<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Indeed. Carl, you want to spit in our hands and shake, or let that be virtual? By the way, I do hope both happen ASAP, but I suspect the meal will have to be one of those specialties at the old folks' home if we don't all of us get back to work.<br><br>Ricky<br>
<br>
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn<br><br>--- On <b>Thu, 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <i><naiman.uiuc@gmail.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc@gmail.com><br>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!<br>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher@illinois.edu><br>Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><br>Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 7:24 PM<br><br><div class="plainMail">If anyone rats us out, we can argue that the stakes are too small to<br>be considered real gambling. By the time any of us gets to collect, we<br>won't even be able to take each other out to a nice dinner on it.<br><br>On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM, C. G. Estabrook <<a ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" href="/mc/compose?to=galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>> Which side of the bet do you want, Ricky?<br>><br>> The same as Bob? If so, I've got you faded.<br>><br>> We're going to get chambana.net busted for making book...<br>><br>><br>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:<br>>><br>>> I agree with all this, and I'll also bet anyone the same $100 on the same<br>>> terms.<br>>><br>>> Ricky<br>>><br>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn<br>>><br>>> --- On *Thu, 2/4/10, Robert Naiman /<<a ymailto="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</a>>/* wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>> From: Robert Naiman <<a ymailto="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</a>><br>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!<br>>> To:
"Morton K. Brussel" <<a ymailto="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu" href="/mc/compose?to=brussel@illinois.edu">brussel@illinois.edu</a>><br>>> Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <<a ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>>> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 3:31 PM<br>>><br>>> I certainly agree with Mort that there is no "pat resolution" to the<br>>> dilemmas that we face.<br>>><br>>> But some of the logic here escapes me.<br>>><br>>> Cheryle Jackson didn't fail because she was "caught in the Democratic<br>>> party web." She failed because she didn't get enough votes in the<br>>> Democratic primary. If more people had voted for her in the Democratic<br>>> primary,
she would have won. How people who are anti-war can be<br>>> indifferent to this escapes me. Jackson was competitive in the City of<br>>> Chicago. If there were a real statewide anti-war movement that was<br>>> prepared to intervene in Democratic primaries, the outcome could have<br>>> been different.<br>>><br>>> It seems odd to me to punish anti-war candidates running as Democrats<br>>> by not voting for them, for the failure of other Democrats to be<br>>> anti-war. Are the Green Party representatives in Congress doing a<br>>> better job of opposing the war than the anti-war Democrats? No,<br>>> because there are no Green Party representatives in Congress. And it<br>>> is extremely likely that there will never be any in our lifetime. Is<br>>>
voting for the Green Party an effective strategy for ending the wars,<br>>> when Green Party candidates are unlikely to ever be in a position of<br>>> voting on it? I'll bet anyone on this list $100 that the last U.S.<br>>> soldier will leave Afghanistan before any Green Party candidates are<br>>> elected to Congress.<br>>><br>>> If Green Party activists can figure out a way to undertake their<br>>> long-term - and quite uncertain - project of transformation without<br>>> getting in the way of here-and-now efforts to address the wars and<br>>> other social ills, then I have no dispute with them. But if they<br>>> insist on trying to obstruct more practical efforts, then they have to<br>>> expect some
push-back.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Morton K. Brussel<br>>> <<a ymailto="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu" href="/mc/compose?to=brussel@illinois.edu">brussel@illinois.edu</a> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu" href="/mc/compose?to=brussel@illinois.edu">brussel@illinois.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>>> > One votes Green, as I did, with the hope (Always with hope, even<br>>> if laced with pessimism) that this party may gain in stature and be<br>>> able to effect future progressive change in the national politics.<br>>> Yet, one regrets not being able to also vote for candidates like<br>>> Cheryle Jackson, who, because she is caught in the Democratic party<br>>> web, has small (negligible) chance of winning.<br>>>
