition to them gained him votes. >>> >>> And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and >>> Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were >>> unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in >>> Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >> s/2017-07-11/new-study-suggests-war-lust-may-have-cost-hilla >>> ry-clinton-election>. >>> >>> Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal >>> policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism >>> in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US >>> political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the >>> Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t >>> succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the >>> Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, >>> as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. >>> >>> Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: >>> attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party >>> will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) >>> >>> But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard >>> to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that >>> if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat >>> party were, they’d reject them.—CGE >>> >>> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any >>> of us can say about ourselves. >>> >>> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >>> >>> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >>>> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >>>> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >>>> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >>>> >>>> DG >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their >>>>> domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you >>>>> look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat >>>>> voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating >>>>> authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even >>>>> though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished >>>>> negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could >>>>> see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on >>>>> domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a >>>>> Democratic President. >>>>> >>>>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>>>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>>>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>>>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>>>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>>>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>>>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>>>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>>>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>>>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>>>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>>>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>>>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>>>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>>>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>>>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>>>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>>>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>>>> go along to make it happen. >>>>> >>>>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the >>>>> AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and >>>>> peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. >>>>> Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to >>>>> no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House >>>>> Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't >>>>> been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>>>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>>>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>>>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to >>>>>> hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign >>>>>> or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure >>>>>> you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of >>>>>> the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. >>>>>> The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial >>>>>> corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting >>>>>> un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into >>>>>> Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, >>>>>> Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>>>> News from Neptune >>>>>> > >>>>>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>>>>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>>>> left to do those things. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect >>>>>> progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. >>>>>> Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy >>>>>> of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > —CGE >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>>>> Republican. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes- >>>>>> dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statemen >>>>>> t-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic >>>>>> party. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> The >>>>>> > antiwar.com >>>>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>>>> there. >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>>>> been put back? >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war >>>>>> belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of >>>>>> aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've >>>>>> even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>>>> > x1 >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-appr >>>>>> oached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-poli >>>>>> cy-section-from-her-we >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 2 17:14:06 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:14:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune Message-ID: You're implying that I support Democrats indiscriminately. But I don't. This move is part of your ongoing attempts to erase distinctions. This is how the ultra-left is a de facto ally of the corporatist-militarist faction of the national-Congressional Democratic Party. Nobody you know is pounding harder on Pelosi-Hoyer-Engel right now than me. You oppose that project, because for you all Democrats are the same, so you see that project as a threat, instead of supporting it. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Corral dissident democrats into supporting a neoliberal and > neoconservative party, of course. > > And you choose to do that because they have ‘tanks and airplanes’? > > > > On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" > > Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what? > > Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House. > > The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if > Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero. > > The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. > > The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns. > > You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is > impotent. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? >> >> The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the >> party’s real commitments remain what they have been. >> >> As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just >> with an imperialist foreign policy.” >> >> —CGE >> >> >> On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" >> >> Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down. >> >> Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the >> campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she >> won, she had a public fight with Pelosi. >> >> There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic >> Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also >> "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because >> that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and >> militarism. >> >> But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't >> going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such >> erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of >> holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account. >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of >>> Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north. It’s clear whom both >>> Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s >>> opposition to them gained him votes. >>> >>> And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and >>> Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were >>> unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in >>> Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: >> s/2017-07-11/new-study-suggests-war-lust-may-have-cost-hilla >>> ry-clinton-election>. >>> >>> Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal >>> policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism >>> in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US >>> political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the >>> Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t >>> succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the >>> Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, >>> as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. >>> >>> Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: >>> attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party >>> will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…) >>> >>> But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard >>> to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that >>> if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat >>> party were, they’d reject them.—CGE >>> >>> >>> On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any >>> of us can say about ourselves. >>> >>> Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary. >>> >>> That doesn't seem like a bad start. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other >>>> than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma >>>> and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a >>>> dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. >>>> >>>> DG >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their >>>>> domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you >>>>> look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat >>>>> voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating >>>>> authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even >>>>> though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished >>>>> negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could >>>>> see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on >>>>> domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a >>>>> Democratic President. >>>>> >>>>> Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential >>>>> level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic >>>>> presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. >>>>> This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class >>>>> Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on >>>>> trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame >>>>> them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the >>>>> election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame >>>>> duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not >>>>> what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a >>>>> lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have >>>>> killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an >>>>> amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by >>>>> the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor >>>>> delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't >>>>> campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left >>>>> a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was >>>>> going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would >>>>> go along to make it happen. >>>>> >>>>> But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the >>>>> AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and >>>>> peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. >>>>> Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to >>>>> no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House >>>>> Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't >>>>> been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the >>>>> unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna >>>>> to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can >>>>> get votes in the House on war and peace. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < >>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to >>>>>> hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign >>>>>> or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure >>>>>> you understand, is that there are no institutions to hold so-called >>>>>> conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, >>>>>> we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being >>>>>> facts, America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic >>>>>> direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of >>>>>> the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. >>>>>> The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial >>>>>> corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting >>>>>> un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into >>>>>> Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, >>>>>> Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have >>>>>> demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few >>>>>> Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those >>>>>> labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will >>>>>> just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history. A sports >>>>>> "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain >>>>>> fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that >>>>>> means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the >>>>>> 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 >>>>>> billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know >>>>>> all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was >>>>>> such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his >>>>>> show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest Lawrence Wilkerson, >>>>>> debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get >>>>>> out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There >>>>>> was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . >>>>>> > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------ Original message------ >>>>>> > From: Carl G. Estabrook >>>>>> > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM >>>>>> > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; >>>>>> > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert >>>>>> Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; >>>>>> > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays >>>>>> News from Neptune >>>>>> > >>>>>> > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober- >>>>>> analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how >>>>>> socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she >>>>>> has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make >>>>>> us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with >>>>>> an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and >>>>>> officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and >>>>>> when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to >>>>>> the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of >>>>>> magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the >>>>>> left to do those things. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect >>>>>> progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. >>>>>> Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy >>>>>> of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left >>>>>> institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an >>>>>> acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party >>>>>> predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, >>>>>> lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some >>>>>> people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne >>>>>> corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the >>>>>> Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > —CGE >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 >>>>>> years ago to Tea Party Republicans. Change "Democrat- change it to R >>>>>> Republican. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > ------ Original message------ >>>>>> > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM >>>>>> > > To: Karen Aram; >>>>>> > > Cc: Robert Naiman >>>>>> > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>>> > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; >>>>>> > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes- >>>>>> dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statemen >>>>>> t-on-ocasio-cortez/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic >>>>>> party. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed >>>>>> that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has >>>>>> to say is good enough for me. >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> It is there right now. >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> The >>>>>> > antiwar.com >>>>>> > thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately >>>>>> removed, and she was looking into it. So she did, and the statement is >>>>>> there. >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David >>>>>> Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved. He supports it and urges >>>>>> his readers to let her know they do too. >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> -- Stuart >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>>> > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) >>>>>> > >>> To: Robert Naiman >>>>>> > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> Cc: peace >>>>>> > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on >>>>>> yesterdays News from Neptune >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it >>>>>> been put back? >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy >>>>>> > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has >>>>>> entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North >>>>>> Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, >>>>>> Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of >>>>>> thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as >>>>>> collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by >>>>>> U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, >>>>>> contributing to the global refugee crisis. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force >>>>>> for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes >>>>>> American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough >>>>>> money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fund a >>>>>> $1.1 trillion fighter jet program or a $1.7 trillion-dollar nuclear weapon >>>>>> “modernization” program. The costs are extreme: the Pentagon’s budget for >>>>>> 2018 is $700 billion dollars: to continue fighting an endless War on Terror >>>>>> and refighting the Cold War with a new arms race that nobody can win. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> According to the Constitution, the right to declare war >>>>>> belongs to the legislative body, and yet many of these global acts of >>>>>> aggression have never once been voted on by Congress. In some cases, we've >>>>>> even acted unilaterally, without the backing of the United Nations. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> America should not be in the business of destabilizing >>>>>> countries. While we may see ourselves as liberators, the world increasingly >>>>>> views us as occupiers and aggressors. Alexandria believes that we must end >>>>>> the "forever war" by bringing our troops home, and ending the air strikes >>>>>> that perpetuate the cycle of terrorism throughout the world. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> By bringing our troops home, we can begin to heal the wounds >>>>>> we're opening by continuing military engagement. We can begin to repair our >>>>>> image. We can reunite military families, separated by repeated deployments. >>>>>> We can become stronger by building stronger diplomatic and economic ties, >>>>>> and by saving our armed forces only for when they're truly needed. >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> [...] >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>> > >>>> Policy Director >>>>>> > >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > (202) 448-2898 >>>>>> > x1 >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2018/06/28/as-election-day-appr >>>>>> oached-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-removed-antiwar-foreign-poli >>>>>> cy-section-from-her-we >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 3 00:02:15 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 08:02:15 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays Newsfrom Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1530576133323.5wepw23swatj5sice35iyy5u@android.mail.163.com> I really am impressed with how the Democrat party keeps Its minions accountable. Take comedian Al Franken for example. I was having difficulty sleeping at night worried sick that He was clowning in a socially inappropriate way. so glad the dems know How to make Things right. Thank the dems for planes and tanks. Without them the USA might have high speed rail. who needs it? We ain't goin' no where. On 2018-07-03 01:14 , Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Wrote: You're implying that I support Democrats indiscriminately. But I don't. This move is part of your ongoing attempts to erase distinctions. This is how the ultra-left is a de facto ally of the corporatist-militarist faction of the national-Congressional Democratic Party. Nobody you know is pounding harder on Pelosi-Hoyer-Engel right now than me. You oppose that project, because for you all Democrats are the same, so you see that project as a threat, instead of supporting it.  On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Corral dissident democrats into supporting a neoliberal and neoconservative party, of course. And you choose to do that because they have ‘tanks and airplanes’? On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what?  Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House.  The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero.  The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns.  You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is impotent.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the party’s real commitments remain what they have been.  As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy.” —CGE On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down.  Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi.  There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism.  But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north.  It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: . Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange.   Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…)  But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves.  Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary.  That doesn't seem like a bad start.  On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. DG On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President.  Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen.  But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand,  is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts,  America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history.  A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest  Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > —CGE > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans.  Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > To: Karen Aram; > > Cc: Robert Naiman > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >  wrote: > >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >  wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It is there right now. > >>> > >>> The > antiwar.com >  thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it.  So she did, and the statement is there. > >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved.  He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  -- Stuart > >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > >>> To: Robert Naiman > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > >>> Cc: peace > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 3 00:02:15 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 08:02:15 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays Newsfrom Neptune In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1530576133323.5wepw23swatj5sice35iyy5u@android.mail.163.com> I really am impressed with how the Democrat party keeps Its minions accountable. Take comedian Al Franken for example. I was having difficulty sleeping at night worried sick that He was clowning in a socially inappropriate way. so glad the dems know How to make Things right. Thank the dems for planes and tanks. Without them the USA might have high speed rail. who needs it? We ain't goin' no where. On 2018-07-03 01:14 , Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Wrote: You're implying that I support Democrats indiscriminately. But I don't. This move is part of your ongoing attempts to erase distinctions. This is how the ultra-left is a de facto ally of the corporatist-militarist faction of the national-Congressional Democratic Party. Nobody you know is pounding harder on Pelosi-Hoyer-Engel right now than me. You oppose that project, because for you all Democrats are the same, so you see that project as a threat, instead of supporting it.  On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Corral dissident democrats into supporting a neoliberal and neoconservative party, of course. And you choose to do that because they have ‘tanks and airplanes’? On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: "The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats" Corral dissident democrats into doing what, as opposed to doing what?  Ocasio-Cortez just ousted Crowley, the number four Democrat in the House.  The probability that the Green Party could have accomplished that if Ocasio-Cortez hadn't primaried Crowley is practically indistinct from zero.  The Hillary/Pelosi forces have tanks and airplanes. The Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez forces have rifles and shotguns.  You have a squirt gun. That's the fundamental problem. Your "purity" is impotent.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Who’s erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi? The latter need the distinctions to corral dissident democrats, while the party’s real commitments remain what they have been.  As Bruce Dixon notes, "Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy.” —CGE On Jul 2, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: "Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair" Sanders ran against Hillary and came very close to bringing her down.  Ocasio just toppled the number four Democrat in the House. During the campaign, she refused to support Pelosi as Democratic Leader. After she won, she had a public fight with Pelosi.  There is, absolutely, tremendous corruption at the top of the Democratic Party, if by "corruption" we mean not only "taking from the till" but also "doing the opposite of what the people who elected you would want, because that's what your rich friends want" when it comes to corporate power and militarism.  But erasing distinctions between Sanders-Ocasio and Hillary-Pelosi isn't going to make that any better. On the contrary, to the extent that such erasing of distinctions is successful, it will slow down the process of holding Hillary-Pelosi Democrats to account.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The Clinton administration’s NAFTA is a main source of the disruption of Mexican agriculture that sends immigrants north.  It’s clear whom both Clintons and Obama were working for "at the presidential level.” Trump’s opposition to them gained him votes. And “a bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary" or Obama also on war - their kids were unable to find jobs, entered the military, and killed and died in Obama-Clinton’s hidden wars: . Trump’s attacks on Obama-Clinton’s neoconservative and neoliberal policies - he was the first candidate since the rise of corporate globalism in the Carter administration to do that - made him president. The US political establishment has worked hard to make him conform to the Democrats' war and economic policies - and are still afraid they won’t succeed (given Singapore and Helsinki). And so they reassert the Russia-gate smear - as Durbin and senior ‘liberal’ Democrats did this week, as they called for the the suppression of Wikileaks and Julian Assange.   Their sheepdogs - Sanders, Ocasio - are counsels of despair, or worse: attempts to gain votes for Democrats by advertising policies that the party will never institute. (“Well, we tried, but unfortunately…)  But soi-disant progressives and Democrat front groups are working hard to mislead the public on what the party is actually doing. They know that if the public knew what the military and economic goals of the Democrat party were, they’d reject them.—CGE On Jul 1, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: Well, somehow he got himself elected to Congress, which is more than any of us can say about ourselves.  Not only that, he defeated a Democratic incumbent in a primary.  That doesn't seem like a bad start.  On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 3:08 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: At the risk of being irreverent, I don't know much about Khanna other than the recent interviews on TRNN; but I hope he can develop some charisma and personality, which might be necessary to effectively put forth a dissident agenda, if that in fact is what he wants to do. DG On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: There are institutions to hold them to account on some of their domestic economic policy stances. There's the AFL-CIO, for example. If you look at the last House vote on raising the minimum wage, every Democrat voted for it. If you look at the House vote on fast track trade negotiating authority for the TPP, almost every House Democrat voted against it, even though that was a vote against Obama, even though they hadn't finished negotiating the deal yet and the text was not public. But everyone could see where it was going. Most House Democrats listen to the AFL-CIO on domestic economic policy, including on trade policy, even against a Democratic President.  Bill Clinton broke free of the AFL-CIO on trade at the presidential level. And since then, up until the present, there hasn't been a Democratic presidential nominee who didn't accept the Bill Clinton framework on trade. This is a key reason that Trump got elected. A bunch of working class Democrats in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't trust Hillary on trade so they voted for Trump to kill the TPP dead. I can't say I blame them for not trusting Hillary on trade. The AFL-CIO claimed after the election that they had the votes in the House to kill the TPP in the lame duck session after the election. I'm not sure that I believe that. It's not what the AFL-CIO was saying before the election. I'm pretty sure that was a lie to cover up the AFL-CIO's role in the debacle. The AFL-CIO could have killed the TPP at the Democratic Convention. The Sanders forces had an amendment to the platform against the TPP, which amendment was supported by the Hillary labor delegates. But Obama threatened the pro-Hillary labor delegates, saying: if you amend the platform to oppose the TPP, I won't campaign for Hillary. The pro-Hillary labor leaders blinked. And this left a lot of people with the impression that if Hillary was elected, Obama was going to push the TPP through in the lame duck and enough Democrats would go along to make it happen.  But regardless of all that, regardless of the problems with the AFL-CIO, etc., we have nothing like the AFL-CIO on foreign policy, war and peace, nothing close, nothing in the same league, nothing organized at all. Just a collection of NGOs like Win Without War which are accountable to no-one except their funders and which are very close to the House Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi. And that's why we haven't been able to get a vote in the House so far on getting the U.S. out of the unconstitutional Saudi war in Yemen. That's why I'm trying to get Ro Khanna to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House Democratic leadership. So we can get votes in the House on war and peace.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > On Jul 1, 2018, at 12:40 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, Your point is fantastic that there are no institutions to hold so-called progressives or so-called liberals to any of their foreign or domestic policy stances once elected. My Tea Party point, as I am sure you understand,  is that there are no institutions to hold so-called conservatives to their party policies either, once elected. If there were, we would have a balanced budget and a decreasing deficit. Facts being facts,  America has only One Party, no matter what label or geographic direction it gives itself to attempt to gaslight the gullible. > > That old saying, that a problem cannot be solved at the level of the mindset that created the problem in the first place, must be true here. The One Party that serves its education-prison- military-industrial corporate owners is the REAL master player of Identity Politics: splitting un-AWARE Americans first into Republicans & Democrats, and then into Libertarians, Conservatives, Christians, Deplorables, Liberals, the Left, Anti-.fa, millenniels, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. > > Conservative, liberal, left and right, as you and Counterpunch have demonstrated, no longer mean what the words meant in years past. Those few Americans who may believe any of the baloney being served us under those labels are beyond convincing or worth discussing at this point. They will just have to be dragged along as the rest of us change history.  A sports "us" vs. "them" mentality will bury all of us if the "us" and "them" remain fake Democrats & Republicans, liberals or conservatives. The only "us" that means anything are the 99% and the only "them" that means anything are the 8, 000 people in the world with half the world's wealth. The 1500 billionaires . The alphabet agencies & the oil companies. I may not know all the "thems" - I sure know the "us". > > I had stopped watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" because he was such a staunch Hillary supporter. However, if you had a chance to catch his show last Friday, 6/29/18, it was interesting. Guest  Lawrence Wilkerson, debunking Russiagate, and Bill and Michael Moore begging Americans to get out in the streets against fascism. Michael Moore was nearly crying. There was such a sense of urgency and that things have gone too far. > > Needless to say- not a Happy 4th . > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Carl G. Estabrook > Date: Sun, Jul 1, 2018 12:54 AM > To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; > Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Robert Naiman;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny > > > "In my previous piece and Facebook posts I never touched on how socialist Ocasio-Cortez is or isn't nor on her foreign policy stands if she has any, which Berniecrats frequently don't, something that ought to make us a little uneasy. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist too, just with an imperialist foreign policy. I did say that progressive candidates and officeholders do sometimes flip, a little at a time or all at once, and when they do we have no institutions with which to punish them. "Feet to the fire" and "holding them accountable" are actually the phrases of magical thinkers because no means have yet been devised which enable the left to do those things. > > "I got in trouble for observing that while we can elect progressives from time to time we cannot compel them to remain that way. Until we figure out how to build institutions that can, we are at the mercy of their individual moral and political compasses. The need to develop left institutions to which progressive candidates can be held responsible is an acute one, which the Nation in its slavish devotion to the Democratic party predictably ignores. Noting this truth got me accused of being a petty, lazy purist and ultraleftist. Oh well. Sober analysis may not be what some people wanna hear at a victory party where everybody’s popping champagne corks, dancing the electric slide and toasting the universal lessons of the Ocasio-Cortez victory without the bother of real analysis…" > > —CGE > > > > On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:04 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > > > > That Everyman article could be written exactly the same way 10 years ago to Tea Party Republicans.  Change "Democrat- change it to R Republican. > > > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Date: Sat, Jun 30, 2018 6:11 PM > > To: Karen Aram; > > Cc: Robert Naiman > ;peace-discuss at anti-war.net > ;Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; > > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > > > > > https://americaneveryman.com/2018/06/30/ajamu-baraka-pushes-dementer-with-the-ocasio-cortez-placebo-my-position-statement-on-ocasio-cortez/ > > > > > It’s unclear where Ocasio is herself - but not the Democratic party. > > > > > > > >> On Jun 30, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Karen Aram >  wrote: > >> > >> Very good, thank you Stuart. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that she is able to stand by her declarations. Anything David Swanson has to say is good enough for me. > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 10:38, stuartnlevy >  wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It is there right now. > >>> > >>> The > antiwar.com >  thread quotes Ocasio on June 27th that it hadn't been deliberately removed, and she was looking into it.  So she did, and the statement is there. > >>> > >>> I haven't compared it with the previous version, but David Swanson says it is both lengthened and improved.  He supports it and urges his readers to let her know they do too. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>  -- Stuart > >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- > >>> From: "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > > >>> Date: 6/30/18 11:15 (GMT-06:00) > >>> To: Robert Naiman > , peace-discuss at anti-war.net > > >>> Cc: peace > , "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" , Karen Aram > > >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] In reference to comments on yesterdays News from Neptune > >>> > >>> This is the piece removed from her website, wasn’t it? Has it been put back? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 30, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > https://ocasio2018.com/issues > > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> A Peace Economy > >>>> Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States has entangled itself in war and occupation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. As of 2018, we are currently involved in military action in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries have been killed either as collateral damage from American strikes or from the instability caused by U.S. interventions. Millions more have fled their broken countries, contributing to the global refugee crisis. > >>>> > >>>> This continued action damages America’s legitimacy as a force for good, creates new generations of potential terrorists, and erodes American prosperity. In times when we’re told that there’s not enough money, Republicans and corporate Democrats seem to find the cash to fu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jul 3 01:42:43 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 01:42:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNew_post=5D_That_Time_Hillary?= =?utf-8?q?_Clinton_Removed_John_Bolton=E2=80=99s_Favorite_Terror_Cult_Fro?= =?utf-8?q?m_The_Terrorist_List?= References: <139971992.4864.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: New post on Caitlin Johnstone [https://i1.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cropped-caitlinpic1.jpg?resize=32%2C32&ssl=1] [http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/12152988a68a6d4dae7506812444c18f?s=50&d=monsterid&r=G] That Time Hillary Clinton Removed John Bolton’s Favorite Terror Cult From The Terrorist List by Caitlin Johnstone I just wanted to give everyone a quick reminder of the fact that the MEK, an Iranian cult of highly suspicious funding which is beloved by Trump insiders like John Bolton and Rudolph Giuliani for its extremely vocal pro-regime change agenda, was removed from the US State Department's list of designated terrorist organizations by none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. I point this out because I've been butting heads with the pro-Trump faction of my readership quite a bit lately about this administration's dangerous escalations against Iran, including starvation sanctions explicitly geared toward provoking unrest following America's withdrawal from the Iran deal, as well as escalated CIA covert ops. There is no legitimate reason to believe that this administration can simultaneously (A) deliberately stir up chaos in Iran while also (B) maintaining so much control of the situation that it can keep things from getting out of hand, while also (C) making sure control of the situation remains in the hands of the Iranian people, as many faithful Trump supporters have confidently assured me. These are nonsensical, intrinsically contradictory beliefs, and I figure my best shot at getting people's skepticism up to a sane level is to throw a monkey wrench in their partisan loyalties by pointing out that Hillary Clinton helped advance the same agendas. So here it is. In 2012, despite its having actually killed Americans in acts of terrorism along with thousands of Kurds and Iranians, the bloodthirsty Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) were removed from the list of terrorist groups by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the recommendation of stalwart deep state lackeys like ex-CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter J Goss, former FBI director Louis J Freeh, former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, Obama National Security Advisor James L Jones, and George W Bush’s homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, as well as current Trump administration employees John Bolton and Rudolph Giuliani. Funny how #QAnon followers have never been instructed to investigate this particular rabbit hole, by the way. #psyop https://t.co/Dusa23NsVb — Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) July 2, 2018 Whenever I say that the pro-Trump, pro-regime change 8chan phenomenon known as QAnon is an establishment psyop designed to herd the populist right into supporting neoconservative establishment agendas, Q enthusiasts always come at me telling me it's a purely beneficial and healthy thing. "How can Q be bad, Caitlin?" they ask. "All he does is ask questions and encourage us to do our own research to expose the deep state for ourselves!" Well, normally doing your own research and asking questions is a good thing, and there's nothing inherently wrong with digging up information about the corrupt financial ties of Democrats and Never-Trumpers. But that's all the anonymous 8chan user ever directs followers to look into: Trump's political enemies and targets. If they were legitimately interested in exposing the mechanics of the unelected power alliance known as the deep state, it would be an entirely bipartisan ordeal since the deep state controls both parties. And the Trump administration's ties to the MEK are just the sort of rabbit hole Q enthusiasts would be exploring. But they don't. The only rabbit holes they ever explore are ones which strengthen their conviction that all of Trump's warmongering and his coziness with deep state swamp monsters like John Bolton are actually brilliant strategic maneuvering against the deep state. I've been sincerely informed many times by Trusting Q enthusiasts that Julian Assange is no longer at the Ecuadorian embassy, that Trump's illegal Syria strikes actually took out a secret Iranian nuclear facility, that the deep state controls Iran currently, and that it used to control North Korea and Saudi Arabia as well until Trump liberated them. Meanwhile, in the real world, Trump is advancing longstanding deep state agendas using longstanding deep state tactics. If I still have any readers left who are QAnon enthusiasts, I challenge you to put the MEK in your research crosshairs for a while and see what you find. #QAnon posted last night JOHN BOLTON is cleaning out of WH all Deep State loyal to HRC + Obama (ultimate targets of treason investigations) to STOP LEAKS. Q assures us WH will be safe for @realDonaldTrumpIMPORTANT to plan revealed in KILLING THE DEEP STATE - counterattack begins pic.twitter.com/aNpIhjXRDg — Jerome Corsi (@jerome_corsi) April 3, 2018 [http://img.youtube.com/vi/kf7VPklv8GY/0.jpg] One year ago, the actual, literal psychopath who would soon be named Trump's National Security Advisor appeared at an MEK rally and declared that the cult was a "a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs." "I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran," Bolton proclaimed. "The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” These sentiments were echoed with remarkable similarity this past weekend by Trump's lawyer Rudolph Giuliani at another MEK event in Paris. “The mullahs must go, the ayatollah must go, and they must be replaced by a democratic government which Madam Rajavi represents,” Giuliani said in reference to MEK cult leader Maryam Rajavi, adding, "Freedom is right around the corner … Next year I want to have this convention in Tehran!” On the latest protests in Iran, his comments got even creepier: “Those protests are not happening spontaneously,” Giuliani said. “They are happening because of many of our people in Albania and many of our people here and throughout out the world.” Again, the lawyer for the President of the United States was addressing the MEK terror cult when he said this, and that terror cult has a training compound in Albania. If it had come out in a WikiLeaks document that this sort of thing had been said by an Obama lawyer to an audience of Al Nusra fighters in Syria, Trump supporters would have shaken the earth about it. But it was said out in the open by the lawyer for the current sitting president, and is going mostly ignored for purely partisan reasons. [http://img.youtube.com/vi/zd1SQa-KWG0/0.jpg] [http://img.youtube.com/vi/kxwYaKkDH6o/0.jpg] In a 12-minute presentation titled "Meet the MEK: Washington's Favorite Terror Cult", the phenomenally lucid conspiracy analyst James Corbett said the following: "Since the US occupation of Iraq in 2003, the strategic value of an Iranian group willing and capable of performing attacks and destabilization efforts has been seen as strategically important to the West, which has been desperate to curb Iran's quest for Middle Eastern predominance in the post-Saddam power vacuum." That about sums it up right there. As I've been saying all year, Plan A for the US-centralized empire is not to do to Iran what was done to Iraq; Plan A is to do to Iran what was done to Libya and Syria. It's important to be clear on this so we know what to watch for. The modern approach to destroying a noncompliant government is to use sanctions, propaganda, covert ops and alliances with extremist factions to plunge the disobedient nation into chaos, all of which this administration is currently doing. This is far more efficient and media-friendly than a full-scale ground invasion and the regular deliveries of flag-draped coffins which necessarily come with it. The antiwar movement needs to adapt skillfully to opposing a form of warfare which relies more on drones and CIA ops than the traditional forms of conventional warfare, because they are just as deadly and devastating, as a swift glance at Libya and Syria makes evident. You'd think for all their perfectly justified hatred of Obama's warmongering, the populist right would do a better job of spotting those exact same patterns re-emerging in the current administration, especially when some of those patterns involve a group Hillary Clinton herself took off the US terrorist list. What's up with that, my MAGA brothers and sisters? You guys love Hillary all of a sudden? Is she "based" now? Let's get real. The two-headed one-party system has found yet another way to undermine humanity, and Trump is just as much a part of it as his predecessors. Look at the whole truth, so you can fight the whole machine. Half-truths are the same as lies. [http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Trump-Wedding-Yay-Clintons-998x646.jpg] _____________________ Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat onPatreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. [https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*-GntS1j0aPf3kBsb.png] Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 Caitlin Johnstone | July 3, 2018 at 1:32 am | Tags: #Trump, cult, Hillary Clinton, Iran, MAGA, MEK, terrorist | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1gs Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/07/03/that-time-hillary-clinton-removed-john-boltons-favorite-terror-cult-from-the-terrorist-list/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 15:06:22 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 10:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] US Attempts Violent Regime Change in Iran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F22C59F-8219-4F10-A756-5A369D2CAA1E@gmail.com> To be discussed on 'AWARE on the Air' today. > On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:48 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > « "Officials" Attempt To Sabotage Further North Korea Talks | Main | The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2018-33 » > July 01, 2018 > On The Path To Failure - U.S. Attempts Violent "Regime Change" In Iran > > In early 2014 we remarked on Color Revolution by Force in Syria and Ukraine: > > Accompanying the demonstrations and illegal occupations of government buildings are in both cases brutal, criminal attacks on the police and other government forces. In Syria the violence "muscle" part was done by foreign financed Jihadists while neo-nazi gangs are used in the Ukraine. The demonstrations and the attacks on the state are planned and go together. There is nothing "peaceful" in demonstrations that are only the public-relations cover for attacks on the state. But the foreign politicians and media immediately utter "concerns" and threats over completely normal government responses to them. It is a scam to justify "western" "support" for the demonstrators and to further the violence. > The aim is "regime change" of legitimate governments by small minorities. Should the "regime" resist to that the alternative of destroying the state and the whole society is also wholeheartedly accepted. > > We have since seen similar CIA operations in Venezuela and most recently in Nicaragua . The same concept is used to attack Iran. In December peaceful economic protests were hijacked by violent elements. Last night a similar attempt occurred: > > Sayed Mousavi @SayedMousavi7 - 22:17 UTC - 30 Jun 2018 > Khoramshar water shortage protest turned violent tonight. > What we know: > - At least 2 protesters shot, possibly by getting close to military zones > - Mobs set 2 museums on fire (reports) > - 1 hour of calm > - No base takeovers (anti-regime journos have claimed) > - Armed bike is suspicious > > The scene with the "armed bike" in the video attached to the above tweet can be seen better in another video . It shows two "peaceful protesters" on a motorcycle shooting at police with an automatic gun. The shooter is hit and falls off. Another "peaceful protester" picks up the gun and continues shooting. > > > via Sayed Mousavi - bigger > A year ago the CIA created a new mission center to attack Iran : > > <>The Iran Mission Center will bring together analysts, operations personnel and specialists from across the CIA to bring to bear the range of the agency’s capabilities,including covert action. > ... > To lead the new group, Mr. Pompeo picked a veteran intelligence officer, Michael D’Andrea, who recently oversaw the agency’s program of lethal drone strikes ... > ... > Mr. D’Andrea, a former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, is known among peers as a demanding but effective manager, and a convert to Islam who works long hours. Some U.S. officials have expressed concern over what they perceive as his aggressive stance toward Iran. > The tool the U.S. is using in Iran are operatives of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a terror cult that has been fighting with Saddam's Iraq against Iran and is despised by the Iranian people. When the U.S. was kicked out of Iraq it transferred the MEK camps from Iraq to Albania where the cult is now training its terrorists . > > Yesterday a conference of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a political umbrella controlled by the MEK, was held in Paris. One of the well paid guest speakers was Donald Trump's lawyer Rudi Giuliani. He acknowledged U.S. involvement in the protests in Iran: > > “Those protests [in Iran] are not happening spontaneously. They are happening because of many of our people in Albania and many of our people here and throughout the world.” > The MEK is just a front group, trained by Mossad and financed with U.S. and Saudi money. It is not backed by Iranian people. Only half of the attendees of the conference were Iranians at all: > > The other half consisted of an assortment of bored-looking Poles, Czechs, Slovakians, Germans and Syrians who responded to a Facebook campaign promising travel, food and accommodation to Paris for a mere €25. > These "color revolution by force" regime change protests are only one of the tools the U.S. is using to destroy Iran. > > Trump wants to end all oil exports from Iran to starve the country of foreign currencies. Iran's biggest customers are Europe, India and China. The big Europe oil companies have already folded under Trump's pressure, India followed and China has still to decide if it wants to take a (costly) stand. Trump is pressing Saudi Arabia to increase its oil supplies to replace the Iranian oil that can no longer reach the world market. > > Making Iranians poorer is thought to lead to an uprising and regime change. But it is doubtful that such will work. The identity of the Islamic Republic is quite strong. It is more likely that the Iranian people will pull together and accept the hardship while asymmetric Iranian operations slowly destroy the U.S.'s policies. Saudi oil ports are quite vulnerable targets ... > > Within the Trump administration Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton are the biggest proponents of regime change in Tehran: > > Bolton views the demonstrations that have broken out in Iran in recent months over the state of the country’s economy as an indication of the regime’s weakness. He has told Trump that increased U.S. pressure could lead to the regime’s collapse. > One person who recently spoke with senior White House officials on the subject summarized Bolton view in the words: “One little kick and they’re done.” > > Secretary of Defense Mattis is said to be opposed to regime change in Iran. He fears that such an effort might lead to a larger Middle East war. Trump will likely fire him soon. Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist billionaire who financed Trump's campaign, paid Bolton and supports Netanyahoo, will have Trump ears. He demands regime change in Iran no matter what. > > Regime change in Iran is not just a Trump administration project. The support for the MEK nutters is bipartisan. Several Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi , also spoke at the MEK conference in Paris. The neo-conservative lunatics are established in both parties. Here is Obama's ambassador to Russia who tried and failed to implement regime change there: > > Michael McFaul @McFaul - 18:21 UTC - 30 Jun 2018 > A democratic Iran not only would free Iranians from repressive theocracy but produce closer ties between our two countries; real security, economic, and moral benefits for both Iranians and Americans. > To which the father of the neocons responded: > > Bill Kristol @BillKristol - 18:29 UTC - 30 Jun 2018 > Bill Kristol Retweeted Michael McFaul > Very true. And great to see a bipartisan consensus for regime change in Iran! (It would be happily ironic if, totally inadvertently, tough sanctions followed by the JCPOA followed by withdrawal from the deal caused so much whiplash that the regime crumbled.) > Surely, the U.S. will be welcome in Tehran with candy and flowers (not). Such neo-conservative "moral benefit" nonsense has already led to the disaster of the war on Iraq. Iran is several times larger. It has a quite modern economy, effective proxy forces and very significant allies. Any attempt to defeat it militarily will be a hopeless endeavor. > > The U.S. has only weak allies in the Middle East. Should a conflict with Iran become hot it would have its hands full with trying to save them from falling apart. > > For now we can expect more protests in Iran that will be hijacked in an attempt to create a "revolution". There will be U.S. directed proxy attacks by Kurdish and Baluchi forces on iran's borders. The economic pressure within Iran will increase further. > > But all these efforts are likely to fail. Since its Islamic revolution in 1979 every U.S. attempt to damage Iran or its allies has led to the opposite effect. Every time Iran emerged stronger than before. It is likely that the current attempt will have a similar result. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 23:57:23 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 18:57:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" Message-ID: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics (h/t K. Aram): "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were pretty much the same people. "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' way.) "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” --Paula Densnow From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 02:08:21 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:08:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> Message-ID: How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there > is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” > > Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics > (h/t K. Aram): > > "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, > and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they > were pretty much the same people. > > "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what > is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking > bad thoughts when they committed the crime. > > "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, > because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. > > "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than > reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself > Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that > having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than > actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can > think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think > yourself irresistible' way.) > > "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” > --Paula Densnow > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 02:47:48 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:47:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> It might mean (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it is”; or (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” HAMLET, 2.2================================================= • Hamlet. ... What news ? • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison hither? • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your mind. • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a shadow's shadow. • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my fay, I cannot reason. ========================================================= > On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace wrote: > > How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” > > Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics (h/t K. Aram): > > "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were pretty much the same people. > > "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. > > "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. > > "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' way.) > > "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” --Paula Densnow > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 03:31:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 22:31:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A safe and sane Fourth Message-ID: <2673B088-C217-4AC8-A01D-6B0D5BC3DA8E@gmail.com> The best way to celebrate the Fourth of July is to realize that the 'War of Independence' was in fact a defense of slavery: it occurred because the settler-colonial ruling class in North America feared that England was moving towards the abolition of slavery, the source of their wealth; thus separation was necessary... The perspicacious saw it at the time. In 'Taxation No Tyranny' (1775) Dr. Samuel Johnson wrote, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" —CGE From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 04:06:31 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:06:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of Israel's very real crimes. DG On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook wrote: > It might mean > (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it is”; > or > (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly > think it evil.” > > HAMLET, 2.2================================================= > • Hamlet. ... What news ? > • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. > • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me > question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, > deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison > hither? > • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? > • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. > • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. > • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and > dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. > • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. > • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good > or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. > • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for > your > mind. > • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a > king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. > • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance > of > the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. > • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. > • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality > that > it is but a shadow's shadow. > • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd > heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my > fay, I cannot reason. > ========================================================= > > > On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there >> is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >> >> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US >> politics (h/t K. Aram): >> >> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, >> and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they >> were pretty much the same people. >> >> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what >> is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking >> bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >> >> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at >> all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >> >> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than >> reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself >> Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that >> having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than >> actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can >> think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >> yourself irresistible' way.) >> >> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” >> --Paula Densnow >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ewj at pigs.ag Wed Jul 4 05:05:38 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 13:05:38 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?W1BlYWNlXSAgIi4uLnRoaW5raW5nIG1ha2Vz?= =?utf-8?q?_it_so=22?= In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180704050538.20887.qmail@station188.com> it smells to me like the Southern Poverty Law Center has something to do with it. The SPLC is a hater of freedom.and free speech. > -------Original Message------- > From: David Green via Peace-discuss > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace , Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" > Sent: Jul 04 '18 12:07 > > I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in > the law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my > sense--perhaps more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws > that directly monitor speech--has long been that what Norman > Finkelstein has called the "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the > development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of the > Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of Israel's very real > crimes. > > DG > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > > > It might mean > > (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think > > it is”; or > > (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you > > mistakenly think it evil.” > > > > HAMLET, 2.2================================================= > > > > • Hamlet. ... What news ? > > > > • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. > > • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let > > me > > question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, > > deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison > > hither? > > > > • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? > > > > • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. > > > > • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. > > > > • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, > > and > > dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. > > > > • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. > > > > • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either > > good > > or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. > > > > • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too > > narrow for your > > mind. > > > > • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count > > myself a > > king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. > > > > • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very > > substance of > > the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. > > > > • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. > > > > • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a > > quality that > > it is but a shadow's shadow. > > > > • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and > > outstretch'd > > heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my > > fay, I cannot reason. > > ========================================================= > > > > On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace > > wrote: > > > > How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s > > “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it > > so.” > > > > Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US > > politics (h/t K. Aram): > > > > "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime > > laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to > > me that they were pretty much the same people. > > > > "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take > > what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp > > was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. > > > > "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished > > at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed > > the crime. > > > > "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more > > important than reality. This is very American, since we have had > > multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And > > we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in > > climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of > > course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into > > the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' > > way.) > > > > "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing > > peace.” --Paula Densnow > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > ------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 4 12:00:53 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:00:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 4th of July celebration Message-ID: * HOME * SECTIONS » * PUBLICATIONS » * PSL » * DONATE » * Navigate to... Home Sections » – Militant Journalism – Analysis – Video – Archives – Español Publications » – Breaking the Chains Magazine – PSL Books PSL » – About – Join the PSL – Become a Sustainer – Sign Up for Emails – Contact – Party Statements – Upcoming Events – Liberation School – Int’l Bulletin Donate » – Join the Sustainers ANALYSIS Download PDF flyer ‘What to the American Slave is Your 4th of July’ By Frederick Douglass Jul 03, 2018 28714 [Frederick_Douglass_portrait] Excerpt of speech by Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852, Rochester, New York What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and America religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness. The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed. In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror. Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight . . . But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. Link to full text: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Jul 4 12:46:56 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] 4th of July celebration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4DE287-429C-4DBD-94FD-59FCF3F0916F@illinois.edu> Most Americans believe that the US Civil War (1861-65) was a noble enterprise to free the slaves, but often don’t notice (a) the Federal government attacked the seceding states militarily in 1861, not the other way around, because the Northern ruling class wished to destroy a competing method of exploiting labor. While the South depended on chattel slavery, the north depended on wage-slavery - "the equal exchange between free agents which reproduces, hourly and daily, inequality and oppression" (Perry Anderson). The leading US military man, General Winfield Scott, advising Lincoln on what war would bring - notably hundreds of thousands of deaths - told him his policy toward the seceding governments should be, "Farewell, wayward sisters; depart in peace." But Lincoln obeyed the desire of the Northern capitalists. (See William Marvel, "Mr. Lincoln Goes to War," 2006.) That's in fact what Lincoln had meant by saying that the country could not go on "half slave and half free" - labor must be 'free' to be exploited. (What do you take better care of, the car you own, or the car you rent?) (b) the continuation - and exacerbation - of the condition of former slave families in the century after the Civil War. See Douglas A. Blackmon, "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II," 2008. Silvery was ended elsewhere (e.g. Brazil) and more effectively, without the massive blood-letting - and festering resentment - of the US civil war. The late Christopher Hitchens, who urged another ruinous war (Iraq) on the US government, quoted a better historian than himself, Perry Anderson, in 2006: "A few years ago, when we jointly addressed a gathering in New York, he startled me by announcing that he thought the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede. His reasoning was elegant enough—slavery was historically doomed in any case; two semi-continental states would have been more natural; American expansionism would have been checked; Lincoln was a bloodthirsty Bismarckian étatiste and megalomaniac..." I think Anderson was right, as he often is, and Hitchens was wrong, both times. —CGE > On Jul 4, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > ‘What to the American Slave is Your 4th of July’ > > By Frederick Douglass Jul 03, 2018 > > Excerpt of speech by Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852, Rochester, New York > > What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. > > Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. > > Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. > > Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and America religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. > > I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness. > > The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed. > > In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror. > > Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight . . . > > But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. > > Link to full text: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Jul 4 12:46:56 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 07:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] 4th of July celebration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4DE287-429C-4DBD-94FD-59FCF3F0916F@illinois.edu> Most Americans believe that the US Civil War (1861-65) was a noble enterprise to free the slaves, but often don’t notice (a) the Federal government attacked the seceding states militarily in 1861, not the other way around, because the Northern ruling class wished to destroy a competing method of exploiting labor. While the South depended on chattel slavery, the north depended on wage-slavery - "the equal exchange between free agents which reproduces, hourly and daily, inequality and oppression" (Perry Anderson). The leading US military man, General Winfield Scott, advising Lincoln on what war would bring - notably hundreds of thousands of deaths - told him his policy toward the seceding governments should be, "Farewell, wayward sisters; depart in peace." But Lincoln obeyed the desire of the Northern capitalists. (See William Marvel, "Mr. Lincoln Goes to War," 2006.) That's in fact what Lincoln had meant by saying that the country could not go on "half slave and half free" - labor must be 'free' to be exploited. (What do you take better care of, the car you own, or the car you rent?) (b) the continuation - and exacerbation - of the condition of former slave families in the century after the Civil War. See Douglas A. Blackmon, "Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II," 2008. Silvery was ended elsewhere (e.g. Brazil) and more effectively, without the massive blood-letting - and festering resentment - of the US civil war. The late Christopher Hitchens, who urged another ruinous war (Iraq) on the US government, quoted a better historian than himself, Perry Anderson, in 2006: "A few years ago, when we jointly addressed a gathering in New York, he startled me by announcing that he thought the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede. His reasoning was elegant enough—slavery was historically doomed in any case; two semi-continental states would have been more natural; American expansionism would have been checked; Lincoln was a bloodthirsty Bismarckian étatiste and megalomaniac..." I think Anderson was right, as he often is, and Hitchens was wrong, both times. —CGE > On Jul 4, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > ‘What to the American Slave is Your 4th of July’ > > By Frederick Douglass Jul 03, 2018 > > Excerpt of speech by Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852, Rochester, New York > > What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. > > Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. > > Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. > > Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and America religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. > > I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness. > > The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed. > > In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror. > > Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight . . . > > But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. > > Link to full text: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From mickalideh at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 13:53:07 2018 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 08:53:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they *risk *punishment in order to defend us and fight fascism. In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and action, we here on the Internet are *thinking* about creating a just world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually *doing *it. Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them from Nazis. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the > law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps > more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly > monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the > "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by > equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and > criticism of Israel's very real crimes. > > DG > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > >> It might mean >> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it >> is”; or >> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly >> think it evil.” >> >> HAMLET, 2.2================================================= >> • Hamlet. ... What news ? >> • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >> • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >> question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, >> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison >> hither? >> • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >> • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >> • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. >> • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >> • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. >> • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >> • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for >> your >> mind. >> • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. >> • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance >> of >> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >> • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. >> • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality >> that >> it is but a shadow's shadow. >> • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd >> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my >> fay, I cannot reason. >> ========================================================= >> >> >> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there >>> is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >>> >>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US >>> politics (h/t K. Aram): >>> >>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime >>> laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that >>> they were pretty much the same people. >>> >>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what >>> is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking >>> bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >>> >>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at >>> all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >>> >>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important >>> than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think >>> Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told >>> that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important >>> than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can >>> think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >>> yourself irresistible' way.) >>> >>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” >>> --Paula Densnow >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 13:59:37 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 08:59:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: They’re “creating a just world" by beating up people with the wrong ideas? That’s an organizing gift to the Right. > On Jul 4, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Harry Mickalide wrote: > > It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they risk punishment in order to defend us and fight fascism. > > In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and action, we here on the Internet are thinking about creating a just world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually doing it. > > Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them from Nazis. > http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: > I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of Israel's very real crimes. > > DG > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > It might mean > (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it is”; or > (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” > > HAMLET, 2.2================================================= > • Hamlet. ... What news ? > • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. > • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me > question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, > deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison > hither? > • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? > • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. > • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. > • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and > dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. > • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. > • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good > or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. > • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your > mind. > • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a > king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. > • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance of > the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. > • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. > • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that > it is but a shadow's shadow. > • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd > heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my > fay, I cannot reason. > ========================================================= > > >> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: >> >> How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >> >> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics (h/t K. Aram): >> >> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were pretty much the same people. >> >> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >> >> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >> >> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' way.) >> >> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” --Paula Densnow >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 14:04:47 2018 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:04:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's a chilling understatement to call Nazis "people with the wrong ideas". How bad does it get before we consider tactics besides flyering? Our government has banned people from Muslim countries and is now keeping immigrant children in cages. That's it for me. I'm outta here! On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:59 AM, C G Estabrook wrote: > They’re “creating a just world" by beating up people with the wrong ideas? > That’s an organizing gift to the Right. > > > On Jul 4, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Harry Mickalide wrote: > > It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they *risk *punishment > in order to defend us and fight fascism. > > In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and > action, we here on the Internet are *thinking* about creating a just > world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually *doing *it. > > Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them > from Nazis. > http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/ > 2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the >> law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps >> more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly >> monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the >> "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by >> equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and >> criticism of Israel's very real crimes. >> >> DG >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>> It might mean >>> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it >>> is”; or >>> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly >>> think it evil.” >>> >>> HAMLET, 2.2================================================= >>> • Hamlet. ... What news ? >>> • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >>> • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >>> question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, >>> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison >>> hither? >>> • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >>> • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >>> • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. >>> • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >>> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >>> • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. >>> • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >>> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >>> • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for >>> your >>> mind. >>> • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >>> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. >>> • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance >>> of >>> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >>> • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. >>> • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality >>> that >>> it is but a shadow's shadow. >>> • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd >>> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my >>> fay, I cannot reason. >>> ========================================================= >>> >>> >>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace < >>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s >>>> “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >>>> >>>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US >>>> politics (h/t K. Aram): >>>> >>>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime >>>> laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that >>>> they were pretty much the same people. >>>> >>>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take >>>> what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was >>>> thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >>>> >>>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at >>>> all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >>>> >>>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important >>>> than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think >>>> Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told >>>> that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important >>>> than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can >>>> think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >>>> yourself irresistible' way.) >>>> >>>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” >>>> --Paula Densnow >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Jul 4 14:26:23 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:26:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Our government has banned people from Muslim nations we have bombed, or planned to bomb, we aren’t banning allies such as the KSA, Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world, or even Malaysia. When we stop our government from bombing and/or intervening in nations with covert operations intent on regime change, sanctions and economic destruction, such as NAFTA affecting both sides of the borders. When we do something about climate change, and the crime our actions create, then people won’t be forced to leave their countries to come here to be treated so badly, because its only going to get worse. Look at Puerto Rico today, what the Hurricane completed, started long ago, in order for developers to take over that once beautiful island. Whats going to happen in the future when immigrants from Louisiana and Florida, California and Arizona start moving across state borders north and inland, will they be welcomed with open arms? Besides huge profits with our system of mass incarceration, why else is our system incarcerating young black men for non violent crimes? Why the drug wars? These are all questions that have an answer, when we look at as if a forest, rather than just examining each tree. No question the Trump Administration is the most awful, but every US administration has contributed to where we are now. What needs to be changed is our system of capitalism which has impoverished the working classes, while empowering the ruling elites as the empire dies. On Jul 4, 2018, at 07:04, Harry Mickalide via Peace > wrote: It's a chilling understatement to call Nazis "people with the wrong ideas". How bad does it get before we consider tactics besides flyering? Our government has banned people from Muslim countries and is now keeping immigrant children in cages. That's it for me. I'm outta here! On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:59 AM, C G Estabrook > wrote: They’re “creating a just world" by beating up people with the wrong ideas? That’s an organizing gift to the Right. On Jul 4, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Harry Mickalide > wrote: It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they risk punishment in order to defend us and fight fascism. In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and action, we here on the Internet are thinking about creating a just world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually doing it. Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them from Nazis. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of Israel's very real crimes. DG On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: It might mean (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it is”; or (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” HAMLET, 2.2================================================= • Hamlet. ... What news ? • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison hither? • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your mind. • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a shadow's shadow. • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my fay, I cannot reason. ========================================================= On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics (h/t K. Aram): "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were pretty much the same people. "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' way.) "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” --Paula Densnow _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 14:33:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:33:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ED2467A-6B79-4FD9-AB11-464883E54678@gmail.com> Our government is now doing what it’s done for a good while. Instead of punching a contemporary, why not organize a community you’re a part of? Revolutionary violence is defensive violence. "I think pacifists are mistaken in ruling out violence in all circumstances, for the very conventional reason that in the end the ruling class will always protect its interests with gunfire, as we have seen it doing throughout Latin America in recent years. In the end the workers will need not only solidarity and class consciousness but guns as well; but in this country, and in the Western world as a whole, this moment has not yet arrived; the capitalist class has by no means yet dismantled the apparatus of democracy; a certain freedom of communication, certain civil rights, despite all harassment of militants, make the class struggle a good deal easier to organise here than in many countries. While this situation obtains, our job is peaceful and efficient organisation, education and propaganda. Any adventurist violent posturings, which will merely hasten the dismantling of these democratic freedoms, are simply counter-revolutionary.” [H. McCabe] “...one thing everyone ought to agree with is that any form of force and violence has to meet a pretty high burden of proof; the null hypothesis and assumption is that you don’t use force unless you have to, so it’s a last resort. The question is, can that burden of proof be met? Then we get to the question of tactics and consequences, and I think the record — and pure logic — shows that it’s totally destructive, a gift to the powerful, an absolute gift to them. In the region of violence they have overwhelming power — that’s where they’re strong. So if you move into that arena you’ll get smashed, and not only do you get smashed, but you lose the population. "We’ve been living through this all my life. Take, say, the Vietnam War. It was pretty dramatic to see what happened here among students and everybody else. In around 1970, at the peak of anti-war movement, young people were getting so angry and desperate — a little like the Bernie or Bust movement ... that they said we just can’t keep doing these things like teach-ins, demonstrations, lobbying. We’ve got to do something really significant to break down the system, so let’s go down Main Street and smash up the windows, like the Weathermen. "The Vietnamese were appalled. I remember sitting in on meetings where representatives of Vietnam were trying to urge measures that people here regarded as ludicrous. I remember a meeting when they said the things that are really good are when a group of middle-aged women go to a cemetery and pray at the graves of American soldiers; they thought that was really great. "Smashing windows on Main Street is the worst possible thing you can do. The Vietnamese wanted to survive. They didn’t care if Americans felt good — ‘I’m breaking a window, I’m really doing something’ — they didn’t care about that. They wanted to survive. The Vietnamese recognised what was obviously true — that the women praying at the grave are appealing to people — but think about it, the kids smashing windows on Main Street are telling construction workers, ‘let’s be pro-war’. So you want to build up pro-war sentiment? Great — have a fight with the police, smash up windows, then the population turns against you, for good reasons, and for the victims that’s a disaster. This is kind of ‘feel-good’ politics; I gotta do what makes me feel good, not [engage with] what happens to the victims. "You see this all over the place, and it’s a real defect of the activist Left. You have to think about the consequences for the victims, not whether you feel good about it. It doesn’t matter if you feel good about it. I think that’s the issue that shows up in the use of violent tactics. Take even violence in self-defence. I remember in a lot of demonstrations back in the ’60s, a lot of activists said, ‘look, we’ve got to arm ourselves, because the police are going to attack us’. That’s suicidal. If you take up a stick they’ll come after you with a gun. You pick up a gun; they’ll come after you with an assault rifle. You take an assault rifle; they’ll come after you with a tank. They’re gonna win, you’re gonna get smashed, you’ll get destroyed and you’ll turn the population against you — and for what purpose? In a brutal dictatorship you might have other arguments, but we live in pretty free societies — there are restrictions on the use of force by state power, they can’t do everything they want. "Hume was basically right: power is not determined by brute force. Even in Nazi Germany the population was controlled by economic benefits. Germany during the second World War was never able to mobilise to the extent that the democracies were, because the leadership didn’t trust the population. They had to buy them off, so you had what we later called a guns-and-butter war — kinda like how the United States in the ’60s could never call a national mobilisation because there was too much popular objection. So you have to fight an inefficient war. Albert Speer in his memoirs talks about this. He says that Germany could never become as totalitarian as the West did, because in the West there was real commitment to the war effort: you could have tight controls, discipline and so on. In Germany they had to devote resources to trying to keep the population satisfied, away from the war effort. That may be the reason that they lost the war, because they were technologically way more advanced… but these are really serious considerations, all of them, and almost entirely they militate against violent actions…” [Noam Chomsky] > On Jul 4, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Harry Mickalide wrote: > > It's a chilling understatement to call Nazis "people with the wrong ideas". How bad does it get before we consider tactics besides flyering? Our government has banned people from Muslim countries and is now keeping immigrant children in cages. > > That's it for me. I'm outta here! > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:59 AM, C G Estabrook > wrote: > They’re “creating a just world" by beating up people with the wrong ideas? That’s an organizing gift to the Right. > > >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 8:53 AM, Harry Mickalide > wrote: >> >> It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they risk punishment in order to defend us and fight fascism. >> >> In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and action, we here on the Internet are thinking about creating a just world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually doing it. >> >> Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them from Nazis. >> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: >> I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of Israel's very real crimes. >> >> DG >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: >> It might mean >> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it is”; or >> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” >> >> HAMLET, 2.2================================================= >> • Hamlet. ... What news ? >> • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >> • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >> question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, >> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison >> hither? >> • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >> • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >> • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. >> • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >> • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. >> • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >> • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your >> mind. >> • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. >> • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance of >> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >> • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. >> • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that >> it is but a shadow's shadow. >> • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd >> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my >> fay, I cannot reason. >> ========================================================= >> >> >>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: >>> >>> How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >>> >>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics (h/t K. Aram): >>> >>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were pretty much the same people. >>> >>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >>> >>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >>> >>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' way.) >>> >>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” --Paula Densnow >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Wed Jul 4 14:40:33 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 10:40:33 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_As_you_celebrate_=F0=9F=87=BA?= =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=87=B8=2C_thank_them_for_serving--ARE_YOU_KIDDING=3F=3F?= =?utf-8?q?=3F?= In-Reply-To: <164657ada23-c90-74e2@webjas-vac198.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <16465bcdbec-c91-510d@webjas-vab166.srv.aolmail.net> -----Original Message----- From: Mildred O'brien To: moboct1 Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2018 8:28 am Subject: Fwd: As you celebrate 🇺🇸, thank them for serving--ARE YOU KIDDING??? -----Original Message----- From: Mildred O'brien To: info Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2018 8:23 am Subject: Re: As you celebrate 🇺🇸, thank them for serving--ARE YOU KIDDING??? AMERICAN SERVICEMEN ARE NOT KEEPING ME FREE!  IN FACT, THEY ARE CREATING MORE ENEMIES FOR THE DEEP STATE TO EMPLOY THEM TO INVADE.  IF ONLY SERVICEMEN HAD BEEN EDUCATED ABOUT THE GOALS OF U.S. MEDDLING IN OTHER NATIONS, OR HAD BETTER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, OR ALTERNATIVELY DRAFTED MEN ONLY OVER THE AGE OF 45, MAYBE WE COULD PREVENT WAR AND EMPLOY THEM AT HOME! M. O'BRIEN -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Nielsen, Feeding America To: Midge O'Brien Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2018 8:03 am Subject: As you celebrate 🇺🇸, thank them for serving Can't view this? Read it online. SIGN THE CARD Midge – right now, you're likely preparing for an afternoon BBQ or making plans to watch fireworks after the sun goes down. Amidst the festivities, we want to take today to recognize the military service members who help keep America the land of the free. Sign the card to thank military personnel for their service and wish them a happy July 4th. Add your name now >> The unfortunate reality is that many military personnel face hunger as they struggle to navigate the complex stages of military life – from deployment to returning home to life as a veteran. That's why we work to provide meals to military service people and their families – whether it's onsite at VA medical centers or at one of the thousands of food pantries across the country. Midge, let's show military members we're grateful for their service and sacrifice that make celebrating our country's independence possible. Sign the Fourth of July Card now. Thank you for making these service members and families part of your celebration today. Sincerely, Elizabeth Nielsen Senior Vice President Feeding America Find us on Unsubscribe FeedingAmerica.org Donate Now Contact Us Privacy Policy ©2018 Feeding America 35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60601 1-800-910-5524 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 4 14:53:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:53:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned fight back” its “planned defensive attacks,” as if military or police. It creates chaos, and chaos leads to violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos the government, and ruling elite wins. There are historical examples proving this. One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need to oppose uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and disintegration of the left. No movement/revolution using violence has ever succeeded. MLK knew this, perhaps he couldn’t have accomplished what he did without the threat of Malcolm X, but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what MLK did. Only civil resistance succeeds. On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace > wrote: It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they risk punishment in order to defend us and fight fascism. In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and action, we here on the Internet are thinking about creating a just world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually doing it. Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them from Nazis. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of Israel's very real crimes. DG On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: It might mean (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it is”; or (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” HAMLET, 2.2================================================= • Hamlet. ... What news ? • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison hither? • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your mind. • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a shadow's shadow. • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my fay, I cannot reason. ========================================================= On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace > wrote: How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics (h/t K. Aram): "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were pretty much the same people. "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' way.) "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” --Paula Densnow _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 19:58:08 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:58:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: If this was on Facebook I would "Like" it, Karen. Absolutely right. John Wason On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned fight back” its > “planned defensive attacks,” as if military or police. It creates chaos, > and chaos leads to violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos > the government, and ruling elite wins. There are historical examples > proving this. > > One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need to oppose > uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and disintegration of the left. > > No movement/revolution using violence has ever succeeded. MLK knew this, > perhaps he couldn’t have accomplished what he did without the threat of > Malcolm X, but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what MLK > did. > > Only civil resistance succeeds. > > > On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they *risk *punishment > in order to defend us and fight fascism. > > In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and > action, we here on the Internet are *thinking* about creating a just > world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually *doing *it. > > Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them > from Nazis. > http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/ > 2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the >> law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps >> more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly >> monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the >> "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by >> equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and >> criticism of Israel's very real crimes. >> >> DG >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>> It might mean >>> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it >>> is”; or >>> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly >>> think it evil.” >>> >>> HAMLET, 2.2================================================= >>> • Hamlet. ... What news ? >>> • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >>> • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >>> question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, >>> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison >>> hither? >>> • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >>> • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >>> • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. >>> • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >>> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >>> • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. >>> • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >>> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >>> • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for >>> your >>> mind. >>> • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >>> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. >>> • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance >>> of >>> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >>> • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. >>> • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality >>> that >>> it is but a shadow's shadow. >>> • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd >>> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my >>> fay, I cannot reason. >>> ========================================================= >>> >>> >>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace < >>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s >>>> “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >>>> >>>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US >>>> politics (h/t K. Aram): >>>> >>>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime >>>> laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that >>>> they were pretty much the same people. >>>> >>>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take >>>> what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was >>>> thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >>>> >>>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at >>>> all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >>>> >>>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important >>>> than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think >>>> Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told >>>> that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important >>>> than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can >>>> think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >>>> yourself irresistible' way.) >>>> >>>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” >>>> --Paula Densnow >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 20:04:23 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:04:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <2F052550-1207-4A39-B100-F7A7FC421FAA@gmail.com> <580EB405-5872-4A3D-A050-46273DDDF9EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would add that Malcolm X, whom we thought of and still think of today as being much more "militant" than MLK, really didn't do anything more than preach the necessity, at times, of Black self-defense. He didn't foment violence for the sake of disruption. Nor, I might add further, did the Black Panthers or Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown or any of the other more "militant" Black leaders of the time. John Wason again On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:58 PM, John W. wrote: If this was on Facebook I would "Like" it, Karen. Absolutely right. > > John Wason > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned fight back” its >> “planned defensive attacks,” as if military or police. It creates chaos, >> and chaos leads to violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos >> the government, and ruling elite wins. There are historical examples >> proving this. >> >> One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need to oppose >> uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and disintegration of the left. >> >> No movement/revolution using violence has ever succeeded. MLK knew this, >> perhaps he couldn’t have accomplished what he did without the threat of >> Malcolm X, but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what MLK >> did. >> >> Only civil resistance succeeds. >> >> >> On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they *risk *punishment >> in order to defend us and fight fascism. >> >> In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and >> action, we here on the Internet are *thinking* about creating a just >> world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually *doing *it. >> >> Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them >> from Nazis. >> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201 >> 7/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the >>> law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps >>> more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly >>> monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the >>> "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by >>> equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and >>> criticism of Israel's very real crimes. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It might mean >>>> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it >>>> is”; or >>>> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly >>>> think it evil.” >>>> >>>> HAMLET, 2.2================================================= >>>> • Hamlet. ... What news ? >>>> • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >>>> • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >>>> question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, >>>> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison >>>> hither? >>>> • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >>>> • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >>>> • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. >>>> • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >>>> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >>>> • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. >>>> • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >>>> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >>>> • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow >>>> for your >>>> mind. >>>> • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >>>> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. >>>> • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very >>>> substance of >>>> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >>>> • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. >>>> • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a >>>> quality that >>>> it is but a shadow's shadow. >>>> • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and >>>> outstretch'd >>>> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my >>>> fay, I cannot reason. >>>> ========================================================= >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace < >>>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s >>>>> “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >>>>> >>>>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US >>>>> politics (h/t K. Aram): >>>>> >>>>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime >>>>> laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that >>>>> they were pretty much the same people. >>>>> >>>>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take >>>>> what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was >>>>> thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >>>>> >>>>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at >>>>> all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >>>>> >>>>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important >>>>> than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think >>>>> Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told >>>>> that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important >>>>> than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can >>>>> think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >>>>> yourself irresistible' way.) >>>>> >>>>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” >>>>> --Paula Densnow >>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marketype at yahoo.com Wed Jul 4 23:51:15 2018 From: marketype at yahoo.com (Mark Morenz-Harbinger) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 23:51:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" References: <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361@mail.yahoo.com> Wason, you're so full of ****. I haven't forgotten when you (obliquely, I'll admit, but nevertheless) threatened me and my kids in an exchange on the WEFT listservs when it was going through its turmoil. [For the record, that chaos was caused entirely by non-violent means...fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles, has been my observation] While it is ballsy that you hover on these "peace" and "peace-discuss" lists, it is unfortunate that anyone on those lists gives you any credence. This is an old email that I seldom use, but when I saw this-- oh brother. I will now take the time to unsubscribe. _Mark -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 7/4/18, John W. via Peace wrote: Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" To: "Karen Aram" Cc: "peace" , "Peace Discuss" Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 1:04 PM I would add that Malcolm X, whom we thought of and still think of today as being much more "militant" than MLK, really didn't do anything more than preach the necessity, at times, of Black self-defense.  He didn't foment violence for the sake of disruption.  Nor, I might add further, did the Black Panthers or Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown or any of the other more "militant" Black leaders of the time. John Wason again On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:58 PM, John W. wrote: If this was on Facebook I would "Like" it, Karen.  Absolutely right. John Wason On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned fight back” its “planned defensive attacks,” as if military or police. It creates chaos, and chaos leads to violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos the government, and ruling elite wins.  There are historical examples proving this.  One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need to oppose uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and disintegration of the left.  No movement/revolution using violence has ever succeeded. MLK knew this, perhaps he couldn’t have accomplished what he did without the threat of Malcolm X, but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what MLK did. Only civil resistance succeeds.   On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace wrote: It's not that Antifa doesn't expect punishment. It's that they risk punishment in order to defend us and fight fascism. In fact, if we're going to compare the difference between thought and action, we here on the Internet are thinking about creating a just world, while people in Antifa are in the streets actually doing it. Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa for defending them from Nazis.  http://www.slate.com/articles/ news_and_politics/politics/201 7/08/what_the_alt_left_was_act ually_doing_in_charlottesville .html On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace wrote: I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of Israel's very real crimes. DG On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook wrote: It might mean (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it is”; or (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” HAMLET, 2.2=========================== ====================== • Hamlet. ... What news ? • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me  question more in particular. What have you, my good friends,  deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison  hither? • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison.  • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and  dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good  or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for your  mind. • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a  king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance of  the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that  it is but a shadow's shadow.  • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd  heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my  fay, I cannot reason. ============================== =========================== On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace wrote: How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US politics (h/t K. Aram): "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were pretty much the same people. "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they committed the crime. "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think yourself irresistible' way.) "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” --Paula Densnow ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mai lman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -----Inline Attachment Follows----- From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 5 00:43:00 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 00:43:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Mark, I agree with your statement: “fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles,” my point in respect to anti-fa……. John: I’m not saying Malcolm X or Stokely threatened violence, but they were angry, and militant, and rightly so, in comparison with the pacifist Dr. MLK, who constantly preached “peace,” because MLK knew there was only one way to achieve the goal, at that time. Even then he was painted as responsible for violence, to white folks who only knew what the media at that time told them. What Malcolm and Stokely threatened was “revolution” and it scared the shit out of the USG, so capitulating to MLK’s demands were a solution. Just as “social security” was a capitulation, solution to save “capitalism.” > On Jul 4, 2018, at 16:51, Mark Morenz-Harbinger wrote: > > Wason, you're so full of ****. I haven't forgotten when you (obliquely, I'll admit, but nevertheless) threatened me and my kids in an exchange on the WEFT listservs when it was going through its turmoil. [For the record, that “chaos was caused entirely by non-violent means...fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles," has been my observation] > > While it is ballsy that you hover on these "peace" and "peace-discuss" lists, it is unfortunate that anyone on those lists gives you any credence. > > This is an old email that I seldom use, but when I saw this-- oh brother. I will now take the time to unsubscribe. > > _Mark > > > -------------------------------------------- > On Wed, 7/4/18, John W. via Peace wrote: > > Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" > To: "Karen Aram" > Cc: "peace" , "Peace Discuss" > Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 1:04 PM > > > I would add that Malcolm X, whom we > thought of and still think of today as being much more > "militant" than MLK, really didn't do anything > more than preach the necessity, at times, of Black > self-defense. He didn't foment violence for the sake > of disruption. Nor, I might add further, did the Black > Panthers or Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown or any of the > other more "militant" Black leaders of the > time. > John Wason > again > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:58 > PM, John W. > wrote: > If this was on > Facebook I would "Like" it, Karen. Absolutely > right. > John > Wason > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:53 > AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > > > > > > Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned > fight back” its “planned defensive attacks,” as if > military or police. It creates chaos, and chaos leads to > violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos the > government, and ruling > elite wins. There are historical examples proving > this. > > > > > One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need > to oppose uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and > disintegration of the left. > > > > No movement/revolution using violence has ever > succeeded. MLK knew this, perhaps he couldn’t have > accomplished what he did without the threat of Malcolm X, > but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what > MLK did. > > > > Only civil resistance succeeds. > > > > > > On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace > > wrote: > > > > It's not that Antifa doesn't expect > punishment. It's that they > risk punishment in order to defend us and fight > fascism. > > > > In fact, if we're going to compare the difference > between thought and action, we here on the Internet are > thinking about creating a just world, while people > in Antifa are in the streets actually > doing it. > > > > > Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa > for defending them from Nazis. > > > http://www.slate.com/articles/ > news_and_politics/politics/201 > 7/08/what_the_alt_left_was_act > ually_doing_in_charlottesville .html > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at > 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace > > wrote: > > > I'm not sure of the precise origin of the > notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own > country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps > more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that > directly monitor speech--has > long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the > "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the > development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of > the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of > Israel's very real crimes. > > > > DG > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > > wrote: > > > > It might mean > (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s > good/evil if you think it is”; or > (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s > good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” > > > > HAMLET, 2.2=========================== > ====================== > > • Hamlet. ... What > news ? > > > • Rosencrantz. None, > my lord, but that the world's grown honest. > • Hamlet. Then is > doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me > > question more in particular. What have you, my good > friends, > > deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to > prison > > hither? > > > • > Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? > > > • > Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. > > > • Rosencrantz. Then > is the world one. > > > • Hamlet. A goodly > one; in which there are many confines, wards, and > > dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. > > > • Rosencrantz. We > think not so, my lord. > > > • Hamlet. Why, then > 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good > > or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. > > > • Rosencrantz. Why, > then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for > your > > mind. > > > • Hamlet. O God, I > could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a > > king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad > dreams. > > > • > Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the > very substance of > > the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. > > > • Hamlet. A dream > itself is but a shadow. > > > • > Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and > light a quality that > > it is but a shadow's shadow. > > > • Hamlet. Then are > our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and > outstretch'd > > heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? > for, by my > > fay, I cannot reason. > > ============================== > =========================== > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace > > wrote: > > > > > > > > How is the line from Hamlet > misunderstood? > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook > via Peace-discuss net> wrote: > > > > One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is > Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but > thinking makes it so.” > > > > Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to > current US politics (h/t K. Aram): > > > > "Today I had two discussions, one with people > advocating hate crime laws, and another with people > defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were > pretty much the same people. > > > > "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in > that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the > sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they > committed the crime. > > > > "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go > unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts > when they committed the crime. > > > > "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are > more important than reality. This is very American, since we > have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon > Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a > president who 'believes' in climate > change is more important than actual policy changes. And, > of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself > right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think > yourself irresistible' way.) > > > > "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, > visualizing peace.” --Paula > Densnow > > > > > ______________________________ > _________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mai > lman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 5 15:17:19 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 15:17:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Green's critique of one who supported US egregious policies Message-ID: David Hunters comments in the Letters to the Editor, in the NG, related to David Green’s critique of Charles Krauthaumer, provide a perfect example of someone knowing nothing of geopolitics, attacking David Green personally rather than the issue, which is David Green’s critique. From ewj at pigs.ag Thu Jul 5 15:36:47 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 23:36:47 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?W1BlYWNlXSAgIi4uLnRoaW5raW5nIG1ha2Vz?= =?utf-8?q?_it_so=22?= In-Reply-To: References: <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20180705153647.4207.qmail@station188.com> karen i see social security as a tax, a scam, and a ponzi scheme. it seems a crime against the people, sort of like the lottery. i have hated the SS tax since my first non farm job in the oilfield at age 15 when i was appalled at how much was being stolen from.me. since i was self employed most of my life as a us taxpayer i paid a double tax or more. i suppose only.the army made me hate the government more than the SS tax did. it was evil incarnate to me and certainly will not.participate in their programme. when i was a u of i.employee i was in surs which is at least a program one can escape from. i drew out all.my surs money which i was warned would hasten the apocalypse. it seems more of a team effort would have been required.for that. > -------Original Message------- > From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > To: Mark Morenz-Harbinger > Cc: John W. , peace , Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" > Sent: Jul 05 '18 08:43 > > > Mark, I agree with your statement: “fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles,” my point in respect to anti-fa……. > > John: I’m not saying Malcolm X or Stokely threatened violence, but they were angry, and militant, and rightly so, in comparison with the pacifist Dr. MLK, who constantly preached “peace,” because MLK knew there was only one way to achieve the goal, at that time.  Even then he was painted as responsible for violence, to white folks who only knew what the media at that time told them. > What Malcolm and Stokely threatened was “revolution” and it scared the shit out of the USG, so capitulating to MLK’s demands were a solution. > Just as “social security” was a capitulation, solution to save “capitalism.” > > > On Jul 4, 2018, at 16:51, Mark Morenz-Harbinger wrote: > > > > Wason, you're so full of ****. I haven't forgotten when you (obliquely, I'll admit, but nevertheless) threatened me and my kids in an exchange on the WEFT listservs when it was going through its turmoil. [For the record, that “chaos was caused entirely by non-violent means...fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles," has been my observation] > > > > While it is ballsy that you hover on these "peace" and "peace-discuss" lists, it is unfortunate that anyone on those lists gives you any credence. > > > > This is an old email that I seldom use, but when I saw this-- oh brother. I will now take the time to unsubscribe. > > > > _Mark > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > On Wed, 7/4/18, John W. via Peace wrote: > > > > Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" > > To: "Karen Aram" > > Cc: "peace" , "Peace Discuss" > > Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 1:04 PM > > > > > > I would add that Malcolm X, whom we > > thought of and still think of today as being much more > > "militant" than MLK, really didn't do anything > > more than preach the necessity, at times, of Black > > self-defense.  He didn't foment violence for the sake > > of disruption.  Nor, I might add further, did the Black > > Panthers or Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown or any of the > > other more "militant" Black leaders of the > > time. > > John Wason > > again > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:58 > > PM, John W. > > wrote: > > If this was on > > Facebook I would "Like" it, Karen.  Absolutely > > right. > > John > > Wason > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:53 > > AM, Karen Aram via Peace > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned > > fight back” its “planned defensive attacks,” as if > > military or police. It creates chaos, and chaos leads to > > violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos the > > government, and ruling > >  elite wins.  There are historical examples proving > > this. > > > > > > > > > >  One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need > > to oppose uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and > > disintegration of the left. > > > > > > > > No movement/revolution using violence has ever > > succeeded. MLK knew this, perhaps he couldn’t have > > accomplished what he did without the threat of Malcolm X, > > but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what > > MLK did. > > > > > > > > Only civil resistance succeeds. > >   > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > It's not that Antifa doesn't expect > > punishment. It's that they > > risk punishment in order to defend us and fight > > fascism. > > > > > > > > In fact, if we're going to compare the difference > > between thought and action, we here on the Internet are > > thinking about creating a just world, while people > > in Antifa are in the streets actually > > doing it. > > > > > > > > > > Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa > > for defending them from Nazis. > > > > > > http://www.slate.com/articles/ > > news_and_politics/politics/201 > > 7/08/what_the_alt_left_was_act > > ually_doing_in_charlottesville .html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at > > 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure of the precise origin of the > > notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own > > country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps > > more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that > > directly monitor speech--has > >  long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the > > "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the > > development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of > > the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of > > Israel's very real crimes. > > > > > > > > DG > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > It might mean > > (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s > > good/evil if you think it is”; or > > (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s > > good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” > > > > > > > > HAMLET, 2.2=========================== > > ====================== > > > > • Hamlet. ... What > > news ? > > > > > > • Rosencrantz. None, > > my lord, but that the world's grown honest. > > • Hamlet. Then is > > doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me > > > > question more in particular. What have you, my good > > friends, > > > > deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to > > prison > > > > hither? > > > > > > • > > Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? > > > > > > • > > Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. > > > > > > • Rosencrantz. Then > > is the world one. > > > > > > • Hamlet. A goodly > > one; in which there are many confines, wards, and > > > > dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. > > > > > > • Rosencrantz. We > > think not so, my lord. > > > > > > • Hamlet. Why, then > > 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good > > > > or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. > > > > > > • Rosencrantz. Why, > > then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for > > your > > > > mind. > > > > > > • Hamlet. O God, I > > could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a > > > > king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad > > dreams. > > > > > > • > > Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the > > very substance of > > > > the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. > > > > > > • Hamlet. A dream > > itself is but a shadow. > > > > > > • > > Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and > > light a quality that > > > > it is but a shadow's shadow. > > > > > > • Hamlet. Then are > > our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and > > outstretch'd > > > > heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? > > for, by my > > > > fay, I cannot reason. > > > > ============================== > > =========================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is the line from Hamlet > > misunderstood? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook > > via Peace-discuss > net> wrote: > > > > > > > > One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is > > Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but > > thinking makes it so.” > > > > > > > > Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to > > current US politics (h/t K. Aram): > > > > > > > > "Today I had two discussions, one with people > > advocating hate crime laws, and another with people > > defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were > > pretty much the same people. > > > > > > > > "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in > > that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the > > sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they > > committed the crime. > > > > > > > > "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go > > unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts > > when they committed the crime. > > > > > > > > "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are > > more important than reality. This is very American, since we > > have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon > > Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a > > president who 'believes' in climate > >  change is more important than actual policy changes. And, > > of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself > > right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think > > yourself irresistible' way.) > > > > > > > > "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, > > visualizing peace.” --Paula > > Densnow > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > _________________ > > > > Peace mailing list > > > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > > > https://lists.chambana.net/mai > > lman/listinfo/peace > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 17:11:27 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 12:11:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Green's critique of one who supported US egregious policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting that he chose not to challenge my critique of USFP; but not surprising. Hunter is a current or former leader of the Champaign County Republican Party; on the one hand, he writes letters extolling the virtues of civility; on the other hand, this is not the first time he's gone the "personal" route. But I mainly think it's funny and rather pathetic. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > David Hunters comments in the Letters to the Editor, in the NG, related to > David Green’s critique of Charles Krauthaumer, provide a perfect example of > someone knowing nothing of geopolitics, attacking David Green personally > rather than the issue, which is David Green’s critique. > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 17:22:26 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 12:22:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Crimes are real; the motivation for crimes is irrelevant. The SPLC, like the Zionist Anti-Defamation League, represents those who don't want to deal with fundamental issues of wealth and power. Alexander Cockburn wrote eloquently about the SPLC's enormous donation-soliciting and wealth-hording machine, now I think over $300 million or so. On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:44 PM Domino7 wrote: > To the POINT: Hate crimes are real. I utilize information from Southern > Poverty Law Center. They monitor and map many nationwide supremacy > groups. The center has great civil rights attorneys and educational > materials. > Goodnight, > Chris Etter > > > > Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: David Green via Peace > Date: 07/03/2018 11:06 PM (GMT-06:00) > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace , Peace Discuss < > peace-discuss at anti-war.net> > Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" > > I'm not sure of the precise origin of the notion of "hate crimes" in the > law in our own country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps > more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that directly > monitor speech--has long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the > "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the development of such a notion, by > equating the actuality of the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and > criticism of Israel's very real crimes. > > DG > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > >> It might mean >> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s good/evil if you think it >> is”; or >> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s good, but you mistakenly >> think it evil.” >> >> HAMLET, 2.2================================================= >> • Hamlet. ... What news ? >> • Rosencrantz. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >> • Hamlet. Then is doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >> question more in particular. What have you, my good friends, >> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to prison >> hither? >> • Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >> • Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >> • Rosencrantz. Then is the world one. >> • Hamlet. A goodly one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >> • Rosencrantz. We think not so, my lord. >> • Hamlet. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >> • Rosencrantz. Why, then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for >> your >> mind. >> • Hamlet. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams. >> • Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the very substance >> of >> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >> • Hamlet. A dream itself is but a shadow. >> • Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality >> that >> it is but a shadow's shadow. >> • Hamlet. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretch'd >> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? for, by my >> fay, I cannot reason. >> ========================================================= >> >> >> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> How is the line from Hamlet misunderstood? >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is Hamlet’s “...there >>> is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” >>> >>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to current US >>> politics (h/t K. Aram): >>> >>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people advocating hate crime >>> laws, and another with people defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that >>> they were pretty much the same people. >>> >>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in that they take what >>> is already a crime, and add years to the sentence if the perp was thinking >>> bad thoughts when they committed the crime. >>> >>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go unpunished at >>> all, because they were thinking good thoughts when they committed the crime. >>> >>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are more important >>> than reality. This is very American, since we have had multiple Think >>> Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told >>> that having a president who 'believes' in climate change is more important >>> than actual policy changes. And, of course, the latest fad in which you can >>> think yourself right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >>> yourself irresistible' way.) >>> >>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, visualizing peace.” >>> --Paula Densnow >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Thu Jul 5 17:42:39 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:42:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: <20180705153647.4207.qmail@station188.com> References: <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361@mail.yahoo.com> <20180705153647.4207.qmail@station188.com> Message-ID: Wayne, I’m guessing you are a libertarian? I’m not going to argue SS one way or the other, and I’m glad I have it, but it was implemented to prevent socialism and save “capitalism.” It is one reason I oppose a universal basic income, don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great to have, necessary in todays world of collapsing job opportunities, social services, etc. However, it would still be controlled by the ruling elites, who control our government. it would be whittled away just as SS benefits, Medicare and other social services have been whittled away. “Identifying motive” is critical to understanding and analyzing anything that is offered. Think the “Trojan horse” or Greeks bearing gifts. > On Jul 5, 2018, at 08:36, ewj at pigs.ag wrote: > > karen > i see social security as a tax, a scam, and a ponzi scheme. > it seems a crime against the people, sort of like the lottery. > > i have hated the SS tax since my first non farm job in the oilfield at > age 15 when i was appalled at how much was being stolen > from.me. > > since i was self employed most of my life as a us taxpayer i paid > a double tax or more. i suppose only.the army made me hate > the government more than the SS tax did. it was evil incarnate > to me and certainly will not.participate in their programme. > > when i was a u of i.employee i was in surs which is at least a program > one can escape from. i drew out all.my surs money which > i was warned would hasten the apocalypse. it seems more of a > team effort would have been required.for that. > >> -------Original Message------- >> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> To: Mark Morenz-Harbinger >> Cc: John W. , peace , Peace Discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" >> Sent: Jul 05 '18 08:43 >> >>> Mark, I agree with your statement: “fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles,” my point in respect to anti-fa……. >> >> John: I’m not saying Malcolm X or Stokely threatened violence, but they were angry, and militant, and rightly so, in comparison with the pacifist Dr. MLK, who constantly preached “peace,” because MLK knew there was only one way to achieve the goal, at that time. Even then he was painted as responsible for violence, to white folks who only knew what the media at that time told them. >> What Malcolm and Stokely threatened was “revolution” and it scared the shit out of the USG, so capitulating to MLK’s demands were a solution. >> Just as “social security” was a capitulation, solution to save “capitalism.” >> >>> On Jul 4, 2018, at 16:51, Mark Morenz-Harbinger wrote: >>> >>> Wason, you're so full of ****. I haven't forgotten when you (obliquely, I'll admit, but nevertheless) threatened me and my kids in an exchange on the WEFT listservs when it was going through its turmoil. [For the record, that “chaos was caused entirely by non-violent means...fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles," has been my observation] >>> >>> While it is ballsy that you hover on these "peace" and "peace-discuss" lists, it is unfortunate that anyone on those lists gives you any credence. >>> >>> This is an old email that I seldom use, but when I saw this-- oh brother. I will now take the time to unsubscribe. >>> >>> _Mark >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> On Wed, 7/4/18, John W. via Peace wrote: >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" >>> To: "Karen Aram" >>> Cc: "peace" , "Peace Discuss" >>> Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 1:04 PM >>> >>> >>> I would add that Malcolm X, whom we >>> thought of and still think of today as being much more >>> "militant" than MLK, really didn't do anything >>> more than preach the necessity, at times, of Black >>> self-defense. He didn't foment violence for the sake >>> of disruption. Nor, I might add further, did the Black >>> Panthers or Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown or any of the >>> other more "militant" Black leaders of the >>> time. >>> John Wason >>> again >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:58 >>> PM, John W. >>> wrote: >>> If this was on >>> Facebook I would "Like" it, Karen. Absolutely >>> right. >>> John >>> Wason >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:53 >>> AM, Karen Aram via Peace >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned >>> fight back” its “planned defensive attacks,” as if >>> military or police. It creates chaos, and chaos leads to >>> violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos the >>> government, and ruling >>> elite wins. There are historical examples proving >>> this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need >>> to oppose uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and >>> disintegration of the left. >>> >>> >>> >>> No movement/revolution using violence has ever >>> succeeded. MLK knew this, perhaps he couldn’t have >>> accomplished what he did without the threat of Malcolm X, >>> but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what >>> MLK did. >>> >>> >>> >>> Only civil resistance succeeds. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> It's not that Antifa doesn't expect >>> punishment. It's that they >>> risk punishment in order to defend us and fight >>> fascism. >>> >>> >>> >>> In fact, if we're going to compare the difference >>> between thought and action, we here on the Internet are >>> thinking about creating a just world, while people >>> in Antifa are in the streets actually >>> doing it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa >>> for defending them from Nazis. >>> >>> >>> http://www.slate.com/articles/ >>> news_and_politics/politics/201 >>> 7/08/what_the_alt_left_was_act >>> ually_doing_in_charlottesville .html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at >>> 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm not sure of the precise origin of the >>> notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own >>> country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps >>> more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that >>> directly monitor speech--has >>> long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the >>> "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the >>> development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of >>> the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of >>> Israel's very real crimes. >>> >>> >>> >>> DG >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> It might mean >>> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s >>> good/evil if you think it is”; or >>> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s >>> good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” >>> >>> >>> >>> HAMLET, 2.2=========================== >>> ====================== >>> >>> • Hamlet. ... What >>> news ? >>> >>> >>> • Rosencrantz. None, >>> my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >>> • Hamlet. Then is >>> doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >>> >>> question more in particular. What have you, my good >>> friends, >>> >>> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to >>> prison >>> >>> hither? >>> >>> >>> • >>> Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >>> >>> >>> • >>> Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >>> >>> >>> • Rosencrantz. Then >>> is the world one. >>> >>> >>> • Hamlet. A goodly >>> one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >>> >>> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >>> >>> >>> • Rosencrantz. We >>> think not so, my lord. >>> >>> >>> • Hamlet. Why, then >>> 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >>> >>> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >>> >>> >>> • Rosencrantz. Why, >>> then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for >>> your >>> >>> mind. >>> >>> >>> • Hamlet. O God, I >>> could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >>> >>> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad >>> dreams. >>> >>> >>> • >>> Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the >>> very substance of >>> >>> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >>> >>> >>> • Hamlet. A dream >>> itself is but a shadow. >>> >>> >>> • >>> Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and >>> light a quality that >>> >>> it is but a shadow's shadow. >>> >>> >>> • Hamlet. Then are >>> our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and >>> outstretch'd >>> >>> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? >>> for, by my >>> >>> fay, I cannot reason. >>> >>> ============================== >>> =========================== >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> How is the line from Hamlet >>> misunderstood? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook >>> via Peace-discuss >> net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is >>> Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but >>> thinking makes it so.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to >>> current US politics (h/t K. Aram): >>> >>> >>> >>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people >>> advocating hate crime laws, and another with people >>> defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were >>> pretty much the same people. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in >>> that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the >>> sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they >>> committed the crime. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go >>> unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts >>> when they committed the crime. >>> >>> >>> >>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are >>> more important than reality. This is very American, since we >>> have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon >>> Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a >>> president who 'believes' in climate >>> change is more important than actual policy changes. And, >>> of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself >>> right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >>> yourself irresistible' way.) >>> >>> >>> >>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, >>> visualizing peace.” --Paula >>> Densnow >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________ >>> _________________ >>> >>> Peace mailing list >>> >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mai >>> lman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 17:53:27 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 12:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" In-Reply-To: References: <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1420580075.2861908.1530748275361@mail.yahoo.com> <20180705153647.4207.qmail@station188.com> Message-ID: A number of (Chomskyan) anarchists of my acquaintance (who criticize Marxism-Lenisnism from the Left, not the Right) support a universal basic income (and SS) as a current demand. "The consistent anarchist … should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat” [Noam Chomsky]. —CGE > On Jul 5, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Wayne, I’m guessing you are a libertarian? > > I’m not going to argue SS one way or the other, and I’m glad I have it, but it was implemented to prevent socialism and save “capitalism.” > It is one reason I oppose a universal basic income, don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great to have, necessary in todays world of collapsing job opportunities, social services, etc. > However, it would still be controlled by the ruling elites, who control our government. it would be whittled away just as SS benefits, Medicare and other social services have been whittled away. “Identifying motive” is critical to understanding and analyzing anything that is offered. > > Think the “Trojan horse” or Greeks bearing gifts. > >> On Jul 5, 2018, at 08:36, ewj at pigs.ag wrote: >> >> karen >> i see social security as a tax, a scam, and a ponzi scheme. >> it seems a crime against the people, sort of like the lottery. >> >> i have hated the SS tax since my first non farm job in the oilfield at >> age 15 when i was appalled at how much was being stolen >> from.me. >> >> since i was self employed most of my life as a us taxpayer i paid >> a double tax or more. i suppose only.the army made me hate >> the government more than the SS tax did. it was evil incarnate >> to me and certainly will not.participate in their programme. >> >> when i was a u of i.employee i was in surs which is at least a program >> one can escape from. i drew out all.my surs money which >> i was warned would hasten the apocalypse. it seems more of a >> team effort would have been required.for that. >> >>> -------Original Message------- >>> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >>> To: Mark Morenz-Harbinger >>> Cc: John W. , peace , Peace Discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] "...thinking makes it so" >>> Sent: Jul 05 '18 08:43 >>> >>>> Mark, I agree with your statement: “fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles,” my point in respect to anti-fa……. >>> >>> John: I’m not saying Malcolm X or Stokely threatened violence, but they were angry, and militant, and rightly so, in comparison with the pacifist Dr. MLK, who constantly preached “peace,” because MLK knew there was only one way to achieve the goal, at that time. Even then he was painted as responsible for violence, to white folks who only knew what the media at that time told them. >>> What Malcolm and Stokely threatened was “revolution” and it scared the shit out of the USG, so capitulating to MLK’s demands were a solution. >>> Just as “social security” was a capitulation, solution to save “capitalism.” >>> >>>> On Jul 4, 2018, at 16:51, Mark Morenz-Harbinger wrote: >>>> >>>> Wason, you're so full of ****. I haven't forgotten when you (obliquely, I'll admit, but nevertheless) threatened me and my kids in an exchange on the WEFT listservs when it was going through its turmoil. [For the record, that “chaos was caused entirely by non-violent means...fractures on the left are mostly caused by moles," has been my observation] >>>> >>>> While it is ballsy that you hover on these "peace" and "peace-discuss" lists, it is unfortunate that anyone on those lists gives you any credence. >>>> >>>> This is an old email that I seldom use, but when I saw this-- oh brother. I will now take the time to unsubscribe. >>>> >>>> _Mark >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> On Wed, 7/4/18, John W. via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] "...thinking makes it so" >>>> To: "Karen Aram" >>>> Cc: "peace" , "Peace Discuss" >>>> Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 1:04 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> I would add that Malcolm X, whom we >>>> thought of and still think of today as being much more >>>> "militant" than MLK, really didn't do anything >>>> more than preach the necessity, at times, of Black >>>> self-defense. He didn't foment violence for the sake >>>> of disruption. Nor, I might add further, did the Black >>>> Panthers or Stokely Carmichael or H. Rap Brown or any of the >>>> other more "militant" Black leaders of the >>>> time. >>>> John Wason >>>> again >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:58 >>>> PM, John W. >>>> wrote: >>>> If this was on >>>> Facebook I would "Like" it, Karen. Absolutely >>>> right. >>>> John >>>> Wason >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:53 >>>> AM, Karen Aram via Peace >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anti-fa does support violence, in that its “planned >>>> fight back” its “planned defensive attacks,” as if >>>> military or police. It creates chaos, and chaos leads to >>>> violence and disintegration of the left, thus with chaos the >>>> government, and ruling >>>> elite wins. There are historical examples proving >>>> this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One does not have to be a pacifist, one does not need >>>> to oppose uprisings, but chaos, leads to violence and >>>> disintegration of the left. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No movement/revolution using violence has ever >>>> succeeded. MLK knew this, perhaps he couldn’t have >>>> accomplished what he did without the threat of Malcolm X, >>>> but Malcolm would never have been able to accomplish what >>>> MLK did. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Only civil resistance succeeds. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 4, 2018, at 06:53, Harry Mickalide via Peace >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's not that Antifa doesn't expect >>>> punishment. It's that they >>>> risk punishment in order to defend us and fight >>>> fascism. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In fact, if we're going to compare the difference >>>> between thought and action, we here on the Internet are >>>> thinking about creating a just world, while people >>>> in Antifa are in the streets actually >>>> doing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is an article where multiple people thank Antifa >>>> for defending them from Nazis. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.slate.com/articles/ >>>> news_and_politics/politics/201 >>>> 7/08/what_the_alt_left_was_act >>>> ually_doing_in_charlottesville .html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at >>>> 11:06 PM, David Green via Peace >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure of the precise origin of the >>>> notion of "hate crimes" in the law in our own >>>> country, if there is such an origin; but my sense--perhaps >>>> more directly applicable to European and Canadian laws that >>>> directly monitor speech--has >>>> long been that what Norman Finkelstein has called the >>>> "Holocaust Industry" contributed to the >>>> development of such a notion, by equating the actuality of >>>> the Holocaust, anti-semitic beliefs, and criticism of >>>> Israel's very real crimes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> DG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:47 PM C G Estabrook >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It might mean >>>> (a) opinion constitutes moral worth - "it’s >>>> good/evil if you think it is”; or >>>> (b) opinion misinterprets moral worth - "it’s >>>> good, but you mistakenly think it evil.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> HAMLET, 2.2=========================== >>>> ====================== >>>> >>>> • Hamlet. ... What >>>> news ? >>>> >>>> >>>> • Rosencrantz. None, >>>> my lord, but that the world's grown honest. >>>> • Hamlet. Then is >>>> doomsday near! But your news is not true. Let me >>>> >>>> question more in particular. What have you, my good >>>> friends, >>>> >>>> deserved at the hands of Fortune that she sends you to >>>> prison >>>> >>>> hither? >>>> >>>> >>>> • >>>> Guildenstern. Prison, my lord? >>>> >>>> >>>> • >>>> Hamlet. Denmark's a prison. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Rosencrantz. Then >>>> is the world one. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Hamlet. A goodly >>>> one; in which there are many confines, wards, and >>>> >>>> dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Rosencrantz. We >>>> think not so, my lord. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Hamlet. Why, then >>>> 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good >>>> >>>> or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Rosencrantz. Why, >>>> then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow for >>>> your >>>> >>>> mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Hamlet. O God, I >>>> could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a >>>> >>>> king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad >>>> dreams. >>>> >>>> >>>> • >>>> Guildenstern. Which dreams indeed are ambition; for the >>>> very substance of >>>> >>>> the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Hamlet. A dream >>>> itself is but a shadow. >>>> >>>> >>>> • >>>> Rosencrantz. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and >>>> light a quality that >>>> >>>> it is but a shadow's shadow. >>>> >>>> >>>> • Hamlet. Then are >>>> our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and >>>> outstretch'd >>>> >>>> heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th' court? >>>> for, by my >>>> >>>> fay, I cannot reason. >>>> >>>> ============================== >>>> =========================== >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:08 PM, David Green via Peace >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How is the line from Hamlet >>>> misunderstood? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 6:57 PM C G Estabrook >>>> via Peace-discuss >>> net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One of the most misunderstood lines in Shakespeare is >>>> Hamlet’s “...there is nothing either good or bad, but >>>> thinking makes it so.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here a FOA (Friend of AWARE) brilliantly applies it to >>>> current US politics (h/t K. Aram): >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Today I had two discussions, one with people >>>> advocating hate crime laws, and another with people >>>> defending Antifa, and it occurred to me that they were >>>> pretty much the same people. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Hate crime laws are actually thought crime laws, in >>>> that they take what is already a crime, and add years to the >>>> sentence if the perp was thinking bad thoughts when they >>>> committed the crime. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Antifas are people who commit crimes, and expect to go >>>> unpunished at all, because they were thinking good thoughts >>>> when they committed the crime. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "This is magical thinking, the idea that thoughts are >>>> more important than reality. This is very American, since we >>>> have had multiple Think Yourself Rich fads, from Napoleon >>>> Hill to Oprah. And we are earnestly told that having a >>>> president who 'believes' in climate >>>> change is more important than actual policy changes. And, >>>> of course, the latest fad in which you can think yourself >>>> right into the opposite sex. (And not in the old 'think >>>> yourself irresistible' way.