|
|
We believe that taking direct action is central to the success of the anti-war movement. These past five years have proven the anti-war movement unequivocally correct in opposing an imperial war of aggression with a cost astronomical both in lives and resources. Five years have left more than 600,000 Iraqis dead, according to a Johns Hopkins study, along with more than 3,900 U.S. soldiers. U.S. Office of Management and Budget data states that $2.8 trillion has been spent on the military since 2003. Rather than spend this money on the priorities of the people – universal health care, rebuilding the Gulf Coast or fully funding schools in working class communities – this immense amount of resources has been spent destroying the country of Iraq, and paying well-connected U.S. corporations to make a pretense of building it back up again. We believe that it is time for us to take direct action against the organizations responsible for this war, and make it absolutely clear to them that they can continue to expect this kind of popular resistance until the war is brought to an end.
"it was consensed that DASW would organize an initial series of three direct actions - one on February 5, the day of the presidential primaries in California, the second on March 15 at the Chevron refinery in Richmond in the East Bay, and the third on the fifth anniversary of the war, March 19, with multiple actions at multiple locations in downtown San Francisco."
http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell080208.htm
At least viewed from outside US borders, American opposition to the current Iraq conflict, although certainly existent, seems rather channeled and "main-stream". Although no one is expecting anything compared to the anti-war movement of the late sixties / early seventies, a more vociferous opposition would perhaps be able to affect matters, or is news coverage from inside the US perhaps failing to report critically? I will be interested to read the posts to this thread.
| MaxStirner wrote: | | At least viewed from outside US borders, American opposition to the current Iraq conflict, although certainly existent, seems rather channeled and "main-stream". Although no one is expecting anything compared to the anti-war movement of the late sixties / early seventies, a more vociferous opposition would perhaps be able to affect matters, or is news coverage from inside the US perhaps failing to report critically? I will be interested to read the posts to this thread. |
The media doesn't report rofl...the media talks about random shit and ignores anything important.
| joshumu wrote: | We believe that taking direct action is central to the success of the anti-war movement. These past five years have proven the anti-war movement unequivocally correct in opposing an imperial war of aggression with a cost astronomical both in lives and resources. Five years have left more than 600,000 Iraqis dead, according to a Johns Hopkins study, along with more than 3,900 U.S. soldiers. U.S. Office of Management and Budget data states that $2.8 trillion has been spent on the military since 2003. Rather than spend this money on the priorities of the people – universal health care, rebuilding the Gulf Coast or fully funding schools in working class communities – this immense amount of resources has been spent destroying the country of Iraq, and paying well-connected U.S. corporations to make a pretense of building it back up again. We believe that it is time for us to take direct action against the organizations responsible for this war, and make it absolutely clear to them that they can continue to expect this kind of popular resistance until the war is brought to an end.
"it was consensed that DASW would organize an initial series of three direct actions - one on February 5, the day of the presidential primaries in California, the second on March 15 at the Chevron refinery in Richmond in the East Bay, and the third on the fifth anniversary of the war, March 19, with multiple actions at multiple locations in downtown San Francisco."
http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell080208.htm |
I assume that your solution to the problem is to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may?
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: | | joshumu wrote: | We believe that taking direct action is central to the success of the anti-war movement. These past five years have proven the anti-war movement unequivocally correct in opposing an imperial war of aggression with a cost astronomical both in lives and resources. Five years have left more than 600,000 Iraqis dead, according to a Johns Hopkins study, along with more than 3,900 U.S. soldiers. U.S. Office of Management and Budget data states that $2.8 trillion has been spent on the military since 2003. Rather than spend this money on the priorities of the people – universal health care, rebuilding the Gulf Coast or fully funding schools in working class communities – this immense amount of resources has been spent destroying the country of Iraq, and paying well-connected U.S. corporations to make a pretense of building it back up again. We believe that it is time for us to take direct action against the organizations responsible for this war, and make it absolutely clear to them that they can continue to expect this kind of popular resistance until the war is brought to an end.
"it was consensed that DASW would organize an initial series of three direct actions - one on February 5, the day of the presidential primaries in California, the second on March 15 at the Chevron refinery in Richmond in the East Bay, and the third on the fifth anniversary of the war, March 19, with multiple actions at multiple locations in downtown San Francisco."
http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell080208.htm |
I assume that your solution to the problem is to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq and let the chips fall where they may?