><br>>> > Question: Is it important to keep the Green party going and to<br>>> increase its visibility, or is it more important to vote for<br>>> possibly progressive candidates in established parties that fail the<br>>> test, over all, of effective progressivism (anti-war,<br>>> anti-militarist, socially conscious, egalitarian, etc.)? The<br>>> evidence indicates that the Democratic party in recent times has not<br>>> been a counterforce, au contraire, to the conservative corporate<br>>> establishment. Can it be improved by voting for someone like Cheryl<br>>> Jackson when even getting someone like her on the ballot is<br>>> unlikely, given the nature of the D-Party. This is a symptom of the<br>>> utter corruption
of our political system.<br>>> ><br>>> > We need a complete turning around, i.e., a revolution, of that<br>>> political system. Can voting Democratic achieve this? Can voting<br>>> Green better achieve this?<br>>> ><br>>> > There seems to be no pat resolution to these dilemmas.<br>>> ><br>>> > --another 2¢ worth.<br>>> ><br>>> > --mkb<br>>> ><br>>> > Incidentally, at a meeting of Gill supporters, Gill unequivocally<br>>> stated that he would not support the AfPac or Iraq<br>>> wars/occupations…, or the budgets that sustain them. He did this in<br>>> the face of Democrats who were uncomfortable with his position.<br>>>
><br>>> ><br>>> > On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:<br>>> ><br>>> >> Tom, do you agree with Matt's view that<br>>> >><br>>> >> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was<br>>> >> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in<br>>> >> this rigged election."?<br>>> >><br>>> >> If so, does this statement also apply to Green candidates? If it<br>>> >> doesn't also apply to Green candidates, why not? If it does also<br>>> apply<br>>> >> to Green candidates, does it apply forever, or only until some<br>>> >> particular reform(s) of the "rigged
election" are achieved? If the<br>>> >> latter, what reform(s)? What is the Green Party strategy to<br>>> bring such<br>>> >> reform(s) about?<br>>> >><br>>> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Abram <<a ymailto="mailto:tabram@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=tabram@gmail.com">tabram@gmail.com</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:tabram@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=tabram@gmail.com">tabram@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>> >>> Obviously, the Illinois Green Party, its candidates, and active<br>>> >>> members are going to encourage their members to vote for Green<br>>> >>> canididates. That's kind of the point of building a party. To<br>>> get<br>>> >>> candidates
of our values elected and influence public policy.<br>>> Just<br>>> >>> like the Dems and Reps, but our values are far more progressive.<br>>> >>> Would you really expect the Democrats to advocate their members<br>>> voting<br>>> >>> for a Republican candidate? Why should we? We gain absolutely<br>>> >>> nothing from this and further distort the power dynamics between<br>>> >>> ourselves and the corporate parties. When Greens have stepped<br>>> aside<br>>> >>> from an election due to pressure from "progressive Democrats" they<br>>> >>> have gained absolutely nothing, furthering the acceptance of such<br>>> >>> candidates and marginalizing the Green
Party.<br>>> >>><br>>> >>> If an individual wants to vote in a different primary to<br>>> influence the<br>>> >>> outcome, I can understand that. However, I personally feel it's a<br>>> >>> stronger statement to vote Green. I have been criticized for<br>>> >>> advocating voters to pull a Green ballot. To expect one party to<br>>> >>> kowtow to another and encourage their members, supporters, and the<br>>> >>> public to vote in another party is ludicrous. When Republicans<br>>> cross<br>>> >>> over in the primary to vote for Dems (like the 2006 District 9<br>>> County<br>>> >>> Board race and the silly Rush Limbaugh
effort to nominate Hilary<br>>> >>> Clinton) they're called infiltrators by the Dems. But these<br>>> same Dems<br>>> >>> encourage Greens to cross over. No thanks. We are not a subset,<br>>> >>> splinter, or sect of the Democratic Party. The law and media have<br>>> >>> already treated the Greens inferiorly (even though we're now a<br>>> >>> recognized established party in Illinois). We don't need our<br>>> activist<br>>> >>> allies to do the same.<br>>> >>><br>>> >>> Tom Abram<br>>> >>><br>>> >>><br>>> >>> On 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <<a
ymailto="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:naiman.uiuc@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman.uiuc@gmail.com">naiman.uiuc@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>> >>>> I find Matt's argument here quite striking. I wonder how many<br>>> >>>> activists in the Illinois Green Party share the views that Matt<br>>> >>>> expresses here. If it turns out that these views are<br>>> widespread in the<br>>> >>>> Illinois Green Party, I think it should affect the calculation of<br>>> >>>> folks who are interested in promoting progressive change in<br>>> the world<br>>> >>>> in which we actually live about whether the
Illinois Green<br>>> Party is an<br>>> >>>> institution whose influence in public affairs they want to<br>>> promote.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Matt argues that it actually doesn't matter who Cheryle<br>>> Jackson is or<br>>> >>>> what views she espouses:<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was<br>>> >>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning<br>>> in<br>>> >>>> this rigged election."<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Presumably, Matt is acknowledging here that he actually<br>>> doesn't know<br>>>
>>>> anything about and doesn't care to know anything about Cheryle<br>>> >>>> Jackson, a remarkable position for someone who presumes to<br>>> educate<br>>> >>>> others on public affairs. But in Matt's worldview, that<br>>> information is<br>>> >>>> irrelevant, so why bother acquiring it? All you need to know<br>>> about the<br>>> >>>> world is that you should vote for the Green Party.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Furthermore, one presumes that according to Matt's logic, so<br>>> long as<br>>> >>>> the election remains "rigged," no Green Party candidates will<br>>> ever<br>>> >>>> have a realistic chance of ever
winning any election.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Therefore, in Matt's worldview, the call to vote for the Green<br>>> Party<br>>> >>>> is essentially a call for a boycott of the election. The only<br>>> >>>> difference between voting for the Green Party and staying home<br>>> is that<br>>> >>>> if you vote for the Green Party, there is an official record<br>>> of how<br>>> >>>> many people participated in the Green Party-initiated boycott.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Note the similarity between Matt's argument and the old anarchist<br>>> >>>> slogan, "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it." Of<br>>>
course,<br>>> >>>> anarchists with this view are generally electoral<br>>> abstentionists. The<br>>> >>>> only difference is that the anarchists generally don't exhort<br>>> you to<br>>> >>>> go the polling place on election day and vote anarchist.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Other folks here are more familiar with the Illinois Green<br>>> Party than<br>>> >>>> I am. Are these views widespread in the Illinois Green Party?<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Matt Reichel<br>>> <<a ymailto="mailto:mattreichel@hotmail.com"
href="/mc/compose?to=mattreichel@hotmail.com">mattreichel@hotmail.com</a> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:mattreichel@hotmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=mattreichel@hotmail.com">mattreichel@hotmail.com</a>>><br>>> >>>> wrote:<br>>> >>>>> Of course, I couldn't disagree more with the analysis that it is<br>>> >>>>> worthwhile<br>>> >>>>> pulling a corporate party ballot. If Cheryle Jackson or<br>>> anyone else on the<br>>> >>>>> corporate ballots was actually any good, then they had no<br>>> realistic chance<br>>> >>>>> of winning in this rigged election.<br>>> >>>>><br>>> >>>>> The act of pulling a Green ballot in itself was a
vote<br>>> against the system<br>>> >>>>> of<br>>> >>>>> corporate bribe-taking candidates.<br>>> >>>>><br>>> >>>>> In the end, over 5,000 people in the state pulled a Green<br>>> ballot: a 60%<br>>> >>>>> increase over 2008 numbers, despite turnout being about 1/3rd<br>>> of 2008<br>>> >>>>> across<br>>> >>>>> the board. (Champaign County was the only major county that saw<br>>> a<br>>> >>>>> decrease,<br>>> >>>>> in large part due to the graduation and relocation of several<br>>> active GP<br>>> >>>>> activists from
there)<br>>> >>>>><br>>> >>>>> Most of the increase occurred in inner-city Chicago, where<br>>> residents have<br>>> >>>>> the benefit of clarity that those of you in the cornfields<br>>> might not have:<br>>> >>>>> choosing among corporate bribe taking candidates in one of<br>>> the corporate<br>>> >>>>> bribe-taking parties is an act of futility. In the land of<br>>> Blago, Rahmbo,<br>>> >>>>> Stroger, Daley, Burke I and II, Dick Mell, and so on, this<br>>> couldn't be<br>>> >>>>> clearer.<br>>> >>>>><br>>> >>>>> Solidarity,<br>>>
>>>>><br>>> >>>>> Matt<br>>> >>>>><br>>> >>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0600<br>>> >>>>>> From: <a ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" href="/mc/compose?to=galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" href="/mc/compose?to=galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</a>><br>>> >>>>>> To: <a ymailto="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=kmedina67@gmail.com">kmedina67@gmail.com</a> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com" href="/mc/compose?to=kmedina67@gmail.com">kmedina67@gmail.com</a>><br>>> >>>>>> CC: <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!<br>>> >>>>>><br>>> >>>>>> My experience exactly. Without the kiss.<br>>> >>>>>><br>>> >>>>>><br>>> >>>>>> Karen Medina wrote:<br>>> >>>>>>> Election judge to Karen: "Would you like a Democrat or a<br>>> Republican<br>>> >>>>>>> ballot?"<br>>>
