Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Whatever Happened To The Anti-War Movement?


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#51 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 01:50 PM

Media does not cover the protests. Big or small (though any 'tea party' one gets massive coverage). I've been at 3 or 4 protest/rally since the beginning of March. I've seen more as I drive by.

The anti-war movement is just where it was.

You can keep saying it all you want, but it doesn't make it true. :dunno:

Hell, even the folks over here are honest enough to acknowledge isn't what it was

Excerpt
Opposing a war machine in overdrive
National antiwar protests this weekend can reflect the new mood of resistance.


During the Bush years, after the initial massive mobilizations against the invasion of Iraq, the antiwar movement went into a prolonged decline--chiefly because leading organizations and figures were willing to tailor the agenda and activities of the movement to the needs of the Democratic Party's electoral strategy.

Now that they control the White House again--and until this year both houses of Congress with big majorities to boot--it's clear the Democrats aren't allies of the antiwar movement.

The challenge now is to rebuild activism on the basis of independence from the two mainstream parties--and the demonstrations this weekend will be a step in this direction. The mobilizations are spearheaded by the United National Antiwar Committee and have drawn together labor unions, student activists, Arabs and Muslims, military veterans, defenders of civil liberties, Palestine solidarity activists and more.


http://socialistwork...the-war-machine



Now if you can offer up any evidence backing up your position I'd be interested in seeing it, but your word that "The anti-war movement is just where it was." means absolutely nothing and, as has been shown in the past, certainly can't be counted on to be the truth.

#52 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,644 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 02:03 PM

It has been replaced by the slacker anti-movement movement :undecided:

:joker:"you kids stay outta my war!"

#53 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 02:16 PM

Thousands Rally on April 9 in New York City and April 10 in San Francisco
(and around the world)

The antiwar movement is back in the streets. Thousands marches in New York on April 9 and April 10 in San Francisco. These demonstrations represented an important step forward for UNAC and the antiwar movement as a whole. The antiwar movement has been in a lull since before the election of Barak Obama as many hoped the change in administration would mean an end to the wars. We are now in a rebuilding phase and UNAC has made it clear that the rebuilding of a new antiwar movement is our goal. The new antiwar movement needs to oppose the US foreign wars but also defend the domestic victims of the

#54 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:24 PM

You can keep saying it all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Wow, I really thought I'd been to those rallys/protests :undecided:

:dunno:

#55 frankiep

frankiep
  • VibeTribe
  • 3 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:28 PM

What does protesting do?

#56 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:30 PM

What does protesting do?


Wastes time until Jersey Shore comes on. :funny1:

#57 bast

bast
  • VibeTribe
  • 312 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:40 PM

Facebook and flatscreen TV?

#58 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:46 PM

What does protesting do?

Sometimes nothing, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.

#59 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:51 PM

Sometimes nothing, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.


It really depends upon the magnitude. A few people standing on a street corner with some signs? Prolly nothing.

A few thousand blocking the streets? Police intervention


A few 100,000 or more marching on the capital? Maybe a little

#60 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,258 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:16 PM

Wow, I really thought I'd been to those rallys/protests :undecided:

:dunno:




:lol:


Joker knows best!

#61 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:43 PM

What does protesting do?



nothing that a riot can't do better

#62 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 05:03 PM

nothing that a riot can't do better

damn Flyers fans

:rimshot:

#63 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 21 April 2011 - 05:06 PM

Wow, I really thought I'd been to those rallys/protests :undecided:

:dunno:

Who said you didn't go to them?

#64 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 05:05 AM

I'm guessing this didn't happen, because ya know, you didn't hear about it. This is about the size of that tea party protest on the capital during the recent budget 'crisis' that received national media attention. It's probably 5 times the number who burned the holy Qu'oran in Florida.

37 people who protest at Hancock Air Base near Syracuse against the use of drones are arrested Friday

Published: Friday, April 22, 2011, 6:53 PM Updated: Friday, April 22, 2011, 7:36 PM
By Dave Tobin / The Post-Standard The Post-Standard


Posted ImageGary Walts / The Post-StandardShelley Lovelace (left), of Trumansburg, was among the protesters outside the Air National Guard base at Hancock Air Base, in DeWitt, on Friday to demonstrate against the military use of drones in Afghanistan.

