An undeniably important cause

yet the polls show that Iraq is secondary in the minds of the voter. Its the economy apparently that is on the minds of most of us, with foreclosures reaching and surpassing record levels ( I recently relocated to Stockton the foreclosure capital of California).....

I do have contacts within the peace movement in my area, after a forty year association with leftist causes, and I hear of no groundswell of support for such action. I am not suggesting it unecesary but I do believe that people think this war will die of its own incompetence and ,as did Viet Nam, will end because we are beaten! No major power can withstand such a conflict, only increase the death toll.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 6:46:04 AM
 

Rise up now

3-18-08 will mark the beginning of the end, mark my words,if we who read this get off the dime. Eastern block countries had overwhelming peaceful  demonstrations to effect change. Framing things goes a long way such as " the Iraq war recession",can't spend $740 mil a day and not suffer the things we need at home. How about shaming the queens in their FUV'S moving 3 tons of metal to get a quart of milk. It's in your face ace time, now. Sick of the war ,someone suggested on FDL call in sick on the 3-19 moratorium or better yet ,as someone suggested ,leave a note on your desk "went to protest against this unconstitutional war" the day before. Go to "UFPJ-dvn.org" for more ideas. Just don't sit there get off your ass and in their face and the cowards will wither away.PEACE NOW,DAMN IT.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 212 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:56:59 AM
 

Good job, Kevin. But there's more...

I certainly agree that Americans need to organize, stand up to be counted, and make sure their voices are heard. Because when good people are silent, it enables aggressive, self-important, self-righteous, proud, militant people to gain power, as they have done particularly in the last 27 years.

But our cause must be comprehensive. It must be about establishing justice, fairness, equity and peace all over the world. It must be about stopping all wars, by addressing grievances, reconciling differences, and making amends.

We are world citizens, and nationalism must become an obsolete concept of the past, just as racism, religious bigotry and ethnocentrism must become obsolete. So we must address ALL the things that are wrong in this world.

Is that unrealistic pie in the sky? Just a pipe dream?

NO.

It is our destiny.

Just read this message, and you'll see how, and why.

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com

 

 

 

 

by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 176 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM
 

I understand

And naturally within the group meetings held, I believe that should be what you push people to believe but out in front of the public and in the eyes of the corporate media, is that argument capable of igniting a movement?

I question its capabilities because that's what the peace movement has been using to get people involved. And I am comfortable with saying it has not worked for numerous reasons.

by Kevin Gosztola (211 articles, 113 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 809 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM
 

Kevin, you're right. It hasn't worked. But ...

The peace movement has not worked because it has been unable to deal with the "Religious Right," which Bush came to represent, claiming he is "doing God's will."

That is why the peace movement will work only when it rallies behind a message that turns the tables on the Religious Right and exposes it for what it is, because it is driven by divisive, harmful ideology that is not religious and is not based on real faith.

The problem is that the humble, good people who are truly faithful are meek and peacful. And until recently they haven't realized that because they have been silent they have enabled the arrogantly proud and militant to rule.

What good, caring, conscienteous people need is an idea to rally behind, and a cause they can stand up for, and be counted in peaceful demonstrations.

But it has to be a great idea to motivate, encourage and inspire people.

Here it is:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com

 

 

by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 176 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 12:32:56 PM
 

Agree

What do you think of the peace movement adopting a clear and concise pro-Constitution message to maximize support and effectiveness?

by Kevin Gosztola (211 articles, 113 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 809 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 3:08:23 PM
 

Yes!

The following page speaks to that, and it even calls for a legal, allowable Constitutional Convention to establish needed amendments that will update, expand and protect our rights.

It also shows how even Republican Presidents Lincoln and Eisenhower were in favor of that:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/NewDeclaration.html

 

by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 176 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 6:31:15 PM
 

ANTI VIETNAM WAR MOVEMENT OPEN T ALL WHO WERE AGAINST V WAR

As someone who was active in the anti Vietnam War Movement, I have a few brief comments.  The first is that a movement with a chain of command with followers and leaders is the one thing we should not want.  Such a movement would inevitably be bureaucratic and conservative like the hierarchial labor movement that has kept labor tied to the Democratic Party while both the Democrats and Republicans passed the Taft Hartley Act as soon as the militancy of the 1930's had died down.  Taft Hartley, by making it illegal for labor unions to call secondary boycots is the main factor in labor's decline from approximately one-third of American workers being union members in the 1940's to labor's present minuscule representation of under 5% of the American workforce.