>>>>>>><br>>> >>>>>>> Karen: "You are not offering a Green ballot?"<br>>> >>>>>>><br>>> >>>>>>> EJ: "Would you like a Green ballot?"<br>>> >>>>>>><br>>> >>>>>>> Karen: "No. But aren't we offered a Green ballot?"<br>>> >>>>>>><br>>> >>>>>>> [... ] [Karen was voter 110 at her precinct at 10:30am today.]<br>>> >>>>>>><br>>> >>>>>>> Karen to 3 EJs in an otherwise empty poling place: "Have a<br>>> wonderful<br>>> >>>>>>> day! Hope you have a great turnout!"<br>>>
>>>>>>><br>>> >>>>>>> EJ1 blows a kiss. A heartfelt good-bye.<br>>> >>>>>><br>>> >>>>>><br>>> >>>>>> --<br>>> >>>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> >>>>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>> >>>>>> believed to be clean.<br>>> >>>>>><br>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>> >>>>>> <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>>> >>>>>> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>> >>>>><br>>> >>>>> ________________________________<br>>> >>>>> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up<br>>> now.<br>>> >>>>> --<br>>> >>>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> >>>>> dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is<br>>> >>>>> believed to be clean.<br>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>> >>>>> <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>>> >>>>> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>> >>>>><br>>> >>>>><br>>>
>>>><br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> --<br>>> >>>> Robert Naiman<br>>> >>>> Just Foreign Policy<br>>> >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org<br>>> >>>> <a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a>><br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan<br>>> >>>> Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations<br>>>
>>>><br>>><br>>> <a href="http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations" target="_blank">http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations</a><br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> --<br>>> >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> >>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>> >>>> believed to be clean.<br>>> >>>><br>>> >>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>> >>>> <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>>> >>>> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>> >>>><br>>> >>><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> --<br>>> >> Robert Naiman<br>>> >> Just Foreign Policy<br>>> >> www.justforeignpolicy.org<br>>> >> <a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org"
href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a>><br>>> >><br>>> >> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan<br>>> >> Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations<br>>> >><br>>><br>>> <a href="http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations" target="_blank">http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations</a><br>>> >><br>>> >> --<br>>> >> This message has been scanned for viruses
and<br>>> >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>> >> believed to be clean.<br>>> >><br>>> >> _______________________________________________<br>>> >> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>> >> <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>>> >> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>> ><br>>>
><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> -- Robert Naiman<br>>> Just Foreign Policy<br>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org<br>>> <a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a>><br>>><br>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan<br>>> Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations<br>>><br>>> <a href="http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations"
target="_blank">http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations</a><br>>><br>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>>> believed to be clean.<br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<br>>> <a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>>> </mc/compose?to=<a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>><br>>> <a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> --<br>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/" target="_blank">http://www.mailscanner.info/</a>>, and is<br>>> believed to be clean.<br>>><br>>><br>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>><br>>> This body part will be downloaded on demand.<br>><br><br><br><br>-- <br>Robert Naiman<br>Just Foreign Policy<br>www.justforeignpolicy.org<br><a ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" href="/mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br><br>Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan<br>Timeline for Withdrawal and Political Negotiations<br><a
href="http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations" target="_blank">http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations</a><br><br>-- <br>This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>believed to be clean.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" href="/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br></div></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.