Posted Image Enlarge Gary Walts Demonstrators Protest Miltary Use of Drones gallery (9 photos)
  • Posted Image
  • Posted ImagePosted Image
  • Posted Image
  • Posted Image
  • Posted Image







DeWitt, NY -- Dozens of war protesters were arrested Friday afternoon outside the main entrance of the New York Air National Guard’s base at Hancock Field.
Thirty seven protesters, draped with red-spattered sheets, had lain themselves in the main entrance roads to the base, off East Molloy Road. They were arrested by Onondaga County Sheriff’s deputies on charges of trespassing and obstruction of justice.
They were handcuffed and, after a 45-minute wait, were led to a jail transport bus that was supposed to take them to the Onondaga County Justice Center for processing. Two were in wheel chairs.
The arrests followed a rally outside the air base where more than 150 people had gathered to protest the MQ-9 Reaper drones, and U.S. military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Posted Image Drone Protesters Rally in Syracuse Drone protesters rally in Syracuse, with a final protest outside the Air National Guard Base at Hancock. Thirty-seven people were arrested following a demonstration. Video by Gary Walts / The Post-Standard Watch video

Friday’s rally culminated a week of walks, talks and dinners that brought people from around New York State and the U.S., organized by the Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars.
“Our real goal is to end the war,” said Kathy Kelly, a peace activist from Chicago.
Speaker after speaker said the drones represent a new stage of dehumanizing war, kill and maim many civilians. “They terrorize people we don’t want to terrorize,” said Elliott Adams, a Veterans for Peace member from Sharon Springs, NY.
The 174th Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard has been remotely flying MQ-9 Reaper drones over Afghanistan, from Syracuse, since late 2009. The unmanned surveillance aircraft is armed with Hellfire missiles and laser-guided bombs.
The 174th is the first Air National Guard unit to fly MQ-9s, and the first Air Force-affiliated unit east of the Mississippi to fly them.
Major Jeff Brown, spokesman for the 174th, said the unit was proud of their mission. “We are proud of the role we play protecting the lives of military men and women on the ground, in harm’s way,” he said. “This state-of-the-art technology saves American lives on a daily basis.”


Related topics: drones, Hancock, NY Air National Guard, protests

#65 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 05:11 AM

By the way, speaking of that Florida pastor (prolly got an internet certificate) did you see how his gun accidentally went off?

#66 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 12:21 PM

I'm guessing that once again you've stated something that you can't back up.

Nobody said there was no anti-war movement at all, only that it isn't what it once was.

You've denied that. Yet when called on it you can't seem to back up your statement and instead have chosen to pretend that I've stated there were no protests at all.

It's a shame but your lack of honesty has led to a lack of credibility.

#67 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:28 PM

Once again a personal attack.

You just can't help from making it personal.

You just can't keep from twisting my words, misrepresenting what I say and then calling me a liar when I am not even addressing you.

It's not all about Jack.

Have you no respect for this board?

What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.
Hannah Arendt
Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare moments; it is a whole-time job.
W. Somerset Maugham

#68 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:48 PM

Once again a personal attack.

You just can't help from making it personal.

You just can't keep from twisting my words, misrepresenting what I say and then calling me a liar when I am not even addressing you.

It's not all about Jack.

Have you no respect for this board?

:rotf:

Really? Then who were you addressing here?

I'm guessing this didn't happen, because ya know, you didn't hear about it. This is about the size of that tea party protest on the capital during the recent budget 'crisis' that received national media attention. It's probably 5 times the number who burned the holy Qu'oran in Florida.


Who were you addressing in the multiple posts where you quoted me?

What words have I twisted? Where did I misrepresent what you said?



Folks may not like what I have to say but at least I'm honest.

#69 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:53 PM

Jack,

When I said "I'm guessing this didn't happen, because ya know, you didn't hear about it. " I was adressing people reading this thread. You can assume I always hope that you aren't one of them since you lie about me and make personal attacks.

at least I'm honest.

Not true.

Have some respect for Terrapin for once.

By the way, you can pretty much take it that I am not addressing you directly unless I specifically put your name there, like in this post.

#70 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 03:03 PM

Jack,

When I said "I'm guessing this didn't happen, because ya know, you didn't hear about it. " I was adressing people reading this thread. I always hope that you aren't one of them since you lie about me and make personal attacks.