Respectfully,
M |
We've given them years of ability to settle their differences and make things work. They don't want to.
| liljp617 wrote: |
We've given them years of ability to settle their differences and make things work. They don't want to. |
The U.S. didn't have a constitution until 13 years after the Declaration of Independence and we still fought a civil war 70 years later. Don't you think we should do everything within our power to help them form a stable and secure government, not only for the Iraqi people but also for the benefit of regional peace? Don't you worry that if Iraq fails it may fall into chaos, or even become a state like that of Afghanistan after the end of the Soviet-Afghan War?
To me it doesn't matter if the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, or even legal or illegal. It's proverbial spilled milk. All that matters now is how we manage the situation henceforward. And walking away from it like some piece of cake that fell onto the carpet at a stand-up dinner party with the hope that somebody else will clean it up is the wrong thing to do. It would be nothing short of irresponsible.
We created the current situation and therefore we have a responsibility to the Iraqis and the world to put forth our best efforts at securing and rebuilding. You can't place a price tag or a timeline on it. It's done when it's done. For me that means the Iraqi government feels secure and stable enough to ask the United States to leave. Or the Iraqi government and her people feel like we're no help and are actually making matters worse and ask us to leave.
We don't leave unilaterrally saying "good-bye" and "sorry 'bout the mess."
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: | | ... To me it doesn't matter if the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, or even legal or illegal. It's proverbial spilled milk. All that matters now is how we manage the situation henceforward. |
My apologies beforehand to Moonspider since not only does he/she mean well but is, in my opinion, also quite correct in much of his/her appraisement of the situation. What disturbs me is that either ...
a. we have a world super-power so inept that it is incapable of discerning the results of the most obvious actions (... and a war is certainly not something that just ... "oops, sorry ...my bad" ... happens such as dropping your plate at a cocktail-party or innocently slipping on a banana peel, or ...
b. more probably, interest groups that are quite aware of both costs and results of such adventures and consider it part of their spin-doctrine to extend these actions by suggesting that "since we are now in the middle of things, it would be irresponsible to drop out now." I suggest that, even if it is true that we need to take responsibility for what has happened in Iraq, we do NOT simply forget who "spilled the milk", since that spill was very much intentional.
| joshumu wrote: | We believe that taking direct action is central to the success of the anti-war movement. These past five years have proven the anti-war movement unequivocally correct in opposing an imperial war of aggression with a cost astronomical both in lives and resources. Five years have left more than 600,000 Iraqis dead, according to a Johns Hopkins study, along with more than 3,900 U.S. soldiers. U.S. Office of Management and Budget data states that $2.8 trillion has been spent on the military since 2003. Rather than spend this money on the priorities of the people – universal health care, rebuilding the Gulf Coast or fully funding schools in working class communities – this immense amount of resources has been spent destroying the country of Iraq, and paying well-connected U.S. corporations to make a pretense of building it back up again. We believe that it is time for us to take direct action against the organizations responsible for this war, and make it absolutely clear to them that they can continue to expect this kind of popular resistance until the war is brought to an end.
"it was consensed that DASW would organize an initial series of three direct actions - one on February 5, the day of the presidential primaries in California, the second on March 15 at the Chevron refinery in Richmond in the East Bay, and the third on the fifth anniversary of the war, March 19, with multiple actions at multiple locations in downtown San Francisco."
http://www.countercurrents.org/campbell080208.htm |
Just go get them! The resistance must come from the roots. The working class in the US should not have to feel that they are somehow responsible to clean up the mess in Iraq that the state areresponsible for. The more trouble and resistance working class america can create, the more problematic things will get for the state.
| Moonspider wrote: | | To me it doesn't matter if the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, or even legal or illegal. It's proverbial spilled milk. All that matters now is how we manage the situation henceforward. And walking away from it like some piece of cake that fell onto the carpet at a stand-up dinner party with the hope that somebody else will clean it up is the wrong thing to do. It would be nothing short of irresponsible. |
Whilst I have some sympathy for that view, there are two points to bear in mind.