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "I think I'll just be over here, in the corner, >>>> visualizing peace.” --Paula >>>> Densnow >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________ >>>> _________________ >>>> >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mai >>>> lman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 18:01:35 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 13:01:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Green's critique of one who supported US egregious policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BFE6798-AF9D-439F-8CDF-3BA8A829730A@gmail.com> Perhaps he’s astute enough to realize that Krauthammer’s view are largely indefensible. > On Jul 5, 2018, at 12:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Interesting that he chose not to challenge my critique of USFP; but not surprising. > > Hunter is a current or former leader of the Champaign County Republican Party; on the one hand, he writes letters extolling the virtues of civility; on the other hand, this is not the first time he's gone the "personal" route. > > But I mainly think it's funny and rather pathetic. > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > David Hunters comments in the Letters to the Editor, in the NG, related to David Green’s critique of Charles Krauthaumer, provide a perfect example of someone knowing nothing of geopolitics, attacking David Green personally rather than the issue, which is David Green’s critique. > _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 5 18:03:26 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:03:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Green's critique of one who supported US egregious policies In-Reply-To: <8BFE6798-AF9D-439F-8CDF-3BA8A829730A@gmail.com> References: <8BFE6798-AF9D-439F-8CDF-3BA8A829730A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Exactly, thats precisely why he attacks David Green, he can’t defend Krauthammers’ views. On Jul 5, 2018, at 11:01, C G Estabrook > wrote: Perhaps he’s astute enough to realize that Krauthammer’s view are largely indefensible. On Jul 5, 2018, at 12:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Interesting that he chose not to challenge my critique of USFP; but not surprising. Hunter is a current or former leader of the Champaign County Republican Party; on the one hand, he writes letters extolling the virtues of civility; on the other hand, this is not the first time he's gone the "personal" route. But I mainly think it's funny and rather pathetic. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: David Hunters comments in the Letters to the Editor, in the NG, related to David Green’s critique of Charles Krauthaumer, provide a perfect example of someone knowing nothing of geopolitics, attacking David Green personally rather than the issue, which is David Green’s critique. _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Fri Jul 6 12:52:02 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:52:02 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] 4th of July celebration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1646fa638e0-17a0-21b0@webjas-vaa164.srv.aolmail.net> "...for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."  (Fred. Douglas)...except for Mother England, who first practiced and perfected the craft of slavery on her Irish neighbors and exported it to the rest of the world (MO'B). To me, the revolting way the Fourth is "celebrated" in this day and age is the simplistic patriotic rhetoric and repugnant noise and pollution of fireworks displays that squander millions that could have been spent on social good, such as alleviating hunger or homelessness. Midge -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram via Peace To: peace ; Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2018 7:01 am Subject: [Peace] 4th of July celebration HOME   SECTIONS »   PUBLICATIONS »   PSL »   DONATE »   ANALYSIS Download PDF flyer ‘What to the American Slave is Your 4th of July’ By Frederick Douglass Jul 03, 2018 28714 Excerpt of speech by Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852, Rochester, New York What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and America religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness. The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed. In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror. Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight . . . But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. Link to full text: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 13:18:17 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 08:18:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] 4th of July celebration In-Reply-To: <1646fa638e0-17a0-21b0@webjas-vaa164.srv.aolmail.net> References: <1646fa638e0-17a0-21b0@webjas-vaa164.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: But it serves an important propaganda purpose, against the only enemy dominant social groups in the US really fear, the US public. They need to be reassured the US government stands for peace, freedom, and economic development - not just the profits of the 1%. > On Jul 6, 2018, at 7:52 AM, Mildred O'brien via Peace wrote: > > "...for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival." (Fred. Douglas)...except for Mother England, who first practiced and perfected the craft of slavery on her Irish neighbors and exported it to the rest of the world (MO'B). > > To me, the revolting way the Fourth is "celebrated" in this day and age is the simplistic patriotic rhetoric and repugnant noise and pollution of fireworks displays that squander millions that could have been spent on social good, such as alleviating hunger or homelessness. > > Midge > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Aram via Peace > To: peace ; Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wed, Jul 4, 2018 7:01 am > Subject: [Peace] 4th of July celebration > > > ‘What to the American Slave is Your 4th of July’ > > Excerpt of speech by Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852, Rochester, New York > > What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. > > Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. > > Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. > > Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and America religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. > > I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness. > > The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed. > > In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror. > > Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight . . . > > But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. > > Link to full text: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 16:14:50 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:14:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc Message-ID: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 6 20:02:14 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 20:02:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Nation Horrified To Learn That Corporate Death Merchants Have Racist Employee References: <139971992.4895.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: New post on Caitlin Johnstone [https://i1.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cropped-caitlinpic1.jpg?resize=32%2C32&ssl=1] [http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/12152988a68a6d4dae7506812444c18f?s=50&d=monsterid&r=G] Nation Horrified To Learn That Corporate Death Merchants Have Racist Employee by Caitlin Johnstone "A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." ~ Major General Smedley Butler, War Is A Racket Imagine if someone became immensely wealthy by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings and selling their skins for money. Would they not be remembered for generations as one of the most evil monsters ever to walk the face of the earth? Now imagine if someone became immensely wealthy by killing the exact same number of people, but instead of selling their hides, they simply sold the weapons which killed them after using legalized government bribery to ensure their use. Would you expect to see similar levels of revulsion? Or would you expect them to be treated as respectable members of society and elevated to a position of king-like power and influence? ProPublica and Frontline have ID'ed a man who's reportedly part of a white supremacist group and participated in Charlottesville. He works for Northrop Grumman, has federal security clearance. Northrop knows about his involvement but hasn't taken action.https://t.co/ErTqa1dYma — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) July 5, 2018 Northrop Grumman, one of the largest weapons manufacturers on the planet, was trending on Twitter yesterday. People are furious at the war profiteering death merchants, and are demanding an immediate change in its behavior. Not because it is an immensely powerful corporation which uses its influence to promote the consumption of machinery that tears apart human bodies. Not because people were horrified by its reported $25.8 billion in revenue last year. Not because Northrop Grumman often spends more money lobbying Washington to advance its interests than any other publicly traded entity. Not because the corporation once gave one of its lobbyists a $500,000 bonus right before he left to become a congressional staffer responsible for shaping US military policy, a position to which he was appointed by a legislator who just so happened to be the recipient of large amounts of Northrop Grumman campaign cash. No, the widespread outrage at Northrop Grumman was because the prolific lobbyists for an industry which facilitates the slaughter of innocent civilians every single day had hired a man who is a white supremacist. It is not my intention here to be dismissive of America's ongoing, centuries-spanning struggle with the racism upon which the nation was built. Northrop Grumman systems engineer Michael Miselis is reported by ProPublica and FRONTLINE to be affiliated with the violent white supremacist Rise Above Movement and was reportedly seen attacking counter-protesters at two RAM gatherings last year, including Charlottesville. This is no minor thing. Neo-Nazis are evil and their ideology should be forcefully rejected. That said, it is also true that employing a violent bigot probably ranks among the least detestable things that Northrop Grumman has ever done. [http://img.youtube.com/vi/5tu32CCA_Ig/0.jpg] A 2014 study by Princeton University found that due to legalized bribery in the form of campaign donations and corporate lobbying, the wealthiest Americans wield an immense amount of influence over US government policy and behavior, while ordinary voting Americans have effectively zero influence whatsoever. Northrop Grumman spends tremendous amounts of money on campaign donations, the recipients of which include virulent warmongers like John "Bomb Iran" McCain, Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton, Ted "carpet bomb" Cruz, and Donald "bomb the shit out of 'em" Trump, whose administration is currently averaging a bomb dropped every twelve minutes. The company also spends millions of dollars a year lobbying politicians, and with good reason: a 2009 study found that for every dollar spent on lobbying, a corporation can make a return in excess of $220. That's 22,000%. And time after time we see those lobbying campaigns pay huge dividends for Northrop Grumman, like when it earned a $21 billion Pentagon nuclear bomber contract after spending five years courting 200 members of congress. Lobbying in Washington typically means cultivating long-term positive relationships with legislators on Capitol Hill, often by arranging fundraisers and assembling PACs to ensure their re-election, so as to secure influence with them. This is bad enough when you've got a corporation spending big bucks to persuade a legislator to enact policy in the interests of the corporation instead of the legislator's constituents, but it becomes infinitely worse when that corporation's sole means of profit depends on the endless expansion of the tentacles of the US war machine around the world. Ultimately, what you have is an extremely influential force shoving the entire world away from peace by ensuring that the US government is full of people who are highly motivated to promote the continually increasing consumption of large amounts of expensive weaponry. By pushing continued military expansionism and escalation, they are acting as an effective barrier blocking humanity from moving into health and harmony. And it just so happens that most of the nations into which Northrop Grumman is actively incentivizing the US government to extend its military tendrils are full of people whose skin is not white. When Northrop Grumman-sponsored politicians stand at podiums telling America about the need to spread "freedom and democracy" into regions of brown-skinned people, they are being exactly as honest as the colonialists and conquistadors who grabbed land, gold and slaves under the false pretense of spreading Christianity. This corporation which is currently being hounded by self-righteous liberals because it employs a white supremacist has, in fact, built its entire industry upon the foundation of white supremacy. Northrop Grumman was recently made aware of alleged employee actions that are counter to our values. Northrop Grumman is absolutely committed to the highest levels of ethics & integrity in all that we do, & ensuring that our workplace reflects our values of diversity & inclusion. — Northrop Grumman (@northropgrumman) July 5, 2018 So forgive me if I am a bit dismissive of Northrop Grumman's statement that it is "absolutely committed to the highest levels of ethics and integrity in all that we do," and that the alleged actions of Michael Miselis are "counter to our values". There are no ethics or integrity in anything Northrop Grumman does, and the actions of a violent white supremacist are the purest embodiment of its values. I hope we soon see a day when the public turns on corporations like Northrop Grumman. Not for employing a racist individual who can be easily and conveniently sacrificed as the source and summit of all the world's evils, but for what they are and what they do. May the enemies of humanity be defeated. May all obstacles to health be torn down. ______________ Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat onPatreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. [https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*-GntS1j0aPf3kBsb.png] Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 Caitlin Johnstone | July 6, 2018 at 3:27 pm | Tags: military industrial complex, Northrop Grumman, peace, war, war profiteers, white supremacist | Categories: Article, News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1gX Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/07/06/nation-horrified-to-learn-that-corporate-death-merchants-have-racist-employee/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 6 21:17:23 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:17:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Roberts Court: Scrutinizing Roberts References: Message-ID: > > So yesterday they had Akhil Amar on TV saying that this would now become the Roberts Court and that although he was a "Democrat", Roberts is a very good man--in other words Vouching and Fronting for Roberts and the Roberts Court. What a joke and a fraud! These Liberal Legal Elites from YLS and HLS are more loyal to their Little Legal Elitist Caste than they are to the American People. Fab. > > FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at law.uiuc.edu, > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/hijakjustice.html > Professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Boyle > said today: "In his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts > stated that he had 'no recollection' of his membership in the Federalist > Society and being on its Steering Committee for Washington, D.C. > Nevertheless, a high-level official in the Federalist Society has confirmed > Roberts' membership, and it has also been confirmed that all Federalist > Society members pay dues. In other words, Roberts lied to Congress, which > is a crime in its own right. For that reason alone, Roberts is disqualified > to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an Associate Justice of the U.S. > Supreme Court. ... The Senate Judiciary Committee must grill Roberts on all > the positions and activities of the Federalist Society and its prominent > members before rejecting him, thus exposing before a national audience the > pernicious and insidious role that the Federalist Society has played in the > American legal profession for the past two decades." > > > 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: Institute for Public Accuracy > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:06 PM > To: undisclosed-recipients > Subject: Scrutinizing Roberts > > Institute for Public Accuracy > 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 > (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org > ___________________________________________________ > > PM Thursday, August 18, 2005 > > Law Professors Scrutinize Roberts > * Quid Pro Quo? * Guantanamo Ruling * Federalist Society > > DAVID LUBAN, luband at law.georgetown.edu, > http://www.slate.com/id/2124603/?nav=tap3 > The Washington Post reports today that "Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was > interviewing for a possible Supreme Court nomination with top Bush > administration officials at the same time he was presiding over a terrorism > case of significant importance to President Bush." > []. > Professor of law at Georgetown University, Luban co-authored the > recent article "Improper Advances: Talking Dream Jobs With the Judge Out of > Court" in which he wrote: "Four days before President Bush nominated John > G. Roberts to the Supreme Court on July 19, an appeals court panel of three > judges, including Judge Roberts, handed the Bush administration a big > victory in a hotly contested challenge to the president's military > commissions. The challenge was brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo > detainee. President Bush was a defendant in the case because he had > personally, in writing, found 'reason to believe' that Hamdan was a > terrorist subject to military tribunals. The appeals court upheld the rules > the president had authorized for these military commissions, and it > rejected Hamdan's human rights claims -- including claims for protection > under the Geneva Conventions." > > MICHAEL RATNER, mratner at igc.org, http://www.humanrightsnow.org, > http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/18/1331253 > President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner is > co-author of the book "Guantanamo: What the World Should Know." He said > today: "The news that potential Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was > interviewed for the court seat by Attorney General Gonzales, Vice President > Cheney and others while he was deciding a case that went to the heart of > the legality of the administration's so-called 'war on terror' should > finish off his nomination. The central issue of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was the > application of the Geneva Convention to alleged terrorist detainees. The > policy was crafted by the very people who were interviewing Roberts for his > new job. He would have every reason to make sure his decision did not > disagree with the administration: and it did not. The legal standard set > forth in the U.S. law is that a judge should remove himself if his > 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' No doubt about that -- > Roberts should have recused himself once the interviews commenced. His > failure to do so should prevent his gaining a high court seat. But it may > even raise more serious questions. Was Roberts being offered a bribe for > his vote? People may recall that during the Daniel Ellsberg 'Pentagon > Papers' trial, Nixon and his aides offered the judge the top FBI position. > It was considered as a bribe by many and an impeachable offense. Is there > really any difference in the two cases?" > > FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at law.uiuc.edu, > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/hijakjustice.html > Professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Boyle > said today: "In his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts > stated that he had 'no recollection' of his membership in the Federalist > Society and being on its Steering Committee for Washington, D.C. > Nevertheless, a high-level official in the Federalist Society has confirmed > Roberts' membership, and it has also been confirmed that all Federalist > Society members pay dues. In other words, Roberts lied to Congress, which > is a crime in its own right. For that reason alone, Roberts is disqualified > to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an Associate Justice of the U.S. > Supreme Court. ... The Senate Judiciary Committee must grill Roberts on all > the positions and activities of the Federalist Society and its prominent > members before rejecting him, thus exposing before a national audience the > pernicious and insidious role that the Federalist Society has played in the > American legal profession for the past two decades." > > For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: > Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 > > _________________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > public at lists.accuracy.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > public-unsubscribe at lists.accuracy.org > > For all list information and functions, including changing > your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page: > http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 6 21:32:55 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 16:32:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 21:47:44 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 16:47:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22947B38-F2EC-42D3-8096-A11E2D957A45@gmail.com> Works fine for me. Article is there. Are my Russian trolls better than yours? > On Jul 6, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: > http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 21:48:48 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 16:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman wrote: > This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't > work either. Maybe they took the article down? > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 6 22:15:03 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:15:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. >From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ > > Yes, it's still there. > > Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive > organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not > considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have > had with it locally. > > DG > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: > >> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link >> doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Fri Jul 6 22:26:27 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 22:26:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 6 22:51:17 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 17:51:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups > on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over > 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. > > That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring > Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. > You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. > > Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been > better had we been united. > > Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, > isn’t a real solution. > > A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be > referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing > US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. > > Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between > foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and > destruction. > > > > On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > The link works for me now. > > BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. > domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. > It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do > and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. > > From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. > foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than > those of the Jewish Federation. > > On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and > anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also > understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign > ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, > which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I > understand, could use some help right now from people who live in > Champaign. > > So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of > picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that > they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to > do in any event? > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >> >> Yes, it's still there. >> >> Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive >> organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not >> considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have >> had with it locally. >> >> DG >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman < >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: >> >>> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link >>> doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 6 23:01:42 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 23:01:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 6 23:18:59 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:18:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think that if you want to send the local BtA chapter to hell because they didn't co-sponsor this one rally, or you want to send BtA to hell because they don't work on Israel-Palestine when they explicitly set themselves up as an organization that doesn't work on foreign policy so they could recruit Jews to work on domestic justice issues who would probably be bad on Israel-Palestine without having to deal with the potential consequences of that, you'd be practicing the same politics that you're denouncing. As you know, we co-sponsored the Medea talk, even though it was co-sponsored by the Prairie Green Party, which I loathe because it gives a platform to Snarl, whom I loathe because he's an abuser who has been abusive to me personally. Nonetheless we co-sponsored the talk. We didn't pursue a policy of not co-sponsoring an event co-sponsored by an organization that gives the abuser Snarl a platform. We co-sponsored the talk anyway. I expect that the local BtA chapter will do good things in the future that will involve cooperation with people who have different politics. I think that's more likely if they're not subjected to thoughtless and opportunistic attacks from the ultra-left. But in any event, there are much better targets, as I said before, organizations in this town that can be directly tied to Israeli government abuses of Palestinians. Why pick on BtA, when they have nothing to do with it? There's a whiff of anti-Semitism about it: let's pick on them because they're Jewish, even though, by their own account, they have nothing to do with Israel. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it > wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the > organizers. > > As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, > and the article David just posted. > > We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they > chose not to do so. > > I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea > project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. > > On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of > people in the group objected to specific things that they feared > "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with > that. > > Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the > outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good > things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for > them to do and not do. > > I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a > specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather > than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by > SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that > position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to > participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think > involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with > that. > > I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against > bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, > as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of > Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that > if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If > you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support > Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a > target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the > utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other > objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian > house from being knocked down. > > If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, > and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist >> groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we >> had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. >> >> That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring >> Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. >> You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. >> >> Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been >> better had we been united. >> >> Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, >> isn’t a real solution. >> >> A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be >> referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing >> US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. >> >> Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between >> foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and >> destruction. >> >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >> >> The link works for me now. >> >> BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. >> domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. >> It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do >> and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. >> >> From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on >> U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better >> than those of the Jewish Federation. >> >> On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice >> and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I >> also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign >> ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, >> which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I >> understand, could use some help right now from people who live in >> Champaign. >> >> So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of >> picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that >> they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to >> do in any event? >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>> >>> Yes, it's still there. >>> >>> Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive >>> organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not >>> considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have >>> had with it locally. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman < >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link >>>> doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 23:34:48 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E007ED8-D2CB-4B4A-A367-4EB326910CE7@gmail.com> ...“an abuser who has been abusive to [you] personally”? An example, Bob? > On Jul 6, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I think that if you want to send the local BtA chapter to hell because they didn't co-sponsor this one rally, or you want to send BtA to hell because they don't work on Israel-Palestine when they explicitly set themselves up as an organization that doesn't work on foreign policy so they could recruit Jews to work on domestic justice issues who would probably be bad on Israel-Palestine without having to deal with the potential consequences of that, you'd be practicing the same politics that you're denouncing. > > As you know, we co-sponsored the Medea talk, even though it was co-sponsored by the Prairie Green Party, which I loathe because it gives a platform to Snarl, whom I loathe because he's an abuser who has been abusive to me personally. Nonetheless we co-sponsored the talk. We didn't pursue a policy of not co-sponsoring an event co-sponsored by an organization that gives the abuser Snarl a platform. We co-sponsored the talk anyway. > > I expect that the local BtA chapter will do good things in the future that will involve cooperation with people who have different politics. I think that's more likely if they're not subjected to thoughtless and opportunistic attacks from the ultra-left. But in any event, there are much better targets, as I said before, organizations in this town that can be directly tied to Israeli government abuses of Palestinians. Why pick on BtA, when they have nothing to do with it? There's a whiff of anti-Semitism about it: let's pick on them because they're Jewish, even though, by their own account, they have nothing to do with Israel. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 6 23:36:17 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 23:36:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bob Okay, be an asshole, reject my offer of “peace and reconciliation” and I will be happy to continue to uncloak you for the lying “paid by the Democrat Party, dirty trickster” that you are. You have forced me to remember your lies and propaganda of Jill Stein, it is after all public knowledge, and as they say “a leopard doesn’t change its spots.” And, your statement: “There’s a whiff of anti-Semitism about it: let’s pick on them because they’re Jewish,” shows again, what you are. Painting anyone who appears to be a gentile, saying that which you don’t like, as an anti-semite. Again, I obviously credited you too highly, because thats a stoop so low………. On Jul 6, 2018, at 16:18, Robert Naiman > wrote: I think that if you want to send the local BtA chapter to hell because they didn't co-sponsor this one rally, or you want to send BtA to hell because they don't work on Israel-Palestine when they explicitly set themselves up as an organization that doesn't work on foreign policy so they could recruit Jews to work on domestic justice issues who would probably be bad on Israel-Palestine without having to deal with the potential consequences of that, you'd be practicing the same politics that you're denouncing. As you know, we co-sponsored the Medea talk, even though it was co-sponsored by the Prairie Green Party, which I loathe because it gives a platform to Snarl, whom I loathe because he's an abuser who has been abusive to me personally. Nonetheless we co-sponsored the talk. We didn't pursue a policy of not co-sponsoring an event co-sponsored by an organization that gives the abuser Snarl a platform. We co-sponsored the talk anyway. I expect that the local BtA chapter will do good things in the future that will involve cooperation with people who have different politics. I think that's more likely if they're not subjected to thoughtless and opportunistic attacks from the ultra-left. But in any event, there are much better targets, as I said before, organizations in this town that can be directly tied to Israeli government abuses of Palestinians. Why pick on BtA, when they have nothing to do with it? There's a whiff of anti-Semitism about it: let's pick on them because they're Jewish, even though, by their own account, they have nothing to do with Israel. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 6 23:38:43 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: <3E007ED8-D2CB-4B4A-A367-4EB326910CE7@gmail.com> References: <3E007ED8-D2CB-4B4A-A367-4EB326910CE7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anyone can search the archives. I don't work for you, abuser. You are not my boss. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:34 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > ...“an abuser who has been abusive to [you] personally”? An example, Bob? > > > On Jul 6, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > I think that if you want to send the local BtA chapter to hell because > they didn't co-sponsor this one rally, or you want to send BtA to hell > because they don't work on Israel-Palestine when they explicitly set > themselves up as an organization that doesn't work on foreign policy so > they could recruit Jews to work on domestic justice issues who would > probably be bad on Israel-Palestine without having to deal with the > potential consequences of that, you'd be practicing the same politics that > you're denouncing. > > As you know, we co-sponsored the Medea talk, even though it was > co-sponsored by the Prairie Green Party, which I loathe because it gives a > platform to Snarl, whom I loathe because he's an abuser who has been > abusive to me personally. Nonetheless we co-sponsored the talk. We didn't > pursue a policy of not co-sponsoring an event co-sponsored by an > organization that gives the abuser Snarl a platform. We co-sponsored the > talk anyway. > > I expect that the local BtA chapter will do good things in the future that > will involve cooperation with people who have different politics. I think > that's more likely if they're not subjected to thoughtless and > opportunistic attacks from the ultra-left. But in any event, there are much > better targets, as I said before, organizations in this town that can be > directly tied to Israeli government abuses of Palestinians. Why pick on > BtA, when they have nothing to do with it? There's a whiff of anti-Semitism > about it: let's pick on them because they're Jewish, even though, by their > own account, they have nothing to do with Israel. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 6 23:48:01 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:48:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Where was your offer of "peace and reconciliation"? I missed it. Like your friend Snarl, you're a crybaby bully. You can't tolerate when the same tactics you use are used against you. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Bob > > Okay, be an asshole, reject my offer of “peace and reconciliation” and I > will be happy to continue to uncloak you for the lying “paid by the > Democrat Party, dirty trickster” that you are. You have forced me to > remember your lies and propaganda of Jill Stein, it is after all public > knowledge, and as they say “a leopard doesn’t change its spots.” > > And, your statement: “There’s a whiff of anti-Semitism about it: let’s > pick on them because they’re Jewish,” shows again, what you are. Painting > anyone who appears to be a gentile, saying that which you don’t like, as an > anti-semite. > Again, I obviously credited you too highly, because thats a stoop so > low………. > > > > On Jul 6, 2018, at 16:18, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > I think that if you want to send the local BtA chapter to hell because > they didn't co-sponsor this one rally, or you want to send BtA to hell > because they don't work on Israel-Palestine when they explicitly set > themselves up as an organization that doesn't work on foreign policy so > they could recruit Jews to work on domestic justice issues who would > probably be bad on Israel-Palestine without having to deal with the > potential consequences of that, you'd be practicing the same politics that > you're denouncing. > > As you know, we co-sponsored the Medea talk, even though it was > co-sponsored by the Prairie Green Party, which I loathe because it gives a > platform to Snarl, whom I loathe because he's an abuser who has been > abusive to me personally. Nonetheless we co-sponsored the talk. We didn't > pursue a policy of not co-sponsoring an event co-sponsored by an > organization that gives the abuser Snarl a platform. We co-sponsored the > talk anyway. > > I expect that the local BtA chapter will do good things in the future that > will involve cooperation with people who have different politics. I think > that's more likely if they're not subjected to thoughtless and > opportunistic attacks from the ultra-left. But in any event, there are much > better targets, as I said before, organizations in this town that can be > directly tied to Israeli government abuses of Palestinians. Why pick on > BtA, when they have nothing to do with it? There's a whiff of anti-Semitism > about it: let's pick on them because they're Jewish, even though, by their > own account, they have nothing to do with Israel. > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it >> wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the >> organizers. >> >> As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one >> experience, and the article David just posted. >> >> We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they >> chose not to do so. >> >> I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea >> project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. >> >> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >> >> It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of >> people in the group objected to specific things that they feared >> "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with >> that. >> >> Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the >> outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good >> things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for >> them to do and not do. >> >> I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a >> specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather >> than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by >> SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that >> position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to >> participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think >> involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with >> that. >> >> I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against >> bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, >> as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of >> Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that >> if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If >> you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support >> Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a >> target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the >> utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other >> objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian >> house from being knocked down. >> >> If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, >> and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist >>> groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we >>> had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. >>> >>> That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring >>> Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. >>> You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. >>> >>> Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been >>> better had we been united. >>> >>> Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, >>> isn’t a real solution. >>> >>> A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be >>> referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing >>> US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. >>> >>> Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between >>> foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and >>> destruction. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The link works for me now. >>> >>> BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. >>> domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. >>> It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do >>> and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. >>> >>> From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on >>> U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better >>> than those of the Jewish Federation. >>> >>> On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice >>> and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I >>> also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign >>> ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, >>> which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I >>> understand, could use some help right now from people who live in >>> Champaign. >>> >>> So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of >>> picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that >>> they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to >>> do in any event? >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>> >>>> Yes, it's still there. >>>> >>>> Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive >>>> organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not >>>> considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have >>>> had with it locally. >>>> >>>> DG >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman < >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link >>>>> doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 23:50:48 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:50:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune, July 6, 2018 Message-ID: <3CAC0B98-0C16-42B1-9569-E2AE8D7750A5@gmail.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SkCuxCGaEA A ‘Eurasia or Their Asia?’ edition. The upcoming summit meeting in Helsinki between President Trump and Russian president Putin will highlight the political engagement of a relatively declining American empire and the growing economic integration of Eurasia, which the US ruling class has seen as the greatest threat to its profits for more than a century. The real fight however is within the US political establishment, which has seen Trump as a threat to its generations-long attempts to keep Russia and China down with economic pressure and threats of war. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” Of course Trump in office has been largely tamed to the neoliberal and neoconservative policies of the last administration - policies that produced more war and more inequality - but to the US ruling class, Trump is a constant threat to those policies. The hysterical and dangerous Russiagate campaign against Trump - adopted even by the new Democrat star, Ocasio-Cortez - shows the political establishment’s need to get the presidency back into a 'safe pair of hands’ - safe for their profits. The US populace on the contrary must demand that the thousand US military bases ringing Russia and China be closed (Russia has a dozen; China has one), U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 7 00:02:32 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 00:02:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: LOL On Jul 6, 2018, at 16:48, Robert Naiman > wrote: Where was your offer of "peace and reconciliation"? I missed it. Like your friend Snarl, you're a crybaby bully. You can't tolerate when the same tactics you use are used against you. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bob Okay, be an asshole, reject my offer of “peace and reconciliation” and I will be happy to continue to uncloak you for the lying “paid by the Democrat Party, dirty trickster” that you are. You have forced me to remember your lies and propaganda of Jill Stein, it is after all public knowledge, and as they say “a leopard doesn’t change its spots.” And, your statement: “There’s a whiff of anti-Semitism about it: let’s pick on them because they’re Jewish,” shows again, what you are. Painting anyone who appears to be a gentile, saying that which you don’t like, as an anti-semite. Again, I obviously credited you too highly, because thats a stoop so low………. On Jul 6, 2018, at 16:18, Robert Naiman > wrote: I think that if you want to send the local BtA chapter to hell because they didn't co-sponsor this one rally, or you want to send BtA to hell because they don't work on Israel-Palestine when they explicitly set themselves up as an organization that doesn't work on foreign policy so they could recruit Jews to work on domestic justice issues who would probably be bad on Israel-Palestine without having to deal with the potential consequences of that, you'd be practicing the same politics that you're denouncing. As you know, we co-sponsored the Medea talk, even though it was co-sponsored by the Prairie Green Party, which I loathe because it gives a platform to Snarl, whom I loathe because he's an abuser who has been abusive to me personally. Nonetheless we co-sponsored the talk. We didn't pursue a policy of not co-sponsoring an event co-sponsored by an organization that gives the abuser Snarl a platform. We co-sponsored the talk anyway. I expect that the local BtA chapter will do good things in the future that will involve cooperation with people who have different politics. I think that's more likely if they're not subjected to thoughtless and opportunistic attacks from the ultra-left. But in any event, there are much better targets, as I said before, organizations in this town that can be directly tied to Israeli government abuses of Palestinians. Why pick on BtA, when they have nothing to do with it? There's a whiff of anti-Semitism about it: let's pick on them because they're Jewish, even though, by their own account, they have nothing to do with Israel. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Jul 7 02:15:52 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 21:15:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work.  It doesn't bother me that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - as they had also done during the winter.   It doesn't bother me that they don't also address all the issues that I think are important.    -- Stuart -------- Original message --------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Naiman Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers.  As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted.  We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so.  I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman wrote: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that.  Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do.  I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that.  I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics  their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down.  If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united.  Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution.  A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime.  Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman wrote: The link works for me now.  BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this.  From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation.  On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign.  So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event?  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 7 02:34:23 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 02:34:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> References: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: So glad to hear that Stuart, not that its changed my mind regarding BTA. However, I do applaud them for doing good things, especially going ahead and organizing a second anti-ICE rally. I hope they, and or others continue to do so. Never mind that they backed out of working with us because some of us are socialists, you’re not a socialist so that probably doesn’t bother you, I am, so it does, and I was curious over their perceived concern that “someone might mention Palestine.” The article David Green posted from Mondoweiss, does explain, their separation of foreign policy from domestic. On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:15, stuartnlevy > wrote: I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work. It doesn't bother me that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - as they had also done during the winter. It doesn't bother me that they don't also address all the issues that I think are important. -- Stuart -------- Original message -------- From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Naiman > Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Jul 7 03:00:17 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 22:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war demonstration, 2-4pm Saturday, Main and Neil in downtown Champaign Message-ID: <5b402cc1.1c69fb81.57a7f.fca6@mx.google.com> AWARE returns to our monthly demonstration against the wars -    Saturday, July 7th, 2-4pm   Corners of Main and Neil in downtown Champaign Please join us if you feel moved to, and we hope you do.   We will have signs, as ever.  -- Stuart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 7 03:04:53 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 22:04:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Anti-war demonstration, 2-4pm Saturday, Main and Neil in downtown Champaign In-Reply-To: <5b402cc1.1c69fb81.57a7f.fca6@mx.google.com> References: <5b402cc1.1c69fb81.57a7f.fca6@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4CABFC94-FA74-4E21-B27D-954598B3C996@gmail.com> And flyers, as follows: ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians, even as Israeli snipers shoot unarmed demonstrators - and children - in Gaza. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. ~ The president has announced that the US will go back on its word and violate the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. To get the war started, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US an Israeli forces, who are there illegally). An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### > On Jul 6, 2018, at 10:00 PM, stuartnlevy via Peace wrote: > > AWARE returns to our monthly demonstration against the wars - > > Saturday, July 7th, 2-4pm > Corners of Main and Neil in downtown Champaign > > Please join us if you feel moved to, and we hope you do. We will have signs, as ever. > > > > -- Stuart > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 20:19:17 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 20:19:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trade war and the political independence of the working class/More than just higher priced goods. Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Trade war and the political independence of the working class By Nick Beams 7 July 2018 The decision of the United States to proceed with the imposition of tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods, coupled with threats from President Trump to impose an additional $500 billion in tariffs, marks a further stage in the breakdown of the post-World War II capitalist order. The fact that the measures against China—along with the earlier imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminium impacting Canada, the European Union, China, Japan and Mexico, together with the threat to impose tariffs on auto imports—have all been invoked on “national security” grounds is deeply significant. It is an unmistakeable sign that the trade war measures have an essential military dimension and are a major component of the preparations by the US to launch war against its rivals—that is, a world war—should that be considered necessary to maintain Washington’s global dominance. In April 2009, in the aftermath of the global financial meltdown, the most significant crisis of the global capitalism since the Great Depression, the leaders of the major industrialized countries pledged, hand on heart, that they would never resort to trade war and protectionist measures. The lessons of the disastrous decade of the 1930s and the role of such measures in creating the conditions for world war had been learned, it was universally declared. What is the situation today? The United States has launched what the Chinese Commerce Ministry has rightly described as “the largest trade war in economic history,” or, as others have noted, the most sweeping measures since the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. In 1938, on the eve of the outbreak of World War II, Leon Trotsky wrote that that the bourgeoisie “toboggans with closed eyes towards an economic and military catastrophe.” Eighty years on, his words have a profound resonance. The other major powers have no answer to the measures of the Trump administration apart from the imposition of retaliatory tariffs that take the world further down the road to all-out economic and ultimately military conflict. In every country, the ruling elites are pressing forward with the same economic nationalist and militarist agenda as the Trump administration. The conclusion is being drawn in the European capitals and in Asia that with the breakdown of the post-war order they must re-arm and prepare themselves for conflict. Just as the world heads into a repeat, on an even vaster scale, of the economic conflicts of the 1930s, so all the horrific measures imposed in that disastrous decade are being revived. Concentration camps are being established in Europe and the US for the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees as governments of all political stripes lurch further to the right. In the decade since the eruption of the global financial crisis, all of the contradictions of the profit system that produced the market meltdown are intensifying, marked above all by deepening social inequality—the accumulation of fabulous wealth by a handful of global billionaires and oligarchs amidst declining living standards and worsening poverty for the broad mass of the population. The ruling classes are now seeking to exploit the anger and hostility produced by their policies of war, austerity and repression by turning it in the direction of economic nationalism. Here the trade union bureaucracies and the social democratic and labour parties, as well as the Democratic Party in the US, most notably its “left” (Bernie Sanders) section, play the critical role. In the face of the mounting economic and social disaster produced by the decay of the capitalist order, the working class must advance its own independent program. In the first place must be the political struggle against all forms of economic nationalism and the rejection of the lie that such a policy can protect workers’ jobs and living conditions. Economic nationalism is always and necessarily accompanied by austerity measures aimed at the social position of the working class, in order to promote the “international competitiveness” of the individual capitalist nation-state, accompanied by the diversion of vast economic resources to military spending. Whether it is advanced in the form of outright fascistic ideology, as with Trump, or dressed up in “left” guise, economic nationalism does not represent a way forward. It is rather the death rattle of a decaying and crisis-ridden social system. Equally bankrupt is the perspective advanced by the defenders of the post-war order based on the claim that the growing economic madness can be cured by an appeal to “reason”—as if the present crisis were merely a product of the mindset of Donald Trump—and by pointing out that the US is destroying the very system it largely created and that proved so beneficial to it. The breakdown of the post-war order is not at root the result of incorrect policies, but the expression of fundamental contradictions of the capitalist mode of production—above all the conflict between the global character of production and the division of the world into rival capitalist nation-states. This contradiction first exploded to the surface in the form of World War I. The so-called “war to end all wars” was only the first stage in what was to become a 30-year conflict between the imperialist great powers that ended only in 1945 with the establishment of the economic and military hegemony of the United States. The conflicts between the major powers could be regulated and contained so long as the United States enjoyed economic supremacy. But the very economic growth promoted by the post-war liberal order undermined the dominance of the US relative to old rivals and the emergence of new ones, above all China. US imperialism is today driven to reverse this decline through violent economic and, if necessary, military means. The contradiction between the global economy and the nation-state system, which has been enormously intensified by the globalisation of production over the past three decades, can no longer be contained within the old framework and has once again burst to the surface. It now dominates the political life of every country in the form of the deepening drive to war, the whipping up of nationalism, the imposition of austerity and the emergence of authoritarian and fascistic forms of rule recalling those of the 1930s. An understanding of these objective socio-economic processes must form the basis for the development of an independent perspective and program for the working class, grounded on the recognition that the urgent necessity is to unify its struggles across national borders against the common enemy—the capitalist system. Left in the hands of the present ruling classes, the enormous economic power created through globalised production, the result of the unified labour of the international working class, will become the basis for death and destruction on an unprecedented scale. This power must be released from the cage of the nation-state and private profit system and become the foundation for a new advance of mankind through a planned international socialist economy. That is the perspective on which the working class must fight in response to the eruption of trade war and all it portends. To implement it, the working class must tear itself free from the political domination of the capitalist class and all of its parties and political representatives. It must embark consciously on the struggle for workers’ power and socialism on a world scale. Nick Beams WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Jul 7 21:07:46 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 16:07:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: What is the principled basis of the critique here? Bend the Arc doesn't work on foreign policy. AWARE doesn't work on abortion rights. What's the difference? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > So glad to hear that Stuart, not that its changed my mind regarding BTA. > However, I do applaud them for doing good things, especially going ahead > and organizing a second anti-ICE rally. I hope they, and or others continue > to do so. > > Never mind that they backed out of working with us because some of us are > socialists, you’re not a socialist so that probably doesn’t bother you, I > am, so it does, and I was curious over their perceived concern that > “someone might mention Palestine.” > > The article David Green posted from Mondoweiss, does explain, their > separation of foreign policy from domestic. > > On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:15, stuartnlevy wrote: > > I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work. It doesn't bother me > that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked > on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - > as they had also done during the winter. It doesn't bother me that they > don't also address all the issues that I think are important. > > > -- Stuart > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) > To: Robert Naiman > Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc > > That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it > wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the > organizers. > > As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, > and the article David just posted. > > We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they > chose not to do so. > > I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea > project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. > > On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > > It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of > people in the group objected to specific things that they feared > "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with > that. > > Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the > outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good > things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for > them to do and not do. > > I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a > specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather > than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by > SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that > position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to > participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think > involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with > that. > > I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against > bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, > as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of > Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that > if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If > you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support > Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a > target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the > utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other > objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian > house from being knocked down. > > If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, > and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist >> groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we >> had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. >> >> That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring >> Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. >> You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. >> >> Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been >> better had we been united. >> >> Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, >> isn’t a real solution. >> >> A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be >> referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing >> US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. >> >> Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between >> foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and >> destruction. >> >> >> >> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >> >> The link works for me now. >> >> BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. >> domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. >> It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do >> and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. >> >> From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on >> U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better >> than those of the Jewish Federation. >> >> On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice >> and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I >> also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign >> ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, >> which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I >> understand, could use some help right now from people who live in >> Champaign. >> >> So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of >> picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that >> they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to >> do in any event? >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>> >>> Yes, it's still there. >>> >>> Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive >>> organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not >>> considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have >>> had with it locally. >>> >>> DG >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman < >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link >>>> doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 7 22:09:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 22:09:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Robert: That was the whole point, and why David posted the article from Mondoweiss. Bend the Arc, according to the article “separates” foreign policy from domestic.” One can interpret that anyway one wishes, as some readers evidently do. For many of us, separating the two is impossible, because US foreign policy is the driver behind many of the domestic issues/problems we are suffering today. I was attempting to explain, why David posted the article, it was in response to my query about BTH. Stuart: I was joking when I said I was “bothered” neither I nor the other socialists were offended, when told why BTH would not work with us, mention of Palestine was secondary, we actually found it quite amusing given its so “50”s, being practiced by those referring to themselves as “progressives.” Amusing even more was a couple of us, socialists, then supporting you in preventing someone from being blocked because he is an anarchist, given “one never knows what an anarchist might do, something to that effect was stated.” It should be noted, a third reason was given, “they, BTH want to unseat Rodney Davis. What that had to do with us being socialists, I know not, given we certainly agree unseating Rodney Davis is a worthwhile cause, which any of us certainly supports. I’m finished with this conversation and topic. On Jul 7, 2018, at 14:07, Robert Naiman > wrote: What is the principled basis of the critique here? Bend the Arc doesn't work on foreign policy. AWARE doesn't work on abortion rights. What's the difference? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: So glad to hear that Stuart, not that its changed my mind regarding BTA. However, I do applaud them for doing good things, especially going ahead and organizing a second anti-ICE rally. I hope they, and or others continue to do so. Never mind that they backed out of working with us because some of us are socialists, you’re not a socialist so that probably doesn’t bother you, I am, so it does, and I was curious over their perceived concern that “someone might mention Palestine.” The article David Green posted from Mondoweiss, does explain, their separation of foreign policy from domestic. On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:15, stuartnlevy > wrote: I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work. It doesn't bother me that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - as they had also done during the winter. It doesn't bother me that they don't also address all the issues that I think are important. -- Stuart -------- Original message -------- From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Naiman > Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Jul 7 22:28:21 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 17:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: But you could just as well say: how can you separate abortion rights from questions of race and class? The abortion rights of white middle-class college-educated married women in blue states are never going to be taken away. The religious right can appoint nine right-wing Supreme Court justices, they're never going to be able to touch that. Increased criminalization of abortion is only going to hit the most vulnerable women, poor, women of color, young, abused, beset on every side by too many problems with not enough help. This is the devil's bargain that the anti-abortion people are making: they know very well they will never be able to ban abortion completely, so they're going to content themselves with taking abortion rights away from the most vulnerable women. Why isn't that an anti-racist issue? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *Robert:* > That was the whole point, and why David posted the article from > Mondoweiss. Bend the Arc, according to the article “separates” foreign > policy from domestic.” One can interpret that anyway one wishes, as some > readers evidently do. > > For many of us, separating the two is impossible, because US foreign > policy is the driver behind many of the domestic issues/problems we are > suffering today. > > I was attempting to explain, why David posted the article, it was in > response to my query about BTH. > > *Stuart*: > I was joking when I said I was “bothered” neither I nor the other > socialists were offended, when told why BTH would not work with us, mention > of Palestine was secondary, we actually found it quite amusing given its > so “50”s, being practiced by those referring to themselves as > “progressives.” > Amusing even more was a couple of us, socialists, then supporting you in > preventing someone from being blocked because he is an anarchist, given > “one never knows what an anarchist might do, something to that effect was > stated.” > > It should be noted, a third reason was given, “they, BTH want to unseat > Rodney Davis. What that had to do with us being socialists, I know not, > given we certainly agree unseating Rodney Davis is a worthwhile cause, > which any of us certainly supports. > > I’m finished with this conversation and topic. > > > > > On Jul 7, 2018, at 14:07, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > What is the principled basis of the critique here? > > Bend the Arc doesn't work on foreign policy. > > AWARE doesn't work on abortion rights. > > What's the difference? > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> So glad to hear that Stuart, not that its changed my mind regarding BTA. >> However, I do applaud them for doing good things, especially going ahead >> and organizing a second anti-ICE rally. I hope they, and or others continue >> to do so. >> >> Never mind that they backed out of working with us because some of us are >> socialists, you’re not a socialist so that probably doesn’t bother you, I >> am, so it does, and I was curious over their perceived concern that >> “someone might mention Palestine.” >> >> The article David Green posted from Mondoweiss, does explain, their >> separation of foreign policy from domestic. >> >> On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:15, stuartnlevy wrote: >> >> I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work. It doesn't bother me >> that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked >> on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - >> as they had also done during the winter. It doesn't bother me that they >> don't also address all the issues that I think are important. >> >> >> -- Stuart >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) >> To: Robert Naiman >> Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc >> >> That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it >> wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the >> organizers. >> >> As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one >> experience, and the article David just posted. >> >> We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they >> chose not to do so. >> >> I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea >> project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. >> >> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >> >> It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of >> people in the group objected to specific things that they feared >> "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with >> that. >> >> Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the >> outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good >> things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for >> them to do and not do. >> >> I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a >> specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather >> than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by >> SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that >> position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to >> participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think >> involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with >> that. >> >> I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against >> bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, >> as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of >> Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that >> if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If >> you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support >> Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a >> target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the >> utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other >> objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian >> house from being knocked down. >> >> If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, >> and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist >>> groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we >>> had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. >>> >>> That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring >>> Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. >>> You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. >>> >>> Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been >>> better had we been united. >>> >>> Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, >>> isn’t a real solution. >>> >>> A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be >>> referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing >>> US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. >>> >>> Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between >>> foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and >>> destruction. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The link works for me now. >>> >>> BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. >>> domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. >>> It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do >>> and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. >>> >>> From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on >>> U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better >>> than those of the Jewish Federation. >>> >>> On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice >>> and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I >>> also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign >>> ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, >>> which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I >>> understand, could use some help right now from people who live in >>> Champaign. >>> >>> So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of >>> picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that >>> they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to >>> do in any event? >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>> >>>> Yes, it's still there. >>>> >>>> Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive >>>> organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not >>>> considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have >>>> had with it locally. >>>> >>>> DG >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman < >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link >>>>> doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 22:40:36 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 22:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I couldn’t agree more that abortion is a class issue. Women with the means have always been able to obtain abortion. Poor women whatever their race, are being left without that choice. The race component enters when we look at the demographics of poverty. Goodbye On Jul 7, 2018, at 15:28, Robert Naiman > wrote: But you could just as well say: how can you separate abortion rights from questions of race and class? The abortion rights of white middle-class college-educated married women in blue states are never going to be taken away. The religious right can appoint nine right-wing Supreme Court justices, they're never going to be able to touch that. Increased criminalization of abortion is only going to hit the most vulnerable women, poor, women of color, young, abused, beset on every side by too many problems with not enough help. This is the devil's bargain that the anti-abortion people are making: they know very well they will never be able to ban abortion completely, so they're going to content themselves with taking abortion rights away from the most vulnerable women. Why isn't that an anti-racist issue? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Robert: That was the whole point, and why David posted the article from Mondoweiss. Bend the Arc, according to the article “separates” foreign policy from domestic.” One can interpret that anyway one wishes, as some readers evidently do. For many of us, separating the two is impossible, because US foreign policy is the driver behind many of the domestic issues/problems we are suffering today. I was attempting to explain, why David posted the article, it was in response to my query about BTH. Stuart: I was joking when I said I was “bothered” neither I nor the other socialists were offended, when told why BTH would not work with us, mention of Palestine was secondary, we actually found it quite amusing given its so “50”s, being practiced by those referring to themselves as “progressives.” Amusing even more was a couple of us, socialists, then supporting you in preventing someone from being blocked because he is an anarchist, given “one never knows what an anarchist might do, something to that effect was stated.” It should be noted, a third reason was given, “they, BTH want to unseat Rodney Davis. What that had to do with us being socialists, I know not, given we certainly agree unseating Rodney Davis is a worthwhile cause, which any of us certainly supports. I’m finished with this conversation and topic. On Jul 7, 2018, at 14:07, Robert Naiman > wrote: What is the principled basis of the critique here? Bend the Arc doesn't work on foreign policy. AWARE doesn't work on abortion rights. What's the difference? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: So glad to hear that Stuart, not that its changed my mind regarding BTA. However, I do applaud them for doing good things, especially going ahead and organizing a second anti-ICE rally. I hope they, and or others continue to do so. Never mind that they backed out of working with us because some of us are socialists, you’re not a socialist so that probably doesn’t bother you, I am, so it does, and I was curious over their perceived concern that “someone might mention Palestine.” The article David Green posted from Mondoweiss, does explain, their separation of foreign policy from domestic. On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:15, stuartnlevy > wrote: I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work. It doesn't bother me that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - as they had also done during the winter. It doesn't bother me that they don't also address all the issues that I think are important. -- Stuart -------- Original message -------- From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Naiman > Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: The link works for me now. BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ Yes, it's still there. Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. DG On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 7 22:56:22 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 17:56:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: An abortion ends a human life. Those of us who are opposed to the ending of human lives by war and exploitation should also be opposed to the ending of human live for economic and eugenic reasons, as abortion does: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” —Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The way to combat poverty is not to get the poor to kill their children but to provide healthcare for all, child allowances, adoption support, free eduction thru college, etc. Socialism is the cure for abortion. —CGE > On Jul 7, 2018, at 5:40 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I couldn’t agree more that abortion is a class issue. Women with the means have always been able to obtain abortion. Poor women whatever their race, are being left without that choice. The race component enters when we look at the demographics of poverty. > > Goodbye > > > >> On Jul 7, 2018, at 15:28, Robert Naiman > wrote: >> >> But you could just as well say: how can you separate abortion rights from questions of race and class? The abortion rights of white middle-class college-educated married women in blue states are never going to be taken away. The religious right can appoint nine right-wing Supreme Court justices, they're never going to be able to touch that. Increased criminalization of abortion is only going to hit the most vulnerable women, poor, women of color, young, abused, beset on every side by too many problems with not enough help. This is the devil's bargain that the anti-abortion people are making: they know very well they will never be able to ban abortion completely, so they're going to content themselves with taking abortion rights away from the most vulnerable women. Why isn't that an anti-racist issue? >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Robert: >> That was the whole point, and why David posted the article from Mondoweiss. Bend the Arc, according to the article “separates” foreign policy from domestic.” One can interpret that anyway one wishes, as some readers evidently do. >> >> For many of us, separating the two is impossible, because US foreign policy is the driver behind many of the domestic issues/problems we are suffering today. >> >> I was attempting to explain, why David posted the article, it was in response to my query about BTH. >> >> Stuart: >> I was joking when I said I was “bothered” neither I nor the other socialists were offended, when told why BTH would not work with us, mention of Palestine was secondary, we actually found it quite amusing given its so “50”s, being practiced by those referring to themselves as “progressives.” >> Amusing even more was a couple of us, socialists, then supporting you in preventing someone from being blocked because he is an anarchist, given “one never knows what an anarchist might do, something to that effect was stated.” >> >> It should be noted, a third reason was given, “they, BTH want to unseat Rodney Davis. What that had to do with us being socialists, I know not, given we certainly agree unseating Rodney Davis is a worthwhile cause, which any of us certainly supports. >> >> I’m finished with this conversation and topic. >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 7, 2018, at 14:07, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>> >>> What is the principled basis of the critique here? >>> >>> Bend the Arc doesn't work on foreign policy. >>> >>> AWARE doesn't work on abortion rights. >>> >>> What's the difference? >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> So glad to hear that Stuart, not that its changed my mind regarding BTA. However, I do applaud them for doing good things, especially going ahead and organizing a second anti-ICE rally. I hope they, and or others continue to do so. >>> >>> Never mind that they backed out of working with us because some of us are socialists, you’re not a socialist so that probably doesn’t bother you, I am, so it does, and I was curious over their perceived concern that “someone might mention Palestine.” >>> >>> The article David Green posted from Mondoweiss, does explain, their separation of foreign policy from domestic. >>> >>>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:15, stuartnlevy > wrote: >>>> >>>> I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work. It doesn't bother me that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - as they had also done during the winter. It doesn't bother me that they don't also address all the issues that I think are important. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Stuart >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > >>>> Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) >>>> To: Robert Naiman > >>>> Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net )" > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc >>>> >>>> That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. >>>> >>>> As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. >>>> >>>> We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. >>>> >>>> I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. >>>> >>>>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. >>>>> >>>>> Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. >>>>> >>>>> I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. >>>>> >>>>> I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. >>>>> >>>>> If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. >>>>> >>>>> That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. >>>>> >>>>> Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. >>>>> >>>>> A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. >>>>> >>>>> Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The link works for me now. >>>>>> >>>>>> BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it's still there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. >>>>>> >>>>>> DG >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>>> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 00:22:58 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 19:22:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc In-Reply-To: References: <5b402258.1c69fb81.2917f.183b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: It certainly is a class issue. It’s the final exclusion of a refugee with a claim on social services, and - as Justice Ginsburg noted - it curbs "population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Elsewhere, the anti-natal policies encouraged by the US government in Latin America were said to lead Che Guevara to note, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills.” —CGE > On Jul 7, 2018, at 5:40 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I couldn’t agree more that abortion is a class issue. Women with the means have always been able to obtain abortion. Poor women whatever their race, are being left without that choice. The race component enters when we look at the demographics of poverty. > > Goodbye > > > >> On Jul 7, 2018, at 15:28, Robert Naiman > wrote: >> >> But you could just as well say: how can you separate abortion rights from questions of race and class? The abortion rights of white middle-class college-educated married women in blue states are never going to be taken away. The religious right can appoint nine right-wing Supreme Court justices, they're never going to be able to touch that. Increased criminalization of abortion is only going to hit the most vulnerable women, poor, women of color, young, abused, beset on every side by too many problems with not enough help. This is the devil's bargain that the anti-abortion people are making: they know very well they will never be able to ban abortion completely, so they're going to content themselves with taking abortion rights away from the most vulnerable women. Why isn't that an anti-racist issue? >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:09 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Robert: >> That was the whole point, and why David posted the article from Mondoweiss. Bend the Arc, according to the article “separates” foreign policy from domestic.” One can interpret that anyway one wishes, as some readers evidently do. >> >> For many of us, separating the two is impossible, because US foreign policy is the driver behind many of the domestic issues/problems we are suffering today. >> >> I was attempting to explain, why David posted the article, it was in response to my query about BTH. >> >> Stuart: >> I was joking when I said I was “bothered” neither I nor the other socialists were offended, when told why BTH would not work with us, mention of Palestine was secondary, we actually found it quite amusing given its so “50”s, being practiced by those referring to themselves as “progressives.” >> Amusing even more was a couple of us, socialists, then supporting you in preventing someone from being blocked because he is an anarchist, given “one never knows what an anarchist might do, something to that effect was stated.” >> >> It should be noted, a third reason was given, “they, BTH want to unseat Rodney Davis. What that had to do with us being socialists, I know not, given we certainly agree unseating Rodney Davis is a worthwhile cause, which any of us certainly supports. >> >> I’m finished with this conversation and topic. >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 7, 2018, at 14:07, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>> >>> What is the principled basis of the critique here? >>> >>> Bend the Arc doesn't work on foreign policy. >>> >>> AWARE doesn't work on abortion rights. >>> >>> What's the difference? >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:34 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> So glad to hear that Stuart, not that its changed my mind regarding BTA. However, I do applaud them for doing good things, especially going ahead and organizing a second anti-ICE rally. I hope they, and or others continue to do so. >>> >>> Never mind that they backed out of working with us because some of us are socialists, you’re not a socialist so that probably doesn’t bother you, I am, so it does, and I was curious over their perceived concern that “someone might mention Palestine.” >>> >>> The article David Green posted from Mondoweiss, does explain, their separation of foreign policy from domestic. >>> >>>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 19:15, stuartnlevy > wrote: >>>> >>>> I think Bend the Arc has been doing some good work. It doesn't bother me that they didn't cosponsor the Drury Inn demonstration but instead worked on another very successful demonstration in support of just immigration - as they had also done during the winter. It doesn't bother me that they don't also address all the issues that I think are important. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Stuart >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > >>>> Date: 7/6/18 18:01 (GMT-06:00) >>>> To: Robert Naiman > >>>> Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net )" > >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bend the Arc >>>> >>>> That maybe what you were told, but not what I was told, and as I said it wasn’t just about Israel, it was about the politics of many of the organizers. >>>> >>>> As to BTA, I have no familiarity with them other than this one experience, and the article David just posted. >>>> >>>> We all should be unifying, they had their chance as an organization, they chose not to do so. >>>> >>>> I commend you, given our differences, for working with us on the Medea project in our continuing efforts to prevent further wars. >>>> >>>>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:51, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It wasn't just that 'mention of “Palestine" might come up'. A number of people in the group objected to specific things that they feared "anti-Israel" people would say and they didn't want to be associated with that. >>>>> >>>>> Full disclosure: I'm not quite a member, but sort of a lurker on the outskirts of the local BtA chapter. I'm trying to encourage them to do good things and not do bad things, within the ambit of what is realistic for them to do and not do. >>>>> >>>>> I encouraged them to co-sponsor the anti-ICE demo on the basis of a specific agreement about what would and wouldn't happen in the demo rather than have a blanket policy of not participating in a demo co-sponsored by SJP. A number of people were open to that, and I actually thought that position might win out. Then I found out that they had decided not to participate, following some conversations that I didn't see that I think involved national BtA staff. So I don't completely know what happened with that. >>>>> >>>>> I don't endorse the politics of many of their members. But I'm against bashing them as a group for stuff that is outside their remit as a group, as they understand it. Indeed, I've been encouraging them to stay out of Israel politics, consistent with the national BtA line, because I know that if they got involved in Israel politics their positions would be bad. If you want to attack Jewish communal institutions that actively support Israeli government violations of Palestinian human rights, that's a target-rich environment, there's a very long list. I don't see what the utility for Palestinians of bashing BtA is. Perhaps it serves some other objective. But picking on BtA isn't going to stop a single Palestinian house from being knocked down. >>>>> >>>>> If you think you know more about this than I do, bring it on. You don't, and I've got all day, and the next day, and the day after that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> Because Bend the Arc, backed out of working with socialist/ Marxist groups on the rally opposing ICE we had at the Drury Inn, on the 23rd, we had over 300 people. They feared mention of “Palestine" might come up. >>>>> >>>>> That may not bother you Bob, but you didn’t back out of co-sponsoring Medea’s presence here even though association with socialists took place. You looked at the “bigger picture”, rather than petti politics. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, BTA did do their own rally on the 30th, though it would have been better had we been united. >>>>> >>>>> Also, these good things people do for their communities, and immigrants, isn’t a real solution. >>>>> >>>>> A real solution would be to stop creating the immigrants, who should be referred to as “refugees,” because that is what they are, refugees fleeing US wars and interventions, sanctions, NAFTA and crime. >>>>> >>>>> Attempts to keep the American people ignorant of the connection between foreign policy and domestic, supports and continues the killings and destruction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 6, 2018, at 15:15, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The link works for me now. >>>>>> >>>>>> BtA was explicitly set up to be an organization that works only on U.S. domestic justice issues, not U.S. foreign policy, including not Israel. It's foundational, it's constitutional, that's what they were set up to do and not do. There is zero possibility of moving them on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> From what I know of the local chapter here, if they took positions on U.S. foreign policy, their positions would be horrible, certainly no better than those of the Jewish Federation. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, they're very good on opposing anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-refugee prejudice, which are also things that need to be done. I also understand that some of them are working to try to get the Champaign ordinance allowing landlords to discriminate against ex-prisoners repealed, which is another thing that needs to be done. And which project, I understand, could use some help right now from people who live in Champaign. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, why not let them work on the things that they're good on, instead of picking on them and trying to bully them for not working on issues that they would be bad on, which there is zero possibility that they're going to do in any event? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:48 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/progressive-jewish-justice/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it's still there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to clarify, Bend the Arc is a national Jewish progressive organization with a local chapter; it is criticized in this article for not considering foreign policy, which is the experience that AWARE members have had with it locally. >>>>>> >>>>>> DG >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:32 PM Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>>> This link doesn't work for me. I searched on the web and that link doesn't work either. Maybe they took the article down? >>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sun Jul 8 14:55:30 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 22:55:30 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] dying to survive Message-ID: <1531061723786.ovq2perpggs3fyvqsnblqg4c@android.mail.163.com> New Chinese movie based on true story of guy who smuggled drug from india for sufferers of chronic granulocytic leukemia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on82VId28l4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 16:24:04 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 11:24:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] dying to survive In-Reply-To: <1531061723786.ovq2perpggs3fyvqsnblqg4c@android.mail.163.com> References: <1531061723786.ovq2perpggs3fyvqsnblqg4c@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <4ABB4E68-7083-4D23-9D7B-FDF06542C3EB@gmail.com> https://deadline.com/2018/07/dying-to-survive-china-box-office-social-impact-1202422199/ > On Jul 8, 2018, at 9:55 AM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > New Chinese movie based on true story of guy who smuggled drug from india for sufferers of chronic granulocytic leukemia. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on82VId28l4 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jul 8 19:56:46 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 19:56:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials Message-ID: <3AFD1051-2EF5-440D-A520-038932C73C75@illinois.edu> >From The New York Times: U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials Trade sanctions. Withdrawal of military aid. The Trump administration used both to try to block a measure that was considered uncontroversial and embraced by countries around the world. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 12:08:19 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:08:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Con of Diversity Message-ID: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-con-of-diversity/ _________________________________________________ “I’m not worried by the Trump phenomenon,” Ford said. “That doesn’t scare me. It’s disconcerting. But it doesn’t scare me. I’m far more afraid of the space that it gives to the corporatists. It’s to their advantage. Trump defines the white man’s party’s space. It’s big. It’s no joke. It can win presidential elections. It can win again. It needs money from corporate Republicans, but it doesn’t need anything else from them. The white man’s party more clearly defines the space the Democrats claim. It’s everybody who is not an overt racist.” “I don’t think Trump will ever beat Obama’s records in terms of deportation,” Ford went on. “We should be fighting U.S. immigration policy. But that isn’t Trump. We should be organizing against Amazon taking over a whole city. But that isn’t Trump. Will Trump’s next pick for the Supreme Court be different from any pick that a Republican would make? In fact, because he’s crazy, he might fuck up and make a bad pick for himself. He ain’t deep enough to pick the worst guy. He hasn’t read the Federalist Papers.” ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 18:38:22 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:38:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why NATO Matters/NYT Message-ID: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/opinion/editorials/why-nato-matters.html An important, in it's own way, piece of liberal historical/political propaganda, from the NYT editorial board, containing all of the associated evils; all subscribed to by the Clintonites of course. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 10 04:02:35 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:02:35 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Why_NATO_Matters/NYT?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180710040235.28005.qmail@station188.com> I didn't bother to vote the last time, but after reading this I will surely take the trouble to go vote for Trump. “NATO can withstand four years under Trump,” one former NATO ambassador said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ll withstand eight.” One can only hope that this "former NATO ambassador" is right. > -------Original Message------- > From: David Green via Peace-discuss > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why NATO Matters/NYT > Sent: Jul 10 '18 02:39 > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/opinion/editorials/why-nato-matters.html > > An important, in it's own way, piece of liberal historical/political > propaganda, from the NYT editorial board, containing all of the > associated evils; all subscribed to by the Clintonites of course. > > DG > ------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 10 04:32:26 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:32:26 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?U=2ES=2E_Opposition_to_Breast-Feeding_R?= =?utf-8?q?esolution_Stuns_World_Health_Officials?= In-Reply-To: <3AFD1051-2EF5-440D-A520-038932C73C75@illinois.edu> References: <3AFD1051-2EF5-440D-A520-038932C73C75@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <20180710043226.13627.qmail@station188.com> Start cola earlier! http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IBVPgalgRAk/TUmkhCeZZCI/AAAAAAAADTI/xrdy3nObXrA/s1600/Baby+drink+cola+ad.jpg > -------Original Message------- > From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > To: peace-discuss > Cc: Rebecca P. > Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials > Sent: Jul 09 '18 03:57 > > From The New York Times: > > U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials > > Trade sanctions. Withdrawal of military aid. The Trump administration used both to try to block a measure that was considered uncontroversial and embraced by countries around the world. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 09:33:19 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 04:33:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBbTmV3IHBvc3RdIERvbuKAmXQgTGlr?= =?utf-8?q?e_Antiwar_Lefties_Going_On_Fox_Or_RT=3F_Blame_CNN_And_MSNBC=2E?= References: <139971992.4922.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Caitlin Johnstone > Date: July 9, 2018 at 10:33:40 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Subject: [New post] Don’t Like Antiwar Lefties Going On Fox Or RT? Blame CNN And MSNBC. > > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Don’t Like Antiwar Lefties Going On Fox Or RT? Blame CNN And MSNBC. > by Caitlin Johnstone > As usual, Glenn Greenwald has been catching heat all over Centrist Twitter, this time for conducting a brief interview for Russian state media outlet RT after a panel appearance in Moscow. RT, in typical fashion, titled the interview "Greenwald: I came to Russia to combat US’ toxic view on the country," which, while technically an accurate reflection of part of something Greenwald said in the interview, also happens to make perfect retweet fodder for lying sociopaths like MSNBC's Malcolm Nance. > > Nance, along with US state media outlet Polygraph, helped circulate a completely evidence-free conspiracy theory that Greenwald is "an agent of Trump and Moscow." Nance also smeared Greenwald for having appeared on Fox News with Tucker Carlson. > > This is an ongoing debate that has increased in shrillness recently that I'd like to briefly address. The argument goes that antiwar journalists who are critical of the US power establishment like Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald should not be making appearances on Fox News or RT, because it lends those outlets credibility. If people see a reputable journalist appearing on Fox News, the argument goes, they will assume that that lying propaganda firm is trustworthy, and they will give it more credibility than a more liberal-aligned outlet like MSNBC, which is theoretically (*cough*) closer to the antiwar left on the ideological spectrum. > > READ: Glen Greenwald shows his true colors as an agent of Trump & Moscow. now we know why he helped Snowden defect, covers for Wikileaks attack on Democracy & shills for Fox News. He’s deep in the Kremlin pocket. https://t.co/GXW07PmXFo > > — Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) July 7, 2018 > > And that argument actually holds some weight. Not the part about MSNBC being less of a lying warmonger network than Fox News (at this point in time it's arguably worse), but the part about credibility being lent to outlets which will host principled antiwar leftists. If RT will have Max Blumenthal on to discuss opposition to longstanding neoconservative war agendas and CNN will not, RT comes off looking more credible than CNN in that respect for a lot of people. If Tucker Carlson will have Glenn Greenwald on to talk about the gaping plot holes in the establishment Russia narrative, then in some eyes that elevates Fox News above CNN in that respect. > > But whose fault is that? Are antiwar leftists actually to blame for the fact that MSNBC and CNN shut them down at every turn? In his debate with James Risen about the Russiagate narrative, Greenwald made an interesting remark about the fact that Risen had been able to secure an MSNBC appearance after joining The Intercept. > > "You cracked the code for how to be an Intercept writer and get on MSNBC," Greenwald said. "Which is to write an article entitled: 'Is Donald Trump a Traitor?'" > > Indeed, Risen did just that: since his arrival at the publication he has contributed to The Intercept's "fearless adversarial journalism" by writing articles which would fit in just fine in the New York Times or the Washington Post, many of which feature the same sort of Russian collusion narratives which have become the bread and butter of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. As a consequence, Risen got to share his ideas with a large television audience, whereas Greenwald does not. > > Centrist pundits would have you believe that Greenwald should be shunned and reviled for going to Fox News to share his own ideas before a large television audience. They spin the narrative to falsely suggest that Greenwald chooses to speak at outlets like RT and Fox News because he hates America and love Trump and Putin. The responsible, respectable thing for an antiwar leftist to do would be to wait until MSNBC will have him on to talk about his antiwar ideas, and keep waiting, and waiting, and just keep on waiting until we all die in a nuclear holocaust. > > 5/ That's why @MalcolmNance laughs when you prove he broadcast lies on MSNBC. He works there. He knows they don't care at all, as long as the people he lies about are Party enemies. The more he lies like that, the bigger his rewards there. MSNBC exists to please its Dem viewers. > > — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 8, 2018 > > It is not Greenwald's fault that RT and Fox News will give him a platform to share his criticisms of the US war machine, the intelligence community and the new cold war but MSNBC and CNN will not. The fact that the antiwar left is completely deprived of a voice on Democratic Party-aligned media is the fault of those media outlets and those media outlets only. Centrist pundits think it's perfectly reasonable to just tell anti-establishment voices, "No, see, what we're doing here is that you shut up, just shut up and go away forever and never say anything to anyone, ever again." They are wrong. > > When centrists whine about an antiwar leftist appearing on Russian or right-wing media because it "lends those outlets credibility," what they are actually doing is whining that those leftists are exposing the complete lack of credibility that outlets like CNN and MSNBC have. Their doors are always open to lying, depraved intelligence community insiders like James Clapper and John Brennan and Iraq-raping neocons like Bill Kristol, but to antiwar leftists that door is slammed shut except for the occasional Jill Stein appearance a couple times a year so that Chris Cuomo can wag his finger at her and publicly insinuate that she supports the Kremlin. > > The blame for the fact that critics of the US power establishment are forced to find weird platforms to get their voices heard rests solely upon all the other outlets which slam the door on them. The fact that they would rather platform disgusting liars like Malcolm Nance than men like Glenn Greenwald is their fault, and theirs alone. They should worry less about RT and Fox News being given credibility and more about their own lack of it. > > _____________________ > > Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | July 10, 2018 at 3:33 am | Tags: CNN, Fox News, Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, MSM, msnbc, RT | Categories: Article | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1ho > Comment See all comments > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/07/10/dont-like-antiwar-lefties-going-on-fox-or-rt-blame-cnn-and-msnbc/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Tue Jul 10 13:43:44 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:43:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials Message-ID: You finally made me laugh - snorted my coffee!! Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2018 11:32 PMTo: Szoke, Ron;peace-discuss;Cc: Rebecca P.;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials Start cola earlier! http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IBVPgalgRAk/TUmkhCeZZCI/AAAAAAAADTI/xrdy3nObXrA/s1600/Baby+drink+cola+ad.jpg > -------Original Message------- > From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > To: peace-discuss > Cc: Rebecca P. > Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials > Sent: Jul 09 '18 03:57 > > From The New York Times: > > U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials > > Trade sanctions. Withdrawal of military aid. The Trump administration used both to try to block a measure that was considered uncontroversial and embraced by countries around the world. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.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 ewj at pigs.ag Wed Jul 11 04:59:36 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 12:59:36 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?U=2ES=2E_Opposition_to_Breast-Feeding_R?= =?utf-8?q?esolution_Stuns_World_Health_Officials?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180711045936.24890.qmail@station188.com> It appears to be a fake vintage ad, but there are some similar real ones. I considered the Scarfe' "Mother" graphic from "The Wall" but it is rather passe' by now. > -------Original Message------- > From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > To: e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials > Sent: Jul 10 '18 21:44 > > > > You finally made me laugh - snorted my coffee!! > > _Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone_ > > ------ Original message------ > FROM: e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss > > DATE: Mon, Jul 9, 2018 11:32 PM > TO: Szoke, Ron;peace-discuss; > CC: Rebecca P.; > SUBJECT:Re: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding > Resolution Stuns World Health Officials > > Start cola earlier! > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IBVPgalgRAk/TUmkhCeZZCI/AAAAAAAADTI/xrdy3nObXrA/s1600/Baby+drink+cola+ad.jpg > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > > > To: peace-discuss > > > Cc: Rebecca P. > > Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding > Resolution Stuns World Health Officials > > Sent: Jul 09 '18 03:57 > > > > From The New York Times: > > > > U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health > Officials > > > > Trade sanctions. Withdrawal of military aid. The Trump > administration used both to try to block a measure that was considered > uncontroversial and embraced by countries around the world. > > > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.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 > From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 17:11:06 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 12:11:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon Message-ID: * - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - * The Wisdom of Serpents Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” — Mathew 10:16 “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” — Eugene Debs “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” — Bruce Dixon, 2015 I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… Here, from Forbes magazine: “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already passed it last month. This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was more than the Trump administration requested. Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in favor.” Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden…”. In other words the Democrats want no change. Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last year (its worse now): “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of one million since 2017.” The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back to stand trial. James Cogan writes: “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner.” They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about him. Cogan adds: “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness. The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.” Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same. “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” –Peter Lavenia Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that began in ernest under Obama. But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party are their ties to the CIA. Patrick Martin writes… “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress.” This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote getter. Martin again: “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal.” Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin again…) “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in. Nick Pemberton wrote: “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: *“*…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog voters back to this two-party racket. PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.” Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known . Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: * https://www.counterpunch.org * URL to article: * https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ * Click here to print. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 17:24:11 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 12:24:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this is probably right. —CGE > On Jul 11, 2018, at 12:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - > The Wisdom of Serpents > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > > — Mathew 10:16 > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” > > — Eugene Debs > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… > > Here, from Forbes magazine: > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already passed it last month. > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was more than the Trump administration requested. > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in favor.” > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden…”. > > In other words the Democrats want no change. > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last year (its worse now): > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of one million since 2017.” > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner.” > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about him. > > Cogan adds: > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness. > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.” > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same. > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” > > –Peter Lavenia > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that began in ernest under Obama. > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party are their ties to the CIA. > > Patrick Martin writes… > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress.” > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote getter. > > Martin again: > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal.” > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin again…) > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in. > > Nick Pemberton wrote: > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog voters back to this two-party racket. > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.” > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known . > > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org : https://www.counterpunch.org > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ > Click here to print. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jul 11 18:38:46 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:38:46 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately report basic facts? "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted for Endless War in Yemen Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. support for the Saudi-led onslaught. BY SARAH LAZARE MARCH 20, 2018 http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq-democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > * - www.counterpunch.org - > https://www.counterpunch.org - * The > Wisdom of Serpents Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In > articles 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore > wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > > — Mathew 10:16 > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal > element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” > > — Eugene Debs > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run > “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to > execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White > House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters > and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving > perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, > and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in > the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make > clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story > became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If > this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. > Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted > Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you > something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And > her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it > says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is > certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She > strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the > Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. > Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and > already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One > would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the > verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and > senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone > last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then > there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent > gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality will > set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to do > with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, the > very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year ago, > was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That was > the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side bar > note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and > Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And > the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans > responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and > got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… > > Here, from Forbes magazine: > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military spending > bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already passed it last > month. > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was more > than the Trump administration requested. > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? This > year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in favor.” > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close to > double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under > freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the > edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of > 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats > also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for > very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on > Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, > County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul > Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol > Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department > official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera > Tanden…”. > > In other words the Democrats want no change. > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it ever > was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to > Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed > Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last > year (its worse now): > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million > Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the > previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of > one million since 2017.” > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni > people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me > clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its > record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit > (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft > stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little > discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and > nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against > defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic > President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And > Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine > and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no > outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer > signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. > Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to > Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back > to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: > Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael > Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and > Mark Warner.” > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and throwing > him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about him. > > Cogan adds: > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the 2016 > publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic > National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party > figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to > undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are > all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, > you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) > allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new > Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased > defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE > raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of > mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues > like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or > whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both > major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy > that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well > (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American > consciousness. > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not talk > about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. under > Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his Secretary of > State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its leader Moammar > Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding > outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was one of the > most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting > of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or > sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or > support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic > presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of > protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un > summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are indeed > a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrat > leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a position to > the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.” > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in > history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure > then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall > Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to > express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency > expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, > they all vote mostly the same. > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that had > arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. Since > they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the professionals > eschew class-struggle based politics.” > > –Peter Lavenia > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as marijuana > legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that certainly > matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by Democrats did > little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the system itself. > But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so > uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without protection > at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical > program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of > every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that > began in ernest under Obama. > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party are > their ties to the CIA. > > Patrick Martin writes… > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives > from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are > seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 > midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel > into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the > Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, > as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence > apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of > Congress.” > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that > the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote > getter. > > Martin again: > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 > districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which > we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those > candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as > civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security > Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq > and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an > Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile > warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather > than something to conceal.” > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA operatives > (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two tours in > Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served in the > US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep cover op > for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three year Navy > Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon advisor > to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne and part > of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in > Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of > former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin > again…) > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton campaign > aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” particularly the > campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to “spearhead President > Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security sector of our > counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a > foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the > Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now the > party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis on > intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed of > Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for the > DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. > The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly > even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the military has > CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do > with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the Democrats > are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the same > Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and > military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. > They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police > apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to > seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with > black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and > with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates > reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of > conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits > right in. > > Nick Pemberton wrote: > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They have > attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced them > with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have > supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the > environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of > Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by > nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > > *“*…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the > latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of > corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being > paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell > their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the > establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in > charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their > campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the > party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no > more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas > outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for > the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog > voters back to this two-party racket. > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read > six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the > airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given > millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly > fighting.” > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia > McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her > rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out > President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal > the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from > military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with > specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of > backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda > and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with > American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing > strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that > this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of > nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management > meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of > keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her > principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, > frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact > that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big > corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well > as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this > utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the > needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. > So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I > recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently > many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. > The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want > to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie > eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why > Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win > and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well > happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if > I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known > . > > > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: * https://www.counterpunch.org > * > > URL to article: * > https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ > * > > Click here to print. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 19:06:38 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:06:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) have been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the argument is accurate. > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately report basic facts? > > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." > > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? > > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. > > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. > > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted for Endless War in Yemen > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. support for the Saudi-led onslaught. > BY SARAH LAZARE > MARCH 20, 2018 > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq-democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - > The Wisdom of Serpents > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > > — Mathew 10:16 > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” > > — Eugene Debs > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… > > Here, from Forbes magazine: > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already passed it last month. > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was more than the Trump administration requested. > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in favor.” > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden…”. > > In other words the Democrats want no change. > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last year (its worse now): > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of one million since 2017.” > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner.” > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about him. > > Cogan adds: > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness. > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.” > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same. > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” > > –Peter Lavenia > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that began in ernest under Obama. > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party are their ties to the CIA. > > Patrick Martin writes… > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress.” > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote getter. > > Martin again: > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal.” > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin again…) > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in. > > Nick Pemberton wrote: > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog voters back to this two-party racket. > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.” > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. > > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: https://www.counterpunch.org > > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ > > Click here to print. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jul 11 19:25:06 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:25:06 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Message-ID: No, the ultra-left is definitely not *THE* reason for those things. But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its intervention is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm caused by the Empire. It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and engagement. We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother trying to end the war. Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats to pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our way. People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with that, because they reject on ideological grounds the project of distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are getting in our way. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) have > been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? > > Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the > argument is accurate. > > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an authority > - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately report basic > facts? > > > > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni > people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me > clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its > record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit > (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft > stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little > discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." > > > > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many > Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an > authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? > > > > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally > anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes > the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the > ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and > repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. > > > > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here can > count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. > > > > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted > for Endless War in Yemen > > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. support > for the Saudi-led onslaught. > > BY SARAH LAZARE > > MARCH 20, 2018 > > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq- > democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez > > > > === > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - > > The Wisdom of Serpents > > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles > 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > > > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > > > > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye > therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > > > > — Mathew 10:16 > > > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal > element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” > > > > — Eugene Debs > > > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run > “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to > execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White > House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters > and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving > perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > > > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > > > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, > and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in > the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make > clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story > became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If > this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. > Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted > Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you > something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And > her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it > says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is > certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She > strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the > Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. > Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and > already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One > would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the > verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and > senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone > last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then > there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent > gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. > > > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality > will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to > do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, > the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year > ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That > was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side > bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and > Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And > the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans > responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and > got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > > > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… > > > > Here, from Forbes magazine: > > > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military > spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already > passed it last month. > > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was > more than the Trump administration requested. > > > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? > This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in > favor.” > > > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close to > double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under > freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the > edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of > 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats > also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for > very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on > Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > > > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, > County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul > Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol > Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department > official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera > Tanden…”. > > > > In other words the Democrats want no change. > > > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it > ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to > Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed > Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last > year (its worse now): > > > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million > Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the > previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of > one million since 2017.” > > > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni > people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me > clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its > record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit > (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft > stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little > discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. > > > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and > nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against > defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic > President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And > Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine > and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no > outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer > signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. > Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > > > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to > Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back > to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > > > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: > Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael > Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and > Mark Warner.” > > > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and > throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about > him. > > > > Cogan adds: > > > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the > 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic > National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party > figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to > undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” > > > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are > all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, > you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) > allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new > Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased > defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE > raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of > mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues > like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or > whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both > major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy > that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well > (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American > consciousness. > > > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not talk > about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. under > Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his Secretary of > State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its leader Moammar > Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding > outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was one of the > most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting > of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or > sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or > support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic > presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of > protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. > > > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un > summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > > > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are > indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other > Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a > position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim > Jong Un.” > > > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in > history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure > then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. > > > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall > Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to > express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency > expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, > they all vote mostly the same. > > > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that > had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. > Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the > professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” > > > > –Peter Lavenia > > > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as marijuana > legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that certainly > matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by Democrats did > little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the system itself. > But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so > uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without protection > at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical > program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of > every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that > began in ernest under Obama. > > > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party are > their ties to the CIA. > > > > Patrick Martin writes… > > > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives > from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are > seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 > midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel > into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the > Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, > as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence > apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of > Congress.” > > > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that > the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote > getter. > > > > Martin again: > > > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 > districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which > we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those > candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as > civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security > Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq > and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an > Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile > warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather > than something to conceal.” > > > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA > operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two > tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served > in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep > cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three > year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon > advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne > and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in > Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of > former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin > again…) > > > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton > campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” > particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to > “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security > sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign > website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is > now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > > > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now the > party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis on > intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed of > Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for the > DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. > The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly > even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the military has > CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do > with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > > > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the > Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the > same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and > military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. > They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police > apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to > seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with > black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and > with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. > > > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates > reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of > conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits > right in. > > > > Nick Pemberton wrote: > > > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They > have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced > them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have > supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the > environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of > Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by > nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” > > > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > > > > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the > latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of > corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being > paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell > their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the > establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in > charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their > campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the > party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no > more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas > outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for > the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog > voters back to this two-party racket. > > > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read > six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the > airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given > millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly > fighting.” > > > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia > McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her > rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out > President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal > the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). > > > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from > military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with > specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of > backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda > and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with > American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing > strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that > this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of > nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management > meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of > keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her > principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, > frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact > that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big > corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well > as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this > utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > > > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the > needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. > So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I > recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently > many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. > The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want > to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie > eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why > Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win > and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well > happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if > I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. > > > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. > > > > > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: https://www.counterpunch.org > > > > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of- > serpents/ > > > > Click here to print. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 20:17:22 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:17:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Message-ID: This assumes that Democrats are "distinguishing" themselves, or whether the fix is already in on a measure like Yemen, and the problem is to designate those who will be helped politically by voting yea vs. those by voting nay. DG On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:25 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > No, the ultra-left is definitely not *THE* reason for those things. > > But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its intervention > is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm caused by the Empire. > > It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and engagement. > > We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother trying to > end the war. > > Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats to > pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. > > This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, > Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our way. > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with that, > because they reject on ideological grounds the project of distinguishing > between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are getting in our > way. > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) have >> been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? >> >> Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the >> argument is accurate. >> >> >> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an authority >> - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately report basic >> facts? >> > >> > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni >> people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me >> clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its >> record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit >> (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft >> stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little >> discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." >> > >> > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many >> Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an >> authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? >> > >> > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally >> anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes >> the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the >> ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and >> repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. >> > >> > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here can >> count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. >> > >> > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted >> for Endless War in Yemen >> > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. >> support for the Saudi-led onslaught. >> > BY SARAH LAZARE >> > MARCH 20, 2018 >> > >> http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq-democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez >> > >> > === >> > >> > Robert Naiman >> > Policy Director >> > Just Foreign Policy >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - >> > The Wisdom of Serpents >> > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles >> 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled >> > >> > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 >> > >> > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye >> therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” >> > >> > — Mathew 10:16 >> > >> > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal >> element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” >> > >> > — Eugene Debs >> > >> > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run >> “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to >> execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White >> House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters >> and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving >> perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” >> > >> > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 >> > >> > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, >> and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in >> the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make >> clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story >> became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If >> this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. >> Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted >> Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you >> something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And >> her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it >> says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is >> certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She >> strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the >> Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. >> Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and >> already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One >> would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the >> verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and >> senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone >> last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then >> there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent >> gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. >> > >> > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality >> will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to >> do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, >> the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year >> ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That >> was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side >> bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and >> Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And >> the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans >> responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and >> got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. >> > >> > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… >> > >> > Here, from Forbes magazine: >> > >> > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military >> spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already >> passed it last month. >> > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was >> more than the Trump administration requested. >> > >> > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? >> This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in >> favor.” >> > >> > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close >> to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under >> freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the >> edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of >> 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats >> also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for >> very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on >> Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) >> > >> > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of >> State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, >> Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director >> Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State >> Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress >> President Neera Tanden…”. >> > >> > In other words the Democrats want no change. >> > >> > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it >> ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to >> Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed >> Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last >> year (its worse now): >> > >> > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million >> Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the >> previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of >> one million since 2017.” >> > >> > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni >> people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me >> clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its >> record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit >> (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft >> stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little >> discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. >> > >> > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and >> nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against >> defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic >> President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And >> Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine >> and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no >> outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer >> signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. >> Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. >> > >> > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to >> Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back >> to stand trial. James Cogan writes: >> > >> > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: >> Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael >> Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and >> Mark Warner.” >> > >> > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and >> throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about >> him. >> > >> > Cogan adds: >> > >> > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the >> 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic >> National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party >> figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to >> undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” >> > >> > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are >> all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, >> you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) >> allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new >> Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased >> defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE >> raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of >> mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues >> like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or >> whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both >> major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy >> that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well >> (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American >> consciousness. >> > >> > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not >> talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. >> under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its >> leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya >> is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was >> one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The >> targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. >> Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or >> support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic >> presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of >> protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. >> > >> > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un >> summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: >> > >> > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are >> indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other >> Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a >> position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim >> Jong Un.” >> > >> > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in >> history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure >> then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. >> > >> > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall >> Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to >> express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency >> expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, >> they all vote mostly the same. >> > >> > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that >> had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. >> Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the >> professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” >> > >> > –Peter Lavenia >> > >> > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as >> marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that >> certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by >> Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the >> system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is >> embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without >> protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive >> medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police >> forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted >> that began in ernest under Obama. >> > >> > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party >> are their ties to the CIA. >> > >> > Patrick Martin writes… >> > >> > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives >> from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are >> seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 >> midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the >> Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, >> as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence >> apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of >> Congress.” >> > >> > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is >> that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote >> getter. >> > >> > Martin again: >> > >> > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 >> districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which >> we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those >> candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as >> civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security >> Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq >> and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an >> Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile >> warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather >> than something to conceal.” >> > >> > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA >> operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two >> tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served >> in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep >> cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three >> year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon >> advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne >> and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in >> Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of >> former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin >> again…) >> > >> > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton >> campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” >> particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to >> “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security >> sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign >> website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is >> now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” >> > >> > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now >> the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis >> on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed >> of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for >> the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and >> TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now >> hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the >> military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story >> has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. >> > >> > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the >> Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the >> same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and >> military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. >> They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police >> apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to >> seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with >> black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and >> with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. >> > >> > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates >> reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of >> conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits >> right in. >> > >> > Nick Pemberton wrote: >> > >> > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They >> have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced >> them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have >> supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the >> environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of >> Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by >> nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” >> > >> > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: >> > >> > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the >> latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of >> corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being >> paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell >> their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the >> establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in >> charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their >> campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the >> party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no >> more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas >> outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for >> the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog >> voters back to this two-party racket. >> > >> > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations >> (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to >> the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are >> given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re >> supposedly fighting.” >> > >> > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. >> (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone >> else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone >> to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, >> and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). >> > >> > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from >> military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with >> specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of >> backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda >> and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with >> American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing >> strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that >> this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of >> nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management >> meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of >> keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her >> principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, >> frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact >> that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big >> corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well >> as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this >> utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? >> > >> > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the >> needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. >> So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I >> recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently >> many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. >> The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want >> to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie >> eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why >> Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win >> and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well >> happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if >> I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. >> > >> > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. >> > >> > >> > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: https://www.counterpunch.org >> > >> > URL to article: >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ >> > >> > Click here to print. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jul 11 20:43:08 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:43:08 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Message-ID: Those aren't neat mutually exclusive categories. How people vote counts, regardless of whether their motives are "pure". If it were a vote on say, fast track negotiating authority for the TPP, you can bet that every labor activist who cared about the TPP would know who the Democrats are who voted against labor by voting for fast track, to prepare retaliation against *those specific Democrats*. That's how the serious peace movement, the one that actually cares about outcomes on Planet Earth, behaves. It doesn't just whine endlessly about "Democrats." It tries to punish *specific Democrats, *making examples of them, deterring others*. *And, maybe in the near future, it will try to punish specific Republicans. I understand that some anti-war Republicans are planning to go after Liz Cheney in the upcoming Republican primary in Wyoming. Right now, Democrat Adam Smith is being primaried in Seattle by a Brand New Congress candidate [as Ocasio-Cortez was] who is attacking him for voting to transfer cluster bombs to Yemen. === https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/can-sarah-smith-be- seattles-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/ [...] But for Sarah Smith and her supporters, these efforts aren’t enough. Her primary criticisms are that Rep. Smith accepts sizeable financial donations from corporations, as well as some of his past foreign policy and defense-related votes, such as his vote for the invasion of Iraq *and his more recent vote against an amendment to a 2017 defense spending bill that would have banned the United States from selling cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia over the nation’s air war in Yemen *. The congressman has also accepted roughly $130,000 in contributions from the defense industry —companies like Northrop Grumman—for his 2018 re-election bid. His website boasts that he’s secured millions in defense contracts in his district, which, according to Sarah’s supporters, is more evidence of his cozinesses with the defense industry. “Adam is very comfortable with the war industry and that really shows in a lot of his votes,” Smith says. Rep. Smith told Seattle Weekly that his vote for the Iraq war was a “mistake,” *but defended his stance on the cluster munitions amendment, arguing that those explosives are more targeted and less destructive than other types of munitions that the U.S. sells to Saudi Arabia*. [...] Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:17 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > This assumes that Democrats are "distinguishing" themselves, or whether > the fix is already in on a measure like Yemen, and the problem is to > designate those who will be helped politically by voting yea vs. those by > voting nay. > > DG > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:25 PM Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> >> No, the ultra-left is definitely not *THE* reason for those things. >> >> But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its intervention >> is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm caused by the Empire. >> >> It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and >> engagement. >> >> We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. >> >> People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother trying >> to end the war. >> >> Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats to >> pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. >> >> This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, >> Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our way. >> >> People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with that, >> because they reject on ideological grounds the project of distinguishing >> between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are getting in our >> way. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) >>> have been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? >>> >>> Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the >>> argument is accurate. >>> >>> >>> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an >>> authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately >>> report basic facts? >>> > >>> > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni >>> people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me >>> clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its >>> record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit >>> (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft >>> stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little >>> discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." >>> > >>> > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many >>> Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an >>> authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? >>> > >>> > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally >>> anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes >>> the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the >>> ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and >>> repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. >>> > >>> > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here >>> can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. >>> > >>> > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted >>> for Endless War in Yemen >>> > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. >>> support for the Saudi-led onslaught. >>> > BY SARAH LAZARE >>> > MARCH 20, 2018 >>> > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq- >>> democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez >>> > >>> > === >>> > >>> > Robert Naiman >>> > Policy Director >>> > Just Foreign Policy >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - >>> > The Wisdom of Serpents >>> > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles >>> 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled >>> > >>> > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 >>> > >>> > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye >>> therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” >>> > >>> > — Mathew 10:16 >>> > >>> > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal >>> element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” >>> > >>> > — Eugene Debs >>> > >>> > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run >>> “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to >>> execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White >>> House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters >>> and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving >>> perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” >>> > >>> > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 >>> > >>> > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals >>> anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to >>> believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I >>> should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this >>> story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. >>> If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. >>> Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted >>> Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you >>> something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And >>> her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it >>> says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is >>> certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She >>> strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the >>> Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. >>> Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and >>> already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One >>> would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the >>> verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and >>> senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone >>> last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then >>> there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent >>> gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. >>> > >>> > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality >>> will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to >>> do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, >>> the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year >>> ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That >>> was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side >>> bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and >>> Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And >>> the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans >>> responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and >>> got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. >>> > >>> > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… >>> > >>> > Here, from Forbes magazine: >>> > >>> > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military >>> spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already >>> passed it last month. >>> > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was >>> more than the Trump administration requested. >>> > >>> > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? >>> This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in >>> favor.” >>> > >>> > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close >>> to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under >>> freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the >>> edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of >>> 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats >>> also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for >>> very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on >>> Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) >>> > >>> > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of >>> State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, >>> Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director >>> Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State >>> Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress >>> President Neera Tanden…”. >>> > >>> > In other words the Democrats want no change. >>> > >>> > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it >>> ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to >>> Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed >>> Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last >>> year (its worse now): >>> > >>> > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million >>> Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the >>> previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of >>> one million since 2017.” >>> > >>> > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni >>> people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me >>> clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its >>> record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit >>> (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft >>> stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little >>> discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. >>> > >>> > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and >>> nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against >>> defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic >>> President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And >>> Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine >>> and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no >>> outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer >>> signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. >>> Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. >>> > >>> > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to >>> Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back >>> to stand trial. James Cogan writes: >>> > >>> > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: >>> Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael >>> Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and >>> Mark Warner.” >>> > >>> > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and >>> throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about >>> him. >>> > >>> > Cogan adds: >>> > >>> > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the >>> 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic >>> National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party >>> figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to >>> undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” >>> > >>> > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats >>> are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that >>> purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be >>> hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate >>> the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the >>> increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely >>> from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even >>> growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan >>> fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender >>> neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign >>> policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only >>> carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would >>> have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black >>> hole in American consciousness. >>> > >>> > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not >>> talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. >>> under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his >>> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its >>> leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya >>> is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was >>> one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The >>> targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. >>> Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or >>> support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic >>> presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of >>> protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. >>> > >>> > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un >>> summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: >>> > >>> > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are >>> indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other >>> Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a >>> position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim >>> Jong Un.” >>> > >>> > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in >>> history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure >>> then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. >>> > >>> > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall >>> Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to >>> express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency >>> expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, >>> they all vote mostly the same. >>> > >>> > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that >>> had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. >>> Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the >>> professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” >>> > >>> > –Peter Lavenia >>> > >>> > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as >>> marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that >>> certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by >>> Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the >>> system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is >>> embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without >>> protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive >>> medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police >>> forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted >>> that began in ernest under Obama. >>> > >>> > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party >>> are their ties to the CIA. >>> > >>> > Patrick Martin writes… >>> > >>> > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military >>> operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State >>> Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>> the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence >>> personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If >>> the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on >>> November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the >>> military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new >>> Democratic members of Congress.” >>> > >>> > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is >>> that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote >>> getter. >>> > >>> > Martin again: >>> > >>> > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 >>> districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which >>> we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those >>> candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as >>> civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security >>> Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq >>> and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an >>> Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile >>> warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather >>> than something to conceal.” >>> > >>> > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA >>> operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two >>> tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served >>> in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep >>> cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three >>> year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon >>> advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne >>> and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in >>> Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of >>> former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin >>> again…) >>> > >>> > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton >>> campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” >>> particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to >>> “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security >>> sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign >>> website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is >>> now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” >>> > >>> > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now >>> the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis >>> on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed >>> of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for >>> the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and >>> TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now >>> hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the >>> military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story >>> has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. >>> > >>> > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the >>> Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the >>> same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and >>> military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. >>> They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police >>> apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to >>> seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with >>> black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and >>> with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. >>> > >>> > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates >>> reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of >>> conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits >>> right in. >>> > >>> > Nick Pemberton wrote: >>> > >>> > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They >>> have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced >>> them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have >>> supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the >>> environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of >>> Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by >>> nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” >>> > >>> > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: >>> > >>> > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the >>> latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of >>> corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being >>> paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell >>> their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the >>> establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in >>> charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their >>> campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the >>> party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no >>> more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas >>> outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for >>> the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog >>> voters back to this two-party racket. >>> > >>> > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations >>> (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to >>> the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are >>> given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re >>> supposedly fighting.” >>> > >>> > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. >>> (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone >>> else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone >>> to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, >>> and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). >>> > >>> > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from >>> military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with >>> specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of >>> backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda >>> and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with >>> American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing >>> strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that >>> this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of >>> nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management >>> meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of >>> keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her >>> principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, >>> frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact >>> that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big >>> corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well >>> as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this >>> utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? >>> > >>> > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the >>> needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. >>> So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I >>> recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently >>> many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. >>> The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want >>> to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie >>> eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why >>> Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win >>> and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well >>> happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if >>> I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. >>> > >>> > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. >>> > >>> > >>> > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: >>> https://www.counterpunch.org >>> > >>> > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of- >>> serpents/ >>> > >>> > Click here to print. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 20:50:21 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:50:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Message-ID: “...agitating with Democrats…” = being nice to them & helping them get elected in hopes they’ll be grateful enough (to us) to vote against war? That seems a bit pusillanimous if not dishonest. I don’t think it’s what worked in Vietnam. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. That’s the way “people who adhere to Steppling's ideology" are likely "to bother trying to end the war(s)." > On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > No, the ultra-left is definitely not THE reason for those things. > > But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its intervention is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm caused by the Empire. > > It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and engagement. > > We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother trying to end the war. > > Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats to pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. > > This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our way. > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with that, because they reject on ideological grounds the project of distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are getting in our way. > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) have been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? > > Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the argument is accurate. > > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately report basic facts? > > > > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." > > > > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? > > > > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. > > > > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. > > > > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted for Endless War in Yemen > > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. support for the Saudi-led onslaught. > > BY SARAH LAZARE > > MARCH 20, 2018 > > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq-democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez > > > > === > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - > > The Wisdom of Serpents > > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > > > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > > > > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > > > > — Mathew 10:16 > > > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” > > > > — Eugene Debs > > > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > > > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > > > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. > > > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > > > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… > > > > Here, from Forbes magazine: > > > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already passed it last month. > > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was more than the Trump administration requested. > > > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in favor.” > > > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > > > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden…”. > > > > In other words the Democrats want no change. > > > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last year (its worse now): > > > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of one million since 2017.” > > > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. > > > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > > > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > > > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner.” > > > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about him. > > > > Cogan adds: > > > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” > > > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness. > > > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. > > > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > > > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.” > > > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. > > > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same. > > > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” > > > > –Peter Lavenia > > > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that began in ernest under Obama. > > > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party are their ties to the CIA. > > > > Patrick Martin writes… > > > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress.” > > > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote getter. > > > > Martin again: > > > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal.” > > > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin again…) > > > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > > > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > > > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. > > > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in. > > > > Nick Pemberton wrote: > > > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” > > > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > > > > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog voters back to this two-party racket. > > > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.” > > > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). > > > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > > > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. > > > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. > > > > > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: https://www.counterpunch.org > > > > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ > > > > Click here to print. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jul 11 21:08:31 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:08:31 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Message-ID: As usual, you lie. The whole starting point of this discussion was the *defeat* of a Democrat, Crowley. The only way Crowley was ever going to be defeated was by a different Democrat. That's a key reason that the Green Party is fundamentally useless in the world in which we live. It whines about Democrats, but is useless for doing anything about them. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:50 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > “...agitating with Democrats…” = being nice to them & helping them get > elected in hopes they’ll be grateful enough (to us) to vote against war? > > That seems a bit pusillanimous if not dishonest. I don’t think it’s what > worked in Vietnam. > > By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as > “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of > the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass > opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop > the escalation of the war. > > That’s the way “people who adhere to Steppling's ideology" are likely "to > bother trying to end the war(s)." > > > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > No, the ultra-left is definitely not THE reason for those things. > > > > But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its intervention > is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm caused by the Empire. > > > > It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and > engagement. > > > > We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. > > > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother trying > to end the war. > > > > Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats > to pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. > > > > This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, > Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our way. > > > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with > that, because they reject on ideological grounds the project of > distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are > getting in our way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) > have been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? > > > > Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the > argument is accurate. > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an > authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately > report basic facts? > > > > > > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni > people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me > clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its > record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit > (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft > stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little > discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." > > > > > > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many > Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an > authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? > > > > > > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally > anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes > the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the > ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and > repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. > > > > > > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here > can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. > > > > > > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted > for Endless War in Yemen > > > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. > support for the Saudi-led onslaught. > > > BY SARAH LAZARE > > > MARCH 20, 2018 > > > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq- > democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - > > > The Wisdom of Serpents > > > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles > 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > > > > > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > > > > > > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye > therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > > > > > > — Mathew 10:16 > > > > > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal > element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” > > > > > > — Eugene Debs > > > > > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run > “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to > execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White > House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters > and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving > perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > > > > > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > > > > > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals > anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to > believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I > should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this > story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. > If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. > Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted > Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you > something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And > her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it > says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is > certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She > strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the > Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. > Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and > already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One > would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the > verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and > senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone > last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then > there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent > gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. > > > > > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality > will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to > do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, > the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year > ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That > was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side > bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and > Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And > the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans > responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and > got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > > > > > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… > > > > > > Here, from Forbes magazine: > > > > > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military > spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already > passed it last month. > > > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was > more than the Trump administration requested. > > > > > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? > This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in > favor.” > > > > > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close > to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under > freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the > edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of > 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats > also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for > very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on > Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > > > > > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of > State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, > Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director > Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State > Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress > President Neera Tanden…”. > > > > > > In other words the Democrats want no change. > > > > > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it > ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to > Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed > Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last > year (its worse now): > > > > > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million > Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the > previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of > one million since 2017.” > > > > > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni > people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me > clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its > record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit > (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft > stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little > discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. > > > > > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and > nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against > defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic > President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And > Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine > and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no > outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer > signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. > Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > > > > > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to > Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back > to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > > > > > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: > Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael > Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and > Mark Warner.” > > > > > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and > throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about > him. > > > > > > Cogan adds: > > > > > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the > 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic > National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party > figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to > undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” > > > > > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats > are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that > purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be > hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate > the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the > increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely > from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even > growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan > fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender > neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign > policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only > carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would > have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black > hole in American consciousness. > > > > > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not > talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. > under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its > leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya > is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was > one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The > targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. > Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or > support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic > presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of > protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. > > > > > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un > summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > > > > > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are > indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other > Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a > position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim > Jong Un.” > > > > > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in > history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure > then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. > > > > > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall > Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to > express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency > expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, > they all vote mostly the same. > > > > > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that > had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. > Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the > professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” > > > > > > –Peter Lavenia > > > > > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as > marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that > certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by > Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the > system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is > embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without > protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive > medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police > forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted > that began in ernest under Obama. > > > > > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party > are their ties to the CIA. > > > > > > Patrick Martin writes… > > > > > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military > operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State > Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in > the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence > personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If > the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on > November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the > military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new > Democratic members of Congress.” > > > > > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is > that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote > getter. > > > > > > Martin again: > > > > > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 > districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which > we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those > candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as > civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security > Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq > and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an > Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile > warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather > than something to conceal.” > > > > > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA > operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two > tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served > in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep > cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three > year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon > advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne > and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in > Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of > former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin > again…) > > > > > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton > campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” > particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to > “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security > sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign > website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is > now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > > > > > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now > the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis > on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed > of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for > the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and > TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now > hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the > military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story > has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > > > > > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the > Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the > same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and > military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. > They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police > apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to > seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with > black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and > with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. > > > > > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates > reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of > conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits > right in. > > > > > > Nick Pemberton wrote: > > > > > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They > have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced > them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have > supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the > environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of > Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by > nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” > > > > > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > > > > > > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the > latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of > corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being > paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell > their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the > establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in > charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their > campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the > party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no > more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas > outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for > the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog > voters back to this two-party racket. > > > > > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations > (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to > the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are > given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re > supposedly fighting.” > > > > > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. > (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone > else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone > to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, > and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). > > > > > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from > military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with > specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of > backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda > and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with > American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing > strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that > this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of > nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management > meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of > keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her > principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, > frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact > that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big > corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well > as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this > utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > > > > > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the > needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. > So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I > recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently > many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. > The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want > to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie > eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why > Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win > and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well > happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if > I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. > > > > > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. > > > > > > > > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: > https://www.counterpunch.org > > > > > > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of- > serpents/ > > > > > > Click here to print. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 21:26:43 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04B62734-7C4D-4A6B-881A-2D64AE4F7040@gmail.com> While others whine about US wars but are largely useless for doing anything about them, while they search for some nice Congressmen/women. > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > As usual, you lie. > > The whole starting point of this discussion was the defeat of a Democrat, Crowley. > > The only way Crowley was ever going to be defeated was by a different Democrat. > > That's a key reason that the Green Party is fundamentally useless in the world in which we live. It whines about Democrats, but is useless for doing anything about them. > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:50 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > “...agitating with Democrats…” = being nice to them & helping them get elected in hopes they’ll be grateful enough (to us) to vote against war? > > That seems a bit pusillanimous if not dishonest. I don’t think it’s what worked in Vietnam. > > By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. > > That’s the way “people who adhere to Steppling's ideology" are likely "to bother trying to end the war(s)." > > > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > > > No, the ultra-left is definitely not THE reason for those things. > > > > But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its intervention is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm caused by the Empire. > > > > It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and engagement. > > > > We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. > > > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother trying to end the war. > > > > Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats to pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. > > > > This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our way. > > > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with that, because they reject on ideological grounds the project of distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are getting in our way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) have been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? > > > > Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the argument is accurate. > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately report basic facts? > > > > > > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." > > > > > > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? > > > > > > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. > > > > > > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. > > > > > > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted for Endless War in Yemen > > > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. support for the Saudi-led onslaught. > > > BY SARAH LAZARE > > > MARCH 20, 2018 > > > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq-democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez > > > > > > === > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - > > > The Wisdom of Serpents > > > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > > > > > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > > > > > > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > > > > > > — Mathew 10:16 > > > > > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” > > > > > > — Eugene Debs > > > > > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > > > > > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > > > > > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. > > > > > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > > > > > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… > > > > > > Here, from Forbes magazine: > > > > > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already passed it last month. > > > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was more than the Trump administration requested. > > > > > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in favor.” > > > > > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > > > > > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden…”. > > > > > > In other words the Democrats want no change. > > > > > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last year (its worse now): > > > > > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of one million since 2017.” > > > > > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. > > > > > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > > > > > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit to Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange back to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > > > > > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner.” > > > > > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about him. > > > > > > Cogan adds: > > > > > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” > > > > > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness. > > > > > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. > > > > > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > > > > > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.” > > > > > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time in history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that failure then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. > > > > > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same. > > > > > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class that had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized economy. Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” > > > > > > –Peter Lavenia > > > > > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that began in ernest under Obama. > > > > > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party are their ties to the CIA. > > > > > > Patrick Martin writes… > > > > > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress.” > > > > > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote getter. > > > > > > Martin again: > > > > > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal.” > > > > > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin again…) > > > > > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > > > > > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > > > > > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. > > > > > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in. > > > > > > Nick Pemberton wrote: > > > > > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” > > > > > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > > > > > > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog voters back to this two-party racket. > > > > > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.” > > > > > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). > > > > > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > > > > > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) the needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red zone. So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. > > > > > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. > > > > > > > > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org : https://www.counterpunch.org > > > > > > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ > > > > > > Click here to print. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jul 11 21:46:48 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:46:48 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon In-Reply-To: <04B62734-7C4D-4A6B-881A-2D64AE4F7040@gmail.com> References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> <04B62734-7C4D-4A6B-881A-2D64AE4F7040@gmail.com> Message-ID: We are very close to being able to end the Yemen war. It should never have taken this long, but we are close now to being able to do it. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:26 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > While others whine about US wars but are largely useless for doing > anything about them, while they search for some nice Congressmen/women. > > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > As usual, you lie. > > The whole starting point of this discussion was the *defeat* of a > Democrat, Crowley. > > The only way Crowley was ever going to be defeated was by a different > Democrat. > > That's a key reason that the Green Party is fundamentally useless in the > world in which we live. It whines about Democrats, but is useless for doing > anything about them. > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:50 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> “...agitating with Democrats…” = being nice to them & helping them get >> elected in hopes they’ll be grateful enough (to us) to vote against war? >> >> That seems a bit pusillanimous if not dishonest. I don’t think it’s what >> worked in Vietnam. >> >> By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as >> “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of >> the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass >> opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop >> the escalation of the war. >> >> That’s the way “people who adhere to Steppling's ideology" are likely "to >> bother trying to end the war(s)." >> >> >> >> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> > No, the ultra-left is definitely not THE reason for those things. >> > >> > But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its >> intervention is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm caused >> by the Empire. >> > >> > It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and >> engagement. >> > >> > We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. >> > >> > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother trying >> to end the war. >> > >> > Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats >> to pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. >> > >> > This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, >> Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our way. >> > >> > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with >> that, because they reject on ideological grounds the project of >> distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are >> getting in our way. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Robert Naiman >> > Policy Director >> > Just Foreign Policy >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) >> have been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? >> > >> > Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m afraid the >> argument is accurate. >> > >> > >> > > On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an >> authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and accurately >> report basic facts? >> > > >> > > "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni >> people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me >> clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its >> record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit >> (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft >> stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little >> discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway." >> > > >> > > This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many >> Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here as an >> authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person says? >> > > >> > > This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's fundamentally >> anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without evidence, when it likes >> the conclusion that follows the assertions. You can't believe anything the >> ultra-left says. They are lazy, sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and >> repeat it and they don't care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. >> > > >> > > Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone here >> can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an authority. >> > > >> > > 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just Voted >> for Endless War in Yemen >> > > Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. >> support for the Saudi-led onslaught. >> > > BY SARAH LAZARE >> > > MARCH 20, 2018 >> > > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq-democra >> ts-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez >> > > >> > > === >> > > >> > > Robert Naiman >> > > Policy Director >> > > Just Foreign Policy >> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > > - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - >> > > The Wisdom of Serpents >> > > Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles >> 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled >> > > >> > > Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 >> > > >> > > “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye >> therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” >> > > >> > > — Mathew 10:16 >> > > >> > > “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal >> element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” >> > > >> > > — Eugene Debs >> > > >> > > “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary run >> “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic party seems to >> execute every presidential primary season when there’s no incumbent White >> House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog candidate is to herd leftish voters >> and activists back into the Democratic party one more time by giving >> perhaps sincere but limited and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” >> > > >> > > — Bruce Dixon, 2015 >> > > >> > > I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals >> anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves to >> believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t believe, I >> should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the ways in which this >> story became a kind of fairy tale and found traction. First, it’s New York. >> If this occurs in Port Huron or Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. >> Secondly, this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted >> Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you >> something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And >> her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it >> says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is >> certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She >> strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the >> Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. >> Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and >> already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One >> would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the >> verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and >> senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone >> last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then >> there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent >> gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not. >> > > >> > > Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the reality >> will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my question has to >> do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in the first place? Now, >> the very first presidential election I ever voted in, yay those many year >> ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. That >> was the last time I voted Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side >> bar note here that current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and >> Jonathan Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And >> the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans >> responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of Barry and >> got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. >> > > >> > > Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to lately… >> > > >> > > Here, from Forbes magazine: >> > > >> > > “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion military >> spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House had already >> passed it last month. >> > > This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself was >> more than the Trump administration requested. >> > > >> > > Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common cause? >> This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate Democrats voted in >> favor.” >> > > >> > > Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting close >> to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are living under >> freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make shift encampments on the >> edge of every city in America, literally. Over 42 million Americans, as of >> 2016, were listed as food insecure. 13 million children. Now the Democrats >> also defeated a proposal put forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for >> very tepid limited restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on >> Palestinian rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) >> > > >> > > “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of >> State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, >> Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director >> Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State >> Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress >> President Neera Tanden…”. >> > > >> > > In other words the Democrats want no change. >> > > >> > > Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better than it >> ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support of arms sales to >> Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and support have destroyed >> Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. Dan Glazebrook wrote last >> year (its worse now): >> > > >> > > “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 million >> Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million more than the >> previous year – with eight million on the brink of famine, an increase of >> one million since 2017.” >> > > >> > > The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the Yemeni >> people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, let me >> clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic Party and its >> record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to limit >> (sort of) U.S. involvement in the aforementioned genocide. It was soft >> stuff. But 15 Democrats helped Republicans table the bill. Little >> discussion came out of that. And it was bullshit legislation anyway. >> > > >> > > Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific and >> nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war against >> defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That Democratic >> President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the genocide. And >> Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving and dying from famine >> and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, really. Why is there no >> outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer >> signed a bill with other Democrats to make criticism of Israel a crime. >> Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. >> > > >> > > Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) visit >> to Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring Julian Assange >> back to stand trial. James Cogan writes: >> > > >> > > “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional Democrats: >> Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward J. Markey, Michael >> Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and >> Mark Warner.” >> > > >> > > They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and >> throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting about >> him. >> > > >> > > Cogan adds: >> > > >> > > “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA portrayed the >> 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents from the Democratic >> National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent by top Democratic Party >> figure John Podesta, as the product of a nefarious Russian plot to >> undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the victory of Donald Trump.” >> > > >> > > Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of Democrats >> are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully serves that >> purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work very hard to be >> hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal enablers) to escalate >> the new Russophobic propaganda and divert attention from things like the >> increased defense budget, the private prison complex that profits hugely >> from the ICE raids and illegal deportations, and the continuing (even >> growing) crimes of mass incarceration. No, people are given to partisan >> fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender >> neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign >> policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only >> carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would >> have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black >> hole in American consciousness. >> > > >> > > The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people not >> talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. The U.S. >> under Democratic leadership and under the direction of Obama and his >> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya and assassinated its >> leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously laughed about it on TV. Libya >> is now holding outdoor slave sales. It is a failed state, where once it was >> one of the most advanced and stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The >> targeting of the Assad government was a unanimous decision of both parties. >> Or sanctions against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or >> support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, Democratic >> presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than Republicans in terms of >> protecting western Capital in Africa and building up AFRICOM. >> > > >> > > Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong Un >> summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: >> > > >> > > “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are >> indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other >> Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a >> position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim >> Jong Un.” >> > > >> > > Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any time >> in history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. And that >> failure then would make it easier to justify an invasion of the DPRK. >> > > >> > > You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of >> Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend >> to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency >> expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, >> they all vote mostly the same. >> > > >> > > “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional class >> that had arisen to manage the various segments of the financialized >> economy. Since they derive significant benefits from late capitalism, the >> professionals eschew class-struggle based politics.” >> > > >> > > –Peter Lavenia >> > > >> > > Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as >> marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And that >> certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental gains by >> Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering inequality of the >> system itself. But people are terrorized. That is why Ocasio-Cortez is >> embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely terrified. They are without >> protection at work, and they are unprotected by any sort of comprehensive >> medical program. They are unprotected from the militarized racist police >> forces of every American city and town. A militarization it should be noted >> that began in ernest under Obama. >> > > >> > > But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic Party >> are their ties to the CIA. >> > > >> > > Patrick Martin writes… >> > > >> > > “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military >> operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State >> Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >> the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence >> personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If >> the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on >> November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the >> military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new >> Democratic members of Congress.” >> > > >> > > This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which is >> that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure fire vote >> getter. >> > > >> > > Martin again: >> > > >> > > “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the >> 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, >> which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that >> those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as >> well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National >> Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars >> in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in >> Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for >> drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their >> résumé, rather than something to conceal.” >> > > >> > > Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA >> operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer with two >> tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, who also served >> in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany (Jonathan Ebel), a deep >> cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three >> year Navy Seal veteran with several tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon >> advisor to David Petraeus (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne >> and part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in >> Afghanistan (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of >> former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting Martin >> again…) >> > > >> > > “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned Clinton >> campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West Africa,” >> particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, and helping to >> “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve governance in the security >> sector of our counterterrorism partners,” according to her campaign >> website. She was a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is >> now seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” >> > > >> > > But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is now >> the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a heavy emphasis >> on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans make up the best financed >> of Democratic Party candidates. Again, these bios are seen as a plus for >> the DNC — and this in no small measure is the result of Hollywood film and >> TV. The infiltration of Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now >> hardly even a secret. Almost every show with anything to do with the >> military has CIA advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story >> has to do with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. >> > > >> > > The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the >> Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of the >> same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA operatives and >> military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace progressive causes. >> They are hardly going to look to dismantle the racist militarized police >> apparatus or challenge the racist judicial system. They are not going to >> seek reforms for mass incarceration. Most of them have experience with >> black sites and torture, with the pacification of entire populations, and >> with all manner of counter insurgency tactics. >> > > >> > > The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates >> reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of >> conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits >> right in. >> > > >> > > Nick Pemberton wrote: >> > > >> > > “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. They >> have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools and replaced >> them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and wars for oil. They have >> supported vicious trade deals that hurt workers and destroy the >> environment. If the world was to run as is with Democrats in place of >> Republicans we would still become extinct in the near future. If not by >> nuclear annihilation, then by climate change.” >> > > >> > > So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: >> > > >> > > “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling for the >> latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the swamp of >> corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same way, hope being >> paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we put our faith in sell >> their souls in order to retain power and celebrity. This is how the >> establishment remains fixed no matter who gets elected; the people in >> charge are not the politicians we elect but the donors who fund their >> campaigns and the insiders who determine rank and privileges within the >> party infrastructure. ( ) No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no >> more listening to people who try to convince you that supporting ideas >> outside of the Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for >> the merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog >> voters back to this two-party racket. >> > > >> > > PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations >> (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to >> the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are >> given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re >> supposedly fighting.” >> > > >> > > Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. >> (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone >> else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone >> to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, >> and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?). >> > > >> > > So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from >> military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with >> specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of >> backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda >> and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with >> American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing >> strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that >> this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of >> nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management >> meets electoral long game strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of >> keeping an eye on her (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her >> principles, etc…all of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, >> frankly. One has to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact >> that the Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big >> corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as well >> as the military itself — why would one want to give a candidate FOR this >> utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? >> > > >> > > Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but whatever) >> the needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and stuck in the red >> zone. So, the subjective side is I just found everything about her fake. I >> recoiled with that awful feeling of being faced with a fraud. Apparently >> many did not have that response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. >> The political slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want >> to win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie >> eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why >> Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to win >> and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might well >> happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she turns 35, if >> I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial balloon. We shall see. >> > > >> > > Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. >> > > >> > > >> > > Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: >> https://www.counterpunch.org >> > > >> > > URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2 >> 018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ >> > > >> > > Click here to print. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 23:09:22 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:09:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: What do you think? In-Reply-To: <201807111809.w6BI9BdZ005977@s-bulk2-p.house.gov> References: <201807111809.w6BI9BdZ005977@s-bulk2-p.house.gov> Message-ID: Ol' Rodney Davis, diligently striving to represent We the People in his district, wants you to take his one-question survey. However, he's not a Senator. Could he have an ulterior motive?? :-O ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Congressman Rodney Davis Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:09 PM Subject: What do you think? To: jbw292002 at gmail.com *District Update | July 11, 2018* *Click here* * if you have trouble viewing this email* [image: U.S. Congressman Rodney Davis] *The President's Supreme Court Nominee* On Monday night, President Trump announced his nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, for the Supreme Court of the United States. What do you think? CLICK HERE to take my one question survey. *Springfield District Office* 2833 S Grand Ave East Springfield, IL 62703 P: 217.791.6224 *Champaign District Office* 2004 Fox Drive Champaign, IL 61820 P: 217.403.4690 *Decatur District Office* 243 S Water Street Suite 100, Decatur, IL 62523 P: 217.791.6224 *Maryville District Office* 915 Professional Park Drive Maryville, IL 62624 P: 618.205.8660 *Normal District Office* 104 W. North Street Normal, IL 61761 P: 309.252.8834 *Taylorville District Office* 108 W. Market St. Taylorville, IL 62568 P: 217.824.5117 *Washington, DC Office* | 1740 Longworth HOB | Washington, DC 20515 | P: 202.225.2371 | F: 202.225.0791 UPDATE SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS Click Here to view this email in your browser Click Here to be removed from this list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Thu Jul 12 00:09:16 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:09:16 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_What_do_you_think=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: <201807111809.w6BI9BdZ005977@s-bulk2-p.house.gov> Message-ID: <20180712000916.8937.qmail@station188.com> I just think he is trying to refresh his mailing list similar to some other quasi-spammers are doing this week. > -------Original Message------- > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: What do you think? > Sent: Jul 12 '18 07:09 > > Ol' Rodney Davis, diligently striving to represent We the People in > his district, wants you to take his one-question survey. However, > he's not a Senator. Could he have an ulterior motive?? :-O > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: CONGRESSMAN RODNEY DAVIS > Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:09 PM > Subject: What do you think? > To: jbw292002 at gmail.com > > DISTRICT UPDATE | JULY 11, 2018 > CLICK HERE IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE VIEWING THIS EMAIL > > The President's > Supreme Court Nominee > > On Monday night, President Trump announced his nominee, Judge Brett > Kavanaugh, for the Supreme Court of the United States. What do you > think? > > CLICK HERE to take my one question survey. > > SPRINGFIELD DISTRICT OFFICE > 2833 S Grand Ave East > Springfield, IL 62703 > P: 217.791.6224 > CHAMPAIGN DISTRICT OFFICE > 2004 Fox Drive > Champaign, IL 61820 > P: 217.403.4690 > DECATUR DISTRICT OFFICE > 243 S Water Street > Suite 100, > Decatur, IL 62523 > P: 217.791.6224 > > MARYVILLE DISTRICT OFFICE > 915 Professional Park Drive > Maryville, IL 62624 > P: 618.205.8660 > NORMAL DISTRICT OFFICE > 104 W. North Street > Normal, IL 61761 > P: 309.252.8834 TAYLORVILLE DISTRICT OFFICE > 108 W. Market St. > Taylorville, IL 62568 > P: 217.824.5117 > > WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE | 1740 Longworth HOB | Washington, DC 20515 | > P: 202.225.2371 | F: 202.225.0791 > > UPDATE SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS > > Click Here to view this email in your browser > Click Here to be removed from this list > > ------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From ewj at pigs.ag Thu Jul 12 00:53:15 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:53:15 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Discordant_view_on_O-C_phenomenon?= In-Reply-To: References: <5C02D70A-89F8-4649-94C5-E457F06F9A85@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180712005315.1004.qmail@station188.com> "... they reject on ideological grounds the project of distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who are getting in our way. " Wow, Bob. I've had that problem myself... While I am not sure that I adhere to Steppling's Ideology (what ever that is) I do see that the Dems are desperately in need of finding new ikons since the old ones are badly tarnished, smeared with something unclean, and beyond reclamation. Bernie is berned out. The Clintons are all but ended. Lizzie Warren is too ridiculous for words. The party of war, homosexuality, and "kill another fetus now, we don't like babies anyhow" will surely welcome any plastic S.B. or S.O.B. it can find. O-C fits that description well. > -------Original Message------- > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Discordant view on O-C phenomenon > Sent: Jul 12 '18 03:25 > > No, the ultra-left is definitely not _THE_ reason for those things. > > But it's weighing in on the wrong side of the equation. Its > intervention is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the harm > caused by the Empire. > > It's promoting passivity and inaction, when we need action and > engagement. > > We have a window right now to end the Yemen war. > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to bother > trying to end the war. > > Our path to ending the war crucially involves agitating with Democrats > to pressure them to oppose the war and insist on ending it. > > This requires distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us, > Democrats who are not helping us, and Democrats who are getting in our > way. > > People who adhere to Steppling's ideology are unlikely to help with > that, because they reject on ideological grounds the project of > distinguishing between Democrats who are helping us and Democrats who > are getting in our way. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > Is the ultra-left the reason both parties (and both administrations) > > have been killing people in Yemen (and elsewhere)? > > > > Steppling’s article is obviously hastily written, but I’m > > afraid the argument is accurate. > > > >> On Jul 11, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Why is this lazy, dishonest moron being celebrated here as an > > authority - someone who can't even be bothered to learn and > > accurately report basic facts? > >> > >> "The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the > > Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, > > let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic > > Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders > > introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the > > aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped > > Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And > > it was bullshit legislation anyway." > >> > >> This person can't even be bothered to accurately report how many > > Democrats voted to table. Why is this person being celebrated here > > as an authority? Why should anyone believe anything this person > > says? > >> > >> This is a big problem with the U.S. ultra-left. It's > > fundamentally anti-intellectual. It celebrates assertions without > > evidence, when it likes the conclusion that follows the assertions. > > You can't believe anything the ultra-left says. They are lazy, > > sloppy liars. They just make stuff up and repeat it and they don't > > care. The U.S. ultra-left is as bad as Trump. > >> > >> Here are the Democrats who voted to table. Let's see if anyone > > here can count better than the moron being celebrated here as an > > authority. > >> > >> 15 Years After the Invasion of Iraq, Here Are the Dems Who Just > > Voted for Endless War in Yemen > >> Senators voted today to table a measure that would withdraw U.S. > > support for the Saudi-led onslaught. > >> BY SARAH LAZARE > >> MARCH 20, 2018 > >> > > > http://inthesetimes.com/article/21001/Yemen-war-iraq-democrats-saudi-arabia-senate-menendez > >> > >> === > >> > >> Robert Naiman > >> Policy Director > >> Just Foreign Policy > >> www.justforeignpolicy.org > >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >> (202) 448-2898 x1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > >> - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - > >> The Wisdom of Serpents > >> Posted By John Steppling On July 11, 2018 @ 2:01 am In articles > > 2015,Leading Article | Comments Disabled > >> > > > >> Photo by P Bear | CC BY 2.0 > >> > >> “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be > > ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” > >> > >> — Mathew 10:16 > >> > >> “While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a > > criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I > > am not free.” > >> > >> — Eugene Debs > >> > >> “Last month I called Bernie Sanders’ Democratic party primary > > run “sheepdogging” my term for a move the national Democratic > > party seems to execute every presidential primary season when > > there’s no incumbent White House Democrat. The job of the sheepdog > > candidate is to herd leftish voters and activists back into the > > Democratic party one more time by giving perhaps sincere but limited > > and ineffectual voice to some of their issues.” > >> > >> — Bruce Dixon, 2015 > >> > >> I keep watching the ways in which people, left leaning liberals > > anyway, and even some I thought were leftists, fall over themselves > > to believe in the Alexandria Ocasio Cortez victory. Now, I don’t > > believe, I should make clear. But I find what is interesting is the > > ways in which this story became a kind of fairy tale and found > > traction. First, it’s New York. If this occurs in Port Huron or > > Tampa or Bakersfield — there is no story. Secondly, this woman > > came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s > > office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you > > something? But third, there is something curious about her whole > > story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner > > and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, > > mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx > > by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as > > culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess > > I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention > > she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already > > making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One > > would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, > > on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — > > and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this > > thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the > > Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense > > support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a > > radical she is not. > >> > >> Now this is not about Ocasio-Cortez. I think soon enough the > > reality will set in. Or maybe it is. I will return to that. But my > > question has to do with why anyone wants to believe in a Democrat in > > the first place? Now, the very first presidential election I ever > > voted in, yay those many year ago, was 1972. I voted for Democrat > > George McGovern of South Dakota. That was the last time I voted > > Democrat as well. And it is an interesting side bar note here that > > current Democratic Party shills like Rachel Maddow and Jonathan > > Chait love to compare all left-leaning Democrats to McGovern. And > > the truth is that Goldwater lost just as badly, but the Republicans > > responded by doubling down on the extreme paleo-conservatism of > > Barry and got themselves 8 years of The Gipper. But I digress. > >> > >> Lets take a look at what the Democratic Party has been up to > > lately… > >> > >> Here, from Forbes magazine: > >> > >> “…the Senate on Monday voted in favor of a $716 billion > > military spending bill for the 2019 federal fiscal year. The House > > had already passed it last month. > >> This is $82 billion higher than the current budget, which itself > > was more than the Trump administration requested. > >> > >> Who says those in the Beltway can’t pull together for a common > > cause? This year, 67.5% of House Democrats and 85% of Senate > > Democrats voted in favor.” > >> > >> Ponder that a moment. Over $700 billion. I mean that is getting > > close to double what it was under Bush or Obama. And yet people are > > living under freeway overpasses, in packing crates, and in make > > shift encampments on the edge of every city in America, literally. > > Over 42 million Americans, as of 2016, were listed as food insecure. > > 13 million children. Now the Democrats also defeated a proposal put > > forth by Sanders surrogates that looked for very tepid limited > > restrictions on fracking and an also mild statement on Palestinian > > rights. Both were shot down by the Dems.. (per Lauren McCauley) > >> > >> “Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation > > of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the > > president, Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change > > Policy director Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia > > Reece, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center > > for American Progress President Neera Tanden…”. > >> > >> In other words the Democrats want no change. > >> > >> Meanwhile, the drinking water in Flint, Michigan is no better > > than it ever was. Then we have the Democrats whole hearted support > > of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who, with U.S. approval and help and > > support have destroyed Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world. > > Dan Glazebrook wrote last year (its worse now): > >> > >> “And on 23rd January, the UN reported that there are now 22.2 > > million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance – 3.4 million > > more than the previous year – with eight million on the brink of > > famine, an increase of one million since 2017.” > >> > >> The United States is directly helping a mass genocide of the > > Yemeni people. And very few Americans care. No Democrats care. Well, > > let me clarify, for this is a perfect example of the Democratic > > Party and its record. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders > > introduced a bill to limit (sort of) U.S. involvement in the > > aforementioned genocide. It was soft stuff. But 15 Democrats helped > > Republicans table the bill. Little discussion came out of that. And > > it was bullshit legislation anyway. > >> > >> Now, this is all sort of tweezing apart stuff that is so horrific > > and nightmarish that its hard to know how to describe it. The war > > against defenseless Yemen began under Obama. You remember him? That > > Democratic President. Trump, of course, intensified support for the > > genocide. And Democrats are not complaining. Children are starving > > and dying from famine and cholera, but there is no coverage of this, > > really. Why is there no outrage about Israel shooting down unarmed > > protestors? Well, Chuck Schumer signed a bill with other Democrats > > to make criticism of Israel a crime. Killing OK, criticizing NOT OK. > >> > >> Now, ahead of Mike Pence’s (the Dominionist bat shit nuts VP) > > visit to Ecuador, a number of Democrats signed a bill to bring > > Julian Assange back to stand trial. James Cogan writes: > >> > >> “The signatories are a roll-call of leading congressional > > Democrats: Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Edward > > J. Markey, Michael Bennet, Christopher Coons, Joe Manchin, Jeanne > > Shaheen, Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner.” > >> > >> They went out of their way to get behind shutting up Assange and > > throwing him in a dark cell in Leavenworth and then just forgetting > > about him. > >> > >> Cogan adds: > >> > >> “…in a sweeping conspiracy theory, the CIA, FBI and NSA > > portrayed the 2016 publication by WikiLeaks of emails and documents > > from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and then emails sent > > by top Democratic Party figure John Podesta, as the product of a > > nefarious Russian plot to undermine Hillary Clinton and assist the > > victory of Donald Trump.” > >> > >> Many liberals, if not most, and certainly the majority of > > Democrats are all on board to prosecute Assange. Trump very usefully > > serves that purpose, you see. The hatred of Trump (who seems to work > > very hard to be hated) allows for the Democrats (and their liberal > > enablers) to escalate the new Russophobic propaganda and divert > > attention from things like the increased defense budget, the private > > prison complex that profits hugely from the ICE raids and illegal > > deportations, and the continuing (even growing) crimes of mass > > incarceration. No, people are given to partisan fighting over issues > > like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns > > or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy > > because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only > > carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary > > would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy > > is the black hole in American consciousness. > >> > >> The US has been in Afghanistan for sixteen years. Why do people > > not talk about this? Sixteen years. That’s a permanent occupation. > > The U.S. under Democratic leadership and under the direction of > > Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, destroyed Libya > > and assassinated its leader Moammar Qadaffi. Clinton then famously > > laughed about it on TV. Libya is now holding outdoor slave sales. It > > is a failed state, where once it was one of the most advanced and > > stable countries in the region. Or Syria. The targeting of the Assad > > government was a unanimous decision of both parties. Or sanctions > > against Iran…again both parties. Or militarizing Africa (or > > support for war criminal Paul Kagame), both parties. In fact, > > Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton were far worse than > > Republicans in terms of protecting western Capital in Africa and > > building up AFRICOM. > >> > >> Or take the recent Democratic Party attack on the Trump/Kim Jong > > Un summit. Ajamu Baraka wrote: > >> > >> “If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats > > are indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer > > and other Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt > > to stake out a position to the right of John Bolton on the summit > > between Trump and Kim Jong Un.” > >> > >> Schumer demanded terms that no nation anywhere on earth at any > > time in history, could accept. Ergo he wanted this summit to fail. > > And that failure then would make it easier to justify an invasion of > > the DPRK. > >> > >> You see, the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of > > Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that > > Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity > > politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of > > nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the > > same. > >> > >> “Obama’s electoral coalition was driven by the professional > > class that had arisen to manage the various segments of the > > financialized economy. Since they derive significant benefits from > > late capitalism, the professionals eschew class-struggle based > > politics.” > >> > >> –Peter Lavenia > >> > >> Never mention class. Things that have some importance, such as > > marijuana legalization were decidedly better under Democrats. And > > that certainly matters. But remember, all those small incremental > > gains by Democrats did little or nothing to change the staggering > > inequality of the system itself. But people are terrorized. That is > > why Ocasio-Cortez is embraced so uncritically. People are genuinely > > terrified. They are without protection at work, and they are > > unprotected by any sort of comprehensive medical program. They are > > unprotected from the militarized racist police forces of every > > American city and town. A militarization it should be noted that > > began in ernest under Obama. > >> > >> But perhaps most important in any discussion of the Democratic > > Party are their ties to the CIA. > >> > >> Patrick Martin writes… > >> > >> “An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military > > operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and > > State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for > > Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of > > military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no > > precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a > > majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely > > predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus > > will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of > > Congress.” > >> > >> This is interesting for a variety of reasons, not least of which > > is that the DNC does nothing to hide this but rather sees it a sure > > fire vote getter. > >> > >> Martin again: > >> > >> “The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in > > the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical > > details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is > > notable that those candidates with a record in the > > military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the > > State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide > > their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. > > They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army > > special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile > > warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, > > rather than something to conceal.” > >> > >> Among these new candidates running as Democrats are former CIA > > operatives (Abigail Spanberger), a military intelligence officer > > with two tours in Iraq (Patrick Ryan), a naval intelligence officer, > > who also served in the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany > > (Jonathan Ebel), a deep cover op for the CIA in Latin America ( > > Shelly Chauncey), a twenty three year Navy Seal veteran with several > > tours in Iraq (Joel Butner), a Pentagon advisor to David Petraeus > > (Andy Kim), a former member of the 82nd Airborne and part of a Joint > > Special Operations Task Force on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan > > (Jason Crow). This is just a sampling. There are also a host of > > former State Department candidates, too…one example is (quoting > > Martin again…) > >> > >> “Sara Jacobs is another State Department official turned > > Clinton campaign aide, working on “conflict zones in East and West > > Africa,” particularly the campaign against Boko Haram in Nigeria, > > and helping to “spearhead President Obama’s efforts to improve > > governance in the security sector of our counterterrorism > > partners,” according to her campaign website. She was a foreign > > policy adviser to the Clinton campaign and is now seeking the > > Democratic nomination in California’s 49th District..” > >> > >> But in fact there are forty some others. The Democratic Party is > > now the party of the CIA and Pentagon, and in both cases with a > > heavy emphasis on intelligence. Career military and CIA veterans > > make up the best financed of Democratic Party candidates. Again, > > these bios are seen as a plus for the DNC — and this in no small > > measure is the result of Hollywood film and TV. The infiltration of > > Hollywood by the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI is now hardly even a secret. > > Almost every show with anything to do with the military has CIA > > advisors right there in the writers room. And if the story has to do > > with cops, you can count on veteran law enforcement advisors, too. > >> > >> The anti-Trump fervor is understandable, and justified, but the > > Democrats are not the opposition. They are better spoken version of > > the same Imperialist state. And domestically, these veteran CIA > > operatives and military intel veterans are hardly going to embrace > > progressive causes. They are hardly going to look to dismantle the > > racist militarized police apparatus or challenge the racist judicial > > system. They are not going to seek reforms for mass incarceration. > > Most of them have experience with black sites and torture, with the > > pacification of entire populations, and with all manner of counter > > insurgency tactics. > >> > >> The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these > > candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a > > growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that > > sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in. > >> > >> Nick Pemberton wrote: > >> > >> “The Democrats have engaged in the deregulation of the economy. > > They have attacked unions. They have cut funding for public schools > > and replaced them with prisons. They have promoted pipelines and > > wars for oil. They have supported vicious trade deals that hurt > > workers and destroy the environment. If the world was to run as is > > with Democrats in place of Republicans we would still become extinct > > in the near future. If not by nuclear annihilation, then by climate > > change.” > >> > >> So, back to Ocasio-Cortez for a moment. Teodrose Fikre wrote: > >> > >> “…year after year, election after election, we keep falling > > for the latest fresh faces who promise to go to DC and drain the > > swamp of corruption and nepotism. The results always end up the same > > way, hope being paid back with hopelessness as the politicians we > > put our faith in sell their souls in order to retain power and > > celebrity. This is how the establishment remains fixed no matter who > > gets elected; the people in charge are not the politicians we elect > > but the donors who fund their campaigns and the insiders who > > determine rank and privileges within the party infrastructure. ( ) > > No more voting for the lesser of two evils and no more listening to > > people who try to convince you that supporting ideas outside of the > > Democrat/Republican divide is wasted energy. Don’t fall for the > > merry-go-round of personalities who keep being unleashed to sheepdog > > voters back to this two-party racket. > >> > >> PS. More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six > > corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change > > agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice > > skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free > > advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly > > fighting.” > >> > >> Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. > > (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost > > anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when > > she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group > > links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not > > telegenic or perky enough?). > >> > >> So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily > > from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department > > (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). > > These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have > > knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system > > that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we > > presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is > > it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism > > pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels > > very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game > > strategic thinking. Honestly, all the talk of keeping an eye on her > > (Ocasio-Cortez) and making sure she honors her principles, etc…all > > of this feels wildly naive and almost delusional, frankly. One has > > to learn to read the codes. And since it is a proven fact that the > > Democrat Party is utterly corrupt, in bed with Wall Street and big > > corporate entities in agriculture, telecoms, and pharmaceuticals, as > > well as the military itself — why would one want to give a > > candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt? > >> > >> Now on my bullshit meter (a term I don’t really like but > > whatever) the needle went directly to red. In fact it broke and > > stuck in the red zone. So, the subjective side is I just found > > everything about her fake. I recoiled with that awful feeling of > > being faced with a fraud. Apparently many did not have that > > response. But I did. Bernie was called a *sheepdog*. The political > > slang for a left leaning candidate who cant and doesn’t want to > > win but who will draw disaffected voters back into the party. Bernie > > eventually endorsing Hillary Clinton, of course. I’m wondering why > > Ocasio-Cortez is not so perceived? Except I suspect she does want to > > win and to keep on winning. OC in 2024!!! That is what I think might > > well happen. She ticks off all the boxes. She has to wait until she > > turns 35, if I’m not mistaken, but this feels every bit a trial > > balloon. We shall see. > >> > >> Meanwhile, here is something to support and make known. > >> > >> > >> Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: > > https://www.counterpunch.org > >> > >> URL to article: > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/11/the-wisdom-of-serpents/ > >> > >> Click here to print. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Jul 12 15:52:21 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:52:21 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Message-ID: [...] But not everyone shared the same positive reading. To some, the message could be a series of warnings “about Russia’s recent anti-Iran stances in OPEC by siding with Saudi Arabia … and frequent meetings with the Israelis," an article in pro-reform Jameh Irani read, echoing a cynical view of Russian motives. "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” The debate over Iran-Russia relations has always been heated in Iran, with some arguing that Moscow has historically proven to be untrustworthy. Those holding that view even believe that Putin and Trump might reach a secret deal that is against Iran’s oil and regional interests. Hossein Sheikholeslam , an adviser to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, however, dismissed those speculations. “Trump will not reach an agreement with Putin or with anyone else," he said, according to Ghatreh. "He is a supremacist and a pharaoh who seeks to impose his own will on the other side, be it the Europeans, the Russians or the Chinese.” - Iran supreme leader’s top aide in Moscow to ‘deliver message’ Al-Monitor Staff July 11, 2018 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/07/iran-velayati-moscow-visit-russia-putin-special-message.html === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 16:00:44 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3425A226-C448-4E05-B610-14FBF6AFED50@gmail.com> Right to be reminded that there are factions in the political establishments of all three countries, serving a variety of interests. > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > [...] > > But not everyone shared the same positive reading. To some, the message could be a series of warnings “about Russia’s recent anti-Iran stances in OPEC by siding with Saudi Arabia … and frequent meetings with the Israelis," an article in pro-reform Jameh Irani read, echoing a cynical view of Russian motives. "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” > > The debate over Iran-Russia relations has always been heated in Iran, with some arguing that Moscow has historically proven to be untrustworthy. Those holding that view even believe that Putin and Trump might reach a secret deal that is against Iran’s oil and regional interests. Hossein Sheikholeslam , an adviser to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, however, dismissed those speculations. “Trump will not reach an agreement with Putin or with anyone else," he said, according to Ghatreh. "He is a supremacist and a pharaoh who seeks to impose his own will on the other side, be it the Europeans, the Russians or the Chinese.” > > > - Iran supreme leader’s top aide in Moscow to ‘deliver message’ > Al-Monitor Staff July 11, 2018 > http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/07/iran-velayati-moscow-visit-russia-putin-special-message.html > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 19:12:20 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:12:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the side that serves their interests”? In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the majority, here and abroad. > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 19:18:44 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <3425A226-C448-4E05-B610-14FBF6AFED50@gmail.com> References: <3425A226-C448-4E05-B610-14FBF6AFED50@gmail.com> Message-ID: *https://therealnews.com/stories/nato-shields-u-s-from-its-military-adventures * EIRIK VOLD: Well, I mean, the one hypothesis, I’m sure, is that he’s sort of hedging, he’s trying to shield himself from future allegation of him colluding, or, or caving in to Putin if he gives-. Which is, which are sure to come, if he gives even the slightest, tiniest concession to the Russians, or try to sort of deescalate the very dangerous and unnecessary tensions between the nuclear powers, U.S. and my neighbor country, Russia. So I’m sure he-. That’s one hypothesis. Now, I think a more compelling hypothesis is simply that Trump is being, just as he’s being a salesman for, for the U.S. arms industry when he’s pushing Europe to, to increase its military spending, and particularly buy U.S.-made weaponry. He is being now, he’s speaking on behalf of the U.S. oil and gas industry, the petroleum industry, trying to convince Europe to substitute Russian petroleum for U.S. gas, and basically capturing the European market for U.S. gas exports. That is a more compelling hypothesis. Now, let’s keep in mind that I think that Trump can better be understood as a businessman than as a person who is particularly ideological when it comes to international relations. And in this case I don’t think it’s particularly interesting to see his personal opinion. Putin doesn’t really count, because Trump wants a more, he probably wants a more constructive relationship between the U.S. and Russia. But he doesn’t necessarily want a constructive relationship between Europe and Russia, because that relationship would mean further economic relations between Europe and Russia, and it would mean a bigger difficulty, would mean an obstacle, particularly the Nord Stream pipeline which he’s talking about, will mean an obstacle for U.S. petroleum exports to Europe. So I think this is, what we’re seeing here, is Trump the oil industry and arms industry salesman, and that’s both in the case of his demand, his complaints about Europe’s military spending, and his, to some, very surprising rant against German imports of Russian energy resources. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Right to be reminded that there are factions in the political > establishments of all three countries, serving a variety of interests. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > [...] > > But not everyone shared the same positive reading. To some, the message > could be a series of warnings “about Russia’s recent anti-Iran stances in > OPEC by siding with Saudi Arabia … and frequent meetings with the > Israelis," an article in pro-reform Jameh Irani > read, > echoing a cynical view of Russian motives. "Russians always lean toward the > side that serves their interests.” > > The debate over Iran-Russia relations has always been heated in Iran, with > some arguing that Moscow has historically proven to be untrustworthy. Those > holding that view even believe that Putin and Trump might reach a secret > deal that is against Iran’s oil and regional interests. Hossein > Sheikholeslam > , > an adviser to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, however, dismissed > those speculations. “Trump will not reach an agreement with Putin or with > anyone else," he said, according to Ghatreh. "He is a supremacist and a > pharaoh who seeks to impose his own will on the other side, be it the > Europeans, the Russians or the Chinese.” > > - Iran supreme leader’s top aide in Moscow to ‘deliver message’ > Al-Monitor Staff July 11, 2018 > > http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/07/iran-velayati-moscow-visit-russia-putin-special-message.html > > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Jul 12 19:32:30 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:32:30 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral consequences. So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the > side that serves their interests”? > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this > country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the > majority, here and abroad. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 12 19:49:18 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:49:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral consequences. So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the side that serves their interests”? In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the majority, here and abroad. On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Jul 12 20:09:51 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:09:51 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > There were people in the American government that argued that attacking > Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose > the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana. > net] > *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > *To:* C G Estabrook > *Cc:* Peace-discuss List > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody > who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into > account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. > Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the > motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the > Russian government is like other governments. > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what > governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference > to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments > for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different > moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care > about the moral consequences. > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing > that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the > interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to > stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care > about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves > would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the >> side that serves their interests”? >> >> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this >> country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the >> majority, here and abroad. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Jul 12 20:24:13 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: >> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. >> >> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: Peace-discuss List >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> >> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. >> >> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral consequences. >> >> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the side that serves their interests”? >>> >>> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the majority, here and abroad. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Jul 12 20:33:54 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:33:54 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, to the extent that you are able. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had > lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews > had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people > with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard > to choose sides." > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking >> Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose >> the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >> behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana. >> net] >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >> *To:* C G Estabrook >> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List >> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> >> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody >> who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into >> account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. >> Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the >> motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the >> Russian government is like other governments. >> >> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that >> what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by >> reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different >> arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very >> different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the >> arguments care about the moral consequences. >> >> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing >> that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the >> interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to >> stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care >> about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves >> would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward >>> the side that serves their interests”? >>> >>> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this >>> country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the >>> majority, here and abroad. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 21:24:36 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not wanted to commit a horrible crime? Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, to the extent that you are able. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > >> When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. >> >> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] >> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >> To: C G Estabrook >> Cc: Peace-discuss List >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> >> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. >> >> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral consequences. >> >> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the side that serves their interests”? >> >> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the majority, here and abroad. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Jul 12 21:42:39 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the unconstitutional and unauthorized war. Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be forced to allow a vote. The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate with the House Republican leadership. Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 *House Armed Services*‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats More . at RepAdamSmith : There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen . 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 You can encourage support of this effort here: 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them to Follow Through https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not wanted > to commit a horrible crime? > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those crimes. > It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one side > wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, you should > support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible crime. You don't > have to marry them. You just have to help them win, to the extent that you > are able. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >> When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had >> lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews >> had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people >> with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard >> to choose sides." >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking >>> Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose >>> the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>> behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana. >>> net] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >>> *To:* C G Estabrook >>> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List >>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> >>> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >>> Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive >>> them into account less than other countries do is likely to be >>> disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly >>> cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means >>> accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. >>> >>> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that >>> what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by >>> reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different >>> arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very >>> different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the >>> arguments care about the moral consequences. >>> >>> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >>> arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in >>> the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to >>> stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care >>> about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves >>> would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward >>>> the side that serves their interests”? >>>> >>>> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this >>>> country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the >>>> majority, here and abroad. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 21:47:30 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:47:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> Message-ID: I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its war-making and -mongering. Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks peace, but, unfortunately…" > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be forced to allow a vote. > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate with the House Republican leadership. > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > ⁨House Armed Services > ‏ > Verified account >   > @HASCDemocrats > ⁩ <⁨https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats⁩>FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > More > . at RepAdamSmith : There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen . > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them to Follow Through > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > >> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >> >> It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, to the extent that you are able. >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > wrote: >> >>> When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. >>> >>> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >>> To: C G Estabrook >>> Cc: Peace-discuss List >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> >>> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. >>> >>> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral consequences. >>> >>> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the side that serves their interests”? >>> >>> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the majority, here and abroad. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 12 22:25:07 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:25:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russia Can Mediate A Grand Bargain On Syria Message-ID: From the “Oriental Review”…. Russia Can Mediate A Grand Bargain On Syria Written by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR on 12/07/2018 The prevailing impression is that Russia plays a hugely influential role in the Syrian conflict. But it is equally the case that there are serious limits to what Russia can do and/or is willing to do to influence the future trajectory of the conflict. Russia and the US have managed through joint efforts to bring the conflict in southwestern Syria to an end. This has been possible because the Syrian government forces undertook the operations against extremist groups in Daraa province without involving the Iranian military advisors or Hezbollah (overtly, at least.) In turn, this provided Israel with a a face-saving pretext to swallow the bitter pill – namely, accept the fait accompli of the decimation of its proxy groups in the border region with Syria. However, Israel still swears that it will ensure the rollback of Iranian presence in all of Syria. PM Netanyahu met Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 11 to discuss the subject ahead of the Helsinki summit on July 16 between President Trump and Putin. What are the prospects of Russia playing ball with Israel and Trump to “evict” the Iranians from Syrian soil? Frankly, “zero”. When asked for comment on the subject at a media interaction in Moscow on July 4, this is how Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded: Let us first agree on some basic things. There are many non-Syrian forces in Syria. Some of them stay there with the agreement of the legitimate Syrian government, a UN member-country, while others stay there illegally, in violation of the principles of international law. Evidently, what Lavrov meant was that the Iranian presence in Syria is “legitimate” under international law. He then added: We see how the Western media discusses the subject of Iran in a very simplified context that is designed for a not very sophisticated audience: “Iran must leave and everything will click into place.” This is applied not only to Syria but also to the entire region. It is alleged that Iran should leave, stay within its borders, and everything will be wonderful. This is absolutely unrealistic. It is impossible to seek solution to the region’s problems without the participation of its key countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, to name a few. All of the region’s countries have their own concerns and many have grievances against each other. As in any other area of the world, they should sit down at the negotiating table, state their concerns and start talking on how they can remove them on a mutually acceptable basis. There is no other way. It is necessary to act in the same vein as regards the settlement in Syria or any other problem in this volatile region. So, what we get here is the Russian position, as follows: ‘It is not for Moscow (or for Washington) to dictate to Tehran that it should not indulge in any presence outside its territorial borders in foreign countries. The Iranian presence in Syria cannot be viewed in isolation without taking into consideration the highly complicated Middle East security situation where regional states are pursuing policies in their self-interests which are often working at cross purposes. Therefore, the solution – in Syria or elsewhere in the region – lies in the regional states resolving their differences at the negotiating table.’ [Syria talks]Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, left, and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu Lavrov was frank in underscoring that it is “absolutely unrealistic” to demand that “Iran should leave, stay within its borders, and everything will be wonderful.” However, this doesn’t mean that there is nothing for Trump and Putin to discuss at Helsinki regarding Iran. Interestingly, NSA John Bolton held out some meaningful signals during his CBS News interview last Sunday when asked about Helsinki summit. He said: There are possibilities of doing a larger negotiation (with Putin) on helping to get Iranian forces out of Syria and back into Iran, which would be a significant step forward – to do so to have an agreement with Russia if possible. This has been something that’s been going on now for nearly seven years – this conflict in Syria. But the Iranian presence now across Iraq and Syria really reaching into Lebanon and their connection with Hezbollah, which has been an Iranian subsidiary from the outset. I don’t think Assad is the strategic issue. I think Iran is the strategic issue. It’s not just their continuing nuclear weapons program, it’s their massive support for international terrorism and their conventional forces in the Middle East and I would say there – this is something the two presidents will want to discuss at length because I think President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the misbegotten Iran nuclear deal, reimpose our sanctions begin to put much more pressure on Iran is having an effect on their decision making not just on the nuclear issue but on these efforts to extend Iranian influence around the region. Significantly, this has been the second time in the past 3 weeks that the Trump administration taken note of certain moderation in Iran’s regional policies lately. (Trump himself had flagged this earlier – twice – during his press conference in Singapore following the summit with Kim Jong Un on June 12.) Clearly, what Lavrov said on Wednesday need not necessarily be the last word. Lavrov met Iranian FM Zarif on the sidelines of the foreign minister level meeting of the remaining guarantors of the Iran deal (EU, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) in Vienna today. Trust Russian diplomacy to work on an approach that somehow connects the various dots in the jigsaw puzzle – Iran nuclear deal, sanctions against Iran, Syrian conflict, Israel-Iran tensions, US-Iran standoff, energy security and so on. The point is, Russia is uniquely placed – on talking terms with both the US and Israel on one side and Iran and Syria on the other side. Source: The Indian Punchline [Print Friendly, PDF & Email] Share this: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu Jul 12 23:31:11 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:31:11 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <8EC1DA30-4A82-4D57-9EB7-FE5AC3D1A5B9@gmail.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> Message-ID: The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my nose. The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people are supposed to care about that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its war-making > and -mongering. > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks peace, but, > unfortunately…" > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive Caucus to > try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers Resolution to > try to force a House floor vote on the unconstitutional and unauthorized > war. > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be forced > to allow a vote. > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against the > House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate with the > House Republican leadership. > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > *House Armed Services*‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > More > . at RepAdamSmith : There is a terrible > humanitarian crisis occurring. I am working with @RepRoKhanna > on a bill to stop us from blindly > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen > . > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them to > Follow Through > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to- > stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >> wanted to commit a horrible crime? >> >> Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those crimes. >> It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >> >> >> >> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >> >> It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one side >> wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, you should >> support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible crime. You don't >> have to marry them. You just have to help them win, to the extent that you >> are able. >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >>> wrote: >>> >>> When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who >>> had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian >>> Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of >>> people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It >>> wasn't hard to choose sides." >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking >>>> Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose >>>> the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>>> behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [ >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >>>> *To:* C G Estabrook >>>> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>>> >>>> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >>>> Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive >>>> them into account less than other countries do is likely to be >>>> disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly >>>> cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means >>>> accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. >>>> >>>> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that >>>> what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by >>>> reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different >>>> arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very >>>> different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the >>>> arguments care about the moral consequences. >>>> >>>> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >>>> arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in >>>> the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to >>>> stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care >>>> about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves >>>> would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward >>>>> the side that serves their interests”? >>>>> >>>>> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this >>>>> country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the >>>>> majority, here and abroad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Jul 13 00:05:52 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:05:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Message-ID: <37eo6gfnh206lk2kktlpimfn.1531440109411@email.lge.com> When the anti-war movement fractures itself over which of the two main political parties are supposedly less war-like, I am reminded of mice deciding which mousetrap has the better cheese, while the cat looks smugly on from above, ready to pounce.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Jul 12, 2018 6:31 PMTo: C G Estabrook;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my nose.  The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people are supposed to care about that.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its war-making and -mongering. Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks peace, but, unfortunately…" On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the unconstitutional and unauthorized war.   Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be forced to allow a vote.  The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate with the House Republican leadership.  Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 House Armed Services‏Verified account @HASCDemocratsFollowFollow @HASCDemocratsMore. at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen.1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 You can encourage support of this effort here: 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them to Follow Through https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through    Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not wanted to commit a horrible crime? Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration.  On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, to the extent that you are able.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? Sent from my iPhone On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides."  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: There were people in the American government that argued that attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral consequences.  So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward the side that serves their interests”? In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the majority, here and abroad.    On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote:  "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 13 00:29:06 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:29:06 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <37eo6gfnh206lk2kktlpimfn.1531440109411@email.lge.com> References: <37eo6gfnh206lk2kktlpimfn.1531440109411@email.lge.com> Message-ID: If you don't want that question to be at the top of the marquee, you should take it up with the Prairie Green Party. It's the supporters of the Prairie Green Party who are insisting that question must be at the top of the marquee. I'm suggesting that we should judge politicians according to what they do compared to other politicians. So far I haven't been able to get the Prairie Green Party supporters to go along with that. Maybe you can help me persuade them. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > When the anti-war movement fractures itself over which of the two main > political parties are supposedly less war-like, I am reminded of mice > deciding which mousetrap has the better cheese, while the cat looks smugly > on from above, ready to pounce. > > *Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone* > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > *Date: *Thu, Jul 12, 2018 6:31 PM > *To: *C G Estabrook; > *Cc: *Peace-discuss List; > *Subject:*Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran abou t prospects of > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United States. > More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my nose. > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people are > supposed to care about that. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >> wanted to commit a horrible crime? >> >> Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those crimes. >> It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >> >> >> >> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >> >> It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one side >> wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, you should >> support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible crime. You don't >> have to marry them. You just have to help them win, to the extent that you >> are able. >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >>> wrote: >>> >>> When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew who >>> had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so many Russian >>> Jews had supported the Commu nists. He said: "There were two groups of >>> people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The other didn't. It >>> wasn't hard to choose sides." >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> There were people in the American government that argued that attacking >>>> Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. We could oppose >>>> the attack without supporting them or their vicious politics. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>>> behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [ >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >>>> *To:* C G Estabrook >>>> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>>> >>>> You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >>>> Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they perceive >>>> them into account less than other countries do is likely to be >>>> disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being particularly >>>> cynical about the motivations of the Russian government. It just means >>>> accepting that the Russian government is like other governments. >>>> >>>> This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view that >>>> what governments will do is always reducible to or understandable by >>>> reference to crude self-interest. Competing factions articulate different >>>> arguments for national self-interest, and these arguments can have very >>>> different moral consequences, and some of the people supporting the >>>> arguments care about the moral consequences. >>>> >>>> So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >>>> arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is not in >>>> the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead pressure Saudi-UAE to >>>> stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the UN peace deal. People who care >>>> about moral consequences want that argument to win, even if they themselves >>>> would be happy to see the U.S. empire crash and burn. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean toward >>>>> the side that serves their interests”? >>>>> >>>>> In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in this >>>>> country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those of the >>>>> majority, here and abroad. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their interests.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ewj at pigs.ag Fri Jul 13 01:17:07 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:17:07 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?debate_in_Iran_about_prospects_of_anti-?= =?utf-8?q?Iran_Trump-Russia_deal?= In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) > -------Original Message------- > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > nose. > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > wrote: > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > More > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > to Follow Through > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > wrote: > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > politics. > > > > ------------------------- > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > TO: C G Estabrook > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > like other governments. > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > consequences. > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > interests.” > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Fri Jul 13 02:36:04 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 02:36:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> , <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) > -------Original Message------- > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > nose. > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > wrote: > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > More > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > to Follow Through > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > wrote: > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > politics. > > > > ------------------------- > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > TO: C G Estabrook > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > like other governments. > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > consequences. > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > interests.” > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 13 08:10:34 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 04:10:34 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Only if he's consistent. > > ________________________________________ > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf > of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM > To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that." > > (Bob waxes pro-life.) > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > To: C G Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss List > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > > nose. > > > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > More > > > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > > to Follow Through > > > > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to- > stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > > politics. > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > > TO: C G Estabrook > > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > > like other governments. > > > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > > consequences. > > > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > > interests.” > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jul 13 10:48:55 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:48:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu>, Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F27AF@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.” Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well. --CGE ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > wrote: Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) > -------Original Message------- > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > To: C G Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss List > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > nose. > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > More > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > to Follow Through > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > politics. > > > > ------------------------- > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > TO: C G Estabrook > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > like other governments. > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > consequences. > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > interests.” > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 13 11:55:20 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:55:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F27AF@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu>, , <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F27AF@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2835@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.” Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well. --CGE ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > wrote: Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) > -------Original Message------- > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > To: C G Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss List > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > nose. > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > are supposed to care about that. > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > More > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > to Follow Through > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > politics. > > > > ------------------------- > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > TO: C G Estabrook > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > like other governments. > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > consequences. > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > interests.” > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 13 15:28:50 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:28:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F27AF@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Maybe we should concentrate on the people we’re killing - at home and abroad - rather than the politicians you want to get into office. We should rescue the former, not the latter. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > "The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." > > It might do that. It might also cause pigs to fly. > > This is like saying that we should ban Salvadorans and Guatemalans from fleeing to the U.S. so they will go back home and foment revolutions that will remove the conditions that are causing them to flee. It's a brutal logic, that if applied is certain to increase brutality in the short run, with a very dim prospect of leading to less brutality in the long run. Much more likely, such logic will merely serve as a fig leaf for increased brutality. > > So far, increased restrictions on abortion in Republican states have not led to such things. And that's what we're talking about. Abortion will never be illegal in New York or California. The overturn of Roe v. Wade might well lead to criminalizing abortion in the most reactionary states, the states least likely to enact "universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." > > But at least we're having an honest conversation now. This is why you want Republican rule. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion. It's your democratic right to want these things. But you should be honest about what your true motivations are, rather than trying to trick people into thinking that your motivation for supporting Republican rule has something to do with peace. > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: >> The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. >> >> Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.” >> >> Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. >> >> Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. >> >> Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” >> >> Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well. --CGE >> From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] >> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM >> To: Estabrook, Carl G >> Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List >> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> >> I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. >> >> But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. >> >> Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. >> >> Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. >> >> I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> Only if he's consistent. >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM >>> To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook >>> Cc: Peace-discuss List >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> >>> Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >>> > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >>> > are supposed to care about that." >>> >>> (Bob waxes pro-life.) >>> >>> > -------Original Message------- >>> > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > To: C G Estabrook >>> > Cc: Peace-discuss List >>> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 >>> > >>> > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >>> > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >>> > nose. >>> > >>> > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >>> > are supposed to care about that. >>> > >>> > Robert Naiman >>> > Policy Director >>> > Just Foreign Policy >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >>> > > war-making and -mongering. >>> > > >>> > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >>> > > peace, but, unfortunately…" >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >>> > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >>> > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >>> > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >>> > > >>> > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >>> > > forced to allow a vote. >>> > > >>> > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >>> > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >>> > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >>> > > with the House Republican leadership. >>> > > >>> > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >>> > > >>> > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >>> > > >>> > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >>> > > >>> > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >>> > > >>> > > More >>> > > >>> > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >>> > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >>> > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >>> > > >>> > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >>> > > >>> > > You can encourage support of this effort here: >>> > > >>> > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >>> > > to Follow Through >>> > > >>> > > >>> > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >>> > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >>> > > >>> > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >>> > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >>> > > >>> > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >>> > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >>> > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >>> > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >>> > > to the extent that you are able. >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my iPhone >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >>> > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >>> > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >>> > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >>> > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > There were people in the American government that argued that >>> > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >>> > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >>> > > politics. >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------- >>> > > >>> > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>> > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>> > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >>> > > TO: C G Estabrook >>> > > CC: Peace-discuss List >>> > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>> > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> > > >>> > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >>> > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >>> > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >>> > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >>> > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >>> > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >>> > > like other governments. >>> > > >>> > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >>> > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >>> > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >>> > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >>> > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >>> > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >>> > > consequences. >>> > > >>> > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >>> > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is >>> > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >>> > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >>> > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >>> > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >>> > > U.S. empire crash and burn. >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >>> > > toward the side that serves their interests”? >>> > > >>> > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >>> > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >>> > > of the majority, here and abroad. >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >>> > > interests.” >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > 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 >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 13 15:32:46 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:32:46 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F27AF@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: I'm happy to agree a cease-fire with you on this front. If you stop attacking "Democrats," I'll stop attacking "Greens." Do we have a deal? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Maybe we should concentrate on the people we’re killing - at home and > abroad - rather than the politicians you want to get into office. We should > rescue the former, not the latter. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > "The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for > pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, > housing, a universal basic income." > > It might do that. It might also cause pigs to fly. > > This is like saying that we should ban Salvadorans and Guatemalans from > fleeing to the U.S. so they will go back home and foment revolutions that > will remove the conditions that are causing them to flee. It's a brutal > logic, that if applied is certain to increase brutality in the short run, > with a very dim prospect of leading to less brutality in the long run. Much > more likely, such logic will merely serve as a fig leaf for increased > brutality. > > So far, increased restrictions on abortion in Republican states have not > led to such things. And that's what we're talking about. Abortion will > never be illegal in New York or California. The overturn of Roe v. > Wade might well lead to criminalizing abortion in the most reactionary > states, the states least likely to enact "universal health care, child > allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." > > But at least we're having an honest conversation now. This is why you want > Republican rule. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion. > It's your democratic right to want these things. But you should be honest > about what your true motivations are, rather than trying to trick people > into thinking that your motivation for supporting Republican rule has > something to do with peace. > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for >> pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, >> housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to >> protect human lives rather than end them. >> >> Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political >> views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys >> the planet we live on.” >> >> Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - >> did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have >> children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. >> >> Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against >> things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society >> that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. >> >> Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was >> decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, >> “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about >> population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want >> to have too many of.” >> >> Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should >> work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that >> they must do so as well. --CGE >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of >> Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] >> *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM >> *To:* Estabrook, Carl G >> *Cc:* ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> >> I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I >> don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys >> apparently do. >> >> But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better >> availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. >> >> Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions >> per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, >> awareness of, and use of contraception. >> >> Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you >> are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against >> something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. >> >> I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I >> favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social >> measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against >> criminalization. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Only if he's consistent. >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>> behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [ >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM >>> To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook >>> Cc: Peace-discuss List >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> >>> Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >>> > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >>> > are supposed to care about that." >>> >>> (Bob waxes pro-life.) >>> >>> > -------Original Message------- >>> > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> net> >>> > To: C G Estabrook >>> > Cc: Peace-discuss List >>> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 >>> > >>> > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >>> > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >>> > nose. >>> > >>> > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >>> > are supposed to care about that. >>> > >>> > Robert Naiman >>> > Policy Director >>> > Just Foreign Policy >>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > >>> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >>> > > war-making and -mongering. >>> > > >>> > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >>> > > peace, but, unfortunately…" >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >>> > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >>> > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >>> > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >>> > > >>> > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >>> > > forced to allow a vote. >>> > > >>> > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >>> > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >>> > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >>> > > with the House Republican leadership. >>> > > >>> > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >>> > > >>> > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >>> > > >>> > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >>> > > >>> > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >>> > > >>> > > More >>> > > >>> > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >>> > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >>> > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >>> > > >>> > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >>> > > >>> > > You can encourage support of this effort here: >>> > > >>> > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >>> > > to Follow Through >>> > > >>> > > >>> > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-st >>> op-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >>> > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >>> > > >>> > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >>> > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >>> > > >>> > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >>> > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >>> > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >>> > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >>> > > to the extent that you are able. >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >>> > > >>> > > Sent from my iPhone >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >>> > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >>> > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >>> > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >>> > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > There were people in the American government that argued that >>> > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >>> > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >>> > > politics. >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------- >>> > > >>> > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>> > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>> > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >>> > > TO: C G Estabrook >>> > > CC: Peace-discuss List >>> > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>> > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> > > >>> > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >>> > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >>> > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >>> > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >>> > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >>> > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >>> > > like other governments. >>> > > >>> > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >>> > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >>> > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >>> > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >>> > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >>> > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >>> > > consequences. >>> > > >>> > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >>> > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is >>> > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >>> > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >>> > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >>> > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >>> > > U.S. empire crash and burn. >>> > > >>> > > Robert Naiman >>> > > Policy Director >>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> > > >>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >>> > > toward the side that serves their interests”? >>> > > >>> > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >>> > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >>> > > of the majority, here and abroad. >>> > > >>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >>> > > interests.” >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > 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 >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 15:38:52 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:38:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F27AF@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <95AC3F1C-17EF-4328-8047-E2A863A38D40@gmail.com> What good would that do? The point of these discussion lists is to expose ‘how the truth of things stands.’ > On Jul 13, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I'm happy to agree a cease-fire with you on this front. If you stop attacking "Democrats," I'll stop attacking "Greens." > > Do we have a deal? > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Maybe we should concentrate on the people we’re killing - at home and abroad - rather than the politicians you want to get into office. We should rescue the former, not the latter. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > >> "The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." >> >> It might do that. It might also cause pigs to fly. >> >> This is like saying that we should ban Salvadorans and Guatemalans from fleeing to the U.S. so they will go back home and foment revolutions that will remove the conditions that are causing them to flee. It's a brutal logic, that if applied is certain to increase brutality in the short run, with a very dim prospect of leading to less brutality in the long run. Much more likely, such logic will merely serve as a fig leaf for increased brutality. >> >> So far, increased restrictions on abortion in Republican states have not led to such things. And that's what we're talking about. Abortion will never be illegal in New York or California. The overturn of Roe v. Wade might well lead to criminalizing abortion in the most reactionary states, the states least likely to enact "universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." >> >> But at least we're having an honest conversation now. This is why you want Republican rule. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion. It's your democratic right to want these things. But you should be honest about what your true motivations are, rather than trying to trick people into thinking that your motivation for supporting Republican rule has something to do with peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. >> >> Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.” >> >> Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. >> >> Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. >> >> Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” >> >> Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well. --CGE >> From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com ] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org ] >> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM >> To: Estabrook, Carl G >> Cc: ewj at pigs.ag ; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List >> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> >> I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. >> >> But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. >> >> Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. >> >> Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. >> >> I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Only if he's consistent. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] >> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM >> To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook >> Cc: Peace-discuss List >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> >> Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >> > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >> > are supposed to care about that." >> >> (Bob waxes pro-life.) >> >> > -------Original Message------- >> > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > >> > To: C G Estabrook > >> > Cc: Peace-discuss List > >> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 >> > >> > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >> > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >> > nose. >> > >> > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >> > are supposed to care about that. >> > >> > Robert Naiman >> > Policy Director >> > Just Foreign Policy >> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > >> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >> > > war-making and -mongering. >> > > >> > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >> > > peace, but, unfortunately…" >> > > >> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >> > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >> > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >> > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >> > > >> > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >> > > forced to allow a vote. >> > > >> > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >> > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >> > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >> > > with the House Republican leadership. >> > > >> > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >> > > >> > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >> > > >> > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >> > > >> > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >> > > >> > > More >> > > >> > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >> > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >> > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >> > > >> > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >> > > >> > > You can encourage support of this effort here: >> > > >> > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >> > > to Follow Through >> > > >> > > >> > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >> > > >> > > Robert Naiman >> > > Policy Director >> > > Just Foreign Policy >> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >> > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >> > > >> > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >> > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >> > > >> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >> > > >> > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >> > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >> > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >> > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >> > > to the extent that you are able. >> > > >> > > Robert Naiman >> > > Policy Director >> > > Just Foreign Policy >> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >> > > >> > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > >> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >> > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >> > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >> > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >> > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >> > > >> > > Robert Naiman >> > > Policy Director >> > > Just Foreign Policy >> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > There were people in the American government that argued that >> > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >> > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >> > > politics. >> > > >> > > ------------------------- >> > > >> > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on >> > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] >> > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >> > > TO: C G Estabrook >> > > CC: Peace-discuss List >> > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >> > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >> > > >> > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >> > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >> > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >> > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >> > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >> > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >> > > like other governments. >> > > >> > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >> > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >> > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >> > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >> > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >> > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >> > > consequences. >> > > >> > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >> > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is >> > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >> > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >> > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >> > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >> > > U.S. empire crash and burn. >> > > >> > > Robert Naiman >> > > Policy Director >> > > Just Foreign Policy >> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> > > >> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >> > > toward the side that serves their interests”? >> > > >> > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >> > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >> > > of the majority, here and abroad. >> > > >> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >> > > interests.” >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 13 15:46:14 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:46:14 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <95AC3F1C-17EF-4328-8047-E2A863A38D40@gmail.com> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F23B3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <5C38335F-4160-49A3-8898-F3B4B981E65B@illinois.edu> <1F250AB1-71E1-4E14-A131-4F51DD07CE8D@gmail.com> <20180713011707.21373.qmail@station188.com> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F26FA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F27AF@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <95AC3F1C-17EF-4328-8047-E2A863A38D40@gmail.com> Message-ID: So be it. "bjornsona" wrote: "When the anti-war movement fractures itself over which of the two main political parties are supposedly less war-like, I am reminded of mice deciding which mousetrap has the better cheese, while the cat looks smugly on from above, ready to pounce." Now everyone knows that you are responsible for the "fracture." It's your insistence that this question must be paramount, must be on the top of the marquee. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:38 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > What good would that do? The point of these discussion lists is to expose > ‘how the truth of things stands.’ > > > On Jul 13, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > I'm happy to agree a cease-fire with you on this front. If you stop > attacking "Democrats," I'll stop attacking "Greens." > > Do we have a deal? > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Maybe we should concentrate on the people we’re killing - at home and >> abroad - rather than the politicians you want to get into office. We should >> rescue the former, not the latter. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Robert Naiman >> wrote: >> >> "The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for >> pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, >> housing, a universal basic income." >> >> It might do that. It might also cause pigs to fly. >> >> This is like saying that we should ban Salvadorans and Guatemalans from >> fleeing to the U.S. so they will go back home and foment revolutions that >> will remove the conditions that are causing them to flee. It's a brutal >> logic, that if applied is certain to increase brutality in the short run, >> with a very dim prospect of leading to less brutality in the long run. Much >> more likely, such logic will merely serve as a fig leaf for increased >> brutality. >> >> So far, increased restrictions on abortion in Republican states have not >> led to such things. And that's what we're talking about. Abortion will >> never be illegal in New York or California. The overturn of Roe v. >> Wade might well lead to criminalizing abortion in the most reactionary >> states, the states least likely to enact "universal health care, child >> allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." >> >> But at least we're having an honest conversation now. This is why you >> want Republican rule. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize >> abortion. It's your democratic right to want these things. But you should >> be honest about what your true motivations are, rather than trying to trick >> people into thinking that your motivation for supporting Republican rule >> has something to do with peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for >>> pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, >>> housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to >>> protect human lives rather than end them. >>> >>> Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political >>> views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys >>> the planet we live on.” >>> >>> Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - >>> did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have >>> children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. >>> >>> Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against >>> things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society >>> that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. >>> >>> Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was >>> decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, >>> “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about >>> population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want >>> to have too many of.” >>> >>> Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should >>> work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that >>> they must do so as well. --CGE >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of >>> Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] >>> *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM >>> *To:* Estabrook, Carl G >>> *Cc:* ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>> >>> I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I >>> don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys >>> apparently do. >>> >>> But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see >>> better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. >>> >>> Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions >>> per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, >>> awareness of, and use of contraception. >>> >>> Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you >>> are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against >>> something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. >>> >>> I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I >>> favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social >>> measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against >>> criminalization. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Only if he's consistent. >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>>> behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [ >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM >>>> To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook >>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>>> >>>> Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >>>> > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace >>>> people >>>> > are supposed to care about that." >>>> >>>> (Bob waxes pro-life.) >>>> >>>> > -------Original Message------- >>>> > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>> net> >>>> > To: C G Estabrook >>>> > Cc: Peace-discuss List >>>> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>>> anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>>> > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 >>>> > >>>> > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >>>> > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >>>> > nose. >>>> > >>>> > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >>>> > are supposed to care about that. >>>> > >>>> > Robert Naiman >>>> > Policy Director >>>> > Just Foreign Policy >>>> > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > >>>> > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >>>> > > war-making and -mongering. >>>> > > >>>> > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >>>> > > peace, but, unfortunately…" >>>> > > >>>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >>>> > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War >>>> Powers >>>> > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >>>> > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >>>> > > >>>> > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >>>> > > forced to allow a vote. >>>> > > >>>> > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican >>>> against >>>> > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus >>>> against >>>> > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >>>> > > with the House Republican leadership. >>>> > > >>>> > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >>>> > > >>>> > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >>>> > > >>>> > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >>>> > > >>>> > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >>>> > > >>>> > > More >>>> > > >>>> > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. >>>> I >>>> > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >>>> > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >>>> > > >>>> > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >>>> > > >>>> > > You can encourage support of this effort here: >>>> > > >>>> > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >>>> > > to Follow Through >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-st >>>> op-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >>>> > > >>>> > > Robert Naiman >>>> > > Policy Director >>>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >>>> > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >>>> > > >>>> > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >>>> > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >>>> > > >>>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >>>> > > >>>> > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >>>> > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >>>> > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the >>>> horrible >>>> > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them >>>> win, >>>> > > to the extent that you are able. >>>> > > >>>> > > Robert Naiman >>>> > > Policy Director >>>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via >>>> Peace-discuss >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >>>> > > >>>> > > Sent from my iPhone >>>> > > >>>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >>>> > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >>>> > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There >>>> were >>>> > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >>>> > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >>>> > > >>>> > > Robert Naiman >>>> > > Policy Director >>>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via >>>> Peace-discuss >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > There were people in the American government that argued that >>>> > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >>>> > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >>>> > > politics. >>>> > > >>>> > > ------------------------- >>>> > > >>>> > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >>>> > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >>>> > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >>>> > > TO: C G Estabrook >>>> > > CC: Peace-discuss List >>>> > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >>>> > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >>>> > > >>>> > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >>>> > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >>>> > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely >>>> to >>>> > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >>>> > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >>>> > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >>>> > > like other governments. >>>> > > >>>> > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >>>> > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >>>> > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >>>> > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >>>> > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >>>> > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >>>> > > consequences. >>>> > > >>>> > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >>>> > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen >>>> is >>>> > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >>>> > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >>>> > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >>>> > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >>>> > > U.S. empire crash and burn. >>>> > > >>>> > > Robert Naiman >>>> > > Policy Director >>>> > > Just Foreign Policy >>>> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> > > >>>> > > (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >>>> > > toward the side that serves their interests”? >>>> > > >>>> > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >>>> > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >>>> > > of the majority, here and abroad. >>>> > > >>>> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >>>> > > interests.” >>>> > > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > 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 >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Jul 13 16:36:35 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:36:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar Message-ID: Carl and ewg at pigs.ag, whoever you are, again enough is enough. At the risk of projecting my own Shadow,  I consider it inappropriate, counterproductive and self-indulgent for you to continue dragging abortion into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group. I am sure I speak for others in this group. Carl, I respect your work quite a lot.  You have pointed out how identity politics splits the hungry and angry masses into easily controllable groups. The anti- abortion group is only  another identity group, controlled by the Vatican, the U.S. bishops,  the Christian fundamentalists, the GOP misogynists & the Stepford women. A large identity group, sure, BUT not as large as the rest of the country and the world who disagree & who generally  have more science education, actual practical experience of pregnancy & birth, and belong to other spiritual traditions. It amazes me that an intelligent person like yourself would try to pass that "Live Action"  article off on us as logically sound and not a collection of overwrought anecdotes. As the GOP, of whom you appear to be so fond, says, let those nurses get other jobs if they don't want to work in the delivery room. Writing your message below with such blanket  statements as "pregnant people" & "abortion obviously ends a human lif e," fail the logic test too. Many WOMEN have abortions at early stages when the fetus has not yet reached quickening. I believe that is around 15-20 weeks. For thousands of years, women did not consider the fetus to be an actual baby until quickening, which I believe we now know was when the risk of spontaneous miscarriage was lower. Quickening is also after a woman has spent time eating for two and her body has begun preparing for an actual baby to develop. In other words, it is a triple venture between God, the woman, and the fetus. ( NOT that  some parasite has taken over a woman's body and  can develop on its own.) Even a critical reading of the Annunciation story in the New Testament allows Mary free will. If she had said No to being the mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up? Of course not! He simply would have found another Mary, or Sarah, to be the Mother of his Son. Evidence for that is clear all over our daily lives. We are given free will choices every day. If we choose not to do somet hing, and God needs it done, it gets done in another way. (I bet you have witnessed that.) Educators & doctors know what happens if a woman does not want, or is not able to care for her own and the fetus' , then later, the baby's body. Society ends up with a stillborn or injured child:- brain damaged by lead, if the woman lives in Flint, for example. Perhaps women actually know something and care  about their own bodies and fetuses/babies. What a thought!  You have probably read that Russian scientists have measured a small amount of weight that leaves the body when a person dies. They speculate that is the weight of the soul.  When does the soul enter the body? Perhaps at quickening, when the fetus has been determined to be able to grow into a healthy baby and not be miscarried.   To address some of what you have written: yes, it would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world and the economics are such that every woman/ family could afford every pregnancy that makes it through the zygote/fetus/spontaneous miscarriage/quickening/developing baby/ to healthy birth stage. Unfortunately, we do not have that. It is cruel and ridiculous to make laws that force women & children to bear the brunt of the wars, rape, environmental degradation, floods, refugee crisis, lack of education, housing, food, jobs that we are experiencing. Not to mention climate change. It is very easy for religious ministers to pick on the smallest and weakest in their congregations in their sermons. Sure, tell the women and homosexuals how to run their lives. Their $$ contributions are less. I have read NOTHING in the New Testament in red print, in Jesus' actual words, that says ANYTHING about no abortions or that it is not ok to live life as God made one. I have seen PLENTY about no divorce, sharing with the poor, accepting everyone for who they are, getting the moneylenders out of the temple,etc. As we all must agree, if the Vatican or the Christian fundamentalists preached on that as much as they hate on women and gay people, very little $$$ would flow their way.  Just to address the two verses quoted as nauseum. The Jeremiah verse: "I knew you in your mother's womb.." etc. Lovely verse. Said by God in the Old Testament TO JEREMIAH. NOT to every person who wants to adopt it as their personal slogan to march.in front of a clinic and harass people and then disappear for antiwar.marches while taking advantage of the perks of living in Empire. Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old. The same people who cherrypick what they want from the OT try to force poor women in the U.S.what to do. And Paul's advice on not being homosexual. Please. Not Jesus' words. Also a different time and place, with rampant orgies, sexual mores run amuck. And yet Paul did not preach about no sex with children or slaves and neither do most preachers today. And you have been to Rome, I assume? Statues from antiquity of naked men everywhere. Still going on today. Many people think the "thorn in Paul's side" was his own homosexuality. How strange. I lose my respect.  The ONLY way these powermongers and warmongers hold on to their divisions is by FEAR. This particular fear is strong: that of going to hell when we die. I submit that the Hell is really here on earth where so many people suffer. And that they know it and use it against us.  For evidence: the many books and Ted Talk videos on experiences people have when they die and come back to life. I cannot believe they were all perfect, yet each one has a beautiful experience. Love and heaven are here on earth and after death. We get them by tearing people well and as individuals, not as possessions we can legislate. What is that quote from Rumi about how our children are not ours and they go into a future we cannot know? Unless you have concrete plans on how to convince  antiabortion groups to join their admittedly concentrated focus to our anti-war efforts, it would be great if you all would join an anti abortion or pro life list serve if you want to have those conversations. It wastes our time here. We already know our mission. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 6:55 AMTo: Robert Naiman;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.”  Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption.  Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well.  --CGE From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do.  But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it.  I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]    debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >  "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) >  -------Original Message------- >  From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  To: C G Estabrook >  Cc: Peace-discuss List >  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > >  The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >  States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >  nose. > >  The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that. > >  Robert Naiman >  Policy Director >  Just Foreign Policy >  www.justforeignpolicy.org >  naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >  (202) 448-2898 x1 > >  On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >  > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >  > war-making and -mongering. >  > >  > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >  > peace, but, unfortunately…" >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >  > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >  > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >  > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >  > >  > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >  > forced to allow a vote. >  > >  > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >  > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >  > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >  > with the House Republican leadership. >  > >  > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >  > >  > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >  > >  > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > More >  > >  > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >  > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >  > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >  > >  > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >  > >  > You can encourage support of this effort here: >  > >  > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >  > to Follow Through >  > >  > >  https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >  > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >  > >  > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >  > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >  > >  > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >  > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >  > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >  > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >  > to the extent that you are able. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >  > >  > Sent from my iPhone >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >  > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >  > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >  > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >  > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > There were people in the American government that argued that >  > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >  > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >  > politics. >  > >  > ------------------------- >  > >  > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >  > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >  > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >  > TO: C G Estabrook >  > CC: Peace-discuss List >  > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >  > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  > >  > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >  > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >  > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >  > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >  > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >  > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >  > like other governments. >  > >  > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >  > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >  > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >  > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >  > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >  > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >  > consequences. >  > >  > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >  > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is >  > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >  > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >  > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >  > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >  > U.S. empire crash and burn. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >  > toward the side that serves their interests”? >  > >  > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >  > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >  > of the majority, here and abroad. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >  > interests.” >  > >  > _______________________________________________ >  > 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 > >  _______________________________________________ >  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 _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Jul 13 16:41:26 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:41:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Message-ID: <7td3og138s0jlmovsrtmijod.1531499824853@email.lge.com> Also, Carl, there is not a chance in #& the reversal of Roe will lead to those people-friendly changes and you know it. I am beginning to firmly believe you are a Devil's Advocate in this group, if not an outright mole to keep it from being effective, in spite of your decades long service on the air.  What say you?  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 6:55 AMTo: Robert Naiman;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.”  Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption.  Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well.  --CGE From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do.  But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it.  I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]    debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >  "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) >  -------Original Message------- >  From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  To: C G Estabrook >  Cc: Peace-discuss List >  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > >  The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >  States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >  nose. > >  The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that. > >  Robert Naiman >  Policy Director >  Just Foreign Policy >  www.justforeignpolicy.org >  naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >  (202) 448-2898 x1 > >  On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >  > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >  > war-making and -mongering. >  > >  > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >  > peace, but, unfortunately…" >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >  > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >  > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >  > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >  > >  > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >  > forced to allow a vote. >  > >  > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >  > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >  > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >  > with the House Republican leadership. >  > >  > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >  > >  > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >  > >  > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > More >  > >  > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >  > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >  > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >  > >  > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >  > >  > You can encourage support of this effort here: >  > >  > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >  > to Follow Through >  > >  > >  https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >  > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >  > >  > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >  > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >  > >  > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >  > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >  > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >  > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >  > to the extent that you are able. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >  > >  > Sent from my iPhone >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >  > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >  > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >  > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >  > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > There were people in the American government that argued that >  > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >  > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >  > politics. >  > >  > ------------------------- >  > >  > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >  > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >  > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >  > TO: C G Estabrook >  > CC: Peace-discuss List >  > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >  > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  > >  > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >  > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >  > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >  > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >  > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >  > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >  > like other governments. >  > >  > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >  > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >  > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >  > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >  > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >  > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >  > consequences. >  > >  > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >  > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is >  > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >  > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >  > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >  > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >  > U.S. empire crash and burn. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >  > toward the side that serves their interests”? >  > >  > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >  > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >  > of the majority, here and abroad. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >  > interests.” >  > >  > _______________________________________________ >  > 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 > >  _______________________________________________ >  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 _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Jul 13 16:54:43 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 11:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Message-ID: Finally, you presume you know all the reasons a woman might have an abortion. Another reason a man or another woman cannot make that decision. I recommend you look into Complex PTSD. It is a relatively new diagnosis. It has not made it into the DSM-V yet so insurance companies will not pay for treatment.  You may have heard of it. I believe PTSD is more or less being defined as a traumatic event, while CPTSD is being defined as chronic traumatic events that happen over longer periods of time. Some social workers and psychiatrists are just learning what CPTSD is and how to attempt to treat it. There is no good long term cure, really, to the best of my knowledge. There is only continued learning about the condition one has, figuring out how one got it, getting a good counselor who knows how to help, possibly/ probably using drugs to combat the depression& anxiety that usually goes along with it,.figuring out how to get a support system and keep a job,.how to be a "normal emotional person". All of that with or without health insurance. Does not sound like a good recipe for a baby. CPTSD often comes when someone has been sexually, physically, and or verbally abused or neglected as an infant or child Sometimes it takes a woman years to figure out she was sexually abused as an infant or yo ung child. The stress hormones caused by CPTSD do not go away. They actually affect.the next generation in the womb. This has been proven. Another reason why an abortion decion is a deep section and can only be made by one person. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 6:55 AMTo: Robert Naiman;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.”  Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption.  Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well.  --CGE From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do.  But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it.  I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]    debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >  "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) >  -------Original Message------- >  From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  To: C G Estabrook >  Cc: Peace-discuss List >  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > >  The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >  States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >  nose. > >  The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that. > >  Robert Naiman >  Policy Director >  Just Foreign Policy >  www.justforeignpolicy.org >  naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >  (202) 448-2898 x1 > >  On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >  > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >  > war-making and -mongering. >  > >  > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >  > peace, but, unfortunately…" >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >  > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >  > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >  > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >  > >  > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >  > forced to allow a vote. >  > >  > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >  > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >  > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >  > with the House Republican leadership. >  > >  > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >  > >  > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >  > >  > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > More >  > >  > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >  > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >  > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >  > >  > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >  > >  > You can encourage support of this effort here: >  > >  > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >  > to Follow Through >  > >  > >  https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >  > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >  > >  > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >  > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >  > >  > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >  > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >  > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >  > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >  > to the extent that you are able. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >  > >  > Sent from my iPhone >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >  > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >  > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >  > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >  > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > There were people in the American government that argued that >  > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >  > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >  > politics. >  > >  > ------------------------- >  > >  > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >  > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >  > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >  > TO: C G Estabrook >  > CC: Peace-discuss List >  > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >  > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  > >  > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >  > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >  > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >  > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >  > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >  > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >  > like other governments. >  > >  > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >  > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >  > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >  > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >  > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >  > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >  > consequences. >  > >  > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >  > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is >  > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >  > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >  > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >  > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >  > U.S. empire crash and burn. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >  > toward the side that serves their interests”? >  > >  > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >  > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >  > of the majority, here and abroad. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >  > interests.” >  > >  > _______________________________________________ >  > 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 > >  _______________________________________________ >  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 _______________________________________________ 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 moboct1 at aim.com Fri Jul 13 17:27:49 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <16494af3a8e-c90-3b1e@webjas-vab233.srv.aolmail.net> While you guys are settling the dust on domestic politics, Secy. State Pompous is out defending us from threats of "Iranian terrorist plots," warning Teheran that its actions have "a real high cost" and urging our Arab allies (UAE and Saudi Arabia) to "turn the economic screws" on Teheran by starving it of oil revenue and applying further sanctions after Trump's withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement.  He claimed that Iran is using diplomatic compounds in Europe and elsewhere as cover to plot terrorist attacks (like the CIA has done for years all over the world?)!  Iran denies the allegations against its diplomats as an attempt to damage its relations with the European Union.   \\ Midge O'Brien -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss List Sent: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 10:29 am Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Maybe we should concentrate on the people we’re killing - at home and abroad - rather than the politicians you want to get into office. We should rescue the former, not the latter. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: "The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income."  It might do that. It might also cause pigs to fly.  This is like saying that we should ban Salvadorans and Guatemalans from fleeing to the U.S. so they will go back home and foment revolutions that will remove the conditions that are causing them to flee. It's a brutal logic, that if applied is certain to increase brutality in the short run, with a very dim prospect of leading to less brutality in the long run. Much more likely, such logic will merely serve as a fig leaf for increased brutality.  So far, increased restrictions on abortion in Republican states have not led to such things. And that's what we're talking about. Abortion will never be illegal in New York or California. The overturn of Roe v. Wade might well lead to criminalizing abortion in the most reactionary states, the states least likely to enact "universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." But at least we're having an honest conversation now. This is why you want Republican rule. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion. It's your democratic right to want these things. But you should be honest about what your true motivations are, rather than trying to trick people into thinking that your motivation for supporting Republican rule has something to do with peace.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.”  Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption.  Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well.  --CGE From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do.  But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it.  I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]    debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >  "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) >  -------Original Message------- >  From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  To: C G Estabrook >  Cc: Peace-discuss List >  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > >  The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >  States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >  nose. > >  The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that. > >  Robert Naiman >  Policy Director >  Just Foreign Policy >  www.justforeignpolicy.org >  naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >  (202) 448-2898 x1 > >  On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >  > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >  > war-making and -mongering. >  > >  > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >  > peace, but, unfortunately…" >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >  > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >  > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >  > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >  > >  > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >  > forced to allow a vote. >  > >  > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >  > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >  > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >  > with the House Republican leadership. >  > >  > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >  > >  > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >  > >  > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > More >  > >  > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >  > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >  > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >  > >  > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >  > >  > You can encourage support of this effort here: >  > >  > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >  > to Follow Through >  > >  > >  https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >  > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >  > >  > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >  > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >  > >  > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >  > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >  > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >  > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >  > to the extent that you are able. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >  > >  > Sent from my iPhone >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >  > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >  > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >  > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >  > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > There were people in the American government that argued that >  > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >  > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >  > politics. >  > >  > ------------------------- >  > >  > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >  > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >  > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >  > TO: C G Estabrook >  > CC: Peace-discuss List >  > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >  > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  > >  > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >  > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >  > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >  > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >  > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >  > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >  > like other governments. >  > >  > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >  > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >  > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >  > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, >  > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and >  > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral >  > consequences. >  > >  > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are >  > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is >  > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead >  > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the >  > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that >  > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the >  > U.S. empire crash and burn. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean >  > toward the side that serves their interests”? >  > >  > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in >  > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those >  > of the majority, here and abroad. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their >  > interests.” >  > >  > _______________________________________________ >  > 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 > >  _______________________________________________ >  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 _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 13 17:41:54 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:41:54 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <16494af3a8e-c90-3b1e@webjas-vab233.srv.aolmail.net> References: <16494af3a8e-c90-3b1e@webjas-vab233.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: Here's our alert calling on Nancy Pelosi to renounce her ties to Trump's "regime change" policies in Iran - in particular, to renounce her support of the MEK terrorist cult: Nancy Pelosi: Renounce Ties to Trump’s “Regime Change” Policies in Iran https://www.change.org/p/nancypelosi-renounce-your-ties-to-trump-s-regime-change-policies-in-iran Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Mildred O'brien via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > While you guys are settling the dust on domestic politics, Secy. State > Pompous is out defending us from threats of "Iranian terrorist plots," > warning Teheran that its actions have "a real high cost" and urging our > Arab allies (UAE and Saudi Arabia) to "turn the economic screws" on Teheran > by starving it of oil revenue and applying further sanctions after Trump's > withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement. He claimed that Iran is > using diplomatic compounds in Europe and elsewhere as cover to plot > terrorist attacks (like the CIA has done for years all over the world?)! > Iran denies the allegations against its diplomats as an attempt to damage > its relations with the European Union. \\ > > Midge O'Brien > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss net> > To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Sent: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 10:29 am > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran > Trump-Russia deal > > Maybe we should concentrate on the people we’re killing - at home and > abroad - rather than the politicians you want to get into office. We should > rescue the former, not the latter. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:55 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > "The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for > pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, > housing, a universal basic income." > > It might do that. It might also cause pigs to fly. > > This is like saying that we should ban Salvadorans and Guatemalans from > fleeing to the U.S. so they will go back home and foment revolutions that > will remove the conditions that are causing them to flee. It's a brutal > logic, that if applied is certain to increase brutality in the short run, > with a very dim prospect of leading to less brutality in the long run. Much > more likely, such logic will merely serve as a fig leaf for increased > brutality. > > So far, increased restrictions on abortion in Republican states have not > led to such things. And that's what we're talking about. Abortion will > never be illegal in New York or California. The overturn of Roe v. > Wade might well lead to criminalizing abortion in the most reactionary > states, the states least likely to enact "universal health care, child > allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income." > > But at least we're having an honest conversation now. This is why you want > Republican rule. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion. > It's your democratic right to want these things. But you should be honest > about what your true motivations are, rather than trying to trick people > into thinking that your motivation for supporting Republican rule has > something to do with peace. > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for > pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, > housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to > protect human lives rather than end them. > > Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political > views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys > the planet we live on.” > > Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - > did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have > children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. > > Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against > things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society > that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. > > Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided > for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had > thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about > population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want > to have too many of.” > > Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should > work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that > they must do so as well. --CGE > ------------------------------ > *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert > Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] > *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM > *To:* Estabrook, Carl G > *Cc:* ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List > > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I > don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys > apparently do. > > But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better > availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions > per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, > awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are > in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against > something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. > > I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I > favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social > measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against > criminalization. > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Only if he's consistent. > > ________________________________________ > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf > of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM > To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that." > > (Bob waxes pro-life.) > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > To: C G Estabrook > > Cc: Peace-discuss List > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > > nose. > > > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > More > > > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > > to Follow Through > > > > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-st > op-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > > wrote: > > > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > > politics. > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > > TO: C G Estabrook > > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > > like other governments. > > > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > > consequences. > > > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > > interests.” > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 22:56:43 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:56:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal In-Reply-To: <7td3og138s0jlmovsrtmijod.1531499824853@email.lge.com> References: <7td3og138s0jlmovsrtmijod.1531499824853@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <4F21FA5B-162E-4F9C-BE69-6514A1D76DE7@gmail.com> I say that you can’t possibly be opposed to social and political changes that keep people - particularly poor people - from concluding that they have to kill their children. —the old mole (in Marx’ sense) > On Jul 13, 2018, at 11:41 AM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Also, Carl, there is not a chance in #& the reversal of Roe will lead to those people-friendly changes and you know it. I am beginning to firmly believe you are a Devil's Advocate in this group, if not an outright mole to keep it from being effective, in spite of your decades long service on the air. What say you? > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 6:55 AM > To: Robert Naiman; > Cc: Peace-discuss List; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ > > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM > To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. > > Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.” > > Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. > > Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. > > Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” > > Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well. --CGE > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com ] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org ] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: ewj at pigs.ag ; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. > > But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. > > I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >wrote: > Only if he's consistent. > > ________________________________________ > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM > To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that." > > (Bob waxes pro-life.) > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > To: C G Estabrook > > > Cc: Peace-discuss List > > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > > nose. > > > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > More > > > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > > to Follow Through > > > > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > > > wrote: > > > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > > politics. > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on > > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > > TO: C G Estabrook > > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > > like other governments. > > > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > > consequences. > > > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > > interests.” > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 23:01:23 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:01:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The old mole Message-ID: <7472DA01-FA99-4CF3-BA3F-35A97B94712A@gmail.com> https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/l.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 00:31:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:31:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Liberal Democrats Message-ID: John McCarthy shared a post to the group: Illinois Green Party. June 28 at 12:17 PM We seriously need to run someone against this pig Durbin. I will vote for a Republican before I vote for him. WikiLeaks Updates June 28 at 10:52 AM Deport refugee! Revoke asylum! Letter from U.S. Democratic Senators Diane Feinstein, Mark Warner, Bob Menendez, Durbin, Blumenthal, Markey, Bennet, Coons, Manchin & Shaheen demands @VP Mike Pence tell Ecuador to revoke @JulianAssange's asylum. https://www.foreign.senate.gov/…/6-27-18%20RM%20letter%20to… -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sat Jul 14 01:26:20 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:26:20 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> bjornsona's email was scrozzled in the mailserver somehow and would not display but i found this in the raw data.. Carl and ewg at pigs.ag, whoever you are, again enough is enough. At the risk of projecting my own Shadow, I consider it inappropriate, counterproductive and self-indulgent for you to continue dragging abortion into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group. I am sure I speak for others in this group. Carl, I respect your work quite a lot. You have pointed out how identity politics splits the hungry and angry masses into easily controllable groups. The anti- abortion group is only another identity group, controlled by the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, the Christian fundamentalists, the GOP misogynists & the Stepford women. A large identity group, sure, BUT not as large as the rest of the country and the world who disagree & who generally have more science education, actual practical experience of pregnancy & birth, and belong to other spiritual traditions. It amazes me that an intelligent person like yourself would try to pass that "Live Action" article off on us as logically sound and not a collection of overwrought anecdotes. As the GOP, of whom you appear to be so fond, says, let those nurses get other jobs if they don't want to work in the delivery room. Writing your message below with such blanket statements as "pregnant people" & "abortion obviously ends a human lif e," fail the logic test too. Many WOMEN have abortions at early stages when the fetus has not yet reached quickening. I believe that is around 15-20 weeks. For thousands of years, women did not consider the fetus to be an actual baby until quickening, which I believe we now know was when the risk of spontaneous miscarriage was lower. Quickening is also after a woman has spent time eating for two and her body has begun preparing for an actual baby to develop. In other words, it is a triple venture between God, the woman, and the fetus. ( NOT that some parasite has taken over a woman's body and can develop on its own.) Even a critical reading of the Annunciation story in the New Testament allows Mary free will. If she had said No to being the mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up? Of course not! He simply would have found another Mary, or Sarah, to be the Mother of his Son. Evidence for that is clear all over our daily lives. We are given free will choices every day. If we choose not to do somet hing, and God needs it done, it gets done in another way. (I bet you have witnessed that.) Educators & doctors know what happens if a woman does not want, or is not able to care for her own and the fetus' , then later, the baby's body. Society ends up with a stillborn or injured child:- brain damaged by lead, if the woman lives in Flint, for example. Perhaps women actually know something and care about their own bodies and fetuses/babies. What a thought! You have probably read that Russian scientists have measured a small amount of weight that leaves the body when a person dies. They speculate that is the weight of the soul. When does the soul enter the body? Perhaps at quickening, when the fetus has been determined to be able to grow into a healthy baby and not be miscarried. To address some of what you have written: yes, it would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world and the economics are such that every woman/ family could afford every pregnancy that makes it through the zygote/fetus/spontaneous miscarriage/quickening/developing baby/ to healthy birth stage. Unfortunately, we do not have that. It is cruel and ridiculous to make laws that force women & children to bear the brunt of the wars, rape, environmental degradation, floods, refugee crisis, lack of education, housing, food, jobs that we are experiencing. Not to mention climate change. It is very easy for religious ministers to pick on the smallest and weakest in their congregations in their sermons. Sure, tell the women and homosexuals how to run their lives. Their $$ contributions are less. I have read NOTHING in the New Testament in red print, in Jesus' actual words, that says ANYTHING about no abortions or that it is not ok to live life as God made one. I have seen PLENTY about no divorce, sharing with the poor, accepting everyone for who they are, getting the moneylenders out of the temple,etc. As we all must agree, if the Vatican or the Christian fundamentalists preached on that as much as they hate on women and gay people, very little $$$ would flow their way. Just to address the two verses quoted as nauseum. The Jeremiah verse: "I knew you in your mother's womb.." etc. Lovely verse. Said by God in the Old Testament TO JEREMIAH. NOT to every person who wants to adopt it as their personal slogan to march.in front of a clinic and harass people and then disappear for antiwar.marches while taking advantage of the perks of living in Empire. Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old. The same people who cherrypick what they want from the OT try to force poor women in the U.S.what to do. And Paul's advice on not being homosexual. Please. Not Jesus' words. Also a different time and place, with rampant orgies, sexual mores run amuck. And yet Paul did not preach about no sex with children or slaves and neither do most preachers today. And you have been to Rome, I assume? Statues from antiquity of naked men everywhere. Still going on today. Many people think the "thorn in Paul's side" was his own homosexuality. How strange. I lose my respect. The ONLY way these powermongers and warmongers hold on to their divisions is by FEAR. This particular fear is strong: that of going to hell when we die. I submit that the Hell is really here on earth where so many people suffer. And that they know it and use it against us. For evidence: the many books and Ted Talk videos on experiences people have when they die and come back to life. I cannot believe they were all perfect, yet each one has a beautiful experience. Love and heaven are here on earth and after death. We get them by tearing people well and as individuals, not as possessions we can legislate. What is that quote from Rumi about how our children are not ours and they go into a future we cannot know? Unless you have concrete plans on how to convince antiabortion groups to join their admittedly concentrated focus to our anti-war efforts, it would be great if you all would join an anti abortion or pro life list serve if you want to have those conversations. It wastes our time here. We already know our mission. On 2018-07-14 00:36 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.”  Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption.  Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well.  --CGE From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: ewj at pigs.ag; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do.  But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception.  Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it.  I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: Only if he's consistent. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]    debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - >  "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that." (Bob waxes pro-life.) >  -------Original Message------- >  From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  To: C G Estabrook >  Cc: Peace-discuss List >  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > >  The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United >  States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my >  nose. > >  The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people >  are supposed to care about that. > >  Robert Naiman >  Policy Director >  Just Foreign Policy >  www.justforeignpolicy.org >  naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > >  (202) 448-2898 x1 > >  On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  wrote: > >  > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its >  > war-making and -mongering. >  > >  > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks >  > peace, but, unfortunately…" >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive >  > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers >  > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the >  > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. >  > >  > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be >  > forced to allow a vote. >  > >  > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against >  > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against >  > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate >  > with the House Republican leadership. >  > >  > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: >  > >  > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 >  > >  > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats >  > >  > More >  > >  > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I >  > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly >  > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. >  > >  > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 >  > >  > You can encourage support of this effort here: >  > >  > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them >  > to Follow Through >  > >  > >  https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not >  > wanted to commit a horrible crime? >  > >  > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those >  > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? >  > >  > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one >  > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, >  > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible >  > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, >  > to the extent that you are able. >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? >  > >  > Sent from my iPhone >  > >  > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman >  > wrote: >  > >  > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew >  > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so >  > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were >  > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The >  > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." >  > >  > Robert Naiman >  > Policy Director >  > Just Foreign Policy >  > www.justforeignpolicy.org >  > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >  > >  > (202) 448-2898 x1 >  > >  > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >  > wrote: >  > >  > There were people in the American government that argued that >  > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. >  > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious >  > politics. >  > >  > ------------------------- >  > >  > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >  > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss >  > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] >  > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM >  > TO: C G Estabrook >  > CC: Peace-discuss List >  > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of >  > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal >  > >  > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. >  > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they >  > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to >  > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being >  > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian >  > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is >  > like other governments. >  > >  > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view >  > that what governments will do is always reducible to or >  > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing >  > factions -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sat Jul 14 03:27:31 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 03:27:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Trump_versus_NATO_is_a_false_narrative?= =?utf-8?b?4oCm?= Message-ID: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite: No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands. —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Jul 14 03:40:01 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 03:40:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Trump_versus_NATO_is_a_false_nar?= =?windows-1252?q?rative=85?= In-Reply-To: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire... ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite: No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands. —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Jul 14 12:26:05 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:26:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ? David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire... _____ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite: No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands. -mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sat Jul 14 12:41:30 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:41:30 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu><000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1531572089555.3vkvzs4dmg5vqs1fqjik5vu1@android.mail.163.com> not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote: German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ? David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire...  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite:  No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands.  —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sat Jul 14 12:41:30 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:41:30 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu><000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1531572089555.3vkvzs4dmg5vqs1fqjik5vu1@android.mail.163.com> not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote: German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ? David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire...  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite:  No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands.  —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Jul 14 12:46:43 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:46:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu><000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> <1531572089555.3vkvzs4dmg5vqs1fqjik5vu1@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <004301d41b70$b81de100$2859a300$@comcast.net> Excuse me ? What is that supposed to mean Wayne ? I am talking about the realities of 2018, NOT the history of the 1930’s / 1940’s. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of ewj via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:42 AM To: David Johnson via Peace-discuss Cc: 'Brussel, Morton K'; 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote: German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ? David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire... _____ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite: No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands. —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 12:49:13 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:49:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <004301d41b70$b81de100$2859a300$@comcast.net> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> <1531572089555.3vkvzs4dmg5vqs1fqjik5vu1@android.mail.163.com> <004301d41b70$b81de100$2859a300$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4D8F46B0-8AC5-4DB6-B04C-F4B123AE0F61@gmail.com> I think it’s a wry joke on ‘Lebensraum.’ > On Jul 14, 2018, at 7:46 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > > Excuse me ? > > What is that supposed to mean Wayne ? > I am talking about the realities of 2018, NOT the history of the 1930’s / 1940’s. > > David J. > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of ewj via Peace-discuss > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:42 AM > To: David Johnson via Peace-discuss > Cc: 'Brussel, Morton K'; 'Peace Discuss' > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. > > not to worry. > germans just need room to live. > > > > > > On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > > German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. > The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. > Sound familiar ? > > David J. > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM > To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… > > But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire... > > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM > To: Peace Discuss > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… > > Insightful article about Trump and NATO: > > https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ > > A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite: No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands. > > —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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 12:53:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:53:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <067B8D4C-279C-424B-A4B4-C511B1F54496@gmail.com> Wayne - Thank you for ‘unscrozzling’ bjornsona’s email. It deserves a detailed response. I’ll try to get to that today. —CGE > On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:26 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > bjornsona's email was scrozzled in the mailserver somehow and would not display but i found this in the raw data.. > > Carl and ewg at pigs.ag , whoever you are, again enough is enough. At the risk of projecting my own Shadow, I consider it inappropriate, counterproductive and self-indulgent for you to continue dragging abortion into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group. I am sure I speak for others in this group. Carl, I respect your work quite a lot. You have pointed out how identity politics splits the hungry and angry masses into easily controllable groups. The anti- abortion group is only another identity group, controlled by the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, the Christian fundamentalists, the GOP misogynists & the Stepford women. A large identity group, sure, BUT not as large as the rest of the country and the world who disagree & who generally have more science education, actual practical experience of pregnancy & birth, and belong to other spiritual traditions. It amazes me that an intelligent person like yourself would try to pass that "Live Action" article off on us as logically sound and not a collection of overwrought anecdotes. As the GOP, of whom you appear to be so fond, says, let those nurses get other jobs if they don't want to work in the delivery room. Writing your message below with such blanket statements as "pregnant people" & "abortion obviously ends a human lif e," fail the logic test too. Many WOMEN have abortions at early stages when the fetus has not yet reached quickening. I believe that is around 15-20 weeks. For thousands of years, women did not consider the fetus to be an actual baby until quickening, which I believe we now know was when the risk of spontaneous miscarriage was lower. Quickening is also after a woman has spent time eating for two and her body has begun preparing for an actual baby to develop. In other words, it is a triple venture between God, the woman, and the fetus. ( NOT that some parasite has taken over a woman's body and can develop on its own.) Even a critical reading of the Annunciation story in the New Testament allows Mary free will. If she had said No to being the mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up? Of course not! He simply would have found another Mary, or Sarah, to be the Mother of his Son. Evidence for that is clear all over our daily lives. We are given free will choices every day. If we choose not to do somet hing, and God needs it done, it gets done in another way. (I bet you have witnessed that.) Educators & doctors know what happens if a woman does not want, or is not able to care for her own and the fetus' , then later, the baby's body. Society ends up with a stillborn or injured child:- brain damaged by lead, if the woman lives in Flint, for example. Perhaps women actually know something and care about their own bodies and fetuses/babies. What a thought! You have probably read that Russian scientists have measured a small amount of weight that leaves the body when a person dies. They speculate that is the weight of the soul. When does the soul enter the body? Perhaps at quickening, when the fetus has been determined to be able to grow into a healthy baby and not be miscarried. To address some of what you have written: yes, it would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world and the economics are such that every woman/ family could afford every pregnancy that makes it through the zygote/fetus/spontaneous miscarriage/quickening/developing baby/ to healthy birth stage. Unfortunately, we do not have that. It is cruel and ridiculous to make laws that force women & children to bear the brunt of the wars, rape, environmental degradation, floods, refugee crisis, lack of education, housing, food, jobs that we are experiencing. Not to mention climate change. It is very easy for religious ministers to pick on the smallest and weakest in their congregations in their sermons. Sure, tell the women and homosexuals how to run their lives. Their $$ contributions are less. I have read NOTHING in the New Testament in red print, in Jesus' actual words, that says ANYTHING about no abortions or that it is not ok to live life as God made one. I have seen PLENTY about no divorce, sharing with the poor, accepting everyone for who they are, getting the moneylenders out of the temple,etc. As we all must agree, if the Vatican or the Christian fundamentalists preached on that as much as they hate on women and gay people, very little $$$ would flow their way. Just to address the two verses quoted as nauseum. The Jeremiah verse: "I knew you in your mother's womb.." etc. Lovely verse. Said by God in the Old Testament TO JEREMIAH. NOT to every person who wants to adopt it as their personal slogan to march.in front of a clinic and harass people and then disappear for antiwar.marches while taking advantage of the perks of living in Empire. Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old. The same people who cherrypick what they want from the OT try to force poor women in the U.S.what to do. And Paul's advice on not being homosexual. Please. Not Jesus' words. Also a different time and place, with rampant orgies, sexual mores run amuck. And yet Paul did not preach about no sex with children or slaves and neither do most preachers today. And you have been to Rome, I assume? Statues from antiquity of naked men everywhere. Still going on today. Many people think the "thorn in Paul's side" was his own homosexuality. How strange. I lose my respect. The ONLY way these powermongers and warmongers hold on to their divisions is by FEAR. This particular fear is strong: that of going to hell when we die. I submit that the Hell is really here on earth where so many people suffer. And that they know it and use it against us. For evidence: the many books and Ted Talk videos on experiences people have when they die and come back to life. I cannot believe they were all perfect, yet each one has a beautiful experience. Love and heaven are here on earth and after death. We get them by tearing people well and as individuals, not as possessions we can legislate. What is that quote from Rumi about how our children are not ours and they go into a future we cannot know? Unless you have concrete plans on how to convince antiabortion groups to join their admittedly concentrated focus to our anti-war efforts, it would be great if you all would join an anti abortion or pro life list serve if you want to have those conversations. It wastes our time here. We already know our mission. > > > > > > On 2018-07-14 00:36 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ > > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM > To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. > > Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.” > > Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. > > Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. > > Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” > > Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well. --CGE > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com ] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org ] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: ewj at pigs.ag ; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. > > But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. > > I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >wrote: > Only if he's consistent. > > ________________________________________ > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM > To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that." > > (Bob waxes pro-life.) > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > To: C G Estabrook > > > Cc: Peace-discuss List > > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > > nose. > > > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > More > > > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > > to Follow Through > > > > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > > > wrote: > > > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > > politics. > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on > > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > > TO: C G Estabrook > > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > > like other governments. > > > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > > consequences. > > > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > > interests.” > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Jul 14 13:50:43 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 08:50:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <4D8F46B0-8AC5-4DB6-B04C-F4B123AE0F61@gmail.com> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> <1531572089555.3vkvzs4dmg5vqs1fqjik5vu1@android.mail.163.com> <004301d41b70$b81de100$2859a300$@comcast.net> <4D8F46B0-8AC5-4DB6-B04C-F4B123AE0F61@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008001d41b79$a8e35310$faa9f930$@comcast.net> Yes Carl, I realize that. After I wrote my reply, I thought maybe Wayne misunderstood what I meant in regards to “ the sound familiar “ statement I made. I meant in regards to other governments like the UK , France and the U.S. who have done actions opposed by a large percentage of their citizens, like the German government did in recent years. David J. From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:49 AM To: David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. I think it’s a wry joke on ‘Lebensraum.’ On Jul 14, 2018, at 7:46 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: Excuse me ? What is that supposed to mean Wayne ? I am talking about the realities of 2018, NOT the history of the 1930’s / 1940’s. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of ewj via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:42 AM To: David Johnson via Peace-discuss Cc: 'Brussel, Morton K'; 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote: German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ? David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire... _____ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite: No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands. —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 galliher at illinois.edu Sat Jul 14 14:43:01 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 14:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <008001d41b79$a8e35310$faa9f930$@comcast.net> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> <1531572089555.3vkvzs4dmg5vqs1fqjik5vu1@android.mail.163.com> <004301d41b70$b81de100$2859a300$@comcast.net> <4D8F46B0-8AC5-4DB6-B04C-F4B123AE0F61@gmail.com>, <008001d41b79$a8e35310$faa9f930$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F36EA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Throughout the capitalist world, it's no longer a matter of Left versus Right, but of popular opposition to corporate globalism - neoliberalism and neoconservatism. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of David Johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 8:50 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Yes Carl, I realize that. After I wrote my reply, I thought maybe Wayne misunderstood what I meant in regards to “ the sound familiar “ statement I made. I meant in regards to other governments like the UK , France and the U.S. who have done actions opposed by a large percentage of their citizens, like the German government did in recent years. David J. From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:49 AM To: David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. I think it’s a wry joke on ‘Lebensraum.’ On Jul 14, 2018, at 7:46 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: Excuse me ? What is that supposed to mean Wayne ? I am talking about the realities of 2018, NOT the history of the 1930’s / 1940’s. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of ewj via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:42 AM To: David Johnson via Peace-discuss Cc: 'Brussel, Morton K'; 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote: German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ? David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire... ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite: No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands. —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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 14 16:03:09 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 16:03:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Open Letter from Yale Law Students, Alumni, and Educators Regarding Brett Kavanaugh Message-ID: From Prof. Francis Boyle, the many Yale Law Students, Alumni, and Educators signatures, have been deleted. Open Letter from Yale Law Students, Alumni, and Educators Regarding Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 To Dean Gerken and the Yale Law School leadership, We write today as Yale Law students, alumni, and educators ashamed of our alma mater. Within an hour of Donald Trump’s announcement that he would nominate Brett Kavanaugh, YLS ‘90, to the Supreme Court, the law school published a press release boasting of its alumnus’s accomplishment. The school’s post included quotes from Yale Law School professors about Judge Kavanaugh’s intellect, influence and mentorship of their students. Yet the press release's focus on the nominee's professionalism, pedigree, and service to Yale Law School obscures the true stakes of his nomination and raises a disturbing question: Is there nothing more important to Yale Law School than its proximity to power and prestige? Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination presents an emergency — for democratic life, for our safety and freedom, for the future of our country. His nomination is not an interesting intellectual exercise to be debated amongst classmates and scholars in seminar. Support for Judge Kavanaugh is not apolitical. It is a political choice about the meaning of the constitution and our vision of democracy, a choice with real consequences for real people. Without a doubt, Judge Kavanaugh is a threat to the most vulnerable. He is a threat to many of us, despite the privilege bestowed by our education, simply because of who we are. Since his campaign launched, Trump has repeatedly promised to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Overturning that decision would endanger the lives of countless people who need or may need abortions — including many who sign this letter. Trump’s nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is a reliable way to fulfill his oath. Just a few months ago, Judge Kavanaugh ruled to deny a detained immigrant minor her constitutional right to abortion. Decades-old Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the government may not place an undue burden on a pregnant person’s access to abortion. But Judge Kavanaugh clearly did not feel constrained by precedent: what could be a greater obstacle than a cage? The minor had never wavered in her decision to seek an abortion and had received a judicial bypass from a state judge who found that she was competent to make the decision. Yet Kavanaugh condescendingly and disingenuously held that she must wait weeks until she was in a “better place” to make a choice about her own bodily autonomy — at which point she might not be able to have a legal abortion. Further, Kavanaugh argued that to require immigration authorities to stop blocking her from accessing this right would force the government into complicity. The judge employed similar spurious reasoning in a 2015 dissent arguing that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate violated the rights of religious organizations, even though those organizations were granted an accommodation that allowed them to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage. Kavanaugh’s opinions give us grave concern that he will consistently prioritize the beliefs of third-parties over the rights of the oppressed — not only when it comes to abortion and contraception, but also regarding other forms of medical care (including care for transgender patients), family privacy, and sexual liberty. Litigants harness this same logic when arguing that institutions have a religious right to discriminate against LGBT people — an issue the Court is certain to take up in the years to come. Judge Kavanaugh would also act as a rubber stamp for President Trump’s fraud and abuse. Despite working with independent counsel Ken Starr to prosecute Bill Clinton, Judge Kavanaugh has since called upon Congress to exempt sitting presidents from civil suits, criminal investigations, and criminal prosecutions. He has also noted that “a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a president can be criminally indicted and tried while in office.” This reversal does not reflect high-minded consideration but rather naked partisanship. At a time when the President and his associates are under investigation for various serious crimes, including colluding with the Russian government and obstructing justice, Judge Kavanaugh’s extreme deference to the Executive poses a direct threat to our democracy. As part of his assault on the administrative state — based not in law, as he claims, but on policy preference — Judge Kavanaugh has undermined attempts to protect the environment and regulate predatory lenders and for-profit colleges. He has called now-defunct Net Neutrality regulations violations of the First Amendment. If elevated, the judge would pose an existential threat to the government’s ability to regulate for the common good and further twist the First Amendment beyond recognition, using it as a sword to advance his personal political preferences. His appointment would usher in a new era of Lochner, with “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices.” Judge Kavanaugh has consistently protected the interests of powerful institutions and disregarded the rights of vulnerable individuals. On the D.C. Circuit he denied a student with disabilities access to the remedial education he was promised after he emerged from juvenile detention. In a 2008 dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued undocumented workers are not protected by labor laws. In 2016, Judge Kavanaugh ruled that employers can require employees to waive their right to picket. In a concurrence, he argued that the National Security Agency’s sweeping call surveillance program was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. As an attorney, he advocated for prayer at open public school events in brazen contravention of our country’s separation of church and state. The list goes on. We see in these rulings an intellectually and morally bankrupt ideologue intent on rolling back our rights and the rights of our clients. Judge Kavanaugh’s resume is certainly marked by prestige, groomed for exactly this nomination. But degrees and clerkships should not be the only, or even the primary, credential for a Supreme Court appointment. A commitment to law and justice is. Now is the time for moral courage — which for Yale Law School comes at so little cost. Perhaps you, as an institution and as individuals, will benefit less from Judge Kavanaugh’s ascendent power if you withhold your support. Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh will be less likely to hire your favorite students. But people will die if he is confirmed. We hope you agree your sacrifice would be worth it. Please use your authority and platform to expose the stakes of this moment and the threat that Judge Kavanaugh poses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Sat Jul 14 20:32:48 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:32:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Message-ID: <3rsadjj3osp8vmmib0juaqdp.1531600062184@email.lge.com> It would be so great to see every pundit attempt to write a column without using any of the usual "ism" words or Left, Right, neo-, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Green, or identity politics descriptions. What a challenge for them- bereft of their  easy verbal holes to hide in, they might need to think on the ground of plain truth.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Sat, Jul 14, 2018 9:43 AMTo: David Johnson;'C G Estabrook';Cc: 'Peace Discuss';Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Throughout the capitalist world, it's no longer a matter of Left versus Right, but of popular opposition to corporate globalism - neoliberalism and neoconservatism.   From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of David Johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 8:50 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Yes Carl, I realize that.   After I wrote my reply, I thought maybe Wayne misunderstood what I meant in regards to “ the sound familiar “ statement I made. I meant in regards to other governments like the UK , France and the U.S. who have done actions opposed by a large percentage of their citizens, like the German government did in recent years.   David J.   From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:49 AM To: David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative.   I think it’s a wry joke on ‘Lebensraum.’ On Jul 14, 2018, at 7:46 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote:         Excuse me ?   What is that supposed to mean Wayne ? I am talking about the realities of 2018, NOT the history of the 1930’s / 1940’s.   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of ewj via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:42 AM To: David Johnson via Peace-discuss Cc: 'Brussel, Morton K'; 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative.   not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote:  German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ?   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative…   But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire...  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO:   https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/   A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite:  No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands.    —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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sat Jul 14 20:32:48 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 15:32:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Message-ID: <3rsadjj3osp8vmmib0juaqdp.1531600062184@email.lge.com> It would be so great to see every pundit attempt to write a column without using any of the usual "ism" words or Left, Right, neo-, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Green, or identity politics descriptions. What a challenge for them- bereft of their  easy verbal holes to hide in, they might need to think on the ground of plain truth.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Sat, Jul 14, 2018 9:43 AMTo: David Johnson;'C G Estabrook';Cc: 'Peace Discuss';Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Throughout the capitalist world, it's no longer a matter of Left versus Right, but of popular opposition to corporate globalism - neoliberalism and neoconservatism.   From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of David Johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 8:50 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. Yes Carl, I realize that.   After I wrote my reply, I thought maybe Wayne misunderstood what I meant in regards to “ the sound familiar “ statement I made. I meant in regards to other governments like the UK , France and the U.S. who have done actions opposed by a large percentage of their citizens, like the German government did in recent years.   David J.   From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:49 AM To: David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative.   I think it’s a wry joke on ‘Lebensraum.’ On Jul 14, 2018, at 7:46 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote:         Excuse me ?   What is that supposed to mean Wayne ? I am talking about the realities of 2018, NOT the history of the 1930’s / 1940’s.   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of ewj via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:42 AM To: David Johnson via Peace-discuss Cc: 'Brussel, Morton K'; 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative.   not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote:  German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ?   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative…   But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire...  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO:   https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/   A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite:  No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands.    —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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jul 15 01:35:06 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 01:35:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Paychecks Lag as Profits Soar, and Prices Erode Wage Gains Message-ID: >From The New York Times: Paychecks Lag as Profits Soar, and Prices Erode Wage Gains Fears of an overheated economy could prompt the Federal Reserve to cut short a recovery in which incomes have already struggled to gain traction. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/business/economy/wages-workers-profits.html From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 15 13:00:52 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:00:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Can Trump, Israel, and Gulf Allies Get Putin to Turn On Iran? Message-ID: A very informative interview by Aaron Mate with Prof. Rami Khouri in relation to Russia, Iran, Israel and the US. Aaron as usual digs to the heart of the matter. 1) It supports my opinion that Russia will not betray Iran. 2) It supports the opinion that Obama’s nuclear deal though managed with diplomacy vs bullying, as we see today, and certainly more effective, nonetheless, motivations are always to be questioned. Trita Parsi is quoted on this issue. 3) I do disagree with Prof. Rami, when he claims the US war and interventions have never achieved their goals, dating back to the Vietnam war. They only kill, destroy, and create terrible agonies, not his exact words. However, one needs to question US goals, I believe they have attained exactly that which they sought to gain, death, destruction and chaos, all which lead to “profits and control” by the ruling elites. 4) An important point is made: that one should never take anything the American press has to say seriously. And, sadly the world doesn’t care about the mass murders of millions, though Prof. Rami does not really give a reason, that most of us know well. It’s due to mainstream media control and propagandizing. https://therealnews.com/stories/can-trump-israel-and-gulf-allies-get-putin-to-turn-on-iran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 15 16:39:00 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 16:39:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Thomas Frank "Rendezvous With Oblivion" Message-ID: https://youtu.be/3VzVSq95Zes From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 15 16:41:15 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 16:41:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN of recent Message-ID: https://youtu.be/UB4VJ7T3NBY From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 18:49:09 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <0D500DBA-45AA-4945-A01F-860585BF9CE6@gmail.com> Anne— I probably won’t be able to get to the AWARE meeting today but I will send you a response to your comment. —CGE > On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:26 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > bjornsona's email was scrozzled in the mailserver somehow and would not display but i found this in the raw data.. > > Carl and ewg at pigs.ag , whoever you are, again enough is enough. At the risk of projecting my own Shadow, I consider it inappropriate, counterproductive and self-indulgent for you to continue dragging abortion into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group. I am sure I speak for others in this group. Carl, I respect your work quite a lot. You have pointed out how identity politics splits the hungry and angry masses into easily controllable groups. The anti- abortion group is only another identity group, controlled by the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, the Christian fundamentalists, the GOP misogynists & the Stepford women. A large identity group, sure, BUT not as large as the rest of the country and the world who disagree & who generally have more science education, actual practical experience of pregnancy & birth, and belong to other spiritual traditions. It amazes me that an intelligent person like yourself would try to pass that "Live Action" article off on us as logically sound and not a collection of overwrought anecdotes. As the GOP, of whom you appear to be so fond, says, let those nurses get other jobs if they don't want to work in the delivery room. Writing your message below with such blanket statements as "pregnant people" & "abortion obviously ends a human lif e," fail the logic test too. Many WOMEN have abortions at early stages when the fetus has not yet reached quickening. I believe that is around 15-20 weeks. For thousands of years, women did not consider the fetus to be an actual baby until quickening, which I believe we now know was when the risk of spontaneous miscarriage was lower. Quickening is also after a woman has spent time eating for two and her body has begun preparing for an actual baby to develop. In other words, it is a triple venture between God, the woman, and the fetus. ( NOT that some parasite has taken over a woman's body and can develop on its own.) Even a critical reading of the Annunciation story in the New Testament allows Mary free will. If she had said No to being the mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up? Of course not! He simply would have found another Mary, or Sarah, to be the Mother of his Son. Evidence for that is clear all over our daily lives. We are given free will choices every day. If we choose not to do somet hing, and God needs it done, it gets done in another way. (I bet you have witnessed that.) Educators & doctors know what happens if a woman does not want, or is not able to care for her own and the fetus' , then later, the baby's body. Society ends up with a stillborn or injured child:- brain damaged by lead, if the woman lives in Flint, for example. Perhaps women actually know something and care about their own bodies and fetuses/babies. What a thought! You have probably read that Russian scientists have measured a small amount of weight that leaves the body when a person dies. They speculate that is the weight of the soul. When does the soul enter the body? Perhaps at quickening, when the fetus has been determined to be able to grow into a healthy baby and not be miscarried. To address some of what you have written: yes, it would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world and the economics are such that every woman/ family could afford every pregnancy that makes it through the zygote/fetus/spontaneous miscarriage/quickening/developing baby/ to healthy birth stage. Unfortunately, we do not have that. It is cruel and ridiculous to make laws that force women & children to bear the brunt of the wars, rape, environmental degradation, floods, refugee crisis, lack of education, housing, food, jobs that we are experiencing. Not to mention climate change. It is very easy for religious ministers to pick on the smallest and weakest in their congregations in their sermons. Sure, tell the women and homosexuals how to run their lives. Their $$ contributions are less. I have read NOTHING in the New Testament in red print, in Jesus' actual words, that says ANYTHING about no abortions or that it is not ok to live life as God made one. I have seen PLENTY about no divorce, sharing with the poor, accepting everyone for who they are, getting the moneylenders out of the temple,etc. As we all must agree, if the Vatican or the Christian fundamentalists preached on that as much as they hate on women and gay people, very little $$$ would flow their way. Just to address the two verses quoted as nauseum. The Jeremiah verse: "I knew you in your mother's womb.." etc. Lovely verse. Said by God in the Old Testament TO JEREMIAH. NOT to every person who wants to adopt it as their personal slogan to march.in front of a clinic and harass people and then disappear for antiwar.marches while taking advantage of the perks of living in Empire. Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old. The same people who cherrypick what they want from the OT try to force poor women in the U.S.what to do. And Paul's advice on not being homosexual. Please. Not Jesus' words. Also a different time and place, with rampant orgies, sexual mores run amuck. And yet Paul did not preach about no sex with children or slaves and neither do most preachers today. And you have been to Rome, I assume? Statues from antiquity of naked men everywhere. Still going on today. Many people think the "thorn in Paul's side" was his own homosexuality. How strange. I lose my respect. The ONLY way these powermongers and warmongers hold on to their divisions is by FEAR. This particular fear is strong: that of going to hell when we die. I submit that the Hell is really here on earth where so many people suffer. And that they know it and use it against us. For evidence: the many books and Ted Talk videos on experiences people have when they die and come back to life. I cannot believe they were all perfect, yet each one has a beautiful experience. Love and heaven are here on earth and after death. We get them by tearing people well and as individuals, not as possessions we can legislate. What is that quote from Rumi about how our children are not ours and they go into a future we cannot know? Unless you have concrete plans on how to convince antiabortion groups to join their admittedly concentrated focus to our anti-war efforts, it would be great if you all would join an anti abortion or pro life list serve if you want to have those conversations. It wastes our time here. We already know our mission. > > > > > > On 2018-07-14 00:36 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ > > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 5:48 AM > To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > The reversal of Roe v. Wade might lead us to do what we should for pregnant people - universal health care, child allowances, free education, housing, a universal basic income. It would cost less than the military to protect human lives rather than end them. > > Abortion obviously ends a human life. Many of us summarize our political views as, “I'm basically against anything that ends human lives or destroys the planet we live on.” > > Most of my friends who have had abortions - or seriously considered it - did so for economic reasons - even privileged people. Those of us who have children know that it is of course a disruption - even adoption. > > Social and economic disruptions should be overcome, if we’re against things that end human lives, but we’re in the grip of a capitalist society that exploits human lives for the profit of the few. > > Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” > > Those of us who oppose war and exploitation that end human lives should work against economic and social circumstances that convince people that they must do so as well. --CGE > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [naiman.uiuc at gmail.com ] on behalf of Robert Naiman [naiman at justforeignpolicy.org ] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:10 AM > To: Estabrook, Carl G > Cc: ewj at pigs.ag ; C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > I don't believe that "abortion is murder," the way you guys do. And I don't think that abortion should be criminalized, the way that you guys apparently do. > > But I'm not in favor of there being more abortions. I'd rather see better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Sweden has more liberal abortion laws than the U.S. and fewer abortions per capita. They also have better sex education, better availability of, awareness of, and use of contraception. > > Just because you are against criminalizing something, doesn't mean you are in favor of there being more of the thing. Just because you are against something, doesn't mean you have to support laws to criminalize it. > > I support decriminalizing the use of marijuana. That doesn't mean that I favor greater use of marijuana. I don't. I have no problem with social measures to discourage the use of marijuana per se. I am against criminalization. > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss >wrote: > Only if he's consistent. > > ________________________________________ > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of e. wayne johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 8:17 PM > To: Robert Naiman; C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Bob, you are awash with quotables these days - > > "The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that." > > (Bob waxes pro-life.) > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > To: C G Estabrook > > > Cc: Peace-discuss List > > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > Sent: Jul 13 '18 07:31 > > > > The point of the enterprise isn't to make anyone like the United > > States. More people can hate the United States, it's no skin off my > > nose. > > > > The point is to save the lives of innocent human beings. Peace people > > are supposed to care about that. > > > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > wrote: > > > > > I’lll believe it when I see it - or when the USG reverses its > > > war-making and -mongering. > > > > > > Anything up to that is posturing and propaganda. “The US seeks > > > peace, but, unfortunately…" > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Robert Naiman > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Soon I expect an initiative from the Congressional Progressive > > > Caucus to try to end the Saudi war in Yemen, invoking the War Powers > > > Resolution to try to force a House floor vote on the > > > unconstitutional and unauthorized war. > > > > > > Then the key question will be: whether the House leadership can be > > > forced to allow a vote. > > > > > > The battle will be Democrat against Democrat, and Republican against > > > Republican. It will be Progressive Caucus and Liberty Caucus against > > > the House Republican leadership and whichever Democrats collaborate > > > with the House Republican leadership. > > > > > > Here's a foreshadow from Adam Smith: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/HASCDemocrats/status/1017477541031014401 > > > > > > HOUSE ARMED SERVICES‏Verified account @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > FollowFollow @HASCDemocrats > > > > > > More > > > > > > . at RepAdamSmith: There is a terrible humanitarian crisis occurring. I > > > am working with @RepRoKhanna on a bill to stop us from blindly > > > supporting Saudi Arabia’s actions in #Yemen. > > > > > > 1:35 PM - 12 Jul 2018 > > > > > > You can encourage support of this effort here: > > > > > > 34 Reps. Threatened War Powers to Stop Hodeida Assault. Press Them > > > to Follow Through > > > > > > > > https://www.change.org/p/34-reps-threatened-war-powers-to-stop-hodeida-assault-press-them-to-follow-through > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:24 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > When, in our lifetimes, have the USG - and the Democrat party - not > > > wanted to commit a horrible crime? > > > > > > Identifying nice Democrats has not been a way to meliorate those > > > crimes. It’s rather a mode of collaboration. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Are you kidding me? Of course not. Who claimed that it was? > > > > > > It's argument that if two groups of people are fighting, and one > > > side wants to commit a horrible crime, and the other side doesn't, > > > you should support the side that doesn't want to commit the horrible > > > crime. You don't have to marry them. You just have to help them win, > > > to the extent that you are able. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Is that a reason to support Israel’s killing now? > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Robert Naiman > > > > wrote: > > > > > > When I was in high school, I read an interview with a Russian Jew > > > who had lived through the Russian Civil War. He was asked why so > > > many Russian Jews had supported the Communists. He said: "There were > > > two groups of people with guns. One group wanted to kill Jews. The > > > other didn't. It wasn't hard to choose sides." > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > There were people in the American government that argued that > > > attacking Iraq in 2003 was not the best way to control the Mideast. > > > We could oppose the attack without supporting them or their vicious > > > politics. > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on > > > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > > > SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:32 PM > > > TO: C G Estabrook > > > CC: Peace-discuss List > > > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] debate in Iran about prospects of > > > anti-Iran Trump-Russia deal > > > > > > You're now making the point that I was making from the beginning. > > > Anybody who expects that Russia will take its interests as they > > > perceive them into account less than other countries do is likely to > > > be disappointed. Accepting this reality doesn't require being > > > particularly cynical about the motivations of the Russian > > > government. It just means accepting that the Russian government is > > > like other governments. > > > > > > This doesn't mean that one has to accept a "vulgar Marxist" view > > > that what governments will do is always reducible to or > > > understandable by reference to crude self-interest. Competing > > > factions articulate different arguments for national self-interest, > > > and these arguments can have very different moral consequences, and > > > some of the people supporting the arguments care about the moral > > > consequences. > > > > > > So, for example, right now there are people in Washington who are > > > arguing that continuing to support the Saudi-UAE assault on Yemen is > > > not in the interest of the U.S., and the U.S. should instead > > > pressure Saudi-UAE to stop the assault on Hodeida and agree to the > > > UN peace deal. People who care about moral consequences want that > > > argument to win, even if they themselves would be happy to see the > > > U.S. empire crash and burn. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > > > Policy Director > > > Just Foreign Policy > > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > > > > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:12 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Wouldn’t we be shocked if someone said, “Americans always lean > > > toward the side that serves their interests”? > > > > > > In our case the interests are those of dominant social groups in > > > this country - and in an age of neoliberalism, run counter to those > > > of the majority, here and abroad. > > > > > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > "Russians always lean toward the side that serves their > > > interests.” > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 21:38:19 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 16:38:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cultural and Ideological Struggle in the US: a Final Comment on Ocasio-Cortez (Ajamu Baraka) Message-ID: * - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - * Cultural and Ideological Struggle in the US: a Final Comment on Ocasio-Cortez Posted By Ajamu Baraka On July 13, 2018 @ 1:57 am In articles 2015 | Comments Disabled There is no question that there is an acute, ongoing social, political, and economic crisis in the United States and the colonial/capitalist world. Liberal democracy along with the institutions and ideological justifications for the neoliberal order are under tremendous strain in the U.S. In the cultural and ideological sphere commonsense assumptions that provided meaning and societal unity are now contested. Politically, intra-ruling class contradictions sharpened with the election of Donald Trump and the social and class forces he represents. Those intensifying contradictions are being played out within the terrain of the duopoly with both parties and most governmental institutions suffering a precipitous loss of legitimacy. This is the specific context that must inform how we apprehend political developments and the war of ideas unfolding in the U.S. and throughout the capitalist world. It is the context that must inform how we come to understand the meaning of the Ocasio-Cortez win in New York and similar developments in the two parties, but especially what is being called an insurgency within the democrat party. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seemingly came out of nowhere to knock off an entrenched member of the democrat party establishment in what had been considered an uncontested and thus safe seat for twenty years. I don’t need to go into the details of the story because most of the obvious details are now known. However, what was not known in the first few hours after her victory was the specifics of how a candidate running as a socialist who had criticized Israel , had what appeared to be a grassroots operation with a platform calling for a Federal jobs guarantee, Medicare for all as a human right, abolishing ICE, and support for a “peace economy,” came to defeat a ten-time incumbent who outspent her campaign 10 to 1. With her victory, one would have thought that for radical forces, especially those forces that made the strategic decision to participate in the electoral arena, an interest in a deep analysis of the campaign and what it might mean for electoral and radical politics beyond NYC would be in order. But even more importantly, one would have thought that left forces would have attempted to advance its own narrative on the meaning of the campaign. Unfortunately, what we got instead in some quarters was a pre-mature and bizarre campaign of invectives directed at the campaign and Ocasio-Cortez personally, not from the right but from the left! For some who claim to be committed to building independent left power, the fact that she ran as a democrat cancelled out any interest in analyzing the experience. And any push-back on that position suggesting instead that a win like that required a serious analysis, was strangely interpreted as a position in support of the democrat party, as though thinking had now been colonized by the democrats! Therefore, instead of looking at serious questions that the campaign should have raised like the strategy employed, whether or not it include a long-term voter registration process, what forces did the campaign pull together in the district, how did the campaign overcome the spending disadvantage, what parts of the campaign platform tended to resonate the most in her district, what could we learn from how folks responded to the political message, what might be applicable for other insurgent campaigns even beyond the democrat party – the thrust of many people’s energy was on proving that she was a fraud, her win a fluke or incredibly “no big deal.” Her platform, the working-class folks from her district that supported her, her gender and nationality as a member of an oppressed and colonized people were all negated, erased, marginalized as meaningless, because as someone who should have known better put it – we have elected progressives before and it didn’t mean anything. The meaning and consequence of any action is determined by the specific conditions and circumstances of the present moment. It is both elitist and subjectivist nonsense to suggest that the conditions and politics of 1988 are the same as the existential crisis facing the colonial/capitalist order in 2018. Yet, it is precisely this kind of anti-dialectical and idealistic framework that characterizes so much of left “analysis” and consequently continues to bedevil creative left opposition in the U.S. The capitalist elite understand that they are facing new and dangerous conditions. That is why despite the intense struggle that is going on within their ranks, they will close ranks using Russia-gate to limit the range of information and analysis available to the public. It is why they will also close ranks on the left tendency in the democrat party and by extension against left electoral expressions and formations in general. The democrat party bosses already demonstrated that they would rather lose than concede any institutional power to their left pole. The Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders’s tendency in the democrat party potentially represents a legitimate insurgency. Therefore, I have always been curious about why those who believe that the democrat party is beyond reform opposed the internal struggle that those forces are waging. The implication of their position is that since they (the enlightened) understand the limitations of the democrat party, the uninformed millions who still participate in democrat party politics will, through some spontaneous and mysterious process, also arrive at this advance position. Strategically, a more correct position should be to encourage those forces and take advantage of every opportunity to inject into those struggles the message of independence from the duopoly. The democrat party will not implode on its own. It has serious internal fissures. It continues to prove that it is still unwilling to address its issues of institutional racism, sexism, and neoliberal capitalist commitment. Therefore, there are only three possible outcomes for the insurgency, all which would be favorable for the development of independent working class-oriented mass electoral partie(s) in the U.S. 1) the insurgency is able to take power from the hegemonic corporate and financial bloc that controls the money and national institutions – that is unlikely to happen so instead it will result in, 2) the party splitting with its progressive wing attempting to run as insurgent democrats on state ballot lines but with the likely outcome that those forces would abandon the democrats for new electoral formations, or 3) the insurgent forces become fully co-opted junior partners, denied real power and only expected to mobilize for party candidates still largely determined by corporate party bosses – a role very similar to the Congressional Black Caucus nationally and black party members on state levels. There are no more center politics so the more honest of those forces will abandon the party along with all illusions that the democrat party can be reformed into a non-capitalist, working class oriented, anti-imperialist party. So, let me be clear. This is not about the personalities but the tendency the Bernie-Ocasio-Cortez wing represents within the democrat party, a wing that has serious issues that it also must address. This wing must decide if it is willing to content for power or to strengthen the party apparatus. If it wants to content for power it must drop reactionary talking points such as the Russia-gate BS and it must take consistent anti-imperialist, anti-war positions. If not, option three will be its fate as its language and program is co-opted rhetorically and it finds itself trapped in an ideological corner that it painted itself into, much like the social democrat left in Europe that can’t find a way to differentiate itself enough to hold-off the advances of the right. In this complex and dangerous moment, the battle over ideas is crucial because ideas are the basis and weapons for transforming consciousness. But there is a dialectical relationship between the ascendency of certain ideas and objective material realities. There is a reason that more people are curious about socialism. Like the incorporation of the concept of the 1% into popular discourse, the growing popularity of the concept of socialism, even in its social democratic expressions, provides ideological space to build on. Having young radicals helping to normalize a discourse on socialism is a significant development. Ocasio-Cortez and the tendency she represents may end-up being the ultimate short-term sheep dogs, especially for millennials, that critical demographic most open to socialism. But if that becomes the case, it will not be because of the power and skill of this tendency but the failure on the part of those of us who are attempting to build an independent alternative to win over those elements. Don’t tell me about DSA’s 40,000 members when the Green Party has close to 300,000 members. Ideas have consequences, the cultural and ideological struggle is central. The reactionary forces understand this simple fact. It is past the time for leftists in the U.S. to come to terms with this area of struggle and learn to execute it much better than we have up to now. Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: * https://www.counterpunch.org * URL to article: * https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/13/cultural-and-ideological-struggle-in-the-us-a-final-comment-on-ocasio-cortez/ * Click here to print. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Sun Jul 15 21:49:10 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 17:49:10 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Trump_versus_NATO_is_a_false_narrative?= =?utf-8?b?4oCm?= In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <1649feb3aee-c90-cd09@webjas-vaa029.srv.aolmail.net> I for one would be delighted if our peerless leader's sales trip on behalf of the "defense" industry is a failure and instead shatters the NATO alliance.  That would make his trip a real success, even if he failed to be loved in London.  After all he is loved everywhere else especially in Ireland, he "has property in Ireland" ya  know, and wants to build a wall (he likes walls) in County Clare (ancestral land of Brian Boru and the O'Briens) to keep the Atlantic ocean from eroding his golf course threatened by global warming (fake news, of course), like his golf course at Palos Verde--maybe he could build a wall there too to stop the Pacific Ocean, instead of trying to stop the tide of immigrants on the Mexican border.  Then maybe he'd be loved in California, too. Midge O'Brien   -----Original Message----- From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss To: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace Discuss Sent: Fri, Jul 13, 2018 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire...  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/ A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite:  No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands.  —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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 23:30:59 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 18:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 2019 NDAA, including Duckworth-Murphy provision blocking removal of US troops from S. Korea Message-ID: A few weeks ago Bob Naiman had posted on another list about an NDAA amendment - from our Sen. Tammy Duckworth and from Chris Murphy of CT - that blocked removal of US troops from South Korea. We were talking about this at AWARE today.   Checking to see what had happened with it, it appears that it passed and is included in the NDAA which is under reconciliation between House and Senate. Not very good news. Here's the full text of the House NDAA as passed:      https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5515/text?format=xml This looks to be the relevant section.   It ends by saying that removing US troops from S. Korea can't be part of the negotiations for demilitarizing N. Korea. ==== // /SEC. //1249.//Sense of Senate on United States military forces on the Korean Peninsula/. (a) /Findings/.—/The Senate makes the following findings:/ (1) /On June 25, 1950, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), under the rule of Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of Kim Jong-un, launched a surprise attack against forces from the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and small contingent of United States forces, thus beginning the Korean War./ (2) /In June and July of 1950, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolutions 82, 83, and 84 calling for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to cease hostilities and withdraw, to recommend that United Nations member nations provide forces to repel the Democratic People's Republic of Korea attack, and stating any forces provided should be unified under the command of the United States, respectively./ (3) /Fighting as part of a 1,000,000-strong, 22-nation United Nations force, 36,574 members of the United States Armed Forces and 137,899 members of the South Korean military lost their lives during the three years of armed hostilities and brutal conflict in the Korean War./ (4) /On July 27, 1953, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Chinese People's Volunteers, and the United Nations signed an armistice agreement ceasing all hostilities in Korea and establishing the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)./ (5) /Since 1953, lawfully-deployed United States and United Nations forces have remained alongside their South Korean counterparts, continuing to protect and defend South Korea and deter aggression from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea./ (6) /As a lasting testament the blood and treasure lost during the Korean War and the strong and unwavering alliance built from the ashes of the conflict, the Korean War Memorial in Washington, District of Columbia, and the War Memorial of Korea in Seoul, South Korea, prominently display the following inscription: /“/Our Nation honors her Sons and Daughters who answered the call to defend a Country they never knew and a people they never met./”/./ (7) /The United States maintains a robust, well-trained, and ready force of approximately 28,500 members of the Armed Forces in South Korea, and the presence of the members of the Armed Forces in South Korea demonstrates the continued resolve and support of the United States for the enduring United States-South Korean Alliance./ (8) /On December 22, 2017, Kim Jong-un stated, /“/The rapid development of [North Korea's] nuclear force is now exerting big influence on the world political structure and strategic environment./”/./ (9) /On January 1, 2018, Kim Jong-un stated /“/The entire United States is within range of our nuclear weapons, and a nuclear button is always on my desk. This is reality, not a threat. This year we should focus on mass producing nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles for operational deployment./”/./ (10) /Despite 11 standalone United Nations Security Council resolutions against the nuclear and ballistic missile programs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 8 of which passed during the rule of Kim Jong-un, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has continued to illegally and unlawfully pursue a long-range, nuclear capability meant to hold hostage the United States and threaten the security of the neighbors of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea./ (11) /The 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) states—/ (A) “/Our alliance and friendship with South Korea, forged by the trials of history, is stronger than ever./”/;/ (B) “/Allies and partners magnify our power … [and] together with our allies, partners, and aspiring partners, the United States will pursue cooperation with reciprocity./”/; and/ (C) /with respect to priority actions in the Indo-Pacific region, /“/We will redouble our commitment to established alliances and partnerships, while expanding and deepening relationships with new partners that share respect for sovereignty … and the rule of law./”/./ (12) /Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated, /“/Winston Churchill noted that the only thing harder than fighting with allies is fighting without them. History proves that we are stronger when we stand united with others. Accordingly, our military will be designed, trained, and ready to fight alongside allies./”/./ (13) /The 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) states, /“/Mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships are crucial to our strategy, providing a durable, asymmetric strategic advantage that no competitor or rival can match … [and the United States] will strengthen and evolve our alliances and partnerships into an extended network capable of deterring or decisively acting to meet the shared challenges of our time./”/./ (14) /The unclassified summary of 2018 NDS, an 11-page document, mentions the term /“/allies/”/or /“/alliances/”/over 50 times./ (15) /The 2018 NDS states, /“/China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors … [and] it is increasingly clear that China…want[s] to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions./”/./ (16) /Foreign policy experts have long contended that the first priority of the People's Republic of China on the Korean Peninsula is to ensure that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea remains a buffer between China and the democratic South Korea and the United States forces deployed on the Korean Peninsula./ (17) /China continues to provide the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with most of its food and energy supplies and, until recently, accounted for approximately 90 percent of the total trade volume of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea./ (18) /On June 30, 2017, President Donald Trump stated, /“/Our goal is peace, stability and prosperity for the region. But the United States will defend itself, always will defend itself, always, and we will always defend our allies. As part of that commitment, we are working together to ensure fair burden sharing and support of the United States military presence in Republic of Korea./”/./ (19) /South Korea already pays for approximately 50 percent of the total nonpersonal costs of the 28,500 United States members of the Armed Forces on the Korean Peninsula, amounting to $887,500,000 in 2018./ (20) /President Moon Jae-in has committed to increasing the defense spending of South Korea during his term from the current level 2.4 percent of the gross domestic product to 2.9 percent of the gross domestic product./ (21) /News reports published in early May 2018 have stated that President Trump asked the Secretary of Defense to provide him with options for removing United States troops from the Korean Peninsula./ (22) /National Security Advisor John Bolton responded, /“/The President has not asked the Pentagon to provide options for reducing American forces stationed in South Korea./”/./ (23) /A spokesman for the Secretary stated, /“/The president has not asked the Pentagon to provide options for reducing American forces stationed in South Korea. The Department of Defense's mission in South Korea remains the same, and our force posture has not changed. The Department of Defense remains committed to supporting the maximum pressure campaign, developing and maintaining military options for the President, and reinforcing our ironclad security commitment with our allies. We all remain committed to complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula./”/./ (b) /Sense of Senate/.