Hey if you want to treat others reading this as if they're complete idiots, then you have fun with that.

I suspect the folks around here are much smarter than you give them credit for and have no problem seeing who's being honest and who isn't :wink:

#71 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 03:16 PM

Actually Jack. It's not about you.

I do not care what you think.

And that is why I was addressing other people in this thread.

The anti-war movement is what it's always been. It's always at it.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe I'm right. But I'm free to post evidence to the people reading this thread who I suppose didn't hear about this protest.

#72 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 03:22 PM

Antiwar No More?

Among Barack Obama’s distinguishing characteristics in the field of presidential hopefuls, four years ago, was his opposition to the Iraq war, which he had denounced at an antiwar rally in Chicago in October 2002, when invasion was still yet a gleam in the neocon eye. As Obama’s reelection campaign begins this week, his administration continues the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while making the down payment on a third in Libya.

This is not what people who supported Obama expected -- and public opinion polls suggest that opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq remains as high as it was during Bush’s second term, or higher. But the streets no longer fill with protesters. This coming weekend there will be antiwar demonstrations in New York (April 9) and San Francisco (April 10). They won’t be on the scale that became almost routine a few years ago, however, when hundreds of thousands of people attended such events. They will be one-tenth the size, more or less.

We can predict that with greater confidence than the weather this weekend. But why? And what would it take to change the situation?


More
http://www.insidehig...o_more#Comments

#73 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 03:23 PM

i didn't hear about it til you posted it...the media does not talk about protest...and it's easy for them not to do when the protests are on such a small scale...the movement is small to the point of non-existent in the news media...it needs to get too big to ignore or it may as well not exist...sitting at home and relying on democrats will keep it this way

#74 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 25 April 2011 - 03:28 PM

i didn't hear about it til you posted it...

yep, you're one person I was thinking about when I posted that

#75 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 04:47 PM

Seems like the anti-war movement should be all over this.



Congress Returns to Town With Demand Obama Get OK on Libya


President Obama could be impeached for violating U.S. Constitution and law by going into Libya without congressional consent, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he doesn't want to cause that kind of havoc on the Republic, he just wants the United States to get out of Libya's civil war.

While many lawmakers in general support the U.S. role in Libya, even if they want the final say on approving military action, Kucinich, D-Ohio, will introduce a joint resolution when Congress returns this week that he says "hopefully will lead us out of this mess that we've waded into in Libya."

The eight-term congressman and former presidential candidate said Obama "moved to attack Libya without constitutional authority" and violated U.S. law by not complying with the War Powers Act, which requires a president to get authorization from Congress within 60 days of launching a military action.

He told Fox News on Sunday that absent an imminent threat, the president is not allowed to usurp the role of Congress in determining whether or not to declare war. Kucinich added that the president is aware of that separation of powers authority because he used the argument in 2007 to protest President George W. Bush's troop surge.

"He knows better and we have to call him on that," Kucinich said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1NC7pYzet

#76 Ravn

Ravn
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,823 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 04:52 PM

do as I say, not as I do,,

#77 Gypsy Bob

Gypsy Bob
  • VibeTribe
  • 908 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 05:17 PM

The thread title begs the question:
What War are you Anti?



#78 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 07:31 PM

I'm not familiar with the details of the act, but the fact is this has been transferred to NATO.

Of course, as part of NATO, the US is in fact participating.

I'm not sure how the act covers this sort of thing... it's clearly NATO, but I know I won't find that information in the Fox news article :lol: so I'm not even opening it up as I'm sure Jack would have quoted that part of the article if it was in there (again, not that I'd expect Fox to describe it accurately)

#79 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 07:35 PM

And by the way, my memory is even if the act were relevant, the President has 30 or 90 days (something like that). Not that there's any sign we're disengaging

#80 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 07:39 PM

By the way the protests at Hancock Air Force base continue. You don't hear about them.

The word I get from the people who are going and were arrested is that this is the main place that Drone flight are 'flown from'

Very interesting stuff. Most of which I wouldn't post online

#81 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 24 May 2011 - 04:14 PM

do as I say, not as I do,,


Exactly. But with "their guy" in office the silence from the left, the anti-war crowd, progressives, etc... (all those groups that we really need to speak up) is almost deafening.