But in giving an example of the bad results of creating a hierarchial and bureaucratic movement, I lost focus on how the anti Vietnam War movement accomplished the results you want without becoming ossified under a reactionary bureaucracy.  The Anti War Movement during the Vietnam War era took the position that they would welcome anybody who wanted to join the movement, whether they be communist, socialist, liberal Democrat or conservative Republican AS LONG AS THEY WERE AGAINST THE WAR.  The different groups and viewpoints in the antiwar movement could distribute their literature and have tables at antiwar events, have their own signs at demonstrations, etc.  We did not require the different groups to keep their views hidden at public event.s.  But we strove to keep all the member groups united around opposition to the war.  That way we were able to keep the public emphasis on opposition to the war without suppressing any group.

This nonexclusion was a reaction against the practice that had prevailed among liberals from the (Joe) McCarthy Period to the non exclusionary policy became dominant in 1965,  After McCarthy, liberal practice had been to expel any communists as soon as they became known because of the fear that the anti communist hysteria of the time would destroy any movement known to have communists in it.

I suggest what the movement against the Vietnam War did could achieve what you want by keeping the focus on the Iraq War while still making the opportunity available for people who wanted to consider a deeper analysis of why our society keeps getting involved in wars.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 285 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 4:20:54 PM
 

Not having a chain command

How would you suggest the peace movement overcomes its poor organization and its chaos?

by Kevin Gosztola (211 articles, 113 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 809 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 6:16:00 PM
 

Great piece of writing!

Kevin,

Over several months you and I have gone head to head over many of your articles. I cannot begin to tell you how pleased I am in seeing your writing and analysis of issues evolve from where it had been, to who you have become – that of a mature, thoughtful, and contributing strategist for the movement with which you have allied yourself.

In one of your responses to an earlier comment I made to an article, you found it “preposterous,” that I could possibly know your motivation(s) for investing yourself and learning the craft of being a film maker. Of course, you were correct. There was no way I can directly access your inner thoughts and motivations for doing anything. Least of all do I know what has motivated a kid from a small town in a consistently conservative state, to the passion for political activism that has caused you to become the person you are today.

Some forty years ago, while teaching in a Michigan middle school, a fellow teacher and I faced the same challenge in trying to dissect the motivations of another peace activist. His name -- Bob Dylan. Before moving to Michigan, Karen had been his teacher in the even smaller town of Hibbing, Minnesota, and had known him and his family, up-close, as he was growing up. Many of those I taught in the early 60s became the college campus activists of the 70s.

Through the magic of the ‘Net, a substantial number of those same former students have kept in touch with me. Today, many of them are in management positions in the corporations you, until only recently, have so condemned; others have gone on to careers in medicine, law, or academia.

You very correctly point out that confrontation and assault on the “Over the Hill Gang ” (Over 30) is totally counterproductive. We are not your enemy, until you make us so. Instead, it would seem to me that your greatest enemy may be that of apathy, coupled with a desire to return to what our faulty memories tell us was a much better time, then it ever was.

The organizational schema you offer in “Tip # 8,” sounds like the product of a political campaign war room. You leave out only one essential element – that of knowing how many you can reasonably expect, not only to agree with your views, but to be motivated to take action to put them in place. I suggest you spend some time reading The Authoritarians, by Robert Altemeyer, to give you some feel for the dimensions of this challenge.

Once again, it has been a pleasure to read your work, and I look forward to your future contributions.

 

 

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 24 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 91 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 7:32:49 PM
 

Nicely put

I especially like the part about "we are not your enemies until you make us so." That is so true, and most of us tend to forget that due to our passion in pursuit of a cause.

One of the wisest authors I know has stated that, generally speaking,  we are what we accuse others of being. And often our enemy is merely a reflections of our very selves.

He points out that is certainly the case with religious bigots who are fighting for power claiming that God is on their side. They are certainly reflections of each other, even though they claim to be the "true" Christians or Muslims or Jews.

He writes under the pen name of Joseph J. Adamson, and you can read highlights of his work at:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com 

by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 176 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 8:27:13 PM
 

Labeling a Mistake + Added Info Source

Similarly to Sherwin Stiflin's comment, I say that stereotyping at all, especially  all those over 30 - or even over 60 in the case of me and my husband (who turns 70 tomorrow) - is a big mistake. Virtually all labels are very inadequate to describe all the nuances of a particular individual's thoughts and values.
As I stated (and elaborated on) in a comment to your previous article, "What all such labelers fail to realize is that the vast majority of people actually want the same basic ends for society. They all want to live in an orderly society; one in which each individual can choose from among hir available actions those that s/he evaluates will best promote hir own and everyone else's well-being. However, there are often great differences between people in regard to their views about what individual behaviors will both promote the creation of such a society and will maintain it in a state that enables people, all at the same time, to each optimally increase hir lifetime happiness - the latter goal being what human attributes imply must be the purpose of human life, whether consciously held or not."

