|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:41 pm Post subject: Stop the wars |
 |
|
PeaceRally.org � a new effort for peace
Please help support a new effort for the peace movement: PeaceRally.org!
Please contribute to the $500 mini-fundraising drive for the new www.PeaceRally.org website and effort.
Help us purchase a new event listing and social networking technology for our website launch.
PeaceRally.org is a new internet location/social network that will allow everyday people, dedicated activists and professional organizations to create, list, and promote peace rallies all across the nation. From street corner sign waves, to highway sign bombs, to large peace rallies organized by professional organizations- all are welcome.
PeaceRally.org is an internet channel for peace, utilizing the new media to share pictures, videos and more to grow momentum for the cause and effort of ending the wars and bringing our troops home.
Please take action today and support PeaceRally.org by helping us purchase the event listing/social networking technology we need to make a difference.
Thank you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wish I could go. 
National Conference to Bring the Troops Home Now!
July 23�25, 2010
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Albany, New York
The conference will be televised.
In these troubled times, Washington�s wars and occupations rage, resulting in an ever increasing number of dead and wounded and the destruction of countries posing no threat to the U.S. Trillions are spent on seemingly endless conflicts in pursuit of profits and global domination, while trillions more are lost by working people in loss of jobs, homes, pensions, health care, and cuts to social programs and public services. The U.S. goes to war to plunder the world�s fossil fuel resources, the unrestrained use of which threatens the future of our planet.
We must demand the immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. military forces, mercenaries and contractors from Afghanistan and Iraq, and the end to drone attacks on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries and call for self-determination for the people of all countries. Moreover, we recognize that the Middle East cauldron today also encompasses Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and Israel, while countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa are targeted for intervention by a militarized U.S. foreign policy.
The urgency of the current world situation DEMANDS UNITY OF ACTION and purpose to generate the broad social movement we must create to not only end wars and occupations, but to fundamentally change the aggressive policies that inevitably lead our country to militarism, racism, and war. Our cry must be �Money for Human Needs; Not for Wars, Occupations, and Bail-Outs.�
Come to a conference where peace, social justice and environmental activists will come together to discuss the major concerns we face and to hammer out an ambitious program of action. The time is long overdue for such a gathering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| $500 to try to encourage people to prevent things that are going to continue happening anyway? You gotta be kidding me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| $500 to try to encourage people to prevent things that are going to continue happening anyway? You gotta be kidding me! |
As untactful as it may sound, he is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| $500 to try to encourage people to prevent things that are going to continue happening anyway? You gotta be kidding me! |
As untactful as it may sound, he is right. |
A self-fulfilling prophecy. With that attitude, things are sure to continue happening as they have been. Do you really think things can go on like this forever? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| $500 to try to encourage people to prevent things that are going to continue happening anyway? You gotta be kidding me! |
As untactful as it may sound, he is right. |
A self-fulfilling prophecy. With that attitude, things are sure to continue happening as they have been. Do you really think things can go on like this forever? |
No, I doubt it can go on forever. Rome fell when they outstretched themselves. Russia as we know it now, collapsed decades ago. The same is now happening to the USA.
Sorry, I just don't find it convincing that this war mongering can be stopped. The military industrial complex is everywhere and it needs a reason to police the world and take resources from other lands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
An interesting topic to think about:
Why were the anti-war forces able to mobilize enough support to bring a halt to the Vietnam War but not the Iraq and Afghan Wars? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skipperoo
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Withdrawing the troops right now is the worst possible thing that could be done for the stability of those regions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
An interesting topic to think about:
Why were the anti-war forces able to mobilize enough support to bring a halt to the Vietnam War but not the Iraq and Afghan Wars? |
-9/11
-people hate muslims/arabs
-governments needs to rob that oil/lithium/opium/
? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
An interesting topic to think about:
Why were the anti-war forces able to mobilize enough support to bring a halt to the Vietnam War but not the Iraq and Afghan Wars? |
-9/11
-people hate muslims/arabs
-governments needs to rob that oil/lithium/opium/
? |
Please. Barry is black. That's a reason. And he's a Dem. You think a bunch of liberal dems are going to protest in the street at a black liberal president?
And let's be honest. 500$ ain't jack. The war in Iraq and looming war in Iraq are "neo-con" enterprises. You think you can outspend them? They have the whole media behind them and virtually all of the financial services industry.
The wars don't end until the organized Jewish community in the United States wants them to end.
Regarding oil:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/22/oil-iran/
| Quote: |
The recent revelations about BP�s alleged role in pressing for the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi in order to secure valuable oil concessions in Libya provides a potent reminder of the influence oil companies and other major corporations exert over foreign policy. New evidence uncovered by ThinkProgress shows that America�s own oil giants are also trying to shape U.S. foreign policy to protect or enhance their own profits, even if it puts American security at risk.
Lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate this week show that the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Halliburton lobbied the House, Senate, and various executive branch agencies on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act during the first half of the year as the bill was being debated in the Senate.
