END THE US OCCUPATION OF IRAQ - 10/25 DC Protest

[sauvee88]

Originally posted by 2tuff

...sinister organization that counts many dark figures...

Just sounds naughty :whip2:

[jamiroguy1]

By the way, everyone should check out that Pnac site.

2tuff... Keep up the good work!

[shadygroovedc]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

By the way, everyone should check out that Pnac site.

2tuff... Keep up the good work!

Kill whitey!!

[revaluation]

Originally posted by 2tuff

This statement by yourself puts you squarely within the current political camp known as the 'neo-conservatives.' its very rare that you (at least for me) meet someone who will actually admit their neoconservative views, did you vote for bush? will you next year?

considering your interest in being 'the world's policeman' i think you should look into a high level think tank called PEOPLE FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY - or PNAC for short. PNAC is a sinister organization that counts many dark figures, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, richard perle, bill kristol, james woolsey, and many other hawks. the PNAC drew up a 'contingency plan' for what to do in case of cataclysmic terrorist attack, this plan included finishing bush #41's war in iraq. in the days immediately following 9-11, wolfowitz lobbied hard for a pre-emptive attack on iraq..... check it out:

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. "

check this site:

http://pnac.info/

what the fuck is this liberal hippy shit? So what if YOU identify me with the neo-cons? While YOU and the media turn the term neocon into some dastardly organization, you distort its very meaning.

NeoCons certainly do not advocate being the world's policeman. If that were the case you have to call the entire last administration polluted by neo-cons. The neo-conservative movement began out of a realization that as the US grew to be the worlds strongest (and eventually only) superpower, things no longer happened in a vaccum. A lot more things were in our interest to get involved, and to sit back and just let it happen was irresponsible.

You anti-cons should understand this....Clinton deployed 37 missions deemed as "major deployments" throughout his presidency. Please explain to me which one of those presented an "imminent" threat to US National Security!

[theblueangel]

Originally posted by shadygroovedc

I can't wait till we Asians rule the world so we can make all you whiteys our slaves. Then y'all will know what it's like to do someone else's laundry. Fucking wide-eyed muthafuckas.

[vixenfoxxy]

Originally posted by revaluation

You anti-cons should understand this....Clinton deployed 37 missions deemed as "major deployments" throughout his presidency. Please explain to me which one of those presented an "imminent" threat to US National Security!

While you have a really good point here - Clinton usually had some way to justify US actions under presently accepted international law. Bush, unfortunately, violates these norms regularly without even trying to justify his gross offenses of the law - either that or he makes up false BS about weapons that don't exist.

I feel that the intervention against the Taliban was definitely necessary and proper, but I continue to be hung up on the fact that it was technically against international law. What is so unfathomable to me is that the intervention in Iraq is even more blatantly and offensively against international law. Liberal interpretations of I-Law will justify rooting out the Taliban, but not even the most liberal reading of the UN charter and customary law will cover the ass of the iraq intervention.

I think Bush doesn't even know anything about I-law, really, but that's a different story. In any case, I want this interventionist crap to end - I agree that we have to intervene in certain respects to stop problems that *actually* threaten national security (Iraq didn't, hint) or that would otherwise leave populations susceptible to genocide, but all of this needs ot be done by a COMPETENT leader with SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. Otherwise I'm afraid the entire international law system may face collapse, either that or the US hegemony that so many people seem so comfortable with will finally be balanced out by a coalition of many other small yet really pissed off states that are sick and tired of our imperialist crap.

[revaluation]

Originally posted by vixenfoxxy

I think Bush doesn't even know anything about I-law, really, but that's a different story. In any case, I want this interventionist crap to end - I agree that we have to intervene in certain respects to stop problems that *actually* threaten national security (Iraq didn't, hint) or that would otherwise leave populations susceptible to genocide, but all of this needs ot be done by a COMPETENT leader with SECURITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. Otherwise I'm afraid the entire international law system may face collapse, either that or the US hegemony that so many people seem so comfortable with will finally be balanced out by a coalition of many other small yet really pissed off states that are sick and tired of our imperialist crap.

I think that's a consistent postition as long as you recognize that the actions of past adminstrations don't add up to the "standard" that most libs, dems, and anti-cons seem to require these days.

As for the UN, I see no reason for it if they continually refuse to act. It's like your mother, father, and teachers all agreeing that you're a bad child, but never spanking, grounding, suspending, or disiplining you in any way. As a ruthless dictator, who cares if the world disagrees with your regime if they are letting you get away with it?

[vixenfoxxy]

Originally posted by revaluation

As for the UN, I see no reason for it if they continually refuse to act. It's like your mother, father, and teachers all agreeing that you're a bad child, but never spanking, grounding, suspending, or disiplining you in any way. As a ruthless dictator, who cares if the world disagrees with your regime if they are letting you get away with it?

Well, the UN charter does allow for states to react to rogue advances under article 2(4) and article 51 of the charter - the catch is that it must be a self-defensive action. Thus far, the Bush administration has come up with absolutely nothing to show that there was a "clear and imminent danger of attack so pressing as to allow no time for deliberation". Also, it happens frequently these days that states or coalitions claim humanitarian intervention to justify interference in the sovereignty of another state. Technically, the government could claim it was acting to assist supressed or violated groups in Iraq. Unfortunately, humanitarian intervention and protection of nationals both require that the intervention be solely for the purpose of ending human rights abuses and extracting nationals, not for the purpose of meddling in or toppling existing sovereign governments. The technicality there: if the abuses cannot be ended while leaving the present government in place, only then, that government may be forcibly downed and replaced with another. Even so, that doesn't justify the continued occupation of Iraq, it should be left to the Iraqi people now to determine for themselves which governmental structure they wish to have, and to construct it accordingly.

[revaluation]

Originally posted by vixenfoxxy

The technicality there: if the abuses cannot be ended while leaving the present government in place, only then, that government may be forcibly downed and replaced with another. Even so, that doesn't justify the continued occupation of Iraq, it should be left to the Iraqi people now to determine for themselves which governmental structure they wish to have, and to construct it accordingly.

So assuming that were true, would you then support an Iraqi regime that wished to set up a system of rules similiar to that of the Taliban? If that's what the people said they wanted?

My point is that the reason we are continuing the occupation is to avoid that exact senario: replacing the evil regime and a new evil one, although different, rise in its place.

[vixenfoxxy]

Originally posted by revaluation

So assuming that were true, would you then support an Iraqi regime that wished to set up a system of rules similiar to that of the Taliban? If that's what the people said they wanted?

Would I support it personally? Nope

Would I want that? Nope

But would we be legally justified in stopping it if it did happen that way? Nope.

Sucks, I know, but if we plan to uphold the international system as we know it, we have to just leave well enough alone sometimes. PS, the only reason I see anybody wanting to get into a regime like the taliban is because they're so exasperated with american occupation that they'll go radically to the other side to prevent its reoccurrence. Did the Taliban or Al Qaeda ever launch major attacks on Switzerland or Thailand or Argentina? Nope. Why? Because when did any of those countries ever stick their yeehaw faces into its business?

[2tuff]

the rally & the march were well organized, well attended and impressive. estimates up to 100,000 protestors - any of you make it down?

here's what kucinich had to say about the protest/war/occupation:

_________________________________________

Yesterday, supporters of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's bid for the presidency participated in marches and rallies around the country, including in Washington D.C. and San Francisco, organized by United for Peace and Justice and intended to advance the cause of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Busloads of Kucinich supporters made their way to D.C. and handed out flyers in a crowd containing many Kucinich signs, banners, and T-shirts.

Congressman Kucinich himself phoned in to WPFW, the radio station airing the DC event, and expressed his support for the cause on the air. Kucinich also wrote remarks which were read on stage at the DC event by Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, the Kucinich campaign's National Director of Community Outreach and New Voter Development. The remarks follow:

REMARKS FROM CONGRESSMAN DENNIS J. KUCINICH:

"I wish I could have been with you today, as I have been with you in marches against this war over the past many months, including the powerful march in New York last February. I am campaigning for President, which required me today to speak out against this occupation at a forum with other candidates rather than with you where my heart is, rather than with you in Washington, D.C., a city that I intend to see become a STATE in the very near future. Today I spoke at an AFL-CIO forum in New Hampshire urging labor to get behind ending the occupation.

"It was a year ago February that I gave a speech titled "A Prayer for America" that flooded my office with Emails, letters, and phone calls asking me to run for President. In that speech I protested the Bush Administration's build-up to war, and I have continued to oppose that war unwaveringly and do so still today, because this war has been declared over but our soldiers continue to die, our occupation continues to destabilize the region, and our public resources continue to be drained by this fraudulent and unjust project.

"While I organized in communities with you against the war, I also organized in Congress. I led an effort that persuaded nearly two-thirds of the Democrats in the House to vote against the war. I also sued the President in an attempt to prevent him from going to war without a Congressional Declaration. And I led the effort to oppose the recent funding increase for this occupation to the tune of 87 billion dollars. That's more than all the states' deficits combined.

"Let me say it clearly: It is time to bring the troops home! It is time to get the UN in and the US out of Iraq! This is not a demand I make casually. I have developed a plan to make this happen and it can be found on my website at Kucinich dot US. We must go to the UN Security Council for a resolution that includes these three points:

"One) The UN must handle the collection and distribution of all oil revenues for the Iraqi people, with no privatization.

"Two) The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts - no more Halliburton sweetheart deals. No more war profiteering by Republican contributors and Bush Administration cronies.

"Third) The UN must work to create conditions for Iraqi self governance.

"It is time for the United States to rejoin the world community in the interests of international security. I am running for President to completely change the direction of US foreign and domestic policy. I plan to cut the bloated Pentagon budget by 15 percent and use the money for universal pre-school. I plan to establish a cabinet-level Department of Peace to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our foreign and domestic affairs.

"If those of you who share these goals join this campaign, help us organize door-to-door and over the phone lines, we will win the Democratic nomination and give the American people a real choice in next year's election, a reason to vote, an opportunity to make this country a leader in peace, not war. And it will be the war profiteers who have to gather in a small corner of this great space and hold a protest, because the White House will be closed to them. Thanks you."

For more information: http://www.kucinich.us

Please forward this courageous statement to anyone who might be participating in a Democratic primary or caucus.

If you received this Email from a friend and would like to receive them directly, click here http://kucinich.us/alerts-signup.htm