In regard to your Item #1, education, but also #9 that addresses the reason why most USers are against the Iraq war, I recommend that you and other peace activists read another article printed today at OpEdNews.com - "Al Qaeda, Impeachment, and Iraq" by Ralph Lopez. He has amply demonstrated by examples that the US military continued presence in Iraq enables the continued presence of Al-Qaeda.

And also like Sherwin, I commend you on your generally excellent presentation, even while there are areas with which I think you are in error, as you can tell by the content of my and husband Paul's writings.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (19 articles, 3 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 116 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 10:13:56 PM
 

For those in the movment that I know who are reading this

I do not wish to silence the plurality which should be upheld. But I do wish to figure out how we can hone that plurality into something concise that is marketable to the masses so that they take the IPod headphones out of their ears, put the IPhones down, get off of YouTube, and stop watching reality TV.

That mainstream public that I am talking about gets its information from the mainstream media, which kills plurality. 

The nature of the game means we must decide on something we can sell and go to work selling it without giving up.

For example, World Can't Wait has a call to Drive the Bush Regime Out. We should go no further than that and bring up the constitutional arguments that support impeachment, talk about taking action now and not waiting for November, etc. But everything goes back to that being the message---Bush and Cheney must go!  

Why must they go? Torture, illegal war (that violates a ratified treaty), fascism...

Nobody wants to live in a country with leaders who torture, violate civil liberties, and violate the rule of law. Our message can be that simple. It should be that clear and concise.  

by Kevin Gosztola (211 articles, 113 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 809 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:01:17 PM
 

Welcome to Catch 22

In a famous 1976 movie, Howard Beale, a network Anchor, opens the window of his New York apartment, leans out, and yells for the world to hear, "I'm as mad as hell,. and I'm not going to take this anymore!!" And that, it seems, is what drives the peace movement. It is an expression of frustration and rage that the country you live in has failed to live up to the mythology that was planted in you, dating back to when you were a young child.

Therein lie the two barriers which must be removed before you become a viable political force. Your biographic statement sets up the first barrier when you tell your readers, “…and while some will tell him what can be done, he is only concerned about what should be done.” Recruiting those who want to join with you to achieve “impossible dreams,” is really tough to do.

Impeachment just isn’t going to happen. The proposition that Bush and Cheney should be removed from office would get wide agreement from a majority of Americans. Yet, the logistics, the politics, the upcoming elections, and the resulting disorganization, all combine to tell us that it just isn’t going to happen. Suggesting that the movement devote its efforts to making it happen does nothing but reduce the credibility so essential for winning the issues where you have an opportunity to prevail. Holding the moral high ground just isn’t enough. Rule number 1 is that you have to pick your battles, because you aren’t going to win them all.

The other problem is ambiguity. You want us out of Iraq. What does that translate to as a plan which can be assessed for viability, costs, and consequences both disclosed and unintended? As it stands now, no one can make a careful assessment of the value of what you are saying. It’s just another demand from those who have yet to establish the quality of their thinking.

As far as I know, here is nothing your organization can point to and say, “We accomplished that change in policy.” You are in the infamous Catch 22. For you to have political clout, you need to be a credible force to be dealt with. Yet, for you to gain that credibility, you must achieve something that gives you the respect you need. Tough position from which to work. I wish you success!

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 24 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 91 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 2:02:01 PM
 

Peace in France 1944

In the picture you can see how peace was achieved in France in 1944 by the Germans in France. The man with his back against the wall was a member of the French Resistance.

Looking at pictures like this most soon realize that there is an ironic lesson many need to learn and not forget: Peace from the tyranny represented in that picture comes at a price. Always has and always will as long as there are those who want to take freedom away from others at gun point.

Those of you who think there are not people in the world right now that want to take your freedom away, I invite you to go live amongst people not entirely unlike those holding the guns in the picture. And since you to afraid to do that, try to seriously think about the rows and rows of grave markers in Colleville-sur-Mer, France and about the sacrifices those young people made for you and the rest of the world while others at the time were doing nothing back home but demonstrating for peace, thinking that the men with the guns in the picture just might go away if they saw how serious people were about peace.  I bet the guys in the picture, after they mowed down the poor guy and made one of his comrades bury him, sat around, smoking, having a drink of shnapps, laughing at the peace demonstrators in the US.  Those thugs knew how to bring peace to their little part of France didn't they?

