[Peace-discuss] Let's not fight between Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters

C. G. Estabrook galliher at illinois.edu
Wed Mar 20 11:28:55 UTC 2019 

No, I supported (and voted for) Jill Stein - even tho’ some people thought that to do so was ‘objectively' to help Trump.

I did (and do) think it important to recognize the populist upsurge that made Trump president.

That hasn’t subsided, although Trump has betrayed it by adopting the last administration’s neolib and neocon policies (more war and more inequality) - which he attacked in the campaign. 

—CGE
 

> On Mar 20, 2019, at 6:12 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On this very list, Snarl, you openly campaigned for Trump. Anyone here can verify this for themselves by checking the archives. 
> 
> Why aren't you willing to take responsibility for Trump starving children to death in Yemen, given that you openly campaigned for him? 
> 
> ===
> 
> Robert Reuel Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> (202) 448-2898 x1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:57 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> Actually, I voted Green in the last presidential election - as I expect to do in the next - against the advice of people whose opinions I respect, like Chomsky.
> 
> I don’t regret it, but we Americans have a great deal to repent, notably not constraining the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.
> 
> 
> 
> > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:24 AM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Let's not forget that Snarl supported Trump. The blood of Yemeni children is on Snarl's hands. 
> > 
> > ===
> > 
> > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > Policy Director
> > Just Foreign Policy
> > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:19 AM Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Look up the estimates for how many civilians have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in all theaters since 2001. 
> > 
> > Then look up the numbers for the number of children who have starved to death in Yemen alone as a result of the U.S.-Saudi war and blockade since 2015.
> > 
> > Come back and report when you've finished your homework. 
> > 
> > ===
> > 
> > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > Policy Director
> > Just Foreign Policy
> > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:16 AM Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
> > 
> > But there is no reason to do that, unless you don't understand anything about how life on Planet Earth works, and you don't care to learn, because you actually don't care about the consequences of your actions. 
> > 
> > ===
> > 
> > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > Policy Director
> > Just Foreign Policy
> > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > “Practical’ as this advice is, re-read it, imagining oneself at the appropriate time and place - and substituting 'concentration camps’ for ‘drone strikes.’
> > 
> > 
> > > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:24 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I see no prospect of prohibiting the U.S. from using drones as weapons per se. There is no meaningful support for this idea anywhere in the United States, neither in Washington, nor in public opinion. Partly because it's fundamentally an irrational idea - there's nothing intrinsically worse about using a drone as a weapon than a cruise missile strike - in fact, the contrary is true, strike for strike, the cruise missile is worse. And there's no call to ban cruise missiles. So I'm not particularly scandalized by these words from Tulsi and Bernie - they're running for President of the United States, not student council at a Quaker college. There are things we could do to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes, like ending the wars that the drone strikes are part of, but banning drones is not one of them in any future we can see. If I were advising Tulsi and Bernie - and in a way, I am, I'm talking to people who talk to them - I would not advise them to call for getting rid of drones. I would advise them to call for getting rid of wars that the drones are part of. The way to protect civilians from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan and Syria is to get the U.S. the hell out of Afghanistan and Syria. 
> > > 
> > > We've made the progress we have on ending unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by distinguishing it from the war against Al Qaeda. If we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. 
> > > 
> > > If we want to end any wars around here anytime soon, it seems likely that we will have to speak specifically to the wars. We need to talk about ending the Saudi war in Yemen, we need to talk about ending the war in Afghanistan, we need to talk about ending the war in Syria. We need to talk about preventing a military attack on Venezuela. We need to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine. We need to cut off U.S. military and police aid to the government of Honduras. We need to be specific to the things that the U.S. is doing, in the places that the U.S. is doing them.  
> > > 
> > > Think about Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC. How far do you think we're going to get, trying to ban drones, when Nancy Pelosi is going to AIPAC? Absolutely nowhere. 
> > > 
> > > But ending U.S. participation in the Saudi regime's wars in the Middle East - that's something we could conceivably do. That's something we might even be able to force Nancy Pelosi to support. We did it in the case of the Saudi war in Yemen. We forced Nancy Pelosi to come out against it. It wasn't easy. It was hard. Much, much harder than it should have been. But we did it. That proves it's possible. Maybe, if we put more pressure on Nancy Pelosi, we could shake some more war-ending apples loose from the tree. 
> > > 
> > > ===
> > > 
> > > Robert Reuel Naiman
> > > Policy Director
> > > Just Foreign Policy
> > > www.justforeignpolicy.org
> > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
> > > (202) 448-2898 x1
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 8:38 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> > > Robert Naiman wrote:
> > >> "Brothers and sisters, we must not fight each other between the Bernie
> > >> supporters and the Tulsi supporters. We must unite against the common
> > >> enemy: the Clinton-Pelosi-Harris-Booker supporters."
> > > 
> > > Sen. Sanders in his "Meet the Press" interview from 2016 -- 
> > > https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-would-use-drones-to-fight-terror-542522435844
> > > 
> > >> Chuck Todd: What does counterterrorism look like in a Sanders
> > >> administration? Drones? Special forces? Or what does it look like?
> > >> 
> > >> Bernie Sanders: All of that and more.
> > >> 
> > >> Chuck Todd: You're okay with the drone, using drones--
> > >> 
> > >> Bernie Sanders: Look, drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is
> > >> terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a
> > >> building which kills women and children, you know what? Not only doesn't
> > >> do us any -- it's terrible.
> > >> 
> > >> Chuck Todd: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you
> > >> think you've isolated an important terrorist?
> > >> 
> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes.
> > >> 
> > >> Chuck Todd: So that continues?
> > >> 
> > >> Bernie Sanders: Yes. 
> > > 
> > > Rep. Gabbard in her "Intercept" interview from 2018 -- 
> > > https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/
> > > 
> > >> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the 
> > >> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with
> > >> strike forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your
> > >> position that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the
> > >> U.S. military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is
> > >> that still your position?
> > >> 
> > >> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional 
> > >> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other 
> > >> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically 
> > >> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass 
> > >> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars 
> > >> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and 
> > >> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those 
> > >> current AUMFs.
> > >> 
> > >> So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe 
> > >> that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical 
> > >> strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no
> > >> long-term occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and
> > >> then get out and the very limited use of drones in those situations
> > >> where our military is not able to get in without creating an
> > >> unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not
> > >> causing, you know, a large amount of civilian casualties.
> > > So it appears that Gabbard and Sanders are united against one common enemy: 
> > > anyone who objects to continuing the drone war.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list