Meanwhile those in power continue to treat the constitution as shit paper.

#82 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 24 May 2011 - 04:33 PM

I'm not familiar with the details of the act, but the fact is this has been transferred to NATO.

Of course, as part of NATO, the US is in fact participating.

I'm not sure how the act covers this sort of thing... it's clearly NATO, but I know I won't find that information in the Fox news article :lol: so I'm not even opening it up as I'm sure Jack would have quoted that part of the article if it was in there (again, not that I'd expect Fox to describe it accurately)

And by the way, my memory is even if the act were relevant, the President has 30 or 90 days (something like that). Not that there's any sign we're disengaging


Right in front of you

The eight-term congressman and former presidential candidate said Obama "moved to attack Libya without constitutional authority" and violated U.S. law by not complying with the War Powers Act, which requires a president to get authorization from Congress within 60 days of launching a military action.

He told Fox News on Sunday that absent an imminent threat, the president is not allowed to usurp the role of Congress in determining whether or not to declare war.
Kucinich added that the president is aware of that separation of powers authority because he used the argument in 2007 to protest President George W. Bush's troop surge.

"He knows better and we have to call him on that," Kucinich said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1NC7pYzet



#83 Joe

Joe
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,298 posts
  • LocationArlington, VA

Posted 24 May 2011 - 05:28 PM

Living in the DC area I do see people protesting all different issues on a regular basis not just the war. Personally what I have observed people's bigger worries are the economy and how will changes in the government effect me. Everyone on the hill seems to have there own agenda's. Some voices are stronger then others. So in general, yes there are people protesting against war but no to the magnitude of the 60's.

#84 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,905 posts

Posted 24 May 2011 - 07:14 PM

And by the way, my memory is even if the act were relevant, the President has 30 or 90 days (something like that). Not that there's any sign we're disengaging

I meant this as 30 or 90 days after not getting authorization to withdraw. Sorry for being unclear.

#85 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 29 May 2011 - 02:43 PM

Thank you veterans



Group protests Fort Hood deployments

KILLEEN

#86 Quinn The Eskimo

Quinn The Eskimo
  • Banned
  • 1,244 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 01 June 2011 - 04:22 AM

i was gonna protest the war, but i was watching reality tv

#87 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 01:22 PM

Obama's Illegal War
Libya is important, but the U.S. Constitution is ultimately what we're fighting for.


The bombing campaign in Libya continues into its 72nd day without the consent of the U.S. Congress -- breaking the 60-day limit for unilateral presidential war-making. With the Justice Department providing no public explanation for this breach, lawmakers are beginning to take matters into their own hands.


On Wednesday, June 1, the House of Representatives delayed a vote on a resolution insisting that President Barack Obama bring the Libya mission to a speedy close; but expectations are that the measure will be reconsidered on Friday. The Senate, for its part, will soon take up a bipartisan measure supporting the war. Meanwhile, with no U.S. domestic debate, NATO has announced it will continue its operations in Libya for another 90 days.

We are at a constitutional crossroads, similar to the one the United States confronted in 1973 when Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, which set the 60-day limit, over Richard Nixon's veto. The Constitution famously grants Congress the power to declare war, but Nixon continued to fight in Vietnam for three years after Congress had withdrawn the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing the conflict.

Faced with this plain constitutional violation, Congress acted decisively to restore the system of checks and balances. For centuries, the president and Congress had wrangled over the kind of actions that counted as a "war" for constitutional purposes, with presidents exploiting legal ambiguities to cut Congress out of key decisions. The act broke this impasse by imposing a time limit on all "hostilities" -- a functional term meant to eliminate legalistic evasions the White House had developed over what counted as "war." Henceforward, the 60-day deadline would apply whenever the president began "hostilities," and if he failed to gain congressional approval, the act gave him 30 days to terminate the military operation.

This clear and simple 60/30-day setup is especially important at a time when other restraints on presidential war-making have atrophied. During the era of the Founding Fathers, Congress could back up its constitutional authority with its power of the purse. For example, when President George Washington responded to military defeats on the frontier by escalating the conflict, he got Congress to give him $532,449.76 and 2/3 cents for his war -- note the 2/3 cents!

It's a lot harder to do so now. The Libya campaign has already cost three-quarters of a billion dollars, and yet Obama hasn't had to ask Congress for a dime. He has funded the war entirely out of the general $600 billion appropriated to the Defense Department.