Firing Squad Picture taken somewhere in France 1944 - Exhibit in Caen Peace Memorial Museum, Caen, France

by Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:57:02 PM
 

Enforcers Are Key + Poor Historical Comparison

An extension of your comment, "Peace from the tyranny ... comes at a price." is warranted. As long as there are large numbers of individuals who are willing to be the enforcers of laws/edicts/directives/mandates of others, no matter what title those others have been given or assumed - there will be coercive paternalistic societies. The uniforms and languages will be different and the weapons may vary in technology, but the initiation of harm is virtually the same. A major difference currently from 20+ years ago is that the Internet affords almost no hiding place for both those who decree that harm be done and those who willingly enforce those decrees. Most important of all to remembers is the fact that without the enforcers, those who decree that harm be done are powerless.

However, it appears that you are attempting to draw some parallel between Al Qaeda (current chief Muslim terrorist organization) and the actions of the occupying German army in France prior to Allied Forces landing at Normandy in June 1944 (and even afterwards until liberation was assured).

I repeat my recommendation - read another article printed today at OpEdNews.com - "Al Qaeda, Impeachment, and Iraq" by Ralph Lopez. He has amply demonstrated by examples that US presence in Iraq is beneficial to Al Qaeda; that they actually need the US military there to survive. "Al Qaeda is neither wanted nor liked in Iraq. The sooner we pull out, the sooner the local populations will identify and expel them, or kill them."

The US presence in Iraq is not comparable to US and Allied Forces in Europe during WWII and claims that it is are a distortion of relatively current events and history - 63 years old and much more than that for the Middle East.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (19 articles, 3 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 116 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 12:53:10 AM
 

Peace in Iraq

Al Qaeda is just one of many groups with basically the same goal.  There are disturbing parallels between the National Socialists in Germany, Austria, and other countries and the the movements we see afoot in the middle east, Africa, and Asia.  Al Qaeda and others use age old group techniques to rally supporters and to gain new ones by setting up an enemy they must fight against and destroy to survive.  The tyrannies in Europe and Japan did the same thing in the 1930's and 1940's.  In the 30's and 40's groups were able to take control of countries (with their economies, police, and armies) and use the resources of state power to try to achieve their ends while, so far, similar groups today have not been that successful in gaining control of  a vehicle to use to implement their goals.  They are trying and will keep trying no matter if our troops are there or not.  If these groups get a grip on middle eastern oil supplies you can kiss the world economy goodbye.  And if that happens there is China with its needs for oil.  They will not sit idly by and have their economy dominated for long without taking action.

These people are not going to magically go away.  It is pollyanish to think that all we have to do is pull our troops out of Iraq and the middle east and everything will be fine.  There are consequences.  Immediate harsh and brutal consequences and  severe long and short term economic consequences for withdrawing.  

Realistically, the battle is already lost.  In 10-40 years Britain, France, and the low countries will be Muslim dominated if not completely controlled by Muslim leaders.  Go there.  Read.  You will see.  The nature of democracy, loose or non-exisitant immigration laws,  and the multicultural philosophy actively encourages the quiet invasion there just as it does the Mexican invasion here.  Europe is quickly approaching the point of no return as far as who will determine their history.  In 40 years here the same thing will happen here.  Our politics and culture will be significantly influenced if not driven by Hispanics who have roots in Central America.  Driving through some parts of some SW US cities is already like driving in Mexico City.  We have significant movements now that want to return parts of the US to Mexico.  We are powerless to stop this change in the US and in other parts of the world in my opinion.  They have birth rates much larger than ours.

Change, like the tides, happen.  We can either sit back and let the tide roll over us, change everything, take down democracy and put religious leaders in charge, make the word freedom a bigger and better word than peace, or try to do something to prevent the more radical elements that exist now from gaining a stronger foothold.   Some people see this and try to take action to maintain some element of control of our own destiny and others don't or ignore it.   If we have self-possessed leaders who do not understand what is going on or have the vision we will be on our way to being a powerless, second rate country that is dominated politically and economically by others who are controlled by people who do not value freedom and liberty the way we do.

Go to the middle east.  Go to Europe.   See for yourself.  If you like the idea of a Muslim  theocracy you are going to get it .  It is coming.  Not tomorrow.  But it is coming.

The peace movement, for all their good intentions, is naive.  They are pretty much consumed by their hatred for Bush and it interfers with rational thought.  Impeaching Bush or Cheney or both is a pipe dream and if they were impeached that will not bring peace to the world.   Fighting for and advocating peace is a great thing but the peace movement will never overcome or protect us from the evil that exists in this world that wants us all to submit to their ideas and give up the thing we cherish the most - freedom.

by Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments) on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 9:38:04 AM