Big Oil�s interest in weakening the law is obvious. Among other things, the new law, signed by President Obama on July 1, imposes significant new sanctions on individuals and corporations �that directly and significantly contribute to Iran�s ability to develop petroleum resources� and that sell more than $200,000 in fuel or other refined petroleum products to Iran. The new sanctions are important because �although Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the world, it lacks refining capacity and relies on foreign suppliers for nearly 5 million gallons of gasoline a day.� In addition, the country�s energy industry is �a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,� which �oversees Iran�s nuclear and missile programs.�
Big Oil has no shortage of experience in doing business with Iran. A New York Times investigation revealed that many of these same companies often want to have it both ways by doing business with Iran at the same time that they receive billions in contracts and revenues from the U.S. government:
* ExxonMobil, which spent $2.5 million on lobbying last quarter, currently enjoys $4.9 billion in revenues from federal oil and gas leases and sold fuel additives to Iran until 2006.
* Shell, which spent $4 million on lobbying last quarter, has $11.9 billion in revenues and benefits from the U.S. government, a wide variety of business relationships with Iran, and is alleged to be in violation of the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act�the very law amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act.
* ConocoPhillips, which spent $5.5 million lobbying last quarter, accrues $1.7 billion in revenue from federal grants and oil and gas leases and still actively profits from selling gasoline to Iran via Lukoil, in which it holds a minority stake.
* Halliburton has a whopping $27.1 billion in government contracts and, until 2007, provided oil and gas drilling services to Iran through a foreign subsidiary.
Big Oil helps prop up Iran�s regime in another important way: by opposing strong clean energy and climate legislation. The kind of strong legislation to move us off oil that is vocally opposed by the American Petroleum Institute would deny Iran $100 million a day in petrodollars.
The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act passed the House 412-12 and the Senate 99-0, so it�s not surprising that Big Oil�s activities in Iran are not very popular. While the websites of API and the oil companies say virtually nothing about Iran, ConocoPhillips appears to have inadvertently posted dozens of complaints it received about profiting from doing business with Iran. One commenter simply says �screw your buddies in Iran,� while another writes �I hpoe [sic] you choke on the blood stained money that you make from Iran.� |
You see? Big oil doesn't want war or sanctions. We'll get both anyways. The "liberal" who wrote this piece sees this as evidence that Big Oil supports the Iranian regime? Get that? The "liberal" American is not actually a liberal but a zionist who wants to punish Iran for being Iran.
This is the bottom line: To be anti-war is to be in direct conflict with the organized Jewish community in the United States.
So I'll hear nothing about how my people hate Arabs and muslims and want to kill them in their nations and that's why wars. WE didn't dream up Iraq. WE aren't dreaming up Iran. Do NOT blame us for those things. Either have the balls to call out who needs to be called out or do not discuss the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
An interesting topic to think about:
Why were the anti-war forces able to mobilize enough support to bring a halt to the Vietnam War but not the Iraq and Afghan Wars? |
-9/11
-people hate muslims/arabs
-governments needs to rob that oil/lithium/opium/
? |
agreed.
plus:
-people didn't have a visceral hatred for Southeast Asians
-Vietnam didn't have anything the US needed
-death rate of US soldiers was much higher in Nam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Please. Barry is black. That's a reason. And he's a Dem. You think a bunch of liberal dems are going to protest in the street at a black liberal president? |
Yes, Obama gets some slack time because he's new to the job, he's a Dem and he's an African American. But, the anti-war forces turned against LBJ and split against Humphrey in '68. So, that time will run out.
| mises wrote: |
To be anti-war is to be in direct conflict with the organized Jewish community in the United States. |
No doubt. This is another reason it's hard to get an anti-war movement going.
There doesn't have to be a single factor. There would seem to be numerous ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
An interesting topic to think about:
Why were the anti-war forces able to mobilize enough support to bring a halt to the Vietnam War but not the Iraq and Afghan Wars? |
-9/11
-people hate muslims/arabs
-governments needs to rob that oil/lithium/opium/
? |
agreed.
plus:
-people didn't have a visceral hatred for Southeast Asians
-Vietnam didn't have anything the US needed
-death rate of US soldiers was much higher in Nam |
The protesters didn't end Vietnam, or any other war. Read about it here.
http://www.slate.com/id/2158016/pagenum/all/#p2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
yeah I think mises hit the nail on the head. Israel's interests come first before the US or...any other nation on earth. If that means invading Iran, then Pakistan and any other region close to striking proximity of Israel so be it. The only reason they haven't done it yet is because:
1) the US is already too spread out in Iraq and Afghanistan
2) Iran can supposedly send many missiles to Tel aviv if attacked |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the article:
| Quote: |
| Once the patience of the American public wore thin, such an approach was no longer feasible. The Tet Offensive soured much of the establishment on the war and inclined them toward disengagement. Johnson himself, unwilling either to withdraw or to escalate, chose instead to renounce his re-election attempt, cap the war effort, and hunker down. He never accepted defeat, but the limits he set on American operations became political facts that restricted the choices available to his successor |
.
The anti-war movement ended the Vietnam War. Johnson stopped trying to win the war and gave up his reelection. Nixon came in to office and rapidly withdrew US forces (see article). This meant that the war was lost and so it was over. The fact that it took years for Nixon and finally Ford to totally end it was due to unwillingness to lose face, so they delayed the inevitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