This leaves the time limit as the only effective mechanism for preserving the Founders' commitment to congressional control. Unlike with many other areas of law, the courts can't be counted on to translate abstract principles into concrete rules. So far as war-making is concerned, they have left it to the political branches to work the matter out -- which is precisely the purpose of the War Powers Resolution.


[B]The Justice Department explicitly endorsed the constitutionality of the time-limit provisions in 1980, and presidents have abided by them ever since. When Ronald Reagan's multinational peacekeeping operation in Lebanon broke out into clear "hostilities," Congress passed -- and Reagan signed -- the first legislation expressly invoking the War Powers Resolution authorizing U.S. troops to remain for 18 months. Similarly, Bill Clinton gained a special appropriation from Congress within the first 60 days of his bombing campaign in Kosovo. And George W. Bush gained explicit congressional consent before launching the Afghanistan and Iraq wars -- as did his father at the time of the first Gulf War.

Obama's action is unprecedented. After notifying Congress that he had begun "hostilities," the president did absolutely nothing to gain congressional consent until Friday, May 20 -- just hours before the 60-day clock ran out. He then sent a letter to the House and Senate asking for their support, leaving it to Jay Carney, his press secretary, to explain that he "believes that he has acted

#88 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 02 June 2011 - 01:31 PM

Pssst, Joker...

http://gatheringofth...ead.php?t=58740

#89 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 06 June 2011 - 06:30 PM

Is a bipartisan coalition emerging to oppose the National Security State?

When Dennis Kucinich earlier this month introduced a bill to compel the withdrawal of all American troops from Libya within 15 days, the leadership of both parties and the political class treated it the way they do most of Kucinich's challenges to establishment political orthodoxy: they ignored it except to mock its unSeriousness. But a funny thing happened: numerous liberal House Democrats were joined by dozens of conservative GOP members to express support for his bill, and the White House and GOP House leadership became jointly alarmed that the bill could actually pass; that's why GOP House Speaker John Boehner introduced a Resolution purporting to rebuke Obama for failing to comply with the War Powers Resolution, but which, in fact, was designed to be an utterly inconsequential act. Its purpose was to protect Obama's war by ensuring that Kucinich's bill failed; the point of Boehner's alternative was to provide a symbolic though meaningless outlet for those House members angry over Obama's failure to get Congressional support.

Still, Kucinich's bill attracted an extraordinary amount of support given that it would have forced the President to withdraw all troops from an ongoing war in a little over 2 weeks. A total of 148 House members voted for it; even more notable was how bipartisan the support was: 61 Democrats and 87 Republicans. Included among those voting for mandatory withdrawal from Libya were some of the House's most liberal members (Grijalva, Holt, Woolsey, Barney Frank) and its most conservative members identified with the Tea Party (McClintock, Chaffetz, Bachmann). Boehner's amendment -- demanding that Obama more fully brief Congress -- ultimately passed, also with substantial bipartisan support, but most media reports ultimately recognized it for what it was: a joint effort by the leadership of both parties and the White House to sabotage the anti-war efforts of its most liberal and most conservative members.

A similar dynamic asserted itself during the joint efforts by the White House and the GOP Congressional leadership to ensure an extension of the Patriot Act without any reforms. What The Nation correctly described as a "Left-Right coalition" blocked the joint GOP/Democratic scheme to force the extension through on an expedited basis, without any debate. Similarly, opposition to ultimate enactment of the Patriot Act was led by some of the most conservative GOP Senators (Rand Paul, Mike Lee) and some of its most liberal (Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley). Like the Libya War, the Patriot Act was protected by a union of the White House and GOP Congressional leadership against this dissident, bipartisan coalition. Much the same occurred when Alan Grayson and Ron Paul joined with members from the Right and Left -- and against the establishment of both parties -- to pass a bill compelling an audit of the Fed.


More
http://www.salon.com...bipartisanship/

#90 beerzrkr

beerzrkr
  • VibeTribe
  • 716 posts

Posted 09 June 2011 - 03:54 PM

Pakistan, Libya, and now Yemen? Syria and Iran in the near future…? This Obama guy is out of fucking control! Where is the outrage?????? :dunno:

#91 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,748 posts

Posted 09 June 2011 - 06:50 PM

I've been on total outrage since he tried to assasinate an American citizen abroad by drone. I lost my shit over Libya. I feel like it's 2001-2003 ALL over again....... :undecided:

#92 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 31 August 2013 - 04:49 PM

How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement

 

 
 

As the Obama administration considers military action in Syria, Rosie Gray wonders why the antiwar movement has been strangely muted: ”Though some groups have organized online petitions and some real-life protests,” she reports, “the antiwar crowd that was on fire before the war in Iraq has made hardly a dent in the conversation surrounding Syria.”

PHO-10Aug26-247444-300x168.jpg

A less common sight these days. (Lucian Perkins/The Washington Post)

 

So where did the protesters go? One obvious theory is that Syria is just vastly different from Iraq — no one’s talking about sending in ground troops this time. That could explain why the opposition isn’t quite so fierce.

 

Alternatively: It’s also only been a few days since U.S. officials have started talking seriously about lobbing missiles at targets in Syria. Maybe the protests just haven’t had time to gather steam yet. Wait and see.

 

A third possibility, though, is that the election of Barack Obama sapped the energy of the U.S. antiwar movement. Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 — mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:

Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation, this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Heaney and Rojas begin by puzzling over a paradox. Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, but his first few years in office were rather different: “As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.”

 

But even though the wars were far from ended, the two researchers find that the size of antiwar protests rapidly dwindled between 2007 and 2009 anyway:

antiwar-protests-size.png

One reason for that? Democrats themselves stopped showing up for protests, with only a small rebound in December 2009 after Obama announced that he would send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan:

democrats-protests.png

“Since Democrats are more numerous in the population at large than are members of third parties, the withdrawal of Democrats from the movement in 2009 appears to be a significant explanation for the falling size of antiwar protests,” Heaney and Rojas write.

 

That theory jibes with some of Gray’s reporting. “The Democrats are missing in action because of course the president is a Democrat,” one longtime activist tells her. “That’s the biggest factor, I think. What’s tamping down the activism is partisanship.” Still, that’s not the only theory out there — the poor economy is another reason why nonprofit groups might be struggling — and Gray’s piece is worth reading in full.

 

 

http://www.washingto...ar-movement-go/



#93 Lostsailr

Lostsailr
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,335 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 12:52 PM

Was in my town yesterday...TV and paper coverage...though I wonder how one protests this impending fight. I think Prez. Obama was smart to put it to the people's representatives so they can either agree together to do something, or stand there with their thumbs...well you get the point) as we let chemical weapons destroy a civialian population.  He put his opinion out there and now we wait to see what congress has to say. Our "do nothing" congress either has to do something, or admit that they don't care to help intervene on behalf of people getting wiped out by illegal weapons. It is sad but true that there are times when war is needed. Too bad our military industrial complex has used that reality to imply that every bad situation should be cause to break out the big guns.

 

Here's a link to the protest in Scotia NY yesterday if you are interested.

http://www.news10.co...otest-in-scotia



#94 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:45 PM

Yeah he would have been fucked if he had done it on his own. I think it's more than his "opinion" he stated he thinks it should be done and that he has the authority to do it even if it's not approved so chances are it's going to happen regardless. At least this way he'll have the war machine pressuring them to give the ok.

 

There's enough evidence out there supporting claims that it was the rebels who used the gas to make it questionable at best for us to bomb. That plus the fact that it really won't accomplish anything but saving face for the "red line" threat is reason enough to step back from getting involved. 

 

We don't need to bomb just for the sake of bombing.



#95 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,647 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:42 AM

Please provide.

Yeah he would have been fucked if he had done it on his own. I think it's more than his "opinion" he stated he thinks it should be done and that he has the authority to do it even if it's not approved so chances are it's going to happen regardless. At least this way he'll have the war machine pressuring them to give the ok.

 

There's enough evidence out there supporting claims that it was the rebels who used the gas to make it questionable at best for us to bomb. That plus the fact that it really won't accomplish anything but saving face for the "red line" threat is reason enough to step back from getting involved. 

 

We don't need to bomb just for the sake of bombing.