—/It is the sense of the Senate that—/ (1) /South Korea is a close friend and ally of the United States, and the United States-South Korea alliance is the linchpin of peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region;/ (2) /the presence of United States military forces on the Korean Peninsula and across the Indo-Pacific region continues to play a critical role in safeguarding the peaceful and stable rules-based international order that benefits all countries;/ (3) /South Korea has contributed heavily to its own defense and to the defense of the United States Armed Forces in South Korea, including by providing $10,000,000,000 of the $10,800,000,0000 Camp Humphreys project, which is 93 percent of the funding, to build and relocate United States military forces to a new base in South Korea;/ (4) /United States military forces, pursuant to international law, are lawfully deployed on the Korean Peninsula;/ (5) /the nuclear and ballistic missile programs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are clear and consistent violations of international law;/ (6) /the long-stated strategic objective of authoritarian states such as the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has been the significant removal of United States military forces from the Korean Peninsula;/ (7) /the maximum pressure campaign of the Trump Administration, including an increase in economic sanctions and diplomatic measures with United States allies and regional partners, has worked to bring Kim Jong-un to the negotiation table; and/ (8) /the significant removal of United States military forces from the Korean Peninsula is a non-negotiable item as it relates to the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea./ / / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Jul 16 00:08:05 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:08:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A sanguine view of what China expects to achieve Message-ID: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-opens-to-world-as-trump-erects-protectionist-walls/ Over-optimistic? Yet impressive in its comprehensiveness. —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 01:02:27 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:02:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A sanguine view of what China expects to achieve In-Reply-To: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> References: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <0216FE20-E4E6-468D-92EC-D2D6A50733CF@gmail.com> Not bloody likely…? > On Jul 15, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-opens-to-world-as-trump-erects-protectionist-walls/ > > Over-optimistic? Yet impressive in its comprehensiveness. > > —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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 01:59:09 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 20:59:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A sanguine view of what China expects to achieve In-Reply-To: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> References: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> Message-ID: It's important to note that according to one credible data set, China in 1969 had a per capita GDP (in 2010 dollars) of $193, almost the lowest in the world, except for Cambodia, Mozambique, and Djibouti (the latter $17 !!). By 2014, their per capita GDP (again 2010 dollars) was $6,000, a multiple of about 30 (that is, doubling almost 5 times) over 45 years. Nothing else like it, obviously in terms of rapid development, although S. Korea & Taiwan grew by multiples of 10 to over $20,000. I assume that the cultural revolution had something to do with the low baseline in 1969, nevertheless... DG On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:08 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-opens-to-world-as-trump-erects-protectionist-walls/ > > Over-optimistic? Yet impressive in its comprehensiveness. > > —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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 02:12:19 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 21:12:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] And the other 'peer competitor' (a la Brzezinski) In-Reply-To: References: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Trump Is Right - NATO Is Obsolete, and if Europe Wants to Fight Imaginary Enemies, It Should Pay Its Own Way Terrified by Trump, Eurocrats in Brussels over these past few days have conveyed to Asia Times fears about the end of NATO, the end of the World Trade Organization, even the end of the EU. --Pepe Escobar Hysteria is at fever pitch. After the NATO summit in Brussels, the definitive Decline of the West has been declared a done deal as President Trump gets ready to meet President Putin in Helsinki. It was Trump himself who stipulated that he wants to talk to Putin behind closed doors, face-to-face, without any aides and, in theory, spontaneously, after the preparatory meeting between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was canceled. The summit will take place at the early 19th century Presidential Palace in Helsinki, a former residence of Russian emperors. As a preamble to Helsinki, Trump’s spectacular NATO blitzkrieg was a show for the ages; assorted “leaders” in Brussels simply didn’t know what hit them. Trump didn’t even bother to arrive on time for morning sessions dealing with the possible accession of Ukraine and Georgia. Diplomats confirmed to Asia Times that after Trump’s stinging “pay up or else” tirade, Ukraine and Georgia were asked to leave the room because what would be discussed was strictly an internal NATO issue. Previewing the summit, Eurocrats indulged in interminable carping about “illiberalism” taking over, from Viktor Orban in Hungary to Sultan Erdogan in Turkey, as well as mourning the “destruction of European unity” (yes, it’s always Putin’s fault). Trump though would have none of it. The US President conflates the EU with NATO, interpreting the EU as a rival, just like China, but much weaker. As for the US “deal” with NATO, just like NAFTA, that’s a bad deal. NATO is ‘obsolete’ Trump is correct that without the US, NATO is “obsolete” – as in non-existent. So essentially what he did in Brussels laid bare the case for NATO as a protection racket, with Washington fully entitled to up the stakes for the “protection”. But “protection” against what? Since the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, when NATO was repositioned in its new role as humanitarian imperialist global Robocop, the alliance’s record is absolutely dismal. That features miserably losing an endless war in Afghanistan against a bunch of Pashtun warriors armed with Kalashnikov replicas; turning functional Libya into a militia wasteland and headquarters for Europe-bound refugees; and having the NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council lose its bet on a galaxy of jihadis and crypto-jihadis in Syria spun as “moderate rebels”. NATO has launched a new training, non-combat mission in Iraq; 15 years after Shock and Awe, Sunnis, Shi’ites, Yazidis and even Kurdish factions are not impressed. Then there’s the NATO Readiness Initiative; the capacity of deploying 30 battalions, 30 battleships and 30 aircraft squadrons within 30 days (or less) by 2020. If not to wreak selected havoc across the Global South, this initiative is supposedly set up to deter “Russian aggression”. So after dabbling with the Global War on Terror, NATO is essentially back to the original “threat”; the imminent Russian invasion of Western Europe – a ludicrous notion if there ever was one. The final statement in Brussels spells it out, with special emphasis on item 6 and item 7. The combined GDP of all NATO members is 12 times that of Russia. And NATO’s defense spending is six times larger than Russia’s. Contrary to non-stop Polish and Baltic hysteria, Russia does not need to “invade” anything; what worries the Kremlin, in the long term, is the well being of ethnic Russians living in former Soviet republics. Russia can’t be both threat and an energy partner Then there’s Europe’s energy policy – and that’s a completely different story. Trump has described the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as “inappropriate”, but his claim that Germany gets 70% of its energy (via natural gas imports) from Russia may be easily debunked. Germany gets at best 9% of its energy from Russia. In terms of Germany’s sources of energy, only 20% is natural gas. And less than 40% of natural gas in Germany comes from Russia. Germany is fast transitioning towards wind, solar, biomass and hydro energy, which made up 41% of the total in 2018. And the target is 50% by 2030. Yet Trump does have a sterling point when, stressing that “Germany is a rich country”, he wants to know why America should “protect you against Russia” when energy deals are on the table. “Explain that! It can’t be explained!” as he reportedly said to Nato Secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg on Wednesday. In the end, of course, it’s all about business. What Trump is really aiming at is for Germany to import US shale gas, three times more expensive than pipeline-delivered Russian gas. The energy angle is directly linked to the never-ending 2% defense spending soap opera. Germany currently spends 1.2% of GDP on NATO. by 2024, it’s supposed to reach at best 1.5%. And that’s it. The majority of German voters, in fact, want US troops out. So Trump’s demand for 4% of GDP on defense spending for all NATO members will never fly. The sales pitch should be seen for what it is: a tentative “invitation” for an increased EU and NATO shopping spree on US military hardware. In a nutshell, the key factor remains that Trump’s Brussels blitzkrieg did make his case. Russia cannot be a “threat” and a reliable energy partner at the same time. As much as NATO poodles may be terrified of “Russian aggression”, the facts spell out they won’t put their money where their rhetorical hysteria is. Are you listening now? “Russian aggression” should be one of the top items discussed in Helsinki. In the – remote – possibility that Trump will strike a deal with Putin, NATO’s absurd raison d’etre would be even more exposed. That’s not the US “deep-state” agenda, of course, thus the 24/7 demonization of the summit even before it happens. Moreover, for Trump, the transactional gambling man’s Make-America-Great-Again point of view, the ideal outcome would always be to get even more European weapons deals for the US industrial-military-intelligence complex. Terrified by Trump, diplomats in Brussels over these past few days have conveyed to Asia Times fears about the end of NATO, the end of the World Trade Organization, even the end of the EU. But the fact remains that Europe is absolutely peripheral to the Big Picture. In Losing Military Supremacy, his latest, groundbreaking book, crack Russian military-naval analyst Andrei Martyanov deconstructs in detail how, “the United States faces two nuclear and industrial superpowers, one of which fields a world-class armed forces. If the military-political, as opposed to merely economic, alliance between Russia and China is ever formalized – this will spell the final doom for the United States as a global power.” The US deep state (its influential bureaucrats) may be wallowing in perpetual denial, but Trump – after many a closed-door meeting with Henry Kissinger – may have understood the suicidal “strategy” of Washington simultaneously antagonizing Russia and China. Putin’s landmark March 1 speech, as Martyanov stresses, was an effort to “coerce America’s elites, if not into peace, at least into some form of sanity, given that they are currently completely detached from the geopolitical, military and economic realities of the newly emerging power configurations of the world”. These elites may not be listening, but Trump seems to indicate he is. As for the NATO poodles, all they can do is watch. ### From email at addthis.com Mon Jul 16 02:28:36 2018 From: email at addthis.com (AddThis Share Tools) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 02:28:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Is Right - NATO Is Obsolete, and if Europe Wants to Fight Imaginary Enemies, It Should Pay Its Own Way Message-ID: <20180716022836.06BAB406C0C1@legacyapi6-08-ussnn1.prod.dc.dynback.net> https://russia-insider.com/en/node/24121#.W0wC08SrFJI.email --- This message was sent by cgestabrook at gmail.com via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses. To stop receiving any emails from AddThis, please visit: http://www.addthis.com/privacy/email-opt-out?e=OQM0ayVtISMgZzdtMX03TiVgMGdpeSV8amAheg From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 03:04:50 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 22:04:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F36EA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <12A9D4DC-6C19-4B09-837A-E7E816CAC933@illinois.edu> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F2CC1@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <000001d41b6d$d663ffd0$832bff70$@comcast.net> <1531572089555.3vkvzs4dmg5vqs1fqjik5vu1@android.mail.163.com> <004301d41b70$b81de100$2859a300$@comcast.net> <4D8F46B0-8AC5-4DB6-B04C-F4B123AE0F61@gmail.com> <008001d41b79$a8e35310$faa9f930$@comcast.net> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F36EA@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: I realize now that this was ambiguous. I meant to say that corporate globalism (the world-wide capitalist rule of the rich) consists of neoliberalism (more inequality) together with neoconservatism (more war). Our habit of contrasting liberalism and conservatism leads us to assume that neoliberalism and neoconservatism are opposed to one another . They’re not; instead, they refer to different areas of capitalistic exploitation - economics (neoliberalism) and war (neoconservatism). > On Jul 14, 2018, at 9:43 AM, Estabrook, Carl G wrote: > > Throughout the capitalist world, it's no longer a matter of Left versus Right, but of popular opposition to corporate globalism - neoliberalism and neoconservatism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Mon Jul 16 04:39:57 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:39:57 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A sanguine view of what China expects to achieve In-Reply-To: References: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I read US "headlines" that Beijing is doing this and Beijing is doing that and Beijing is plotting this or that. Psalm 2 in capital letters. Expressing Chinese GDP in US dollars can be rather misleading. In the late 1990s the black market exchange rate (and hence the true exchange rate was 10 RMB for one us dollar) However, for the purposes of daily living, One RMB could buy as much of the stuff you need to live in China as One us dollar could buy if you lived in the USA.  That means that the correction factor was 100. In 1998 I got a haircut in Qi county for $0.08 (8 cents) including getting my hair washed before and after.  Now you may say it is a function of my sparse natural tonsure but I assure you friends I was charged a complete price.  No finders fee for the haircut. It is impossible to compare the similar but much poorer service in Urbana and who is scalping who. There are also gradients of money value across China. Beijing is a very expensive place to live as compared with some more remote yet modern regions.  For the daily life, (food, clothing, etc.) it probably is fair to say that the prices in Beijing are twice to three times the prices in Qi County. In the early '90s Forrest Gump said "People in China ain't got nuthin'". At that time it is relatively true and one could say that relative to the stagnation of the USA an economic miracle has occurred in China. If you really want to know something about China, Bill Holm's "Coming Home Crazy" is still a decent read and insightful. Modernisation has a fractal boundary at the interface between old and new. It is not a crisp Euclidean wavefront.  At all. David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > It's important to note that according to one credible data set, China in > 1969 had a per capita GDP (in 2010 dollars) of $193, almost the lowest in > the world, except for Cambodia, Mozambique, and Djibouti (the latter $17 > !!). By 2014, their per capita GDP (again 2010 dollars) was $6,000, a > multiple of about 30 (that is, doubling almost 5 times) over 45 years. > Nothing else like it, obviously in terms of rapid development, although S. > Korea & Taiwan grew by multiples of 10 to over $20,000. I assume that the > cultural revolution had something to do with the low baseline in 1969, > nevertheless... > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:08 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-opens-to-world-as-trump-erects-protectionist-walls/ >> >> Over-optimistic? Yet impressive in its comprehensiveness. >> >> —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 ewj at pigs.ag Mon Jul 16 04:45:04 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:45:04 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A sanguine view of what China expects to achieve In-Reply-To: References: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Jerry Clower the great American philosopher noted that in the 70s he was asked to pay a dollar and twenty-five cents for a slice of cantaloupe. As a boy in Mississippi he had fed "landslide loads" of cantaloupes to the hogs (just to get shed of so much cantaloupe) and he could have sent vast amounts of cantaloupes to NYC if he had know it was going for $1.25 a slice. David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > It's important to note that according to one credible data set, China in > 1969 had a per capita GDP (in 2010 dollars) of $193, almost the lowest in > the world, except for Cambodia, Mozambique, and Djibouti (the latter $17 > !!). By 2014, their per capita GDP (again 2010 dollars) was $6,000, a > multiple of about 30 (that is, doubling almost 5 times) over 45 years. > Nothing else like it, obviously in terms of rapid development, although S. > Korea & Taiwan grew by multiples of 10 to over $20,000. I assume that the > cultural revolution had something to do with the low baseline in 1969, > nevertheless... > > DG > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:08 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-opens-to-world-as-trump-erects-protectionist-walls/ >> >> Over-optimistic? Yet impressive in its comprehensiveness. >> >> —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 ewj at pigs.ag Mon Jul 16 08:57:21 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:57:21 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <0D500DBA-45AA-4945-A01F-860585BF9CE6@gmail.com> References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> <0D500DBA-45AA-4945-A01F-860585BF9CE6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6ff831d5-9f93-f1b6-4ba6-98c237f3139a@pigs.ag> "Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old." The New Testament is not a contradiction or superseding of the Law and the Prophets (the old testament) but rather is a fulfillment of the OT. The New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New explained. The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed. Here are a few of those red letter words regarding the "Old Testament" being superseded and made to none effect... Heaven and earth will disintegrate before even the smallest detail of the word of God will fail or lose its power. - Luke 16.17 (The Passion Translation)** in case of some idea about cherrypicking a suitable translation... **But even the smallest part of a letter in the law cannot be changed. - Luke 16.17 ("Easy-to-Read" Translation) [RTFM, Francis...] Facilius est autem caelum et terram praeterire, quam de lege unum apicem cadere. - Lucas 16.17 (Vulgate)ευκοπωτερον δε εστιν τον ουρανον και την γην παρελθειν η του νομου μιαν κεραιαν πεσειν ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 16.17 天 地 废 去 较 比 律 法 的 一 点 一 画 落 空 还 容 易 。 - 路 加 福 音 16.17 ("he he ben 和合本 chinese union version, 简体字 simplified chars.) and in context - “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. ^It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." - Luke 16.16-17 NIV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 16 11:06:33 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:06:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <6ff831d5-9f93-f1b6-4ba6-98c237f3139a@pigs.ag> References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> <0D500DBA-45AA-4945-A01F-860585BF9CE6@gmail.com>, <6ff831d5-9f93-f1b6-4ba6-98c237f3139a@pigs.ag> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F3DC7@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> My first professor of New Testament studies in grad school was Krister Stendahl, author of the classic article, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" - which deals also with Augustine and Luther. Stendahl (who became a Lutheran bishop) pointed out that Paul saw the Law as a 'babysitter' (his word) until the messiah came. And the best account of the kosher rules that I know (reference on request) describes how they are a symbolization of the rules of order and non-killing in the Ten Commandments (e.g., animals that kill to eat - or meat-eaters, including pigs - are not kosher). Thus the law symbolizes the messianic age, until messiah comes. That's why Christians are not bound by its ceremonial (symbolic) requirements, according to Paul. --CGE ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 3:57 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar "Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old." The New Testament is not a contradiction or superseding of the Law and the Prophets (the old testament) but rather is a fulfillment of the OT. The New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New explained. The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed. Here are a few of those red letter words regarding the "Old Testament" being superseded and made to none effect... Heaven and earth will disintegrate before even the smallest detail of the word of God will fail or lose its power. - Luke 16.17 (The Passion Translation) in case of some idea about cherrypicking a suitable translation... But even the smallest part of a letter in the law cannot be changed. - Luke 16.17 ("Easy-to-Read" Translation) [RTFM, Francis...] Facilius est autem caelum et terram praeterire, quam de lege unum apicem cadere. - Lucas 16.17 (Vulgate) ευκοπωτερον δε εστιν τον ουρανον και την γην παρελθειν η του νομου μιαν κεραιαν πεσειν ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 16.17 天 地 废 去 较 比 律 法 的 一 点 一 画 落 空 还 容 易 。 - 路 加 福 音 16.17 ("he he ben 和合本 chinese union version, 简体字 simplified chars.) and in context - “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." - Luke 16.16-17 NIV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 11:59:49 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 06:59:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A sanguine view of what China expects to achieve In-Reply-To: References: <173E436B-92D3-4191-ADA0-0A7F240CB817@illinois.edu> Message-ID: In college I was privileged to take courses from America's leading China scholars, John K. Fairbank ("the Harvard history professor who was widely credited with creating the field of modern Chinese studies in the United States“ - NYT obit) and Benjamin I. Schwartz (史华慈 - author of "Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao,” 1951). Several recent brief visits to China (my wife has traveled more extensively there) have shown me what a remarkable transformation has taken place from the China described to me a half-century ago. Perhaps the most vicious concept in modern foreign policy (comparable to "Lebensraum” ca. 1940) is the US drive to prevent the rise of “peer competitors” in Eurasia. (See e.g. Zbigniew Brzezinski,'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,’ 1997.) Trump became president in part because he attacked 40 years of neoliberal and neocon policies, including the Obama-Clinton wars and war provocations again Russia and China. The US political establishment has struggled (hysterically, and largely successfully) to bring him back to the vicious traditional US fp - an extreme danger to the world. —CGE > On Jul 15, 2018, at 11:45 PM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Jerry Clower the great American philosopher noted that in the 70s > he was asked to pay a dollar and twenty-five cents for a slice of cantaloupe. > As a boy in Mississippi he had fed "landslide loads" of cantaloupes to the hogs > (just to get shed of so much cantaloupe) and he could have > sent vast amounts of cantaloupes to NYC if he had know it was > going for $1.25 a slice. > > David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: >> It's important to note that according to one credible data set, China in >> 1969 had a per capita GDP (in 2010 dollars) of $193, almost the lowest in >> the world, except for Cambodia, Mozambique, and Djibouti (the latter $17 >> !!). By 2014, their per capita GDP (again 2010 dollars) was $6,000, a >> multiple of about 30 (that is, doubling almost 5 times) over 45 years. >> Nothing else like it, obviously in terms of rapid development, although S. >> Korea & Taiwan grew by multiples of 10 to over $20,000. I assume that the >> cultural revolution had something to do with the low baseline in 1969, >> nevertheless... >> >> DG >> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:08 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > wrote: >> >>> http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/china-opens-to-world-as-trump-erects-protectionist-walls/ >>> >>> Over-optimistic? Yet impressive in its comprehensiveness. >>> >>> —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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Jul 16 12:53:10 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:53:10 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. In-Reply-To: <4D8F46B0-8AC5-4DB6-B04C-F4B123AE0F61@gmail.com> Message-ID: <164a326de96-c8f-a40@webjas-vad127.srv.aolmail.net> Hitler used the history of U.S. Manifest Destiny decimation of Native Americans as his prototype for "Lebensraum." MO'B -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss To: David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss Sent: Sat, Jul 14, 2018 7:49 am Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump versus NATO is a false narrative. I think it’s a wry joke on ‘Lebensraum.’ On Jul 14, 2018, at 7:46 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote:       Excuse me ?   What is that supposed to mean Wayne ? I am talking about the realities of 2018, NOT the history of the 1930’s / 1940’s.   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of ewj via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 7:42 AM To: David Johnson via Peace-discuss Cc: 'Brussel, Morton K'; 'Peace Discuss' Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative.   not to worry. germans just need room to live. On 2018-07-14 20:26 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote:  German troops are also in Turkey on the Syrian border. The stationing of German troops in war zones outside of Germany is a violation of the post war constitution and is opposed by the vast majority of the German public, but the neo-liberal government did it anyway. Sound familiar ?   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:40 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative…   But Nato troops (Germans) are aiding US killing in Afghanistan - myrmidons for the empire...  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:27 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump versus NATO is a false narrative… Insightful article about Trump and NATO:   https://www.salon.com/2018/07/11/trump-versus-nato-not-so-fast_partner/   A response to the assumed threats is that NATO-Trump apologists cite:  No one is attacking, or is a threat to the NATO countries, but some states may forestall, or resist, the hegemony, economic, political, and military, that the U.S. demands.    —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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jul 16 13:35:23 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace Talks between Nuclear Superpowers Offends..... Message-ID: New post on Caitlin Johnstone [https://i1.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cropped-caitlinpic1.jpg?resize=32%2C32&ssl=1] [http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/12152988a68a6d4dae7506812444c18f?s=50&d=monsterid&r=G] Peace Talk Between Nuclear Superpowers Offends America’s Assholes And Morons by Caitlin Johnstone When I was a little girl I used to end all my nightly prayers with the words, "And please no nuclear war, and peace on earth. Amen." This was in the early eighties. The knowledge that weapons existed armed and ready which could annihilate all life on earth, including my Mum and my Dad and everyone I loved, kept me up at night. I still marvel at the fact that these weapons exist, just as armed and just as ready, and we just go about our lives like it's perfectly normal. They're even more prone to malfunction than they were back then, because so many parts of the system are much older now. All it would take is something failing to work the way it's meant to or somebody making a mistake or miscommunication that hadn't been adequately anticipated and prepared for, and it could set into motion a chain of events from which there is no coming back. We've already come within a hair's breadth of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion due to such occurrances, and yet people still act like preventing that from ever happening isn't the single most important priority for our entire species. In the days leading up to the Helsinki summit between leaders of Russia and the United States, an open letter titled "Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security" was published and signed by experts, activists and scholars ranging from Noam Chomsky to Gloria Steinem to Daniel Ellsberg to Michael Moore. Part of the letter reads as follows: "At the same time, the US and Russian governments show numerous signs of being on a collision course. Diplomacy has given way to hostility and reciprocal consular expulsions, along with dozens of near-miss military encounters in Syria and in skies above Europe. Both sides are plunging ahead with major new weapons-development programs. In contrast to prior eras, there is now an alarming lack of standard procedures to keep the armed forces of both countries in sufficient communication to prevent an escalation that could lead to conventional or even nuclear attack. These tensions are festering between two nations with large quantities of nuclear weapons on virtual hair-trigger alert; yet the current partisan fixations in Washington are ignoring the dangers to global stability and, ultimately, human survival." Open Letter --On Common Ground: For Secure Elections & True National Security, signed by Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Walter Mosley, Amb. Jack Matlock, Gov. Bill Richardson, Valerie Plame, Daniel Ellsberg, Alice Walker, among 23 signers/ via @thenation https://t.co/sUTHXGlRnp — Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation) July 11, 2018 All of this is completely true. You can perhaps understand why, then, when #TreasonSummit became the top trend on Twitter during the Helsinki summit, little 1983 Caitlin Johnstone wanted to punch everyone spouting that moronic bullshit right in the fucking nose. Though you'll never hear American mass media talking about it on either MSNBC or Fox News because it doesn't fit the narrative on either side, Trump has actually dangerously escalated cold war tensions with Russia far beyond anything his predecessor dared to do. From adopting a Nuclear Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurring lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate, to facilitating the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine (a dangerously hawkish move which Obama adamantly refused to do), to repeatedly bombing the Syrian government and killing Russians in Syria as part of its illegal occupation of that country, to throwing out Russian diplomats on more than one occasion, to expanding NATO with the addition of Montenegro, to aggressive sanctions on Russian oligarchs and more, this administration has inflamed tensions along multiple fronts and increased the probability of something going disastrously, irrevocably wrong. Whether the US president has been doing these things because that was his plan all along, or because he is beholden to powers which wish to advance such agendas, or because he's caving to political pressures from his opponents in order to avoid accusations of treason, is a question that's open for debate. Personally, I do not care. What matters is the fact that these escalations are there, and that they need to be scaled down, and that I shouldn't have to share a fucking planet with anyone who thinks otherwise. Is #TreasonSummit really trending on Twitter? Where was this hashtag when Trump was canoodling with Netanyahu and Bin Salman? — Sameera Khan (@SameeraKhan) July 16, 2018 Opposing talks which could lead to de-escalations between the two countries who own almost all of the nuclear warheads in the world is inexcusable and unforgivable. I don't care if you're dumb enough to swallow the US intelligence community's still completely unsubstantiated claims of Russian hacking. I don't care if you think Trump is bought and owned by Vladimir Putin. Even if both of those things were true, there would still be no excuse for opposing peace talks in a dangerously escalating new cold war. None. Communication and understanding in this situation is an objectively good thing. This meeting with Russia's leader, which all US presidents have done for many decades, is an objectively good thing. If you have joined in the campaign to help shove the tide of opinion away from peace and toward nuclear holocaust, you are making yourself an enemy of humanity. You have become so warped and demented by your hatred of Donald Trump that it has made a part of you less human. I despise Donald Trump and everything he stands for, and I despise everything that created him. I hate that I have to know his fucking name. But he is the only President of the United States right now, and he is in a unique position to help steer us away from the iceberg and avoid a confrontation that everyone on earth should want to avoid. Any possibility of that happening, however remote, should be supported. Only assholes and morons oppose these peace talks. If you want to help steer this ship into the iceberg of nuclear holocaust, then I want you thrown overboard. Get a fucking grip, you raving lunatics. Stop this. Stop this immediately. ___________________________ The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jul 16 13:35:23 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:35:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace Talks between Nuclear Superpowers Offends..... Message-ID: New post on Caitlin Johnstone [https://i1.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cropped-caitlinpic1.jpg?resize=32%2C32&ssl=1] [http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/12152988a68a6d4dae7506812444c18f?s=50&d=monsterid&r=G] Peace Talk Between Nuclear Superpowers Offends America’s Assholes And Morons by Caitlin Johnstone When I was a little girl I used to end all my nightly prayers with the words, "And please no nuclear war, and peace on earth. Amen." This was in the early eighties. The knowledge that weapons existed armed and ready which could annihilate all life on earth, including my Mum and my Dad and everyone I loved, kept me up at night. I still marvel at the fact that these weapons exist, just as armed and just as ready, and we just go about our lives like it's perfectly normal. They're even more prone to malfunction than they were back then, because so many parts of the system are much older now. All it would take is something failing to work the way it's meant to or somebody making a mistake or miscommunication that hadn't been adequately anticipated and prepared for, and it could set into motion a chain of events from which there is no coming back. We've already come within a hair's breadth of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion due to such occurrances, and yet people still act like preventing that from ever happening isn't the single most important priority for our entire species. In the days leading up to the Helsinki summit between leaders of Russia and the United States, an open letter titled "Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security" was published and signed by experts, activists and scholars ranging from Noam Chomsky to Gloria Steinem to Daniel Ellsberg to Michael Moore. Part of the letter reads as follows: "At the same time, the US and Russian governments show numerous signs of being on a collision course. Diplomacy has given way to hostility and reciprocal consular expulsions, along with dozens of near-miss military encounters in Syria and in skies above Europe. Both sides are plunging ahead with major new weapons-development programs. In contrast to prior eras, there is now an alarming lack of standard procedures to keep the armed forces of both countries in sufficient communication to prevent an escalation that could lead to conventional or even nuclear attack. These tensions are festering between two nations with large quantities of nuclear weapons on virtual hair-trigger alert; yet the current partisan fixations in Washington are ignoring the dangers to global stability and, ultimately, human survival." Open Letter --On Common Ground: For Secure Elections & True National Security, signed by Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Walter Mosley, Amb. Jack Matlock, Gov. Bill Richardson, Valerie Plame, Daniel Ellsberg, Alice Walker, among 23 signers/ via @thenation https://t.co/sUTHXGlRnp — Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation) July 11, 2018 All of this is completely true. You can perhaps understand why, then, when #TreasonSummit became the top trend on Twitter during the Helsinki summit, little 1983 Caitlin Johnstone wanted to punch everyone spouting that moronic bullshit right in the fucking nose. Though you'll never hear American mass media talking about it on either MSNBC or Fox News because it doesn't fit the narrative on either side, Trump has actually dangerously escalated cold war tensions with Russia far beyond anything his predecessor dared to do. From adopting a Nuclear Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurring lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate, to facilitating the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine (a dangerously hawkish move which Obama adamantly refused to do), to repeatedly bombing the Syrian government and killing Russians in Syria as part of its illegal occupation of that country, to throwing out Russian diplomats on more than one occasion, to expanding NATO with the addition of Montenegro, to aggressive sanctions on Russian oligarchs and more, this administration has inflamed tensions along multiple fronts and increased the probability of something going disastrously, irrevocably wrong. Whether the US president has been doing these things because that was his plan all along, or because he is beholden to powers which wish to advance such agendas, or because he's caving to political pressures from his opponents in order to avoid accusations of treason, is a question that's open for debate. Personally, I do not care. What matters is the fact that these escalations are there, and that they need to be scaled down, and that I shouldn't have to share a fucking planet with anyone who thinks otherwise. Is #TreasonSummit really trending on Twitter? Where was this hashtag when Trump was canoodling with Netanyahu and Bin Salman? — Sameera Khan (@SameeraKhan) July 16, 2018 Opposing talks which could lead to de-escalations between the two countries who own almost all of the nuclear warheads in the world is inexcusable and unforgivable. I don't care if you're dumb enough to swallow the US intelligence community's still completely unsubstantiated claims of Russian hacking. I don't care if you think Trump is bought and owned by Vladimir Putin. Even if both of those things were true, there would still be no excuse for opposing peace talks in a dangerously escalating new cold war. None. Communication and understanding in this situation is an objectively good thing. This meeting with Russia's leader, which all US presidents have done for many decades, is an objectively good thing. If you have joined in the campaign to help shove the tide of opinion away from peace and toward nuclear holocaust, you are making yourself an enemy of humanity. You have become so warped and demented by your hatred of Donald Trump that it has made a part of you less human. I despise Donald Trump and everything he stands for, and I despise everything that created him. I hate that I have to know his fucking name. But he is the only President of the United States right now, and he is in a unique position to help steer us away from the iceberg and avoid a confrontation that everyone on earth should want to avoid. Any possibility of that happening, however remote, should be supported. Only assholes and morons oppose these peace talks. If you want to help steer this ship into the iceberg of nuclear holocaust, then I want you thrown overboard. Get a fucking grip, you raving lunatics. Stop this. Stop this immediately. ___________________________ The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Jul 16 14:16:42 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:16:42 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace Talks between Nuclear Superpowers Offends..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <164a37356a9-c8e-5adc@webjas-vaa138.srv.aolmail.net> Caitlin hits a home run again.  I include a passage from the August (already!) Harper's Letter to Washington by Andrew Cockburn "How to Start a Nuclear War: the Increasingly direct road to Ruin:  quoting General Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Air Command and STRATCOM (1991-94) "I fervently believed that it was the nuclear forces that I and others commanded and operated that prevented World War III and created the conditions leading to the collapse of the Soviet empire."  But after retirement Gen. Butler grew increasingly skeptical about the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining global peace:     "From the earliest days of the nuclear era, the risks and consequences of nuclear war have never been properly understood.  That the stakes of nuclear war             engage not just the survival of the antagonists, but the fate of mankind. That the prospect of shearing away entire societies has no politically, militarily or               morally acceptable justification.  And therefore, that the threat to use nuclear weapons is indefensible."  Alas, again wisdom comes too late. Midge        -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss To: Peace Discuss ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Sent: Mon, Jul 16, 2018 8:36 am Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace Talks between Nuclear Superpowers Offends..... New post on Caitlin Johnstone Peace Talk Between Nuclear Superpowers Offends America’s Assholes And Morons by Caitlin Johnstone When I was a little girl I used to end all my nightly prayers with the words, "And please no nuclear war, and peace on earth. Amen." This was in the early eighties. The knowledge that weapons existed armed and ready which could annihilate all life on earth, including my Mum and my Dad and everyone I loved, kept me up at night. I still marvel at the fact that these weapons exist, just as armed and just as ready, and we just go about our lives like it's perfectly normal. They're even more prone to malfunction than they were back then, because so many parts of the system are much older now. All it would take is something failing to work the way it's meant to or somebody making a mistake or miscommunication that hadn't been adequately anticipated and prepared for, and it could set into motion a chain of events from which there is no coming back. We've already come within a hair's breadth of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion due to such occurrances, and yet people still act like preventing that from ever happening isn't the single most important priority for our entire species. In the days leading up to the Helsinki summit between leaders of Russia and the United States, an open letter titled "Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security" was published and signed by experts, activists and scholars ranging from Noam Chomsky to Gloria Steinem to Daniel Ellsberg to Michael Moore. Part of the letter reads as follows: "At the same time, the US and Russian governments show numerous signs of being on a collision course. Diplomacy has given way to hostility and reciprocal consular expulsions, along with dozens of near-miss military encounters in Syria and in skies above Europe. Both sides are plunging ahead with major new weapons-development programs. In contrast to prior eras, there is now an alarming lack of standard procedures to keep the armed forces of both countries in sufficient communication to prevent an escalation that could lead to conventional or even nuclear attack. These tensions are festering between two nations with large quantities of nuclear weapons on virtual hair-trigger alert; yet the current partisan fixations in Washington are ignoring the dangers to global stability and, ultimately, human survival." Open Letter --On Common Ground: For Secure Elections & True National Security, signed by Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Walter Mosley, Amb. Jack Matlock, Gov. Bill Richardson, Valerie Plame, Daniel Ellsberg, Alice Walker, among 23 signers/ via @thenation https://t.co/sUTHXGlRnp — Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation) July 11, 2018 All of this is completely true. You can perhaps understand why, then, when #TreasonSummit became the top trend on Twitter during the Helsinki summit, little 1983 Caitlin Johnstone wanted to punch everyone spouting that moronic bullshit right in the fucking nose. Though you'll never hear American mass media talking about it on either MSNBC or Fox News because it doesn't fit the narrative on either side, Trump has actually dangerously escalated cold war tensions with Russia far beyond anything his predecessor dared to do. From adopting a Nuclear Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurring lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate, to facilitating the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine (a dangerously hawkish move which Obama adamantly refused to do), to repeatedly bombing the Syrian government and  killing Russians in Syria as part of its illegal occupation of that country, to throwing out Russian diplomats on more than one occasion, to expanding NATO with the addition of Montenegro, to aggressive sanctions on Russian oligarchs and more, this administration has inflamed tensions along multiple fronts and increased the probability of something going disastrously, irrevocably wrong. Whether the US president has been doing these things because that was his plan all along, or because he is beholden to powers which wish to advance such agendas, or because he's caving to political pressures from his opponents in order to avoid accusations of treason, is a question that's open for debate. Personally, I do not care. What matters is the fact that these escalations are there, and that they need to be scaled down, and that I shouldn't have to share a fucking planet with anyone who thinks otherwise. Is #TreasonSummit really trending on Twitter? Where was this hashtag when Trump was canoodling with Netanyahu and Bin Salman? — Sameera Khan (@SameeraKhan) July 16, 2018 Opposing talks which could lead to de-escalations between the two countries who own almost all of the nuclear warheads in the world is inexcusable and unforgivable. I don't care if you're dumb enough to swallow the US intelligence community's still completely unsubstantiated claims of Russian hacking. I don't care if you think Trump is bought and owned by Vladimir Putin. Even if both of those things were true, there would still be no excuse for opposing peace talks in a dangerously escalating new cold war. None. Communication and understanding in this situation is an objectively good thing. This meeting with Russia's leader, which all US presidents have done for many decades, is an objectively good thing. If you have joined in the campaign to help shove the tide of opinion away from peace and toward nuclear holocaust, you are making yourself an enemy of humanity. You have become so warped and demented by your hatred of Donald Trump that it has made a part of you less human. I despise Donald Trump and everything he stands for, and I despise everything that created him. I hate that I have to know his fucking name. But he is the only President of the United States right now, and he is in a unique position to help steer us away from the iceberg and avoid a confrontation that everyone on earth should want to avoid. Any possibility of that happening, however remote, should be supported. Only assholes and morons oppose these peace talks. If you want to help steer this ship into the iceberg of nuclear holocaust, then I want you thrown overboard. Get a fucking grip, you raving lunatics. Stop this. Stop this immediately. ___________________________ The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. _______________________________________________ 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 moboct1 at aim.com Mon Jul 16 14:16:42 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:16:42 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace Talks between Nuclear Superpowers Offends..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <164a37356a9-c8e-5adc@webjas-vaa138.srv.aolmail.net> Caitlin hits a home run again.  I include a passage from the August (already!) Harper's Letter to Washington by Andrew Cockburn "How to Start a Nuclear War: the Increasingly direct road to Ruin:  quoting General Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Air Command and STRATCOM (1991-94) "I fervently believed that it was the nuclear forces that I and others commanded and operated that prevented World War III and created the conditions leading to the collapse of the Soviet empire."  But after retirement Gen. Butler grew increasingly skeptical about the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining global peace:     "From the earliest days of the nuclear era, the risks and consequences of nuclear war have never been properly understood.  That the stakes of nuclear war             engage not just the survival of the antagonists, but the fate of mankind. That the prospect of shearing away entire societies has no politically, militarily or               morally acceptable justification.  And therefore, that the threat to use nuclear weapons is indefensible."  Alas, again wisdom comes too late. Midge        -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss To: Peace Discuss ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Sent: Mon, Jul 16, 2018 8:36 am Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace Talks between Nuclear Superpowers Offends..... New post on Caitlin Johnstone Peace Talk Between Nuclear Superpowers Offends America’s Assholes And Morons by Caitlin Johnstone When I was a little girl I used to end all my nightly prayers with the words, "And please no nuclear war, and peace on earth. Amen." This was in the early eighties. The knowledge that weapons existed armed and ready which could annihilate all life on earth, including my Mum and my Dad and everyone I loved, kept me up at night. I still marvel at the fact that these weapons exist, just as armed and just as ready, and we just go about our lives like it's perfectly normal. They're even more prone to malfunction than they were back then, because so many parts of the system are much older now. All it would take is something failing to work the way it's meant to or somebody making a mistake or miscommunication that hadn't been adequately anticipated and prepared for, and it could set into motion a chain of events from which there is no coming back. We've already come within a hair's breadth of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion due to such occurrances, and yet people still act like preventing that from ever happening isn't the single most important priority for our entire species. In the days leading up to the Helsinki summit between leaders of Russia and the United States, an open letter titled "Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security" was published and signed by experts, activists and scholars ranging from Noam Chomsky to Gloria Steinem to Daniel Ellsberg to Michael Moore. Part of the letter reads as follows: "At the same time, the US and Russian governments show numerous signs of being on a collision course. Diplomacy has given way to hostility and reciprocal consular expulsions, along with dozens of near-miss military encounters in Syria and in skies above Europe. Both sides are plunging ahead with major new weapons-development programs. In contrast to prior eras, there is now an alarming lack of standard procedures to keep the armed forces of both countries in sufficient communication to prevent an escalation that could lead to conventional or even nuclear attack. These tensions are festering between two nations with large quantities of nuclear weapons on virtual hair-trigger alert; yet the current partisan fixations in Washington are ignoring the dangers to global stability and, ultimately, human survival." Open Letter --On Common Ground: For Secure Elections & True National Security, signed by Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Walter Mosley, Amb. Jack Matlock, Gov. Bill Richardson, Valerie Plame, Daniel Ellsberg, Alice Walker, among 23 signers/ via @thenation https://t.co/sUTHXGlRnp — Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation) July 11, 2018 All of this is completely true. You can perhaps understand why, then, when #TreasonSummit became the top trend on Twitter during the Helsinki summit, little 1983 Caitlin Johnstone wanted to punch everyone spouting that moronic bullshit right in the fucking nose. Though you'll never hear American mass media talking about it on either MSNBC or Fox News because it doesn't fit the narrative on either side, Trump has actually dangerously escalated cold war tensions with Russia far beyond anything his predecessor dared to do. From adopting a Nuclear Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurring lines between when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate, to facilitating the longstanding neoconservative agenda to arm Ukraine (a dangerously hawkish move which Obama adamantly refused to do), to repeatedly bombing the Syrian government and  killing Russians in Syria as part of its illegal occupation of that country, to throwing out Russian diplomats on more than one occasion, to expanding NATO with the addition of Montenegro, to aggressive sanctions on Russian oligarchs and more, this administration has inflamed tensions along multiple fronts and increased the probability of something going disastrously, irrevocably wrong. Whether the US president has been doing these things because that was his plan all along, or because he is beholden to powers which wish to advance such agendas, or because he's caving to political pressures from his opponents in order to avoid accusations of treason, is a question that's open for debate. Personally, I do not care. What matters is the fact that these escalations are there, and that they need to be scaled down, and that I shouldn't have to share a fucking planet with anyone who thinks otherwise. Is #TreasonSummit really trending on Twitter? Where was this hashtag when Trump was canoodling with Netanyahu and Bin Salman? — Sameera Khan (@SameeraKhan) July 16, 2018 Opposing talks which could lead to de-escalations between the two countries who own almost all of the nuclear warheads in the world is inexcusable and unforgivable. I don't care if you're dumb enough to swallow the US intelligence community's still completely unsubstantiated claims of Russian hacking. I don't care if you think Trump is bought and owned by Vladimir Putin. Even if both of those things were true, there would still be no excuse for opposing peace talks in a dangerously escalating new cold war. None. Communication and understanding in this situation is an objectively good thing. This meeting with Russia's leader, which all US presidents have done for many decades, is an objectively good thing. If you have joined in the campaign to help shove the tide of opinion away from peace and toward nuclear holocaust, you are making yourself an enemy of humanity. You have become so warped and demented by your hatred of Donald Trump that it has made a part of you less human. I despise Donald Trump and everything he stands for, and I despise everything that created him. I hate that I have to know his fucking name. But he is the only President of the United States right now, and he is in a unique position to help steer us away from the iceberg and avoid a confrontation that everyone on earth should want to avoid. Any possibility of that happening, however remote, should be supported. Only assholes and morons oppose these peace talks. If you want to help steer this ship into the iceberg of nuclear holocaust, then I want you thrown overboard. Get a fucking grip, you raving lunatics. Stop this. Stop this immediately. ___________________________ The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 16 14:42:06 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:42:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?_Ireland_expected_to_become_world?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_first_country_to_divest_from_fossil_fuels?= Message-ID: This small island nation, one of the first to be colonized, is now leading the world out of the dark ages, in so many ways……. Ireland expected to become world’s first country to divest from fossil fuels By * Colin Dwyer July 14, 2018 [Smokestacks loom over Bull Island, northeast of Dublin, in 2008. (Dave Walsh/VW Pics/UIG via Getty Images)] Smokestacks loom over Bull Island, northeast of Dublin, in 2008. (Dave Walsh/VW Pics/UIG via Getty Images) The Republic of Ireland took a crucial step Thursday toward becoming the first country in the world to divest from fossil fuels. Lawmakers in the Dail, the lower house of parliament, advanced a bill requiring the Irish government’s more than $10 billion national investment fund to sell off stakes in coal, oil, gas and peat — and to do so “as soon as practicable.” The bill now heads to the upper chamber, known as Seanad, where it is expected to pass easily when it’s taken up, likely in September. If the bill becomes law, as anticipated, it would rid the European nation of holdings valued at more than $370 million, according to Trócaire, an Irish Catholic aid organizationthat has pushed hard for the bill. The principal force behind the bill, independent lawmaker Thomas Pringle, praised the move Thursday as a “moment where we commit to getting serious.” “Let us show the Irish public and the international community that we are ready to think and act beyond narrow short-term and vested interests,” he told his fellow lawmakers, “and will take the opportunities that lie ahead of us to bring in real change.” [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/772840695161774080/_FkC7iL3_normal.jpg] Bill McKibben ✔@billmckibben Ireland's decision to divest from fossil fuels staggers me. It's one of the landmark moments in what has become the largest campaign of its kind in history. Such thanks to all who fought. 8:06 AM - Jul 12, 2018 * 1,549 * 481 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy The move also sets Ireland on a pioneering course. While several faith-based organizations, universities and even major cities, including New York City, have announced their intentions to divest their multibillion-dollar pension funds from fossil fuel companies, few countries have thrown their weight behind such a course. Norway’s parliament voted in 2015 to sell off its coal investments, and the country’s central bank has recommended that its $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund divest from petroleum companies — but no country yet has shed all of its holdings in fossil fuels. Despite Thursday’s vote, Ireland has not exactly been known as a champion of renewable energy. For instance, the country ranked dead last among European Union member states in the 2018 Climate Change Performance Index, an annual study assessing national climate policies, and nestled comfortably in the bottom quarter worldwide, just seven spaces above the U.S. “Ireland has gained a reputation internationally in recent years as a ‘climate laggard’ … so the passing of this Bill is good news but has to mark a significant change of pace on the issue,” Trócaire’s executive director, Éamonn Meehan, said in a statement Thursday. Campaigners argued the move should help the country get on track to uphold its commitments in the Paris Agreement, the major international environmental pact of which it’s a signatory. But one of their principal arguments had less to do with Ireland than with countries elsewhere in the world, which are already feeling the devastating effects of climate change. “We must be very clear; people are dying today as a direct result of climate change through the increasingly frequent and intense disasters, through increased hunger, increased water scarcity,” Pringle said Thursday, “and significantly more will die or be forced into displacement if there is not a radical change in direction.” Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.[https://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=Ireland+Expected+To+Become+World%27s+First+Country+To+Divest+From+Fossil+Fuels&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAzMzI1ODY3MDEyMzkzOTE3NjIxNDg3MQ001)] Share this * Facebook * Twitter * Email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jul 16 14:42:06 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:42:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?_Ireland_expected_to_become_world?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_first_country_to_divest_from_fossil_fuels?= Message-ID: This small island nation, one of the first to be colonized, is now leading the world out of the dark ages, in so many ways……. Ireland expected to become world’s first country to divest from fossil fuels By * Colin Dwyer July 14, 2018 [Smokestacks loom over Bull Island, northeast of Dublin, in 2008. (Dave Walsh/VW Pics/UIG via Getty Images)] Smokestacks loom over Bull Island, northeast of Dublin, in 2008. (Dave Walsh/VW Pics/UIG via Getty Images) The Republic of Ireland took a crucial step Thursday toward becoming the first country in the world to divest from fossil fuels. Lawmakers in the Dail, the lower house of parliament, advanced a bill requiring the Irish government’s more than $10 billion national investment fund to sell off stakes in coal, oil, gas and peat — and to do so “as soon as practicable.” The bill now heads to the upper chamber, known as Seanad, where it is expected to pass easily when it’s taken up, likely in September. If the bill becomes law, as anticipated, it would rid the European nation of holdings valued at more than $370 million, according to Trócaire, an Irish Catholic aid organizationthat has pushed hard for the bill. The principal force behind the bill, independent lawmaker Thomas Pringle, praised the move Thursday as a “moment where we commit to getting serious.” “Let us show the Irish public and the international community that we are ready to think and act beyond narrow short-term and vested interests,” he told his fellow lawmakers, “and will take the opportunities that lie ahead of us to bring in real change.” [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/772840695161774080/_FkC7iL3_normal.jpg] Bill McKibben ✔@billmckibben Ireland's decision to divest from fossil fuels staggers me. It's one of the landmark moments in what has become the largest campaign of its kind in history. Such thanks to all who fought. 8:06 AM - Jul 12, 2018 * 1,549 * 481 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy The move also sets Ireland on a pioneering course. While several faith-based organizations, universities and even major cities, including New York City, have announced their intentions to divest their multibillion-dollar pension funds from fossil fuel companies, few countries have thrown their weight behind such a course. Norway’s parliament voted in 2015 to sell off its coal investments, and the country’s central bank has recommended that its $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund divest from petroleum companies — but no country yet has shed all of its holdings in fossil fuels. Despite Thursday’s vote, Ireland has not exactly been known as a champion of renewable energy. For instance, the country ranked dead last among European Union member states in the 2018 Climate Change Performance Index, an annual study assessing national climate policies, and nestled comfortably in the bottom quarter worldwide, just seven spaces above the U.S. “Ireland has gained a reputation internationally in recent years as a ‘climate laggard’ … so the passing of this Bill is good news but has to mark a significant change of pace on the issue,” Trócaire’s executive director, Éamonn Meehan, said in a statement Thursday. Campaigners argued the move should help the country get on track to uphold its commitments in the Paris Agreement, the major international environmental pact of which it’s a signatory. But one of their principal arguments had less to do with Ireland than with countries elsewhere in the world, which are already feeling the devastating effects of climate change. “We must be very clear; people are dying today as a direct result of climate change through the increasingly frequent and intense disasters, through increased hunger, increased water scarcity,” Pringle said Thursday, “and significantly more will die or be forced into displacement if there is not a radical change in direction.” Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.[https://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?utmac=UA-5828686-4&utmdt=Ireland+Expected+To+Become+World%27s+First+Country+To+Divest+From+Fossil+Fuels&utme=8(APIKey)9(MDAzMzI1ODY3MDEyMzkzOTE3NjIxNDg3MQ001)] Share this * Facebook * Twitter * Email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 15:51:42 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US negotiates with Taliban Message-ID: <72554D5A-CFB5-40DC-8C2B-D1B4B513504A@gmail.com> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-direct-negotiations.html [@GarethPorter] "The Trump administration has done something neither Bush nor Obama was ever willing to do: open direct bilateral peace talks with the #Taliban . That is a measure of the futility of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Trump's determination to end it.” —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 16 15:53:33 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:53:33 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US negotiates with Taliban In-Reply-To: <72554D5A-CFB5-40DC-8C2B-D1B4B513504A@gmail.com> References: <72554D5A-CFB5-40DC-8C2B-D1B4B513504A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:51 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/asia/afghanistan- > taliban-direct-negotiations.html > > [@GarethPorter] "The Trump > administration > has done something neither Bush nor Obama was ever willing to do: open > direct bilateral peace talks with the #Taliban > . That is a > measure of the futility of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Trump's > determination to end it.” > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 15:56:53 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:56:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US negotiates with Taliban In-Reply-To: References: <72554D5A-CFB5-40DC-8C2B-D1B4B513504A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <827C49A4-6670-4A30-B015-9C4313C2C8A9@gmail.com> I’m sure the Congressional Democrats will praise the initiative… > On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > Agreed. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:51 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-direct-negotiations.html > > [@GarethPorter] "The Trump administration has done something neither Bush nor Obama was ever willing to do: open direct bilateral peace talks with the #Taliban . That is a measure of the futility of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Trump's determination to end it.” > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 16 16:04:23 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:04:23 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US negotiates with Taliban In-Reply-To: <827C49A4-6670-4A30-B015-9C4313C2C8A9@gmail.com> References: <72554D5A-CFB5-40DC-8C2B-D1B4B513504A@gmail.com> <827C49A4-6670-4A30-B015-9C4313C2C8A9@gmail.com> Message-ID: That poses a great question. I will try to get other people interested in it. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:56 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I’m sure the Congressional Democrats will praise the initiative… > > > On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > Agreed. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:51 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/world/asia/afghanistan-ta >> liban-direct-negotiations.html >> >> [@GarethPorter] "The Trump >> administration >> has done something neither Bush nor Obama was ever willing to do: open >> direct bilateral peace talks with the #Taliban >> . That is a >> measure of the futility of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Trump's >> determination to end it.” >> >> —CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 17 02:03:15 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:03:15 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F3DC7@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> <0D500DBA-45AA-4945-A01F-860585BF9CE6@gmail.com> <6ff831d5-9f93-f1b6-4ba6-98c237f3139a@pigs.ag> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F3DC7@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Paul uses the word schoolmaster but indeed some of them are babysitters. The covenant has changed but not the foundational principles. We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8 Estabrook, Carl G wrote: > My first professor of New Testament studies in grad school was Krister > Stendahl, author of the classic article, "The Apostle Paul and the > Introspective Conscience of the West" - which deals also with > Augustine and Luther. > > Stendahl (who became a Lutheran bishop) pointed out that Paul saw the > Law as a 'babysitter' (his word) until the messiah came. > > And the best account of the kosher rules that I know (reference on > request) describes how they are a symbolization of the rules of order > and non-killing in the Ten Commandments (e.g., animals that kill to > eat - or meat-eaters, including pigs - are not kosher). Thus the law > symbolizes the messianic age, until messiah comes. That's why > Christians are not bound by its ceremonial (symbolic) requirements, > according to Paul. > > --CGE > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > behalf of E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 3:57 AM > *To:* C G Estabrook > *Cc:* bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar > > "Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old." > > The New Testament is not a contradiction or superseding of the Law and the Prophets > (the old testament) but rather is a fulfillment of the OT. > The New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New explained. > The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed. > > > Here are a few of those red letter words regarding the "Old Testament" being superseded and > made to none effect... > > Heaven and earth will disintegrate before even the > smallest detail of the word of God will fail or lose its power. > - Luke 16.17 (The Passion Translation)** > in case of some idea about cherrypicking a suitable translation... > **But even the smallest part of a letter in the law cannot be changed. > - Luke 16.17 ("Easy-to-Read" Translation) [RTFM, Francis...] > > > > Facilius est autem caelum et terram praeterire, quam de lege unum > apicem cadere. - Lucas 16.17 (Vulgate)ευκοπωτερον δε εστιν τον ουρανον > και την γην παρελθειν η του νομου μιαν κεραιαν πεσειν ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ > 16.17 天 地 废 去 较 比 律 法 的 一 点 一 画 落 空 还 容 易 。 > - 路 加 福 音 16.17 ("he he ben 和合本 chinese union version, 简体字 simplified chars.) > > and in context - > > “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, > the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is > forcing their way into it. ^It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least > stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." - Luke 16.16-17 NIV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Jul 17 02:08:22 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 02:08:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> <0D500DBA-45AA-4945-A01F-860585BF9CE6@gmail.com> <6ff831d5-9f93-f1b6-4ba6-98c237f3139a@pigs.ag> <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F3DC7@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu>, Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F4330@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> παιδαγωγός (paidagōgós) = pedagogue; teacher; guide ________________________________ From: E. Wayne Johnson [ewj at pigs.ag] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:03 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G; C G Estabrook Cc: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar Paul uses the word schoolmaster but indeed some of them are babysitters. The covenant has changed but not the foundational principles. We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8 Estabrook, Carl G wrote: My first professor of New Testament studies in grad school was Krister Stendahl, author of the classic article, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" - which deals also with Augustine and Luther. Stendahl (who became a Lutheran bishop) pointed out that Paul saw the Law as a 'babysitter' (his word) until the messiah came. And the best account of the kosher rules that I know (reference on request) describes how they are a symbolization of the rules of order and non-killing in the Ten Commandments (e.g., animals that kill to eat - or meat-eaters, including pigs - are not kosher). Thus the law symbolizes the messianic age, until messiah comes. That's why Christians are not bound by its ceremonial (symbolic) requirements, according to Paul. --CGE ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 3:57 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar "Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old." The New Testament is not a contradiction or superseding of the Law and the Prophets (the old testament) but rather is a fulfillment of the OT. The New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New explained. The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed. Here are a few of those red letter words regarding the "Old Testament" being superseded and made to none effect... Heaven and earth will disintegrate before even the smallest detail of the word of God will fail or lose its power. - Luke 16.17 (The Passion Translation) in case of some idea about cherrypicking a suitable translation... But even the smallest part of a letter in the law cannot be changed. - Luke 16.17 ("Easy-to-Read" Translation) [RTFM, Francis...] Facilius est autem caelum et terram praeterire, quam de lege unum apicem cadere. - Lucas 16.17 (Vulgate) ευκοπωτερον δε εστιν τον ουρανον και την γην παρελθειν η του νομου μιαν κεραιαν πεσειν ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 16.17 天 地 废 去 较 比 律 法 的 一 点 一 画 落 空 还 容 易 。 - 路 加 福 音 16.17 ("he he ben 和合本 chinese union version, 简体字 simplified chars.) and in context - “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." - Luke 16.16-17 NIV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 07:19:32 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 02:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Calls Off Cold War II Message-ID: <296471D6-E926-42C9-B699-830CC9CE3CC2@gmail.com> http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-calls-off-cold-war-ii-129662 From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 17 10:09:43 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:09:43 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Calls Off Cold War II In-Reply-To: <296471D6-E926-42C9-B699-830CC9CE3CC2@gmail.com> References: <296471D6-E926-42C9-B699-830CC9CE3CC2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1531822181894.fpjcnztn4ms1yxocn3pzuu0s@android.mail.163.com> that will make them have fits. On 2018-07-17 15:19 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-calls-off-cold-war-ii-129662 _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 17 10:09:43 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:09:43 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump Calls Off Cold War II In-Reply-To: <296471D6-E926-42C9-B699-830CC9CE3CC2@gmail.com> References: <296471D6-E926-42C9-B699-830CC9CE3CC2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1531822181894.fpjcnztn4ms1yxocn3pzuu0s@android.mail.163.com> that will make them have fits. On 2018-07-17 15:19 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-calls-off-cold-war-ii-129662 _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jul 17 12:28:33 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 07:28:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump vs. the Democrats: Two reactionary factions fight over foreign policy Message-ID: <005a01d41dc9$adde5c50$099b14f0$@comcast.net> Trump vs. the Democrats: Two reactionary factions fight over foreign policy 16 July 2018 Monday's scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been preceded by a massive barrage of propaganda from the Democrats, their allied media outlets and the US intelligence agencies demanding that Trump intensify military pressure on Russia. This campaign has centered around an indictment released Friday by US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein of 12 Russian military/intelligence officers for allegedly hacking the servers of the Democratic National Committee and the email account of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, and subsequently turning the emails over to WikiLeaks for publication. The release of the indictment, which makes sweeping assertions but cites no evidence, is a cynical and transparent attempt by the US intelligence agencies, working with the Democrats, to reorient the foreign policy of the Trump administration towards geopolitical conflict with Russia. This campaign has reached a hysterical frenzy, in which major TV stations and newspapers are warning that Donald Trump is about to sell out US national interests to Vladimir Putin. The New York Times headlined its lead story Sunday, "Just Sitting Down With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead," declaring "All [Putin] really needs to make his meeting with Mr. Trump a success is for it to take place without any major friction." Such claims are as preposterous as the underlying narrative about Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election. Trump, a representative of the rapacious and parasitic American financial oligarchy, has no intention of "selling out" US imperialist interests. Rather, the bitter differences that have emerged in the run-up to the summit revolve around disagreements between Trump and the Democrats over how best to secure the interests of the American ruling class throughout the world. Trump favors an approach aimed at leveraging the United States' preeminent position in the global economy and geopolitical order to forge bilateral trade agreements to improve the US trade balance. In so doing, he has placed EU countries, and in particular Germany, on his list of targets. In an interview with CBS ahead of the summit, he declared that the United States' greatest economic "foe" is the EU, alongside other "foes" like Russia and China. This was an extension of Trump's statements during last week's NATO summit, when he chided Germany for purchasing natural gas from Russia instead of the United States. The Democrats, speaking for dominant elements of the US state intelligence bureaucracy, see the pursuit of US military and geostrategic aims in Eurasia as more vital than Trump's focus on trade. This accounts for their obsessive fixation with Russia, the encirclement and isolation of which is a key element of the effort to secure US global hegemony through military means. The Democrats' focus on Russia also serves other, equally vital purposes. The perpetual escalation of military tensions with Moscow is aimed at unifying the European Union, in alliance with the United States, against a common enemy. It has, moreover, provided a rationale for the Democrats' loss in the 2016 election and the crackdown on political opposition through Internet censorship, based on the claim that Russia is fueling political dissent to "sow divisions" in American society. By associating WikiLeaks with the supposed Russian conspiracy, the Democrats justify the ongoing campaign against the organization's founder, Julian Assange. In relation to foreign policy, bound up with the demand for more aggressive action against Russia is the concern that Trump is insufficiently committed to the seven-year-old campaign for regime-change in Syria. In an op-ed last week, "Is Trump handing Putin a victory in Syria?" Washington Post columnist David Ignatius declared, "The catastrophic war in Syria is nearing what could be a diplomatic endgame, as the United States, Russia and Israel shape a deal that would preserve power for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in exchange for Russian pledges to restrain Iranian influence." Sections of the foreign policy establishment are speaking in particularly blunt terms of the failure of US efforts to confront Russia in Syria and Ukraine. The events of recent years have shown that "The United States cannot coerce Russia into doing its will," wrote Michael Kimmage in Foreign Affairs. "In Ukraine and Syria, Washington has attempted to isolate Russia, hoping that Putin will meet US demands so he can come in from the cold. So far, coercion and isolation have both failed." However, the factions of the state intelligence apparatus for which the Democrats speak see these setbacks to the United States' foreign policy as an argument for doubling down. In another article in Foreign Affairs, "Don't Get Out of Syria," Jennifer Cafarella, of the Institute for the Study of War, argues that the United States must redouble its efforts if it is to maintain a toehold in the country. Cafarella warns, "The south [of Syria] will likely fall to forces allied with the regime unless the United States acts immediately." She advises the US to "invest now in building leverage for future decisive action by strengthening the military and governance capabilities of its partners on the ground, regaining the trust of Syria's rebelling population, rebuilding rebel forces, and denying Assad the international legitimacy he so desperately craves." Rather than opposing Trump's reactionary attacks on fundamental democratic rights, his criminal immigration policies and his massive expansion of military spending, the Democrats have focused all their efforts on demanding that the US pursue a more aggressive foreign policy against Russia. Indeed, the Russian indictments are seen as an opportunity to shift attention away from the mass outrage over the horrific treatment of immigrant workers by the Trump administration. Given the fact that neither greater US involvement in the Middle East nor war with nuclear-armed Russia has any substantial support in the US population, the Democrats' policies serve only to legitimize Trump. The struggle playing out over the summit in Helsinki is between two ferociously right-wing factions of the American oligarchy and military/intelligence bureaucracy. There is no "anti-war," much less progressive faction in this filthy and reactionary mud fight. Andre Damon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 17 13:01:28 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:01:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack Message-ID: <007301d41dce$46fd2250$d4f766f0$@comcast.net> Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack June 7, 2018 . 111 Comments Save More than two years after the allegation of Russian hacking of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was first made, conclusive proof is still lacking and may never be produced, says Ray McGovern. By Ray McGovern Special to Consortium News https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/raymcgovern_face0-150x 150.jpgIf you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny. It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity - including two "alumni" who were former National Security Agency technical directors - have long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage device - probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama. On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee . to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had to have been the Russians. Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks. Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me . or with anyone else, because it does not exist. WikiLeaks https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Rep-Adam-Schiff-350px. jpg Schiff: Can't share evidence. It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the emails by blaming Russia for their release. Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer' Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'. Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out: June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton." June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians. June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints." The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. Enter Independent Investigators A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts" who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5, 2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device - a thumb drive, for example) by an insider - the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016 for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics" principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.) One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May 31 published new evidence that the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not from Russia. In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated, "We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI." Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013. "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation - a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] Marbled https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CIA-Vault-7-Part-3-Mar ble-Allows-CIA-To-Cover-Their-Tracks.jpg"Scarcely imaginable digital tools - that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV - were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since. "The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.' "The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use 'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text obfuscation. "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical director, and I commented on Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version published in The Baltimore Sun. The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia." Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] "We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing - perhaps even eager - to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin' [of the hack] . And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. "'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? . I can.' New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published 16-minute interview last Friday. In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24, 2017: "Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues. "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times. Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the President's Daily Brief. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2096 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12631 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 49126 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 17 13:02:58 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom Message-ID: <008201d41dce$7c643f00$752cbd00$@comcast.net> The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom By Chris Hedges, Truthdig.com July 16, 2018 | Resist! https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/1googleno tice.png Above Photo: Mr. Fish / Truthdig The failure on the part of establishment media to defend Julian Assange, who has been trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, has been denied communication with the outside world since March and appears to be facing imminent expulsion and arrest, is astonishing. The extradition of the publisher—the maniacal goal of the U.S. government—would set a legal precedent that would criminalize any journalistic oversight or investigation of the corporate state. It would turn leaks and whistleblowing into treason. It would shroud in total secrecy the actions of the ruling global elites. If Assange is extradited to the United States and sentenced, The New York Times, The Washington Post and every other media organization, no matter how tepid their coverage of the corporate state, would be subject to the same draconian censorship. Under the precedent set, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court would enthusiastically uphold the arrest and imprisonment of any publisher, editor or reporter in the name of national security. There are growing signs that the Ecuadorean government of Lenín Moreno is preparing to evict Assange and turn him over to British police. Moreno and his foreign minister, José Valencia, have confirmed they are in negotiations with the British government to “resolve” the fate of Assange. Moreno, who will visit Britain in a few weeks, calls Assange an “inherited problem” and “a stone in the shoe” and has referred to him as a “hacker.” It appears that under a Moreno government Assange is no longer welcome in Ecuador. His only hope now is safe passage to his native Australia or another country willing to give him asylum. “Ecuador has been looking for a solution to this problem,” Valencia commented on television. “The refuge is not forever, you cannot expect it to last for years without us reviewing this situation, including because this violates the rights of the refugee.” Moreno’s predecessor as president, Rafael Correa, who granted Assange asylum in the embassy and made him an Ecuadorean citizen last year, warned that Assange’s “days were numbered.” He charged that Moreno—who cut off Assange’s communications the day after Moreno welcomed a delegation from the U.S. Southern Command—would “throw him out of the embassy at the first pressure from the United States.” Assange, who reportedly is in ill health, took asylum in the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden to answer questions about sexual offense charges. He feared that once in Swedish custody for these charges, which he said were false, he would be extradited to the United States. The Swedish prosecutors’ office ended its “investigation” and extradition request to Britain in May 2017 and did not file sexual offense charges against Assange. But the British government said Assange would nevertheless be arrested and jailed for breaching his bail conditions. The persecution of Assange is part of a broad assault against anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist news organizations. The ruling elites, who refuse to accept responsibility for profound social inequality or the crimes of empire, have no ideological veneer left to justify their greed, ineptitude and pillage. Global capitalism and its ideological justification, neoliberalism, are discredited as forces for democracy and the equitable distribution of wealth. The corporate-controlled economic and political system is as hated by right-wing populists as it is by the rest of the population. This makes the critics of corporatism and imperialism—journalists, writers, dissidents and intellectuals already pushed to the margins of the media landscape—dangerous and it makes them prime targets. Assange is at the top of the list. I took part with dozens of others, including Daniel Ellsberg, William Binney, Craig Murray, Peter Van Buren, Slavoj Zizek, George Galloway and Cian Westmoreland, a week ago in a 36-hour international online vigil demanding freedom for the WikiLeaks publisher. The vigil was organized by the New Zealand Internet Party leader Suzie Dawson. It was the third Unity4J vigil since all of Assange’s communication with the outside world was severed by the Ecuadorean authorities and visits with him were suspended in March, part of the increased pressure the United States has brought on the Ecuadorean government. Assange has since March been allowed to meet only with his attorneys and consular officials from the Australian Embassy. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled Friday that those seeking political asylum have the right to take refuge in embassies and diplomatic compounds. The court stated that governments are obliged to provide safe passage out of the country to those granted asylum. The ruling did not name Assange, but it was a powerful rebuke to the British government, which has refused to allow the WikiLeaks co-founder safe passage to the airport. The ruling elites no longer have a counterargument to their critics. They have resorted to cruder forms of control. These include censorship, slander and character assassination (which in the case of Assange has sadly been successful), blacklisting, financial strangulation, intimidation, imprisonment under the Espionage Act and branding critics and dissidents as agents of a foreign power and purveyors of fake news. The corporate media amplifies these charges, which have no credibility but which become part of the common vernacular through constant repetition. The blacklisting, imprisonment and deportation of tens of thousands of people of conscience during the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s are back with a vengeance. It is a New McCarthyism. Did Russia attempt to influence the election? Undoubtedly. This is what governments do. The United States interfered in 81 elections between 1945 and 2000, according to professor Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. His statistics do not include the numerous coups we orchestrated in countries such as Greece, Iran, Guatemala and Chile or the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. We indirectly bankrolled the re-election campaign of Russia’s buffoonish Boris Yeltsin to the tune of $2.5 billion. But did Russia, as the Democratic Party establishment claims, swing the election to Trump? No. Trump is not Vladimir Putin’s puppet. He is part of the wave of right-wing populists, from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson in Britain to Viktor Orbán in Hungary, who have harnessed the rage and frustration born of an economic and political system dominated by global capitalism and under which the rights and aspirations of working men and women do not matter. The Democratic Party establishment, like the liberal elites in most of the rest of the industrialized world, would be swept from power in an open political process devoid of corporate money. The party elite, including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, is a creation of the corporate state. Campaign finance and electoral reform are the last things the party hierarchy intends to champion. It will not call for social and political programs that will alienate its corporate masters. This myopia and naked self-interest may ensure a second term for Donald Trump; it may further empower the lunatic fringe that is loyal to Trump; it may continue to erode the credibility of the political system. But the choice before the Democratic Party elites is clear: political oblivion or enduring the rule of a demagogue. They have chosen the latter. They are not interested in reform. They are determined to silence anyone, like Assange, who exposes the rot within the ruling class. The Democratic Party establishment benefits from our system of legalized bribery. It benefits from deregulating Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry. It benefits from the endless wars. It benefits from the curtailment of civil liberties including the right to privacy and due process. It benefits from militarized police. It benefits from austerity programs. It benefits from mass incarceration. It is an enabler of tyranny, not an impediment. Demagogues like Trump, Farage and Johnson, of course, have no intention of altering the system of corporate pillage. Rather, they accelerate the pillage, which is what happened with the passage of the massive U.S. tax cut for corporations. They divert the public’s anger toward demonized groups such as Muslims, undocumented workers, people of color, liberals, intellectuals, artists, feminists, the LGBT community and the press. The demonized are blamed for the social and economic dysfunction, much as Jews were falsely blamed for Germany’s defeat in World War I and the economic collapse that followed. Corporations such as Goldman Sachs, in the midst of the decay, continue to make a financial killing. The corporate titans, who often come out of elite universities and are groomed in institutions like Harvard Business School, find these demagogues crude and vulgar. They are embarrassed by their imbecility, megalomania and incompetence. But they endure their presence rather than permit socialists or leftist politicians to impede their profits and divert government spending to social programs and away from weapons manufacturers, the military, private prisons, big banks and hedge funds, the fossil fuel industry, charter schools, private paramilitary forces, private intelligence companies and other pet programs designed to allow corporations to cannibalize the state. The irony is that there was serious meddling in the presidential election, but it did not come from Russia. The Democratic Party, outdoing any of the dirty tricks employed by Richard Nixon, purged hundreds of thousands of primary voters from the rolls, denied those registered as independents the right to vote in primaries, used superdelegates to swing the vote to Hillary Clinton, hijacked the Democratic National Committee to serve the Clinton campaign, controlled the message of media outlets such as MSNBC and The New York Times, stole the Nevada caucus, spent hundreds of millions of dollars of “dark” corporate money on the Clinton campaign and fixed the primary debates. This meddling, which stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, who probably could have defeated Trump, is unmentioned. The party hierarchy will do nothing to reform its corrupt nominating process. WikiLeaks exposed much of this corruption when it published tens of thousands of messages hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account. The messages brought to light the efforts by the Democratic Party leadership to thwart the nomination of Sanders, and they disclosed Clinton’s close ties with Wall Street, including her lucrative Wall Street speeches. They also raised serious questions about conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation and whether Clinton received advance information on primary-debate questions. The Democratic National Committee, for this reason, is leading the Russia hysteria and the persecution of Assange. It filed a lawsuit that names WikiLeaks and Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in an alleged effort to steal the presidential election. But it is not only Assange and WikiLeaks that are being attacked as Russian pawns. For example, The Washington Post, which has sided with the Democratic Party in the war against Trump, without critical analysis published a report on a blacklist posted by the anonymous website PropOrNot. The blacklist was composed of 199 sites that PropOrNot alleged, with no evidence, “reliably echo Russian propaganda.” More than half of those sites were far-right, conspiracy-driven ones. But about 20 of the sites were major progressive outlets including AlterNet, Black Agenda Report, Democracy Now!, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truthout, CounterPunch and the World Socialist Web Site. PropOrNot, short for Propaganda or Not, accused these sites of disseminating “fake news” on behalf of Russia. The Post’s headline was unequivocal: “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during the election, experts say.” In addition to offering no evidence, PropOrNot never even disclosed who ran the website. Even so, its charge was used to justify the imposition of algorithms by Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon to direct traffic away from the targeted sites. These algorithms, or filters, overseen by thousands of “evaluators,” many hired from the military and security and surveillance apparatus, hunt for keywords such as “U.S. military,” “inequality” and “socialism,” along with personal names such as Julian Assange and Laura Poitras. These keywords are known as “impressions.” Before the imposition of the algorithms, a reader could type in the name Julian Assange and be directed to an article on one of these targeted sites. After the algorithms were put in place, these impressions directed readers only to mainstream sites such as The Washington Post. Referral traffic from these impressions at most of the targeted sites has plummeted, often by more than half. Challenged by these algorithms and the abolition of net neutrality, these sites will be pushed further and further to the outer reaches of the media. Any news or media outlet that addresses the reality of our failed democracy and exposes the crimes of empire will be targeted. The January 2017 Director of National Intelligence Report spent seven pages on RT America, where I have a show, “On Contact.” The report does not accuse RT America of disseminating Russian propaganda, but it does allege the network exploits divisions within American society by giving airtime to dissidents and critics including whistleblowers, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, Black Lives Matter activists, anti-fracking campaigners and the third-party candidates the establishment is seeking to mute. If the United States had a public broadcasting system free from corporate money or a commercial press that was not under corporate control, these dissident voices would be included in the mainstream discourse. But we don’t. Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm X, Sheldon Wolin, Ralph Nader, James Baldwin, Susan Sontag, Angela Davis and Edward Said once appeared regularly on public broadcasting. Now critics like these are banned, replaced with vapid courtiers such as columnist David Brooks. RT America was forced to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). This act requires Americans who work for a foreign party to register as foreign agents. The FARA registration is part of the broader assault on all independent media, including the effort to silence Assange. WikiLeak’s publication in 2017 of 8,761 CIA files, known as Vault 7, appeared to be the final indignity. Vault 7 included a description of the cyber tools used by the CIA to hack into computer systems and devices such as smartphones. Former CIA software engineer Joshua Adam Schulte was indicted on charges of violating the Espionage Act by allegedly leaking the documents. The publication of Vault 7 saw the United States significantly increase its pressure on the Ecuadorean government to isolate and eject Assange from the embassy. Mike Pompeo, then the CIA director, said in response to the leaks that the U.S. government “can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Assange’s arrest was a “priority.” It is up to us to mobilize to protect Assange. His life is in jeopardy. The Ecuadorean government, violating his fundamental rights, has transformed his asylum into a form of incarceration. By cutting off his access to the internet, it has deprived him of the ability to communicate and follow world events. The aim of this isolation is to pressure Assange out of the embassy so he can be seized by London police, thrown into a British jail and then delivered into the hands of Pompeo, John Bolton and the CIA’s torturer in chief, Gina Haspel. Assange is a courageous and fearless publisher who is being persecuted for exposing the crimes of the corporate state and imperialism. His defense is the cutting edge of the fight against government suppression of our most important and fundamental democratic rights. The government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia, where Assange was born, must be pressured to provide him with the protection to which he is entitled as a citizen. It must intercede to stop the illegal persecution of the journalist by the British, American and Ecuadorean governments. It must secure his safe return to Australia. If we fail to protect Assange, we fail to protect ourselves. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 13068 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jul 17 14:04:59 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:04:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Paul Jay on Trump-Putin and the Real Threats to Democracy Message-ID: July 16, 2018 Whether the Kremlin meddled in the U.S. election or not, the hyper-focus on Russiagate overlooks bigger threats: Russian elites to the Russian people, and U.S. elites to the American people, says Paul Jay The AARON MATE: It’s The Real News. I’m Aaron Mate. Paul Jay on Trump-Putin and the Real Threats to Democracy Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have wrapped their summit in Helsinki. Both pledged to cooperate, with Trump calling for dialogue, and Putin saying the Cold War is a thing of the past. Putin also renewed his denial of meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election just days after 12 Russian military intelligence officers were indicted for that very act. Trump caused a stir back home when he was asked about Putin’s denial. SPEAKER: Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference of 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. What. Who-. My first question for you, sir, is who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016, and would you want him to never do it again? DONALD TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server, why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months, and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server, and what is the servers saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others. They said, they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be. AARON MATE: Those comments, among others, prompted former CIA chief John Brennan to call Trump, quote, nothing short of treasonous. Well, are there other ways of interpreting Trump’s comments? And are there other issues that are being overlooked in the focus on the Trump-Putin summit? Well, joining me is Paul Jay, senior editor of The Real News. All right, Paul, so people are calling this the surrender summit. Others are calling it the treason summit. Curious about your take on this meeting that went down today. PAUL JAY: Well, it’s a complicated question because it’s a very complicated moment in history, in geopolitical relations. But the underlying assumption here, and that’s driving all of this rhetoric and drama, is the phrase Russia is America’s adversary. You really need to break that down to make sense of everything else. AARON MATE: Paul, let me, let me go to a clip, then, of that. Just recently Trump was interviewed by CBS News ahead of the summit, and he was asked about this. Let me play a clip of that. SPEAKER: What’s your biggest competitor, the biggest foe globally right now? DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn’t think of the European Union, but they’re a foe. Russia’s a foe, in certain respects. China is a foe of, economically, certainly, they’re a foe. But that doesn’t mean they’re bad. It doesn’t mean anything. It means that they are competitors. They want to do well, and we want to do well. AARON MATE: That’s Donald Trump speaking to CBS News. Last week at the NATO summit he rejected assertions that Russia is an enemy of the U.S. Trump referred to them as a competitor. Paul, you were saying. PAUL JAY: Well, you know, Trump in his own kind of dishonest-honest way often says things that are true. And I think what he’s just said in that CBS interview is quite correct. And even though CNN’s and MSNBC are playing that clip over and over again to show how outrageous Trump is. But the fact is, you know, this is what big capitalist countries are to each other. They are competitors, and they are allies. The interests converge and they diverge. Before World War II, the United States and Germany were allies to some extent, but they were certainly economic partners. There was an enormous amount of exports in the United States to Germany. In fact, even as Hitler was beginning the Second World War, he’s driving General Motors-produced cars. That’s, in fact, his army goes to war to a large extent because of what General Motors produced and sold to the German state. This is how the world has worked. We’re not in a whole new world. What happened in the lead up to the First World War, the lead up to the Second World War, and you know, these big capitalist countries, for a while interests meet and then they don’t. And why is that? Countries are very much like big companies. In fact, they’re made up of big companies, big corporations. And big corporations want to be dominant. They want to control the market. They want, you know, if not it, in their own country. They’d even like to control it globally. It leads to monopolies. And monopolies want to control everything. Well, monopolies in one country want to control everything, and monopolies from another want to control everything, and they bump heads. And so there’s a tendency built right into the economies of these, of these countries, that at certain points they look to grow, and they look for more territory, and they look for more markets. And of course there’s other drivers of this. The arms industry loves this kind of rivalry. So it’s not just about some personalities of a Putin, or a Trump. The system itself has war and this kind of global competition built right into its DNA. And so when we look at this issue of who’s an adversary and who’s a friend, at this level Trump speaks, he’s right. The European Union is an economic competitor to the United States. They compete over markets. And especially Germany and the United States had quite a fierce competition going on in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union which, Germany or U.S. would be the more dominant external power in that area. So Trump is saying, well, Russia is a competitor and friend the same way the Europeans are. Well, this does get in the way of the American military industrial complex, who want, need a big enemy to justify this kind of military expenditure. And it does get in the way of the basic U.S. foreign policy, geopolitical strategy coming out of the Second World War, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, which is that there should never be another superpower. More than that, there should never even be a regional power that the Americans can’t control. So they don’t like this contention with Russia, they being a sector of the foreign policy establishment, and the military, and so on. Now, what does Trump represent? He represents a section of the elites that see that the real contention in the world for the United States is going to be China. So it makes sense in that frame of reference. You know, neutralize the contention with Russia. Even try to make sure there is no Russia-China alliance. And the short-term goal of these people is to have regime change and undermine Iran as much as possible. And this is for the same reason. They don’t want a regional power, either, that they’re not in control of. And since the Iranian revolution they haven’t been in control of that. So what Trump said there is more or less true, but it’s very dangerous truth. Because these competitors, who are all nice guys, according to Trump, can turn into real enemies and real war, which is why this kind of supposedly liberal media that’s attacking these meetings and sounding more hawkish than, than even some of the Republicans, is really extraordinary; the way they’re feeding this kind of warlike appetite in the American psychology. AARON MATE: Well, Paul, let me read for you some tweets to illustrate that point. Because the overall consensus in the corporate media and amongst prominent political elites in the U.S. has been that this idea is a bad idea, and the cooperation with Russia is wrong and possibly treasonous. So Richard Haass, the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, he tweeted: International order for four centuries has been based on non-interference in the internal affairs of others and respect for sovereignty. Russia has violated this norm by seizing Crimea and by interfering in the 2016 U.S. election. We must deal with Putin’s Russia as the rogue state it is. David Corn, a journalist for the liberal magazine Mother Jones, he said in response to Rand Paul pointing out that the U.S. has interfered in countries for many, many, many years-. And Paul did mention this, but in more even extreme ways than Russia is accused of doing right now. David Corn simply wrote the word ‘traitor’ on Twitter. Andrea Mitchell, talking about the warnings from the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. She writes: The nation’s top spy DNI Dan Coats warns Russia it the worst foreign power threatening the U.S. with cyber attacks and warning lights are blinking red, as terror threats were before 9/11. So likening the current supposed Russian threat to al Qaeda before 9/11. And finally, Lawrence O’Donnell, the host of The Last Word on MSNBC, liberal network. He writes: Russia launched a war against the U.S. in 2016, and won. So Paul, I’m just wondering, when you hear this roster of liberal elites rattling off hawkish talking points, talking about treason, Richard Haass talking about how Russia is the one violating the international order, omitting the record of the country he lives in. Your thoughts? PAUL JAY: Well, I mean, the hypocrisy is so rich that one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, we know the United States has interfered in elections everywhere, including supposed allies and friends. And if interfering in an election is a violation of international law, and it is, it should be. What Haass says, in fact, is international law. You are supposed to stay out of other countries, meddling with their elections and internal affairs. The United States has done it over and over again, and most people watching this know lots of examples. One they may not know is that the United States actually manipulated the outcome of the Canadian election, twice, in 1962 and 1963. Prime Minister Diefenbaker of Canada refused to have nuclear weapons on Bullmark missiles in Canada, and Kennedy was furious. And Kennedy sent his pollster Lou Harris to guide the Liberal Party in Canada to defeat Diefenbaker’s conservatives. He hired 500 women to start polling. And it wasn’t just to find out results of the polling. They were actually doing the kind of stuff Cambridge Analytica is accused of doing now. They were testing questions, and how the Liberal Party should frame their messaging. This is early on, maybe the first beginnings of this kind of methodology. Well, Kennedy gets Lou Harris to do this for Diefenbaker, against Diefenbaker in Canada. And then he invites Pearson, who is the Liberal ally in Canada, to Washington, to a dinner of Nobel Prize winners, which are only supposed to be Americans. But he invites this Canadian Pearson, again to try to promote Pearson. And in fact, they win. Diefenbaker is defeated in 1963. Straightforward interference and manipulation of the Canadian elections. So should we brand Kennedy a violator of international and international law? Well, in fact, we should. But of course Richard Haass won’t. The hypocrisy is far too rich. Maybe the Russians did these things to the American elections. Maybe they wanted a Trump victory as an outcome. Maybe they wanted to weaken the Clinton presidency, as people are accusing them of. Maybe it’s all true. But the truth of it is this is normal stuff in the competition between these big countries. And the reason it’s made such an issue now is because various forces want to wound Trump. And he may or may not be complicit in this. So far there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence that he is. But it’s about the wounding of Trump and the, and the struggle that’s taking place in the American elites, and within, very importantly, within the state apparatus itself, a real struggle. And I have to say, I welcome this struggle. Because I think we have to talk about from what perspective do we look at these things? Because when they want us to look at these things as Americans, like we’re all the same. You know, it’s an attack on American values. It’s an attack on American democracy. Well is American values what goes on in the streets of Baltimore every day, where the Department of Justice said that people’s Constitutional rights are violated every single day in Baltimore? Are American values unlimited spending of money, manipulating, and the real manipulation, and determining outcome of elections? These aren’t the values of the American people. So let’s really be clear. The oligarchy of Russia is an adversary of the Russian people and the American oligarchy is an adversary of the American people. Let’s start with that. We’re not all in the same boat here. So, so this issue of the people all up in arms about this summit, it’s from the, from the perspective of various sections of the American oligarchy. This is not what the American people need or want. AARON MATE: On what you were saying about hypocrisy and meddling being routine by all big foreign powers, including the U.S., I want to go to one more clip to illustrate, because it also speaks to the tensions underlying U.S.-Russia relations, where in the ’90s you had a heavy U.S. role not just in shaping the outcome of presidential elections, ensuring a victory for Boris Yeltsin, but also in the rise of the oligarchs that you’re talking about. The U.S. shock therapy with U.S. economic advisers at the helm helped impose on Russia these radical reforms that gave rise to the oligarchs who now control so much wealth in the country. Fast forward to 2014 and you had U.S. involvement in the coup in Ukraine, where a very corrupt but elected leader, Yanukovich, was overthrown. And just to illustrate some of the hypocrisy about this outrage over alleged Russian email hacking, I’m going to go to a clip. This is Victoria Nuland, who was then serving as a high official in the State Department. And she’s speaking to the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. And in this clip from the film Ukraine on Fire there is an intercepted phone call that was put out back then between Nuland and the ambassador, where they’re discussing who they want to see installed as the next president of Ukraine. SPEAKER: Questions of credibility are being raised after a private chat between two top U.S. diplomats was leaked online. VICTORIA NULAND: I think [inaudible] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s, he’s the guy. You know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work. SPEAKER: Yeah. No, I think that’s right. OK. Good. You want us to try to set up a call with him as the next step? VICTORIA NULAND: Sullivan’s come back to me VFR saying you need Biden, and I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the deets to stick. So Biden’s willing. AARON MATE: Biden’s willing, says Victoria Nuland, referring to then-Vice President Joe Biden. So Paul, as we wrap, I’d like you to actually respond to those viewers, some of whom have written into The Real News, saying that, you know, yes, U.S. has meddled around the world, the U.S. has done worse. It’s overthrown governments, it’s killed leaders. But why-. But that doesn’t excuse what Russia is doing now, and that doesn’t mean that we should downplay or minimize it. If you could respond to that. PAUL JAY: Well, let me say, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Russian state was involved in the attempt to manipulate the outcome of the elections. I don’t think there’s evidence of that yet. We’re told the intelligence agencies all think so, and I tend to think there might be some truth to it in the sense some of the people, especially in the Republican Party, are saying they think that’s true. You know, there’s this phrase, this legal phrase, you know, when somebody says something against interest. And some of the people that seem to say it, given they want, they don’t want Trump to fail, there’s something to it. But I don’t really know. But let’s say, say it is. How serious a threat is this, and how serious a story is it? So, it’s not a non-story. It’s not like we shouldn’t cover it. And at The Real News we certainly spent a lot of time trying to see if there’s real evidence that, in the public domain at least, that one can believe. And the main position we’ve had, and Aaron, you’ve been doing a lot of these interviews, is simply that we’re skeptical. That we’re not going to take this intelligence on faith. And it’s not that we don’t take it seriously. If it turns out to be true, it’s unacceptable that Russia tried to manipulate the outcome of the Russian elections. But it’s, but let’s put it into the context of what-. AARON MATE: Of the U.S. election, yeah. PAUL JAY: Well, of what really affected the outcome of U.S., the U.S. election. So let’s say they did what they did. But what’s the bigger story? That the Russians did that? Or just, for example, that this billionaire Robert Mercer, who brings money, Bannon and Kellyanne Conway and Breitbart News, which he mostly owned, to Trump, and manipulate through Cambridge Analytica, do various kinds of studying of voter patterns, especially in swing states, and are able to message specific messages to individual people. How about how one billionaire and a cabal-. I should say two. Sheldon Adelson’s in on this. The ultra-Zionist who gave 25, at least $25 million to Trump. I mean, how about that is the big story? I still talk to people, intelligent, well-informed people, who never even heard the name Robert Mercer. It’s a far more important story to how the outcome of the election was manipulated by a far-right cabal very closely aligned with Netanyahu and Israel, allied with the Saudis. That’s a really big story. And so it’s not that the Russians aren’t a big story; I mean aren’t a story; but you know, where’s the big weight of the issues? And more importantly, given how destructive this Trump presidency is to the social safety net, to any kind of rational legislation that still exists in this country- and there wasn’t a heck of a lot of it, but they’re undoing what there was- given the fact that he’s a climate denier, I mean, what’s the bigger story? The fact that he’s undoing even the modest climate change legislation that existed? You know, pulling back EPA regulations on cars, allowing coal starting to drill everywhere any of these guys wants to drill, isn’t that a much bigger story than maybe, or even if, the Russians did whatever they did? The point is that this Russia thing isn’t being driven by a real defense of values. Because the values of saving the planet, that’s a value. They’re not even talking about it. So what we’re trying to do with The Real News is talk about what’s, what’s important. We’re not discounting, yes, if the Russians did it, American government agencies have every right to tell the Russians to stay the hell out of American elections. And if somebody colluded with them, yeah, sure, arrest them. I mean, whatever. That’s fine. But it’s peanuts compared to the bigger issues. AARON MATE: Paul Jay, senior editor of The Real News, thanks. PAUL JAY: Thank you. AARON MATE: Thank you for joining us on The Real News -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jul 17 14:04:59 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:04:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Paul Jay on Trump-Putin and the Real Threats to Democracy Message-ID: July 16, 2018 Whether the Kremlin meddled in the U.S. election or not, the hyper-focus on Russiagate overlooks bigger threats: Russian elites to the Russian people, and U.S. elites to the American people, says Paul Jay The AARON MATE: It’s The Real News. I’m Aaron Mate. Paul Jay on Trump-Putin and the Real Threats to Democracy Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have wrapped their summit in Helsinki. Both pledged to cooperate, with Trump calling for dialogue, and Putin saying the Cold War is a thing of the past. Putin also renewed his denial of meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election just days after 12 Russian military intelligence officers were indicted for that very act. Trump caused a stir back home when he was asked about Putin’s denial. SPEAKER: Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference of 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. What. Who-. My first question for you, sir, is who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016, and would you want him to never do it again? DONALD TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server, why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months, and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server, and what is the servers saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others. They said, they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be. AARON MATE: Those comments, among others, prompted former CIA chief John Brennan to call Trump, quote, nothing short of treasonous. Well, are there other ways of interpreting Trump’s comments? And are there other issues that are being overlooked in the focus on the Trump-Putin summit? Well, joining me is Paul Jay, senior editor of The Real News. All right, Paul, so people are calling this the surrender summit. Others are calling it the treason summit. Curious about your take on this meeting that went down today. PAUL JAY: Well, it’s a complicated question because it’s a very complicated moment in history, in geopolitical relations. But the underlying assumption here, and that’s driving all of this rhetoric and drama, is the phrase Russia is America’s adversary. You really need to break that down to make sense of everything else. AARON MATE: Paul, let me, let me go to a clip, then, of that. Just recently Trump was interviewed by CBS News ahead of the summit, and he was asked about this. Let me play a clip of that. SPEAKER: What’s your biggest competitor, the biggest foe globally right now? DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn’t think of the European Union, but they’re a foe. Russia’s a foe, in certain respects. China is a foe of, economically, certainly, they’re a foe. But that doesn’t mean they’re bad. It doesn’t mean anything. It means that they are competitors. They want to do well, and we want to do well. AARON MATE: That’s Donald Trump speaking to CBS News. Last week at the NATO summit he rejected assertions that Russia is an enemy of the U.S. Trump referred to them as a competitor. Paul, you were saying. PAUL JAY: Well, you know, Trump in his own kind of dishonest-honest way often says things that are true. And I think what he’s just said in that CBS interview is quite correct. And even though CNN’s and MSNBC are playing that clip over and over again to show how outrageous Trump is. But the fact is, you know, this is what big capitalist countries are to each other. They are competitors, and they are allies. The interests converge and they diverge. Before World War II, the United States and Germany were allies to some extent, but they were certainly economic partners. There was an enormous amount of exports in the United States to Germany. In fact, even as Hitler was beginning the Second World War, he’s driving General Motors-produced cars. That’s, in fact, his army goes to war to a large extent because of what General Motors produced and sold to the German state. This is how the world has worked. We’re not in a whole new world. What happened in the lead up to the First World War, the lead up to the Second World War, and you know, these big capitalist countries, for a while interests meet and then they don’t. And why is that? Countries are very much like big companies. In fact, they’re made up of big companies, big corporations. And big corporations want to be dominant. They want to control the market. They want, you know, if not it, in their own country. They’d even like to control it globally. It leads to monopolies. And monopolies want to control everything. Well, monopolies in one country want to control everything, and monopolies from another want to control everything, and they bump heads. And so there’s a tendency built right into the economies of these, of these countries, that at certain points they look to grow, and they look for more territory, and they look for more markets. And of course there’s other drivers of this. The arms industry loves this kind of rivalry. So it’s not just about some personalities of a Putin, or a Trump. The system itself has war and this kind of global competition built right into its DNA. And so when we look at this issue of who’s an adversary and who’s a friend, at this level Trump speaks, he’s right. The European Union is an economic competitor to the United States. They compete over markets. And especially Germany and the United States had quite a fierce competition going on in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union which, Germany or U.S. would be the more dominant external power in that area. So Trump is saying, well, Russia is a competitor and friend the same way the Europeans are. Well, this does get in the way of the American military industrial complex, who want, need a big enemy to justify this kind of military expenditure. And it does get in the way of the basic U.S. foreign policy, geopolitical strategy coming out of the Second World War, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, which is that there should never be another superpower. More than that, there should never even be a regional power that the Americans can’t control. So they don’t like this contention with Russia, they being a sector of the foreign policy establishment, and the military, and so on. Now, what does Trump represent? He represents a section of the elites that see that the real contention in the world for the United States is going to be China. So it makes sense in that frame of reference. You know, neutralize the contention with Russia. Even try to make sure there is no Russia-China alliance. And the short-term goal of these people is to have regime change and undermine Iran as much as possible. And this is for the same reason. They don’t want a regional power, either, that they’re not in control of. And since the Iranian revolution they haven’t been in control of that. So what Trump said there is more or less true, but it’s very dangerous truth. Because these competitors, who are all nice guys, according to Trump, can turn into real enemies and real war, which is why this kind of supposedly liberal media that’s attacking these meetings and sounding more hawkish than, than even some of the Republicans, is really extraordinary; the way they’re feeding this kind of warlike appetite in the American psychology. AARON MATE: Well, Paul, let me read for you some tweets to illustrate that point. Because the overall consensus in the corporate media and amongst prominent political elites in the U.S. has been that this idea is a bad idea, and the cooperation with Russia is wrong and possibly treasonous. So Richard Haass, the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, he tweeted: International order for four centuries has been based on non-interference in the internal affairs of others and respect for sovereignty. Russia has violated this norm by seizing Crimea and by interfering in the 2016 U.S. election. We must deal with Putin’s Russia as the rogue state it is. David Corn, a journalist for the liberal magazine Mother Jones, he said in response to Rand Paul pointing out that the U.S. has interfered in countries for many, many, many years-. And Paul did mention this, but in more even extreme ways than Russia is accused of doing right now. David Corn simply wrote the word ‘traitor’ on Twitter. Andrea Mitchell, talking about the warnings from the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. She writes: The nation’s top spy DNI Dan Coats warns Russia it the worst foreign power threatening the U.S. with cyber attacks and warning lights are blinking red, as terror threats were before 9/11. So likening the current supposed Russian threat to al Qaeda before 9/11. And finally, Lawrence O’Donnell, the host of The Last Word on MSNBC, liberal network. He writes: Russia launched a war against the U.S. in 2016, and won. So Paul, I’m just wondering, when you hear this roster of liberal elites rattling off hawkish talking points, talking about treason, Richard Haass talking about how Russia is the one violating the international order, omitting the record of the country he lives in. Your thoughts? PAUL JAY: Well, I mean, the hypocrisy is so rich that one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, we know the United States has interfered in elections everywhere, including supposed allies and friends. And if interfering in an election is a violation of international law, and it is, it should be. What Haass says, in fact, is international law. You are supposed to stay out of other countries, meddling with their elections and internal affairs. The United States has done it over and over again, and most people watching this know lots of examples. One they may not know is that the United States actually manipulated the outcome of the Canadian election, twice, in 1962 and 1963. Prime Minister Diefenbaker of Canada refused to have nuclear weapons on Bullmark missiles in Canada, and Kennedy was furious. And Kennedy sent his pollster Lou Harris to guide the Liberal Party in Canada to defeat Diefenbaker’s conservatives. He hired 500 women to start polling. And it wasn’t just to find out results of the polling. They were actually doing the kind of stuff Cambridge Analytica is accused of doing now. They were testing questions, and how the Liberal Party should frame their messaging. This is early on, maybe the first beginnings of this kind of methodology. Well, Kennedy gets Lou Harris to do this for Diefenbaker, against Diefenbaker in Canada. And then he invites Pearson, who is the Liberal ally in Canada, to Washington, to a dinner of Nobel Prize winners, which are only supposed to be Americans. But he invites this Canadian Pearson, again to try to promote Pearson. And in fact, they win. Diefenbaker is defeated in 1963. Straightforward interference and manipulation of the Canadian elections. So should we brand Kennedy a violator of international and international law? Well, in fact, we should. But of course Richard Haass won’t. The hypocrisy is far too rich. Maybe the Russians did these things to the American elections. Maybe they wanted a Trump victory as an outcome. Maybe they wanted to weaken the Clinton presidency, as people are accusing them of. Maybe it’s all true. But the truth of it is this is normal stuff in the competition between these big countries. And the reason it’s made such an issue now is because various forces want to wound Trump. And he may or may not be complicit in this. So far there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence that he is. But it’s about the wounding of Trump and the, and the struggle that’s taking place in the American elites, and within, very importantly, within the state apparatus itself, a real struggle. And I have to say, I welcome this struggle. Because I think we have to talk about from what perspective do we look at these things? Because when they want us to look at these things as Americans, like we’re all the same. You know, it’s an attack on American values. It’s an attack on American democracy. Well is American values what goes on in the streets of Baltimore every day, where the Department of Justice said that people’s Constitutional rights are violated every single day in Baltimore? Are American values unlimited spending of money, manipulating, and the real manipulation, and determining outcome of elections? These aren’t the values of the American people. So let’s really be clear. The oligarchy of Russia is an adversary of the Russian people and the American oligarchy is an adversary of the American people. Let’s start with that. We’re not all in the same boat here. So, so this issue of the people all up in arms about this summit, it’s from the, from the perspective of various sections of the American oligarchy. This is not what the American people need or want. AARON MATE: On what you were saying about hypocrisy and meddling being routine by all big foreign powers, including the U.S., I want to go to one more clip to illustrate, because it also speaks to the tensions underlying U.S.-Russia relations, where in the ’90s you had a heavy U.S. role not just in shaping the outcome of presidential elections, ensuring a victory for Boris Yeltsin, but also in the rise of the oligarchs that you’re talking about. The U.S. shock therapy with U.S. economic advisers at the helm helped impose on Russia these radical reforms that gave rise to the oligarchs who now control so much wealth in the country. Fast forward to 2014 and you had U.S. involvement in the coup in Ukraine, where a very corrupt but elected leader, Yanukovich, was overthrown. And just to illustrate some of the hypocrisy about this outrage over alleged Russian email hacking, I’m going to go to a clip. This is Victoria Nuland, who was then serving as a high official in the State Department. And she’s speaking to the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. And in this clip from the film Ukraine on Fire there is an intercepted phone call that was put out back then between Nuland and the ambassador, where they’re discussing who they want to see installed as the next president of Ukraine. SPEAKER: Questions of credibility are being raised after a private chat between two top U.S. diplomats was leaked online. VICTORIA NULAND: I think [inaudible] is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s, he’s the guy. You know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work. SPEAKER: Yeah. No, I think that’s right. OK. Good. You want us to try to set up a call with him as the next step? VICTORIA NULAND: Sullivan’s come back to me VFR saying you need Biden, and I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the deets to stick. So Biden’s willing. AARON MATE: Biden’s willing, says Victoria Nuland, referring to then-Vice President Joe Biden. So Paul, as we wrap, I’d like you to actually respond to those viewers, some of whom have written into The Real News, saying that, you know, yes, U.S. has meddled around the world, the U.S. has done worse. It’s overthrown governments, it’s killed leaders. But why-. But that doesn’t excuse what Russia is doing now, and that doesn’t mean that we should downplay or minimize it. If you could respond to that. PAUL JAY: Well, let me say, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Russian state was involved in the attempt to manipulate the outcome of the elections. I don’t think there’s evidence of that yet. We’re told the intelligence agencies all think so, and I tend to think there might be some truth to it in the sense some of the people, especially in the Republican Party, are saying they think that’s true. You know, there’s this phrase, this legal phrase, you know, when somebody says something against interest. And some of the people that seem to say it, given they want, they don’t want Trump to fail, there’s something to it. But I don’t really know. But let’s say, say it is. How serious a threat is this, and how serious a story is it? So, it’s not a non-story. It’s not like we shouldn’t cover it. And at The Real News we certainly spent a lot of time trying to see if there’s real evidence that, in the public domain at least, that one can believe. And the main position we’ve had, and Aaron, you’ve been doing a lot of these interviews, is simply that we’re skeptical. That we’re not going to take this intelligence on faith. And it’s not that we don’t take it seriously. If it turns out to be true, it’s unacceptable that Russia tried to manipulate the outcome of the Russian elections. But it’s, but let’s put it into the context of what-. AARON MATE: Of the U.S. election, yeah. PAUL JAY: Well, of what really affected the outcome of U.S., the U.S. election. So let’s say they did what they did. But what’s the bigger story? That the Russians did that? Or just, for example, that this billionaire Robert Mercer, who brings money, Bannon and Kellyanne Conway and Breitbart News, which he mostly owned, to Trump, and manipulate through Cambridge Analytica, do various kinds of studying of voter patterns, especially in swing states, and are able to message specific messages to individual people. How about how one billionaire and a cabal-. I should say two. Sheldon Adelson’s in on this. The ultra-Zionist who gave 25, at least $25 million to Trump. I mean, how about that is the big story? I still talk to people, intelligent, well-informed people, who never even heard the name Robert Mercer. It’s a far more important story to how the outcome of the election was manipulated by a far-right cabal very closely aligned with Netanyahu and Israel, allied with the Saudis. That’s a really big story. And so it’s not that the Russians aren’t a big story; I mean aren’t a story; but you know, where’s the big weight of the issues? And more importantly, given how destructive this Trump presidency is to the social safety net, to any kind of rational legislation that still exists in this country- and there wasn’t a heck of a lot of it, but they’re undoing what there was- given the fact that he’s a climate denier, I mean, what’s the bigger story? The fact that he’s undoing even the modest climate change legislation that existed? You know, pulling back EPA regulations on cars, allowing coal starting to drill everywhere any of these guys wants to drill, isn’t that a much bigger story than maybe, or even if, the Russians did whatever they did? The point is that this Russia thing isn’t being driven by a real defense of values. Because the values of saving the planet, that’s a value. They’re not even talking about it. So what we’re trying to do with The Real News is talk about what’s, what’s important. We’re not discounting, yes, if the Russians did it, American government agencies have every right to tell the Russians to stay the hell out of American elections. And if somebody colluded with them, yeah, sure, arrest them. I mean, whatever. That’s fine. But it’s peanuts compared to the bigger issues. AARON MATE: Paul Jay, senior editor of The Real News, thanks. PAUL JAY: Thank you. AARON MATE: Thank you for joining us on The Real News -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 17 14:43:13 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:43:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom In-Reply-To: References: <008201d41dce$7c643f00$752cbd00$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <002401d41ddc$7db4d280$791e7780$@comcast.net> Julian Assange is a hero, freedom fighter, and champion of the people Roger. Along with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning – TRUE patriots. If you would get your head out of your ass and stop your sole reliance on the corporate media for your information source and actually do some research for NON CORPORATE real journalistic sources that have a proven track record of reliability over years and decades then you would realize this. But what else should I expect from a warmonger and neo-liberal like you. David J. From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:09 AM To: David Johnson Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom Assange is a liar who accepts the stolen items and has actively worked with the Russian GRU - he is not really a reporter nor does he have reporters interests in mind! Roger the only genuine whistleblower who e-mails this list! On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom By Chris Hedges, Truthdig.com July 16, 2018 | Resist! https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2017/12/1googlenotice.png Above Photo: Mr. Fish / Truthdig The failure on the part of establishment media to defend Julian Assange, who has been trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, has been denied communication with the outside world since March and appears to be facing imminent expulsion and arrest, is astonishing. The extradition of the publisher—the maniacal goal of the U.S. government—would set a legal precedent that would criminalize any journalistic oversight or investigation of the corporate state. It would turn leaks and whistleblowing into treason. It would shroud in total secrecy the actions of the ruling global elites. If Assange is extradited to the United States and sentenced, The New York Times, The Washington Post and every other media organization, no matter how tepid their coverage of the corporate state, would be subject to the same draconian censorship. Under the precedent set, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court would enthusiastically uphold the arrest and imprisonment of any publisher, editor or reporter in the name of national security. There are growing signs that the Ecuadorean government of Lenín Moreno is preparing to evict Assange and turn him over to British police. Moreno and his foreign minister, José Valencia, have confirmed they are in negotiations with the British government to “resolve” the fate of Assange. Moreno, who will visit Britain in a few weeks, calls Assange an “inherited problem” and “a stone in the shoe” and has referred to him as a “hacker.” It appears that under a Moreno government Assange is no longer welcome in Ecuador. His only hope now is safe passage to his native Australia or another country willing to give him asylum. “Ecuador has been looking for a solution to this problem,” Valencia commented on television. “The refuge is not forever, you cannot expect it to last for years without us reviewing this situation, including because this violates the rights of the refugee.” Moreno’s predecessor as president, Rafael Correa, who granted Assange asylum in the embassy and made him an Ecuadorean citizen last year, warned that Assange’s “days were numbered.” He charged that Moreno—who cut off Assange’s communications the day after Moreno welcomed a delegation from the U.S. Southern Command—would “throw him out of the embassy at the first pressure from the United States.” Assange, who reportedly is in ill health, took asylum in the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden to answer questions about sexual offense charges . He feared that once in Swedish custody for these charges, which he said were false, he would be extradited to the United States. The Swedish prosecutors’ office ended its “investigation” and extradition request to Britain in May 2017 and did not file sexual offense charges against Assange. But the British government said Assange would nevertheless be arrested and jailed for breaching his bail conditions. The persecution of Assange is part of a broad assault against anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist news organizations. The ruling elites, who refuse to accept responsibility for profound social inequality or the crimes of empire, have no ideological veneer left to justify their greed, ineptitude and pillage. Global capitalism and its ideological justification, neoliberalism, are discredited as forces for democracy and the equitable distribution of wealth. The corporate-controlled economic and political system is as hated by right-wing populists as it is by the rest of the population. This makes the critics of corporatism and imperialism—journalists, writers, dissidents and intellectuals already pushed to the margins of the media landscape—dangerous and it makes them prime targets. Assange is at the top of the list. I took part with dozens of others, including Daniel Ellsberg, William Binney , Craig Murray , Peter Van Buren , Slavoj Zizek, George Galloway and Cian Westmoreland , a week ago in a 36-hour international online vigil demanding freedom for the WikiLeaks publisher. The vigil was organized by the New Zealand Internet Party leader Suzie Dawson. It was the third Unity4J vigil since all of Assange’s communication with the outside world was severed by the Ecuadorean authorities and visits with him were suspended in March, part of the increased pressure the United States has brought on the Ecuadorean government. Assange has since March been allowed to meet only with his attorneys and consular officials from the Australian Embassy. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled Friday that those seeking political asylum have the right to take refuge in embassies and diplomatic compounds. The court stated that governments are obliged to provide safe passage out of the country to those granted asylum. The ruling did not name Assange, but it was a powerful rebuke to the British government, which has refused to allow the WikiLeaks co-founder safe passage to the airport. The ruling elites no longer have a counterargument to their critics. They have resorted to cruder forms of control. These include censorship, slander and character assassination (which in the case of Assange has sadly been successful), blacklisting, financial strangulation, intimidation, imprisonment under the Espionage Act and branding critics and dissidents as agents of a foreign power and purveyors of fake news. The corporate media amplifies these charges, which have no credibility but which become part of the common vernacular through constant repetition. The blacklisting, imprisonment and deportation of tens of thousands of people of conscience during the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s are back with a vengeance. It is a New McCarthyism. Did Russia attempt to influence the election? Undoubtedly. This is what governments do. The United States interfered in 81 elections between 1945 and 2000, according to professor Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. His statistics do not include the numerous coups we orchestrated in countries such as Greece, Iran, Guatemala and Chile or the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. We indirectly bankrolled the re-election campaign of Russia’s buffoonish Boris Yeltsin to the tune of $2.5 billion. But did Russia, as the Democratic Party establishment claims, swing the election to Trump? No. Trump is not Vladimir Putin’s puppet. He is part of the wave of right-wing populists, from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson in Britain to Viktor Orbán in Hungary, who have harnessed the rage and frustration born of an economic and political system dominated by global capitalism and under which the rights and aspirations of working men and women do not matter. The Democratic Party establishment, like the liberal elites in most of the rest of the industrialized world, would be swept from power in an open political process devoid of corporate money. The party elite, including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, is a creation of the corporate state. Campaign finance and electoral reform are the last things the party hierarchy intends to champion. It will not call for social and political programs that will alienate its corporate masters. This myopia and naked self-interest may ensure a second term for Donald Trump; it may further empower the lunatic fringe that is loyal to Trump; it may continue to erode the credibility of the political system. But the choice before the Democratic Party elites is clear: political oblivion or enduring the rule of a demagogue. They have chosen the latter. They are not interested in reform. They are determined to silence anyone, like Assange, who exposes the rot within the ruling class. The Democratic Party establishment benefits from our system of legalized bribery. It benefits from deregulating Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry. It benefits from the endless wars. It benefits from the curtailment of civil liberties including the right to privacy and due process. It benefits from militarized police. It benefits from austerity programs. It benefits from mass incarceration. It is an enabler of tyranny, not an impediment. Demagogues like Trump, Farage and Johnson, of course, have no intention of altering the system of corporate pillage. Rather, they accelerate the pillage, which is what happened with the passage of the massive U.S. tax cut for corporations. They divert the public’s anger toward demonized groups such as Muslims, undocumented workers, people of color, liberals, intellectuals, artists, feminists, the LGBT community and the press. The demonized are blamed for the social and economic dysfunction, much as Jews were falsely blamed for Germany’s defeat in World War I and the economic collapse that followed. Corporations such as Goldman Sachs, in the midst of the decay, continue to make a financial killing. The corporate titans, who often come out of elite universities and are groomed in institutions like Harvard Business School, find these demagogues crude and vulgar. They are embarrassed by their imbecility, megalomania and incompetence. But they endure their presence rather than permit socialists or leftist politicians to impede their profits and divert government spending to social programs and away from weapons manufacturers, the military, private prisons, big banks and hedge funds, the fossil fuel industry, charter schools, private paramilitary forces, private intelligence companies and other pet programs designed to allow corporations to cannibalize the state. The irony is that there was serious meddling in the presidential election, but it did not come from Russia. The Democratic Party, outdoing any of the dirty tricks employed by Richard Nixon, purged hundreds of thousands of primary voters from the rolls, denied those registered as independents the right to vote in primaries, used superdelegates to swing the vote to Hillary Clinton, hijacked the Democratic National Committee to serve the Clinton campaign, controlled the message of media outlets such as MSNBC and The New York Times, stole the Nevada caucus, spent hundreds of millions of dollars of “dark” corporate money on the Clinton campaign and fixed the primary debates. This meddling, which stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, who probably could have defeated Trump, is unmentioned. The party hierarchy will do nothing to reform its corrupt nominating process. WikiLeaks exposed much of this corruption when it published tens of thousands of messages hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account. The messages brought to light the efforts by the Democratic Party leadership to thwart the nomination of Sanders, and they disclosed Clinton’s close ties with Wall Street, including her lucrative Wall Street speeches. They also raised serious questions about conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation and whether Clinton received advance information on primary-debate questions. The Democratic National Committee, for this reason, is leading the Russia hysteria and the persecution of Assange. It filed a lawsuit that names WikiLeaks and Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in an alleged effort to steal the presidential election. But it is not only Assange and WikiLeaks that are being attacked as Russian pawns. For example, The Washington Post, which has sided with the Democratic Party in the war against Trump, without critical analysis published a report on a blacklist posted by the anonymous website PropOrNot. The blacklist was composed of 199 sites that PropOrNot alleged, with no evidence, “reliably echo Russian propaganda.” More than half of those sites were far-right, conspiracy-driven ones. But about 20 of the sites were major progressive outlets including AlterNet, Black Agenda Report, Democracy Now!, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truthout, CounterPunch and the World Socialist Web Site. PropOrNot, short for Propaganda or Not, accused these sites of disseminating “fake news” on behalf of Russia. The Post’s headline was unequivocal: “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during the election, experts say.” In addition to offering no evidence, PropOrNot never even disclosed who ran the website. Even so, its charge was used to justify the imposition of algorithms by Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon to direct traffic away from the targeted sites. These algorithms, or filters, overseen by thousands of “evaluators,” many hired from the military and security and surveillance apparatus, hunt for keywords such as “U.S. military,” “inequality” and “socialism,” along with personal names such as Julian Assange and Laura Poitras . These keywords are known as “impressions.” Before the imposition of the algorithms, a reader could type in the name Julian Assange and be directed to an article on one of these targeted sites. After the algorithms were put in place, these impressions directed readers only to mainstream sites such as The Washington Post. Referral traffic from these impressions at most of the targeted sites has plummeted, often by more than half. Challenged by these algorithms and the abolition of net neutrality, these sites will be pushed further and further to the outer reaches of the media. Any news or media outlet that addresses the reality of our failed democracy and exposes the crimes of empire will be targeted. The January 2017 Director of National Intelligence Report spent seven pages on RT America, where I have a show, “On Contact.” The report does not accuse RT America of disseminating Russian propaganda, but it does allege the network exploits divisions within American society by giving airtime to dissidents and critics including whistleblowers, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, Black Lives Matter activists, anti-fracking campaigners and the third-party candidates the establishment is seeking to mute. If the United States had a public broadcasting system free from corporate money or a commercial press that was not under corporate control, these dissident voices would be included in the mainstream discourse. But we don’t. Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm X, Sheldon Wolin, Ralph Nader, James Baldwin, Susan Sontag, Angela Davis and Edward Said once appeared regularly on public broadcasting. Now critics like these are banned, replaced with vapid courtiers such as columnist David Brooks. RT America was forced to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). This act requires Americans who work for a foreign party to register as foreign agents. The FARA registration is part of the broader assault on all independent media, including the effort to silence Assange. WikiLeak’s publication in 2017 of 8,761 CIA files, known as Vault 7, appeared to be the final indignity. Vault 7 included a description of the cyber tools used by the CIA to hack into computer systems and devices such as smartphones. Former CIA software engineer Joshua Adam Schulte was indicted on charges of violating the Espionage Act by allegedly leaking the documents. The publication of Vault 7 saw the United States significantly increase its pressure on the Ecuadorean government to isolate and eject Assange from the embassy. Mike Pompeo, then the CIA director, said in response to the leaks that the U.S. government “can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Assange’s arrest was a “priority.” It is up to us to mobilize to protect Assange. His life is in jeopardy. The Ecuadorean government, violating his fundamental rights, has transformed his asylum into a form of incarceration. By cutting off his access to the internet, it has deprived him of the ability to communicate and follow world events. The aim of this isolation is to pressure Assange out of the embassy so he can be seized by London police, thrown into a British jail and then delivered into the hands of Pompeo, John Bolton and the CIA’s torturer in chief, Gina Haspel. Assange is a courageous and fearless publisher who is being persecuted for exposing the crimes of the corporate state and imperialism. His defense is the cutting edge of the fight against government suppression of our most important and fundamental democratic rights. The government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia, where Assange was born, must be pressured to provide him with the protection to which he is entitled as a citizen. It must intercede to stop the illegal persecution of the journalist by the British, American and Ecuadorean governments. It must secure his safe return to Australia. If we fail to protect Assange, we fail to protect ourselves. _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 13068 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jul 17 15:12:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:12:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians Message-ID: Vince Emanuele: The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 17 15:19:10 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:19:10 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom In-Reply-To: <002401d41ddc$7db4d280$791e7780$@comcast.net> References: <008201d41dce$7c643f00$752cbd00$@comcast.net> <002401d41ddc$7db4d280$791e7780$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1531840749663.4alcq0y3a0js1tjwsz1hohju@android.mail.163.com> Right on, Johnson fellow. On 2018-07-17 22:43 , David Johnson via Peace-discuss Wrote: Julian Assange is a hero, freedom fighter, and champion of the people Roger. Along with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning – TRUE patriots. If you would get your head out of your ass and stop your sole reliance on the corporate media for your information source and actually do some research for NON CORPORATE real journalistic sources that have a proven track record of reliability over years and decades then you would realize this. But what else should I expect from a warmonger and neo-liberal like you. David J. From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:09 AM To: David Johnson Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom Assange is a liar who accepts the stolen items and has actively worked with the Russian GRU - he is not really a reporter nor does he have reporters interests in mind!   Roger the only genuine whistleblower who e-mails this list!   On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: The War On Assange Is A War On Press Freedom By Chris Hedges, Truthdig.com July 16, 2018 | Resist! Above Photo: Mr. Fish / Truthdig The failure on the part of establishment media to defend Julian Assange, who has been trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, has been denied communication with the outside world since March and appears to be facing imminent expulsion and arrest, is astonishing. The extradition of the publisher—the maniacal goal of the U.S. government—would set a legal precedent that would criminalize any journalistic oversight or investigation of the corporate state. It would turn leaks and whistleblowing into treason. It would shroud in total secrecy the actions of the ruling global elites. If Assange is extradited to the United States and sentenced, The New York Times, The Washington Post and every other media organization, no matter how tepid their coverage of the corporate state, would be subject to the same draconian censorship. Under the precedent set, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court would enthusiastically uphold the arrest and imprisonment of any publisher, editor or reporter in the name of national security. There are growing signs that the Ecuadorean government of Lenín Moreno is preparing to evict Assange and turn him over to British police. Moreno and his foreign minister, José Valencia, have confirmed they are in negotiations with the British government to “resolve” the fate of Assange. Moreno, who will visit Britain in a few weeks, calls Assange an “inherited problem” and “a stone in the shoe” and has referred to him as a “hacker.” It appears that under a Moreno government Assange is no longer welcome in Ecuador. His only hope now is safe passage to his native Australia or another country willing to give him asylum. “Ecuador has been looking for a solution to this problem,” Valencia commented on television. “The refuge is not forever, you cannot expect it to last for years without us reviewing this situation, including because this violates the rights of the refugee.” Moreno’s predecessor as president, Rafael Correa, who granted Assange asylum in the embassy and made him an Ecuadorean citizen last year, warned that Assange’s “days were numbered.” He charged that Moreno—who cut off Assange’s communications the day after Moreno welcomed a delegation from the U.S. Southern Command—would “throw him out of the embassy at the first pressure from the United States.” Assange, who reportedly is in ill health, took asylum in the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden to answer questions about sexual offense charges. He feared that once in Swedish custody for these charges, which he said were false, he would be extradited to the United States. The Swedish prosecutors’ office ended its “investigation” and extradition request to Britain in May 2017 and did not file sexual offense charges against Assange. But the British government said Assange would nevertheless be arrested and jailed for breaching his bail conditions. The persecution of Assange is part of a broad assault against anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist news organizations. The ruling elites, who refuse to accept responsibility for profound social inequality or the crimes of empire, have no ideological veneer left to justify their greed, ineptitude and pillage. Global capitalism and its ideological justification, neoliberalism, are discredited as forces for democracy and the equitable distribution of wealth. The corporate-controlled economic and political system is as hated by right-wing populists as it is by the rest of the population. This makes the critics of corporatism and imperialism—journalists, writers, dissidents and intellectuals already pushed to the margins of the media landscape—dangerous and it makes them prime targets. Assange is at the top of the list. I took part with dozens of others, including Daniel Ellsberg, William Binney, Craig Murray, Peter Van Buren, Slavoj Zizek, George Galloway and Cian Westmoreland, a week ago in a 36-hour international online vigil demanding freedom for the WikiLeaks publisher. The vigil was organized by the New Zealand Internet Party leader Suzie Dawson. It was the third Unity4J vigil since all of Assange’s communication with the outside world was severed by the Ecuadorean authorities and visits with him were suspended in March, part of the increased pressure the United States has brought on the Ecuadorean government. Assange has since March been allowed to meet only with his attorneys and consular officials from the Australian Embassy. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled Friday that those seeking political asylum have the right to take refuge in embassies and diplomatic compounds. The court stated that governments are obliged to provide safe passage out of the country to those granted asylum. The ruling did not name Assange, but it was a powerful rebuke to the British government, which has refused to allow the WikiLeaks co-founder safe passage to the airport. The ruling elites no longer have a counterargument to their critics. They have resorted to cruder forms of control. These include censorship, slander and character assassination (which in the case of Assange has sadly been successful), blacklisting, financial strangulation, intimidation, imprisonment under the Espionage Act and branding critics and dissidents as agents of a foreign power and purveyors of fake news. The corporate media amplifies these charges, which have no credibility but which become part of the common vernacular through constant repetition. The blacklisting, imprisonment and deportation of tens of thousands of people of conscience during the Red Scares of the 1920s and 1950s are back with a vengeance. It is a New McCarthyism. Did Russia attempt to influence the election? Undoubtedly. This is what governments do. The United States interfered in 81 elections between 1945 and 2000, according to professor Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. His statistics do not include the numerous coups we orchestrated in countries such as Greece, Iran, Guatemala and Chile or the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. We indirectly bankrolled the re-election campaign of Russia’s buffoonish Boris Yeltsin to the tune of $2.5 billion. But did Russia, as the Democratic Party establishment claims, swing the election to Trump? No. Trump is not Vladimir Putin’s puppet. He is part of the wave of right-wing populists, from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson in Britain to Viktor Orbán in Hungary, who have harnessed the rage and frustration born of an economic and political system dominated by global capitalism and under which the rights and aspirations of working men and women do not matter. The Democratic Party establishment, like the liberal elites in most of the rest of the industrialized world, would be swept from power in an open political process devoid of corporate money. The party elite, including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, is a creation of the corporate state. Campaign finance and electoral reform are the last things the party hierarchy intends to champion. It will not call for social and political programs that will alienate its corporate masters. This myopia and naked self-interest may ensure a second term for Donald Trump; it may further empower the lunatic fringe that is loyal to Trump; it may continue to erode the credibility of the political system. But the choice before the Democratic Party elites is clear: political oblivion or enduring the rule of a demagogue. They have chosen the latter. They are not interested in reform. They are determined to silence anyone, like Assange, who exposes the rot within the ruling class. The Democratic Party establishment benefits from our system of legalized bribery. It benefits from deregulating Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry. It benefits from the endless wars. It benefits from the curtailment of civil liberties including the right to privacy and due process. It benefits from militarized police. It benefits from austerity programs. It benefits from mass incarceration. It is an enabler of tyranny, not an impediment. Demagogues like Trump, Farage and Johnson, of course, have no intention of altering the system of corporate pillage. Rather, they accelerate the pillage, which is what happened with the passage of the massive U.S. tax cut for corporations. They divert the public’s anger toward demonized groups such as Muslims, undocumented workers, people of color, liberals, intellectuals, artists, feminists, the LGBT community and the press. The demonized are blamed for the social and economic dysfunction, much as Jews were falsely blamed for Germany’s defeat in World War I and the economic collapse that followed. Corporations such as Goldman Sachs, in the midst of the decay, continue to make a financial killing. The corporate titans, who often come out of elite universities and are groomed in institutions like Harvard Business School, find these demagogues crude and vulgar. They are embarrassed by their imbecility, megalomania and incompetence. But they endure their presence rather than permit socialists or leftist politicians to impede their profits and divert government spending to social programs and away from weapons manufacturers, the military, private prisons, big banks and hedge funds, the fossil fuel industry, charter schools, private paramilitary forces, private intelligence companies and other pet programs designed to allow corporations to cannibalize the state. The irony is that there was serious meddling in the presidential election, but it did not come from Russia. The Democratic Party, outdoing any of the dirty tricks employed by Richard Nixon, purged hundreds of thousands of primary voters from the rolls, denied those registered as independents the right to vote in primaries, used superdelegates to swing the vote to Hillary Clinton, hijacked the Democratic National Committee to serve the Clinton campaign, controlled the message of media outlets such as MSNBC and The New York Times, stole the Nevada caucus, spent hundreds of millions of dollars of “dark” corporate money on the Clinton campaign and fixed the primary debates. This meddling, which stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, who probably could have defeated Trump, is unmentioned. The party hierarchy will do nothing to reform its corrupt nominating process. WikiLeaks exposed much of this corruption when it published tens of thousands of messages hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account. The messages brought to light the efforts by the Democratic Party leadership to thwart the nomination of Sanders, and they disclosed Clinton’s close ties with Wall Street, including her lucrative Wall Street speeches. They also raised serious questions about conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation and whether Clinton received advance information on primary-debate questions. The Democratic National Committee, for this reason, is leading the Russia hysteria and the persecution of Assange. It filed a lawsuit that names WikiLeaks and Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in an alleged effort to steal the presidential election. But it is not only Assange and WikiLeaks that are being attacked as Russian pawns. For example, The Washington Post, which has sided with the Democratic Party in the war against Trump, without critical analysis published a report on a blacklist posted by the anonymous website PropOrNot. The blacklist was composed of 199 sites that PropOrNot alleged, with no evidence, “reliably echo Russian propaganda.” More than half of those sites were far-right, conspiracy-driven ones. But about 20 of the sites were major progressive outlets including AlterNet, Black Agenda Report, Democracy Now!, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truthout, CounterPunch and the World Socialist Web Site. PropOrNot, short for Propaganda or Not, accused these sites of disseminating “fake news” on behalf of Russia. The Post’s headline was unequivocal: “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during the election, experts say.” In addition to offering no evidence, PropOrNot never even disclosed who ran the website. Even so, its charge was used to justify the imposition of algorithms by Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon to direct traffic away from the targeted sites. These algorithms, or filters, overseen by thousands of “evaluators,” many hired from the military and security and surveillance apparatus, hunt for keywords such as “U.S. military,” “inequality” and “socialism,” along with personal names such as Julian Assange and Laura Poitras. These keywords are known as “impressions.” Before the imposition of the algorithms, a reader could type in the name Julian Assange and be directed to an article on one of these targeted sites. After the algorithms were put in place, these impressions directed readers only to mainstream sites such as The Washington Post. Referral traffic from these impressions at most of the targeted sites has plummeted, often by more than half. Challenged by these algorithms and the abolition of net neutrality, these sites will be pushed further and further to the outer reaches of the media. Any news or media outlet that addresses the reality of our failed democracy and exposes the crimes of empire will be targeted. The January 2017 Director of National Intelligence Report spent seven pages on RT America, where I have a show, “On Contact.” The report does not accuse RT America of disseminating Russian propaganda, but it does allege the network exploits divisions within American society by giving airtime to dissidents and critics including whistleblowers, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, Black Lives Matter activists, anti-fracking campaigners and the third-party candidates the establishment is seeking to mute. If the United States had a public broadcasting system free from corporate money or a commercial press that was not under corporate control, these dissident voices would be included in the mainstream discourse. But we don’t. Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm X, Sheldon Wolin, Ralph Nader, James Baldwin, Susan Sontag, Angela Davis and Edward Said once appeared regularly on public broadcasting. Now critics like these are banned, replaced with vapid courtiers such as columnist David Brooks. RT America was forced to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). This act requires Americans who work for a foreign party to register as foreign agents. The FARA registration is part of the broader assault on all independent media, including the effort to silence Assange. WikiLeak’s publication in 2017 of 8,761 CIA files, known as Vault 7, appeared to be the final indignity. Vault 7 included a description of the cyber tools used by the CIA to hack into computer systems and devices such as smartphones. Former CIA software engineer Joshua Adam Schulte was indicted on charges of violating the Espionage Act by allegedly leaking the documents. The publication of Vault 7 saw the United States significantly increase its pressure on the Ecuadorean government to isolate and eject Assange from the embassy. Mike Pompeo, then the CIA director, said in response to the leaks that the U.S. gover -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Type: image/png Size: 13068 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 17 15:50:29 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 10:50:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005a01d41de5$e3621800$aa264800$@comcast.net> Very well said Karen. I can only add to your list - The Russians aren't preventing the American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM To: Peace Discuss; peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians Vince Emanuele: The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 17 16:00:15 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:15 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] the call of the turtle Message-ID: <1531843214969.j251sk5dc5edtsaixjo4dc5n@android.mail.163.com> talk about having the DT's... http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2018/73_of_democrats_want_a_fresh_face_as_2020_nominee#continue-reading -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 20:46:11 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 15:46:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Codepink? Message-ID: <50483C19-9851-4D48-AA3F-4659D11791B1@gmail.com> Is Codepink a Democrat front - or just another corporate media victim? “We think that floating Baby Trump above the nation’s capital will be the perfect way to counter Trump’s war-mongering narcissism,” says CODEPINK cofounder @MedeaBenjamin. "...war-mongering narcissism”? Trump is talking peace with Putin and all MSM can say is, "Treason!" Let's support his peace initiatives, east and west, and attack the "war-mongering narcissism” of the political establishment, including both parties. [@LeeCamp] "There's a million things I hate about Trump, but what gets our corporate media into the most extreme frenzy is when he threatens PEACE with a country - North Korea. Russia. Syria - The war profiteers that own our media CAN'T STAND the risk of peace." —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Jul 17 21:05:25 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Codepink? In-Reply-To: <50483C19-9851-4D48-AA3F-4659D11791B1@gmail.com> References: <50483C19-9851-4D48-AA3F-4659D11791B1@gmail.com> Message-ID: https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1018123316731809792 Branko Milanovic ‏@BrankoMilan People who consider Trump pro-Russian must have taken leave of their senses: Trump in his bombastic militarism: -Wants to increase NATO military spending -Admit new countries -Move troops to Poland -Provide lethal weapons to Ukraine -Shut down the North Stream Do facts matter? 169 Retweets 363 Likes 8:21 AM - 14 Jul 2018 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:46 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Is Codepink a Democrat front - or just another corporate media victim? > > “We think that floating Baby Trump above the nation’s capital will be the > perfect way to counter Trump’s war-mongering narcissism,” says CODEPINK > cofounder @MedeaBenjamin. > > "...war-mongering narcissism”? Trump is talking peace with Putin and all > MSM can say is, "Treason!" Let's support his peace initiatives, east and > west, and attack the "war-mongering narcissism” of the political > establishment, including both parties. > > [@LeeCamp] "There's a million things I hate about Trump, but what gets our > corporate media into the most extreme frenzy is when he threatens PEACE > with a country - North Korea. Russia. Syria - The war profiteers that own > our media CAN'T STAND the risk of peace." > > —CGE > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 17 21:11:44 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:11:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Codepink? In-Reply-To: References: <50483C19-9851-4D48-AA3F-4659D11791B1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Right! I might add that the Trump military budget is approaching 1t$ (10^12 dollars), and the nuclear part is to be much enhanced. On Jul 17, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1018123316731809792 Branko Milanovic ‏@BrankoMilan People who consider Trump pro-Russian must have taken leave of their senses: Trump in his bombastic militarism: -Wants to increase NATO military spending -Admit new countries -Move troops to Poland -Provide lethal weapons to Ukraine -Shut down the North Stream Do facts matter? 169 Retweets 363 Likes 8:21 AM - 14 Jul 2018 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:46 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Is Codepink a Democrat front - or just another corporate media victim? “We think that floating Baby Trump above the nation’s capital will be the perfect way to counter Trump’s war-mongering narcissism,” says CODEPINK cofounder @MedeaBenjamin. "...war-mongering narcissism”? Trump is talking peace with Putin and all MSM can say is, "Treason!" Let's support his peace initiatives, east and west, and attack the "war-mongering narcissism” of the political establishment, including both parties. [@LeeCamp] "There's a million things I hate about Trump, but what gets our corporate media into the most extreme frenzy is when he threatens PEACE with a country - North Korea. Russia. Syria - The war profiteers that own our media CAN'T STAND the risk of peace." —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 23:27:47 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:27:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, July 17, 2018 Message-ID: <92CE7043-D86C-4477-BB49-B0584D5CE584@gmail.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRzblcGUWO8 C. G. Estabrook and Ed Mandel consider the Trump-Putin summit and the mad response of corporate media; with comments by Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Wed Jul 18 01:38:40 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 01:38:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Polemic by Paul Craig Roberts Message-ID: <8F0BB43A-C4EB-4E70-8A23-98479A9C1B40@illinois.edu> For yor consideration:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49865.htm Does get one thinking… —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Wed Jul 18 01:56:44 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 01:56:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Coming coup? Message-ID: <24B8D21D-7904-4365-A59D-873AC75CF9EA@illinois.edu> … "Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism. But one thing that can be said in his favor is that he is not driven by an irrational Russophobia nor a hellbent determination to have a confrontation with Moscow — unlike many in the US establishment. Trump is often guilty of peddling fake news himself. But one thing he gets right is his dismissal of the "Russia-gate" narrative as a hoax. The US establishment created that farce as a way to undermine Trump and overturn his intention of normalizing relations with Russia. For two years, Trump's political enemies have been flogging the "Russia interfered in our democracy" trope — to no avail. The latest wheeze was the unsubstantiated indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence personnel only days before the Helsinki summit. To be fair to Trump, he wasn't dissuaded by that effort to sabotage his summit with Putin. But the trap was set. As soon as the meeting was over in Helsinki, all hell has broken lose in the deep state-controlled US media and politicians, condemning Trump. Russia's Putin called the tedious allegations of Russian interference in US democracy "the biggest nonsense ever". Trump said he agreed with that assessment. Probably many ordinary American citizens also agree that the whole affair has been cooked up by political elites who were never happy with the democratic mandate given to Trump. Trump is right to reject the so-called US intelligence assessment claiming that Russia under Putin's orders meddled in the presidential race. Putin told the Helsinki press conference that he wanted Trump to win the election in order to improve bilateral relations. So what? Are foreign leaders not entitled to have opinions on who comes to power in rival countries?…" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49867.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 03:17:49 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:17:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Charles Murray in Thailand Message-ID: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-white-man-unburdened-slobodian-schrader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 18 13:52:52 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:52:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From Jean Bricmont , Code Pink Message-ID: [https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c13.0.80.80/p80x80/24161_1413369013798_3858773_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=41809768a09123a97e0006137ee834b3&oe=5BD209F0] Jean Bricmont 4 hrs · Hommage à Code Pink qui met la paix en priorité avant la haine de Trump: It is rare that we praise Donald Trump, but meeting with both Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin was the right thing to do. If our goal is to build peace, then calm talks, rather than threats and military escalation, are always the better path to take. Trump’s meetings with Putin and Kim give us the opportunity to set a significant precedent for diplomacy. If we can parlay this into a summit with Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, we might have a real chance to avoid war with Iran. Under the Iran nuclear deal, which Obama signed in 2015 and Trump rejected this year, Iran agreed to reduce its uranium stockpile and nuclear enrichment program in exchange for lifting the crippling sanctions destroying the Iranian economy and harming ordinary citizens. The International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iran’s compliance, and the other signatories—Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia—were happy with the deal. Since Trump pulled out of the deal on May 8, the Trump administration has been imposing onerous sanctions to squeeze the Iranian economy and is putting us on a DIRECT PATH TO WAR. This might be the personal goal of National Security Advisor John Bolton, but it is not in the national security interest of our nation. Join us in sending a message to Congress that if Trump can meet with North Korea and Russia, he can participate in a summit with Iran and rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. Democratic politicians and pundits are up in arms about Trump’s meeting with Putin. But in 2007, when President Obama was asked at a CNN debate if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions, he replied, "I would. The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them is ridiculous." We hope that talks with Russia can ease the dangerous tensions between these two nuclear states. We hope that talks with North Korea can lead to resolving a conflict that has been plaguing the Korean peninsula for almost 70 years. And with the Middle East already convulsed by violence, a Trump-Rouhani summit to revive the Iran nuclear deal could stop us from entering another disastrous war! Towards diplomacy, Ann, Ariel, Brienne, Jodie, Kirsten, Mark, Medea, Nancy, Natasha, Paki, Rita, Sarah, Sophia, and Tighe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 14:30:58 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:30:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=2E=2E=2ECode_Pink_qui_met_la_paix_en_p?= =?utf-8?q?riorit=C3=A9_avant_la_haine_de_Trump=3F?= Message-ID: <638EEA5F-3EE6-4F42-AE7B-14ED9C6E96BC@gmail.com> Jean Bricmont 4 hrs · Hommage à Code Pink qui met la paix en priorité avant la haine de Trump: It is rare that we praise Donald Trump, but meeting with both Kim Jung Un and Vladimir Putin was the right thing to do. If our goal is to build peace, then calm talks, rather than threats and military escalation, are always the better path to take. Trump’s meetings with Putin and Kim give us the opportunity to set a significant precedent for diplomacy. If we can parlay this into a summit with Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, we might have a real chance to avoid war with Iran. Under the Iran nuclear deal, which Obama signed in 2015 and Trump rejected this year, Iran agreed to reduce its uranium stockpile and nuclear enrichment program in exchange for lifting the crippling sanctions destroying the Iranian economy and harming ordinary citizens. The International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iran’s compliance, and the other signatories—Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia—were happy with the deal. Since Trump pulled out of the deal on May 8, the Trump administration has been imposing onerous sanctions to squeeze the Iranian economy and is putting us on a DIRECT PATH TO WAR. This might be the personal goal of National Security Advisor John Bolton, but it is not in the national security interest of our nation. Join us in sending a message to Congress that if Trump can meet with North Korea and Russia, he can participate in a summit with Iran and rejoin the Iran nuclear deal. Democratic politicians and pundits are up in arms about Trump’s meeting with Putin. But in 2007, when President Obama was asked at a CNN debate if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions, he replied, "I would. The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them is ridiculous." We hope that talks with Russia can ease the dangerous tensions between these two nuclear states. We hope that talks with North Korea can lead to resolving a conflict that has been plaguing the Korean peninsula for almost 70 years. And with the Middle East already convulsed by violence, a Trump-Rouhani summit to revive the Iran nuclear deal could stop us from entering another disastrous war! Towards diplomacy, Ann, Ariel, Brienne, Jodie, Kirsten, Mark, Medea, Nancy, Natasha, Paki, Rita, Sarah, Sophia, and Tighe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 18 15:08:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 15:08:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Charles Murray in Thailand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My take: The article is very interesting and presents an image of Thailand at that time, that many expats have never seen. Murray sounds like many expats, sent in by the USG to control a nation, situated in the middle of our SE Asian wars, that of a racist neocon. Cultural and religious differences, along with environment, laws, and propaganda, have everything to do with a society, and their abilities to prosper and survive, it has nothing to do with innate genetic characteristics or IQ. The depiction of life for African Americans on welfare during the 60’s is presented as if a Disneyland fantasy. African Americans have proven, when the shackles of slavery are removed, when opportunities are provided they have risen to become leaders of society. The young indigenous Thai’s when given the opportunity to read books, by western writers of revolution, did rise up out of poverty, to become leaders fighting their oppressive military government, and foreign influences, resulting in the deaths of many as a result. Survivors into the jungles, later returning, taking up positions as academics. My lesson in Thailand, was that the poor indigenous farmer with no education beyond elementary school, if given the opportunity of books and education, rather than the usual propaganda of “love king and country,” had the ability to become a leader and change society, unfortunately their society of elites does everything to prevent that from happening, as much today as then. Instead of US CIA and military throughout the provinces they now have McDonalds and Starbucks, add to that the huge numbers of Thai students in the US over many years, our “soft power” of influence has thrived. PS I was in a position of managing many young Thai women in both home and office environment, with foreigners often asking me how I obtained such “smart employees.” My response was that I simply allowed them to “take initiative without fear," even if they did the wrong thing, I appreciated their initiative. It takes time and patience, not my strong point, but I had observed that when given the opportunity, people of all cultures, will usually attempt to do the right thing, and help others. Even those whose education and upbringing discouraged taking risks. End poverty, fear and propaganda, and flowers will bloom. On Jul 17, 2018, at 20:17, David Green > wrote: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-white-man-unburdened-slobodian-schrader -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 02:07:19 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:07:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Love the new McCarthyism Message-ID: <08B72297-52E5-4EDD-8C96-85BB0E724B3E@gmail.com> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/18/trumps-treasonous-traitor-summit-or-how-liberals-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-new-mccarthyism/ As we’ve said for a long time on News from Neptune, the poets often get there first. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 02:33:22 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:33:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another reason to vote against Democrats this falll Message-ID: <4D9B08E7-6108-4729-845E-6E012BE0D62B@gmail.com> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-comey/former-fbi-director-comey-on-twitter-vote-democratic-idUSKBN1K81ZT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Thu Jul 19 03:48:52 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:48:52 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another reason to vote against Democrats this falll In-Reply-To: <4D9B08E7-6108-4729-845E-6E012BE0D62B@gmail.com> References: <4D9B08E7-6108-4729-845E-6E012BE0D62B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1531972127305.dfmglk0j2s2h0pathqfascim@android.mail.163.com> Comey is so unpopular that i would think the dems should give comey money to have him encourage people to vote for the GOP. On 2018-07-19 10:33 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-comey/former-fbi-director-comey-on-twitter-vote-democratic-idUSKBN1K81ZT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Thu Jul 19 03:48:52 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:48:52 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another reason to vote against Democrats this falll In-Reply-To: <4D9B08E7-6108-4729-845E-6E012BE0D62B@gmail.com> References: <4D9B08E7-6108-4729-845E-6E012BE0D62B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1531972127305.dfmglk0j2s2h0pathqfascim@android.mail.163.com> Comey is so unpopular that i would think the dems should give comey money to have him encourage people to vote for the GOP. On 2018-07-19 10:33 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-comey/former-fbi-director-comey-on-twitter-vote-democratic-idUSKBN1K81ZT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 05:48:30 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:48:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Trade Blow-up?? Message-ID: "When a poor country is *very* poor, with a per capita income less than 25% the rich country level, it stands in a “zone of mutual gain” vis-a-vis the rich country: both countries benefit from the poor country’s progress. But when the poor country’s income lies between 25% and 75% of the rich country’s, the two countries stand in a “zone of conflict,” in which the progress of the poor country reduces the rich country’s income. Then, once the formerly poor country’s relative income exceeds 75%, the two nations re-enter a “zone of mutual gain,” in which the progress of one benefits the other. And where does that leave China today? According to the World Bank, in 2016 China’s purchasing-power-adjusted per capita income stood at exactly 26.7 percent of the US level. It’s almost spooky. That, perhaps, is why, in Foroohar’s words, “there is a growing group of thoughtful people who believe that American national security interests will require a forcible untangling of the investment and supply chain links between the US and China.” Which means we’ve definitely entered the zone of conflict." https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/trump-trade-war-china -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 19 13:27:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:27:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News interview with Prof. As 'ad AbuKhalil Part 1/2 Message-ID: https://therealnews.com/series/what-the-trump-putin-summit-means-for-syria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 19 13:33:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prof. Abukhalil on Syria interview by Aaron Mate 2/2 Message-ID: https://therealnews.com/stories/what-the-trump-putin-summit-means-for-syria-pt-2-2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 19 14:45:00 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:45:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mandela Message-ID: A brilliant critique by Nick Goodell of the "Peoples History Hour," with a most important statement, making the point that change must come in the form of material, or economic conditions, merely focusing on the political and/or race will not bring about progress. "because Mandela's ANC embraced the neoliberal politics of the Clintons--the great friends of the Obamas and of neoliberal policies the world over--that South Africa is today almost more unequal than it was during apartheid in terms of land distribution, resource access, and overall income inequality." The way the Western media portrays Nelson Mandela and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa is atrocious. The Western media would have us believe--like the ten million Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin, Lincoln, and MLK biographies on the shelves of Barnes and Noble--that apartheid was undone solely by Mandela directly controlling the movement, a movement which was non-violent and relied on boycotts and gathering global condemnation. It would have us believe that Mandela was an "activist" and a liberal, who wanted free market capitalism for all and opposed the Soviet Union. Mandela was nothing like Obama or any Western leader. Obama's attempts to go and "claim him" to make some weird point about Trump are ridiculous. He was a fervent anti-capitalist and member of the Communist Party of South Africa, a friend of Fidel Castro who believed in the radical, forceful redistribution of land and resources to the dispossessed in South Africa and elsewhere where colonialism had forced its evils upon the people. He believed that violence as the self-defense of the oppressed was a necessary part of overcoming the incredible violence wrought by the forces of colonialism. He aided and organized with the FRELIMO in Mozambique, the FLN in Algeria, the ZANU in Zimbabwe, MPLA in Angola, and many other armed liberation movements. In the same vein as these groups that he aided and received aid from, Mandela and other communists like Joe Slovo organized the armed wing of the African National Congress, Umkhonto we Sizwe. This group staged hundreds of bombings, raids, and other violent acts of resistance against the apartheid regime in the decades after the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960 made plain that such measures were necessary in the name of the self-defense of the people. Western civil society and the Western ruling classes want to convince the world that Mandela practiced exclusively non-violence because they are terrified of people following the actions of the real Mandela and actually organizing to harm the real materials of their capital production, growth, and power. Mandela rose to power not as the sole, messianic organizer of a revolution, but as just one of the thousands of organizers and leaders who helped bring about the end of apartheid. The media focuses on him being in prison for 27 years because that story of lionizing one man is much better to tell Western minds than the story of how the West fully supported up through Reagan's presidency the apartheid state and backed systems of oppression worldwide throughout history where it suited their profit interests or harmed the Soviet Union. This story also fits with the Western idea that history is shaped exclusively by great men who invest in their personal selves. The West wants us to be thinking of how we can learn to harden our minds from life in prison "like Mandela" so that we can not recognize our own chains and oppression here. People must recognize that the West has so much to gain from propagating these kinds of narratives of Mandela and other revolutionary leaders--like Martin Luther King Jr, whom they attempt to whitewash. People also must recognize that it's because Mandela's ANC embraced the neoliberal politics of the Clintons--the great friends of the Obamas and of neoliberal policies the world over--that South Africa is today almost more unequal than it was during apartheid in terms of land distribution, resource access, and overall income inequality. As sociologists and global health researchers Jan K Coetzee Asta Rau wrote in 2017: “The ANC came to power with a radical agenda and an overwhelming mandate to redress historical inequities. But, shortly after coming into power, the new ANC government was accused of opting for policy of little initial change with the promise of cautious acceleration at some time in the future... When workers claimed higher wages and threatened with strike action, the fear was expressed—even by the then newly elected President Nelson Mandela—that investors’ confidence would be damaged. Due to this caution the pressing land issue was dealt with by a cumbersome system of tribunals. And the budget failed to allocate enough to do justice to the ANC’s ambitious Reconstruction and Development Programme.” This is why South Africa's unemployment rate is now at about 26%, their is a massive housing shortage, the vast majority of land still belongs to whites, there is a water crisis in Capetown that is being horribly mismanaged with neoliberal solutions like monitors to cut off water access after certain amounts of usage to poor homes, and many have seen no real change in their material conditions since the apartheid ended in 1990s. The reform programs only empowered a black capitalist elite class alongside the already present white capitalist class--a class which had been largely responsible for apartheid, but was not at all threatened, but rather embraced by the ANC's liberal policies--while the average South African continues to suffer immense hardship. Like Frantz Fanon predicted, the nationalist party became the new ruling class because it was not a party of the masses, but of the black elites of the country. That's why the liberals now get to happily claim Mandela as their own and produce their Barnes and Noble and Amazon biographies and Hollywood movies and Netflix miniseries about him. That's why Obama--an abhorrent neoliberal whose policies made very little positive material change for anyone and strengthened the power of bankers, the wealthy, corporations, political parties, and state violence globally over the power of the people--that's why he gets to go and make a big speech claiming in essence that Mandela and himself are cut from the same cloth. GOOD BASIC, EASY TO READ PAPERS ON SOUTH AFRICA ANYONE WITH A UNI ACCOUNT PROBABLY HAS ACCESS TO: "The making (and remaking) of a revolutionary plan: strategic dilemmas of the ANC’s armed struggle, 1974–1978" Thula Simpson "Oliver Tambo and the Politics of Class, Race and Ethnicity in the African National Congress of South Africa" by Luli Callinicos "Between Enslavement and Liberation. Narratives of Belonging from Two Farm Workers in Rural South Africa" by Jan K. Coetzee & Asta Rau Not to toot my own horn, but there is also an episode of the People's History Hour that Grant Thomas Neal and I did about this which covers some of the material in the papers listed above and more not listed, for those of you that learn by listening vs reading: STREAM.WRFU.NET stream.wrfu.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 15:36:45 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russiagaters ("progressive veterans") to vote against References: <2eb05a9a27a47631e2c48eb1f29b02d3@bounce.bluestatedigital.com> Message-ID: <06F919AC-3E81-4260-BD1E-FC8EAAAD1BD5@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "VoteVets.org" > Subject: If these guys won't hold Trump accountable, we will > Date: July 19, 2018 at 10:32:25 AM CDT > To: "C. G. " > Reply-To: info at votevets.org > > > > If these guys: > > > Won’t hold Trump accountable for his relationship with this guy: > > > Then we need to elect a new generation of progressive veterans who will: > > > > > PAID FOR BY VOTEVETS ACTION FUND > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Jul 19 19:22:38 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:22:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One Cheer for Whataboutism Message-ID: <7D9709C1-E807-4285-B81C-8E2848040E63@illinois.edu> From The New York Times: One Cheer for Whataboutism The gambit has its rhetorical limitations, and it’s commonly abused, but when applied rigorously it’s not a bad little argument. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/opinion/one-cheer-for-whataboutism.html From brussel at illinois.edu Thu Jul 19 21:32:56 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 21:32:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Trade Blow-up?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55735381-5235-472B-A9C1-9CE6E91026E7@illinois.edu> All terribly imprecise, hence ambiguous and not worth serious consideration. On Jul 19, 2018, at 12:48 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: "When a poor country is very poor, with a per capita income less than 25% the rich country level, it stands in a “zone of mutual gain” vis-a-vis the rich country: both countries benefit from the poor country’s progress. But when the poor country’s income lies between 25% and 75% of the rich country’s, the two countries stand in a “zone of conflict,” in which the progress of the poor country reduces the rich country’s income. Then, once the formerly poor country’s relative income exceeds 75%, the two nations re-enter a “zone of mutual gain,” in which the progress of one benefits the other. And where does that leave China today? According to the World Bank, in 2016 China’s purchasing-power-adjusted per capita income stood at exactly 26.7 percent of the US level. It’s almost spooky. That, perhaps, is why, in Foroohar’s words, “there is a growing group of thoughtful people who believe that American national security interests will require a forcible untangling of the investment and supply chain links between the US and China.” Which means we’ve definitely entered the zone of conflict." https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/trump-trade-war-china _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 21:46:41 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:46:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Trade Blow-up?? In-Reply-To: <55735381-5235-472B-A9C1-9CE6E91026E7@illinois.edu> References: <55735381-5235-472B-A9C1-9CE6E91026E7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <7AB68FCC-FBD3-491E-AA49-FCAA16236CCB@gmail.com> We're imprecise in telling exactly when the sun set, but we know when it’s dark. This is another version of the ‘Thucydides trap’ - imprecise but suggestive historical parallels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison#Thucydides_Trap —CGE > On Jul 19, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > All terribly imprecise, hence ambiguous and not worth serious consideration. > >> On Jul 19, 2018, at 12:48 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> "When a poor country is very poor, with a per capita income less than 25% the rich country level, it stands in a “zone of mutual gain” vis-a-vis the rich country: both countries benefit from the poor country’s progress. But when the poor country’s income lies between 25% and 75% of the rich country’s, the two countries stand in a “zone of conflict,” in which the progress of the poor country reduces the rich country’s income. Then, once the formerly poor country’s relative income exceeds 75%, the two nations re-enter a “zone of mutual gain,” in which the progress of one benefits the other. >> And where does that leave China today? According to the World Bank, in 2016 China’s purchasing-power-adjusted per capita income stood at exactly 26.7 percent of the US level. >> >> It’s almost spooky. >> >> That, perhaps, is why, in Foroohar’s words, “there is a growing group of thoughtful people who believe that American national security interests will require a forcible untangling of the investment and supply chain links between the US and China.” >> >> Which means we’ve definitely entered the zone of conflict." >> >> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/trump-trade-war-china >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 23:39:49 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:39:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians In-Reply-To: <005a01d41de5$e3621800$aa264800$@comcast.net> References: <005a01d41de5$e3621800$aa264800$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <8058645D-1595-4C2F-8F62-171D7CE6BF10@gmail.com> This raises the question, which party given control of Congress in the fall elections will be more progressive? For generations US liberals have answered immediately, “The Democrats!," In spite of wars and accelerating inequality under Democratic administrations. (No president has been at war throughout two terms - until Obama.) But given the Russia-gate campaign, and the excoriation of President Trump’s peace talks with North Korea and Russia, it seems clear that Democrats' commitment to the ‘war party” disqualifies them from control of the Congress. Some people (often outside the US political scene) saw this clearly from early on. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the 2016 election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The war-mongering of the Democrats may require our voting for feckless Republicans, as in this Congressional district (IL-13). That seems to be - deplorably enough - the only anti-war position. —CGE > On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace wrote: > > Very well said Karen. > > I can only add to your list – The Russians aren’t preventing the American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said. > > David J. > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM > To: Peace Discuss; peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians > > Vince Emanuele: > > The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. > The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. > The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. > You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 02:59:20 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 21:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians In-Reply-To: <8058645D-1595-4C2F-8F62-171D7CE6BF10@gmail.com> References: <005a01d41de5$e3621800$aa264800$@comcast.net> <8058645D-1595-4C2F-8F62-171D7CE6BF10@gmail.com> Message-ID: You'd raised the question a few months ago, Which party would be least likely to push for war? My broad answer: I think we're best off at times when the political system is deadlocked.   Remember 2013, when the Obama admin. was all set to attack Syria directly, and backed off when they realized that Congress wouldn't go for it - especially the Republicans who would oppose anything O. supported.  So by that logic, we don't want a House, Senate, and Pres of all the same party.   We're stuck with this Pres for at least a couple more years. On 07/19/2018 06:39 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > This raises the question, which party given control of Congress in the > fall elections will be more progressive? > > For generations US liberals have answered immediately, “The > Democrats!," In spite of wars and accelerating inequality under > Democratic administrations. (No president has been at war throughout > two terms - until Obama.) > > But given the Russia-gate campaign, and the excoriation of President > Trump’s peace talks with North Korea and Russia, it seems clear that > Democrats' commitment to the ‘war party” disqualifies them from > control of the Congress.  > > Some people (often outside the US political scene) saw this clearly > from early on. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger > wrote before the 2016 election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be > elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The > pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its > relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. > Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that > the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States > maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with > Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their > panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – > however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so > dire…” > > The war-mongering of the Democrats may require our voting for feckless > Republicans, as in this Congressional district (IL-13). That seems to > be - deplorably enough - the only anti-war position. —CGE > > >> On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace >> > wrote: >> >> Very well said Karen. >>   >> I can only add to your list – The Russians aren’t preventing the >> American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post >> high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, >> public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure >> retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the >> Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said. >>   >> David J. >>   >> *From:* Peace-discuss >> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf >> Of *Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM >> *To:* Peace Discuss; peace >> *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians >>   >> >> Vince Emanuele: >> >>   >> >> The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The >> Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, >> corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial >> industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create >> unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing >> young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the >> police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians >> didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't >> responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison >> Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, >> spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or >> East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. >> >> The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed >> politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. >> fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the >> planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians >> didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter >> schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our >> homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The >> Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties >> and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our >> immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in >> cages throughout the U.S. >> >> The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific >> Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The >> Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or >> allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't >> allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that >> control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't >> overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western >> Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to >> create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. >> veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. >> >> You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jul 20 03:20:12 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 03:20:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians In-Reply-To: References: <005a01d41de5$e3621800$aa264800$@comcast.net> <8058645D-1595-4C2F-8F62-171D7CE6BF10@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F65AE@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> There was an anti-Russia - even pro-war - demonstration on the floor of the House tonight: Democrats chanting, "USA! USA!" The Republicans didn't join in. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:59 PM To: C G Estabrook; David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians You'd raised the question a few months ago, Which party would be least likely to push for war? My broad answer: I think we're best off at times when the political system is deadlocked. Remember 2013, when the Obama admin. was all set to attack Syria directly, and backed off when they realized that Congress wouldn't go for it - especially the Republicans who would oppose anything O. supported. So by that logic, we don't want a House, Senate, and Pres of all the same party. We're stuck with this Pres for at least a couple more years. On 07/19/2018 06:39 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: This raises the question, which party given control of Congress in the fall elections will be more progressive? For generations US liberals have answered immediately, “The Democrats!," In spite of wars and accelerating inequality under Democratic administrations. (No president has been at war throughout two terms - until Obama.) But given the Russia-gate campaign, and the excoriation of President Trump’s peace talks with North Korea and Russia, it seems clear that Democrats' commitment to the ‘war party” disqualifies them from control of the Congress. Some people (often outside the US political scene) saw this clearly from early on. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the 2016 election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The war-mongering of the Democrats may require our voting for feckless Republicans, as in this Congressional district (IL-13). That seems to be - deplorably enough - the only anti-war position. —CGE On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace > wrote: Very well said Karen. I can only add to your list – The Russians aren’t preventing the American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM To: Peace Discuss; peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians Vince Emanuele: The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 20 03:25:40 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 03:25:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] She was in the room where it happened. She's the only one who knows (make her testify) In-Reply-To: <5b512a4fb072_20d1e24b587281198@ip-10-0-0-210.mail> References: <5b512a4fb072_20d1e24b587281198@ip-10-0-0-210.mail> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F65D7@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Water-board her if she won't talk! It's the American way! ________________________________ From: Daily Kos [campaigns at dailykos.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 7:18 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G Subject: She was in the room where it happened. She's the only one who knows (make her testify) [https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/data/000/197/008/original/Email_-_Subpoena_Marina_Gross_(Getty).jpg] C. G., sign and send the petition to your U.S. senators: Make Marina Gross, Trump's translator who attended the Putin summit, testify. Sign and send the petition Donald Trump insisted on meeting privately in Helsinki with Vladimir Putin for over two hours. Now, the Russian ambassador says "important verbal agreements" were made at that summit. They were even talking about the U.S. turning over key witnesses in the Russia probe for questioning by Putin's agents, until opposition on this from Congress forced the White House to back down. No one else was in the room when it happened, except Marina Gross—a State Department diplomat who was there to translate for Trump. Given the severity of what national interests were at stake, it is absolutely imperative that we have her testify as to what was said. But on July 19, every Republican on the House Intelligence Committee REJECTED a motion to subpoena Gross. That is absolutely unacceptable, and we hope the Senate has enough foresight to put our national interest ahead of party politics. Sign and send the petition to your U.S. senators: The Senate must make Marina Gross testify about what was agreed to at the Helsinki summit. Sign and send the petition Keep fighting, Paul Hogarth, Daily Kos Daily Kos, PO Box 70036, Oakland, CA, 94612. Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Daily Kos, please click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Jul 20 04:48:34 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:48:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians Message-ID: There was a very nice discussion on NPR today about how Democratic Socialism is growing in popularity, particularly among younger voters.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 10:20 PMTo: Stuart Levy;C G Estabrook;David Johnson;Cc: Peace Discuss;Karen Aram;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians There was an anti-Russia - even pro-war - demonstration on the floor of the House tonight: Democrats chanting, "USA! USA!"  The Republicans didn't join in.  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:59 PM To: C G Estabrook; David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians You'd raised the question a few months ago, Which party would be least likely to push for war? My broad answer: I think we're best off at times when the political system is deadlocked.   Remember 2013, when the Obama admin. was all set to attack Syria directly, and backed off when they realized that Congress wouldn't go for it - especially the Republicans who would oppose anything O. supported.  So by that logic, we don't want a House, Senate, and Pres of all the same party.   We're stuck with this Pres for at least a couple more years. On 07/19/2018 06:39 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: This raises the question, which party given control of Congress in the fall elections will be more progressive? For generations US liberals have answered immediately, “The Democrats!," In spite of wars and accelerating inequality under Democratic administrations. (No president has been at war throughout two terms - until Obama.) But given the Russia-gate campaign, and the excoriation of President Trump’s peace talks with North Korea and Russia, it seems clear that Democrats' commitment to the ‘war party” disqualifies them from control of the Congress.  Some people (often outside the US political scene) saw this clearly from early on. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the 2016 election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The war-mongering of the Democrats may require our voting for feckless Republicans, as in this Congressional district (IL-13). That seems to be - deplorably enough - the only anti-war position. —CGE On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace wrote: Very well said Karen.   I can only add to your list – The Russians aren’t preventing the American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said.   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM To: Peace Discuss; peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians   Vince Emanuele:   The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Jul 20 05:08:00 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:08:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democratic Socialists Message-ID: <0akmnvbo2b90o9lmqhsj0t5f.1532063121300@email.lge.com> 2 Democratic Socialists walk into a bar.. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630394669/getting-to-know-the-dsa  from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: bjornsona at ameritech.netDate: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 11:48 PMTo: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss;Stuart Levy;C G Estabrook;David Johnson;Cc: Karen Aram;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians There was a very nice discussion on NPR today about how Democratic Socialism is growing in popularity, particularly among younger voters.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 10:20 PMTo: Stuart Levy;C G Estabrook;David Johnson;Cc: Peace Discuss;Karen Aram;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians There was an anti-Russia - even pro-war - demonstration on the floor of the House tonight: Democrats chanting, "USA! USA!"  The Republicans didn't join in.  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:59 PM To: C G Estabrook; David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians You'd raised the question a few months ago, Which party would be least likely to push for war? My broad answer: I think we're best off at times when the political system is deadlocked.   Remember 2013, when the Obama admin. was all set to attack Syria directly, and backed off when they realized that Congress wouldn't go for it - especially the Republicans who would oppose anything O. supported.  So by that logic, we don't want a House, Senate, and Pres of all the same party.   We're stuck with this Pres for at least a couple more years. On 07/19/2018 06:39 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: This raises the question, which party given control of Congress in the fall elections will be more progressive? For generations US liberals have answered immediately, “The Democrats!," In spite of wars and accelerating inequality under Democratic administrations. (No president has been at war throughout two terms - until Obama.) But given the Russia-gate campaign, and the excoriation of President Trump’s peace talks with North Korea and Russia, it seems clear that Democrats' commitment to the ‘war party” disqualifies them from control of the Congress.  Some people (often outside the US political scene) saw this clearly from early on. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the 2016 election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The war-mongering of the Democrats may require our voting for feckless Republicans, as in this Congressional district (IL-13). That seems to be - deplorably enough - the only anti-war position. —CGE On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace wrote: Very well said Karen.   I can only add to your list – The Russians aren’t preventing the American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said.   David J.   From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM To: Peace Discuss; peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians   Vince Emanuele:   The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Fri Jul 20 05:55:02 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:55:02 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1532066098499.20c0pjb05hi1pdt1wucdpw4e@android.mail.163.com> call the Nazi Dr. Doolittle. He can make the animals talk. On 2018-07-20 12:48 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: There was a very nice discussion on NPR today about how Democratic Socialism is growing in popularity, particularly among younger voters.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 10:20 PM To: Stuart Levy;C G Estabrook;David Johnson; Cc: Peace Discuss;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians There was an anti-Russia - even pro-war - demonstration on the floor of the House tonight: Democrats chanting, "USA! USA!"  The Republicans didn't join in.  From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:59 PM To: C G Estabrook; David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians You'd raised the question a few months ago, Which party would be least likely to push for war? My broad answer: I think we're best off at times when the political system is deadlocked.   Remember 2013, when the Obama admin. was all set to attack Syria directly, and backed off when they realized that Congress wouldn't go for it - especially the Republicans who would oppose anything O. supported.  So by that logic, we don't want a House, Senate, and Pres of all the same party.   We're stuck with this Pres for at least a couple more years. On 07/19/2018 06:39 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: This raises the question, which party given control of Congress in the fall elections will be more progressive? For generations US liberals have answered immediately, “The Democrats!," In spite of wars and accelerating inequality under Democratic administrations. (No president has been at war throughout two terms - until Obama.) But given the Russia-gate campaign, and the excoriation of President Trump’s peace talks with North Korea and Russia, it seems clear that Democrats' commitment to the ‘war party” disqualifies them from control of the Congress.  Some people (often outside the US political scene) saw this clearly from early on. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the 2016 election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The war-mongering of the Democrats may require our voting for feckless Republicans, as in this Congressional district (IL-13). That seems to be - deplorably enough - the only anti-war position. —CGE On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace wrote: Very well said Karen. I can only add to your list – The Russians aren’t preventing the American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM To: Peace Discuss; peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians Vince Emanuele: The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 20 12:18:34 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:18:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democratic Socialists In-Reply-To: <0akmnvbo2b90o9lmqhsj0t5f.1532063121300@email.lge.com> References: <0akmnvbo2b90o9lmqhsj0t5f.1532063121300@email.lge.com> Message-ID: To all: Democrats, Republicans it matters not who is in power, US foreign policy continues as if on auto pilot, bringing us perpetual war. The difference is ‘strategy,’ that is “which nation do we take on next, or if we can’t obtain regime change, do we partition, and where do we draw those lines of partition." “Do we support this group of “moderate terrorists” or this other group of moderate terrorists, or maybe both.” Can we talk peace with Putin, and pull him into our orbit away from China, or do we continue focusing on russiagate continuing to make him the boogie man responsible for all, maybe we will achieve regime change as a result. We achieve our goal of keeping the American people distracted from what we are doing, if not to them here, then to the thousands of people elsewhere in the world. Then we have N. Korea, again "can we drive a wedge between N. Korea and China, we don’t want reunification of the Korean Peninsula, so we’ll talk peace, but ensure conditions that N. Korea can’t accept.” Then there is Iran, we don’t really want war with Iran, that could be disastrous for all, some in the Pentagon know this, though others do not care. Sanctions will do the job of creating enough chaos and dissatisfaction within the nation, we should be able to achieve regime change without war, never mind the thousands we kill with our sanctions whether N.Korea or Iran. We continue to create chaos in Venezuela, damn, didn’t expect Maduro to win the election, guess we better buy some more protestors, dissidents, create more problems. We have Africom in 53 of the 54 nations of Africa, they are not there to protect anyone or anything. We have Nato surrounding Russia, Nato is not defending or protecting anyone. Anyone notice what’s happening in Montenegro? Yemen with millions dying, just keep supporting the Saudi’s with weapons, training, and logistics, without which they could do nothing. Our friends, never mind 9/11, never mind they are one of the most brutal nations in the world, a little more PR is all that is needed to keep the American people from taking notice. Oh, and Israel, the continued killing and destruction of the Palestinians, maybe we need more media coverage of something, to divert attention from the deaths there, at the hands of another of our allies. The beat goes on and Americans keep looking at elections, and who is better than who, keep them fighting and arguing as if it all matters. As if good cop vs. bad cop in power isn’t real. On Jul 19, 2018, at 22:08, bjornsona at ameritech.net wrote: 2 Democratic Socialists walk into a bar.. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630394669/getting-to-know-the-dsa from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: bjornsona at ameritech.net Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 11:48 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss;Stuart Levy;C G Estabrook;David Johnson; Cc: Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians There was a very nice discussion on NPR today about how Democratic Socialism is growing in popularity, particularly among younger voters. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2018 10:20 PM To: Stuart Levy;C G Estabrook;David Johnson; Cc: Peace Discuss;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians There was an anti-Russia - even pro-war - demonstration on the floor of the House tonight: Democrats chanting, "USA! USA!" The Republicans didn't join in. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:59 PM To: C G Estabrook; David Johnson Cc: Peace Discuss; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Those evil Russians You'd raised the question a few months ago, Which party would be least likely to push for war? My broad answer: I think we're best off at times when the political system is deadlocked. Remember 2013, when the Obama admin. was all set to attack Syria directly, and backed off when they realized that Congress wouldn't go for it - especially the Republicans who would oppose anything O. supported. So by that logic, we don't want a House, Senate, and Pres of all the same party. We're stuck with this Pres for at least a couple more years. On 07/19/2018 06:39 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: This raises the question, which party given control of Congress in the fall elections will be more progressive? For generations US liberals have answered immediately, “The Democrats!," In spite of wars and accelerating inequality under Democratic administrations. (No president has been at war throughout two terms - until Obama.) But given the Russia-gate campaign, and the excoriation of President Trump’s peace talks with North Korea and Russia, it seems clear that Democrats' commitment to the ‘war party” disqualifies them from control of the Congress. Some people (often outside the US political scene) saw this clearly from early on. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the 2016 election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The war-mongering of the Democrats may require our voting for feckless Republicans, as in this Congressional district (IL-13). That seems to be - deplorably enough - the only anti-war position. —CGE On Jul 17, 2018, at 10:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace > wrote: Very well said Karen. I can only add to your list – The Russians aren’t preventing the American people from having ; universal PUBLIC healthcare, free post high school education, $ 15 minimum wage, clean renewable energy, public control of our water systems and utilities as well as secure retirement pensions. The ones preventing all of the above are the Democrats and the Republicans as you so accurately said. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:13 AM To: Peace Discuss; peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Those evil Russians Vince Emanuele: The Russians didn't gut, attack and destroy unions in the U.S. The Russians aren't responsible for NAFTA, TPP, GATT, outsourcing, corporate welfare, etc. The Russians didn't deregulate the financial industry, allowing Wall Street to destroy our economy and create unprecedented wealth/income inequality. The Russians aren't killing young black kids in the streets. The Russians didn't militarize the police. The Russians didn't create the War on Drugs. The Russians didn't create the School-to-Prison pipeline. The Russians aren't responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, or the Prison Industrial Complex. The Russians didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $3.6 trillion. The Russians didn't poison kids in Flint or East Chicago. The Russians didn't divest in our nation's infrastructure. The Russians didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, the second most loathed politician in modern history. The Russians didn't subsidize the U.S. fossil fuel industry, allowing the most destructive industries on the planet to kill the living world with no consequences. The Russians didn't destroy the public school system in the U.S., allowing charter schools to privatize public goods. The Russians didn't create our homeless population or shut down our mental health facilities. The Russians didn't enact the Patriot Act, stripping our civil liberties and creating institutions like ICE. The Russians didn't create our immigration crisis, nor are they responsible for putting kids in cages throughout the U.S. The Russians didn't clear cut old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, nor did they dam our rivers and kill the salmon. The Russians didn't strip American women of their reproductive rights, or allow the NRA to control our legislative bodies. The Russians didn't allow media corporations to consolidate into five companies that control everything we see, read, or hear. The Russians didn't overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Russians didn't allow the pharmaceutical industry to create a nation of addicts. And the Russians aren't allowing U.S. veterans to die by the thousands waiting for treatment. You must be thinking of the Democrats and Republicans.... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 20 12:53:59 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 07:53:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Russiagate is a Ruling Class Diversion Message-ID: <004701d42028$ba83d690$2f8b83b0$@comcast.net> Russiagate is a Ruling Class Diversion Glen Ford, BAR executive editor 19 Jul 2018 Russiagate is a Ruling Class Diversion Russiagate is a Ruling Class Diversion "Trump supporters see themselves as a distinct and independent force in the nation -- the saviors of America, in their diseased minds -- and they now hate the Democratic Party in a far deeper way than before." So this is what we can look forward to in the long twilight of a shrinking U.S. empire: the shrieks of a delirious ruling class, concocting endless diversions from the central reality of late-stage capitalism's inability to offer the people anything but widening wars and deepening austerity. The Lords of Capital have led us to a dark yet insanely cacophonous realm, a throbbing madhouse din. "Traitor!" scream the minions of corporate communications, calling for the blood of the corporate government's orange-branded CEO -- a no longer exceptional spectacle for the self-proclaimed exceptional nation. Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforcein the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. Democrat Bill Clinton inflicted NAFTA on his party's wage-earning base and, two decades later, Democrat Barack Obama tried, but failed, to pass the even more devastating Trans Pacific Partnership corporate trade and governance bill. Donald Trump captured the Republican Party by feeding its base the overt racist rhetoric they crave, rather than the more polite "dog whistle" menu cultivated by White Man's Party politicians since Richard Nixon. With the indispensable assistance of Democrat-oriented corporate media and the Democratic National Committee -- both of which saw Trump as the most easily beatable Republican -- Trump trounced the entire GOP presidential wanna-be menagerie to seize the reins of half the electoral duopoly, and carried a majority of white voters - including white women -- in the general election. "Global supply chains doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20thcentury and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom." It was not Trump's flaming racism that made him a traitor to his class and to the empire. One of the U.S. duopoly parties has always played the role of White Man's Party, with white supremacy as its organizing principle. Were it not for endemic, fervent, nationwide white racism, the most reactionary wing of the U.S. ruling class would have no effective electoral base. Trump simply serves up a stronger brew of white supremacist elixir for the good ole boys and girls. His heresy - precipitating the crisis in ruling class politics -- was to rhetorically oppose "free trade" and U.S. "regime change" policies, and to call for normalizing relations with Russia. "Free trade" -- a euphemism for the unfettered ability of the ruling class to move money and jobs wherever it chooses on the planet - and the "exceptional" right of U.S. imperialism to remove and replace sovereign governments at will, are the pillars of the Washington Consensus. Donald Trump became anathema to the Lords of Capital and their servants in the national security "deep state," who crowded into Hillary Clinton's Democratic tent, where Russiagate was invented out of whole cloth. Again, racism was not Trump's unpardonable sin, although it plays into the strategies of the (financial and high tech) ruling class sectors at the helm of the Democratic Party, whose own electoral organizing principle is an anemic anti-racism, a phony politics of "inclusion" that welcomes representatives of minority populations to help enforce the race-to-the-bottom and to join in the general capitalist plunder. Trump's howling racism was what made Democrats believe he was the ideal candidate for a trouncing by Hillary Clinton, who could be counted on to escalate Barack Obama's general military offensive and to aggressively pursue TPP and other corporate governance arrangements. (Only fools believed Clinton's late switch, opposing TPP.) When Clinton lost, the ruling class panicked and resolved to bring down the Orange Menace no matter the cost to U.S. institutions and to the appearance of stability in the very bosom of the empire. The rolling coup was begun. "Trump's heresy - precipitating the crisis in ruling class politics -- was to rhetorically oppose 'free trade' and U.S. 'regime change' policies, and to call for normalizing relations with Russia." Black folks think the crisis is about race. It is - and it isn't. If the ruling class, including those that fund and run the Democratic Party, were really concerned about Black people's rights, they would have challenged Trump's election victory based on blatant Black voter suppression in key Midwest states. As Greg Palast pointed out, the Republican "Crosscheck" scheme fraudulently and illegally purged 449,000 disproportionately Black voters from the rolls in Michigan, alone -- about 40 times larger than Trump's 10,700-vote margin of victory. Yet, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats only reluctantly joined in Green Party candidate Jill Stein's recount action, and the first words out of Black Congressman John Lewis's mouth when the polls closed in November were "Russia.Russia...Russia." Republicans have been stealing elections through Black voter suppression in broad daylight since 2000, but only one Democratic senator and one congresswoman -- California's Barbara Boxer and Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, in 2004 - have in this century challenged the thefts. Black voter suppression has been part of the gentlemen's agreement between the two corporate parties. Rich white people do not plunge the system into crisis for the sake of Black voting rights, or any Black rights at all, including the right to life. But the Lords of Capital will roll the dice on the fate of all humanity to preserve and expand their global dominion and the military machine that is their only remaining advantage. Their survival as a class is at stake. Trump must go because he cannot be depended on to preserve the Washington Consensus -- the imperial project. "Republicans have been stealing elections through Black voter suppression in broad daylight since 2000." Trump's racism did factor into the ruling class decision to oust him from the White House, but not in the way that most people believe. Donald Trump proved that his white base is more enthusiastic to support a candidate that affirms white supremacist "values" (yes, that's what they value most) than they are about maintaining an aggressive military posture everywhere in the world. They did not blink or budge when Trump denigrated NATO, opposed regime change and U.S. efforts at "nation-building" (a euphemism for prolonged military occupation of other peoples), and called for better relations with Russia. These same voters were presumed to be the most militaristic cohort in the nation, dependable fodder to elect fire-breathing war hawks. But clearly, Trump's base -- composed of a majority of whites - cares more about white supremacy in the U.S. than waging endless wars abroad. And, they either hate "free trade," or don't care enough about it either way to abandon their White Man's President. The national security state, the military industrial complex and the oligarchs whose interests the empire defends were forced to confront the reality, that their presumed prime constituency was not nearly as gung-ho for war as previously assumed. How, then, to continue the "generational" War on Terror (war of imperial conquest)? Answer: Make Russia a clear and present danger, aided and abetted by "useful idiots" (like BAR), domestically. Trump still retains the support of his white majority. Most importantly, these white supremacists feel affirmed, as "a people," by his presence, and what they perceive as Trump's loyalty to them. They are feeling "Great Again." And they are reveling in their national strength, as a bloc. That's why they seem unmovable. This re-energized, aggressively white supremacist, intensely self-aware White Man's Party will assert its permanent, militant and very large presence in the U.S. political spectrum, no matter what happens to Donald Trump. Other politicians, with billions to spend, will appeal to this majority bloc of whites, after Trump leaves the scene. They see themselves as a distinct and independent force in the nation -- the saviors of America, in their diseased minds -- and they now hate the Democratic Party in a far deeper way than before, when it was perceived as too concerned with Blacks and other "minorities." Hillary Clinton turned a new chapter when she called Trump voters "deplorables" -- a kind of white trash, but connoting moral degeneracy, transcending financial condition. The "witch-hunt" against Trump is perceived as an elite mob out to lynch the "deplorables" -- or, at the least, to decertify them as decent Americans. "This re-energized, aggressively white supremacist, intensely self-aware White Man's Party will assert its permanent, militant and very large presence in the U.S. political spectrum, no matter what happens to Donald Trump." The Democrats can forget about ever getting back most of these self-aware white supremacist voters, but the establishment corporate Republicans that Trump crushed in winning the GOP nomination will not win back his followers' allegiance unless they become more like Trump, i.e. more blatantly white supremacist. Which is decidedly not the corporate way, in the 21st century. Thus, corporate America, wedded as it is to a "diversity" doctrine that means little to the masses of Black people but is a red flag to the White Man's Party "deplorables," will be forced to identify more publicly with the Democrats, or pretend to be apolitical. The Trump phenomena -- and the resultant ruling class hysteria -- has stolen the corporations' option to pose as "non-partisan" actors in U.S. politics. They are forced deeper into the Democratic camp, creating further contradictions for the "inclusive" party, which must ultimately answer to a more clearly defined -- and also more self-aware - constituency of the "left," most broadly speaking, if it is to preserve the duopoly. This other half of the country, slightly bigger than Trump's white majority base, is composed of a minority of whites, virtually all Blacks, and large majorities of Latinos and other minorities. It is way to the left of the Democratic Party and roiling with economic demands that the Lords of Capital will not, and cannot, fulfill while keeping on the path of a global race-to-the-bottom and deepening austerity, enforced by endless wars. "Corporate America, wedded as it is to a 'diversity' doctrine that means little to the masses of Black people but is a red flag to the White Man's Party 'deplorables,' will be forced to identify more publicly with the Democrats." Therefore, there must be Russiagate hysteria -- or some other fictitious obsession -- primarily to divert the attentions of the "left" half of the electorate, most of which is broadly social democratic (the Black component is the most left-leaning, and peace-oriented). If the duopoly were to collapse, and the various cohorts of the U.S. political spectrum were reorganized along ideological lines, the two biggest parties would be the Trumpist White Man's party and a social democratic party with a platform to the left of 2016 Bernie Sanders, with the (rightwing) Democrats and establishment Republicans coming together in an avowedly "centrist" party, the smallest of the three. Space would also be created for more radical and libertarian politics. The ruling class is determined to prevent such a scenario from occurring, and thus needs a permanent, all-consuming diversion. But the Russiagate hysteria -- or something else like it -- cannot be maintained indefinitely; U.S. political structures cannot withstand such an institutional assault by the ruling class, itself. The Lords of Capital are caught in the contradiction. To save the corporate state, they are besieging the corporate state, with no vision or timetable for the outcome. BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 88391 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 20 14:42:38 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 14:42:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A worthwhile discussion Message-ID: Brian Becker, of “Loud & Clear” as well as one of the Founders of the PSL on Crosstalk, along with Dan Kovalik…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HySb9QaMDk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 19:09:13 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 14:09:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Journalist detained in Helsinki before he could ask about nuclear disarmament ... was Fwd: Sam Husseini Locked Up for Committing Journalism in Public In-Reply-To: <8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58.690cba8393.20180720172805.fdf6e0c96b.8363e200@mail200.sea81.mcsv.net> References: <8c573daa3ad72f4a095505b58.690cba8393.20180720172805.fdf6e0c96b.8363e200@mail200.sea81.mcsv.net> Message-ID: You've heard about this story - here is FAIR's take on it, good as ever. >From the photos in The Sun's coverage, Sam Husseini did have a sheet of typewriter paper with a sign about nuclear disarmament on it.   That was the closest thing the Finnish security could find to charge him with.      > [...] the press conference went on to leave intact the two leaders’ > preferred emphasis on nonproliferation over actual disarmament. It was > just that emphasis—more, Husseini argues (*The Nation*, 7/17/18 > ), > about “preserv[ing] the nuclear powers’ monopoly on violence, rather > than actually ensuring security”—that he had hoped to interrupt. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Sam Husseini Locked Up for Committing Journalism in Public Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 17:28:49 +0000 From: FAIR Reply-To: FAIR To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sam Husseini Locked Up for Committing Journalism in Public Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser . Sam Husseini Locked Up for Committing Journalism in Public by *Janine Jackson* The Nation: I Came as a Journalist to Ask Important Questions /The questions Sam Husseini tried to ask (*The Nation*, 7/17/18 )./ Journalist and FAIR associate Sam Husseini went to the Trump/Putin press conference in Helsinki with press credentials from *The Nation* and a couple of questions. Specifically, he wanted to ask both leaders why they aren’t living up to their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and why they’re blocking the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons . Further, based on the idea that there may be no greater threat than a weapon that is unacknowledged, Husseini hoped to ask Trump if he would acknowledge the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons. It wasn’t so quixotic: *Reuters* (7/12/18 ) /had/ just reported Trump saying his “ultimate” hope for the summit’s outcome was “no more nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.” But, as listeners may have heard, Husseini, also an analyst at the Institute for Public Accuracy , didn’t get to ask those questions. Before the conference started, Finnish security took him out of the room, saying someone had told them he had a sign. He did have a small piece of paper, reading “Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty,” that he hoped might draw Trump’s or Putin’s attention, but he was prepared to be told this was against the rules and to hand it over. As he took it out, though, security officers leapt on him, knocked his glasses off, and dragged him out of the room, and ultimately to a detention facility, where they held him incommunicado until the middle of the night. The Sun: Gone in a Flash /Coverage of Sam Husseini’s removal in the *Sun *(7/16/18 ), a British “newspaper.”/ Finnish police couldn’t come up with anything to charge Husseini with. But some media could, implying with quotes around the word “journalist” that Husseini might not be one, or highlighting that he wasn’t hanging out with the rest of the pool. It’s true, Husseini is not one to pal around with corporate reporters and he’s often an unwelcome sight to the political figures he confronts—at the National Press Club and elsewhere—with questions they’d rather avoid. Confusion about whether it still counts as journalism when it’s challenging to power is as distressing an assessment of today’s elite media as you need, but consider also that, after Husseini’s removal, the press conference went on to leave intact the two leaders’ preferred emphasis on nonproliferation over actual disarmament. It was just that emphasis—more, Husseini argues (*The Nation*, 7/17/18 ), about “preserv[ing] the nuclear powers’ monopoly on violence, rather than actually ensuring security”—that he had hoped to interrupt. /Read the original post here ./ FAIR's Website FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today .  Follow on Twitter | Friend on Facebook <#> | Forward to a Friend   /Copyright © 2018 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, All rights reserved./ You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. *Our mailing address is:* Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201 New York, NY 10001 Add us to your address book  unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences | view email in browser   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 21:41:05 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 16:41:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars Message-ID: Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 20 23:07:39 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:07:39 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'll make you a deal. If Trump voluntarily ends the famine-inducing Saudi war in Yemen before October, thus sparing millions of human beings from being pushed to the brink of starvation, I'll vote for Rodney Davis. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress > > https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop- > quick-legislative-response-russia > > Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based > associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, > e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. > > In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the largest > number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better > than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime > of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was > not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - > > “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as > ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of > the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass > opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop > the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] > > We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be > brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The > answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, > but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for > ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump > was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary > Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. > > The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in > order of importance: > (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; > (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which > compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & > (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important > of the three factors on US policy). > > When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners > than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of > Vietnam: > (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and > inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); > (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because > of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights > its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO > in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. > “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign > of Modern Times’”); > (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never > greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with > lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war > movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so > in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d > attacked in the campaign. > > The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an > anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on > the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the > ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant > social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the > population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now > including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ > > ### > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 21 00:10:47 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 00:10:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F69A5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Why don't we demand that the US end the eight wars this administration 'inherited' from the last one - and end the inherited war provocations from Ukraine to the S. China Sea? Closing the thousand US bases ringing Russia and China might be nice, too. Bring home all the thousands of Special Operations Command troops sent into no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world. Until we have a campaign like that underway, your voting for Rodney Davis (or anyone else) doesn't make much difference - even when the Democrats are in full McCarthyist hue and cry: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russiahttps://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Perhaps the most malign contribution of the last (Democrat) administration was the cooption and neutralization of the anti-war movement. That's the Obama-Clinton legacy. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-timeshttps://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-times ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 6:07 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars I'll make you a deal. If Trump voluntarily ends the famine-inducing Saudi war in Yemen before October, thus sparing millions of human beings from being pushed to the brink of starvation, I'll vote for Rodney Davis. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ ### _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Jul 21 00:54:38 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:54:38 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F69A5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F69A5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Why not demand everything. But scale matters. The U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen is killing at a scale that the drone war can't even dream about. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Why don't we demand that the US end the eight wars this administration > 'inherited' from the last one - and end the inherited war provocations from > Ukraine to the S. China Sea? Closing the thousand US bases ringing Russia > and China might be nice, too. Bring home all the thousands of Special > Operations Command troops sent into no less than 3/4 of the countries of > the world. Until we have a campaign like that underway, your voting for > Rodney Davis (or anyone else) doesn't make much difference - even when the > Democrats are in full McCarthyist hue and cry: > > https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop- > quick-legislative-response-russiahttps://www.rollcall. > com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia > > > Perhaps the most malign contribution of the last (Democrat) administration > was the cooption and neutralization of the anti-war movement. That's the > Obama-Clinton legacy. > > https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky- > obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-times > https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone- > program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-times > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana. > net] > *Sent:* Friday, July 20, 2018 6:07 PM > *To:* C G Estabrook > *Cc:* Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars > > I'll make you a deal. If Trump voluntarily ends the famine-inducing Saudi > war in Yemen before October, thus sparing millions of human beings from > being pushed to the brink of starvation, I'll vote for Rodney Davis. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress >> >> https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-q >> uick-legislative-response-russia >> >> Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based >> associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, >> e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. >> >> In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the >> largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios >> better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US >> crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam >> War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - >> >> “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as >> ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of >> the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass >> opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop >> the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] >> >> We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be >> brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The >> answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, >> but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for >> ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump >> was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary >> Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. >> >> The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in >> order of importance: >> (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; >> (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which >> compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & >> (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important >> of the three factors on US policy). >> >> When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government >> planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the >> ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: >> (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and >> inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); >> (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because >> of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights >> its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO >> in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. >> “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign >> of Modern Times’”); >> (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never >> greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with >> lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war >> movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so >> in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d >> attacked in the campaign. >> >> The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an >> anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on >> the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the >> ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant >> social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the >> population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now >> including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ >> >> ### >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 03:27:35 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 22:27:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Lest we forget Message-ID: <3BEAD235-5ABE-4BC7-A105-12D6DFAD65B1@gmail.com> https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Sat Jul 21 06:39:45 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:39:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars Message-ID: The last communication I saw from Rodney Davis bragged that he, Davis, had met with the chair of the Armed Services Committee. I wonder why Davis is meeting with him? How many companies here in Davis' district make items for warmongers? Is Davis looking for more? Am I missing other possibilities? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discussDate: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 7:55 PMTo: Estabrook, Carl G;Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars Why not demand everything.  But scale matters. The U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen is killing at a scale that the drone war can't even dream about.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: Why don't we demand that the US end the eight wars this administration 'inherited' from the last one - and end the inherited war provocations from Ukraine to the S. China Sea? Closing the thousand US bases ringing Russia and China might be nice, too. Bring home all the thousands of Special Operations Command troops sent into no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world. Until we have a campaign like that underway, your voting for Rodney Davis (or anyone else) doesn't make much difference - even when the Democrats are in full McCarthyist hue and cry: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russiahttps://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Perhaps the most malign contribution of the last (Democrat) administration was the cooption and neutralization of the anti-war movement. That's the Obama-Clinton legacy. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-timeshttps://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-times          From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 6:07 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars I'll make you a deal. If Trump voluntarily ends the famine-inducing Saudi war in Yemen before October, thus sparing millions of human beings from being pushed to the brink of starvation, I'll vote for Rodney Davis.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc.  In contrast, in the US  parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though -   “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam:  (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions);  (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ ### _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Jul 21 12:23:03 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:23:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prof. Gerald Horne nails it, on The Real News, in my humble opinion Message-ID: https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trump-implementing-the-bannon-strategy-by-courting-russia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 21 13:50:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:50:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Analysis of Nicaragua with Kevin Zeese Message-ID: Difficult to find of late, but the interview by Redacted Tonight’s Lee Camp with Kevin Zeese provides the best analysis of what is taking place now in Nicaragua. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS2MMTMsdvM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 14:48:29 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 09:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why do you think the draft ended, Roger? Of course the government and media wished to cover up the refusal to fight of the draftees sent to Vietnam - up to the point of attacking their officers (‘fragging’ - from the live fragmentation grenade rolled under the beds of gung-ho cadre) - but too many of them came back to tell the story. One of the few media accounts of why the US withdrew combat troops in 1973: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir!_No_Sir! —CGE > On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > your reason for the end of the draft is completely wrong, but then, you always look at history through greatly distorted lens! > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress > > https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia > > Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. > > In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - > > “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] > > We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. > > The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: > (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; > (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & > (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). > > When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: > (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); > (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); > (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. > > The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ > > ### > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 15:54:15 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 10:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prof. Gerald Horne nails it, on The Real News, in my humble opinion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is the transcript: Story Transcript *SHARMINI PERIES: *It’s The Real News Network, and I’m Sharmini Pyrrhus coming to you from Baltimore. Following the now-infamous Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki on Monday and its fallout here in Washington, D.C. on President Trump’s return, President Trump has invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to Washington this fall. Now, on to talk about the geopolitics of the week in crisis, joining me is Gerald Horne. He holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African-American Studies at the University of Houston. He is the author of over 30 books, including “The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America.” Thanks for joining us, Gerald. *GERALD HORNE: *Thank you for inviting me. *SHARMINI PERIES: *All right, Gerald, let’s start off with your take on this crazy week we’ve had. A week in crisis in Washington. *GERALD HORNE: *Well, first of all I think that the corporate media have missed the boat. It’s obvious, it’s in plain sight what the Trump team and that faction of the ruling class is trying to execute. His former adviser Steve Bannon let the cat out of the bag when he suggested that the United States is at war with China. Tucker Carlson of Fox News just recently had a banner behind him during his nationally syndicated program shouting “China Threat.” In other words, what Mr. Trump tried to do in Helsinki was what he’s been trying to do since he took office in January 2017. That is to say, to effectuate some sort of entente with Moscow. Soften up Moscow by supporting neofascists in Ukraine. And then try to neutralize Moscow as Washington turns to the big enchilada, which is China. Moscow is also key to Mr. Trump’s plans with regard to the smaller enchilada, which is Iran. That is to say that there is no accident that Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, has been spending a lot of quality time in Moscow, including on May 9, 2018, the holiest of holy days in Moscow, the day marking the victory over fascism in 1945. And likewise, Mr. Netanyahu is trying to win over Moscow to an anti-Iran sanction and/or conflict. This will involve some sorts of concessions to Moscow with regard to Syria. It’s unclear to me whether that latter initiative will pan out. But certainly it’s rather obvious what Mr. Trump is trying to accomplish. And I think that the corporate media has been engaged in a kind of journalistic malpractice by not pointing this out. They did the same thing when Mr. Trump went to Western Europe. That is to say, when Mr. Trump called for NATO members to spend more on defense, he’s actually asking them to send more money to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon in the Unites States of America. When he says, Mr. Trump, that is, that Germany is a captive of Russia because it gets so much energy from Russia, supposedly, Mr. Trump is actually carrying water for liquefied natural gas interests in Texas, and in Louisiana, and for oil interests in West Texas in particular. So I think what Mr. Trump is trying to do is rather obvious, but somehow this obvious point has been missed by the corporate media. *SHARMINI PERIES: *Now, Gerald, you are here in your analysis instilling a great deal of thinking, strategy, policies that Trump must implement to make this geopolitical strategy happen. But the corporate media presents him as a buffoon who doesn’t know what foot comes next, or misspeaking, and, and all the mistakes he’s made, and the notes he must make on his transcript to backpedal on a position he has taken. I mean, if you see the coverage in the mainstream press this week, you know, as you say, no serious attention was given to this strategic plan of President Trump. Why do you think that takes place? *GERALD HORNE: *Well, I think it takes place for a number of reasons. Trump is a vulgarian, but he’s a dangerous vulgarian. Trump is a buffoon, but he’s a dangerous buffoon. Trump is a con man, but he’s a dangerous con men. Keep in mind that the faction of the ruling elite that Mr. Trump represents tends to like those kinds of seeming buffoons in high office. Recall Ronald Wilson Reagan, who may have had senility during the last months of his 1980-1988 administration. But that did not keep him from executing a thought-out U.S. ruling elite for policy, even though he was doddering along all the time. I think that too much has been made of this buffoonery. In some ways, Trump is also like a magician. The trick of the magician is to distract you to the left as they pull off the trick to the right. And that’s what Trump does. Actually, one of the things that has surprised me thus far this week is that he has not distracted the attention of the audience further by launching another attack on black American pro football players, for example, to distract their attention to that particular issue. That’s oftentimes called “boob bait for the bubbas,” and Mr. Trump is a master at that kind of nonsense. *SHARMINI PERIES: *All right, Gerald, let’s go back to the earlier point you were making, that this new alliance with Moscow is about isolating China economically, and also isolating Iran for their interests, obviously of Netanyahu and Israel. But there’s much more to that strategy. Give us a sense of the indicators that lead you to believe that. *GERALD HORNE: *Well, first of all, as they do a tour of the horizon, the U.S. ruling elite realizes that unless something drastic happens sooner rather than later, U.S. imperialism will be surpassed by China. Look at the Made in China 2025 plan that has caused so many sleepless nights in Washington. That is to say, by 2025, a scant few years from now, China is slated to become the global leader in artificial intelligence, green energy, robotics, autonomous vehicles, and all of the rest. Washington feels that it has to do something drastic to shake up the game, and that leads us straight to Moscow and Helsinki. Now, with regard to the Saudis. Well, keep in mind that the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman also has been spending quality time in Moscow with Vladimir Putin. His aim is congruent with the aim of US imperialism and Israeli Zionism; that is to say, to neutralize Iran, if not oust Iran altogether from Syria, if not overthrow the current regime in Tehran. And likewise to continue pounding those they see as proxies of Iran in Yemen. I’m speaking of those they refer to as the Houthis. And as you know, they’re receiving ample support from U.S. imperialism with regard to that diabolical plan, as well. Sadly and unfortunately, this kind of analysis, this kind of factual presentation, is sorely and conspicuously missing from the corporate media. *SHARMINI PERIES: *Gerald, for this plan, the Bannon-Trump strategy now we are talking about, how why does the U.S. need Russia for this plan when they can actually easily go to Canada and the EU and they UK, which are their traditional allies on these kinds of efforts? *GERALD HORNE: *Well, that’s what distinguishes the Trump team from the Democrats. The Democratic strategy as articulated by Hillary Rodham Clinton was quite routine and traditional, not unlike that of Obama. That is to say, to unite with the European Union and Canada, to confront Russia and China. Now, in some ways Mr. Trump’s strategy is less dangerous, since he is seeking to convert Canada into a kind of vassal state. And from what I can see, Ottawa seemingly is unaware of this fact, this reality. To weaken and split the European Union. Keep in mind that he has already told President Macron of France that there is a large bribe at the end of the rainbow if France withdraws from the European Union. Obviously he’s trying to undermine and destabilise Chancellor Merkel in Berlin. Recall that just a few days ago he undermined Theresa May in London by giving a shout of approval to her main rival, who was to her right, the defrocked Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. Once those particular maneuvers are taking place, then it becomes apparent that Russia, from his point of view, could be a stumbling block, which necessitates Russia being neutralized, if not softened up, by supporting neofascists in Ukraine to drain Moscow. *SHARMINI PERIES: *All right, Gerald. So much more to talk about; it was a crazy week. Any final thoughts before we go for the weekend? *GERALD HORNE: *Well, the only final thought is that the contradictions, I’m afraid, are catching up with U.S. imperialism. One of these salient facts of what’s going on this week is that the Trump base is not crumbling or cracking at all. He still has 80 to 90 percent approval ratings within the Republican Party, the party of whiteness. The contradiction is that the Democratic Party is much more heterogeneous; but that, as they say in corporate United States, is a plus of diversity, on the one hand. On the other hand it leads to the spectacle that you saw a few days ago of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi savaging Congressional Black Caucus member Congresswoman Maxine Waters of Los Angeles because she had the temerity to suggest that folks get in the face of the Trump team when they see them out and about in the streets because of the facilities that they’re committing against children on the Texas-Mexico border as we speak. How can the Democrats mount an effective strategy if they’re attacking their base as represented by Congresswoman Waters? This tends to suggest that the Democrats, I’m afraid to say, need to adjust their strategy. *SHARMINI PERIES: *Indeed. All right, Gerald, I thank you so much for joining us today, and have a great weekend. *GERALD HORNE: *Thank you. *SHARMINI PERIES: *Of course, under these circumstances, I thank you all for joining us today here on The Real News Network. On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:23 AM Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > https://therealnews.com/stories/is-trump-implementing-the-bannon-strategy-by-courting-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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 17:15:09 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:15:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ben Jealous reveals himself Message-ID: But Mr. Jealous, the Maryland nominee for governor, who is supported by Working Families and addressed the event, was warier of the socialist label. After embracing Ms. (Cynthia) Nixon on stage but not quite endorsing her, Mr. Jealous chuckled at a question about the resurrection of Democratic socialism as a political identity. “I’m a venture capitalist,” he said, noting his work as an investor. “I’m kind of like the last person to ask.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/democratic-party-midterms.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 18:01:02 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:01:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. & Russian corporate relationship Message-ID: Referred to on yesterday's News from Neptune: * - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - * The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin Posted By Dan Corjescu On July 18, 2018 @ 1:55 am In articles 2015 | Comments Disabled Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men Walk under his huge legs and peep about To find ourselves dishonorable graves. — Shakespeare, “Julius Caesar” There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all kinds. This situation was even more pronounced in “non-aligned” Yugoslavia who for years had maintained CIA and American and West European business contacts. In effect, the “cold war” witnessed a rapid convergence between the economic and power interests of both Western and Communist elites. The “Communists” (in name only of course) quickly realized the economic benefits available to them through at times open at times clandestine cooperation with Western business/criminal interests. Eventually, Communist elites realized that they had an unprecedented economic opportunity on their hands: state privatization made possible, in part, with active Western participation. For them, “Freedom” meant the freedom to get rich beyond their wildest dreams. And the 1990’s were just that. A paradise for thieving on an unimaginable scale all under the rubric of the rebirth of “capitalism and freedom”. The true outcome of that decade was that the old communist elites not only retained their social and political power behind the scenes; they also were able to enrich themselves beyond anything the communist dictatorships could ever hope to offer them in the past. Yes, the price was to give up imperial, national, and ideological ambitions. But it was a very small price to pay; since the East European elites had ceased to believe in any of those things years earlier. The only firm belief they still held was the economic betterment of themselves and their families through the acquisition by any means of as many asset classes as possible. In effect, they became the mirror image of their “enemy” the “imperialist capitalist West”. This was not a case of historical dialectics but historical convergence. What appeared as a world divided was actually a world waiting to be made whole through the basest of criminal business activity. But being clever thieves they knew how to hide themselves and their doings behind superficially morally impeccable figures such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Wałęsa, to name just a few. These “dissidents” would be the faces they would use to make a good part of the world believe that 1989 was a narrative of freedom and not outright pubic theft which it was. Yes, people in the east, even in Russia, are freer now than they were. But it should never be forgotten that the events of 1989/1990 were not even remotely about those revolutionary dreams. It was about something much more mundane and sordid. It was about greed. It was about the maintenance of power. And finally it was about money. How deep has the Western nexus of power and wealth gone into the heart of the East? So far indeed that one can easily question to what extent a country like Russia is truly a “national” state anymore and rather just a territory open to exploitation by both local and global elites. For that matter, we can ask the same question about the USA. Today, and for a long time, the USA and Russia are two sides of the same criminal corporate coin. That Trump and Putin are seemingly almost interchangeable on an aesthetic level should not be a jarring surprise to anyone. We have totally converged. Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: * https://www.counterpunch.org * URL to article: * https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/18/the-usa-and-russia-two-sides-of-the-same-criminal-corporate-coin/ * Click here to print. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sun Jul 22 02:29:14 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 10:29:14 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1532226553556.3eimcborttgsoj4qrgofbycw@android.mail.163.com> i think that davis is a true believer. a yankee-doodle dandy. a favourite nephew of his uncle sam. and at a time when people are only motivated by money. i think he is a douchebag without a feck. a conformist without a clue. there is mostly cornfields in davis's district and he is about as corny as one can get. On 2018-07-21 14:39 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: The last communication I saw from Rodney Davis bragged that he, Davis, had met with the chair of the Armed Services Committee. I wonder why Davis is meeting with him? How many companies here in Davis' district make items for warmongers? Is Davis looking for more? Am I missing other possibilities? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2018 7:55 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G; Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net); Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars Why not demand everything.  But scale matters. The U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen is killing at a scale that the drone war can't even dream about.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss wrote: Why don't we demand that the US end the eight wars this administration 'inherited' from the last one - and end the inherited war provocations from Ukraine to the S. China Sea? Closing the thousand US bases ringing Russia and China might be nice, too. Bring home all the thousands of Special Operations Command troops sent into no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world. Until we have a campaign like that underway, your voting for Rodney Davis (or anyone else) doesn't make much difference - even when the Democrats are in full McCarthyist hue and cry: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russiahttps://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Perhaps the most malign contribution of the last (Democrat) administration was the cooption and neutralization of the anti-war movement. That's the Obama-Clinton legacy. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-timeshttps://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/19/noam-chomsky-obamas-drone-program-most-extreme-terrorist-campaign-modern-times From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 6:07 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars I'll make you a deal. If Trump voluntarily ends the famine-inducing Saudi war in Yemen before October, thus sparing millions of human beings from being pushed to the brink of starvation, I'll vote for Rodney Davis.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc.  In contrast, in the US  parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though -   “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam:  (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions);  (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ ### _______________________________________________ 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 rwhelbig at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 03:49:01 2018 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 20:49:01 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It ended in June 73 because that was the end of the 1971 extension to the law - there was no sudden end as you claimed - it took two years to come to an end - read the following: Senatorial opponents of the war wanted to reduce this to a one-year extension, or eliminate the draft altogether, or tie the draft renewal to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Vietnam;[67] Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska took the most forceful approach, trying to filibuster the draft renewal legislation, shut down conscription, and directly force an end to the war.[68] Senators supporting Nixon's war efforts supported the bill, even though some had qualms about ending the draft.[66] After a prolonged battle in the Senate, in September 1971 cloture was achieved over the filibuster and the draft renewal bill was approved.[69] Meanwhile, military pay was increased as an incentive to attract volunteers, and television advertising for the U.S. Army began.[61] With the end of active U.S. ground participation in Vietnam, December 1972 saw the last men conscripted, who were born in 1952[70] and who reported for duty in June 1973. On February 2, 1972, a drawing was held to determine draft priority numbers for men born in 1953, but in early 1973 it was announced by Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird that no further draft orders would be issued.[71][72] In March 1973, 1974, and 1975, the Selective Service assigned draft priority numbers for all men born in 1954, 1955, and 1956, in case the draft was extended, but it never was.[73 and this USARV controlled the activities of all U.S. Army service and logistical units in South Vietnam until 15 May 1972, when its structure was merged with the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) to become USARV/MACV Support Command, which was disbanded on 28 March 1973 after completion of withdrawal of all combat and support units. ] On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:48 AM, C G Estabrook wrote: > Why do you think the draft ended, Roger? > > Of course the government and media wished to cover up the refusal to fight > of the draftees sent to Vietnam - up to the point of attacking their > officers (‘fragging’ - from the live fragmentation grenade rolled under the > beds of gung-ho cadre) - but too many of them came back to tell the story. > > One of the few media accounts of why the US withdrew combat troops in > 1973: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir!_No_Sir! > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > your reason for the end of the draft is completely wrong, but then, you > always look at history through greatly distorted lens! > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress >> >> https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-q >> uick-legislative-response-russia >> >> Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based >> associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, >> e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. >> >> In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the >> largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios >> better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US >> crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam >> War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - >> >> “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as >> ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of >> the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass >> opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop >> the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] >> >> We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be >> brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The >> answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, >> but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for >> ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump >> was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary >> Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. >> >> The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in >> order of importance: >> (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; >> (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which >> compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & >> (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important >> of the three factors on US policy). >> >> When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government >> planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the >> ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: >> (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and >> inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); >> (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because >> of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights >> its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO >> in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. >> “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign >> of Modern Times’”); >> (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never >> greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with >> lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war >> movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so >> in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d >> attacked in the campaign. >> >> The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an >> anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on >> the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the >> ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant >> social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the >> population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now >> including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ >> >> ### >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Jul 22 06:58:48 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:58:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F6DC6@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> I'm sure that came as a surprise to a government engaged in a large, unpopular colonial war: "Oh, shucks! Look at that! The draft just ended! Guess we'll have to withdraw..." Now, if we need do the same thing in the Mideast. And close the hundreds if US military bases ringing Russia and China. Bring all US troops (and weapon) hime, as Ron Paul insisted some years ago... ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2018 10:49 PM To: C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars It ended in June 73 because that was the end of the 1971 extension to the law - there was no sudden end as you claimed - it took two years to come to an end - read the following: Senatorial opponents of the war wanted to reduce this to a one-year extension, or eliminate the draft altogether, or tie the draft renewal to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Vietnam;[67] Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska took the most forceful approach, trying to filibuster the draft renewal legislation, shut down conscription, and directly force an end to the war.[68] Senators supporting Nixon's war efforts supported the bill, even though some had qualms about ending the draft.[66] After a prolonged battle in the Senate, in September 1971 cloture was achieved over the filibuster and the draft renewal bill was approved.[69] Meanwhile, military pay was increased as an incentive to attract volunteers, and television advertising for the U.S. Army began.[61] With the end of active U.S. ground participation in Vietnam, December 1972 saw the last men conscripted, who were born in 1952[70] and who reported for duty in June 1973. On February 2, 1972, a drawing was held to determine draft priority numbers for men born in 1953, but in early 1973 it was announced by Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird that no further draft orders would be issued.[71][72] In March 1973, 1974, and 1975, the Selective Service assigned draft priority numbers for all men born in 1954, 1955, and 1956, in case the draft was extended, but it never was.[73 and this USARV controlled the activities of all U.S. Army service and logistical units in South Vietnam until 15 May 1972, when its structure was merged with the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) to become USARV/MACV Support Command, which was disbanded on 28 March 1973 after completion of withdrawal of all combat and support units. ] On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:48 AM, C G Estabrook > wrote: Why do you think the draft ended, Roger? Of course the government and media wished to cover up the refusal to fight of the draftees sent to Vietnam - up to the point of attacking their officers (‘fragging’ - from the live fragmentation grenade rolled under the beds of gung-ho cadre) - but too many of them came back to tell the story. One of the few media accounts of why the US withdrew combat troops in 1973: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir!_No_Sir! —CGE On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Roger Helbig > wrote: your reason for the end of the draft is completely wrong, but then, you always look at history through greatly distorted lens! On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ ### _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Jul 22 08:31:43 2018 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 01:31:43 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F6DC6@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F6DC6@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Rather think it was the other way around - we have withdrawn, why do we need the draft anymore - we are moving towards a better paid all volunteer force, but you keep viewing through your distorted lens. The US military was actively downsizing beginning in late 1973 - certainly by mid-1974. Roger On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Estabrook, Carl G wrote: > I'm sure that came as a surprise to a government engaged in a large, > unpopular colonial war: "Oh, shucks! Look at that! The draft just ended! > Guess we'll have to withdraw..." > > Now, if we need do the same thing in the Mideast. And close the hundreds > if US military bases ringing Russia and China. Bring all US troops (and > weapon) hime, as Ron Paul insisted some years ago... > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > behalf of Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > ] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 21, 2018 10:49 PM > *To:* C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars > > It ended in June 73 because that was the end of the 1971 extension to the > law - there was no sudden end as you claimed - it took two years to come to > an end - read the following: > > Senatorial opponents of the war wanted to reduce this to a one-year > extension, or eliminate the draft altogether, or tie the draft renewal to a > timetable for troop withdrawal from Vietnam;[67] Senator Mike Gravel of > Alaska took the most forceful approach, trying to filibuster the draft > renewal legislation, shut down conscription, and directly force an end to > the war.[68] Senators supporting Nixon's war efforts supported the bill, > even though some had qualms about ending the draft.[66] After a prolonged > battle in the Senate, in September 1971 cloture was achieved over the > filibuster and the draft renewal bill was approved.[69] Meanwhile, > military pay was increased as an incentive to attract volunteers, and > television advertising for the U.S. Army began.[61] With the end of > active U.S. ground participation in Vietnam, December 1972 saw the last men > conscripted, who were born in 1952[70] and who reported for duty in June > 1973. On February 2, 1972, a drawing was held to determine draft priority > numbers for men born in 1953, but in early 1973 it was announced by > Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird that no further draft orders would be > issued.[71][72] In March 1973, 1974, and 1975, the Selective Service > assigned draft priority numbers for all men born in 1954, 1955, and 1956, > in case the draft was extended, but it never was.[73 > > and this > > USARV controlled the activities of all U.S. Army service and logistical > units in South Vietnam until > 15 May 1972, when its structure was merged with the Military Assistance > Command, Vietnam > (MACV) > to become USARV/MACV Support Command, which was disbanded on 28 March > 1973 after completion of withdrawal of all combat and support units. ] > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:48 AM, C G Estabrook > wrote: > >> Why do you think the draft ended, Roger? >> >> Of course the government and media wished to cover up the refusal to >> fight of the draftees sent to Vietnam - up to the point of attacking their >> officers (‘fragging’ - from the live fragmentation grenade rolled under the >> beds of gung-ho cadre) - but too many of them came back to tell the story. >> >> One of the few media accounts of why the US withdrew combat troops in >> 1973: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir!_No_Sir! >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: >> >> your reason for the end of the draft is completely wrong, but then, you >> always look at history through greatly distorted lens! >> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress >>> >>> https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-q >>> uick-legislative-response-russia >>> >>> Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based >>> associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, >>> e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. >>> >>> In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the >>> largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios >>> better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US >>> crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam >>> War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - >>> >>> “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as >>> ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of >>> the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass >>> opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop >>> the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] >>> >>> We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be >>> brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The >>> answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, >>> but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for >>> ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump >>> was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary >>> Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. >>> >>> The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in >>> order of importance: >>> (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; >>> (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which >>> compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & >>> (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important >>> of the three factors on US policy). >>> >>> When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government >>> planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the >>> ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: >>> (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and >>> inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); >>> (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because >>> of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights >>> its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO >>> in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. >>> “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign >>> of Modern Times’”); >>> (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never >>> greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with >>> lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war >>> movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so >>> in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d >>> attacked in the campaign. >>> >>> The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an >>> anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on >>> the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the >>> ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant >>> social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the >>> population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now >>> including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Sun Jul 22 12:34:05 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 07:34:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth Message-ID: <002701d421b8$47ac24b0$d7046e10$@comcast.net> The Magnitsky Act was the opening salvo of the new cold war with Russia David J. Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth July 21, 2018 FROM THE ARCHIVES: In pursuit of Russia-gate, U.S. mainstream media embraces any attack on Russia and works to ensure Americans don't hear the other side of the story, as with the Magnitsky myth, reported Robert Parry on Oct. 28, 2017. By Robert Parry Special to Consortium News https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/robert-parry-306x264-1 30x130.jpgAs Russia-gate becomes the go-to excuse to marginalize and suppress independent and dissident media in the United States, a warning of what the future holds is the blacklisting of a documentary that debunks the so-called Magnitsky case. The emerging outlines of the broader suppression are now apparent in moves by major technology companies - under intense political pressure - to unleash algorithms that will hunt down what major media outlets and mainstream "fact-checkers" (with their own checkered histories of getting facts wrong) deem to be "false" and then stigmatize that information with pop-up "warnings" or simply make finding it difficult for readers using major search engines. For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth. Throughout the U.S. and Europe, there has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story. The documentary - "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" - was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie. However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and - except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington - very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary. Instead, we're fed a steady diet of the frothy myth whipped up by hedge-fund investor William https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Browder-from-Twitter.j pg Browder: Buys silence. Browder and sold to the U.S. and European governments as the basis for sanctioning Russian officials. For years now, Browder has been given a free hand to spin his dog-ate-my-homework explanation about how some of his firms got involved a $230 million tax fraud in Russia. Browder insists that some "corrupt" Russian police officers stole his companies' corporate seals and masterminded a convoluted conspiracy. But why anyone would trust a hedge-fund operator who got rich exploiting Russia's loose business standards is hard to comprehend. The answer is that Browder has used his money and political influence to scare off and silence anyone who dares point to the glaring contradictions and logical gaps in his elaborate confection. So, the hedge-fund guy who renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of a British passport gets the royal treatment whenever he runs to Congress. His narrative just fits so neatly into the demonization of Russia and the frenzy over stopping "Russian propaganda and disinformation" by whatever means necessary. This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term. Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream media helps reinforce Browder's dubious tale by smearing anyone who dares question it as a "Moscow stooge" or a "useful idiot." Magnitsky and Russia-gate The Magnitsky controversy now has merged with the Russia-gate affair because Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this other side of the story. Though nothing apparently came from that meeting, The New York Times, which always treats Browder's account as flat fact, led its Saturday editions with a breathless story entitled, " A Kremlin Link to a Memo Taken to Trump Tower," citing similarities between Veselnitskaya's memo on the Magnitsky case and an account prepared by "one of Russia's most powerful officials, the prosecutor general Yuri Y. Chaika." Cue the spooky music as the Times challenges Veselnitskaya's honesty. https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/director-400x186.jpg Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes." Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud. While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky - as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison - despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme. The "lawyer" falsehood - so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets - also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims? As investigative reporter Lucy Komisar noted in a recent article on the case, Browder offered a different description when he testified under oath in a New York court deposition in a related federal civil case. In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No." Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower. The rest of Browder's story stretches credulity even more as he offers a convoluted explanation of how he wasn't responsible for bogus claims made by his companies to fraudulently sneak away with $230 million in refunded taxes. Rather than show any skepticism toward this smarmy hedge-fund operator and his claims of victimhood, the U.S. Congress and mainstream media just take him at his word because, of course, his story fits the ever-present "Russia bad" narrative. Plus, these influential people have repeated the falsehoods so often and suppressed contrary evidence with such arrogance that they apparently feel that they get to define reality, which - in many ways - is what they want to do in the future by exploiting the Russia-gate hysteria to restore their undisputed role as the "gatekeepers" on "approved" information. Which is why Americans and Europeans should demand the right to see the Nekrasov documentary and make their own judgments, possibly with Browder given a chance after the show to rebut the overwhelming evidence of his deceptions. Instead, Browder has used his wealth and connections to make sure that almost no one gets to see the deconstruction of his fable. And The New York Times is okay with that. [For details on the Nekrasov documentary, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Blacklisted Film and the New Cold War."] The late investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his last book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2063 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12756 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20733 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jul 22 12:48:02 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 07:48:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts Message-ID: <003601d421ba$3a6c3270$af449750$@comcast.net> Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts By Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance July 21, 2018 | Educate! Above: Nicaraguans celebrate 39th Anniversary of the 1979Nicaraguan Revolution in Managua, July 2018. Source Redvolution. Note: Before the update on Nicaragua, I an providing two recent interviews that provide a context for what is happening in Nicaragua. First, is an interview I did with Lee Camp, the lead writer, and host of Redacted Tonight, “US Pushing for Regime Change in Nicaragua,” where we discuss the economic and political situation in Nicaragua as well as who is behind the coup and the government response. This interview discusses the issues raised in an article by me and Nils McCune, “ Correcting The Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua.” On Clearing The FOG radio and podcast, Margaret Flowers and I interviewed Stephen Sefton, who lives in Nicaragua and is a founder of Tortilla con Sal. He names the names behind the violence and describes what is happening in Nicaragua. https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/07/nicaraguan-president-daniel-ortega-arrives-at-celebration-of-the-revolution.-ap-e1532196086104.jpg Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega arrives at the celebration of the Sandinista Revolution. By Alfred Zeniga for AP. Lessons Learned from the Failed Violent Coup in Nicaragua and Next Steps The violent coup in Nicaragua has failed. This does not mean the United States and oligarchs are giving up, but this phase of their effort to remove the government did not succeed. The coup exposed the alliances who are working with the United States to put in place a neoliberal government that is controlled by the United States and serves the interests of the wealthy. People celebrated the failure of the coup but realize work needs to be done to protect the gains of the Sandinista revolution. People Celebrate Revolution, Call For Peace, Show Support for Government The people of Nicaragua showed their support for the democratically-elected government of Daniel Ortega with a massive outpouring in Managua in a celebration of the 39th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution. In addition to the mass protest in Managua, various cities had their own, in some cases very sizeable ones. People have wanted peace to return to Nicaragua. They have also wanted the roadblocks removed, which have resulted in closed businesses, job loss and loss of mobility. Roadblocks have been removed, even in the opposition stronghold of Masaya. There were two opposition deaths and one police officer killed in the removal. There was also an earlier death of a policeman in Masaya, captured when he was off-duty, tortured and burnt to death. This brings the total of police killed since April up to at least 21 with hundreds injured. With the opening of the main road on the east side of Masaya, all Nicaragua’s main routes are open to traffic and buses etc are operating normally. At the rally, President Ortega called on the people of Nicaragua to defend peace and reinstate the unity that existed in the nation before the violent opposition protests. He described how the violent coup attempted to destabilize the country and ended the peace that has existed through the eleven years of his time in office. He said, “Peace must be defended every day to avoid situations like these being repeated.” He also criticized the Catholic Bishops for their role in the failed violent coup. Ortega described the Episcopal Conference of Nicaragua as “coup leaders” for collaborating with the opposition during the protests. Not only did the Catholic leadership side with the opposition during the national dialogue, but priests were involved in kidnapping and torture. Pope Francis has a lot of work to do to reign in the Catholic Church in Nicaragua. If their role in these violent protests and opposition to an economy for the people is not stopped, this will become a scandal for the Catholic Church.  Other Latin American leaders spoke out against involvement in the coup. Bolivian President Evo Morales condemned US “interference” in Nicaragua, denouncing the “criminal strategies” used against the government of Daniel Ortega. Morales accused the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of “openly supporting violence” in Nicaragua. Also at the celebration were the foreign ministers of Cuba and Venezuela, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, and Jorge Arreza, all supporting Nicaragua over the violent coup of the United States and oligarchs. The United States is Escalating Economic War and Support for Opposition The United States is not giving up. Also on the anniversary of the revolution, the NICA Act, designed to escalate the economic war against Nicaragua, was introduced in the Senate. It has already been passed by the US House of Representatives. The Senate bill, called the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anti-corruption Act of 2018, imposes sanctions, calls for early elections and escalates US intelligence involvement in Nicaragua. It is a law that ensures continued US efforts to remove the democratically-elected government. At the same time, USAID announced an additional $1.5 million for Nicaragua to build opposition to the government. This will fund the NGOs that participated in the protests, human rights groups that falsely reported the situation, media to produce the regime change narrative and other support for the opposition. The coordination between Nicaraguan opposition and the United States was shown by Max Blumenthal’s attempted visit to an organization that funnels USAID and NED money to the opposition. He visited the Managua offices of the Institute of Strategic Studies and Public Policies (IEEPP in Spanish), but it was closed because its director, Felix Maradiaga, who was at the heart of the violent unrest, was in Washington, DC seeking more funding from USAID. On July 18, the US-dominated OAS passed a resolution concerning “The Situation in Nicaragua.” An earlier effort to endorse a report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was so biased that it failed. The report ignored the opposition’s widespread violence and only reported on the defensive violence of the government. The resolution approving the IACHR report was supported by only ten out of 34 countries. The resolution, which was finally passed by the OAS, condemned violence on all sides and urged Nicaragua to pursue all options including the national dialogue to seek peace begun by Ortega. On the issue of elections, the resolution urged Nicaragua “to support an electoral calendar jointly agreed to in the context of the National Dialogue process.” Only this mainly symbolic resolution could pass muster in the OAS, despite US domination. What Happened and What Was Learned In our article “ Correcting the Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua,” Nils McCune and I describe what was behind the violent coup attempt. We reported that there was a lot of misinformation on what was occurring in Nicaragua, indeed the false narrative of regime change was part of the tactics of the failed coup. Perhaps most importantly we described the alignment of forces behind the coup. The coup was a class war turned upside down. The Ortega government includes none of the oligarchic families, a first in the history of Nicaragua. He has put in place a bottom-up economy that has lifted people out of poverty, provided access to health care and education, given micro-loans to entrepreneurs and small businesses and created an economy energized by public spending. Ortega expanded coverage of the social security system; as a result, a new formula was required to ensure fiscal stability. Ortega made a counter-proposal to the IMF/business proposal, which would cut social security and raise the retirement age. He proposed no cuts to social security and increasing employer contributions by 3.5% to pension and health funds, while only slightly increasing worker contributions by 0.75% and shifting 5% of pensioners’ cash transfer into their healthcare fund. These reforms were the trigger as it was the business lobby who called for the protests. The forces aligned with the violent coup included the oligarchs, big business interests, foreign investors (e.g. Colombian financiers), the US-funded NGO’s and the Catholic Church, a long-term ally of the wealthy. Also involved was the Movement for Renovation of Sandinismo (MRS), a tiny Sandinista offshoot party, of former Sandanistas who left the party when Ortega lost an election in 1990 who are aligned with the US State Department. Regarding students, there were already student protests around university elections, and these were redirected by the violent coup effort and supported by a small minority of students from private universities, the April 19th Movement. Some of these students had been brought to the US by the Freedom House, which has long ties to the CIA and met with far-right interventionist members of the US Congress, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Sen. Ted Cruz. These groups acted in opposition to the bulk of Nicaraguan society and showed their true colors. This includes: * Being tied to and subservient to the US government. * Being led by oligarchs and big business interests that are out of power and cannot win elections. * Using violence as a strategy of creating chaos and trapping the government into responding with violence to restore order. * Spreading false propaganda through oligarch-controlled media, often funded by NED, as well as highly-manipulated social media echoed by western media, especially The New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post and cable TV news outlets. No doubt more will come out about this in the future as the coup is researched and analyzed. As the facts become clear, the opposition will lose more political power and be even less likely to win elections. The blockades of roads with violence undermined the economy and had a negative impact on the poor and working class. If it becomes evident that this was a strategy of the opposition, they will lose power. NGO’s that are funded by the US and run by members of the MRS will be noted for their dishonest narrative and will be seen as an arm of the United States and not trusted by the people of Nicaragua. Media outside of Nicaragua will come to understand that human rights groups and NGOs are not reliable sources of information but need to be questioned. They need to be pushed to break their ties with the United States. This does not mean all is well on the Sandinista side of the alliance of forces. The coup is an opportunity for self-reflection and self-criticism that is already happening, as seen in this list of 20 results from the coup, which begins with “A more consolidated and United FSLN.” In addition, the Action Group of the Solidarity with Nicaragua Campaign put forward seven propositions to unify around. The protest took advantage of challenges the Nicaraguan government faces in continuing to lift up the poor and economically insecure. It shows their need to build their capacity to quickly let the public know their side of the story. And, it shows the need for planning for a post-Ortega Sandinista government, as the president is in his third term. The anniversary of the revolution was a good beginning at strengthening the unity of the Sandinista movement and celebration of the defeat of the coup, but there will be challenges ahead. Nicaragua is a poor country that needs foreign investment. If the United States escalates the economic war, which seems to be the intent, it will make it challenging to continue the social and economic programs that are lifting up the poor. Nicaragua had relied on investment from Venezuela, but it is also in the midst of an economic war, which along with the low oil prices has created economic challenges for them. Nicaragua has begun to build economic relationships with China, Russia, Iran and other countries; these will likely need to expand. The misinformation was deep and widespread. Inside Nicaragua, there were stories of students being killed that never happened but that escalated the protests. The opposition claimed to be nonviolent when their strategy was to use violence to force regime change while the government quartered the National Police. False news and videos of attacks on neighborhoods and universities never stopped being manufactured. One example, students calling for help and claiming they were under attack, was later exposed in a video showing the students practicing the false social media narrative. Peace and justice activists in the United States and western nations have learned they need to be much more careful believing reports on what is occurring in Nicaragua. The US-funding of NGOs involved in women’s issues, environmental protection and human rights in Nicaragua make them questionable sources of information for justice advocates. In addition, US-funded regime change efforts are getting more sophisticated at social media; and thus, care must be taken as social media has it is abused by regime change advocates. We must look to other sources that have shown the ability to report accurately e.g., Tortilla con Sal, Telesur, Redvolucion. Peace and justice advocates must be grounded in anti-imperialism and nonintervention by the United States. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54439 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jul 22 13:25:12 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 08:25:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts In-Reply-To: References: <003601d421ba$3a6c3270$af449750$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <007b01d421bf$6bd68cc0$4383a640$@comcast.net> Did you even read this article Roger ? Obviously you didn’t, and as usual your only source of information is the corporate media. David J. From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 7:57 AM To: David Johnson Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts when was this alleged failed violent coup - where was it reported besides this clearly biased source Roger On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 5:48 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts By Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance July 21, 2018 | Educate! Above: Nicaraguans celebrate 39th Anniversary of the 1979Nicaraguan Revolution in Managua, July 2018. Source Redvolution. Note: Before the update on Nicaragua, I an providing two recent interviews that provide a context for what is happening in Nicaragua. First, is an interview I did with Lee Camp, the lead writer, and host of Redacted Tonight, “US Pushing for Regime Change in Nicaragua,” where we discuss the economic and political situation in Nicaragua as well as who is behind the coup and the government response. This interview discusses the issues raised in an article by me and Nils McCune, “Correcting The Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua .” On Clearing The FOG radio and podcast , Margaret Flowers and I interviewed Stephen Sefton, who lives in Nicaragua and is a founder of Tortilla con Sal. He names the names behind the violence and describes what is happening in Nicaragua. https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/07/nicaraguan-president-daniel-ortega-arrives-at-celebration-of-the-revolution.-ap-e1532196086104.jpg Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega arrives at the celebration of the Sandinista Revolution. By Alfred Zeniga for AP. Lessons Learned from the Failed Violent Coup in Nicaragua and Next Steps The violent coup in Nicaragua has failed . This does not mean the United States and oligarchs are giving up, but this phase of their effort to remove the government did not succeed. The coup exposed the alliances who are working with the United States to put in place a neoliberal government that is controlled by the United States and serves the interests of the wealthy. People celebrated the failure of the coup but realize work needs to be done to protect the gains of the Sandinista revolution. People Celebrate Revolution, Call For Peace, Show Support for Government The people of Nicaragua showed their support for the democratically-elected government of Daniel Ortega with a massive outpouring in Managua in a celebration of the 39th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution. In addition to the mass protest in Managua, various cities had their own, in some cases very sizeable ones. People have wanted peace to return to Nicaragua. They have also wanted the roadblocks removed, which have resulted in closed businesses, job loss and loss of mobility. Roadblocks have been removed, even in the opposition stronghold of Masaya. There were two opposition deaths and one police officer killed in the removal. There was also an earlier death of a policeman in Masaya, captured when he was off-duty, tortured and burnt to death. This brings the total of police killed since April up to at least 21 with hundreds injured. With the opening of the main road on the east side of Masaya, all Nicaragua’s main routes are open to traffic and buses etc are operating normally. At the rally, President Ortega called on the people of Nicaragua to defend peace and reinstate the unity that existed in the nation before the violent opposition protests. He described how the violent coup attempted to destabilize the country and ended the peace that has existed through the eleven years of his time in office. He said, “Peace must be defended every day to avoid situations like these being repeated.” He also criticized the Catholic Bishops for their role in the failed violent coup. Ortega described the Episcopal Conference of Nicaragua as “coup leaders” for collaborating with the opposition during the protests. Not only did the Catholic leadership side with the opposition during the national dialogue, but priests were involved in kidnapping and torture. Pope Francis has a lot of work to do to reign in the Catholic Church in Nicaragua. If their role in these violent protests and opposition to an economy for the people is not stopped, this will become a scandal for the Catholic Church.  Other Latin American leaders spoke out against involvement in the coup. Bolivian President Evo Morales condemned US “interference” in Nicaragua, denouncing the “criminal strategies” used against the government of Daniel Ortega. Morales accused the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of “openly supporting violence” in Nicaragua. Also at the celebration were the foreign ministers of Cuba and Venezuela, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, and Jorge Arreza, all supporting Nicaragua over the violent coup of the United States and oligarchs. The United States is Escalating Economic War and Support for Opposition The United States is not giving up. Also on the anniversary of the revolution, the NICA Act, designed to escalate the economic war against Nicaragua, was introduced in the Senate . It has already been passed by the US House of Representatives. The Senate bill, called the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anti-corruption Act of 2018, imposes sanctions, calls for early elections and escalates US intelligence involvement in Nicaragua. It is a law that ensures continued US efforts to remove the democratically-elected government. At the same time, USAID announced an additional $1.5 million for Nicaragua to build opposition to the government. This will fund the NGOs that participated in the protests, human rights groups that falsely reported the situation, media to produce the regime change narrative and other support for the opposition. The coordination between Nicaraguan opposition and the United States was shown by Max Blumenthal’s attempted visit to an organization that funnels USAID and NED money to the opposition. He visited the Managua offices of the Institute of Strategic Studies and Public Policies (IEEPP in Spanish), but it was closed because its director, Felix Maradiaga, who was at the heart of the violent unrest, was in Washington, DC seeking more funding from USAID. On July 18, the US-dominated OAS passed a resolution concerning “The Situation in Nicaragua.” An earlier effort to endorse a report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was so biased that it failed. The report ignored the opposition’s widespread violence and only reported on the defensive violence of the government. The resolution approving the IACHR report was supported by only ten out of 34 countries. The resolution, which was finally passed by the OAS, condemned violence on all sides and urged Nicaragua to pursue all options including the national dialogue to seek peace begun by Ortega. On the issue of elections, the resolution urged Nicaragua “to support an electoral calendar jointly agreed to in the context of the National Dialogue process.” Only this mainly symbolic resolution could pass muster in the OAS, despite US domination. What Happened and What Was Learned In our article “Correcting the Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua ,” Nils McCune and I describe what was behind the violent coup attempt. We reported that there was a lot of misinformation on what was occurring in Nicaragua, indeed the false narrative of regime change was part of the tactics of the failed coup. Perhaps most importantly we described the alignment of forces behind the coup. The coup was a class war turned upside down. The Ortega government includes none of the oligarchic families, a first in the history of Nicaragua. He has put in place a bottom-up economy that has lifted people out of poverty, provided access to health care and education, given micro-loans to entrepreneurs and small businesses and created an economy energized by public spending. Ortega expanded coverage of the social security system; as a result, a new formula was required to ensure fiscal stability. Ortega made a counter-proposal to the IMF/business proposal, which would cut social security and raise the retirement age. He proposed no cuts to social security and increasing employer contributions by 3.5% to pension and health funds, while only slightly increasing worker contributions by 0.75% and shifting 5% of pensioners’ cash transfer into their healthcare fund. These reforms were the trigger as it was the business lobby who called for the protests. The forces aligned with the violent coup included the oligarchs, big business interests, foreign investors (e.g. Colombian financiers), the US-funded NGO’s and the Catholic Church, a long-term ally of the wealthy. Also involved was the Movement for Renovation of Sandinismo (MRS), a tiny Sandinista offshoot party, of former Sandanistas who left the party when Ortega lost an election in 1990 who are aligned with the US State Department. Regarding students, there were already student protests around university elections, and these were redirected by the violent coup effort and supported by a small minority of students from private universities, the April 19th Movement. Some of these students had been brought to the US by the Freedom House , which has long ties to the CIA and met with far-right interventionist members of the US Congress, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Sen. Ted Cruz. These groups acted in opposition to the bulk of Nicaraguan society and showed their true colors. This includes: * Being tied to and subservient to the US government. * Being led by oligarchs and big business interests that are out of power and cannot win elections. * Using violence as a strategy of creating chaos and trapping the government into responding with violence to restore order. * Spreading false propaganda through oligarch-controlled media, often funded by NED, as well as highly-manipulated social media echoed by western media, especially The New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post and cable TV news outlets. No doubt more will come out about this in the future as the coup is researched and analyzed. As the facts become clear, the opposition will lose more political power and be even less likely to win elections. The blockades of roads with violence undermined the economy and had a negative impact on the poor and working class. If it becomes evident that this was a strategy of the opposition, they will lose power. NGO’s that are funded by the US and run by members of the MRS will be noted for their dishonest narrative and will be seen as an arm of the United States and not trusted by the people of Nicaragua. Media outside of Nicaragua will come to understand that human rights groups and NGOs are not reliable sources of information but need to be questioned. They need to be pushed to break their ties with the United States. This does not mean all is well on the Sandinista side of the alliance of forces. The coup is an opportunity for self-reflection and self-criticism that is already happening, as seen in this list of 20 results from the coup, which begins with “A more consolidated and United FSLN.” In addition, the Action Group of the Solidarity with Nicaragua Campaign put forward seven propositions to unify around. The protest took advantage of challenges the Nicaraguan government faces in continuing to lift up the poor and economically insecure. It shows their need to build their capacity to quickly let the public know their side of the story. And, it shows the need for planning for a post-Ortega Sandinista government, as the president is in his third term. The anniversary of the revolution was a good beginning at strengthening the unity of the Sandinista movement and celebration of the defeat of the coup, but there will be challenges ahead. Nicaragua is a poor country that needs foreign investment. If the United States escalates the economic war, which seems to be the intent, it will make it challenging to continue the social and economic programs that are lifting up the poor. Nicaragua had relied on investment from Venezuela, but it is also in the midst of an economic war, which along with the low oil prices has created economic challenges for them. Nicaragua has begun to build economic relationships with China, Russia, Iran and other countries; these will likely need to expand. The misinformation was deep and widespread. Inside Nicaragua, there were stories of students being killed that never happened but that escalated the protests. The opposition claimed to be nonviolent when their strategy was to use violence to force regime change while the government quartered the National Police. False news and videos of attacks on neighborhoods and universities never stopped being manufactured. One example, students calling for help and claiming they were under attack, was later exposed in a video showing the students practicing the false social media narrative. Peace and justice activists in the United States and western nations have learned they need to be much more careful believing reports on what is occurring in Nicaragua. The US-funding of NGOs involved in women’s issues, environmental protection and human rights in Nicaragua make them questionable sources of information for justice advocates. In addition, US-funded regime change efforts are getting more sophisticated at social media; and thus, care must be taken as social media has it is abused by regime change advocates. We must look to other sources that have shown the ability to report accurately e.g., Tortilla con Sal , Telesur , Redvolucion . Peace and justice advocates must be grounded in anti-imperialism and nonintervention by the United States. _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54439 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 14:18:03 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 09:18:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F6DC6@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <80AE87F8-A53E-4447-A68A-5F72276CCA61@gmail.com> And why did ‘we’ withdraw from an aggressive war (the crime for which people were hanged at Nuremberg), launched by the Kennedy administration against S. Vietnam? The US military was 'actively downsizing’ because its conscript troops were ‘unreliable.’ Good for them - and the 70% of Americans who supported them - against the criminal government of the US. —CGE > On Jul 22, 2018, at 3:31 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Rather think it was the other way around - we have withdrawn, why do we need the draft anymore - we are moving towards a better paid all volunteer force, but you keep viewing through your distorted lens. > > The US military was actively downsizing beginning in late 1973 - certainly by mid-1974. > > Roger > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Estabrook, Carl G > wrote: > I'm sure that came as a surprise to a government engaged in a large, unpopular colonial war: "Oh, shucks! Look at that! The draft just ended! Guess we'll have to withdraw..." > > Now, if we need do the same thing in the Mideast. And close the hundreds if US military bases ringing Russia and China. Bring all US troops (and weapon) hime, as Ron Paul insisted some years ago... > > From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2018 10:49 PM > To: C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars > > It ended in June 73 because that was the end of the 1971 extension to the law - there was no sudden end as you claimed - it took two years to come to an end - read the following: > > Senatorial opponents of the war wanted to reduce this to a one-year extension, or eliminate the draft altogether, or tie the draft renewal to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Vietnam;[67] Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska took the most forceful approach, trying to filibuster the draft renewal legislation, shut down conscription, and directly force an end to the war.[68] Senators supporting Nixon's war efforts supported the bill, even though some had qualms about ending the draft.[66] After a prolonged battle in the Senate, in September 1971 cloture was achieved over the filibuster and the draft renewal bill was approved.[69] Meanwhile, military pay was increased as an incentive to attract volunteers, and television advertising for the U.S. Army began.[61] With the end of active U.S. ground participation in Vietnam, December 1972 saw the last men conscripted, who were born in 1952[70] and who reported for duty in June 1973. On February 2, 1972, a drawing was held to determine draft priority numbers for men born in 1953, but in early 1973 it was announced by Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird that no further draft orders would be issued.[71][72] In March 1973, 1974, and 1975, the Selective Service assigned draft priority numbers for all men born in 1954, 1955, and 1956, in case the draft was extended, but it never was.[73 > > and this > > USARV controlled the activities of all U.S. Army service and logistical units in South Vietnam until 15 May 1972, when its structure was merged with the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) to become USARV/MACV Support Command, which was disbanded on 28 March 1973 after completion of withdrawal of all combat and support units. ] > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:48 AM, C G Estabrook > wrote: > Why do you think the draft ended, Roger? > > Of course the government and media wished to cover up the refusal to fight of the draftees sent to Vietnam - up to the point of attacking their officers (‘fragging’ - from the live fragmentation grenade rolled under the beds of gung-ho cadre) - but too many of them came back to tell the story. > > One of the few media accounts of why the US withdrew combat troops in 1973: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir!_No_Sir! > > —CGE > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Roger Helbig > wrote: >> >> your reason for the end of the draft is completely wrong, but then, you always look at history through greatly distorted lens! >> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress >> >> https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia >> >> Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. >> >> In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - >> >> “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] >> >> We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. >> >> The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: >> (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; >> (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & >> (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). >> >> When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: >> (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); >> (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); >> (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. >> >> The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ >> >> ### >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 14:39:33 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 09:39:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1F6DC6@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> <80AE87F8-A53E-4447-A68A-5F72276CCA61@gmail.com> Message-ID: That’s the sort of argument defenders of US aggression - which has killed more than 20 million people since WWII, in ‘defense’ of US economic hegemony - are reduced to… > On Jul 22, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > You pretend to be some sort of scholar, but you are sometimes just full of shit - let's just leave it at that. > > Roger > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 7:18 AM, C G Estabrook > wrote: > And why did ‘we’ withdraw from an aggressive war (the crime for which people were hanged at Nuremberg), launched by the Kennedy administration against S. Vietnam? > > The US military was 'actively downsizing’ because its conscript troops were ‘unreliable.’ Good for them - and the 70% of Americans who supported them - against the criminal government of the US. > > —CGE > > >> On Jul 22, 2018, at 3:31 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Rather think it was the other way around - we have withdrawn, why do we need the draft anymore - we are moving towards a better paid all volunteer force, but you keep viewing through your distorted lens. >> >> The US military was actively downsizing beginning in late 1973 - certainly by mid-1974. >> >> Roger >> >> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Estabrook, Carl G > wrote: >> I'm sure that came as a surprise to a government engaged in a large, unpopular colonial war: "Oh, shucks! Look at that! The draft just ended! Guess we'll have to withdraw..." >> >> Now, if we need do the same thing in the Mideast. And close the hundreds if US military bases ringing Russia and China. Bring all US troops (and weapon) hime, as Ron Paul insisted some years ago... >> >> From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] on behalf of Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ] >> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2018 10:49 PM >> To: C G Estabrook; Peace-discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Parties and wars >> >> It ended in June 73 because that was the end of the 1971 extension to the law - there was no sudden end as you claimed - it took two years to come to an end - read the following: >> >> Senatorial opponents of the war wanted to reduce this to a one-year extension, or eliminate the draft altogether, or tie the draft renewal to a timetable for troop withdrawal from Vietnam;[67] Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska took the most forceful approach, trying to filibuster the draft renewal legislation, shut down conscription, and directly force an end to the war.[68] Senators supporting Nixon's war efforts supported the bill, even though some had qualms about ending the draft.[66] After a prolonged battle in the Senate, in September 1971 cloture was achieved over the filibuster and the draft renewal bill was approved.[69] Meanwhile, military pay was increased as an incentive to attract volunteers, and television advertising for the U.S. Army began.[61] With the end of active U.S. ground participation in Vietnam, December 1972 saw the last men conscripted, who were born in 1952[70] and who reported for duty in June 1973. On February 2, 1972, a drawing was held to determine draft priority numbers for men born in 1953, but in early 1973 it was announced by Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird that no further draft orders would be issued.[71][72] In March 1973, 1974, and 1975, the Selective Service assigned draft priority numbers for all men born in 1954, 1955, and 1956, in case the draft was extended, but it never was.[73 >> >> and this >> >> USARV controlled the activities of all U.S. Army service and logistical units in South Vietnam until 15 May 1972, when its structure was merged with the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) to become USARV/MACV Support Command, which was disbanded on 28 March 1973 after completion of withdrawal of all combat and support units. ] >> >> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:48 AM, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> Why do you think the draft ended, Roger? >> >> Of course the government and media wished to cover up the refusal to fight of the draftees sent to Vietnam - up to the point of attacking their officers (‘fragging’ - from the live fragmentation grenade rolled under the beds of gung-ho cadre) - but too many of them came back to tell the story. >> >> One of the few media accounts of why the US withdrew combat troops in 1973: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir!_No_Sir! >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Roger Helbig > wrote: >>> >>> your reason for the end of the draft is completely wrong, but then, you always look at history through greatly distorted lens! >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:41 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> Or, more reason not to give Democrats control of Congress >>> >>> https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-press-gop-quick-legislative-response-russia >>> >>> Political parties in other countries are often dues-paying, class-based associations pressing for certain well-defined goals - so you can have, e.g., a bankers party, a farmers’ party, a working class party, etc. >>> >>> In contrast, in the US parties are brands, trying to convince the largest number of voters that Coca-Cola is better than Pepsi-Cola, Cheerios better than Wheaties... (Do they still make Wheaties?) Thus the greatest US crime of the post-WWII world, the US invasion of SE Asia (the ‘Vietnam War’) was not ended by parties’ taking different sides, even though - >>> >>> “By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the [Vietnam] war as ‘fundamentally wrong and immoral,’ not ‘a mistake,’ largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war.” [Chomsky] >>> >>> We may ask, Will the Bush-Obama-Trump depredations on the Mideast be brought to end as the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon assaults on SE Asia were? The answer is hardly clear: history, as has been said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Remember that Richard Nixon had a ‘secret plan for ending the [Vietnam] war’: he was the anti-war candidate in 1968 (as Trump was in 2016); in each case their opponents (Hubert Humphrey and Hilary Clinton) were leading members of the administrations making war. >>> >>> The Vietnam war ended (to the extent that it did) for three reasons - in order of importance: >>> (1) the brave resistance of the Vietnamese people against US attack; >>> (2) the revolt of the American army in Vietnam (cf. ‘fragging’) - which compelled the sudden ending of the draft in 1973; & >>> (3) the ‘mass opposition’ of the US public (in fact, the least important of the three factors on US policy). >>> >>> When it came to the Mideast (even more important to US government planners than SE Asia), US imperial policy was determined to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Vietnam: >>> (1) local resistance in the Mideast was widespread, but divided and inchoate (note that 9/11 was a counterattack to US actions); >>> (2) the US military had been assuaged: the draft had been ended (because of US resistance) and only the economic draft was left, so the US fights its Mideast wars largely with foreign proxies, whom it finances (from NATO in Afghanistan to jihadists in Syria); then with drone assassinations. (Cf. “Noam Chomsky: Obama's Drone Program 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times’”); >>> (3) the mass opposition to the US public to foreign wars - perhaps never greater than in 2003, with Bush’s invasion of Iraq - could be managed with lies and propaganda. Obama ran as the peace candidate in 2008. The anti-war movement that should have countered his lies was seduced by him instead, so in office he could immediately expand the war in Afghanistan that he’d attacked in the campaign. >>> >>> The examples of Vietnam and the Mideast seem to make it clear that an anti-war movement today that actually deters US wars will not be based on the Republican and Democrat organizations. They are together part of the ‘war party’ that serves the world-wide economic interests of dominant social groups in the US (‘the one percent’) - not the interests of the population at large, who have to misled with ever more fantastic lies - now including ‘Russian aggression’ and ‘collusion.’ >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jul 22 16:43:12 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:43:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts In-Reply-To: References: <003601d421ba$3a6c3270$af449750$@comcast.net> <007b01d421bf$6bd68cc0$4383a640$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00c701d421db$14f43490$3edc9db0$@comcast.net> Roger, So called “ fact checkers “ and “ editors “ in the corporate media are propaganda directors. Ask any one of the REAL journalists over the years who have been forced out of the corporate media for doing real factual journalism, like ; Phil Donahue, Raymond Bonner, Chris Hedges, Ed Schultz, Greg Pallast. Just to name a few. And YES, corporate ownership does have EVERYTHING to do with the bias and propaganda of the corporate owned or financed ( NPR / PBS ) media. Weapons of mass destruction anyone ? Gulf of Tonkin incident anyone ? CIA program “ Operation Mockingbird “ ? The track record of inaccuracy, omitted facts and outright fabrications by the corporate media over the years are too numerous to mention. In fact there is an entire monthly magazine devoted to documenting this called “ Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting “ which has been around for 30 plus years now. And what exactly Roger do you question about the article’s “ authenticity “ ? I dare you to respond with a specific and intelligent answer ! David J. From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 9:31 AM To: David Johnson Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts I read enough of it to question its authenticity - I like media with fact checkers and editors - has nothing to do with corporate - don't think that the Christian Science Monitor is corporate but they used to be known for excellent journalism. The article seems to be talking about the present and the past both - not clear where one ends and the other begins. Roger On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:25 AM, David Johnson wrote: Did you even read this article Roger ? Obviously you didn’t, and as usual your only source of information is the corporate media. David J. From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 7:57 AM To: David Johnson Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts when was this alleged failed violent coup - where was it reported besides this clearly biased source Roger On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 5:48 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: Violent Coup Fails In Nicaragua, US Continues Regime Change Efforts By Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance July 21, 2018 | Educate! Above: Nicaraguans celebrate 39th Anniversary of the 1979Nicaraguan Revolution in Managua, July 2018. Source Redvolution. Note: Before the update on Nicaragua, I an providing two recent interviews that provide a context for what is happening in Nicaragua. First, is an interview I did with Lee Camp, the lead writer, and host of Redacted Tonight, “US Pushing for Regime Change in Nicaragua,” where we discuss the economic and political situation in Nicaragua as well as who is behind the coup and the government response. This interview discusses the issues raised in an article by me and Nils McCune, “Correcting The Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua .” On Clearing The FOG radio and podcast , Margaret Flowers and I interviewed Stephen Sefton, who lives in Nicaragua and is a founder of Tortilla con Sal. He names the names behind the violence and describes what is happening in Nicaragua. https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/07/nicaraguan-president-daniel-ortega-arrives-at-celebration-of-the-revolution.-ap-e1532196086104.jpg Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega arrives at the celebration of the Sandinista Revolution. By Alfred Zeniga for AP. Lessons Learned from the Failed Violent Coup in Nicaragua and Next Steps The violent coup in Nicaragua has failed . This does not mean the United States and oligarchs are giving up, but this phase of their effort to remove the government did not succeed. The coup exposed the alliances who are working with the United States to put in place a neoliberal government that is controlled by the United States and serves the interests of the wealthy. People celebrated the failure of the coup but realize work needs to be done to protect the gains of the Sandinista revolution. People Celebrate Revolution, Call For Peace, Show Support for Government The people of Nicaragua showed their support for the democratically-elected government of Daniel Ortega with a massive outpouring in Managua in a celebration of the 39th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution. In addition to the mass protest in Managua, various cities had their own, in some cases very sizeable ones. People have wanted peace to return to Nicaragua. They have also wanted the roadblocks removed, which have resulted in closed businesses, job loss and loss of mobility. Roadblocks have been removed, even in the opposition stronghold of Masaya. There were two opposition deaths and one police officer killed in the removal. There was also an earlier death of a policeman in Masaya, captured when he was off-duty, tortured and burnt to death. This brings the total of police killed since April up to at least 21 with hundreds injured. With the opening of the main road on the east side of Masaya, all Nicaragua’s main routes are open to traffic and buses etc are operating normally. At the rally, President Ortega called on the people of Nicaragua to defend peace and reinstate the unity that existed in the nation before the violent opposition protests. He described how the violent coup attempted to destabilize the country and ended the peace that has existed through the eleven years of his time in office. He said, “Peace must be defended every day to avoid situations like these being repeated.” He also criticized the Catholic Bishops for their role in the failed violent coup. Ortega described the Episcopal Conference of Nicaragua as “coup leaders” for collaborating with the opposition during the protests. Not only did the Catholic leadership side with the opposition during the national dialogue, but priests were involved in kidnapping and torture. Pope Francis has a lot of work to do to reign in the Catholic Church in Nicaragua. If their role in these violent protests and opposition to an economy for the people is not stopped, this will become a scandal for the Catholic Church.  Other Latin American leaders spoke out against involvement in the coup. Bolivian President Evo Morales condemned US “interference” in Nicaragua, denouncing the “criminal strategies” used against the government of Daniel Ortega. Morales accused the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of “openly supporting violence” in Nicaragua. Also at the celebration were the foreign ministers of Cuba and Venezuela, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, and Jorge Arreza, all supporting Nicaragua over the violent coup of the United States and oligarchs. The United States is Escalating Economic War and Support for Opposition The United States is not giving up. Also on the anniversary of the revolution, the NICA Act, designed to escalate the economic war against Nicaragua, was introduced in the Senate . It has already been passed by the US House of Representatives. The Senate bill, called the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anti-corruption Act of 2018, imposes sanctions, calls for early elections and escalates US intelligence involvement in Nicaragua. It is a law that ensures continued US efforts to remove the democratically-elected government. At the same time, USAID announced an additional $1.5 million for Nicaragua to build opposition to the government. This will fund the NGOs that participated in the protests, human rights groups that falsely reported the situation, media to produce the regime change narrative and other support for the opposition. The coordination between Nicaraguan opposition and the United States was shown by Max Blumenthal’s attempted visit to an organization that funnels USAID and NED money to the opposition. He visited the Managua offices of the Institute of Strategic Studies and Public Policies (IEEPP in Spanish), but it was closed because its director, Felix Maradiaga, who was at the heart of the violent unrest, was in Washington, DC seeking more funding from USAID. On July 18, the US-dominated OAS passed a resolution concerning “The Situation in Nicaragua.” An earlier effort to endorse a report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was so biased that it failed. The report ignored the opposition’s widespread violence and only reported on the defensive violence of the government. The resolution approving the IACHR report was supported by only ten out of 34 countries. The resolution, which was finally passed by the OAS, condemned violence on all sides and urged Nicaragua to pursue all options including the national dialogue to seek peace begun by Ortega. On the issue of elections, the resolution urged Nicaragua “to support an electoral calendar jointly agreed to in the context of the National Dialogue process.” Only this mainly symbolic resolution could pass muster in the OAS, despite US domination. What Happened and What Was Learned In our article “Correcting the Record: What Is Really Happening In Nicaragua ,” Nils McCune and I describe what was behind the violent coup attempt. We reported that there was a lot of misinformation on what was occurring in Nicaragua, indeed the false narrative of regime change was part of the tactics of the failed coup. Perhaps most importantly we described the alignment of forces behind the coup. The coup was a class war turned upside down. The Ortega government includes none of the oligarchic families, a first in the history of Nicaragua. He has put in place a bottom-up economy that has lifted people out of poverty, provided access to health care and education, given micro-loans to entrepreneurs and small businesses and created an economy energized by public spending. Ortega expanded coverage of the social security system; as a result, a new formula was required to ensure fiscal stability. Ortega made a counter-proposal to the IMF/business proposal, which would cut social security and raise the retirement age. He proposed no cuts to social security and increasing employer contributions by 3.5% to pension and health funds, while only slightly increasing worker contributions by 0.75% and shifting 5% of pensioners’ cash transfer into their healthcare fund. These reforms were the trigger as it was the business lobby who called for the protests. The forces aligned with the violent coup included the oligarchs, big business interests, foreign investors (e.g. Colombian financiers), the US-funded NGO’s and the Catholic Church, a long-term ally of the wealthy. Also involved was the Movement for Renovation of Sandinismo (MRS), a tiny Sandinista offshoot party, of former Sandanistas who left the party when Ortega lost an election in 1990 who are aligned with the US State Department. Regarding students, there were already student protests around university elections, and these were redirected by the violent coup effort and supported by a small minority of students from private universities, the April 19th Movement. Some of these students had been brought to the US by the Freedom House , which has long ties to the CIA and met with far-right interventionist members of the US Congress, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Sen. Marco Rubio, and Sen. Ted Cruz. These groups acted in opposition to the bulk of Nicaraguan society and showed their true colors. This includes: * Being tied to and subservient to the US government. * Being led by oligarchs and big business interests that are out of power and cannot win elections. * Using violence as a strategy of creating chaos and trapping the government into responding with violence to restore order. * Spreading false propaganda through oligarch-controlled media, often funded by NED, as well as highly-manipulated social media echoed by western media, especially The New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post and cable TV news outlets. No doubt more will come out about this in the future as the coup is researched and analyzed. As the facts become clear, the opposition will lose more political power and be even less likely to win elections. The blockades of roads with violence undermined the economy and had a negative impact on the poor and working class. If it becomes evident that this was a strategy of the opposition, they will lose power. NGO’s that are funded by the US and run by members of the MRS will be noted for their dishonest narrative and will be seen as an arm of the United States and not trusted by the people of Nicaragua. Media outside of Nicaragua will come to understand that human rights groups and NGOs are not reliable sources of information but need to be questioned. They need to be pushed to break their ties with the United States. This does not mean all is well on the Sandinista side of the alliance of forces. The coup is an opportunity for self-reflection and self-criticism that is already happening, as seen in this list of 20 results from the coup, which begins with “A more consolidated and United FSLN.” In addition, the Action Group of the Solidarity with Nicaragua Campaign put forward seven propositions to unify around. The protest took advantage of challenges the Nicaraguan government faces in continuing to lift up the poor and economically insecure. It shows their need to build their capacity to quickly let the public know their side of the story. And, it shows the need for planning for a post-Ortega Sandinista government, as the president is in his third term. The anniversary of the revolution was a good beginning at strengthening the unity of the Sandinista movement and celebration of the defeat of the coup, but there will be challenges ahead. Nicaragua is a poor country that needs foreign investment. If the United States escalates the economic war, which seems to be the intent, it will make it challenging to continue the social and economic programs that are lifting up the poor. Nicaragua had relied on investment from Venezuela, but it is also in the midst of an economic war, which along with the low oil prices has created economic challenges for them. Nicaragua has begun to build economic relationships with China, Russia, Iran and other countries; these will likely need to expand. The misinformation was deep and widespread. Inside Nicaragua, there were stories of students being killed that never happened but that escalated the protests. The opposition claimed to be nonviolent when their strategy was to use violence to force regime change while the government quartered the National Police. False news and videos of attacks on neighborhoods and universities never stopped being manufactured. One example, students calling for help and claiming they were under attack, was later exposed in a video showing the students practicing the false social media narrative. Peace and justice activists in the United States and western nations have learned they need to be much more careful believing reports on what is occurring in Nicaragua. The US-funding of NGOs involved in women’s issues, environmental protection and human rights in Nicaragua make them questionable sources of information for justice advocates. In addition, US-funded regime change efforts are getting more sophisticated at social media; and thus, care must be taken as social media has it is abused by regime change advocates. We must look to other sources that have shown the ability to report accurately e.g., Tortilla con Sal , Telesur , Redvolucion . Peace and justice advocates must be grounded in anti-imperialism and nonintervention by the United States. _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 54439 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 19:41:01 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 14:41:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tell Salesforce to cancel their contract with Border Patrol In-Reply-To: <5d10c5db-f7e7-b13b-de98-03766721c350@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5b54ddbd.1c69fb81.cdbe7.ae1c@mx.google.com>  -- Stuart Salesforce sells (expensive) software for keeping track of contacts with people.  Lots of companies and institutions (including U of I) use it.   So does Customs and Border Patrol:       http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/tell-salesforce-cancel-their-contract-customs-and-border-patrol/ Salesforce's own employees have asked their company to drop its CBP contract (see links below), and their CEO has so far refused.    Instead, Salesforce offered to send $1 million to "help families affected by the Trump administration policy". They offered $250K to RAICES, an immigrants' rights group in Texas.    RAICES refused on principle, so long as Salesforce has any direct or indirect contracts with CBP:   https://www.facebook.com/slpnggiants/posts/2088546331388005 ... "Your software provides an operational backbone for the agency, and thus does directly support CBP in implementing its inhumane and immoral policies.   There is no way around this, and no room for hair splitting when children are being brutally torn away from parents, when a mother attempts suicide in an effort to get her children released, and when an 18 month old baby is separated from their mother in detention.  ... We will not be a beneficiary of your effort to buy your way out of ethical responsibility."  ... I signed the petition.    Stuart -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Tell Salesforce to cancel their contract with Border Patrol Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 14:37:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Reuben Hayslett, Watchdog.net Reply-To: feedback at watchdog.net To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com Action Network Email #outlook a {padding:0;} .ExternalClass {width:100%;} .ExternalClass, .ExternalClass p, .ExternalClass span, .ExternalClass font, .ExternalClass td, .ExternalClass div {line-height: 100%;} img {outline:none; text-decoration:none; -ms-interpolation-mode: bicubic;} a img {border:none;} .image_fix {display:block;} p {margin: 1em 0;} h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {color: #404040 !important;} table td {border-collapse: collapse;} @media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) { a[href^="tel"], a[href^="sms"] { text-decoration: none; color: blue; pointer-events: none; cursor: default; } .mobile_link a[href^="tel"], .mobile_link a[href^="sms"] { text-decoration: default; color: orange !important; pointer-events: auto; cursor: default; } } @media only screen and (min-device-width: 768px) and (max-device-width: 1024px) { a[href^="tel"], a[href^="sms"] { text-decoration: none; color: blue; pointer-events: none; cursor: default; } .mobile_link a[href^="tel"], .mobile_link a[href^="sms"] { text-decoration: default; color: orange !important; pointer-events: auto; cursor: default; } } @media only screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2) { } @media only screen and (-webkit-device-pixel-ratio:.75){ } @media only screen and (-webkit-device-pixel-ratio:1){ } @media only screen and (-webkit-device-pixel-ratio:1.5){ } Tell Salesforce to cancel their contract with border patrol! SIGN THE PETITION Stuart, Just like ICE, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) are tasked with carrying out Trump’s horrific “zero tolerance” policy at the border. They help detain asylum seekers indefinitely, and they couldn’t do it without Salesforce. Salesforce employees were shocked to discover their role in caging families at the border. When they joined together to ask CEO Marc Benioff to re-evaluate Salesforce’s contract with CBP, he refused.1 Now it’s our turn. As concerned consumers, and potentially even clients of Salesforce, we can use our voice to call out Salesforce and demand they cancel their contract. Tell Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff to cancel the contract with Customs and Border Patrol. Back in March, Salesforce was over the moon to land a contract with CBP to “manage border activities and digital engagement with citizens.”2 Once family separations at the border became public knowledge, Salesforce was quick to eat their words. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff has claimed to be outraged by Trump’s family separation and indefinite detention, but so far he won’t walk the walk and cancel the contract. The pressure is mounting3 for tech companies who allow – and profit from – their services being weaponized to carry through Trump’s hateful border policies. Working with Color of Change, Presente and dozens of progressive organizations, Demand Progress has already called on Microsoft to cancel their ICE. Tell Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff to stand on the moral side of history and cancel the contract with Customs and Border Patrol. Thanks for taking action, Reuben and the team at Demand Progress DONATE Sources: 1. Gizmodo, “Salesforce CEO Says It Won't Sever Ties With Customs and Border Protection,” June 28, 2018. 2. Footwear News, “U.S. Homeland Security Agency Taps Salesforce to Better Manage Border Activities,” March 9, 2018. 3. Business Insider, “Activists marched outside of the Salesforce headquarters in San Francisco to protest the company's contract with U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” July 9, 2018. Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Watchdog.net, please click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 21:21:47 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 16:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good historical perspective on U.S./Russia relations Message-ID: Why Every President Tries to Make Nice With Russia and Why It Never Worksby Benjamin Studebaker One of the things I find odd about the way the press is covering the Trump/Putin relationship is how devoid of context and historical memory it is. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, four new presidents have come to power, and each has tried to create a good relationship with Russia. Bill Clinton was briefly successful, but the way Clinton used his success poisoned the well and made it very difficult for his successors to replicate his performance. Today I’ll tell you the story of how America has tried to turn Russia into an ally and why this effort has yet to succeed. *Bill Clinton: The Roots of a Bond Broken* [image: Image result for bill clinton boris yeltsin] Bill Clinton was very good friends with the first president of the Russian federation, Boris Yeltsin. They met eighteen times. Yeltsin was strongly committed to liberalising the Russian economy, and Clinton was very cool with that. But Yeltsin’s liberalisation program was not popular. Under Yeltsin, per capita incomes in Russia plummeted and Russian oligarchs were able to seize a massive percentage of Russian wealth and income: It wasn’t until 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union that average incomes recovered to the late Soviet level, and when they had recovered the distribution was much less equal, such that the average income could be propped up by small numbers of super rich individuals. It is still the case today that many ordinary Russians are worse off economically than they were in the late Soviet period. Russians blame Yeltsin for this. By the time Yeltsin left office, his approval rating was frequently as low as 2% . By contrast, President Trump’s approval rating is presently around 42%–he’s 21 times more popular. The Russians regard the 90s as a dark, miserable decade in which their wealth was stolen by oligarchs. Yeltsin was America’s man, and America’s man was blamed for all of this. Today, when academics talk about the 90s in Russia, the discussion is about how poorly the transition away from communism was managed and how this mismanagement created the conditions which led to the rise of Putin–a super oligarch ruling over a harem of smaller fish. But it wasn’t just economic policy that went wrong in the 90s. The Russians see Clinton as having taken advantage of their famously drunk, inept leader on the world stage. In 1999, Clinton admitted Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO. The Russians see NATO as an anti-Russian military alliance. By admitting former Warsaw Pact members to NATO, Clinton assimilated countries which Russia considered to be in its sphere of influence into the western sphere. Beset by a collapsed economy and ineffective, incompetent leadership, Russia was in no position to meaningfully challenge NATO expansion in the 90s. So the Russians feel that during the decade in which their relationship with the Americans was warmest, they were economically robbed and brutalised on the world stage. Their experience of the 90s has taught them not to trust us, and they are extremely suspicious of everything we say and do. The effect is especially profound when you consider that we are still dealing with Vladimir Putin–Boris Yeltsin’s immediate successor, a man who defines himself politically entirely against Yeltsin. Where Yeltsin brought disorder, Putin brings order. Where Yeltsin allowed the Americans to walk all over Russia, Putin stops them. That’s his brand. *George W. Bush: Gazing into Putin’s Soul* [image: Image result for george w bush vladimir putin 2001] George W. Bush wanted to cooperate with Vladimir Putin on terrorism. Putin was fighting nationalist Islamic factions in Chechnya, and after 9/11 Putin was rather hopeful that he could leverage the War on Terrorism into a more balanced, respectful friendship with the United States. Even before 9/11, Bush and Putin seemed to get along. Two months before 9/11, Bush said : I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. Joe Biden–then a senator–expressed reservations: I don’t trust Mr. Putin. The trouble is that while the Bush administration frequently expressed a willingness to cooperate with Russia on terrorism, it continued to take advantage of Russia in other areas. In 2004, Bush expanded NATO further, incorporating Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. This included two countries which share land boundaries with Russia. All were at one time part of the Soviet sphere: [image: A map of Europe with eight colors that refer to the year different countries joined the alliance.] Not only did Bush enlarge NATO, but he then started putting military installations in Eastern European countries, negotiating the construction of a missile base in Poland. Talks about bases in the east began in 2002, and formal negotiation began in 2007. We all remember how upset we were when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba. The Russians were horrified by the Polish plan. Putin–suspicious of us to begin with because our behaviour in the 90s–took Bush’s behaviour badly. He decided to draw a line in the sand–those countries which remained in the Russian sphere of influence would stay in that sphere, even at the cost of deploying military force. In 2008, Bush called for Georgia to begin taking steps to join NATO. Putin responded by doing everything he could to punish Georgia. Separatists in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia began acting up–perhaps with Putin’s encouragement. He also began establishing formal ties between Russia and these regions, beginning to treat them as independent states. When Georgia responded by attacking the separatists, Russia responded by invading Georgia. Georgia lost the war, Russia formally recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, and Russian military bases were established in each of the territorial enclaves. The message from Putin was clear–further efforts to admit Georgia to NATO would result in further military intervention from Russia. At the end of Bush’s presidency, relations with Russia were a shambles. This would be the beginning of a trend. *Barack Obama: Repeating Bush’s Blunders* Barack Obama began his presidency focused on what his administration called “the pivot to Asia”. Obama was concerned by the rise of China and wanted to build strong relationships with countries in its vicinity. Relations with Japan and South Korea were already good–Obama was looking to partner with countries like India, Vietnam, and yes, even Russia. To that end, Hillary Clinton went to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to offer him a “reset” on US-Russian relations: [image: Image result for hillary clinton reset button] The Russian word on the button was mistranslated–instead of saying “reset”, it said “overcharged”. Like Bush, Obama wanted something from Russia, and like Bush, he was unwilling to recognise that for the Russians, everything is tied together. If we do something they don’t like in one area, they withhold cooperation in other domains. In Obama’s case, the mistake was very similar to Bush’s in Georgia–Obama began trying to admit Ukraine into the western sphere. The difference was that the move here was to associate Ukraine with the EU rather than admit it to NATO. The pro-Russian government was removed in what the Russians consider to be a US-backed coup. American public officials–like Senator John McCain –were quoted in support of the Euromaidan protests which eventually produced the collapse of Ukraine’s government. Putin believes the America did more than just express verbal encouragement–he thinks America bankrolled the whole thing. Regardless of whether and to what extent we were involved in the regime change in Ukraine, the Russians believe we were deeply involved and they were not willing to permit Ukraine to leave their sphere of influence, so they invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, and continue to provide support to rebels in the Eastern region of Donbass. That conflict continues to this day. The Ukraine crisis got going in 2013. Barack Obama attempted to avoid further antagonising Russia in the final years of his presidency. As his former Europe adviser Karen Donfield told *Die Zeit:* Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by Putin there was the policy of not doing anything to provoke the Russians An unnamed “high ranking adviser” adds: We can’t deal with the Ukraine problem in an isolated fashion, since there are other interests as well. We want to keep open our lines of communication with the Russians on topics such as Syria, Islamic State, Assad or Afghanistan. [image: Image result for obama putin meeting] However, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia and has provided military advisers to Ukraine. Russia wasn’t happy about that. It also wasn’t happy when Hillary Clinton said that Putin’s actions were “what Hitler did back in the ’30s”. To make matters worse, while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had insinuated that Russia’s elections are unclean in 2011, when Russia was dealing with heavy pro-democracy protests. Putin–highly suspicious, as always–took this as an indicator that Hillary Clinton seeks regime change in Russia: Putin came to see Hillary Clinton as an existential threat to his regime, and he was likely determined to do everything he could to ensure she did not become president. It is likely that the leaking of Clinton’s emails to Wikileaks and the Russian presence on social media were motivated by this. *Donald Trump: Trying this Again* [image: Image result for trump putin] Every American president since the collapse of the Soviet Union has tried to turn Russia into an ally on terrorism. Increasingly, American presidents also want Russia as a bulwark against the rise of China. These geostrategic interests in a good relationship with Russia haven’t changed. What has changed is the attitude of the American media, which now sees Russia as an essentially villainous state and therefore views all efforts to revive relations as potentially treasonous. Trump must, for the good of the national interest, attempt to once again get the relationship with Russia right. Usually, new presidents have support from the public and the press when they try to fix the US-Russian relationship. But Trump must attempt to do it without that support, and with sanctions from the previous administration still in force. If Trump tries to lift those sanctions, he will be painted as a traitor, and so Trump is backed into opposing the Russians even as his administration recognises the need to cooperate with them. It is in this respect that the Mueller investigation has caused the most damage to the United States–it has interfered in our ability to once again attempt to reset the Russian relationship. Without that reset, our antagonistic relationship with the Russians ensures that they drift into China’s sphere of influence, weakening the long-term geostrategic position of the United States. America’s greatest Cold War success was splitting the Sino-Soviet alliance. If we continue down our present path, that alliance maybe reconstituted, and the work of Richard Nixon undone. It’s not very likely that Trump would succeed in any case. To have a good relationship with Russia, we have to make concessions to the Russians which we have been unwilling to make. We’d need to recognise that Russia has certain core interests in its immediate neighbourhood and stop trespassing in it. At minimum, this would mean keeping countries like Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia neutral, and perhaps even leaving them saddled with corrupt, pro-Russian governments. It might also mean tolerating Russia’s bid to restore the Assad regime in Syria. Previous American presidents have been unwilling to pay the cost of friendship with Russia. Trump would have to make big concessions–concessions which would look like a betrayal to many old foreign policy heads–to stand any chance of bringing the Russians onside. Based on the media reaction to his first meeting with Putin, Trump likely has very little room to move. China is the beneficiary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Jul 23 02:33:20 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 02:33:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good historical perspective on U.S./Russia relations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9C3EF03B-16D0-4857-A391-1848C7E110B3@illinois.edu> Yes, this perspective is needed, but for the reason given in the penultimate paragraph: It is in this respect that the Mueller investigation has caused the most damage to the United States–it has interfered in our ability to once again attempt to reset the Russian relationship. Without that reset, our antagonistic relationship with the Russians ensures that they drift into China’s sphere of influence, weakening the long-term geostrategic position of the United States. America’s greatest Cold War success was splitting the Sino-Soviet alliance. If we continue down our present path, that alliance maybe reconstituted, and the work of Richard Nixon undone. I.e., “We”need a “reset" with Russia to be able to maintain control of as much of the world as possible. It is not done to have a world free of injustice and war. On Jul 22, 2018, at 4:21 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Why Every President Tries to Make Nice With Russia and Why It Never Works by Benjamin Studebaker One of the things I find odd about the way the press is covering the Trump/Putin relationship is how devoid of context and historical memory it is. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, four new presidents have come to power, and each has tried to create a good relationship with Russia. Bill Clinton was briefly successful, but the way Clinton used his success poisoned the well and made it very difficult for his successors to replicate his performance. Today I’ll tell you the story of how America has tried to turn Russia into an ally and why this effort has yet to succeed. Bill Clinton: The Roots of a Bond Broken [Image result for bill clinton boris yeltsin] Bill Clinton was very good friends with the first president of the Russian federation, Boris Yeltsin. They met eighteen times. Yeltsin was strongly committed to liberalising the Russian economy, and Clinton was very cool with that. But Yeltsin’s liberalisation program was not popular. Under Yeltsin, per capita incomes in Russia plummeted and Russian oligarchs were able to seize a massive percentage of Russian wealth and income: [https://benjaminstudebaker.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/russia-per-capita-income.png?w=500&h=325] [https://benjaminstudebaker.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/russia-top-1-share.png?w=500&h=325] It wasn’t until 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union that average incomes recovered to the late Soviet level, and when they had recovered the distribution was much less equal, such that the average income could be propped up by small numbers of super rich individuals. It is still the case today that many ordinary Russians are worse off economically than they were in the late Soviet period. Russians blame Yeltsin for this. By the time Yeltsin left office, his approval rating was frequently as low as 2%. By contrast, President Trump’s approval rating is presently around 42%–he’s 21 times more popular. The Russians regard the 90s as a dark, miserable decade in which their wealth was stolen by oligarchs. Yeltsin was America’s man, and America’s man was blamed for all of this. Today, when academics talk about the 90s in Russia, the discussion is about how poorly the transition away from communism was managed and how this mismanagement created the conditions which led to the rise of Putin–a super oligarch ruling over a harem of smaller fish. But it wasn’t just economic policy that went wrong in the 90s. The Russians see Clinton as having taken advantage of their famously drunk, inept leader on the world stage. In 1999, Clinton admitted Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO. The Russians see NATO as an anti-Russian military alliance. By admitting former Warsaw Pact members to NATO, Clinton assimilated countries which Russia considered to be in its sphere of influence into the western sphere. Beset by a collapsed economy and ineffective, incompetent leadership, Russia was in no position to meaningfully challenge NATO expansion in the 90s. So the Russians feel that during the decade in which their relationship with the Americans was warmest, they were economically robbed and brutalised on the world stage. Their experience of the 90s has taught them not to trust us, and they are extremely suspicious of everything we say and do. The effect is especially profound when you consider that we are still dealing with Vladimir Putin–Boris Yeltsin’s immediate successor, a man who defines himself politically entirely against Yeltsin. Where Yeltsin brought disorder, Putin brings order. Where Yeltsin allowed the Americans to walk all over Russia, Putin stops them. That’s his brand. George W. Bush: Gazing into Putin’s Soul [Image result for george w bush vladimir putin 2001] George W. Bush wanted to cooperate with Vladimir Putin on terrorism. Putin was fighting nationalist Islamic factions in Chechnya, and after 9/11 Putin was rather hopeful that he could leverage the War on Terrorism into a more balanced, respectful friendship with the United States. Even before 9/11, Bush and Putin seemed to get along. Two months before 9/11, Bush said: I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. Joe Biden–then a senator–expressed reservations: I don’t trust Mr. Putin. The trouble is that while the Bush administration frequently expressed a willingness to cooperate with Russia on terrorism, it continued to take advantage of Russia in other areas. In 2004, Bush expanded NATO further, incorporating Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. This included two countries which share land boundaries with Russia. All were at one time part of the Soviet sphere: [A map of Europe with eight colors that refer to the year different countries joined the alliance.] Not only did Bush enlarge NATO, but he then started putting military installations in Eastern European countries, negotiating the construction of a missile base in Poland. Talks about bases in the east began in 2002, and formal negotiation began in 2007. We all remember how upset we were when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba. The Russians were horrified by the Polish plan. Putin–suspicious of us to begin with because our behaviour in the 90s–took Bush’s behaviour badly. He decided to draw a line in the sand–those countries which remained in the Russian sphere of influence would stay in that sphere, even at the cost of deploying military force. In 2008, Bush called for Georgia to begin taking steps to join NATO. Putin responded by doing everything he could to punish Georgia. Separatists in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia began acting up–perhaps with Putin’s encouragement. He also began establishing formal ties between Russia and these regions, beginning to treat them as independent states. When Georgia responded by attacking the separatists, Russia responded by invading Georgia. Georgia lost the war, Russia formally recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, and Russian military bases were established in each of the territorial enclaves. The message from Putin was clear–further efforts to admit Georgia to NATO would result in further military intervention from Russia. At the end of Bush’s presidency, relations with Russia were a shambles. This would be the beginning of a trend. Barack Obama: Repeating Bush’s Blunders Barack Obama began his presidency focused on what his administration called “the pivot to Asia”. Obama was concerned by the rise of China and wanted to build strong relationships with countries in its vicinity. Relations with Japan and South Korea were already good–Obama was looking to partner with countries like India, Vietnam, and yes, even Russia. To that end, Hillary Clinton went to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to offer him a “reset” on US-Russian relations: [Image result for hillary clinton reset button] The Russian word on the button was mistranslated–instead of saying “reset”, it said “overcharged”. Like Bush, Obama wanted something from Russia, and like Bush, he was unwilling to recognise that for the Russians, everything is tied together. If we do something they don’t like in one area, they withhold cooperation in other domains. In Obama’s case, the mistake was very similar to Bush’s in Georgia–Obama began trying to admit Ukraine into the western sphere. The difference was that the move here was to associate Ukraine with the EU rather than admit it to NATO. The pro-Russian government was removed in what the Russians consider to be a US-backed coup. American public officials–like Senator John McCain–were quoted in support of the Euromaidan protests which eventually produced the collapse of Ukraine’s government. Putin believes the America did more than just express verbal encouragement–he thinksAmerica bankrolled the whole thing. Regardless of whether and to what extent we were involved in the regime change in Ukraine, the Russians believe we were deeply involved and they were not willing to permit Ukraine to leave their sphere of influence, so they invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, and continue to provide support to rebels in the Eastern region of Donbass. That conflict continues to this day. The Ukraine crisis got going in 2013. Barack Obama attempted to avoid further antagonising Russia in the final years of his presidency. As his former Europe adviser Karen Donfield told Die Zeit: Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by Putin there was the policy of not doing anything to provoke the Russians An unnamed “high ranking adviser” adds: We can’t deal with the Ukraine problem in an isolated fashion, since there are other interests as well. We want to keep open our lines of communication with the Russians on topics such as Syria, Islamic State, Assad or Afghanistan. [Image result for obama putin meeting] However, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia and has provided military advisers to Ukraine. Russia wasn’t happy about that. It also wasn’t happy when Hillary Clinton said that Putin’s actions were “what Hitler did back in the ’30s”. To make matters worse, while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had insinuated that Russia’s elections are unclean in 2011, when Russia was dealing with heavy pro-democracy protests. Putin–highly suspicious, as always–took this as an indicator that Hillary Clinton seeks regime change in Russia: Putin came to see Hillary Clinton as an existential threat to his regime, and he was likely determined to do everything he could to ensure she did not become president. It is likely that the leaking of Clinton’s emails to Wikileaks and the Russian presence on social media were motivated by this. Donald Trump: Trying this Again [Image result for trump putin] Every American president since the collapse of the Soviet Union has tried to turn Russia into an ally on terrorism. Increasingly, American presidents also want Russia as a bulwark against the rise of China. These geostrategic interests in a good relationship with Russia haven’t changed. What has changed is the attitude of the American media, which now sees Russia as an essentially villainous state and therefore views all efforts to revive relations as potentially treasonous. Trump must, for the good of the national interest, attempt to once again get the relationship with Russia right. Usually, new presidents have support from the public and the press when they try to fix the US-Russian relationship. But Trump must attempt to do it without that support, and with sanctions from the previous administration still in force. If Trump tries to lift those sanctions, he will be painted as a traitor, and so Trump is backed into opposing the Russians even as his administration recognises the need to cooperate with them. It is in this respect that the Mueller investigation has caused the most damage to the United States–it has interfered in our ability to once again attempt to reset the Russian relationship. Without that reset, our antagonistic relationship with the Russians ensures that they drift into China’s sphere of influence, weakening the long-term geostrategic position of the United States. America’s greatest Cold War success was splitting the Sino-Soviet alliance. If we continue down our present path, that alliance maybe reconstituted, and the work of Richard Nixon undone. It’s not very likely that Trump would succeed in any case. To have a good relationship with Russia, we have to make concessions to the Russians which we have been unwilling to make. We’d need to recognise that Russia has certain core interests in its immediate neighbourhood and stop trespassing in it. At minimum, this would mean keeping countries like Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia neutral, and perhaps even leaving them saddled with corrupt, pro-Russian governments. It might also mean tolerating Russia’s bid to restore the Assad regime in Syria. Previous American presidents have been unwilling to pay the cost of friendship with Russia. Trump would have to make big concessions–concessions which would look like a betrayal to many old foreign policy heads–to stand any chance of bringing the Russians onside. Based on the media reaction to his first meeting with Putin, Trump likely has very little room to move. China is the beneficiary. _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Mon Jul 23 06:28:45 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:28:45 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Slackware Linux and FOSS Message-ID: <9b6b657c-2dc0-c574-99ed-9f2bec7178f3@pigs.ag> Slackware Linux, the oldest version of Linux (GNU/Linux) still maintained, marked its 25th anniversary this week. https://fossbytes.com/slackware-birthday-25-oldest-active-linux-distro/ The Slackware Linux distribution is so named after the tenet of Slack, a satirical concept borrowed from the parody SubGenius cult. The idea was that Slackware ought not be taken too seriously. The subgenii are said to be anarcholibertarian and critical and subversive to the concept of the American Dream. Slackware is often criticized for being rather tech-y and in the province of geek-y computer types. I am a veterinarian not a computer guy but I build my own computers from components that I purchase new and scavenge from junked parts. I use Slackware-64 -current as my "daily driver". I dont need to spend a couple of days deleting junk and adware off of my new computers so that they can function optimally. My computer belongs to me and I neither need nor want any gates, or windows hindering nor taunting me, nor any nut jobs looking over my shoulder nor telling me what to do or what not to do for their ultimate profiteering at the expense of my wherewithal nor my liberty. This mailing list spamming your mailbox exists and runs on a Linux-based machine, albeit perhaps running Ubuntu Linux rather than Slackware, but FOSS nonetheless. In the olden days, computer companies provided the source code because it was recognized that it was imperfect and often needed adjustments and there was a sort of group effort in keeping things going. Open source was essential for the day to day operations. Today open source software is more part of a community effort. There are various opinions on what constitutes "free". For some free is free like free beer. Others say there aint no such thing as a free lunch and the community should contribute something to support those who sacrifice their time. At the far end is pseudo-FOSS where there is some quasi-beneficent corporatism and the software frequently will "phone home", Microsoft style, and tracks userland activities while discouraging tinkering under the hood and disparaging "3rd party software". I might use BSD but I am turned off by their logo. Slackware has no official logo but sometimes Tux is shown with a pipe (ceci ne pa une pipe | ). I use NVIDIA's "commercial" but "free" drivers because they just plain work better than the FOSS -nouveau- drivers. I was very much as latecomer to Linux. I had a programming project on pig growth modeling in the 90's and got very tired of being jacked around by problems with MSDOS. But I stayed with Microsoft software until a few years ago. Windows 8 and .docx and .pptx files were among the last straws. I got an extra computer as part of some used office equipment we bought so I decided to install Linux on that machine. The thing that put me off about Slackware at first was that you have to create and format a partition and I was leery about fiddling with the FAT due to some horrid past experiences with Winchester drives. Knowledge dispels fear and I got past that minor point and found that the installation of Slackware was no big deal. Admittedly i had some experience with the command line and actually like the terminal. The power of the control of my computer that I have with Slackware Linux has allowed me to accomplish some things in our laboratory that I would not have done otherwise, and we published some abstracts and got asked to talk at meetings as a indirect result, not to talk about computing nor software but to talk about pig disease diagnosis and control. I have not been an effective evangelist for Linux and FOSS. But I sure ain't going back to picking corn out of the dirt with the chickens. ewj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 12:55:23 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 07:55:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Good historical perspective on U.S./Russia relations In-Reply-To: <9C3EF03B-16D0-4857-A391-1848C7E110B3@illinois.edu> References: <9C3EF03B-16D0-4857-A391-1848C7E110B3@illinois.edu> Message-ID: >From what I know of the writer, he is not endorsing such a geopolitical strategy, just describing historical U.S. intentions. DG On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brussel, Morton K wrote: > Yes, this perspective is needed, but for the reason given in the > penultimate paragraph: > > It is in this respect that the Mueller investigation has caused the most > damage to the United States–it has interfered in our ability to once again > attempt to reset the Russian relationship. *Without that reset, our > antagonistic relationship with the Russians ensures that they drift into > China’s sphere of influence, weakening the long-term geostrategic position > of the United States. America’s greatest Cold War success was splitting the > Sino-Soviet alliance. If we continue down our present path, that alliance > maybe reconstituted, and the work of Richard Nixon undone.* > > I.e., “We”need a “reset" with Russia to be able to maintain control of as > much of the world as possible. It is not done to have a world free of > injustice and war. > > > On Jul 22, 2018, at 4:21 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Why Every President Tries to Make Nice With Russia and Why It Never Works > by Benjamin Studebaker > > One of the things I find odd about the way the press is covering the > Trump/Putin relationship is how devoid of context and historical memory it > is. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, four new > presidents have come to power, and each has tried to create a good > relationship with Russia. Bill Clinton was briefly successful, but the way > Clinton used his success poisoned the well and made it very difficult for > his successors to replicate his performance. Today I’ll tell you the story > of how America has tried to turn Russia into an ally and why this effort > has yet to succeed. > > *Bill Clinton: The Roots of a Bond Broken* > > [image: Image result for bill clinton boris yeltsin] > > Bill Clinton was very good friends with the first president of the Russian > federation, Boris Yeltsin. They met eighteen times. Yeltsin was strongly > committed to liberalising the Russian economy, and Clinton was very cool > with that. But Yeltsin’s liberalisation program was not popular. Under > Yeltsin, per capita incomes in Russia plummeted and Russian oligarchs were > able to seize a massive percentage of Russian wealth and income: > > > > > > > > It wasn’t until 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union that > average incomes recovered to the late Soviet level, and when they had > recovered the distribution was much less equal, such that the average > income could be propped up by small numbers of super rich individuals. It > is still the case today that many ordinary Russians are worse off > economically than they were in the late Soviet period. > > Russians blame Yeltsin for this. By the time Yeltsin left office, his > approval rating was frequently as low as 2% > . By > contrast, President Trump’s approval rating is presently around 42%–he’s 21 > times more popular. The Russians regard the 90s as a dark, miserable decade > in which their wealth was stolen by oligarchs. Yeltsin was America’s man, > and America’s man was blamed for all of this. Today, when academics talk > about the 90s in Russia, the discussion is about how poorly the transition > away from communism was managed and how this mismanagement created the > conditions which led to the rise of Putin–a super oligarch ruling over a > harem of smaller fish. > > But it wasn’t just economic policy that went wrong in the 90s. The > Russians see Clinton as having taken advantage of their famously drunk, > inept leader > on the world stage. In 1999, Clinton admitted Poland, Hungary, and the > Czech Republic to NATO. The Russians see NATO as an anti-Russian military > alliance. By admitting former Warsaw Pact members to NATO, Clinton > assimilated countries which Russia considered to be in its sphere of > influence into the western sphere. Beset by a collapsed economy and > ineffective, incompetent leadership, Russia was in no position to > meaningfully challenge NATO expansion in the 90s. > > So the Russians feel that during the decade in which their relationship > with the Americans was warmest, they were economically robbed and > brutalised on the world stage. Their experience of the 90s has taught them > not to trust us, and they are extremely suspicious of everything we say and > do. The effect is especially profound when you consider that we are still > dealing with Vladimir Putin–Boris Yeltsin’s immediate successor, a man who > defines himself politically entirely against Yeltsin. Where Yeltsin brought > disorder, Putin brings order. Where Yeltsin allowed the Americans to walk > all over Russia, Putin stops them. That’s his brand. > > *George W. Bush: Gazing into Putin’s Soul* > > [image: Image result for george w bush vladimir putin 2001] > > George W. Bush wanted to cooperate with Vladimir Putin on terrorism. Putin > was fighting nationalist Islamic factions in Chechnya, and after 9/11 Putin > was rather hopeful that he could leverage the War on Terrorism into a more > balanced, respectful friendship with the United States. Even before 9/11, > Bush and Putin seemed to get along. Two months before 9/11, Bush said > > : > > I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and > trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his > soul. > > Joe Biden–then a senator–expressed reservations: > > I don’t trust Mr. Putin. > > The trouble is that while the Bush administration frequently expressed a > willingness to cooperate with Russia on terrorism, it continued to take > advantage of Russia in other areas. In 2004, Bush expanded NATO further, > incorporating Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and > Slovenia. This included two countries which share land boundaries with > Russia. All were at one time part of the Soviet sphere: > > [image: A map of Europe with eight colors that refer to the year different > countries joined the alliance.] > > Not only did Bush enlarge NATO, but he then started putting military > installations in Eastern European countries, negotiating the construction > of a missile base in Poland. Talks about bases in the east began in 2002, > and formal negotiation began in 2007. We all remember how upset we were > when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba. The Russians were horrified by > the Polish plan. > > Putin–suspicious of us to begin with because our behaviour in the 90s–took > Bush’s behaviour badly. He decided to draw a line in the sand–those > countries which remained in the Russian sphere of influence would stay in > that sphere, even at the cost of deploying military force. > > In 2008, Bush called for Georgia to begin taking steps to join NATO. Putin > responded by doing everything he could to punish Georgia. Separatists in > the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia began acting up–perhaps > with Putin’s encouragement. He also began establishing formal ties between > Russia and these regions, beginning to treat them as independent states. > When Georgia responded by attacking the separatists, Russia responded by > invading Georgia. Georgia lost the war, Russia formally recognised Abkhazia > and South Ossetia as independent states, and Russian military bases were > established in each of the territorial enclaves. The message from Putin was > clear–further efforts to admit Georgia to NATO would result in further > military intervention from Russia. > > At the end of Bush’s presidency, relations with Russia were a shambles. > This would be the beginning of a trend. > > *Barack Obama: Repeating Bush’s Blunders* > > Barack Obama began his presidency focused on what his administration > called “the pivot to Asia”. Obama was concerned by the rise of China and > wanted to build strong relationships with countries in its vicinity. > Relations with Japan and South Korea were already good–Obama was looking to > partner with countries like India, Vietnam, and yes, even Russia. To that > end, Hillary Clinton went to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei > Lavrov to offer him a “reset” on US-Russian relations: > > [image: Image result for hillary clinton reset button] > > The Russian word on the button was mistranslated–instead of saying > “reset”, it said “overcharged”. Like Bush, Obama wanted something from > Russia, and like Bush, he was unwilling to recognise that for the Russians, > everything is tied together. If we do something they don’t like in one > area, they withhold cooperation in other domains. In Obama’s case, the > mistake was very similar to Bush’s in Georgia–Obama began trying to admit > Ukraine into the western sphere. The difference was that the move here was > to associate Ukraine with the EU rather than admit it to NATO. The > pro-Russian government was removed in what the Russians consider to be a > US-backed coup. American public officials–like Senator John McCain > –were > quoted in support of the Euromaidan protests which eventually produced the > collapse of Ukraine’s government. Putin believes the America did more than > just express verbal encouragement–he thinks > America > bankrolled the whole thing. > > Regardless of whether and to what extent we were involved in the regime > change in Ukraine, the Russians believe we were deeply involved and they > were not willing to permit Ukraine to leave their sphere of influence, so > they invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, and continue to provide support to > rebels in the Eastern region of Donbass. That conflict continues to this > day. > > The Ukraine crisis got going in 2013. Barack Obama attempted to avoid > further antagonising Russia in the final years of his presidency. As his > former Europe adviser Karen Donfield told *Die Zeit:* > > Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by Putin there was the policy of > not doing anything to provoke the Russians > > An unnamed “high ranking adviser” adds: > > We can’t deal with the Ukraine problem in an isolated fashion, since there > are other interests as well. We want to keep open our lines of > communication with the Russians on topics such as Syria, Islamic State, > Assad or Afghanistan. > > [image: Image result for obama putin meeting] > > However, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia and has provided > military advisers to Ukraine. Russia wasn’t happy about that. It also > wasn’t happy when Hillary Clinton said > > that Putin’s actions were “what Hitler did back in the ’30s”. To make > matters worse, while Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had insinuated > that Russia’s elections are unclean in 2011, when Russia was dealing with > heavy pro-democracy protests. Putin–highly suspicious, as always–took this > as an indicator that Hillary Clinton seeks regime change in Russia: > > Putin came to see Hillary Clinton as an existential threat to his regime, > and he was likely determined to do everything he could to ensure she did > not become president. It is likely that the leaking of Clinton’s emails to > Wikileaks and the Russian presence on social media were motivated by this. > > *Donald Trump: Trying this Again* > > [image: Image result for trump putin] > > Every American president since the collapse of the Soviet Union has tried > to turn Russia into an ally on terrorism. Increasingly, American presidents > also want Russia as a bulwark against the rise of China. These geostrategic > interests in a good relationship with Russia haven’t changed. What has > changed is the attitude of the American media, which now sees Russia as an > essentially villainous state and therefore views all efforts to revive > relations as potentially treasonous. Trump must, for the good of the > national interest, attempt to once again get the relationship with Russia > right. Usually, new presidents have support from the public and the press > when they try to fix the US-Russian relationship. But Trump must attempt to > do it without that support, and with sanctions from the previous > administration still in force. If Trump tries to lift those sanctions, he > will be painted as a traitor, and so Trump is backed into opposing the > Russians even as his administration recognises the need to cooperate with > them. > > It is in this respect that the Mueller investigation has caused the most > damage to the United States–it has interfered in our ability to once again > attempt to reset the Russian relationship. Without that reset, our > antagonistic relationship with the Russians ensures that they drift into > China’s sphere of influence, weakening the long-term geostrategic position > of the United States. America’s greatest Cold War success was splitting the > Sino-Soviet alliance. If we continue down our present path, that alliance > maybe reconstituted, and the work of Richard Nixon undone. > > It’s not very likely that Trump would succeed in any case. To have a good > relationship with Russia, we have to make concessions to the Russians which > we have been unwilling to make. We’d need to recognise that Russia has > certain core interests in its immediate neighbourhood and stop trespassing > in it. At minimum, this would mean keeping countries like Ukraine, Belarus, > and Georgia neutral, and perhaps even leaving them saddled with corrupt, > pro-Russian governments. It might also mean tolerating Russia’s bid to > restore the Assad regime in Syria. Previous American presidents have been > unwilling to pay the cost of friendship with Russia. Trump would have to > make big concessions–concessions which would look like a betrayal to many > old foreign policy heads–to stand any chance of bringing the Russians > onside. Based on the media reaction to his first meeting with Putin, Trump > likely has very little room to move. China is the beneficiary. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 23 18:48:06 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ray McGovern - Moon-Strzok No More, Lisa Page Spills the Beans Message-ID: <001501d422b5$b2245ee0$166d1ca0$@comcast.net> Moon-Strzok No More, Lisa Page Spills the Beans July 23, 2018 . The meaning of a crucial text message between two FBI officials appears to have been finally explained, and it's not good news for the Russia-gate faithful, as Ray McGovern explains. By Ray McGovern Special to Consortium News https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ray-Headshot-cropped-1 50x150.jpegFormer FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was "no big there there," he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus. Strzok's apparent admission to Page about there being "no big there there" was reported on Friday by John Solomon in The Hill based on multiple sources who he said were present during Page's closed door interview. Strzok's text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some "there" - preferably a big "there" - but had failed miserably. It is appearing more and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller. The "no there there" text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was all but certain wasn't there. https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pstrzok-400x267.jpg Strzok during his public testimony earlier this month. Robert Parry, the late founder and editor of Consortium News whom Solomon described to me last year as his model for journalistic courage and professionalism, was already able to discern as early as March 2017 the outlines of what is now Deep State-gate, and, typically, was the first to dare report on its implications. Parry's article, written two and a half months before Strzok texted the self-incriminating comment to Page on there being "no big there there," is a case study in professional journalism. His very first sentence entirely anticipated Strzok's text: "The hysteria over 'Russia-gate' continues to grow . but at its core there may be no there there."(Emphasis added.) As for "witch-hunts," Bob and others at Consortiumnews.com, who didn't succumb to the virulent HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus, and refused to slurp the Kool-Aid offered at the deep Deep State trough, have come close to being burned at the stake - virtually. Typically, Bob stuck to his guns: he ran an organ (now vestigial in most Establishment publications) that sifted through and digested actual evidence and expelled drivel out the other end. Those of us following the example set by Bob Parry are still taking a lot of incoming fire - including from folks on formerly serious - even progressive - websites. Nor do we expect a cease-fire now, even with Page's statement (about which, ten days after her interview, the Establishment media keep a timorous silence). Far too much is at stake. As Mark Twain put it, "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." And, as we have seen over the past couple of years, that goes in spades for "Russia-gate." For many of us who have looked into it objectively and written about it dispassionately, we are aware, that on this issue, we are looked upon as being in sync with President Donald Trump. Blind hatred for the man seems to thwart any acknowledgment that he could ever be right about something-anything. This brings considerable awkwardness. Chalk it up to the price of pursuing the truth, no matter what bedfellows you end up with. Courage at The Hill https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/lisa-page-peter-strzok -testimony-718-getty-640x480.jpg Page: Coughs up the meaning of 'there.' Solomon's article merits a careful read, in toto. Here are the most germane paragraphs: "It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day [May 19, 2017] was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller's special counsel team. [Page has since left the FBI.] "'Who gives a f*ck, one more AD [Assistant Director] like [redacted] or whoever?'" Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: 'An investigation leading to impeachment?' . "A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: 'You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there.' "So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative - as well as Rosenstein's decision to appoint Mueller - apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to 'nothing' and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment." Solomon adds: "How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don't think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job. Is that an FBI you can live with?" The Timing As noted, Strzok's text was written two days after Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2016. The day before, on May 16, The New York Times published a story that Comey leaked to it through an intermediary that was expressly designed (as Comey admitted in Congressional testimony three weeks later) to lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Hmmmmm. Had Strzok forgotten to tell his boss that after ten months of his best investigative efforts - legal and other-he could find no "there there"? Comey's leak, by the way, was about alleged pressure from Trump on Comey to go easy on Gen. Michael Flynn for lying at an impromptu interrogation led by - you guessed it - the ubiquitous, indispensable Peter Strzok. In any event, the operation worked like a charm - at least at first. And - absent revelation of the Strzok-Page texts - it might well have continued to succeed. After Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named Mueller, one of Comey's best buddies, to be special counsel, Mueller, in turn, picked Strzok to lead the Russia-gate team, until the summer, when the Department of Justice Inspector General was given the Strzok-Page texts and refused to sit on them. A Timeline Here's a timeline, which might be helpful: 2017 May 16: Comey leak to NY Times to get a special counsel appointed May 17: Special counsel appointed - namely, Robert Mueller. May 19: Strzok confides to girlfriend Page, "No big there there." July: Mueller appoints Strzok lead FBI Agent on collusion investigation. August: Mueller removes Strzok after learning of his anti-Trump texts to Page. Dec. 12: DOJ IG releases some, but by no means all, relevant Strzok-Page texts to Congress and the media, which first reports on Strzok's removal in August. 2018 June 14: DOJ IG Report Published. June 15; Strzok escorted out of FBI Headquarters. June 21: Attorney General Jeff Sessions announces Strzok has lost his security clearances. July 12: Strzok testifies to House committees. Solomon reports he refused to answer question about the "there there" text. July 13: Lisa Page interviewed by same committees. Answers the question. Earlier: Bob Parry in Action https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Robert-Parry-e15323218 56117.jpg Journalist Robert Parry On December 12, 2017, as soon as first news broke of the Strzok-Page texts, Bob Parry and I compared notes by phone. We agreed that this was quite big and that, clearly, Russia-gate had begun to morph into something like FBI-gate. It was rare for Bob to call me before he wrote; in retrospect, it seemed to have been merely a sanity check. The piece Bob posted early the following morning was typical Bob. Many of those who click on the link will be surprised that, last December, he already had pieced together most of the story. Sadly, it turned out to be Bob's last substantive piece before he fell seriously ill. Earlier last year he had successfully shot down other Russia-gate-related canards on which he found Establishment media sorely lacking - "Facebook-gate," for example. Remarkably, it has taken another half-year for Congress and the media to address - haltingly - the significance of Deep State-gate - however easy it has become to dissect the plot, and identify the main plotters. With Bob having prepared the way with his Dec.13 article, I followed up a few weeks later with "The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate," in the process winning no friends among those still suffering from the highly resistant HWHW virus. VIPS Parry also deserves credit for his recognition and appreciation of the unique expertise and analytical integrity among Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and giving us a secure, well respected home at Consortium News. It is almost exactly a year since Bob took a whole lot of flak for publishing what quickly became VIPS' most controversial, and at the same time perhaps most important, Memorandum For the President; namely, "Intelligence Veterans Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence." Critics have landed no serious blows on the key judgments of that Memorandum, which rely largely on the type of forensic evidence that Comey failed to ensure was done by his FBI because the Bureau never seized the DNC server. Still more forensic evidence has become available over recent months soon to be revealed on Consortium News, confirming our conclusions. Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and, in retirement, co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21668 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 30586 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16106 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jul 23 19:03:10 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:03:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_=27White_Helmets=27_Controvers?= =?iso-8859-1?q?y?= Message-ID: <002701d422b7$ccb6ab30$66240190$@comcast.net> Max Blumenthal shows how the White Helmets are funded with millions of dollars from the British Foreign Office and $23 million from USAID.) Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was one of the few voices daring to contest President George W. Bush’s false claims about Iraq’s WMD, wrote an article which challenged the White Helmets’ “lionization.” Internationally, the Israeli TV station I24 ran a special report with the title “White Helmets: Heroes or Hoax?” – giving equal coverage to supporters and critics. Even “The National” out of United Arab Emirates has documented the controversy around the White Helmets. Not surprisingly, this dissent to the mainstream media’s love affair with the White Helmets drew return fire. The British military contractor who initially set up the group accused critics of being “proxies” for the Syrian and Russian governments (much as Ritter and other skeptics about the Iraqi WMD “group think” were called “Saddam apologists” in 2003). The controversy also has done little to chasten the Western press corps from relying on the “White Helmets” as the go-to sources for information in Syria’s conflict zones. The ‘White Helmets’ Controversy July 22, 2018 FROM THE ARCHIVES: As Israel in the past few days helped evacuate 800 “White Helmets” from Syria, en route to Britain and other Western countries, we look back at an article published by Consortium News in Oct. 2016. By Rick Sterling https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Rick-Sterling-150x150. jpgAcross the mainstream Western media, the “White Helmets” are hailed as heroic first responders rescuing injured civilians in rebel-controlled parts of Syria. The U.K. Guardian and The Independent urged the Nobel Committee to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the “White Helmets.” As it turned out, they didn’t get that one, but they did receive the prestigious 2016 “Right Livelihood Award.” On the U.S. side of the Atlantic, the “White Helmets” are treated with similar uncritical acclaim. They were the subject of the Oct. 17 TIME magazine cover story. Netflix has released a special “documentary” movie about them. (It later won the 2017 Academy Award for Best Documentary.) New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has gushed over them for years, helping the group’s one-sided depiction of events inside Syria shape the pro-rebel narrative that is pretty much all the American and European publics hear about Syria. The "White Helmets" symbol, expropriating the name of "Syria Civil Defense." The “White Helmets” symbol, expropriating the name of “Syria Civil Defense.” And, this love-fest is not just confined to establishment media. DemocracyNow! ran a puff piece interview with the White Helmet infomercial directors. The Intercept published an uncritical promotion of the “White Helmets” and the group’s controversial leader. Codepink recommended the Netflix movie (though after receiving criticism about the endorsement, the anti-war group removed it). Yet, despite the favorable “group think” regarding the “White Helmets” – and more broadly about the rebel cause in Syria – there is another side to the story, including the fact that the “White Helmets” are not just some well-meaning Syrians who emerged to help all civilians suffering from the five years of war. Not only do they only operate in rebel-controlled areas but they are a source of propaganda about the war, indeed their very existence is an element in the larger propaganda campaign to rally international support for a “regime change” war in Syria. The “White Helmets” brand was conceived and directed by a New York-based marketing company named “The Syria Campaign,” which itself was “incubated” by a larger politically oriented marketing company called Purpose. Along with managing the online and social media promotion of the White Helmets, the Syria Campaign has parallel efforts in support of “regime change” in Syria. One of these efforts has been to criticize United Nations and humanitarian relief organizations that supply aid to displaced persons living in areas protected by the Syrian government. “The allegations made by the Syria Campaign and others were written by people who know nothing about the UN and how it must work,” according to an NGO worker operating in Damascus. Exaggerated Claims Claims that the “White Helmets” have saved 65,000 people also appear to be wildly exaggerated. The areas, served by the White Helmets and controlled by Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and its rebel allies, have few civilians living in them. A medical doctor visiting east Aleppo two years ago described it as a “ghost town,” yet Western media reports cite a highly inflated estimated population of 250,000. Samantha Power, Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN, addresses the Security Council meeting on Syria, Sept. 25, 2016 (UN Photo) Samantha Power, Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN, addresses the Security Council meeting on Syria, Sept. 25, 2016 (UN Photo) Perhaps unintentionally, the “White Helmets” and one of their video teams confirmed this reality in producing a “ cat video” when cat videos were all the rage on social media. In an apparent bid to bring cat lovers onto the side of “regime change” in Syria, the White Helmets’ video showed White Helmet members playing with stray cats in empty neighborhoods, saying: “The homeowners abandoned this district and its kittens.” Besides promoting themselves as a humanitarian group, the White Helmets have become essential to the propaganda war by gaining — along with similar pro-rebel “activists” — a virtual monopoly on information from rebel-controlled areas, supplying a steady stream of heart-rending stories and images about suffering children to a credulous Western media wanting to believe everything bad about the Syrian government. One of the reasons why the “White Helmets” have been so successful in inserting their propaganda into Western media is that most of the rebel zones of Syria, especially east Aleppo, have been off limits to Western journalists and other outside observers for years. Two of the last Western reporters to venture into rebel territory, James Foley and Stephen Sotloff, were subsequently beheaded by the Islamic State. So, as the Syrian government and its allies finally try to expel Al Qaeda terrorists and their cohorts from east Aleppo, the White Helmets have become a major source for the Western news media which treats these “relief workers” as credible providers of on-the-ground information. Thus, the positive image of the White Helmets and the group’s skillful use of social media deflect attention from the sectarian, violent and unpopular nature of Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front (recently renamed the Syria Conquest Front) and other armed opposition groups while hyping accusations that Syrian and Russian attacks are primarily hitting civilians. In other words, the White Helmets have gone from being talked about to being the ones doing the talking. News stories increasingly use White Helmet witnesses as their sources, often in ways that promote the self-serving myth of White Helmet heroism. One day, CNN announced that a White Helmet aid center had been hit. Another day, TIME magazine claimed that White Helmet workers were being “hunted”. ‘Eyewitness’ Accounts Reports from the White Helmets also have served as “eyewitness” accounts about the Syrian military using “barrel bombs,” including in an attack to destroy a Syrian Arab Red Crescent humanitarian convoy and warehouse on Sept. 19 in Orem al Kubra. But there were reasons to be suspicious of this claim since this town is controlled by the infamous Nour al Din al Zinki terrorist group, which recently filmed itself beheading a Palestinian Syrian boy. https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/white-Helmets.png U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is later held aloft triumphantly in the video. [YouTube Screenshot] It was also illogical that Syrian or Russian planes would attack a SARC convoy, which they could have stopped when it was in government held territory. Plus, the Syrian government works with SARC. And, the ones to “benefit” from the attack were the rebels and their Western backers who cited this atrocity as another reason for “regime change” and to condemn the Russians for assisting the Syrian government. The attack also took attention away from the U.S. airstrike that killed some 70 Syrian soldiers on Sept. 17. After the convoy was struck, the Russian and Syrian governments called for an independent investigation of the attack site but this has not been done, presumably because the terrorists controlling the area have not allowed it. Nevertheless, the narrative supplied by the White Helmets and other pro-rebel factions – blaming the Syrian government and their Russian allies – has dominated the Western media’s handling of the story. The “White Helmets” also played a dubious role in allegations that the Syrian government was using chlorine gas in 2013 and 2014 by warning residents before the attacks to expect the Syrian military to drop chlorine bombs, although it was unclear how the activist first-responders would know that fact in advance. In one of the cases, seven witnesses told U.N. investigators that the rebels had staged the chlorine-gas attack, which could suggest that the “White Helmets” were in on the scam. So, are the White Helmets heroes or a politically motivated hoax? The time to investigate is now, since it does little good to uncover the lies and manipulations years later, as has happened with the Iraqi and Libyan “regime change” invasions. A Dangerous Replay Evidence now suggests that we are seeing a replay of Curveball and the Iraqi WMD in 2003 and the bogus hysteria about stopping a Libyan “genocide” in 2011, both debunked by later investigations but too late to spare those countries from massive death and destruction. A scene from the "Collateral Murder" video in which an Iraqi man stops his van to aid those wounded in a lethal U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad on July 12, 2007, only to be gunned down by the American gunners. A scene from the “Collateral Murder” video in which an Iraqi man stops his van to aid those wounded in a lethal U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad on July 12, 2007, only to be gunned down by the American gunners. The belated recognition by some Americans that they are being “had” again in Syria has led to some pushback against the mainstream media’s promotion of the “White Helmets” and other pro-rebel activists. In April 2015, Dissidentvoice published an expose of the group’s creation and purpose. Since then there have been other articles and videos revealing the reality behind the “feel good” veneer. Vanessa Beeley has produced a number of articles about the fraudulent pretense that the “White Helmets” are Syrian Civil Defense, including documentation about the real Syrian Civil Defense, which was founded six decades ago. She initiated an online Change.org petition to NOT give the Nobel Peace Prize to the “White Helmets,” an initiative that must have upset some influential people because Change.org removed the petition without explanation. (You can read the text of the petition here.) The real Syrian Civil Defense works on a shoestring budget with real volunteers without video teams accompanying and promoting them. Most in the West are unaware the real Syrian Civil Defense even exist. The situation is similar for the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, which is a genuinely neutral and independent relief organization and has a good website. Another online petition, also at Change.org, which is still up and running, calls on the Right Livelihood Foundation to rescind its award to the “White Helmets.” The petition includes a number of reasons why the group does not deserve the prize and are not what they are presented to be: they stole the name Syria Civil Defense from the real Syrian organization; they appropriated the name “White Helmets” from the Argentinian rescue organization Cascos Blancos/White Helmets; they are not independent; they are funded by governments; they are not apolitical; they actively campaign for a “no-fly zone” (which even Hillary Clinton has acknowledged would “kill a lot of Syrians” although she continues to promote the idea); they do not work across Syria; they only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition, mostly under the command of Al Qaeda’s affiliate Nusra Front; they are not unarmed; they sometimes do carry weapons and they also celebrate terrorist victories; they assist in terrorist executions. Max Blumenthal wrote a two-part exposé at Alternet: “How the White Helmets became International Heroes while Pushing US Intervention and Regime Change in Syria” and “ Inside the Shadowy PR Firm that’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria.” (Blumenthal shows how the White Helmets are funded with millions of dollars from the British Foreign Office and $23 million from USAID.) Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was one of the few voices daring to contest President George W. Bush’s false claims about Iraq’s WMD, wrote an article which challenged the White Helmets’ “lionization.” Internationally, the Israeli TV station I24 ran a special report with the title “White Helmets: Heroes or Hoax?” – giving equal coverage to supporters and critics. Even “The National” out of United Arab Emirates has documented the controversy around the White Helmets. Not surprisingly, this dissent to the mainstream media’s love affair with the White Helmets drew return fire. The British military contractor who initially set up the group accused critics of being “proxies” for the Syrian and Russian governments (much as Ritter and other skeptics about the Iraqi WMD “group think” were called “Saddam apologists” in 2003). The controversy also has done little to chasten the Western press corps from relying on the “White Helmets” as the go-to sources for information in Syria’s conflict zones. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2328 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14122 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17516 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28162 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14727 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 19:16:17 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:16:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AOTA tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: <2DFF3433-6941-4DCA-942D-B13495431E54@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02030C26-C4D0-4A6C-9F15-DC9D847D918D@gmail.com> Jason— Can you run a repeat for AWARE ON THE AIR tomorrow? I will be unavoidably detained, I’m afraid. —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jul 24 13:43:21 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:43:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] White Helmets exposed Message-ID: Eva Karene Bartlett 13 hrs · "TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT ADMITS TERRORIST AUXILIARIES TO CANADA The fact that Canada is admitting as refugees at least 250 White Helmets and their family members exposes the involvement of the Trudeau government, like the Harper government before it, in the illegal, US-led, regime-change operation in Syria. These two federal governments are collectively responsible for setting up and continuing the international coalition that produced the proxy war against Syria, using terrorist mercenaries as its footsoldiers; leading the international regime of brutal economic sanctions against Syria which turned about four million Syrians into refugees - (the international sanctions regime was drawn up in a meeting in Ottawa in June 2013); demonizing the legitimate government of Syria, breaking off diplomatic relations with it, and trying to delegitimize it in international forums; supporting armed rebels against Syria, a member state of the United Nations, by bringing their leaders to Ottawa and giving them funds; overflying Syria on military missions without the express consent of its government; and supporting the propaganda arm of the regime change operation through the White Helmets. Now that the Syrian government has liberated Deraa, where the western-sponsored regime-change operation began in 2011, the “rebels” and their auxiliaries have had to scramble to find places of refuge. Thus, the Trudeau government has felt obliged to admit as refugees to Canada some of their foreign policy assets, namely the White Helmets. Who are the White Helmets? The White Helmets claim to be a “fiercely independent” organization of volunteer first responders in Syria helping Syrian civilians injured in the war. In fact, the White Helmets are a fiercely partisan organization of relatively well-paid employees, set up by British and US intelligence services inside of Turkey (a belligerent in the war against Syria) in 2013. A Madison Avenue public relations firm was contracted to develop the concept of the White Helmets as a humanitarian agency for public consumption in the West – to provide a 'suger-coating' to an ugly and illegal imperial war. John Lemesurier, a former British military intelligence officer and later “military contractor”, was hired to front the organization, which has been funded to the tune of about 150 million dollars by the governments of the USA, UK, France, Holland, Denmark, Japan, New Zealand, and Canada, among others. In 2016, Canada donated $4.5 million dollars to the White Helmets. Currently, a Freedom of Information request is seeking to determine if the Canadian government has made repeated donations of $4.5 million in 2017 and 2018. On top of the donations, the Canadian government has organized two cross-Canada publicity tours of White Helmet personnel in recent years in various cities. This past March, a delegation of White Helmets was welcomed to speak to the Canadian parliament's Human Rights Committee. In addition, the New Democratic Party endorsed the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize, which it failed to win. The White Helmets are embedded in the Al-Qaeda terrorist network and operate exclusively in terrorist-held areas of Syria. Though it also calls itself the Syrian Civil Defence, the government of Syria created the real Syrian Civil Defence in 1953 and was a founding member of the International Civil Defence Organization. Once in place inside the terrorist-occupied enclaves inside of Syria, the true role of the White Helmets emerged. The group specialized in making videos of dramatically-staged rescues of children from among the rubble of part of cities which Al-Qaeda (and sometimes other terrorist groups) had managed to seize and occupy. Two notorious staged videos stand out: the staged rescues of Omran Daqneesh in Aleppo and Hassan Diab in Douma. Occasionally, however, the White Helmets joined in recreational video competitions, such as the Mannequin Challenge. The twofold principal purposes of the child-rescue videos was, first, to demonize the Syrian government as a brutal tyranny, even though it was lawfully defending its sovereign territory against foreign invasion, and, secondly, to promote the western regime change operation in Syria as a humanitarian intervention. Specifically, the White Helmet videos were timed to promote calls by western governments for directly military intervention in Syria by such means as a no-fly zone (similar to the one imposed on Libya in 2011) or a “civilian corridor”. And, on at least two occasions, the tactic worked. In April 2017, the White Helmets staged a false flag chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun which prompted a US missile attack on the Sharyat Air Base in Syria. A recent outstanding example of the propaganda use of such videos was the staging of a fake nerve agent attack in Douma, Syria, on April 7 of this year. The incident, later revealed as a hoax by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), nonetheless resulted in over one hundred missile strikes by the USA, UK, and France on Syria on April 13, 2018. In addition, the White Helmets' true role as an auxiliary to terrorism was captured on film on several occasions when they participated in Al-Qaeda summary executions and by Facebook postings by numerous White Helmets on their personal accounts showing themselves moonlighting as armed Al-Qaeda fighters and heaping praise on Al-Qaeda leaders. Contrarily, civilians inside the enclaves in Syrian cities liberated from Al-Qaeda and ISIS told many western reporters that the White Helmets provided no medical help or assistance to them, but rather only to the armed terrorists. Moreover, real Syrian Civil Defence workers testified that many of their comrades were killed by Al-Qaeda fighters and their equipment and vehicles given to the White Helmets. The rescue of the White Helmet “rescuers” by Israel through the Golan Heights should not come as a surprize because Israel has been a major player in the illegal, failed, regime change operation in Syria. Israel has bombed Syria more than one hundred times during the war. Israel openly supported FSA fighters with arms, intelligence, and funding in southern Syria and routinely transferred wounded terrorists to hospitals inside Israel for medical treatment before returning them to the front. Israeli PM Netanyahu posed for photos in one of those hospitals at the bedside of wounded terrorists last year. Today (July 22, 2018), in a tweet, Netanyahu stated that both President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau personally asked for his help in rescuing the White Helmets from Syria. Syria is well rid of these White Helmets. But, if Canadians understood who these people really were, they would strongly object to the settling of terrorists in our midst. Last November in the House of Commons, Trudeau asserted that Canadians returning from terrorist activities in Syria and Iraq would not be charged with criminal offences. Rather, he asserted, “We also have methods of de-emphasizing or de-programming people who want to harm our society, and those are some things we have to move forward on.” At the end of the day, then, the Trudeau government in effect embraces terrorist fighters and their auxiliaries. That the Canadian government is planning to admit White Helmets personnel to Canada as refugees should gravely concern Canadians. These civil defence poseurs are ideologically committed to terrorism, personally connected to Al Qaeda, and have the blood on their hands of many Syrians whose country they helped to invade and occupy. The potential for them to cause harm in Canada is high. We urge Canadians immediately to contact their MP's about this matter, to spread the alarm via social media, and to write letters to newspapers. We also urge the Canadian government to do the following: withdraw from the US-led military coalition in Syria and Iraq; end Canada's punishing economic sanctions against Syria; re-establish diplomatic ties with the Syrian government; participate in the reconstruction of Syria through payments of reparation. Published by the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War hcsw.ca hcsw at cogeco.ca For further info, please contact Ken Stone at 289-382-9008 or at kenstone at cogeco.ca" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jul 24 19:01:54 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:01:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News with Prof. Stephen Cohen, interview by Aaron Mate. Message-ID: Below is the link to Part 2, Part 1 is also very important, its title is: The Russia Security Crisis” is a U.S. Creation. I accessed it on my tablet, but can’t find it online on my computer. https://therealnews.com/stories/debunking-the-putin-panic-with-stephen-f-cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 24 20:24:06 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 04:24:06 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News with Prof. Stephen Cohen, interview by Aaron Mate. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1532463821398.jk2wppbeiria5afhsvj4v5df@android.mail.163.com> https://therealnews.com/stories/the-russia-national-security-crisis-is-a-u-s-creation On 2018-07-25 03:01 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Below is the link to Part 2, Part 1 is also very important, its title is: The Russia Security Crisis” is a U.S. Creation. I accessed it on my tablet, but can’t find it online on my computer. https://therealnews.com/stories/debunking-the-putin-panic-with-stephen-f-cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue Jul 24 20:24:06 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 04:24:06 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News with Prof. Stephen Cohen, interview by Aaron Mate. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1532463821398.jk2wppbeiria5afhsvj4v5df@android.mail.163.com> https://therealnews.com/stories/the-russia-national-security-crisis-is-a-u-s-creation On 2018-07-25 03:01 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Below is the link to Part 2, Part 1 is also very important, its title is: The Russia Security Crisis” is a U.S. Creation. I accessed it on my tablet, but can’t find it online on my computer. https://therealnews.com/stories/debunking-the-putin-panic-with-stephen-f-cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 21:55:30 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:55:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Either Trump Fires These People Or The Borg Will Have Won" Message-ID: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/07/either-trump-fires-these-people-or-the-borg-will-have-won.html#more President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a (virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda. One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far still does not add up to the disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed. The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: [P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. His 'isolationist' economic policies make Trump an enemy of the globalists : Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. Trump does not buy the nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy. Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real threat to the American (economic) supremacy. This week was a prelude to the coup against Trump : <>Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a “traitor” who had “committed high crimes” in holding a friendly summit with Putin. It can’t get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire political and media establishment in the US as a “treasonous” enemy of the state. Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: “If you work for Trump, quit now”. Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John Kelly rallied others against him: According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election. Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed interview for that: The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director’s team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and was comfortable talking with her. Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump’s judgment— such as the president’s decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides present beyond interpreters — and revealing the rift between the president and the intelligence community. FBI Director Wray also undermined his boss' position: FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a “straight shooter,” and said the Russia investigation is no “witch hunt.” Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat remained active. A day later Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his president's policy: Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement about new military aid to Ukraine: "Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its illegal occupation of Ukraine. … The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations with the U.S. vision for global security and stability." Pat Lang thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wray and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who is overseeing the Mueller investigation. My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter stage. But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'. The U.S. has the legislative and the judicial branch as a counterweight to the president who leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for him. Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the lawful policy directives of their higher up. All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies. But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating their policies to him. It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work 'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these people or the borg will have won. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 15:56:56 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:56:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nicaragua Message-ID: <0BBF92DE-2AD7-4426-B7A3-4B260F571719@gmail.com> https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/07/24/an-open-letter-to-the-guardian-on-its-wildly-inaccurate-coverage-of-nicaragua/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 16:27:19 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:27:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nicaragua In-Reply-To: <0BBF92DE-2AD7-4426-B7A3-4B260F571719@gmail.com> References: <0BBF92DE-2AD7-4426-B7A3-4B260F571719@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, and yet the multi-faceted corruption of Ortega and Murillo (his wife who is VP) is duly and fairly noted in this context by Rebecca Gordon, in this 25 minute interview with Doug Henwood: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180719 and in her article: https://nacla.org/news/2018/07/09/nicaragua-barricades DG On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:57 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/07/24/an-open-letter-to-the-guardian-on-its-wildly-inaccurate-coverage-of-nicaragua/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jul 25 18:49:13 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:49:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nicaragua In-Reply-To: References: <0BBF92DE-2AD7-4426-B7A3-4B260F571719@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9A280133-1943-48FA-9853-BD10939A714B@illinois.edu> FYI: The Nicaragua Network/Alliance for Global Justice and I have recently been called Orteguistas (Ortega supporters). We used to be called Danielistas before it became necessary to the narrative to demonize him completely by denying him the practice in some parts of Latin America of calling those you respect, like Fidel and Che, by their first names. In case you are not clear, calling someone an Orteguista is an insult on par with calling someone a Stalinist or a Trot. It doesn’t really carry any meaning anymore; it is just used as a pejorative to discredit the person or organization it is aimed at. I’m sure the Ortega government would be surprised of that characterization of us. We have not had even informal relations with Ortega or the FSLN since the mid-90s when a report we sent to the National Directorate following the Zoilamerica charges was taken as interfering in Nicaragua’s affairs and we were cut off from party structures. Not having ties to the FSLN did not relieve us of the obligation to expose and oppose our government’s intervention in Nicaragua’s sovereign affairs. We continue to support the Sandinista Revolution and its institutions, but our main focus is to change our own government, a charge given to us by many Nicaraguans, high and low, in the 1980s. But, perhaps because we didn’t have direct contact with the FSLN or the government, since the FSLN’s return to power with the 2006 election of Daniel Ortega as president, we haven’t really countered the disinformation campaign against Daniel, his wife, and his government. We mistakenly assumed that the demonstrably improving standard of living, the reduction in poverty, infant and maternal mortality, the lack of Nicaraguans coming north to the US border, the return of economic and political rights stripped from the people during 17 years of neoliberal US vassal governments, would outshine the lies. Partially because of our failure to counter the lies before they took on the weight of truth, opposition forces in Nicaragua and their US overlords mistakenly thought they could drive out the democratically elected government. As a result, over 200 people are dead. The coup has failed thanks to the support of the majority of the Nicaraguan people for peace, but half a billion dollars in damage has been done and the peace is incomplete, like Venezuela’s, without the resolution, accountability, and truth-telling needed for true reconciliation. The case against Daniel Ortega. First and foremost, we all know that Daniel is a dictator, right? We know it because corporate and progressive press alike can’t say his name without the modifier, dictator. So what are the criteria to be a dictator? When I googled “dictator definition” the top one was pretty clear: “a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.” Have we forgotten that after losing the highly unequal 1990 election, Daniel Ortega was the first Head of State in Nicaraguan history to peacefully pass the sash of office to a successor of another party? That election was free, but hardly fair. The US spent more per voter in support of its candidate, Violeta Chamorro, than Bush and Dukakis combined spent per capita in the 1988 US presidential election. Fraud denied the FSLN a return to office in 1996 so it wasn’t until 2006 that Nicaraguan voters, tired of structural adjustment, power outages, and a moribund economy, returned the FSLN to the presidency headed by Daniel Ortega. He won by the slimmest plurality of 38% against a divided opposition. He won reelection in 2011 with 63% of the vote, and in 2016 by 72.5%. The Organization of American States officially accompanied the vote. They made recommendations for some electoral reforms which the government agreed to, but said that the outcome reflected the legitimate will of the people. Dictators don’t win fair elections by growing margins. Now some people argue that the 2011 and 2016 elections were unconstitutional. Granted the 1987 political constitution contained a one-term limit for executive offices. Ortega challenged the prohibition of re-election and the Supreme Court threw out term limits, just the same as the Costa Rican Supreme Court did when Oscar Arias made a similar appeal a number of years earlier. And, of course, in Honduras, after overthrowing President Manuel Zelaya after he merely proposed doing away with term limits for future presidents, Juan Orlando Hernandez did not even ask for a Supreme Court ruling. The Nicaraguan opposition and the US State Department did not contest the results in either Costa Rica or Honduras. So, failing to meet any of the criteria of the charge of dictatorship, we must find Daniel Ortega not guilty on that count. The second charge of the indictment is that Ortega is forming a family dynasty like the Somoza dictatorship. To be a dynasty there is at least a minimum requirement of succession of office by another family matter. I don’t know what is in Daniel’s heart and mind, he might very well dream of passing on the presidency to his wife or one of his children, but it hasn’t happened yet, and the only way it could happen would be with the votes of a majority of Nicaraguans in a free and fair election. In the US, the Bush family can rightly be called a dynasty. They have Sen. Prescott Bush who was the father of President George H. W. Bush who was the father of George W. Bush. That dynasty hopefully fizzled out with the failure of George W’s brother Jeb in 2016. The Clintons were a contender for dynasty, but Hillary Clinton’s electoral failure in 2016 destroyed that dream. So, failing to meet any of the criteria of dynasty, we must find Daniel Ortega not guilty. The next charge in the indictment is corruption. Do you remember when they used to say that Fidel Castro was the richest man in the world? They made that claim by assigning the value of all Cuba’s state-owned property and resources as Fidel’s personal wealth. Well that’s how they come up with the claim that Daniel is enriching his family while in office. I realized how this argument was being spun in 2008 when the Sandinista Renovation Movement leadership attempted to convince a delegation I was leading that the Ortega government has spent zero cordobas on poverty alleviation. They defended that insultingly obvious lie by assigning all of the Venezuela oil aid, which was providing the funds for Zero Hunger, Zero Usury, school lunches, peasant agriculture and small business loans, to Ortega’s personal balance sheet! The World Bank, the IMF, the EU countries have all singled out the government of Nicaragua for its effective use of international loans and grants. That means the loans and grants were spent for the purposes they were given, not siphoned off into the pockets of Ortega and his supporters like happens in so many countries. You can’t fulfill the UN Millennium Goals to cut poverty in half, you can’t grow the economy by 5% a year without significantly increasing income disparities if you are pocketing international aid, and you can’t grow tourism without displacing small and medium businesses, not to mention residents, if you are pocketing international aid. The one sub-charge of corruption that might hold water would be that of nepotism, the favoring of his children for jobs that he controls. That is a fairly minor crime and one that is common almost everywhere in the world. I don’t know whether it is a fair accusation. So, failing to meet any of the criteria of the major charge of corruption, we must find Daniel Ortega not guilty. On the minor charge of nepotism, we have a hung jury. The fourth charge in the indictment is that he controls all the institutions of government. Well, so does Trump. In addition to the executive, legislative, and judicial branch that we are familiar with, Nicaragua has a fourth independent branch, the Supreme Electoral Council, which runs elections. This is a common branch of government in Latin. America. The way magistrates are chosen for the Electoral Council and the Supreme Court is that the president nominates them and the National Assembly, the legislature, elects them. Other parties can and do put forward their own slates of magistrates. During Daniel’s 2007-2011 term, the FSLN had the largest caucus in the National Assembly, but not a majority. Magistrates and Justices were selected by compromise and included supporters of multiple parties. Voters gave the FSLN a majority in the legislature in the elections of 2011 and 2016. That’s how bourgeois democracy works. The parties that get the most votes hold the most power. So, failing to prove that a crime was committed, the charge of controlling all public institutions is dismissed. The final major count in the indictment is that following peaceful demonstrations by students on April 18, 2018, against reforms to the social security law intended to restore the fund to solvency, Ortega ordered the National Police to fire live ammunition at peaceful protestors. On April 18, a student was allegedly killed (who later turned up alive), causing a series of marches, riots, paralysis of the country from hundreds of roadblocks, over 200 deaths including protestors, police, and Sandinista supporters, and the loss of economic activity and governability for three long months. This is the most serious of the charges. No one explains why a police force that in 39 years had not repressed the Nicaraguan people would suddenly go berserk. International reporting and reports from the human rights community, both Nicaraguan and international, have been one-sided and ignore evidence that does not fit the narrative of the violence being one-way directed by the government against the “peaceful” “student” opposition. The only way the truth will ever be known and guilty parties held accountable, is if the violence ends through dialogue and a fully independent, internationally-funded investigation and truth commission takes place. No verdict is possible until that happens. Having disposed of the major charges against President Ortega and finding nothing that justifies an extra-constitutional removal from office that would throw the country into a Libya-like chaos, I personally, and the Nicaragua Network/Alliance for Global Justice will continue to support the legitimacy and the platform of the Sandinista Front for National Liberation and its leader President Daniel Ortega. If that makes us Orteguistas, well then we will wear that label with pride even though it is inaccurate. But, before I end this blog, I want to deal with three charges brought by people who consider themselves Left of the Sandinistas. The first is that the Ortega government is a neoliberal government. That is true to the extent that neoliberalism is the dominant economic model that even social democratic governments must bow to in order to survive. But, the Ortega government is not slavishly devoted to neoliberalism like its US-backed succors. It told the IMF to go to hell and made them like it when its poverty alleviation and targeted economic subsidies worked. That Nicaragua, the second poorest country in the hemisphere, has any leverage at all with the IMF, the enforcer of neoliberalism, is a tribute to Ortega’s effectiveness as a national leader. But due to Nicaragua’s size and small economy, his leeway in independently deciding economic policy is strictly limited. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) is a good example. Free trade agreements are the epitome of neoliberalism. Former US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick passed on the message to Ortega in advance of the 2006 election that as long as he sticks with CAFTA, the US doesn’t care who is president. Let’s work for a day when the US doesn’t have the power to tell another country’s president what to do rather than criticize Ortega for taking an offer he couldn’t refuse. Another charge from the Left is that Ortega kowtows to the US by cooperating with the Drug War and allowing US troops on Nicaragua’s national territory. I would not use the word kowtow, but the charge has some truth. Daniel is personally extremely opposed to all drug use. Even without the US militarized Drug War he would oppose the decriminalization and legalization of any drug including marijuana. Besides, the Nicaraguan Army wants the little toys it gets from the Pentagon for cooperating with the US Drug War. Daniel also does not want a return of the Contra War. Even in the 80’s he had a propensity to make compromises on the belief that the US would play fair. It never has. On the positive side, unless they manage to do so through the present turmoil, the international drug cartels have not gained a foothold in Nicaragua and Nicaragua does not suffer the social problems and violence of its northern neighbors. And finally, there is the charge that Ortega criminalized abortion. That is not a factual statement, but it might be true to say he didn’t stop the criminalization of abortion. Abortion has always been criminalized in Nicaragua, but the Liberal Party President Jose Santos Zelaya who was president from 1893-1909 when he was overthrown by the US, adopted an exception to save the life or health of the mother. In 2006, in the final year of the Bolaños administration, the Catholic hierarchy and evangelical protestant leadership created a campaign to completely criminalize abortion. It became an election issue, of course. In order to neutralize the Catholic bishops who had openly campaigned against him in previous elections, Ortega told the legislators in the Sandinista caucus that he was not imposing party discipline for the vote and they should vote their conscience. Some voted no on criminalization, the majority abstained, but enough voted with the right-wing legislators to pass the bill. What Ortega’s detractors leave out is that under his government not a single medical official or woman has been prosecuted under the law. Compare that with El Salvador where women who have had natural miscarriages have received long prison sentences, and I think we have to find Ortega not guilty on that charge too. I think it is an indictment of us on the Left in the US that so many of us are willing to accept the groundless charges against Ortega and his government because we have a deep-seated bias against government period. It is a small step from believing unconsciously that all government is bad to believing false negative charges against any particular government. What I find completely distressing is those on the Left who are willing to throw away all the advances of the Sandinista Revolution with support for a coup that will only benefit the Nicaraguan oligarchy and US goal to restore hegemony over Latin America. I am very disappointed, although I am also encouraged that as we’ve begun to fight back against the disinformation, many more people are coming forward in support. On Jul 25, 2018, at 11:27 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Yes, and yet the multi-faceted corruption of Ortega and Murillo (his wife who is VP) is duly and fairly noted in this context by Rebecca Gordon, in this 25 minute interview with Doug Henwood: http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180719 and in her article: https://nacla.org/news/2018/07/09/nicaragua-barricades DG On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:57 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/07/24/an-open-letter-to-the-guardian-on-its-wildly-inaccurate-coverage-of-nicaragua/ _______________________________________________ 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 brussel at illinois.edu Wed Jul 25 21:13:00 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:13:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky interview Message-ID: Powerful. How does he keep up with all these things? https://truthout.org/articles/resurgence-of-political-authoritarianism-interview-with-noam-chomsky/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 02:46:27 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:46:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More reason not to give Democrats control of Congress (one of a series) Message-ID: https://blackagendareport.com/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-not-trump-obama-and-democrats -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 22:43:36 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:43:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another war story References: <1532634748398.740d885f-1bed-46e1-b919-3c3225f78d29@bf10b.hubspotemail.net> Message-ID: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Lila Rose > Subject: "You could die" > Date: July 26, 2018 at 2:55:34 PM CDT > To: cgestabrook at gmail.com > Reply-To: lila.rose at liveaction.org > > > Hi C G, > > At 22 weeks pregnant, Suzanne Guy received devastating news from her physician. She was told that her preborn daughter must have a chromosomal abnormality, no kidneys, and that half the amniotic fluid around her was gone. > > The doctor insisted Suzanne have an abortion, telling her that she could die and that her child would certainly die. > > But Suzanne and her husband, Peter, ignored the pressure from the doctors and chose to do whatever they could to save their daughter. Watch their courageous and miraculous story in the video below: > > > C G, no woman should ever be told by their physician to take their own child’s life. In fact, in 2012, over a thousand physicians signed onto the “Dublin Declaration,” which stated that killing a preborn child “is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.” > > Suzanne’s daughter, Rachel, is alive today because her parents fought to save her life. > > By sharing these stories we inspire mothers, some who may be facing the same heartbreaking circumstances as Suzanne did, and give them the strength to choose life for their children. > > C G, I hope you will take a few moments to watch and share Suzanne’s inspiring story with your friends on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/10156494482318728/ > We work towards the day when our culture recognizes there is never a reason to take the life of an innocent preborn child. > > > > For life, > > Lila Rose > President & Founder > Live Action > > P.S. You can watch the extended version of Suzanne’s courageous story by clicking this link on YouTube: https://youtu.be/VK_SbPTRR-k > Live Action 2200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 102 PMB 111, Arlington, VA 22201 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Jul 26 23:41:23 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 18:41:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another war story Message-ID: Arrrrgh. Off topic Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Jul 26, 2018 5:44 PMTo: Peace-discuss;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Another war story Begin forwarded message: From: Lila Rose Subject: "You could die" Date: July 26, 2018 at 2:55:34 PM CDT To: cgestabrook at gmail.com Reply-To: lila.rose at liveaction.org Hi C G,At 22 weeks pregnant, Suzanne Guy received devastating news from her physician. She was told that her preborn daughter must have a chromosomal abnormality, no kidneys, and that half the amniotic fluid around her was gone.The doctor insisted Suzanne have an abortion, telling her that she could die and that her child would certainly die.But Suzanne and her husband, Peter, ignored the pressure from the doctors and chose to do whatever they could to save their daughter. Watch their courageous and miraculous story in the video below:C G, no woman should ever be told by their physician to take their own child’s life. In fact, in 2012, over a thousand physicians signed onto the “Dublin Declaration,” which stated that killing a preborn child “is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.”  Suzanne’s daughter, Rachel, is alive today because her parents fought to save her life.By sharing these stories we inspire mothers, some who may be facing the same heartbreak ing circumstances as Suzanne did, and give them the strength to choose life for their children. C G, I hope you will take a few moments to watch and share Suzanne’s inspiring story with your friends on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/10156494482318728/ We work towards the day when our culture recognizes there is never a reason to take the life of an innocent preborn child.For life,Lila Rose President & Founder  Live ActionP.S. You can watch the extended version of Suzanne’s courageous story by clicking this link on YouTube: https://youtu.be/VK_SbPTRR-kLive Action  2200 Wilson Blvd.  Suite 102 PMB 111,  Arlington,  VA  22201  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Thu Jul 26 21:09:20 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:09:20 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another war story In-Reply-To: References: <1532634748398.740d885f-1bed-46e1-b919-3c3225f78d29@bf10b.hubspotemail.net> Message-ID: During Ellie's time in gestation the doctor at Christie suggested us to get an amniocentesis to check her for genetic defects. We disagreed and didn't get the test. It seemed to me that the amnio was a unnecessary risk and we would not have elected to terminate the pregnancy regardless of the outcome. Ellie is fine and normal. I have suggested to some of the abortionists that it is a real waste to terminate babies during pregnancy. Doesn't it make more sense to wait until after they are born and then see if you like them?   Maybe after a year or two if you see that they really are not so good? Of course one is offended by that Kafka-esque sort of talk but it ain't no more Nazi-esque  than the "test and slaughter" methods of the "amnio and abort" crowd. Eugenics in a can. Step right up, folks. Only $2.99. Or 4 for $10. C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *Lila Rose > > >> *Subject: **"You could die"* >> *Date: *July 26, 2018 at 2:55:34 PM CDT >> *To: *cgestabrook at gmail.com >> *Reply-To: *lila.rose at liveaction.org >> >> >> >> LA Logo.jpg >> >> Hi C G, >> >> At 22 weeks pregnant, Suzanne Guy received devastating news from her >> physician. She was told that her preborn daughter must have a >> chromosomal abnormality, no kidneys, and that half the amniotic fluid >> around her was gone. >> >> The doctor insisted Suzanne have an abortion, telling her that she >> could die and that her child would certainly die. >> >> *But Suzanne and her husband, Peter, ignored the pressure from the >> doctors and chose to do whatever they could to save their daughter. >> Watch their courageous and miraculous story in the video below:* >> >> Screen Shot 2018-07-25 at 3.03.12 PM >> >> >> C G, no woman should ever be told by their physician to take their >> own child’s life. In fact, in 2012, over a thousand physicians signed >> onto the “Dublin Declaration,” which stated that killing a preborn >> child “is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.” >> >> Suzanne’s daughter, Rachel, is alive today because her parents fought >> to save her life. >> >> *By sharing these stories we inspire mothers, some who may be facing >> the same heartbreaking circumstances as Suzanne did, and give them >> the strength to choose life for their children.* >> >> C G, I hope you will take a few moments to watch and share Suzanne’s >> inspiring story with your friends on Facebook: >> https://www.facebook.com/liveaction/videos/10156494482318728/ >> >> >> We work towards the day when our culture recognizes there is never a >> reason to take the life of an innocent preborn child. >> >> *Lila-Rose-circle 1.png* >> >> For life, >> >> *Lila Rose* >> President & Founder >> Live Action >> >> P.S. You can watch the extended version of Suzanne’s courageous story >> by clicking this link on YouTube:https://youtu.be/VK_SbPTRR-k >> >> >> Live Action  2200 Wilson Blvd.  Suite 102 PMB 111,  Arlington,  VA 22201 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ewj at pigs.ag Thu Jul 26 21:25:51 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 05:25:51 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another war story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <82cff5da-2f3c-1f56-146a-52a7fd862f63@pigs.ag> Not off topic at all, since abortion and war are the primary tools of genocide. Abortion is the "business end" ** of Eugenics. What's good for Galtons and Nazis is good for the USA. Ain't that what it's all about, Alfie? ------------ //** //busi·ness end NOUN informal (the business end) the functional part of a tool, device, or weapon. / "/he/ /found/ /himself/ /facing/ /the/ /business/ /end/ /of/ /six/ /lethal-looking/ /weapons/"/ bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > Arrrrgh. Off topic > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 28 00:28:02 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 00:28:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump is a Tool of the Deep State Not a Victim/It's important that we recognize, the puppet masters, behind the scenes. Message-ID: [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/06/cp5.png] Fearless Muckraking Since 1993 [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/05/JoinList-new.png] * HOME * ARTICLES * MAGAZINE * SUBSCRIBE * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS JULY 27, 2018 Trump is a Tool of the Deep State Not a Victim by JOHN W. WHITEHEAD FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” ― Theodore Roosevelt There are those who would have you believe that President Trump is an unwitting victim of the Deep State. And then there are those who insist that the Deep State is a figment of a conspiratorial mind. Don’t believe it. The Deep State—a.k.a. the police state, a.k.a. the military industrial complex, a.k.a. the surveillance state complex—does indeed exist and Trump, far from being its sworn enemy, is its latest tool. When in doubt, follow the money trail. It always points the way. Every successive president starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt has been bought—lock, stock and barrel—and made to dance to the tune of the Deep State. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, the retired five-star Army general-turned-president who warned against the disastrous rise of misplaced power by the military industrial complex was complicit in contributing to the build-up of the military’s role in dictating national and international policy. Enter Donald Trump, the candidate who swore to drain the swamp in Washington DC. Instead of putting an end to the corruption, however, Trump has paved the way for lobbyists, corporations, the military industrial complex, and the rest of the Deep State (also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”) to feast on the carcass of the dying American republic. Apart from tweets that are little more than sound and fury, Trump is not a man who is raging against the machine. He is too much a part of the machine. Indeed, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.” Despite claims to the contrary, Trump is not advocating for peace with Russia, or North Korea or any other nation. He is selling us out to the war hawks. The latest squawk over Iran is just more of the same chest-thumping, sleight-of-hand intended to play into the hands of a salivating military industrial complex for whom war is merely a means to a larger profit margin. The war hawks have no beef with Trump. Why should they? He’s giving them exactly what they want. With Trump’s blessing, the military’s budget—with its trillion dollar wars, its $125 billion in administrative waste, and its contractor-driven price gouging that hits the American taxpayer where it hurts the most—will continue to grow. Borrowing a leaf from his buddies in China, Russia and North Korea, Trump is even planning a $12 million military parade on November 10 to showcase the nation’s military might. Follow the money. It always points the way. The corporations are getting richer, average Americans are getting poorer, the military is getting more militaristic, America’s endless wars are getting more endless, and the prospect of peace grows ever dimmer. This is exactly how you keep the Deep State in power. We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast. The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished. In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House. Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry. This shadow government, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government. So how do you recognize the Deep State when it rears its ugly head? It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.” It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics. These are the key players that drive the shadow government. This is the hidden face of the American police state. Just consider some of the key programs and policies—manifestations of the police state complex—that continue to be advanced by the shadow government with the full support of its latest accomplice in the White House: Domestic surveillance The National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, continues to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Yet the government does not operate alone. It cannot. It requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy. For instance, through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs. On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Global spying The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” is still spanning the globe and targeting every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage. Roving TSA searches The American taxpayer is still getting ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country. USA Patriot Act, NDAA America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, continues to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected. Militarized police state Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. SWAT team raids With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continues to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. Domestic drones The domestic use of drones has continued unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Dept. of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones. School-to-prison pipeline The paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court. Overcriminalization The government bureaucracy continues to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community continue to have their farms raided. Privatized Prisons States continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years. Endless wars America’s expanding military empire is continuing to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense. Are you getting the message yet? The current president, much like the previous president and his predecessors, is little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on. As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.” The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley. This is fascism in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds. It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats. As Lofgren concludes: [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change… If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda. So let’s have no more of this caterwauling about Trump being victimized by the Deep State. There is no conspiracy to do away with Trump. He is doing too good a job at sowing division, creating distractions that keep Americans oblivious to the government’s ongoing power grabs, and helping to advance the profit-driven agenda of the Deep State. Trump is no victim. If you want to talk about the true victims of the Deep State, let’s talk about the men and women and children being shot and killed and brutalized and spied on and muzzled and jailed and robbed at gunpoint and treated as if they have no rights. Let’s talk about the sorry state of our freedoms, which have continued their downward trajectory with no let-up. Let’s talk about the fact that constitutional ignorance, corruption, ineptitude and cruelty are not unique to the Trump Administration. They have been hallmarks of the American police state. So the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by Donald Trump’s latest tweets or theatrics or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary, remember: as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow government no matter who is in office. As long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by:JOHN W. WHITEHEAD John W. Whitehead is the president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 28 00:30:22 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 00:30:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Trump is a Tool of the Deep State Not a Victim/It's important that we recognize, the puppet masters, behind the scenes. References: Message-ID: [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/06/cp5.png] Fearless Muckraking Since 1993 [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/05/JoinList-new.png] * HOME * ARTICLES * MAGAZINE * SUBSCRIBE * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS JULY 27, 2018 Trump is a Tool of the Deep State Not a Victim by JOHN W. WHITEHEAD FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” ― Theodore Roosevelt There are those who would have you believe that President Trump is an unwitting victim of the Deep State. And then there are those who insist that the Deep State is a figment of a conspiratorial mind. Don’t believe it. The Deep State—a.k.a. the police state, a.k.a. the military industrial complex, a.k.a. the surveillance state complex—does indeed exist and Trump, far from being its sworn enemy, is its latest tool. When in doubt, follow the money trail. It always points the way. Every successive president starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt has been bought—lock, stock and barrel—and made to dance to the tune of the Deep State. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, the retired five-star Army general-turned-president who warned against the disastrous rise of misplaced power by the military industrial complex was complicit in contributing to the build-up of the military’s role in dictating national and international policy. Enter Donald Trump, the candidate who swore to drain the swamp in Washington DC. Instead of putting an end to the corruption, however, Trump has paved the way for lobbyists, corporations, the military industrial complex, and the rest of the Deep State (also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”) to feast on the carcass of the dying American republic. Apart from tweets that are little more than sound and fury, Trump is not a man who is raging against the machine. He is too much a part of the machine. Indeed, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.” Despite claims to the contrary, Trump is not advocating for peace with Russia, or North Korea or any other nation. He is selling us out to the war hawks. The latest squawk over Iran is just more of the same chest-thumping, sleight-of-hand intended to play into the hands of a salivating military industrial complex for whom war is merely a means to a larger profit margin. The war hawks have no beef with Trump. Why should they? He’s giving them exactly what they want. With Trump’s blessing, the military’s budget—with its trillion dollar wars, its $125 billion in administrative waste, and its contractor-driven price gouging that hits the American taxpayer where it hurts the most—will continue to grow. Borrowing a leaf from his buddies in China, Russia and North Korea, Trump is even planning a $12 million military parade on November 10 to showcase the nation’s military might. Follow the money. It always points the way. The corporations are getting richer, average Americans are getting poorer, the military is getting more militaristic, America’s endless wars are getting more endless, and the prospect of peace grows ever dimmer. This is exactly how you keep the Deep State in power. We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast. The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished. In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House. Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry. This shadow government, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government. So how do you recognize the Deep State when it rears its ugly head? It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.” It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics. These are the key players that drive the shadow government. This is the hidden face of the American police state. Just consider some of the key programs and policies—manifestations of the police state complex—that continue to be advanced by the shadow government with the full support of its latest accomplice in the White House: Domestic surveillance The National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, continues to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Yet the government does not operate alone. It cannot. It requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy. For instance, through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs. On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Global spying The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” is still spanning the globe and targeting every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage. Roving TSA searches The American taxpayer is still getting ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country. USA Patriot Act, NDAA America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, continues to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected. Militarized police state Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. SWAT team raids With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continues to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. Domestic drones The domestic use of drones has continued unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Dept. of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones. School-to-prison pipeline The paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court. Overcriminalization The government bureaucracy continues to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community continue to have their farms raided. Privatized Prisons States continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years. Endless wars America’s expanding military empire is continuing to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense. Are you getting the message yet? The current president, much like the previous president and his predecessors, is little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on. As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.” The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley. This is fascism in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds. It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats. As Lofgren concludes: [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change… If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda. So let’s have no more of this caterwauling about Trump being victimized by the Deep State. There is no conspiracy to do away with Trump. He is doing too good a job at sowing division, creating distractions that keep Americans oblivious to the government’s ongoing power grabs, and helping to advance the profit-driven agenda of the Deep State. Trump is no victim. If you want to talk about the true victims of the Deep State, let’s talk about the men and women and children being shot and killed and brutalized and spied on and muzzled and jailed and robbed at gunpoint and treated as if they have no rights. Let’s talk about the sorry state of our freedoms, which have continued their downward trajectory with no let-up. Let’s talk about the fact that constitutional ignorance, corruption, ineptitude and cruelty are not unique to the Trump Administration. They have been hallmarks of the American police state. So the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by Donald Trump’s latest tweets or theatrics or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary, remember: as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow government no matter who is in office. As long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by:JOHN W. WHITEHEAD John W. Whitehead is the president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sat Jul 28 02:57:15 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 10:57:15 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump is a Tool of the Deep State Not a Victim/It's important that we recognize, the puppet masters, behind the scenes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The American taxpayer is still getting ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. The American taxpayer is still getting ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of a.  healthcare b.  roads and bridges c.  social welfare d.  security and national defense e.  social programs f.  all of the above If  you selected "f" you are entitled to our free pamphlet "How to Kill Potato Bugs".  This guide will show you how to rid your family of this insidious garden pest using simple items that can be found in almost any home. Just sent $1 and a self-addressed stamped envelope to End Potato Bugs Now Box 402 Del Rio, Texas. Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/06/cp5.png] > > > Fearless Muckraking > Since 1993 > > [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/05/JoinList-new.png] > > * HOME > * ARTICLES > * MAGAZINE > * SUBSCRIBE > * DONATE > * ARCHIVES > * ABOUT > * BOOKS > * PODCASTS > * FAQS > > JULY 27, 2018 > Trump is a Tool of the Deep State Not a Victim > by JOHN W. WHITEHEAD > FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] > > “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” > > ― Theodore Roosevelt > > There are those who would have you believe that President Trump is an unwitting victim of the Deep State. > > And then there are those who insist that the Deep State is a figment of a conspiratorial mind. > > Don’t believe it. > > The Deep State—a.k.a. the police state, a.k.a. the military industrial complex, a.k.a. the surveillance state complex—does indeed exist and Trump, far from being its sworn enemy, is its latest tool. > > When in doubt, follow the money trail. > > It always points the way. > > Every successive president starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt has been bought—lock, stock and barrel—and made to dance to the tune of the Deep State. > > Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, the retired five-star Army general-turned-president who warned against the disastrous rise of misplaced power by the military industrial complex was complicit in contributing to the build-up of the military’s role in dictating national and international policy. > > Enter Donald Trump, the candidate who swore to drain the swamp in Washington DC. > > Instead of putting an end to the corruption, however, Trump has paved the way for lobbyists, corporations, the military industrial complex, and the rest of the Deep State (also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”) to feast on the carcass of the dying American republic. > > Apart from tweets that are little more than sound and fury, Trump is not a man who is raging against the machine. > > He is too much a part of the machine. > > Indeed, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.” > > Despite claims to the contrary, Trump is not advocating for peace with Russia, or North Korea or any other nation. > > He is selling us out to the war hawks. > > The latest squawk over Iran is just more of the same chest-thumping, sleight-of-hand intended to play into the hands of a salivating military industrial complex for whom war is merely a means to a larger profit margin. > > The war hawks have no beef with Trump. > > Why should they? He’s giving them exactly what they want. > > With Trump’s blessing, the military’s budget—with its trillion dollar wars, its $125 billion in administrative waste, and its contractor-driven price gouging that hits the American taxpayer where it hurts the most—will continue to grow. > > Borrowing a leaf from his buddies in China, Russia and North Korea, Trump is even planning a $12 million military parade on November 10 to showcase the nation’s military might. > > Follow the money. > > It always points the way. > > The corporations are getting richer, average Americans are getting poorer, the military is getting more militaristic, America’s endless wars are getting more endless, and the prospect of peace grows ever dimmer. > > This is exactly how you keep the Deep State in power. > > We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast. > > The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished. > > In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House. > > Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. > > Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. > > This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry. > > This shadow government, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government. > > So how do you recognize the Deep State when it rears its ugly head? > > It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. > > It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. > > It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. > > It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. > > It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.” > > It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees. > > It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics. > > These are the key players that drive the shadow government. > > This is the hidden face of the American police state. > > Just consider some of the key programs and policies—manifestations of the police state complex—that continue to be advanced by the shadow government with the full support of its latest accomplice in the White House: > > Domestic surveillance > > The National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, continues to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Yet the government does not operate alone. It cannot. It requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy. For instance, through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs. > > On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. > > Global spying > > The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” is still spanning the globe and targeting every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage. > > Roving TSA searches > > The American taxpayer is still getting ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country. > > USA Patriot Act, NDAA > > America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, continues to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected. > > Militarized police state > > Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. > > SWAT team raids > > With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continues to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. > > Domestic drones > > The domestic use of drones has continued unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Dept. of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones. > > School-to-prison pipeline > > The paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court. > > Overcriminalization > > The government bureaucracy continues to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community continue to have their farms raided. > > Privatized Prisons > > States continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years. > > Endless wars > > America’s expanding military empire is continuing to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense. > > Are you getting the message yet? > > The current president, much like the previous president and his predecessors, is little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on. > > As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.” > > The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley. > > This is fascism in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds. > > It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats. > > As Lofgren concludes: > > [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change… If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda. > > So let’s have no more of this caterwauling about Trump being victimized by the Deep State. > > There is no conspiracy to do away with Trump. > > He is doing too good a job at sowing division, creating distractions that keep Americans oblivious to the government’s ongoing power grabs, and helping to advance the profit-driven agenda of the Deep State. > > Trump is no victim. > > If you want to talk about the true victims of the Deep State, let’s talk about the men and women and children being shot and killed and brutalized and spied on and muzzled and jailed and robbed at gunpoint and treated as if they have no rights. > > Let’s talk about the sorry state of our freedoms, which have continued their downward trajectory with no let-up. > > Let’s talk about the fact that constitutional ignorance, corruption, ineptitude and cruelty are not unique to the Trump Administration. They have been hallmarks of the American police state. > > So the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by Donald Trump’s latest tweets or theatrics or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary, remember: as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow government no matter who is in office. > > As long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished. > > > > Join the debate on Facebook > More articles by:JOHN W. WHITEHEAD > > John W. Whitehead is the president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 12:08:32 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 07:08:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBbdWZwai1hY3RpdmlzdF0gSXTigJlz?= =?utf-8?q?_Time_for_NATO_to_Go_the_Way_of_the_Warsaw_Pact_=7C_Conn_Hallin?= =?utf-8?q?an_=7C_Foreign_Policy_in_Focus_via_Portside?= In-Reply-To: <31999E9D-1A2E-49A9-AFE7-B173B4950BED@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <0mqbnawp62b4i8g7ee0h1rl2.1532779712697@email.android.com>  -- Stuart -------- Original message --------From: Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo Date: 7/27/18 19:24 (GMT-06:00) To: Subject: [ufpj-activist] It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact | Conn Hallinan | Foreign Policy in Focus via Portside @media print { body { margin: 2mm 9mm; } .original-url { display: none; } #article .float.left { float: left !important; } #article .float.right { float: right !important; } #article .float { margin-top: 0 !important; margin-bottom: 0 !important; } } It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact | Portside https://portside.org/2018-07-27/its-time-nato-go-way-warsaw-pact It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact Trump stole the headlines, but the recent NATO summit declaration suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. NATO's expansion eastward to Russia's borders has added to the risk.By Conn Hallinan Opening ceremonies at the 2018 NATO summit in Brussels , Shutterstock / Foreign Policy in Focus The outcome of the July 11-12 NATO meeting in Brussels got lost amid the media’s obsession with President Donald Trump’s bombast, but the “Summit Declaration” makes for sober reading. The media reported that the 28-page document “upgraded military readiness,” and was “harshly critical of Russia,” but there wasn’t much detail beyond that. But details matter, because that’s where the devil hides. One such detail is NATO’s “Readiness Initiative” that will beef up naval, air, and ground forces in “the eastern portion of the Alliance.” NATO is moving to base troops in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Since Georgia and Ukraine have been invited to join the Alliance, some of those forces could end up deployed on Moscow’s western and southern borders. And that should give us pause. A recent European Leadership’s Network’s (ELN) study titled “Envisioning a Russia-NATO Conflict” concludes, “The current Russia-NATO deterrence relationship is unstable and dangerously so.” The ELN is an independent think tank of military, diplomatic, and political leaders that fosters “collaborative” solutions to defense and security issues. High on the study’s list of dangers is “inadvertent conflict,” which ELN concludes “may be the most likely scenario for a breakout” of hostilities. “The close proximity of Russian and NATO forces” is a major concern, argues the study, “but also the fact that Russia and NATO have been adapting their military postures towards early reaction, thus making rapid escalation more likely to happen.” With armed forces nose-to-nose, “a passage from crisis to conflict might be sparked by the actions of regional commanders or military commanders at local levels or come as a consequence of an unexpected incident or accident.” According to the European Leadership Council, there have been more than 60 such incidents in the last year. Which Side Is Advancing? The NATO document is, indeed, hard on Russia, which it blasts for the “illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea,” its “provocative military activities, including near NATO borders,” and its “significant investments in the modernization of its strategic [nuclear] forces.” Unpacking all that requires a little history, which isn’t the media’s strong suit. The story goes back more than three decades to the fall of the Berlin Wall and eventual re-unification of Germany. At the time, the Soviet Union had some 380,000 troops in what was then the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany. Those forces were there as part of the treaty ending World War II, and the Soviets were concerned that removing them could end up threatening the USSR’s borders. The Russians have been invaded — at terrible cost — three times in a little more than a century. So in the early 1990s, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev cut a deal. The Soviets agreed to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe as long as NATO didn’t fill the vacuum, or recruit members of the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact. Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch east.” The agreement was never written down, but it was followed in practice. NATO stayed west of the Oder and Neisse rivers separating Germany and Poland, and Soviet troops returned to Russia. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991. But President Bill Clinton blew that all up in 1999, when the U.S. and NATO intervened in the civil war between Serbs and Albanians over the Serbian province of Kosovo. Behind the new American doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” NATO opened a massive 11-week bombing campaign against Serbia. From Moscow’s point of view, the war was unnecessary. The Serbs were willing to withdraw their troops and restore Kosovo’s autonomous status. But NATO demanded a large occupation force that would be immune from Serbian law, something the nationalist-minded Serbs would never agree to. It was virtually the same provocative language the Austrian-Hungarian Empire had presented to the Serbs in 1914, language that set off World War I. In the end, NATO lopped off part of Serbia to create Kosovo and re-drew the post World War II map of Europe, exactly what the Alliance charges today that Russia has done with its seizure of the Crimea. But NATO didn’t stop there. In 1999, the Alliance recruited former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, adding Bulgaria and Romania four years later. By the end of 2004, Moscow was confronted with NATO in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to the north, Poland to the west, and Bulgaria and Turkey to the south. Since then, the Alliance has added Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. It has invited Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to apply as well. When the NATO document chastises Russia for “provocative” military activities near the NATO border, it is referring to maneuvers within Russia’s own borders, or one of its few allies, Belarus. As author and foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven points out, “Even a child” can look at a 1988 map of Europe and see “which side has advanced in which direction.” NATO also accuses Russia of “continuing a military buildup in Crimea,” without a hint that those actions might be in response to what the Alliance document calls its “substantial increase in NATO’s presence and maritime activity in the Black Sea.” Russia’s largest naval port on the Black Sea is Sevastopol in the Crimea. Worrisome Disconnects One does not expect even-handedness in such a document, but there are disconnects in this one that are worrisome. Yes, the Russians are modernizing their nuclear forces, but the Obama administration was first out of that gate in 2009 with its $1.5 trillion program to upgrade the U.S.’s nuclear weapons systems. Both programs are a bad idea. Some of the document’s language about Russia is aimed at loosening purse strings at home. NATO members agreed to cough up more money, a decision that preceded Trump’s Brussels tantrum on spending. There is some wishful thinking on Afghanistan — “Our Resolute Support Mission is achieving success” — when in fact things have seldom been worse. There are vague references to the Middle East and North Africa, nothing specific, but a reminder that NATO is no longer confining its mission to what it was supposedly set up to do: Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. The Americans are still in — one should take Trump’s threat of withdrawal with a boulder-sized piece of salt — there is no serious evidence the Russians ever planned to come in, and the Germans have been up since they joined NATO in 1955. Indeed, it was the addition of Germany that sparked the formation of the Warsaw Pact. While Moscow is depicted as an aggressive adversary, NATO surrounds Russia on three sides, has deployed anti-missile systems in Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, and the Black Sea, and has a 12 to 1 advantage in military spending. With opposing forces now toe-to-toe, it would not take much to set off a chain reaction that could end in a nuclear exchange. Yet instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The solution seems obvious. First, a return to the 1998 military deployment. While it is unlikely that former members of the Warsaw Pact would drop their NATO membership, a withdrawal of non-national troops from NATO members that border Russia would cool things off. Second, the removal of anti-missile systems that should never have been deployed in the first place. In turn, Russia could remove the middle-range Iskander missiles NATO is complaining about and agree to talks aimed at reducing nuclear stockpiles. But long range, it’s finally time to re-think alliances. NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force. The old ways of thinking are not only outdated, but also dangerous. It’s time NATO went the way of the Warsaw Pact.Conn Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries,wordpress.com. Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sat Jul 28 13:32:22 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:32:22 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBbdWZwai1hY3RpdmlzdF0gSXTigJlz?= =?utf-8?q?_Time_for_NATO_to_Go_the_Way_of_the_Warsaw_Pact_=7C_Conn_Hallin?= =?utf-8?q?an_=7C_Foreign_Policy_in_Focus_via_Portside?= In-Reply-To: <0mqbnawp62b4i8g7ee0h1rl2.1532779712697@email.android.com> References: <0mqbnawp62b4i8g7ee0h1rl2.1532779712697@email.android.com> Message-ID: <84747072-aea0-6e25-1380-49b6f8c4700d@pigs.ag> "Bipartisanship is when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party get together and do something that is Stupid and Evil"  - Tom Woods ... Bipartisan bill would prevent Trump from exiting NATO without Senate consent A quartet of senators launched a new bipartisan effort Thursday to prevent President Trump from withdrawing the United States from NATO without the prior approval of the Senate, the latest effort to constrain the president from upending U.S. policy regarding Russia. The bill would require the president to secure the support of two-thirds of the Senate — the same threshold required to enter into a treaty — before he could withdraw from the nearly 70-year-old alliance. It also authorizes the Senate’s legal counsel to represent the body in any court cases needed to prevent a withdrawal from NATO without the Senate’s approval. The measure was drafted by Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), both of whom sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) and ranking Democrat Jack Reed (R.I.) have also signed on to the measure as leading co-sponsors. ...“Regrettably, President Trump’s mistreatment of our closest allies has raised doubts about America’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the values of defense,” McCain said in a statement. McCain, despite presently undergoing treatment for brain cancer, remains Congress’s most respected statesman and has been a frequent critic of the president’s stances regarding NATO and Russia. “This legislation is urgently required to ensure that no president can withdraw the United States from NATO without the constitutionally required advice and consent of the Senate,” he continued. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/bipartisan-bill-would-prevent-trump-from-exiting-nato-without-senate-consent/2018/07/26/4ca1b206-9106-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.979fdd433509 stuartnlevy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > >  -- Stuart > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo > Date: 7/27/18 19:24 (GMT-06:00) > To: > Subject: [ufpj-activist] It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the > Warsaw Pact | Conn Hallinan | Foreign Policy in Focus via Portside > > It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact | Portside > > https://portside.org/2018-07-27/its-time-nato-go-way-warsaw-pact > > > It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact > > Trump stole the headlines, but the recent NATO summit declaration > suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. NATO's > expansion eastward to Russia's borders has added to the risk. > > > By Conn Hallinan > > Opening ceremonies at the 2018 NATO summit in Brussels , Shutterstock > / Foreign Policy in Focus > > The outcome of the July 11-12 NATO meeting in Brussels got lost amid > the media’s obsession with President Donald Trump’s bombast, but the > “Summit Declaration” >  makes > for sober reading. The media >  reported > that the 28-page document “upgraded military readiness,” and was > “harshly critical of Russia,” but there wasn’t much detail beyond that. > > But details matter, because that’s where the devil hides. > > One such detail is NATO’s “Readiness Initiative” that will beef up > naval, air, and ground forces in “the eastern portion of the > Alliance.” NATO is moving to base troops in Latvia, Estonia, > Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Since Georgia and Ukraine > have been invited to join the Alliance, some of those forces could end > up deployed on Moscow’s western and southern borders. > > And that should give us pause. > > A recent European Leadership’s Network’s (ELN) study >  titled > “Envisioning a Russia-NATO Conflict” concludes, “The current > Russia-NATO deterrence relationship is unstable and dangerously so.” > The ELN is an independent think tank of military, diplomatic, and > political leaders that fosters “collaborative” solutions to defense > and security issues. > > High on the study’s list of dangers is “inadvertent conflict,” which > ELN concludes “may be the most likely scenario for a breakout” of > hostilities. “The close proximity of Russian and NATO forces” is a > major concern, argues the study, “but also the fact that Russia and > NATO have been adapting their military postures towards early > reaction, thus making rapid escalation more likely to happen.” > > With armed forces nose-to-nose, “a passage from crisis to conflict > might be sparked by the actions of regional commanders or military > commanders at local levels or come as a consequence of an unexpected > incident or accident.” According to the European Leadership Council, > there have been more than 60 such incidents >  in > the last year. > > *Which Side Is Advancing?* > > The NATO document is, indeed, hard on Russia, which it blasts for the > “illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea,” its “provocative > military activities, including near NATO borders,” and its > “significant investments in the modernization of its strategic > [nuclear] forces.” > > Unpacking all that requires a little history, which isn’t the media’s > strong suit. > > The story goes back more than three decades to the fall of the Berlin > Wall and eventual re-unification of Germany. At the time, the Soviet > Union had some 380,000 troops in what was then the German Democratic > Republic, or East Germany. Those forces were there as part of the > treaty ending World War II, and the Soviets were concerned that > removing them could end up threatening the USSR’s borders. The > Russians have been invaded — at terrible cost — three times in a > little more than a century. > > So in the early 1990s, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, U.S. > Secretary of State James Baker, and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev > cut a deal. The Soviets agreed to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe > as long as NATO didn’t fill the vacuum, or recruit members of the > Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact. Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would > not move “one inch east.” > > The agreement was never written down, but it was followed in practice. > NATO stayed west of the Oder and Neisse rivers separating Germany and > Poland, and Soviet troops returned to Russia. The Warsaw Pact was > dissolved in 1991. > > But President Bill Clinton blew that all up in 1999, when the U.S. and > NATO intervened in the civil war between Serbs and Albanians over the > Serbian province of Kosovo. Behind the new American doctrine of > “responsibility to protect,” NATO opened a massive 11-week bombing > campaign against Serbia. > > From Moscow’s point of view, the war was unnecessary. The Serbs were > willing to withdraw their troops and restore Kosovo’s autonomous > status. But NATO demanded >  a > large occupation force that would be immune from Serbian law, > something the nationalist-minded Serbs would never agree to. It was > virtually the same provocative language the Austrian-Hungarian Empire > had presented to the Serbs in 1914, language that set off World War I. > > In the end, NATO lopped off part of Serbia to create Kosovo and > re-drew the post World War II map of Europe, exactly what the Alliance > charges today that Russia has done with its seizure of the Crimea. > > But NATO didn’t stop there. In 1999, the Alliance recruited former > Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, adding > Bulgaria and Romania four years later. By the end of 2004, Moscow was > confronted with NATO in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to the north, > Poland to the west, and Bulgaria and Turkey to the south. Since then, > the Alliance has added Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and > Montenegro. It has invited Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia > , > and Bosnia and Herzegovina to apply as well. > > When the NATO document chastises Russia for “provocative” military > activities near the NATO border, it is referring to maneuvers within > Russia’s own borders, or one of its few allies, Belarus. > > As author and foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven >  points > out, “Even a child” can look at a 1988 map of Europe and see “which > side has advanced in which direction.” > > NATO also accuses Russia of “continuing a military buildup in Crimea,” > without a hint that those actions might be in response to what the > Alliance document calls its “substantial increase in NATO’s presence > and maritime activity in the Black Sea.” Russia’s largest naval port > on the Black Sea is Sevastopol in the Crimea. > > > *Worrisome Disconnects* > > One does not expect even-handedness in such a document, but there are > disconnects in this one that are worrisome. > > Yes, the Russians are modernizing their nuclear forces, but the Obama > administration was first out of that gate in 2009 with its $1.5 > trillion program to upgrade the U.S.’s nuclear weapons systems. Both > programs are a bad idea. > > Some of the document’s language about Russia is aimed at loosening > purse strings at home. NATO members agreed to cough up more money, a > decision that preceded Trump’s Brussels tantrum on spending. > > There is some wishful thinking on Afghanistan — “Our Resolute Support > Mission is achieving success” — when in fact things have seldom been > worse. There are vague references to the Middle East and North Africa, > nothing specific, but a reminder that NATO is no longer confining its > mission to what it was supposedly set up to do: Keep the Americans in, > the Russians out, and the Germans down. > > The Americans are still in — one should take Trump’s threat of > withdrawal with a boulder-sized piece of salt — there is no serious > evidence the Russians ever planned to come in, and the Germans have > been up since they joined NATO in 1955. Indeed, it was the addition of > Germany that sparked the formation of the Warsaw Pact. > > While Moscow is depicted as an aggressive adversary, NATO surrounds > Russia on three sides, has deployed anti-missile systems in Poland, > Romania, Spain, Turkey, and the Black Sea, and has a 12 to 1 advantage > in military spending. With opposing forces now toe-to-toe, it would > not take much to set off a chain reaction that could end in a nuclear > exchange. > > Yet instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the > Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military > cooperation between NATO and Russia.” > > The solution seems obvious. > > First, a return to the 1998 military deployment. While it is unlikely > that former members of the Warsaw Pact would drop their NATO > membership, a withdrawal of non-national troops from NATO members that > border Russia would cool things off. Second, the removal of > anti-missile systems that should never have been deployed in the first > place. > > In turn, Russia could remove the middle-range Iskander missiles NATO > is complaining about and agree to talks aimed at reducing nuclear > stockpiles. > > But long range, it’s finally time to re-think alliances. NATO was a > child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a > threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way > Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force. > > The old ways of thinking are not only outdated, but also dangerous. > It’s time NATO went the way of the Warsaw Pact. > > /Conn Hallinan  is a > columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be read at > dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com > and > middleempireseries,wordpress.com ./ > > > > > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sat Jul 28 16:38:32 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 16:38:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bufpj-activist=5D_It=92?= =?windows-1252?q?s_Time_for_NATO_to_Go_the_Way_of_the_Warsaw_Pact_=7C_Con?= =?windows-1252?q?n_Hallinan_=7C_Foreign_Policy_in_Focus_via_Portside?= In-Reply-To: <84747072-aea0-6e25-1380-49b6f8c4700d@pigs.ag> References: <0mqbnawp62b4i8g7ee0h1rl2.1532779712697@email.android.com>, <84747072-aea0-6e25-1380-49b6f8c4700d@pigs.ag> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFE9F@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Write your senators. Reject this bill. Bring US troops home. --CGE PS - Vote against sponsors of this bill. List provided on request. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 8:32 AM To: stuartnlevy; peace-discuss at anti-war.net Cc: Levy, Stuart A Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact | Conn Hallinan | Foreign Policy in Focus via Portside "Bipartisanship is when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party get together and do something that is Stupid and Evil" - Tom Woods ... Bipartisan bill would prevent Trump from exiting NATO without Senate consent A quartet of senators launched a new bipartisan effort Thursday to prevent President Trump from withdrawing the United States from NATO without the prior approval of the Senate, the latest effort to constrain the president from upending U.S. policy regarding Russia. The bill would require the president to secure the support of two-thirds of the Senate — the same threshold required to enter into a treaty — before he could withdraw from the nearly 70-year-old alliance. It also authorizes the Senate’s legal counsel to represent the body in any court cases needed to prevent a withdrawal from NATO without the Senate’s approval. The measure was drafted by Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), both of whom sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) and ranking Democrat Jack Reed (R.I.) have also signed on to the measure as leading co-sponsors. ...“Regrettably, President Trump’s mistreatment of our closest allies has raised doubts about America’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the values of defense,” McCain said in a statement. McCain, despite presently undergoing treatment for brain cancer, remains Congress’s most respected statesman and has been a frequent critic of the president’s stances regarding NATO and Russia. “This legislation is urgently required to ensure that no president can withdraw the United States from NATO without the constitutionally required advice and consent of the Senate,” he continued. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/bipartisan-bill-would-prevent-trump-from-exiting-nato-without-senate-consent/2018/07/26/4ca1b206-9106-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.979fdd433509 stuartnlevy via Peace-discuss wrote: -- Stuart -------- Original message -------- From: Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo Date: 7/27/18 19:24 (GMT-06:00) To: Subject: [ufpj-activist] It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact | Conn Hallinan | Foreign Policy in Focus via Portside https://portside.org/2018-07-27/its-time-nato-go-way-warsaw-pact It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact Trump stole the headlines, but the recent NATO summit declaration suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. NATO's expansion eastward to Russia's borders has added to the risk. By Conn Hallinan [https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/nato_troops.jpg] Opening ceremonies at the 2018 NATO summit in Brussels , Shutterstock / Foreign Policy in Focus The outcome of the July 11-12 NATO meeting in Brussels got lost amid the media’s obsession with President Donald Trump’s bombast, but the “Summit Declaration” makes for sober reading. The media reported that the 28-page document “upgraded military readiness,” and was “harshly critical of Russia,” but there wasn’t much detail beyond that. But details matter, because that’s where the devil hides. One such detail is NATO’s “Readiness Initiative” that will beef up naval, air, and ground forces in “the eastern portion of the Alliance.” NATO is moving to base troops in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Since Georgia and Ukraine have been invited to join the Alliance, some of those forces could end up deployed on Moscow’s western and southern borders. And that should give us pause. A recent European Leadership’s Network’s (ELN) study titled “Envisioning a Russia-NATO Conflict” concludes, “The current Russia-NATO deterrence relationship is unstable and dangerously so.” The ELN is an independent think tank of military, diplomatic, and political leaders that fosters “collaborative” solutions to defense and security issues. High on the study’s list of dangers is “inadvertent conflict,” which ELN concludes “may be the most likely scenario for a breakout” of hostilities. “The close proximity of Russian and NATO forces” is a major concern, argues the study, “but also the fact that Russia and NATO have been adapting their military postures towards early reaction, thus making rapid escalation more likely to happen.” With armed forces nose-to-nose, “a passage from crisis to conflict might be sparked by the actions of regional commanders or military commanders at local levels or come as a consequence of an unexpected incident or accident.” According to the European Leadership Council, there have been more than 60 such incidents in the last year. Which Side Is Advancing? The NATO document is, indeed, hard on Russia, which it blasts for the “illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea,” its “provocative military activities, including near NATO borders,” and its “significant investments in the modernization of its strategic [nuclear] forces.” Unpacking all that requires a little history, which isn’t the media’s strong suit. The story goes back more than three decades to the fall of the Berlin Wall and eventual re-unification of Germany. At the time, the Soviet Union had some 380,000 troops in what was then the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany. Those forces were there as part of the treaty ending World War II, and the Soviets were concerned that removing them could end up threatening the USSR’s borders. The Russians have been invaded — at terrible cost — three times in a little more than a century. So in the early 1990s, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev cut a deal. The Soviets agreed to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe as long as NATO didn’t fill the vacuum, or recruit members of the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact. Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch east.” The agreement was never written down, but it was followed in practice. NATO stayed west of the Oder and Neisse rivers separating Germany and Poland, and Soviet troops returned to Russia. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991. But President Bill Clinton blew that all up in 1999, when the U.S. and NATO intervened in the civil war between Serbs and Albanians over the Serbian province of Kosovo. Behind the new American doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” NATO opened a massive 11-week bombing campaign against Serbia. >From Moscow’s point of view, the war was unnecessary. The Serbs were willing to withdraw their troops and restore Kosovo’s autonomous status. But NATO demanded a large occupation force that would be immune from Serbian law, something the nationalist-minded Serbs would never agree to. It was virtually the same provocative language the Austrian-Hungarian Empire had presented to the Serbs in 1914, language that set off World War I. In the end, NATO lopped off part of Serbia to create Kosovo and re-drew the post World War II map of Europe, exactly what the Alliance charges today that Russia has done with its seizure of the Crimea. But NATO didn’t stop there. In 1999, the Alliance recruited former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, adding Bulgaria and Romania four years later. By the end of 2004, Moscow was confronted with NATO in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to the north, Poland to the west, and Bulgaria and Turkey to the south. Since then, the Alliance has added Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. It has invited Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to apply as well. When the NATO document chastises Russia for “provocative” military activities near the NATO border, it is referring to maneuvers within Russia’s own borders, or one of its few allies, Belarus. As author and foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven points out, “Even a child” can look at a 1988 map of Europe and see “which side has advanced in which direction.” NATO also accuses Russia of “continuing a military buildup in Crimea,” without a hint that those actions might be in response to what the Alliance document calls its “substantial increase in NATO’s presence and maritime activity in the Black Sea.” Russia’s largest naval port on the Black Sea is Sevastopol in the Crimea. Worrisome Disconnects One does not expect even-handedness in such a document, but there are disconnects in this one that are worrisome. Yes, the Russians are modernizing their nuclear forces, but the Obama administration was first out of that gate in 2009 with its $1.5 trillion program to upgrade the U.S.’s nuclear weapons systems. Both programs are a bad idea. Some of the document’s language about Russia is aimed at loosening purse strings at home. NATO members agreed to cough up more money, a decision that preceded Trump’s Brussels tantrum on spending. There is some wishful thinking on Afghanistan — “Our Resolute Support Mission is achieving success” — when in fact things have seldom been worse. There are vague references to the Middle East and North Africa, nothing specific, but a reminder that NATO is no longer confining its mission to what it was supposedly set up to do: Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. The Americans are still in — one should take Trump’s threat of withdrawal with a boulder-sized piece of salt — there is no serious evidence the Russians ever planned to come in, and the Germans have been up since they joined NATO in 1955. Indeed, it was the addition of Germany that sparked the formation of the Warsaw Pact. While Moscow is depicted as an aggressive adversary, NATO surrounds Russia on three sides, has deployed anti-missile systems in Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, and the Black Sea, and has a 12 to 1 advantage in military spending. With opposing forces now toe-to-toe, it would not take much to set off a chain reaction that could end in a nuclear exchange. Yet instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The solution seems obvious. First, a return to the 1998 military deployment. While it is unlikely that former members of the Warsaw Pact would drop their NATO membership, a withdrawal of non-national troops from NATO members that border Russia would cool things off. Second, the removal of anti-missile systems that should never have been deployed in the first place. In turn, Russia could remove the middle-range Iskander missiles NATO is complaining about and agree to talks aimed at reducing nuclear stockpiles. But long range, it’s finally time to re-think alliances. NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force. The old ways of thinking are not only outdated, but also dangerous. It’s time NATO went the way of the Warsaw Pact. Conn Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries,wordpress.com. 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sat Jul 28 16:42:06 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 16:42:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bufpj-activist=5D_It=92?= =?windows-1252?q?s_Time_for_NATO_to_Go_the_Way_of_the_Warsaw_Pact_=7C_Con?= =?windows-1252?q?n_Hallinan_=7C_Foreign_Policy_in_Focus_via_Portside?= In-Reply-To: <84747072-aea0-6e25-1380-49b6f8c4700d@pigs.ag> References: <0mqbnawp62b4i8g7ee0h1rl2.1532779712697@email.android.com>, <84747072-aea0-6e25-1380-49b6f8c4700d@pigs.ag> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFEF0@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> The only problem - it's not a big problem - is to decide which is which. But some people - remarkably - get annoyed when I recommend voting against the Evil Party. (Do they think I'm Stupid?) --CGE ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 8:32 AM To: stuartnlevy; peace-discuss at anti-war.net Cc: Levy, Stuart A Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact | Conn Hallinan | Foreign Policy in Focus via Portside "Bipartisanship is when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party get together and do something that is Stupid and Evil" - Tom Woods ... Bipartisan bill would prevent Trump from exiting NATO without Senate consent A quartet of senators launched a new bipartisan effort Thursday to prevent President Trump from withdrawing the United States from NATO without the prior approval of the Senate, the latest effort to constrain the president from upending U.S. policy regarding Russia. The bill would require the president to secure the support of two-thirds of the Senate — the same threshold required to enter into a treaty — before he could withdraw from the nearly 70-year-old alliance. It also authorizes the Senate’s legal counsel to represent the body in any court cases needed to prevent a withdrawal from NATO without the Senate’s approval. The measure was drafted by Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), both of whom sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) and ranking Democrat Jack Reed (R.I.) have also signed on to the measure as leading co-sponsors. ...“Regrettably, President Trump’s mistreatment of our closest allies has raised doubts about America’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the values of defense,” McCain said in a statement. McCain, despite presently undergoing treatment for brain cancer, remains Congress’s most respected statesman and has been a frequent critic of the president’s stances regarding NATO and Russia. “This legislation is urgently required to ensure that no president can withdraw the United States from NATO without the constitutionally required advice and consent of the Senate,” he continued. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/bipartisan-bill-would-prevent-trump-from-exiting-nato-without-senate-consent/2018/07/26/4ca1b206-9106-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.979fdd433509 stuartnlevy via Peace-discuss wrote: -- Stuart -------- Original message -------- From: Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo Date: 7/27/18 19:24 (GMT-06:00) To: Subject: [ufpj-activist] It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact | Conn Hallinan | Foreign Policy in Focus via Portside https://portside.org/2018-07-27/its-time-nato-go-way-warsaw-pact It’s Time for NATO to Go the Way of the Warsaw Pact Trump stole the headlines, but the recent NATO summit declaration suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. NATO's expansion eastward to Russia's borders has added to the risk. By Conn Hallinan [https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/nato_troops.jpg] Opening ceremonies at the 2018 NATO summit in Brussels , Shutterstock / Foreign Policy in Focus The outcome of the July 11-12 NATO meeting in Brussels got lost amid the media’s obsession with President Donald Trump’s bombast, but the “Summit Declaration” makes for sober reading. The media reported that the 28-page document “upgraded military readiness,” and was “harshly critical of Russia,” but there wasn’t much detail beyond that. But details matter, because that’s where the devil hides. One such detail is NATO’s “Readiness Initiative” that will beef up naval, air, and ground forces in “the eastern portion of the Alliance.” NATO is moving to base troops in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Since Georgia and Ukraine have been invited to join the Alliance, some of those forces could end up deployed on Moscow’s western and southern borders. And that should give us pause. A recent European Leadership’s Network’s (ELN) study titled “Envisioning a Russia-NATO Conflict” concludes, “The current Russia-NATO deterrence relationship is unstable and dangerously so.” The ELN is an independent think tank of military, diplomatic, and political leaders that fosters “collaborative” solutions to defense and security issues. High on the study’s list of dangers is “inadvertent conflict,” which ELN concludes “may be the most likely scenario for a breakout” of hostilities. “The close proximity of Russian and NATO forces” is a major concern, argues the study, “but also the fact that Russia and NATO have been adapting their military postures towards early reaction, thus making rapid escalation more likely to happen.” With armed forces nose-to-nose, “a passage from crisis to conflict might be sparked by the actions of regional commanders or military commanders at local levels or come as a consequence of an unexpected incident or accident.” According to the European Leadership Council, there have been more than 60 such incidents in the last year. Which Side Is Advancing? The NATO document is, indeed, hard on Russia, which it blasts for the “illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea,” its “provocative military activities, including near NATO borders,” and its “significant investments in the modernization of its strategic [nuclear] forces.” Unpacking all that requires a little history, which isn’t the media’s strong suit. The story goes back more than three decades to the fall of the Berlin Wall and eventual re-unification of Germany. At the time, the Soviet Union had some 380,000 troops in what was then the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany. Those forces were there as part of the treaty ending World War II, and the Soviets were concerned that removing them could end up threatening the USSR’s borders. The Russians have been invaded — at terrible cost — three times in a little more than a century. So in the early 1990s, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev cut a deal. The Soviets agreed to withdraw troops from Eastern Europe as long as NATO didn’t fill the vacuum, or recruit members of the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact. Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch east.” The agreement was never written down, but it was followed in practice. NATO stayed west of the Oder and Neisse rivers separating Germany and Poland, and Soviet troops returned to Russia. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991. But President Bill Clinton blew that all up in 1999, when the U.S. and NATO intervened in the civil war between Serbs and Albanians over the Serbian province of Kosovo. Behind the new American doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” NATO opened a massive 11-week bombing campaign against Serbia. >From Moscow’s point of view, the war was unnecessary. The Serbs were willing to withdraw their troops and restore Kosovo’s autonomous status. But NATO demanded a large occupation force that would be immune from Serbian law, something the nationalist-minded Serbs would never agree to. It was virtually the same provocative language the Austrian-Hungarian Empire had presented to the Serbs in 1914, language that set off World War I. In the end, NATO lopped off part of Serbia to create Kosovo and re-drew the post World War II map of Europe, exactly what the Alliance charges today that Russia has done with its seizure of the Crimea. But NATO didn’t stop there. In 1999, the Alliance recruited former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, adding Bulgaria and Romania four years later. By the end of 2004, Moscow was confronted with NATO in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to the north, Poland to the west, and Bulgaria and Turkey to the south. Since then, the Alliance has added Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. It has invited Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to apply as well. When the NATO document chastises Russia for “provocative” military activities near the NATO border, it is referring to maneuvers within Russia’s own borders, or one of its few allies, Belarus. As author and foreign policy analyst Anatol Lieven points out, “Even a child” can look at a 1988 map of Europe and see “which side has advanced in which direction.” NATO also accuses Russia of “continuing a military buildup in Crimea,” without a hint that those actions might be in response to what the Alliance document calls its “substantial increase in NATO’s presence and maritime activity in the Black Sea.” Russia’s largest naval port on the Black Sea is Sevastopol in the Crimea. Worrisome Disconnects One does not expect even-handedness in such a document, but there are disconnects in this one that are worrisome. Yes, the Russians are modernizing their nuclear forces, but the Obama administration was first out of that gate in 2009 with its $1.5 trillion program to upgrade the U.S.’s nuclear weapons systems. Both programs are a bad idea. Some of the document’s language about Russia is aimed at loosening purse strings at home. NATO members agreed to cough up more money, a decision that preceded Trump’s Brussels tantrum on spending. There is some wishful thinking on Afghanistan — “Our Resolute Support Mission is achieving success” — when in fact things have seldom been worse. There are vague references to the Middle East and North Africa, nothing specific, but a reminder that NATO is no longer confining its mission to what it was supposedly set up to do: Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. The Americans are still in — one should take Trump’s threat of withdrawal with a boulder-sized piece of salt — there is no serious evidence the Russians ever planned to come in, and the Germans have been up since they joined NATO in 1955. Indeed, it was the addition of Germany that sparked the formation of the Warsaw Pact. While Moscow is depicted as an aggressive adversary, NATO surrounds Russia on three sides, has deployed anti-missile systems in Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, and the Black Sea, and has a 12 to 1 advantage in military spending. With opposing forces now toe-to-toe, it would not take much to set off a chain reaction that could end in a nuclear exchange. Yet instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The solution seems obvious. First, a return to the 1998 military deployment. While it is unlikely that former members of the Warsaw Pact would drop their NATO membership, a withdrawal of non-national troops from NATO members that border Russia would cool things off. Second, the removal of anti-missile systems that should never have been deployed in the first place. In turn, Russia could remove the middle-range Iskander missiles NATO is complaining about and agree to talks aimed at reducing nuclear stockpiles. But long range, it’s finally time to re-think alliances. NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force. The old ways of thinking are not only outdated, but also dangerous. It’s time NATO went the way of the Warsaw Pact. Conn Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries,wordpress.com. 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Jul 28 19:07:38 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:07:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction Message-ID: I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing that they will. Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 19:27:01 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:27:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the others? The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to Trump Derangement Syndrome. What Is To Be Done? —CGE > On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. > > I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing that they will. > > Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Jul 28 20:02:31 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:02:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should care about are things that help one team or the other in election mobilization. But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know. I'm trying to write something about this... Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the > others? > > The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and > of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing > people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are > stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing > Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations > Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the > world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and > murder. > > But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively > avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had > come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not > “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on > general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business > community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. > > But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to > Trump Derangement Syndrome. > > What Is To Be Done? —CGE > > > On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that > the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had > not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in > Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming > the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the > possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human > beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the > edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. > > I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going > to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was > told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now > that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I > have no basis for believing that they will. > > Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Jul 28 20:42:16 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 20:42:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFFB5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Too bad about Lee & Khanna. But can't a single voice (or a few) be dismissed as a malcontent, and irrelevant? (Look what was done to Ron Paul.) There wasn't a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding Vietnam (or later Cambodia). There was a national mood, in Congress, and out of it, that something was very wrong. The sort of thing Bernie Sanders should be saying now. Fifty years ago that was led by student protest. Universities have had two generations to scotch that, and they've been successful. They were taken by surprise in the '60s, and they won't let that happen again. (Cue Steve Salaita.) Perhaps BLM et al. can be the new catalyst. Black Agenda Report consistently exposes the warmongering, even of a black president & Congressional caucus. BAR is not misled by identity politics, which the Democrats particularly want to use to distract from their neolib & neocon policies - more war and more inequality. In regard to the current US wars, we surely need people who follow Rosa Luxemburg’s advice, from a century ago: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” --CGE ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:02 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should care about are things that help one team or the other in election mobilization. But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know. I'm trying to write something about this... Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the others? The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to Trump Derangement Syndrome. What Is To Be Done? —CGE On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing that they will. Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sat Jul 28 22:31:51 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:31:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction Message-ID: Thinking the problem cannot be solved at the level on which it was created. So frustrating to keep doing the same thing and it doesn't work. The American Republicrat War Party  studies past peace-movement tactics in order to beat them, rather like super bacteria mutating to overcome antibiotics. The only thing that vibrates higher than fear is love.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discussDate: Sat, Jul 28, 2018 3:42 PMTo: Robert Naiman;C G Estabrook;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction Too bad about Lee & Khanna.  But can't a single voice (or a few) be dismissed as a malcontent, and irrelevant? (Look what was done to Ron Paul.) There wasn't a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding Vietnam (or later Cambodia). There was a national mood, in Congress, and out of it, that something was very wrong. The sort of thing Bernie Sanders should be saying now. Fifty years ago that was led by student protest. Universities have had two generations to scotch that, and they've been successful. They were taken by surprise in the '60s, and they won't let that happen again. (Cue Steve Salaita.) Perhaps BLM et al. can be the new catalyst. Black Agenda Report consistently exposes the warmongering, even of a black president & Congressional caucus. BAR is not misled by identity politics, which the Democrats particularly want to use to distract from their neolib & neocon policies - more war and more inequality.   In regard to the current US wars, we surely need people who follow Rosa Luxemburg’s advice, from a century ago: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” --CGE From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:02 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should care about are things that help one team or the other in election mobilization.  But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know.  I'm trying to write something about this... Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the others? The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder.    But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to Trump Derangement Syndrome. What Is To Be Done? —CGE On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped.  I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing that they will.  Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House.  _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sat Jul 28 23:06:30 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj at pigs.ag) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 07:06:30 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?retraction?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180728230630.32224.qmail@station188.com> >...studies past peace-movement > tactics in order to beat them, rather like super bacteria mutating to > overcome antibiotics. It is an interesting analogy. "super bacteria" don't "study"... There is no real intelligence in terms of a plan forward. There is a sort of random mutation rate and a throwing of spaghetti until some sticks to the wall. Excessive use and illogical use of antibiotics can promote resistance. Under-dosing also can produce resistance. Pursuit of problems that are not problems also induces resistance. Sure, it is a great thing to consider solving injustices around the world, but the US of A has got serious problems at home and it is stupid to give the children's meat to the dogs and it is evil to usurp authority at a long distance. Shut down the war machine. The money is needed for other things. Let the people keep more of their own income and provide a stipend to every man woman and child. They won't be able to piss so much money away overseas if they need it at home. > -------Original Message------- > From: bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > To: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss , Robert Naiman , C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction > Sent: Jul 29 '18 06:32 > > > > Thinking the problem cannot be solved at the level on which it was > created. So frustrating to keep doing the same thing and it doesn't > work. The American Republicrat War Party studies past peace-movement > tactics in order to beat them, rather like super bacteria mutating to > overcome antibiotics. > > The only thing that vibrates higher than fear is love. > > _Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone_ > > ------ Original message------ > FROM: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss > > DATE: Sat, Jul 28, 2018 3:42 PM > TO: Robert Naiman;C G Estabrook; > CC: Peace-discuss List; > SUBJECT:Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction > > Too bad about Lee & Khanna. But can't a single voice (or a few) be > dismissed as a malcontent, and irrelevant? (Look what was done to Ron > Paul.) > > There wasn't a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding Vietnam (or > later Cambodia). There was a national mood, in Congress, and out of > it, that something was very wrong. The sort of thing Bernie Sanders > should be saying now. > > Fifty years ago that was led by student protest. Universities have > had two generations to scotch that, and they've been successful. They > were taken by surprise in the '60s, and they won't let that happen > again. (Cue Steve Salaita.) > > Perhaps BLM et al. can be the new catalyst. Black Agenda Report > consistently exposes the warmongering, even of a black president & > Congressional caucus. BAR is not misled by identity politics, which > the Democrats particularly want to use to distract from their neolib & > neocon policies - more war and more inequality. > > In regard to the current US wars, we surely need people who follow > Rosa Luxemburg’s advice, from a century ago: “The most > revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is > happening.” > > --CGE > > ------------------------- > > FROM: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] > SENT: Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:02 PM > TO: C G Estabrook > CC: Peace-discuss List > SUBJECT: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction > > I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the > introduction in the House and Senate when they return in September of > bills invoking the War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on > ending U.S. participation in the Yemen war. I think we could win a > floor vote in the House, and I think that would be a big deal. Maybe > we could even win a floor vote in the Senate, and that would be an > even bigger deal. But I am worried that we won't be able to build > enough pressure to make this happen, given the dominant mood in > Washington now that the only things that people should care about are > things that help one team or the other in election mobilization. > > But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off > now if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war > champion, a leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he > left DC in 2012. And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who > the new Dennis Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm > sure it's not Ro Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know. > > I'm trying to write something about this... > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the > > others? > > > > The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, > > Somalia, and of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. > > troops are killing people in these countries, and more than a > > quarter of a million are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign > > soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. The 70,000-members of > > the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than > > three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities > > include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. > > > > But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively > > avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public > > had come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and > > immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact > > of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass > > opposition compelled the business community and then the government > > to stop the escalation of the war. > > > > But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate > > to Trump Derangement Syndrome. > > > > What Is To Be Done? —CGE > > > >> On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > >> wrote: > >> > >> I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition > >> that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the > >> House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us > >> end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about > >> the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was > >> quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the > >> war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the > >> edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of > >> starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. > >> > >> I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems > >> are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because > >> that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. > >> But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe > >> they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing > >> that they will. > >> > >> Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 02:37:00 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:37:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <109C5B91-E9B9-4C97-AF55-3BC213CD7100@gmail.com> bjornsona-- You write, “I consider it inappropriate ... for you to continue dragging abortion into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group.” I disagree. The contemporary anti-war movement - during the Bush/Obama/Trump administrations - has taken as a motto, “My political views: I'm basically against anything that kills people or destroys the planet we live on." My grandchildren were obviously people a month before they were born, as they were a month afterwards. If we’re against actions of the US government that end human lives in Afghanistan, we should also be against social policies that encourage poor people to end their children’s lives so that they won’t cost the government money. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe v. Wade was decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” As a result, abortion is the leading cause of death in the US today - more than cancer, heart disease, homicide, suicide, etc. - but disproportionally affects the poor. Just as it’s not enough to forbid the killing of poor people in the Mideast for the profits of the US one percent, so it’s not enough to forbid the killing of the children of the poor to protect the profits of that same one percent. We must pay reparations for our Mideast wars, and at home, establish medical care for all, as well as child supports, housing, and education for all. What you call the “anti-abortion group” (parallel, I suppose to the ‘anti-war group’ - i.e., those opposed respectively to abortion and war) is not “another identity group, controlled by [various conspirators].” That’s the charge made against various anti-war movements at the outset, and I know you don’t accept that. I have no fondness for the GOP, even if Russiagate - a largely successful attempt to restore the war policies and provocations of the last administration, from Ukraine to the South China Sea - makes it clear that the Democrats at the moment are worse. Yes, it’s true that only women (not men) get pregnant and abortion ends a human life. But trying to define quickening as the moment a fetus become human and acquires rights is otiose. There’s an obvious point at which one becomes human - conception. Your question about “Mary’s free will” (“If she had said No to being the mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up?”) is the sort of thing that Scholastics in the theological faculties of medieval universities used to sharpen their dialectical abilities (which were considerable), but arguments about what God would have done do not I think get us very far. Neither, I think, do arguments about the coming and going of a soul. Soul is not even mentioned in the early Christian creeds: the central doctrine is the resurrection of the body. To regard the the soul as an entelechy - the actualization of the potential of being human - seems to me a good summary of a long theological and philosophical discussion. But as clever a man as Descartes thought that the soul was a different substance, connected to the body in the pineal gland, deep in the brain. He could tell the Russian doctors where to look... Your animadversions about organized Christianity are sadly frequently justified - perhaps not surprising in any movement that’s been around so long and is so large (are there any others?) - but I’m not sure your case is strengthened by a literalistic reading of the some two dozen memoirs, letters, meditations, and notes that make up the New Testament - and took a century to be rather haphazardly assembled. Generations of Christians lived and died without ever seeing a New Testament; Christian groups had no agreement about what texts belonged until the 16th century and differ from one another today. Christianity is a movement, not a book - more like a fissiparous political party - or group of parties - than a constitution-based organization (like the United States). When the present bishop of Rome was elected, he was asked, “Who are you?” Pope Francis replied, “I’m a sinner.” Yes, of course. But our subject here is not a theological or religious matter. It’s ethical and political: Is opposition to abortion - and the conditions that occasion it - like opposition to war, and the conditions that occasion that - or is it unrelated and therefore potentially a distraction? I think the answer is that they are bound up together, encompassing as they do questions of the deaths of many of our coevals. And we haven’t even mentioned capitalism, which commodifies all human lives. Regards, CGE > On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:26 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > bjornsona's email was scrozzled in the mailserver somehow and would not display but i found this in the raw data.. > > Carl and ewg at pigs.ag , whoever you are, again enough is enough. At the risk of projecting my own Shadow, I consider it inappropriate, counterproductive and self-indulgent for you to continue dragging abortion into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group. I am sure I speak for others in this group. Carl, I respect your work quite a lot. You have pointed out how identity politics splits the hungry and angry masses into easily controllable groups. The anti- abortion group is only another identity group, controlled by the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, the Christian fundamentalists, the GOP misogynists & the Stepford women. A large identity group, sure, BUT not as large as the rest of the country and the world who disagree & who generally have more science education, actual practical experience of pregnancy & birth, and belong to other spiritual traditions. It amazes me that an intelligent person like yourself would try to pass that "Live Action" article off on us as logically sound and not a collection of overwrought anecdotes. As the GOP, of whom you appear to be so fond, says, let those nurses get other jobs if they don't want to work in the delivery room. Writing your message below with such blanket statements as "pregnant people" & "abortion obviously ends a human lif e," fail the logic test too. Many WOMEN have abortions at early stages when the fetus has not yet reached quickening. I believe that is around 15-20 weeks. For thousands of years, women did not consider the fetus to be an actual baby until quickening, which I believe we now know was when the risk of spontaneous miscarriage was lower. Quickening is also after a woman has spent time eating for two and her body has begun preparing for an actual baby to develop. In other words, it is a triple venture between God, the woman, and the fetus. ( NOT that some parasite has taken over a woman's body and can develop on its own.) Even a critical reading of the Annunciation story in the New Testament allows Mary free will. If she had said No to being the mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up? Of course not! He simply would have found another Mary, or Sarah, to be the Mother of his Son. Evidence for that is clear all over our daily lives. We are given free will choices every day. If we choose not to do somet hing, and God needs it done, it gets done in another way. (I bet you have witnessed that.) Educators & doctors know what happens if a woman does not want, or is not able to care for her own and the fetus' , then later, the baby's body. Society ends up with a stillborn or injured child:- brain damaged by lead, if the woman lives in Flint, for example. Perhaps women actually know something and care about their own bodies and fetuses/babies. What a thought! You have probably read that Russian scientists have measured a small amount of weight that leaves the body when a person dies. They speculate that is the weight of the soul. When does the soul enter the body? Perhaps at quickening, when the fetus has been determined to be able to grow into a healthy baby and not be miscarried. To address some of what you have written: yes, it would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world and the economics are such that every woman/ family could afford every pregnancy that makes it through the zygote/fetus/spontaneous miscarriage/quickening/developing baby/ to healthy birth stage. Unfortunately, we do not have that. It is cruel and ridiculous to make laws that force women & children to bear the brunt of the wars, rape, environmental degradation, floods, refugee crisis, lack of education, housing, food, jobs that we are experiencing. Not to mention climate change. It is very easy for religious ministers to pick on the smallest and weakest in their congregations in their sermons. Sure, tell the women and homosexuals how to run their lives. Their $$ contributions are less. I have read NOTHING in the New Testament in red print, in Jesus' actual words, that says ANYTHING about no abortions or that it is not ok to live life as God made one. I have seen PLENTY about no divorce, sharing with the poor, accepting everyone for who they are, getting the moneylenders out of the temple,etc. As we all must agree, if the Vatican or the Christian fundamentalists preached on that as much as they hate on women and gay people, very little $$$ would flow their way. Just to address the two verses quoted as nauseum. The Jeremiah verse: "I knew you in your mother's womb.." etc. Lovely verse. Said by God in the Old Testament TO JEREMIAH. NOT to every person who wants to adopt it as their personal slogan to march.in front of a clinic and harass people and then disappear for antiwar.marches while taking advantage of the perks of living in Empire. Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which supersedes the Old. The same people who cherrypick what they want from the OT try to force poor women in the U.S.what to do. And Paul's advice on not being homosexual. Please. Not Jesus' words. Also a different time and place, with rampant orgies, sexual mores run amuck. And yet Paul did not preach about no sex with children or slaves and neither do most preachers today. And you have been to Rome, I assume? Statues from antiquity of naked men everywhere. Still going on today. Many people think the "thorn in Paul's side" was his own homosexuality. How strange. I lose my respect. The ONLY way these powermongers and warmongers hold on to their divisions is by FEAR. This particular fear is strong: that of going to hell when we die. I submit that the Hell is really here on earth where so many people suffer. And that they know it and use it against us. For evidence: the many books and Ted Talk videos on experiences people have when they die and come back to life. I cannot believe they were all perfect, yet each one has a beautiful experience. Love and heaven are here on earth and after death. We get them by tearing people well and as individuals, not as possessions we can legislate. What is that quote from Rumi about how our children are not ours and they go into a future we cannot know? Unless you have concrete plans on how to convince antiabortion groups to join their admittedly concentrated focus to our anti-war efforts, it would be great if you all would join an anti abortion or pro life list serve if you want to have those conversations. It wastes our time here. We already know our mission. > > > > > > On 2018-07-14 00:36 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after-abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 05:59:14 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 00:59:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar Message-ID: <5b5d5789.1c69fb81.c65d7.c771@mx.google.com> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina"The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain null -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 13:56:51 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <5b5d5789.1c69fb81.c65d7.c771@mx.google.com> References: <5b5d5789.1c69fb81.c65d7.c771@mx.google.com> Message-ID: A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." > On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. > > If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. > > - Karen Medina > "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mkmv1413 at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 17:05:38 2018 From: mkmv1413 at gmail.com (Katherine McCarthy) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:05:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar In-Reply-To: <109C5B91-E9B9-4C97-AF55-3BC213CD7100@gmail.com> References: <1531531579652.impm5m22wrdcx0oaoh1545p2@android.mail.163.com> <109C5B91-E9B9-4C97-AF55-3BC213CD7100@gmail.com> Message-ID: Can someone please help me unsubscribe to this discussion page? Thanks, Katherine On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 9:37 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > bjornsona-- > > You write, “I consider it inappropriate ... for you to continue dragging > abortion into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group.” > > I disagree. The contemporary anti-war movement - during > the Bush/Obama/Trump administrations - has taken as a motto, “My political > views: I'm basically against anything that kills people or destroys the > planet we live on." > > My grandchildren were obviously people a month before they were born, as > they were a month afterwards. If we’re against actions of the US government > that end human lives in Afghanistan, we should also be against social > policies that encourage poor people to end their children’s lives so that > they won’t cost the government money. > > Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Roe v. Wade was > decided for economic and eugenic reasons: “Frankly,” she said in July 2009, > “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about > population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want > to have too many of.” As a result, abortion is the leading cause of death > in the US today - more than cancer, heart disease, homicide, suicide, etc. > - but disproportionally affects the poor. > > Just as it’s not enough to forbid the killing of poor people in > the Mideast for the profits of the US one percent, so it’s not enough to > forbid the killing of the children of the poor to protect the profits of > that same one percent. We must pay reparations for our Mideast wars, and at > home, establish medical care for all, as well as child supports, housing, > and education for all. > > What you call the “anti-abortion group” (parallel, I suppose to the > ‘anti-war group’ - i.e., those opposed respectively to abortion and war) > is not “another identity group, controlled by [various conspirators].” > That’s the charge made against various anti-war movements at the outset, > and I know you don’t accept that. > > I have no fondness for the GOP, even if Russiagate - a largely successful > attempt to restore the war policies and provocations of the last > administration, from Ukraine to the South China Sea - makes it clear that > the Democrats at the moment are worse. > > Yes, it’s true that only women (not men) get pregnant and abortion ends a > human life. But trying to define quickening as the moment a fetus become > human and acquires rights is otiose. There’s an obvious point at which one > becomes human - conception. > > Your question about “Mary’s free will” (“If she had said No to being the > mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up?”) is the sort of thing > that Scholastics in the theological faculties of medieval universities used > to sharpen their dialectical abilities (which were considerable), but > arguments about what God would have done do not I think get us very far. > > Neither, I think, do arguments about the coming and going of a soul. Soul > is not even mentioned in the early Christian creeds: the central doctrine > is the resurrection of the body. To regard the the soul as an entelechy - > the actualization of the potential of being human - seems to me a good > summary of a long theological and philosophical discussion. But as clever a > man as Descartes thought that the soul was a different substance, connected > to the body in the pineal gland, deep in the brain. He could tell the > Russian doctors where to look... > > Your animadversions about organized Christianity are sadly frequently > justified - perhaps not surprising in any movement that’s been around so > long and is so large (are there any others?) - but I’m not sure your case > is strengthened by a literalistic reading of the some two dozen memoirs, > letters, meditations, and notes that make up the New Testament - and took a > century to be rather haphazardly assembled. Generations of Christians lived > and died without ever seeing a New Testament; Christian groups had no > agreement about what texts belonged until the 16th century and differ from > one another today. > > Christianity is a movement, not a book - more like a fissiparous political > party - or group of parties - than a constitution-based organization > (like the United States). When the present bishop of Rome was elected, he > was asked, “Who are you?” Pope Francis replied, “I’m a sinner.” Yes, of > course. > > But our subject here is not a theological or religious matter. > It’s ethical and political: Is opposition to abortion - and the conditions > that occasion it - like opposition to war, and the conditions that occasion > that - or is it unrelated and therefore potentially a distraction? > > I think the answer is that they are bound up together, encompassing as > they do questions of the deaths of many of our coevals. And we haven’t even > mentioned capitalism, which commodifies all human lives. > > Regards, CGE > > > On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:26 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > bjornsona's email was scrozzled in the mailserver somehow and would not > display but i found this in the raw data.. > > Carl and ewg at pigs.ag, whoever you are, again enough is enough. At the > risk of projecting my own Shadow, I consider it inappropriate, > counterproductive and self-indulgent for you to continue dragging abortion > into an anti-war, anti-racism discussion action group. I am sure I speak > for others in this group. Carl, I respect your work quite a lot. You have > pointed out how identity politics splits the hungry and angry masses into > easily controllable groups. The anti- abortion group is only another > identity group, controlled by the Vatican, the U.S. bishops, the Christian > fundamentalists, the GOP misogynists & the Stepford women. A large identity > group, sure, BUT not as large as the rest of the country and the world who > disagree & who generally have more science education, actual practical > experience of pregnancy & birth, and belong to other spiritual traditions. > It amazes me that an intelligent person like yourself would try to pass > that "Live Action" article off on us as logically sound and not a > collection of overwrought anecdotes. As the GOP, of whom you appear to be > so fond, says, let those nurses get other jobs if they don't want to work > in the delivery room. Writing your message below with such blanket > statements as "pregnant people" & "abortion obviously ends a human lif e," > fail the logic test too. Many WOMEN have abortions at early stages when the > fetus has not yet reached quickening. I believe that is around 15-20 weeks. > For thousands of years, women did not consider the fetus to be an actual > baby until quickening, which I believe we now know was when the risk of > spontaneous miscarriage was lower. Quickening is also after a woman has > spent time eating for two and her body has begun preparing for an actual > baby to develop. In other words, it is a triple venture between God, the > woman, and the fetus. ( NOT that some parasite has taken over a woman's > body and can develop on its own.) Even a critical reading of the > Annunciation story in the New Testament allows Mary free will. If she had > said No to being the mother of Jesus, would God the Father have given up? > Of course not! He simply would have found another Mary, or Sarah, to be the > Mother of his Son. Evidence for that is clear all over our daily lives. We > are given free will choices every day. If we choose not to do somet hing, > and God needs it done, it gets done in another way. (I bet you have > witnessed that.) Educators & doctors know what happens if a woman does not > want, or is not able to care for her own and the fetus' , then later, the > baby's body. Society ends up with a stillborn or injured child:- brain > damaged by lead, if the woman lives in Flint, for example. Perhaps women > actually know something and care about their own bodies and > fetuses/babies. What a thought! You have probably read that Russian > scientists have measured a small amount of weight that leaves the body when > a person dies. They speculate that is the weight of the soul. When does > the soul enter the body? Perhaps at quickening, when the fetus has been > determined to be able to grow into a healthy baby and not be miscarried. > To address some of what you have written: yes, it would be lovely if we > lived in a perfect world and the economics are such that every woman/ > family could afford every pregnancy that makes it through the > zygote/fetus/spontaneous miscarriage/quickening/developing baby/ to > healthy birth stage. Unfortunately, we do not have that. It is cruel and > ridiculous to make laws that force women & children to bear the brunt of > the wars, rape, environmental degradation, floods, refugee crisis, lack of > education, housing, food, jobs that we are experiencing. Not to mention > climate change. It is very easy for religious ministers to pick on the > smallest and weakest in their congregations in their sermons. Sure, tell > the women and homosexuals how to run their lives. Their $$ contributions > are less. I have read NOTHING in the New Testament in red print, in Jesus' > actual words, that says ANYTHING about no abortions or that it is not ok to > live life as God made one. I have seen PLENTY about no divorce, sharing > with the poor, accepting everyone for who they are, getting the > moneylenders out of the temple,etc. As we all must agree, if the Vatican or > the Christian fundamentalists preached on that as much as they hate on > women and gay people, very little $$$ would flow their way. Just to > address the two verses quoted as nauseum. The Jeremiah verse: "I knew you > in your mother's womb.." etc. Lovely verse. Said by God in the Old > Testament TO JEREMIAH. NOT to every person who wants to adopt it as their > personal slogan to march.in front of a clinic and harass people and then > disappear for antiwar.marches while taking advantage of the perks of living > in Empire. Also NOT Jesus' words and NOT in the New Testament, which > supersedes the Old. The same people who cherrypick what they want from the > OT try to force poor women in the U.S.what to do. And Paul's advice on not > being homosexual. Please. Not Jesus' words. Also a different time and > place, with rampant orgies, sexual mores run amuck. And yet Paul did not > preach about no sex with children or slaves and neither do most preachers > today. And you have been to Rome, I assume? Statues from antiquity of naked > men everywhere. Still going on today. Many people think the "thorn in > Paul's side" was his own homosexuality. How strange. I lose my respect. > The ONLY way these powermongers and warmongers hold on to their divisions > is by FEAR. This particular fear is strong: that of going to hell when we > die. I submit that the Hell is really here on earth where so many people > suffer. And that they know it and use it against us. For evidence: the > many books and Ted Talk videos on experiences people have when they die and > come back to life. I cannot believe they were all perfect, yet each one has > a beautiful experience. Love and heaven are here on earth and after death. > We get them by tearing people well and as individuals, not as possessions > we can legislate. What is that quote from Rumi about how our children are > not ours and they go into a future we cannot know? Unless you have concrete > plans on how to convince antiabortion groups to join their admittedly > concentrated focus to our anti-war efforts, it would be great if you all > would join an anti abortion or pro life list serve if you want to have > those conversations. It wastes our time here. We already know our mission. > > > > > > > On 2018-07-14 00:36 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > Wrote: > > https://www.liveaction.org/news/babies-born-alive-after- > abortions-part-3-nurses-tell-their-stories/ > > ------------------------------ > >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 29 19:15:28 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 14:15:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFFB5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFFB5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” I don't know if it's the most revolutionary thing, but it's certainly not a bad place to start. One thing I have noticed in the past is, certain stories seem to get locked in, and then seem impossible to dislodge, and then cause harm in the future. Like, "the 'surge' in Iraq worked." That became a Washington-true thing, even though there was plenty of evidence in mainstream press at the time that it wasn't true. Then, when the people who wanted a "surge" in Afghanistan wanted a "surge" in Afghanistan, they said: see, it's just like Iraq. The surge worked in Iraq, the surge will work in Afghanistan. Then nobody could really get in a word edgewise for "actually, the surge didn't really work in Iraq," because by that point, "the surge in Iraq worked" was Washington-true. When the anti-Russia thing started in the Obama Administration, I made a triage decision. I figured, I'm just one guy here, I have to focus somewhere. Russia has a big military, Russia has nuclear weapons, Russia has a seat on the UN Security Council. This anti-Russia thing is stupid, but Russians will be good enough ok. Yemenis don't have these things, Palestinians don't have these things, Iranians don't have these things. I will focus on the people who don't have these things, trying to protect them from the U.S. But then the anti-Russia thing got locked in, and turned out to be more harmful than I imagined. If I had the opportunity for a do-over, I would have spoken up more vigorously against the anti-Russia thing at the time it was being hatched. That was the best time to try to stop it. But regardless of that, we should "proclaim loudly what is happening." That is never wrong. And we don't know when the thing might turn. I remember when Reagan bombed Libya, there was a small demonstration in front of the White House, and there was a story on NPR about it. Like, ha ha ha, some goofy people are against this, let's go see what they have to say, just for fun. So the reporter interviewed some woman from the American Friends Service Committee. And the reporter said: polls show only 17% of Americans are against this. What do you think about that? And the woman from AFSC said: "Our job is to make the 17% more visible." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Too bad about Lee & Khanna. But can't a single voice (or a few) be > dismissed as a malcontent, and irrelevant? (Look what was done to Ron Paul.) > > There wasn't a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding Vietnam (or later > Cambodia). There was a national mood, in Congress, and out of it, that > something was very wrong. The sort of thing Bernie Sanders should be saying > now. > > Fifty years ago that was led by student protest. Universities have had two > generations to scotch that, and they've been successful. They were taken by > surprise in the '60s, and they won't let that happen again. (Cue Steve > Salaita.) > > Perhaps BLM et al. can be the new catalyst. Black Agenda Report > consistently exposes the warmongering, even of a black president & > Congressional caucus. BAR is not misled by identity politics, which the > Democrats particularly want to use to distract from their neolib & neocon > policies - more war and more inequality. > > In regard to the current US wars, we surely need people who follow Rosa > Luxemburg’s advice, from a century ago: “The most revolutionary thing one > can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” > > --CGE > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana. > net] > *Sent:* Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:02 PM > *To:* C G Estabrook > *Cc:* Peace-discuss List > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction > > I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction > in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the > War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in > the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think > that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the > Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we > won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the > dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should > care about are things that help one team or the other in election > mobilization. > > But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now > if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a > leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. > And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis > Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro > Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know. > > I'm trying to write something about this... > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the >> others? >> >> The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and >> of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing >> people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are >> stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing >> Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations >> Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the >> world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and >> murder. >> >> But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively >> avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had >> come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not >> “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on >> general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business >> community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. >> >> But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to >> Trump Derangement Syndrome. >> >> What Is To Be Done? —CGE >> >> >> On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that >> the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had >> not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in >> Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming >> the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the >> possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human >> beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the >> edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. >> >> I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going >> to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was >> told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now >> that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I >> have no basis for believing that they will. >> >> Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 29 21:09:34 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:09:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction In-Reply-To: References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFFB5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: I had an idea for what to do about this. But the Friends Committee for National Genocide shut it down. So don't ask me what to do about the genocide in Yemen. Ask the Friends Committee on National Genocide. They're responsible for the genocide in Yemen now. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what > is happening.” > > I don't know if it's the most revolutionary thing, but it's certainly not > a bad place to start. > > One thing I have noticed in the past is, certain stories seem to get > locked in, and then seem impossible to dislodge, and then cause harm in the > future. > > Like, "the 'surge' in Iraq worked." That became a Washington-true thing, > even though there was plenty of evidence in mainstream press at the time > that it wasn't true. > > Then, when the people who wanted a "surge" in Afghanistan wanted a "surge" > in Afghanistan, they said: see, it's just like Iraq. The surge worked in > Iraq, the surge will work in Afghanistan. Then nobody could really get in a > word edgewise for "actually, the surge didn't really work in Iraq," because > by that point, "the surge in Iraq worked" was Washington-true. > > When the anti-Russia thing started in the Obama Administration, I made a > triage decision. I figured, I'm just one guy here, I have to focus > somewhere. Russia has a big military, Russia has nuclear weapons, Russia > has a seat on the UN Security Council. This anti-Russia thing is stupid, > but Russians will be good enough ok. Yemenis don't have these things, > Palestinians don't have these things, Iranians don't have these things. I > will focus on the people who don't have these things, trying to protect > them from the U.S. > > But then the anti-Russia thing got locked in, and turned out to be more > harmful than I imagined. > > If I had the opportunity for a do-over, I would have spoken up more > vigorously against the anti-Russia thing at the time it was being hatched. > That was the best time to try to stop it. > > But regardless of that, we should "proclaim loudly what is happening." > That is never wrong. And we don't know when the thing might turn. > > I remember when Reagan bombed Libya, there was a small demonstration in > front of the White House, and there was a story on NPR about it. Like, ha > ha ha, some goofy people are against this, let's go see what they have to > say, just for fun. So the reporter interviewed some woman from the American > Friends Service Committee. And the reporter said: polls show only 17% of > Americans are against this. What do you think about that? > > And the woman from AFSC said: > > "Our job is to make the 17% more visible." > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Too bad about Lee & Khanna. But can't a single voice (or a few) be >> dismissed as a malcontent, and irrelevant? (Look what was done to Ron Paul.) >> >> There wasn't a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding Vietnam (or later >> Cambodia). There was a national mood, in Congress, and out of it, that >> something was very wrong. The sort of thing Bernie Sanders should be saying >> now. >> >> Fifty years ago that was led by student protest. Universities have had >> two generations to scotch that, and they've been successful. They were >> taken by surprise in the '60s, and they won't let that happen again. (Cue >> Steve Salaita.) >> >> Perhaps BLM et al. can be the new catalyst. Black Agenda Report >> consistently exposes the warmongering, even of a black president & >> Congressional caucus. BAR is not misled by identity politics, which the >> Democrats particularly want to use to distract from their neolib & neocon >> policies - more war and more inequality. >> >> In regard to the current US wars, we surely need people who follow Rosa >> Luxemburg’s advice, from a century ago: “The most revolutionary thing >> one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” >> >> --CGE >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on >> behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana. >> net] >> *Sent:* Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:02 PM >> *To:* C G Estabrook >> *Cc:* Peace-discuss List >> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction >> >> I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction >> in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the >> War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in >> the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think >> that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the >> Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we >> won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the >> dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should >> care about are things that help one team or the other in election >> mobilization. >> >> But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now >> if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a >> leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. >> And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis >> Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro >> Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know. >> >> I'm trying to write something about this... >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the >>> others? >>> >>> The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and >>> of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing >>> people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are >>> stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing >>> Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations >>> Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the >>> world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and >>> murder. >>> >>> But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively >>> avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had >>> come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not >>> “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on >>> general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business >>> community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. >>> >>> But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to >>> Trump Derangement Syndrome. >>> >>> What Is To Be Done? —CGE >>> >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that >>> the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had >>> not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in >>> Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming >>> the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the >>> possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human >>> beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the >>> edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. >>> >>> I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are >>> going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what >>> I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So >>> now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but >>> I have no basis for believing that they will. >>> >>> Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun Jul 29 21:52:13 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Message-ID: Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know).   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AMTo: kmedina67;Cc: Peace-discuss;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina"The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 23:01:02 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 18:01:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Identity politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E641850-AF8B-46C0-A6E4-6888788491EB@gmail.com> It’s a mistake to see opposition to abortion as a matter of ‘identity politics’ - a discrimination against women. It’s as if one were to see opposition to the US war on Afghanistan as discrimination against the US military, who claim to have a right to choose whom to attack. In each case it’s an ethical and political question - Afghans and unborn children have a right to life, and social policies that disregard that right (US war and abortion) should be rejected. It’s simply a vicious society that offers ending lives (of foreigners and the unborn) as solutions to social problems. Walter Benn Michaels spells out the difference between discrimination (which identity politics attacks) and exploitation (which class politics attacks): “The defensible heart of identity politics is its commitment to opposing forms of discrimination like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I share that commitment. But opposing discrimination today has no more to do with a left politics than do equally powerful ethical commitments against, say, violence or dishonesty. Why? Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism—its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail. “This is why Adolph Reed and I have been arguing that identity politics is not an alternative to class politics but a form of it: It’s the politics of an upper class that has no problem with seeing people being left behind as long as they haven’t been left behind because of their race or sex. That’s why elite institutions like universities make an effort to recruit black people as well as white into the ruling class. They’re seeking to legitimate the class structure, not abolish it. Of course, if we’re going to accept a ruling class, one that’s open to people other than straight white men is preferable. But shouldn’t the left be more committed to doing something for the vast majority of people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations who will never belong to that class? We’ve never thought the fact that a few white people get to become rich was a victory for poor white people, so why should substituting in a few black people change the equation? “It’s not racism that creates the difference between classes; it’s capitalism. And it’s not anti-racism that can combat the difference; it’s socialism. We’re frequently told that black poverty is worse than white poverty—more isolating, more concentrated—and maybe that’s true. But why, politically, should it matter? You don’t build the left by figuring out which victim has been most victimized; you build it by organizing all the victims. When it comes to the value of universal health care, for example, we don’t need to worry for a second about whether the black descendants of slaves are worse off than the white descendants of coal miners. The goal is not to make sure that black people are no sicker than white people; it’s to make everybody healthy. That’s why they call it universal. “You don’t build a left by arguing over who has been most victimized; you build it by organizing all the victims. “Discrimination is neoliberalism’s theory of inequality. Even poor whites have started to buy it—a large number appear to think anti-white bias is their real problem! Obviously, they’re wrong, but when, as Barbara and Karen Fields point out, the language of victimization has become so impoverished that it consists of nothing but discrimination, you go with what you’ve got. A new left politics will need to change that. Instead of a more complicated understanding of identity—of race, sex, and intersectionality (that opiate of the professional managerial class)—we need a more profound understanding of exploitation. “ > On Jul 29, 2018, at 4:52 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM > To: kmedina67; > Cc: Peace-discuss; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar > > A paraphrase: > > "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. > > "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." > >> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. >> >> If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. >> >> - Karen Medina >> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ewj at pigs.ag Mon Jul 30 03:45:02 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:45:02 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Identity politics In-Reply-To: <2E641850-AF8B-46C0-A6E4-6888788491EB@gmail.com> References: <2E641850-AF8B-46C0-A6E4-6888788491EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1532922301054.uvrq32wu5cqecyf3zpj0xcxw@android.mail.163.com> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Stupid and Evil men, not daring to overturn the Creator's endowment, rather seek to pervert the definition of "all men". Never mind that clearly "all men" means "all humankind". Thus we have the dreadful decision that Dred Scott was "jus' a nigger" [like evvabody else?], not a Real Man. Now they get to kill 'em while they're little, and they glorify it as a woman's right to healthcare. Madison avenue would kill for a catchy line of bullshit like that. It's the real thing, in the back of yer mind... Manilow meets Astley, Herod, Caligula, and Nero. Were it we had Real Men with backbones of iron on the high court not flimsy clueless political sockpuppets and harpies. On 2018-07-30 07:01 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: It’s a mistake to see opposition to abortion as a matter of  ‘identity politics’ - a discrimination against women. It’s as if one were to see opposition to the US war on Afghanistan as discrimination against the US military, who claim to have a right to choose whom to attack.  In each case it’s an ethical and political question - Afghans and unborn children have a right to life, and social policies that disregard that right (US war and abortion)  should be rejected. It’s simply a vicious society that offers ending lives (of foreigners and the unborn) as solutions to social problems. Walter Benn Michaels spells out the difference between discrimination (which identity politics attacks) and exploitation (which class politics attacks): “The defensible heart of identity politics is its commitment to opposing forms of discrimination like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I share that commitment. But opposing discrimination today has no more to do with a left politics than do equally powerful ethical commitments against, say, violence or dishonesty. Why? Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism—its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail. “This is why Adolph Reed and I have been arguing that identity politics is not an alternative to class politics but a form of it: It’s the politics of an upper class that has no problem with seeing people being left behind as long as they haven’t been left behind because of their race or sex. That’s why elite institutions like universities make an effort to recruit black people as well as white into the ruling class. They’re seeking to legitimate the class structure, not abolish it. Of course, if we’re going to accept a ruling class, one that’s open to people other than straight white men is preferable. But shouldn’t the left be more committed to doing something for the vast majority of people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations who will never belong to that class? We’ve never thought the fact that a few white people get to become rich was a victory for poor white people, so why should substituting in a few black people change the equation? “It’s not racism that creates the difference between classes; it’s capitalism. And it’s not anti-racism that can combat the difference; it’s socialism. We’re frequently told that black poverty is worse than white poverty—more isolating, more concentrated—and maybe that’s true. But why, politically, should it matter? You don’t build the left by figuring out which victim has been most victimized; you build it by organizing all the victims. When it comes to the value of universal health care, for example, we don’t need to worry for a second about whether the black descendants of slaves are worse off than the white descendants of coal miners. The goal is not to make sure that black people are no sicker than white people; it’s to make everybody healthy. That’s why they call it universal. “You don’t build a left by arguing over who has been most victimized; you build it by organizing all the victims. “Discrimination is neoliberalism’s theory of inequality. Even poor whites have started to buy it—a large number appear to think anti-white bias is their real problem! Obviously, they’re wrong, but when, as Barbara and Karen Fields point out, the language of victimization has become so impoverished that it consists of nothing but discrimination, you go with what you’ve got. A new left politics will need to change that. Instead of a more complicated understanding of identity—of race, sex, and intersectionality (that opiate of the professional managerial class)—we need a more profound understanding of exploitation. “ On Jul 29, 2018, at 4:52 PM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know).   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Mon Jul 30 14:38:30 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:38:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <31d0b97f-48d2-44b9-65e3-a2fa0bb7857d@pigs.ag> If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed > to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. > (Guilty, I know). > > /Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone/ > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > *Date: *Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM > *To: *kmedina67; > *Cc: *Peace-discuss; > *Subject:*Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar > > A paraphrase: > > "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) > change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if > you value the life of Americans. > > "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." > >> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss >> > > wrote: >> >> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs >> to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. >> >> If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her. >> >> - Karen Medina >> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - >> Mark Twain >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 moboct1 at aim.com Mon Jul 30 13:14:23 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:14:23 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction--FOR THE RECORD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <164eb534ff5-c8c-4f2f@webjas-vaa097.srv.aolmail.net> Dennis Kucinich did not retire or "leave" Congress in 2012: he was forced out by the DNC & Ohio Democratic Party which redistricted him out of office by combining the  eastern Ohio/Cleveland with that across state with Toledo, which was a safe district for his orthodox Democrat rival, who was elected.  That's when I gave up on voting for any Democrat (not hard to do in Illinois) and decided to not vote for a D rather than for a Repugnantcrat, although there are a few Dems across the nation who don't toe the DNC line, but not for long.  Maybe that's a cowardly way out, but there's no law that says I have to vote in the corrupt 2-party system   It's not my fault that Dems nominated Hillary, who delivered what we have now. Midge O'Brien  -----Original Message----- From: Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Sent: Sat, Jul 28, 2018 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should care about are things that help one team or the other in election mobilization.  But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know.  I'm trying to write something about this... Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the others? The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder.    But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to Trump Derangement Syndrome. What Is To Be Done? —CGE On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped.  I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing that they will.  Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House.  _______________________________________________ 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 moboct1 at aim.com Mon Jul 30 13:25:37 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:25:37 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction: MORE FOR THE RECORD In-Reply-To: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFFB5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: <164eb5d9b12-c8f-df6@webjas-vad119.srv.aolmail.net> There WAS a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding the Vietnam war, in fact three that I know of: Senator Eugene J. McCarthy, Senator Ernest Grueling (Alaska) and Senator Wayne Morse (Oregon).  There might have been others in Congress but these were outstanding in my recollection. -----Original Message----- From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss To: Robert Naiman ; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Sent: Sat, Jul 28, 2018 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction Too bad about Lee & Khanna.  But can't a single voice (or a few) be dismissed as a malcontent, and irrelevant? (Look what was done to Ron Paul.) There wasn't a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding Vietnam (or later Cambodia). There was a national mood, in Congress, and out of it, that something was very wrong. The sort of thing Bernie Sanders should be saying now. Fifty years ago that was led by student protest. Universities have had two generations to scotch that, and they've been successful. They were taken by surprise in the '60s, and they won't let that happen again. (Cue Steve Salaita.) Perhaps BLM et al. can be the new catalyst. Black Agenda Report consistently exposes the warmongering, even of a black president & Congressional caucus. BAR is not misled by identity politics, which the Democrats particularly want to use to distract from their neolib & neocon policies - more war and more inequality.   In regard to the current US wars, we surely need people who follow Rosa Luxemburg’s advice, from a century ago: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” --CGE From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:02 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should care about are things that help one team or the other in election mobilization.  But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know.  I'm trying to write something about this... Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the others? The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder.    But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to Trump Derangement Syndrome. What Is To Be Done? —CGE On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped.  I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing that they will.  Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House.  _______________________________________________ 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 13:40:24 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:40:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <31d0b97f-48d2-44b9-65e3-a2fa0bb7857d@pigs.ag> References: <31d0b97f-48d2-44b9-65e3-a2fa0bb7857d@pigs.ag> Message-ID: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group.   I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world.   I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to.   But not on this list, please.     Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient > to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to > appeal to > a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. > > And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, > and reboot. > > bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >> Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed >> to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. >> (Guilty, I know).   >> >> /Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone/ >> >> ------ Original message------ >> *From: *C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> *Date: *Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM >> *To: *kmedina67; >> *Cc: *Peace-discuss; >> *Subject:*Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar >> >> A paraphrase: >> >> "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by >> terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be >> an option, if you value the life of Americans. >> >> "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  >> >>> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs >>> to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  >>> >>> If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  >>> >>> - Karen Medina >>> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - >>> Mark Twain >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 30 13:47:05 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:47:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] retraction: MORE FOR THE RECORD In-Reply-To: <164eb5d9b12-c8f-df6@webjas-vad119.srv.aolmail.net> References: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB1FFFB5@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu>, <164eb5d9b12-c8f-df6@webjas-vad119.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB2028CB@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> I should have said there wasn't an *effective* lone voice. I canvassed for McCarthy in one of the richest neighborhoods in Boston and was appalled when he folded (even worse than Sanders). I met Wayne Morse and liked him, but he and Gruening are perhaps examples of 'repressive tolerance' - let a little dissent emerge to show you're not suppressing it, then continue with your criminal war. None of them - obviously - represented an effective strategy to stop the crimes. ________________________________ From: Mildred O'brien [moboct1 at aim.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 8:25 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G; naiman at justforeignpolicy.org; cgestabrook at gmail.com Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction: MORE FOR THE RECORD There WAS a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding the Vietnam war, in fact three that I know of: Senator Eugene J. McCarthy, Senator Ernest Grueling (Alaska) and Senator Wayne Morse (Oregon). There might have been others in Congress but these were outstanding in my recollection. -----Original Message----- From: Estabrook, Carl G via Peace-discuss To: Robert Naiman ; C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Sent: Sat, Jul 28, 2018 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction Too bad about Lee & Khanna. But can't a single voice (or a few) be dismissed as a malcontent, and irrelevant? (Look what was done to Ron Paul.) There wasn't a lone voice in Congress in 1968 regarding Vietnam (or later Cambodia). There was a national mood, in Congress, and out of it, that something was very wrong. The sort of thing Bernie Sanders should be saying now. Fifty years ago that was led by student protest. Universities have had two generations to scotch that, and they've been successful. They were taken by surprise in the '60s, and they won't let that happen again. (Cue Steve Salaita.) Perhaps BLM et al. can be the new catalyst. Black Agenda Report consistently exposes the warmongering, even of a black president & Congressional caucus. BAR is not misled by identity politics, which the Democrats particularly want to use to distract from their neolib & neocon policies - more war and more inequality. In regard to the current US wars, we surely need people who follow Rosa Luxemburg’s advice, from a century ago: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” --CGE ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 3:02 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] retraction I don't know. I would like to think that we can push for the introduction in the House and Senate when they return in September of bills invoking the War Powers Resolution to force floor votes on ending U.S. participation in the Yemen war. I think we could win a floor vote in the House, and I think that would be a big deal. Maybe we could even win a floor vote in the Senate, and that would be an even bigger deal. But I am worried that we won't be able to build enough pressure to make this happen, given the dominant mood in Washington now that the only things that people should care about are things that help one team or the other in election mobilization. But one thing I am pretty sure of is that we would much be better off now if we had replaced Dennis Kucinich in the House as an anti-war champion, a leader of anti-war efforts, on the Democratic side when he left DC in 2012. And that, belatedly, we should try to figure out who the new Dennis Kucinich can be. I'm sure it's not Barbara Lee. I'm sure it's not Ro Khanna. But who it is I don't yet know. I'm trying to write something about this... Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:27 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What are effective ways now to demand Congress end that war? And the others? The US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and of course Syria, as well as Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, and more than a quarter of a million are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. But the US government - cannier now than 50 years ago - has actively avoided the rise of popular outrage. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war in Vietnam as “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” not “a mistake,” largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness. And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war. But the propaganda shield is more sophisticated now, from Russiagate to Trump Derangement Syndrome. What Is To Be Done? —CGE On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: I wouldn't have argued with Carl so strongly about the proposition that the world would be better off or worse off if Dems take the House if I had not believed at the time that Dems would help us end the U.S.-Saudi war in Yemen. I agree with him completely about the horrible ick of Dems becoming the anti-Russia party. I was quite certain that was outweighed by the possibility of ending the war in Yemen, which has pushed millions of human beings to the edge of starvation, and will push ten million more to the edge of starvation by the end of the year if it is not stopped. I don't believe that anymore. I don't believe anymore that Dems are going to help us end the war in Yemen. I believed that because that's what I was told by people whom I had good reason to trust. But they reneged. So now that's an open question for me; maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I have no basis for believing that they will. Thus, I don't care anymore if Dems take the House. _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 13:54:40 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:54:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: References: <31d0b97f-48d2-44b9-65e3-a2fa0bb7857d@pigs.ag> Message-ID: <31A9D3E4-2C7C-4E1B-B06D-DA8E74CCC8D7@gmail.com> Do you intend to censor posts to the email list, as you do to the email list, Stuart? Censorship is a peculiar practice for a liberal, isn’t it? “If you don’t believe I free speech for views you despise, you don’t believe in it at all.” —Noam Chomsky > On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? > > Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. > > I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. > > I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. > > Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. > > Stuart > > On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient >> to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to >> a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. >> >> And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. >> >> bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). >>> >>> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> >>> ------ Original message------ >>> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM >>> To: kmedina67; >>> Cc: Peace-discuss; >>> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar >>> >>> A paraphrase: >>> >>> "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. >>> >>> "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." >>> >>>> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. >>>> >>>> If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. >>>> >>>> - Karen Medina >>>> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon Jul 30 14:02:27 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:02:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Message-ID: Thank you, Stuart. As Stuart knows, we just lost a subscriber who I signed up at the Market on Saturday because I told this person the listserve content was factual, interesting antiwar content we don't get from regular media. Then the first posts she saw were squabbling about highly controversial already-settled case law.  I have been guilty of responding to late-night posts unrelated to our anti-war message that angered me, when cooler heads advised me to ignore them. TMI Alert: it took some strong therapy for me to pull out all that early religiousity indoctrination when the cognitive dissonnance became too much!!  Since we have not billed ourselves as Anne's or anyone else's therapy group, I move we either re-discuss the focus of this group at a personal face -to- face meeting, or we form a separate discussion list serve for the other topic.   In the meantime, Wayne: my email is bjornsona at ameritech.net if you want to communicate that way.  Anne Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Stuart LevyDate: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 8:40 AMTo: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67;Cc: Stuart Levy;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group.   I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world.   I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to.   But not on this list, please.     Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know).   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 14:05:54 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:05:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: References: <31d0b97f-48d2-44b9-65e3-a2fa0bb7857d@pigs.ag> Message-ID: <26832D6C-4DC3-4DA8-ABB1-586C9222F485@gmail.com> My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% should animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE > On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? > > Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. > > I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. > > I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. > > Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. > > Stuart > > On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient >> to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to >> a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. >> >> And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. >> >> bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). >>> >>> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> >>> ------ Original message------ >>> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM >>> To: kmedina67; >>> Cc: Peace-discuss; >>> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar >>> >>> A paraphrase: >>> >>> "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. >>> >>> "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." >>> >>>> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. >>>> >>>> If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. >>>> >>>> - Karen Medina >>>> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 14:25:20 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:25:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Consistent life ethic Message-ID: <4B1298FF-E743-4431-AB22-2479C23578A4@gmail.com> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic "The consistent life ethic, or the consistent ethic of life is an ideology that opposes abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Adherents are opposed, at the very least, to unjust war, while some adherents also profess pacifism, or opposition to all war.” [Wikipedia] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon Jul 30 14:32:03 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Message-ID: <95q22d0sbbq9v8l4dqpde6mg.1532960054606@email.lge.com> It seems your central point has been made and listened to several times over, Carl and Wayne.  Some of us agree; some disagree. I vote we skip bringing out the torn & ratty old arguments of censorship, free speech, insults, yada, when it is clear who seems to have the most free speech in this group.  Your communication skills are many and varied and respected here. As I say constantly, probably 98% of Americans want the same things: a good education, job, healthcare, clean air, food, land, water, security. For any anti-war or pro-Americans movement to succeed, we mustbfocus on our common goals of course. Splitting up constituencies was the ultimate cause of the 60s Civil Rights Movement's downfall. Womyn's rights only got so far, black womyn's rights less far, and marijuana was criminalized. Etc.  Are you ignoring the move to vote on staying on anti-war topics only, having a group meeting to discuss it, or starting a different discussion group?  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G EstabrookDate: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 8:54 AMTo: Stuart Levy;Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Do you intend to censor posts to the email list, as you do to the email list, Stuart? Censorship is a peculiar practice for a liberal, isn’t it? “If you don’t believe I free speech for views you despise, you don’t believe in it at all.”  —Noam Chomsky  On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group.   I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world.   I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to.   But not on this list, please.     Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know).   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 14:59:04 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:59:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5b5f27bc.1c69fb81.83911.39e1@mx.google.com> I support discussion of the scope of this group & list as per Anne's proposal.  -- Stuart -------- Original message --------From: bjornsona at ameritech.net Date: 7/30/18 09:02 (GMT-06:00) To: Stuart Levy , "E. Wayne Johnson" , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss , kmedina67 Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Thank you, Stuart. As Stuart knows, we just lost a subscriber who I signed up at the Market on Saturday because I told this person the listserve content was factual, interesting antiwar content we don't get from regular media. Then the first posts she saw were squabbling about highly controversial already-settled case law.  I have been guilty of responding to late-night posts unrelated to our anti-war message that angered me, when cooler heads advised me to ignore them. TMI Alert: it took some strong therapy for me to pull out all that early religiousity indoctrination when the cognitive dissonnance became too much!!  Since we have not billed ourselves as Anne's or anyone else's therapy group, I move we either re-discuss the focus of this group at a personal face -to- face meeting, or we form a separate discussion list serve for the other topic.   In the meantime, Wayne: my email is bjornsona at ameritech.net if you want to communicate that way.  Anne Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Stuart LevyDate: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 8:40 AMTo: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67;Cc: Stuart Levy;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group.   I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world.   I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to.   But not on this list, please.     Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know).   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jul 30 15:55:54 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:55:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <95q22d0sbbq9v8l4dqpde6mg.1532960054606@email.lge.com> References: <95q22d0sbbq9v8l4dqpde6mg.1532960054606@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB20298F@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> For a liberal anti-war group, AWARE has a somewhat embarrassing history on 'what can't be said.' Good liberals in the group have taken some remarkably anti-free speech positions. The paramount example occurred more than a dozen years ago, when AWARE's weekly meetings regularly attracted dozens of participants. But a visit to C-U by Barak Obama (then Illinois' junior senator) and objections from some AWAREists to this mendacious war-apologist and seeming critic prompted anguished cries from some other AWARE members. I wrote at the time that several AWAREists "decided that leafleting Obama’s rally [with antiwar material] had been 'rude' and that the leaflet 'demonized' him. They took the uncomfortable position that AWARE needed to treat black politicians differently from white politicians." . The resulting dispute caused a fracture from which AWARE never recovered. It's hard to say that a more complete discussion of the matter would have been a mistake, as the Obama campaign hoovered up the antiwar movement and produced the first US president to be at war throughout two presidential terms. And it's hard to see how censoring/suppressing discussion on anti-war email lists will help to avoid similar disturbing - and deadly - mistakes. --CGE ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:32 AM To: C G Estabrook; Stuart Levy Cc: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help It seems your central point has been made and listened to several times over, Carl and Wayne. Some of us agree; some disagree. I vote we skip bringing out the torn & ratty old arguments of censorship, free speech, insults, yada, when it is clear who seems to have the most free speech in this group. Your communication skills are many and varied and respected here. As I say constantly, probably 98% of Americans want the same things: a good education, job, healthcare, clean air, food, land, water, security. For any anti-war or pro-Americans movement to succeed, we mustbfocus on our common goals of course. Splitting up constituencies was the ultimate cause of the 60s Civil Rights Movement's downfall. Womyn's rights only got so far, black womyn's rights less far, and marijuana was criminalized. Etc. Are you ignoring the move to vote on staying on anti-war topics only, having a group meeting to discuss it, or starting a different discussion group? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 8:54 AM To: Stuart Levy; Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Do you intend to censor posts to the email list, as you do to the email list, Stuart? Censorship is a peculiar practice for a liberal, isn’t it? “If you don’t believe I free speech for views you despise, you don’t believe in it at all.” —Noam Chomsky On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon Jul 30 16:13:25 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:13:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help Message-ID: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> I never said I was I liberal  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G EstabrookDate: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AMTo: Stuart Levy;Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% should animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group.   I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world.   I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to.   But not on this list, please.     Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know).   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 18:31:32 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:31:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> References: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <5DA9B112-412B-4839-A574-E75ACF03C9F4@gmail.com> How would you describe your politics? I say I’m a left-wing socialist (i.e, a sympahetic critic [from the left, not the right] of Marxism-Leninism, an anti-vanguardist), a Chomskyan anarchist. But that tends to start a discussion, not end it. Her’s an attempt I made to explain that, long ago, in connection with a favorite topic of yours: https://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/17/abortion-and-the-left/ —CGE > On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:13 AM, bjornsona at ameritech.net wrote: > > I never said I was I liberal > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: C G Estabrook > Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AM > To: Stuart Levy; > Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net ;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67; > Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help > > My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% should animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” > > To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE > > >> On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? >> >> Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. >> >> I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. >> >> I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. >> >> Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. >> >> Stuart >> >> On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient >>> to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to >>> a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. >>> >>> And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. >>> >>> bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). >>>> >>>> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> >>>> ------ Original message------ >>>> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM >>>> To: kmedina67; >>>> Cc: Peace-discuss; >>>> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar >>>> >>>> A paraphrase: >>>> >>>> "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. >>>> >>>> "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." >>>> >>>>> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. >>>>> >>>>> If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. >>>>> >>>>> - Karen Medina >>>>> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Jul 30 20:26:08 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:26:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> References: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> I feel sorry for those remaining in AWARE to have to contend with Carl and (the remote) ewJ for their anti-women’s-choice absurd ratiocinations. Carl should consult Noam Chomsky, his intellectual guide, on this issue. In any case, it would seem advisable to see the antiracism, antiwar part of AWARE protected from the anti-abortion toxic injections of Carl. —mkb On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:13 AM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: I never said I was I liberal Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AM To: Stuart Levy; Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% shou ld animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 30 20:41:36 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:41:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> References: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com>, <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB202B07@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 3:26 PM To: bjornsona at ameritech.net Cc: Brussel, Morton K; C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help I feel sorry for those remaining in AWARE to have to contend with Carl and (the remote) ewJ for their anti-women’s-choice absurd ratiocinations. Carl should consult Noam Chomsky, his intellectual guide, on this issue. In any case, it would seem advisable to see the antiracism, antiwar part of AWARE protected from the anti-abortion toxic injections of Carl. —mkb On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:13 AM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: I never said I was I liberal Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AM To: Stuart Levy; Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% shou ld animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 30 21:54:36 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:54:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Barack Obama In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB202B7C@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Was I speaking of 'classical liberalism' or 'neoliberalism'? They're quite different. Neoliberalism - a conscious, calculated construction by the US business elite - has characterized US government policy since the Carter administration; the response of the majority is 'populism' (which made Trump president). Here's a good discussion of neoliberalism, from a year ago: . --CGE ________________________________ From: bjornsona at ameritech.net [bjornsona at ameritech.net] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 12:10 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Barack Obama First-term Barack Obama, just like first-term George W. Bush, #43, fooled this naive voter. Being "woke" /no sheeple are my adopted cliches for no more historical isms. No liberalism, conservatism, -neo-ism, colonialism, elitism, libertarianism, feminazism, militarism, etc. Because those are the past and as you say, the past rhymes. My B. A. is in history, certain members of my family love history, history informs the present like no other field. History is current. There are historical figures acting on the present today and still stuck in the past, being isms. (Probably the entire Congress except for Maxine Walker and some of the Pentagon. Yes, hyperbole. You can make a better guess than I.) However, imnsho, most of the young generation see poor or no jobs, violence, expensive education, destructing climate, difficult family life, global labor, capital. Most of them are not isms-they clearly see a different world. A different world which probably began at the Vietnam war. Or the invention of the computer/internet. Calling out - Isms is relevant in terms of how they are used for divisions and why they no longer mean anything. I loved how you explained what classical liberalism is and how it has nothing to do with today. Most youth today care nothing for Left and Right or Up or Down or names. It is jobs, education. environment, clean air, water, land, healthcare, global society, their friends around the world not in cages. I am sad and disappointed to see many in generation give up and watch Fox, fall for talking points, etc. We grew up with no draft and the smallest amount of war in the nation's history. We had a relatively easy life with cheap goods from China, until the 80s on. It was the boiling a frog in water. Our generation was taken down bit by bit. What will replace the - isms? Geeks, Freaks, Beats, Meats, Wheats? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 22:08:00 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:08:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> References: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1349AF3C-B2D5-4C40-B4B2-A30C6417D518@gmail.com> "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald By Fitzgerald’s description, who has a first-rate intelligence, you or me? I think it’s the former. Are anti-war and anti-abortion ideas contradictory or congruent? I think it’s the latter. —CGE > On Jul 30, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > I feel sorry for those remaining in AWARE to have to contend with Carl and (the remote) ewJ for their anti-women’s-choice absurd ratiocinations. Carl should consult Noam Chomsky, his intellectual guide, on this issue. In any case, it would seem advisable to see the antiracism, antiwar part of AWARE protected from the anti-abortion toxic injections of Carl. > —mkb > > > >> On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:13 AM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> I never said I was I liberal >> >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> >> ------ Original message------ >> From: C G Estabrook >> Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AM >> To: Stuart Levy; >> Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net ;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67; >> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help >> >> My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% shou ld animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” >> >> To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE >> >> >>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? >>> >>> Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. >>> >>> I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. >>> >>> I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. >>> >>> Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. >>> >>> Stuart >>> >>> On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient >>>> to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to >>>> a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. >>>> >>>> And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. >>>> >>>> bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original message------ >>>>> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM >>>>> To: kmedina67; >>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss; >>>>> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar >>>>> >>>>> A paraphrase: >>>>> >>>>> "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. >>>>> >>>>> "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Karen Medina >>>>>> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Jul 31 00:11:20 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 00:11:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] classical liberalism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB202C18@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Depends on what you mean by 'classical liberalism.' The term is used variously. "Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on *economic freedom*. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of 'The Wealth of Nations' and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress. The term 'classical liberalism' was applied in retrospect to distinguish *earlier 19th-century liberalism* from the newer social liberalism." [Wikipedia] Roughly: classical liberalism = laissez-faire economics; social liberalism = e. g. the New Deal. --CGE ________________________________ From: bjornsona at ameritech.net [bjornsona at ameritech.net] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 6:48 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: classical liberalism Thank you for the article. Classical liberalism is to be admired. Neo- to be shouted down and its proponents locked up as far as I am concerned. ;) Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Estabrook, Carl G Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 4:54 PM To: bjornsona at ameritech.net; Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; Subject:RE: Barack Obama Was I speaking of 'classical liberalism' or 'neoliberalism'? They're quite different. Neoliberalism - a conscious, calculated construction by the US business elite - has characterized US government policy since the Carter administration; the response of the majority is 'populism' (which made Trump president). Here's a good discussion of neoliberalism, from a year ago: . --CGE ________________________________ From: bjornsona at ameritech.net [bjornsona at ameritech.net] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 12:10 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Barack Obama First-term Barack Obama, just like first-term George W. Bush, #43, fooled this naive voter. Being "woke" /no sheeple are my adopted cliches for no more historical isms. No liberalism, conservatism, -neo-ism, colonialism, elitism, libertarianism, feminazism, militarism, etc. Because those are the past and as you say, the past rhymes. My B. A. is in history, certain members of my family love history, history informs the present like no other field. History is current. There are historical figures acting on the present today and still stuck in the past, being isms. (Probably the entire Congress except for Maxine Walker and some of the Pentagon. Yes, hyperbole. You can make a better guess than I.) However, imnsho, most of the young generation see poor or no jobs, violence, expensive education, destructing climate, difficult family life, global labor, capital. Most of them are not isms-they clearly see a different world. A different world which probably began at the Vietnam war. Or the invention of the computer/internet. Calling out - Isms is relevant in terms of how they are used for divisions and why they no longer mean anything. I loved how you explained what classical liberalism is and how it has nothing to do with today. Most youth today care nothing for Left and Right or Up or Down or names. It is jobs, education. environment, clean air, water, land, healthcare, global society, their friends around the world not in cages. I am sad and disappointed to see many in generation give up and watch Fox, fall for talking points, etc. We grew up with no draft and the smallest amount of war in the nation's history. We had a relatively easy life with cheap goods from China, until the 80s on. It was the boiling a frog in water. Our generation was taken down bit by bit. What will replace the - isms? Geeks, Freaks, Beats, Meats, Wheats? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 03:38:39 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:38:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] On fp, the political establishment is hysterical because Trump is out maneuvering them Message-ID: <0D3664F4-411C-48EE-9FC7-936E0BC57FD4@gmail.com> https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/trumps-enemies-are-hysterical-because-hes-out-maneuvering-them/ri24247 Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country. Yet, should he attempt to carry out his agenda — to get out of Syria, pull troops out of Germany, take a second look at NATO’s Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never heard of — he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency. This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste. By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most — irrelevance. For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do? ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 03:52:08 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 22:52:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> References: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <902FD49B-5744-4218-9034-352783FFB5E4@gmail.com> BTW Mort, I recall we once differed on the SPLC, which you saw as righteous and I thought a scam. What do you think of the following? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/30/fbi-southern-poverty-law-center-partnership-alarms/ > On Jul 30, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > I feel sorry for those remaining in AWARE to have to contend with Carl and (the remote) ewJ for their anti-women’s-choice absurd ratiocinations. Carl should consult Noam Chomsky, his intellectual guide, on this issue. In any case, it would seem advisable to see the antiracism, antiwar part of AWARE protected from the anti-abortion toxic injections of Carl. > —mkb > > > >> On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:13 AM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> I never said I was I liberal >> >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> >> ------ Original message------ >> From: C G Estabrook >> Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AM >> To: Stuart Levy; >> Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net ;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67; >> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help >> >> My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% shou ld animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” >> >> To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE >> >> >>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? >>> >>> Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. >>> >>> I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. >>> >>> I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. >>> >>> Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. >>> >>> Stuart >>> >>> On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient >>>> to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to >>>> a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. >>>> >>>> And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. >>>> >>>> bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original message------ >>>>> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM >>>>> To: kmedina67; >>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss; >>>>> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar >>>>> >>>>> A paraphrase: >>>>> >>>>> "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. >>>>> >>>>> "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Karen Medina >>>>>> "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 04:10:54 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:10:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: 3 senators who need your help this month References: Message-ID: <8E907E40-089A-41A4-8C9C-CF84EED4AB7C@gmail.com> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: 3 senators who need your help this month > Date: July 30, 2018 at 8:00:36 PM CDT > To: info at dickdurbin.com > > I would not support any senator you support, owing to your support for Russiagate and lack of support for Julian Assange. > > (Dr.) C. G. Estabrook > >> On Jul 30, 2018, at 7:56 PM, Dick Durbin > wrote: >> >> >> C. G., >> >> I firmly believe that the fundamental goodness of the American people cannot be diminished by millions of special interest dollars or the divisive message of President Donald Trump. >> >> In less than 100 days, we’ll have a chance to prove it. >> >> I know we can win back the Senate this November, but it’s going to take all of us fighting our hardest to do it. And it starts by re-electing my Democratic colleagues in tough races, including three who need your help this month: Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine, and Jon Tester. >> >> Contribute $5 directly to Tammy, Tim, and Jon’s campaigns before July 31st to make sure they meet their July goals and help Democrats flip the Senate. >> President Trump is packing our federal courts with lifetime appointees who have the blessing of the extremist Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, but many have hardly stepped foot in a courtroom. >> >> Republicans in Congress are voting over and over to raise the cost of health insurance and shiver in fear at the thought of confronting Pharma with the soaring costs of prescription drugs. >> >> And now, we have more than 2,600 infants, toddlers, and children who were forcibly taken from their parents. >> >> The best way to fight the outrages of the Trump Administration and Republican-controlled Congress is to win a majority in the Senate this fall. >> >> Make a direct $5 contribution right now to Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine, and Jon Tester to hold Wisconsin, Virginia, and Montana as we fight for the Senate majority. >> My best, >> >> Dick Durbin >> >> >> CONTRIBUTE >> >> >> >> >> Paid for by Friends of Dick Durbin >> >> >> Friends of Dick Durbin >> Attn: Online Department >> 10‌1 W. Grand, S‌uite 200 >> Chicago, IL 606‌54 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 04:44:23 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <5DA9B112-412B-4839-A574-E75ACF03C9F4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5b5fe8fc.1c69fb81.6f530.6fd8@mx.google.com> I describe my politics:I identify with the poor. Consider them my community.  - Karen Medina"The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain -------- Original message -------- How would you describe your politics? I say I’m a left-wing socialist (i.e, a sympahetic critic [from the left, not the right] of Marxism-Leninism, an anti-vanguardist), a Chomskyan anarchist.  But that tends to start a discussion, not end it.   Her’s an attempt I made to explain that, long ago, in connection with a favorite topic of yours: https://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/17/abortion-and-the-left/  —CGE On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:13 AM, bjornsona at ameritech.net wrote: I never said I was I liberal  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G EstabrookDate: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AMTo: Stuart Levy;Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% should animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group.   I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world.   I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to.   But not on this list, please.     Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :)  What is the  agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know).   Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them."  On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman.  If you don't value the life of the woman,  then criminalize her.  - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 13:29:59 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:29:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: References: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> <902FD49B-5744-4218-9034-352783FFB5E4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <448723EB-4C50-49A4-BC52-C687AD138382@gmail.com> [Here’s what seems to me an accurate paleoconservative view.] Trump's Enemies Are Hysterical Because He's Out-Maneuvering Them "Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country." Pat Buchanan Fri, Jul 20, 2018 The original title of this essay was: 'Trump Stands His Ground on Putin' “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which presidents can be impeached. And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all. Trump’s refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin’s claim at Helsinki — that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton’s campaign — has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former director of the CIA. Slowly but surely he's boxing his opponents into a corner. All they can do is shriek and scream. Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia’s hacking of the DNC “an act of war” comparable to Pearl Harbor. The New York Times ran a story on how many are now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago. Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: “Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!” Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy. Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a “conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream, today it is the establishment itself bawling “Treason!” What explains the hysteria? The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is hard to credit. Like the boy who cried “Wolf!” the establishment has cried “Fascist!” too many times to be taken seriously. A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR’s concentration camps for Japanese-Americans. Some commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz. If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the levers of power ever again. Using Occam’s razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America’s elites have been driven over the edge by Trump’s successes and their failure to block him. Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies. Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along with Vladimir Putin. “Over our dead bodies!” the Beltway elite seems to be shouting. Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: Liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin’s poodle, fascist, demagogue, traitor, Nazi. Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders if the haters are considering the impact of the words they are so casually using. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs far less toxic than this. The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president’s enemies, but the depth of their determination to destroy him. They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted and prosecuted, and the agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history. Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance: “The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war. They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin.” Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin’s pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders. Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall. Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country. Yet, should he attempt to carry out his agenda — to get out of Syria, pull troops out of Germany, take a second look at NATO’s Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never heard of — he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency. This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste. By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most — irrelevance. For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do? Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” Source: The Unz Review > > On Jul 31, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: You will bargain with the devil if it agrees with your preconceived conclusions won't you. The "deep state" fantasy - soon you will become a Trumpite and swear allegiance to the dictator in chief! ### From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Jul 31 13:39:18 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Estabrook, Carl G) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <448723EB-4C50-49A4-BC52-C687AD138382@gmail.com> References: <3ipv5spn10ben4tig757aahb.1532967190369@email.lge.com> <9E36C2D5-6E27-4C01-B87C-15D248CE5174@illinois.edu> <902FD49B-5744-4218-9034-352783FFB5E4@gmail.com> , <448723EB-4C50-49A4-BC52-C687AD138382@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55C1235D4C0F314D9285438F01AE1A3BCB202EB3@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> [The political establishment is desperately trying to prevent a rapprochement with Iran.] After Trump says 'no preconditions' for meeting with Iran - Pompeo sets preconditions Iran responded to Trump, conditioned such meeting on Trump's return to the 2015 nuclear deal and suspend sanction Haaretz, DPA, Reuters | Jul. 31, 2018 | 12:18 PM U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contradicted U.S. President Donald Tramp after he laid out the conditions for talks between the United States and Iran. Trump said Monday that he was willing to meet with Iran's leadership "anytime" and "with no preconditions." Speaking later on CNBC, Pompeo said: "If the Iranians demonstrate a commitment to make fundamental changes to how they treat their own people, reduce their malign behavior, agree that it's worthwhile to enter into a nuclear agreement that actually prevents proliferation, then the president said he is prepared to sit down and have a conversation with them." Iran responded to Trump Tuesday, setting two preconditions to a possible meeting. Trump would have to agree to return to the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran and also would have to suspend new sanctions against Tehran before any talks, Hamid Abutalebi, an aide to Iranian President Hassan Rohani, said on Twitter. "Respecting the Iranian nation's rights, reducing hostilities and returning to the nuclear deal are steps that can be taken to pave the bumpy road of talks between Iran and America," Abutalebi tweeted in Farsi. Different sentiments were also voiced Tuesday by senior Iranian parliament member Ali Motahari, who said now is not a good time for Iran to negotiate with the United States. “If Trump had not withdrawn from (Iran’s) nuclear deal (with world powers) and had not imposed sanctions on Iran, there would be no problem with negotiations with America,” Motahari, the deputy speaker of parliament, was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA. “But negotiating with the Americans would be a humiliation now,” he said. Trump's unexpected announcement of a willingness to meet follows days of sabre-rattling between the two camps through the media and via Twitter and as the United States prepares to step up sanctions against Iran. Trump said a future meeting with Iranian leaders would be useful "if we could work something out that is meaningful, not the waste of paper the other deal is," a reference to the agreement reached under his predecessor Barack Obama in 2015 with international support. It was negotiated by the U.S., the European Union, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The agreement was formally endorsed by the UN Security Council, incorporating it into international law. In May, Trump withdrew the United States from the landmark 2015 international agreement designed to deny Tehran the ability to build nuclear weapons. Since then, Iran and other signatories have been working to find a way to salvage the agreement, even as the United States has begun reimposing some sanctions on Iran. ________________________________________ From: Peace-discuss [peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss [peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 8:29 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help [Here’s what seems to me an accurate paleoconservative view.] Trump's Enemies Are Hysterical Because He's Out-Maneuvering Them "Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country." Pat Buchanan Fri, Jul 20, 2018 The original title of this essay was: 'Trump Stands His Ground on Putin' “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which presidents can be impeached. And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all. Trump’s refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin’s claim at Helsinki — that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton’s campaign — has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former director of the CIA. Slowly but surely he's boxing his opponents into a corner. All they can do is shriek and scream. Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia’s hacking of the DNC “an act of war” comparable to Pearl Harbor. The New York Times ran a story on how many are now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago. Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: “Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!” Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy. Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a “conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream, today it is the establishment itself bawling “Treason!” What explains the hysteria? The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is hard to credit. Like the boy who cried “Wolf!” the establishment has cried “Fascist!” too many times to be taken seriously. A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR’s concentration camps for Japanese-Americans. Some commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz. If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the levers of power ever again. Using Occam’s razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America’s elites have been driven over the edge by Trump’s successes and their failure to block him. Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies. Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along with Vladimir Putin. “Over our dead bodies!” the Beltway elite seems to be shouting. Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: Liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin’s poodle, fascist, demagogue, traitor, Nazi. Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders if the haters are considering the impact of the words they are so casually using. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs far less toxic than this. The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president’s enemies, but the depth of their determination to destroy him. They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted and prosecuted, and the agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history. Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance: “The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war. They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin.” Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin’s pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders. Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall. Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country. Yet, should he attempt to carry out his agenda — to get out of Syria, pull troops out of Germany, take a second look at NATO’s Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never heard of — he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency. This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste. By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most — irrelevance. For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do? Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” Source: The Unz Review > > On Jul 31, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: You will bargain with the devil if it agrees with your preconceived conclusions won't you. The "deep state" fantasy - soon you will become a Trumpite and swear allegiance to the dictator in chief! ### _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 16:08:58 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:08:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Feminists for Life Message-ID: <20388803-62FF-404C-B98D-ED54E7861621@gmail.com> Alexandria, VA — Pro-life publisher Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the pro-life feminist known as "the mother of the women's movement," will be recognized for leading the first wave of the women's movement in a statue in New York City's Central Park. While Anthony was born in Adams, Massachusetts, both lead the movement as adults in upstate New York. "Feminists for Life is thrilled that these two women will be the first to be depicted in a Central Park statue. After nearly 150 men have been honored throughout the city, it is about time with the 2020 Centennial Celebration of the 19th Amendment," FFL President Serrin Foster said. Foster had the privilege of speaking in Seneca Falls, New York on the 150th anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention in 1998. She also had the honor to attend the rededication ceremony of the Portrait Monument in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, along with FFL Vice Presidents Jane Sullivan Roberts and Jeannie Pryor in 1997. Feminists for Life of America is responsible for first revealing that our feminist foremothers were pro-life after our co-founder Pat Goltz learned from Alice Paul that FFL was not the first pro-life feminist movement -- that the early American suffragists were pro-life, too. Paul will grace the reverse side of the $10 bill, along with pro-life suffragists and abolitionists Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Sojourner Truth. Two years ago, FFL petitioned the U.S. Treasury to ensure that the bills will be in circulation in time for the Centennial Celebration of the 19th Amendment on August 18, 2020. We appreciate your support as we work to reveal the unrealized vision of Susan B. Anthony to address the root causes that drive women to abortion... Feminists for Life of America is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. For more information, go to feministsforlife.org feministsforlife.org/donate facebook.com/feministsforlife womendeservebetter.com  ‌ ‌ ‌ Feminists for Life | P.O. Box 151567, Alexandria, VA 22315 From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 31 17:18:42 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:18:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] moderator help In-Reply-To: <5b5fe8fc.1c69fb81.6f530.6fd8@mx.google.com> References: <5DA9B112-412B-4839-A574-E75ACF03C9F4@gmail.com> <5b5fe8fc.1c69fb81.6f530.6fd8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <006d01d428f2$884532a0$98cf97e0$@comcast.net> I like your definition of your politics Karen. I would describe mine similarly as ; I support, educate, and fight for whatever eliminates the sufferings of the poor / Working class while at the same time empowers the poor / Working class. I can further add that I am ; anti-capitalist, anti-racist / misogynous, anti-authoritarian, and anti- war / empire. David Johnson From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of kmedina67 via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 11:44 PM To: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help I describe my politics: I identify with the poor. Consider them my community. - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain -------- Original message -------- How would you describe your politics? I say I’m a left-wing socialist (i.e, a sympahetic critic [from the left, not the right] of Marxism-Leninism, an anti-vanguardist), a Chomskyan anarchist. But that tends to start a discussion, not end it. Her’s an attempt I made to explain that, long ago, in connection with a favorite topic of yours: https://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/17/abortion-and-the-left/ —CGE On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:13 AM, bjornsona at ameritech.net wrote: I never said I was I liberal Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 9:05 AM To: Stuart Levy; Cc: E. Wayne Johnson;bjornsona at ameritech.net;C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;kmedina67; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] moderator help My argument is that the same concerns that lead us to condemn US killing in the Mideast for the profits of the 1% should animate our opposition to the killing of the unborn because the 1% are "concerned about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” To suppress such a discussion on an anti-war reading list is remarkably illiberal. —CGE On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: Lots of right arguments go unheard, and many wrong ones flourish, or else why would the US still be supporting the bombardment of Yemen? Look, I signed up for AWARE as an anti-war group. I go with David and Ann and Karen to work the farmer's market twice a month, and to the monthly demonstrations, to express and work for opposition to US participation in wars around the world. I've done that and other things for many years, as many of you know who have been doing it beside me. I'm here on this list and others for discussion of opposition to war and what we can do about it. I didn't sign up to AWARE, and neither did the several people who joined this list just last weekend, to join an anti-abortion (and-oh-by-the-way-never-mind-what-happens-to-the-mothers) group. Anyone here who wishes to start or join such a group, run a market presence, hold demonstrations, carry on discussions, is welcome to. But not on this list, please. Stuart On 07/30/2018 09:38 AM, E. Wayne Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: If you are right, then the power of your argument should be sufficient to squelch those who oppose your ideas, and you ought not need to appeal to a higher (Levitical) authority for narrowing of the limits of debate. And when you are wrong, to admit the fault, delete the offending code, and reboot. bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: Dear Moderator :) What is the agreement for what people are allowed to publish here? I hate to lose subscribers because we go off topic. (Guilty, I know). Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 8:57 AM To: kmedina67; Cc: Peace-discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Stop dividing AntiWar A paraphrase: "Until the conditions for Americans in the world (beset by terrorists) change, access to safe drone assassinations needs to be an option, if you value the life of Americans. "If you don't value the life of Americans, then criminalize them." On Jul 29, 2018, at 12:59 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: Until the conditions for women change, access to safe abortion needs to be an option, if you value the life of the woman. If you don't value the life of the woman, then criminalize her. - Karen Medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great" - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: