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

Wed Mar 20 11:34:21 UTC 2019

You actively supported Trump by name, Snarl.

The prosecution rests and asks the court for summary judgment.

===

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 6:29 AM C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190320/c81e4baa/attachment-0001.html>