#96 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,994 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:50 AM

Was in my town yesterday...TV and paper coverage...though I wonder how one protests this impending fight. I think Prez. Obama was smart to put it to the people's representatives so they can either agree together to do something, or stand there with their thumbs...well you get the point) as we let chemical weapons destroy a civialian population.  He put his opinion out there and now we wait to see what congress has to say. Our "do nothing" congress either has to do something, or admit that they don't care to help intervene on behalf of people getting wiped out by illegal weapons. It is sad but true that there are times when war is needed. Too bad our military industrial complex has used that reality to imply that every bad situation should be cause to break out the big guns.

 

Here's a link to the protest in Scotia NY yesterday if you are interested.

http://www.news10.co...otest-in-scotia

 

Hi LS

 

I'm pretty ignorant of what's going on there but from what little I've read...

 

Assad killed far more civilians by guns and bombs than with chemical weapons, why is it that chemical weapons become the justification for intervention but the other 100k dead weren't enough of a reason (not snarky, honest question)

 

is there proof Assad is behind the attacks?  Our govt lies about so much shit, I question everything they (and their propaganda arm, the media) say regarding rational for military interventions.  Never mind that this govt has a history of CIA interventions that have been responsible for putting genocidal dictators in power, who have gone on to kill hundreds of thousands of their own people (U.S. hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me)

 

I'm not sure our military resources should be used to intervene in other nations civil wars and I don't think disabling Assad so that other factions can assume power is going to stop the terror occurring there, never mind pissing off Russia and creating more tension with Iran (and Syria's other allies).

 

 

Just read this:

 

"The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan’s early 1990s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in 1996). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching airstrikes or a “no-fly zone” could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn’t make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other."

 

I dunno. clarity and more information  welcome.

 

?



#97 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,647 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:08 AM

If the government has the proof that Syria was behind the attack than Tabbooma says we should knock out his air force, port and chemical facilities, this would expedite the removal of the regime and also send a messsage to all despots out there if you use chemical weapons you will be hammered. This war at its current rate will go on for a very long time, the time is now to shorten this war. Assad is going to eventually lose and no one knows what or whom is going to run the show, why wait, start that process now.



#98 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:52 PM

Please provide.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...rebels used gas



#99 Tabbooma

Tabbooma
  • VibeTribe
  • 23,647 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:09 PM

LOL... already done that, Alex Jones and a Washington times article from may? 



#100 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:41 PM

You know I'm not surprised you've once again resorted to your usual "LOL" 

 

Did you take the time to check the other articles or did you just fixate on the ones you could snicker at while omitting the rest? 

 

Has either Obama or anyone else in the administration come out and stated that it WAS, for sure, Assad who used them? 

 

Like I said, questionable at best.

 

Breaking news: Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons

 

 

August 30, 2013 In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attacklast week.

 

Gavlak is a Middle Eastern journalist who filed the report about the rebels claiming responsibility on the Mint Press News website, which is affiliated with AP.

 

In that report rebels allegedly told her the chemical attack was a result of mishandling chemical weapons.

This news should deflate the accusations, against the Assad regime, coming from the U.S., Britain, France and the Arab League.

Since the chemical attacks last week, the Assad government was immediately blamed. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said: That Assad’s guilt was “a judgment already clear to the world," according to theguardian.com.

As a result of Assad's government being blamed for the chemical attacks, five U.S. warships are now stationed off Syria's coast. These destroyers are poised to deliver cruise missiles in a strike that is due to begin any time now. According to the report on Mint Press there have been several interviews conducted with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital.

The interviews conducted of residents, rebels and their families in Damascus and Ghouta are putting together a different picture of what happened. Many believe that rebels received chemical weapons provided through the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. It's being reported that these weapons are responsible for last week's gas attack.

The father of a rebel who was killed in what's now being called an accident by many in Ghouta and Damascus said: "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim. The father said at least 12 rebels including his son were killed by the chemical weapons.

Allegedly they were killed in the tunnel that was used to store the chemicals. These were provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha. He is said to be leading a fighting battalion in the effort to unseat Assad. The weapon was described as a "tube-like structure" by Abdel-Moneim.

Gavlak reports she was told by rebels that the gas "attack" was the result of rebels mishandling the chemical weapons they acquired from the Saudis. She says in the Mint Press report the following:

"They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution."

Gavlak continues in her report: "A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material.

We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions, ‘J’ said."

 

More

http://www.examiner....hemical-weapons