This is just the start.  Change never happens overnight, it takes lots of effort, organization and determination by those who want it and understand its importance.  Remember, the Vietnam war lasted 10 years because of the time it took for public opposition to really grow.   Civil Rights took years as well.  However, those efforts stand as important examples of Americans standing up to protest for meaningful change in leaderships direction. 

Go for it and good luck.  There are many of us who support your efforts and in fact are doing what we can to convince those in leadership positions to change direction and respond to these calls for accountability.  Generally it takes demands on multiple fronts to be heard.  No one voice, no one action is enough when the change you want is to move the behavior of an entire country.  I hope all who read will recognize that a continual, constant refrain demanding change is needed to make it actually happen.  If the change is worth it, it is worth fighting to make it happen!  I'm rooting for you! Don't ever give up hope in those things you really believe in!

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:36:48 PM

  (0+)

Long term plans that are systematic and organized are necessary for success.

Short term goals are good to get the ball rolling.

Waging peace on as many fronts as possible led by many different groups of people is key to the success.

Believing that we can win the war of ideologies (pro-war vs peace) is essential if we hope to prevail.

There's more to it. I do not believe March 19th/20th actions will bring our troops home. They could (I can dream...we all should) but if we are not all speaking out and showing our voice for democracy and peace on those days, our leaders won't know how we truly feel.

Let's make some noise for an end to war and impeachment. Make it so loud they cannot ignore the cacophony we create.  

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:46:37 PM

  (0+)

It’ not as if there are any politicians who are unaware of the desire of the vast majority of Americans that they want us out of Iraq. While there are some (like McCain) who deeply believe we should “stay the course,” it seems safe to say that most of those who will either return or take office in 2009, share your desire to bring the troops home.

Both Hillary and Obama tell us it is their goal to “end the war,” and bring the troops home. This assertion is politically essential, and appears, in the case of both Democratic candidates to be genuinely desired. It seems reasonable to assume that current and future members of Congress largely share this view. To date, no candidate has publicly addressed the specifics of just how any plan will be implemented. My guess is it is because none of them have formulated a plan, sufficiently detailed, that it can withstand a tidal wave of criticism.

If true, you don’t need street demonstrations, videos, blogs, or emails to inform anyone of your passionate desire that we bring the troops home. They already know it. Instead, you need to focus your collective brain power to provide a detailed plan for ending the war, addressing all the likely, or even possible, negative consequences.

In short, instead of demanding that the problem be fixed, tell them how to do it.

by Sherwin Steffin (16 articles, 26 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 119 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 13, 2008 at 5:55:13 PM

  (0+)

1) To date, a candidate has proposed a solution to the problem. The people have not gotten behind it or just plain do not know this plan exists. H.R. 1234

2) You ignore the fact that any criticism might be weak.

3) The people have a right to peacefully assemble. There also is a historical precedent for nonviolent resistance or civil disobedience being an effective tool for change. (civil rights movement, antiwar movement, worker's rights movement, women's rights movement, etc.)

And through going out onto the streets and speaking with community while also applying pressure to politicians for change, we can create an ethos or atmosphere that will lead to peace and sustainability being the way we govern.

I highly disagree with you. The people should not stop marching to Capitol Hill or making videos. That idea does not make any sense at all.

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:13:23 PM

  (0+)

As I see it, the question is: Is there any way, in the near term, to stop the Bush/Cheney terror team from carrying out the next phase of the plan? If I'm correct in my view that the terror team's next goal is simply to smash Iran and Syria (and soon), in a manner similar to what they've done to Iraq (apparently as per the PNAC agenda), then I'm sad to say that I don't see much of a realistic chance to stop them.

(BTW, ironically, Bush/Cheney seem to be working toward the same result we are: to end U.S. imperialism. If left to their own devices, Bush/Cheney will very likely put an end to U.S. imperialism once and for all by destroying the Empire...economically, politically, militarily and perhaps even physically).

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:55:37 PM

  (0+)

Informing young people who are still students of the harm being done by US military in current (and most) past foreign armed conflicts is a worthy goal. A vast number (?majority?) of new recruits to the military come from new graduates of high schools, trade schools and colleges. Some branches of the military (maybe all) are actually having to lower previous standards in order to make their goals. This is a result of fewer numbers being willing to enlist even with large enlistment bonuses and promises of particular types of training or preferred areas of work.

I strongly recommend continuing to get the message across to young people - whether considering the military as a job or already in it - that the harm currently being done to people and their possessions by US military troops can't continue if there are far less men and women in the military (and in civilian support roles). Without a significant number of young men and women willing to take orders to do what the Commander in Chief decides is "in the national interest", the occupant of the White House and all those below him/her in the Executive branch chain of command would be left standing babbling words and issuing paper versions of the same.

It takes quite some imagination to picture the current president and any of his underlings (or any others in recent history) actually doing the harmful acts to those people to whom all those missiles, bombs, bullets, and other weapons are directed. (Now there's an idea for a film spoof :) The current wars in which US troops are participating are not ones in which the US itself is being attacked by foreign troops. In such a case, I doubt that there would be any reluctance by most individuals of both genders, all ages, and all educational and financial status to do whatever they could and was necessary to repel the invaders.

It is because it is not the situation of the US being invaded, but rather that the US troops are the invaders now, that makes all the difference. And US troops have been invaders for most all the foreign armed conflicts in which they have been involved since the founding of the country. In the past, excuses could be made that the general public - from which all the troops come - knew only what they were told and would convince them that the country itself was in peril if the war was not taken "over there". And in a very few cases that was most likely true; but in the vast majority a study of history has shown this was a considerable exaggeration, almost certainly for the benefit of the politicians at the time.

Although I have signed impeachment petitions for Bush and Cheney, I don't expect that Congress will do anything along that line. The party politics shenanigans that tumbled Nixon was easy for Congress to deal with; Clinton's escapades were a breeze. What Bush and his buddies have done regarding use of troops abroad is big trouble for Congress Critters - it threatens their own current and desired power.

However, social preferencing can be a more powerful tool than most people realize. I have written elsewhere on the subject of negative social preferencing those individuals who choose to be government enforcers - those who do the harm that their superiors order. Two specific articles: "Social Preferencing - Evaluation and Choice of Association; A Method for Influence" and "Incremental Approach - A Better Method for Effecting Change" This last article, written exactly 1 year ago, is primarily an encouragement for the "inform them" route that others urge. I closed that article with, "Small incremental steps may be the best way to introduce a new idea to those who have not already expressed an interest in those ideas and who may actually be acting in opposition to them."

**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 (26 articles, 27 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 163 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:17:15 PM

  (0+)