1) At what point do we judge that the US/UK presence is actually hindering the process of reconstruction? How do we make that call and who is to be believed in making the judgement?
2) How do we stop the US presence from becoming a semi-permanent occupation (example that springs to mind would be the US presence in Saudi) ? It is always possible to make the argument that US troops are needed - the same argument was made for troops in SA after the first Gulf War but, in reality, the troops were there as part of a regional presence and (arguably) to add support to a corrupt and undemocratic ally.
Im not sure sure about 'letting the chips fall where they may' but i think the money we spend militarily could be spent in other ways, here and in iraq as well. Our government cant possibly protect us but they can surly get us killed. Our 'security' force looks strikingly like an occupation, all of our reconstruction efforts are nothing but corporate profit schemes, and we have made iraq more synonymous with death and violence then Siadam ever could. All that makes a lot of people hate this country and i can totally understand there desire to lash out at us on our own soil, like we have done to them. This is what we get for over a trillion dollars, our trillion dollars (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html).
But yes, I definitely think we should leave iraq. More importantly i think we need to take action to make that change.
| Moonspider wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: |
We've given them years of ability to settle their differences and make things work. They don't want to. |
The U.S. didn't have a constitution until 13 years after the Declaration of Independence and we still fought a civil war 70 years later. Don't you think we should do everything within our power to help them form a stable and secure government, not only for the Iraqi people but also for the benefit of regional peace? Don't you worry that if Iraq fails it may fall into chaos, or even become a state like that of Afghanistan after the end of the Soviet-Afghan War?
To me it doesn't matter if the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, or even legal or illegal. It's proverbial spilled milk. All that matters now is how we manage the situation henceforward. And walking away from it like some piece of cake that fell onto the carpet at a stand-up dinner party with the hope that somebody else will clean it up is the wrong thing to do. It would be nothing short of irresponsible.
We created the current situation and therefore we have a responsibility to the Iraqis and the world to put forth our best efforts at securing and rebuilding. You can't place a price tag or a timeline on it. It's done when it's done. For me that means the Iraqi government feels secure and stable enough to ask the United States to leave. Or the Iraqi government and her people feel like we're no help and are actually making matters worse and ask us to leave.
We don't leave unilaterrally saying "good-bye" and "sorry 'bout the mess."
Respectfully,
M |
We're in the middle of a civil war. If they want to kill each other over nothing like they have been for thousands of years, what in the world could possibly change their minds? We've been there for six years. We've paved every bit of path they need to at least get on track to forming a halfway decent government. The political scene is the same as it was in 2004. So what's the point? I don't feed into McCain's "we could be there for another hundred years." Again, I'm sorry, but that's not going to solve the situation. If it took the US 13 years after the Declaration to form a fairly strong federal government, how long is it going to take for a "country" like Iraq? A country that has to fight through so many more obstacles that date back so many centuries. The US had it easy compared to what these people are faced with....and it's been made obvious they don't want to follow what we say.
"If we leave, it could be chaos." It already is and always has been. What's the difference? Until the Sunnis and Shiites can settle their differences (apparent that they don't want to) or one group kills the other completely, problems will persist. I don't see it right to stick 120,000 Americans in the middle of something like that...a place they don't belong.
Not to mention we completely threw Afghanistan on the back burner and forgot about it. If we really cared about the well-being of people in that region, we would have kept our focus where it mattered rather than bomb the shit out of it then run to another country and bomb the shit out of it. Violence is rising incredibly fast in Afghanistan. If we're doing anything in that region, it should be taking care of the place that A) Was home to those who attacked us in the first place B) We destroyed first.
I agree it doesn't matter whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong. But I don't care to look at the future either to determine whether our staying there is worth it. I look at the present. And presently, violence is down very much in the majority of regions due to the surge (which was supposed to open the door for the political movement). The political movement hasn't budged. So what do we do now? We sit around and watch our own citizens die, because these groups can't settle their differences? I can't support that...ever.
On a final note: The "terrorists" (I hate the word) despise us because we're there, not because we're a democracy or we have freedoms and all that other rhetoric. They hate us and want to kill us because we refuse to leave them alone and allow them to manage themselves. They attacked on 9/11 because of the troops in Saudi Arabia. Our staying there is supposed to bring us victory; but victory, to me and I hope many others, comes about when we stop making young Muslim men want to strap bombs on themselves and kill us. We won't do that by staying. Not in a million years. And we surely can't kill our way to security and a stable region.
| Moonspider wrote: | | ... . To me it doesn't matter if the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, or even legal or illegal. ... |
| liljp617 wrote: | | ... . I agree it doesn't matter whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong. ... |
I understand that...
- ... it is important to concentrate on addressing the current situation in Iraq and not to get bogged down in solely discussing who did what to whom (first), and that ...
- ... it is highly unlikely, given today's distribution of power, that any legal proceedings concerning responsibility for this war have any hope of getting underway ...
... but I simply cannot put aside ethical and moral convictions as well as established international law when speaking of a war that has killed (no matter which body-count you one might deem correct) at least hundreds of thousands of noncombatant men, women and children. As someone who has had the greatest admiration for the US and the values put forth in its constitution / bill of rights, it saddens me to listen to highest American officials defending or proposing (a) the use of torture, (b) the defense of incarceration without legal recourse or representation, (c) the use of all weapons in the arsenal (implying a nuclear option against Iran), (d) defending the concept of preemptive strikes, ... . By those standards, it would be just as permissible for french troops to parashoot into Washington D.C., abduct government officials, and intern and torture these on an island off Guadalupe to find out who renamed french fries to freedom fries.
as long as
american politics is run by big bucks
american media is run by big bucks
american arms manufacture makes big bucks
american people are under or misinformed by the media
no matter how much anybody shouts
screams
or takes "actions"
inside or outside the us of a
that and other wars with america involved
or even istigated in the role of "global policeman"
will never end
sorry
the buck rules
cheers
| Bikerman wrote: | | Moonspider wrote: | | To me it doesn't matter if the Iraq invasion was right or wrong, or even legal or illegal. It's proverbial spilled milk. All that matters now is how we manage the situation henceforward. And walking away from it like some piece of cake that fell onto the carpet at a stand-up dinner party with the hope that somebody else will clean it up is the wrong thing to do. It would be nothing short of irresponsible. |
Whilst I have some sympathy for that view, there are two points to bear in mind.
1) At what point do we judge that the US/UK presence is actually hindering the process of reconstruction? How do we make that call and who is to be believed in making the judgement? |
Aye, an excellent question with no clear answer. It’s as grey as grey gets. And no matter how the US and UK deal with it, there may never be a consensus on whether it was done rightly or not.
I honestly don’t know, Chris. But if the violence becomes pure anti-coalition and there is marked distrust between the Iraqi government and the coalition, then I believe that point would have to be considered one at which departing becomes better than staying. As to who makes the call, I’d prefer that Iraqi leadership do so, rather than the domestic politics of the US and UK. At least then if Iraq falls to shambles afterwards, it won’t be because we left against their will and hung them out to dry, so to speak.
| Bikerman wrote: | | 2) How do we stop the US presence from becoming a semi-permanent occupation (example that springs to mind would be the US presence in Saudi) ? It is always possible to make the argument that US troops are needed - the same argument was made for troops in SA after the first Gulf War but, in reality, the troops were there as part of a regional presence and (arguably) to add support to a corrupt and undemocratic ally. |
That too is a very good question. I’m very conservative, as you know, but I don’t want Iraq to become like Saudi in that regard either. I think having forces there semi-permanently, as you put it, is grossly unnecessary and a diplomatic liability. However, like you I’m sure, I fear there will be political pressure (for whatever reason) to do so.
Militarily I don’t think it makes sense. We have a practically permanent naval presence in the Gulf and are building very large bases in Kuwait. Within the next 10-20 years or so bombers like the B-52 won’t even have to leave the continental U.S. to strike targets worldwide within minutes (the FALCON program). And U.S. warships may be fielding rail guns with 200NM ranges by 2020. I don’t see a need for basing in Iraq after reconstruction. That being said, if I had to place a bet on it, I’d bet on some U.S. forces remaining in Iraq, possibly even permanent U.S. bases.
After all, we still have bases in Europe and the Pacific dating back to the end of World War II. Heck, we still have a base in Cuba from the Spanish-American War. I don’t see a need for it in Iraq, but history is against me.
Respectfully,
M
|
