Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Protests at Fed Building-SF
500 people have gathered at the Federal Building to protest and vigil all night against going to War against Iraq
Reports from SFLR News 93.7
An estimated 500 people have gathered at the San Francisco Federal Building to protest the granting of war powers by the US Congress to President Bush. The War Powers are granted to give the go ahead of bombings and invasion of Iraq. People will be protesting all night and have an overnight vigil. At 7:00am a civil disobedience will occur where people are going to attempt to shut down the Federal Building. Folks are requested to go to the Federal Building and voice their opposition to an endless war.
An estimated 500 people have gathered at the San Francisco Federal Building to protest the granting of war powers by the US Congress to President Bush. The War Powers are granted to give the go ahead of bombings and invasion of Iraq. People will be protesting all night and have an overnight vigil. At 7:00am a civil disobedience will occur where people are going to attempt to shut down the Federal Building. Folks are requested to go to the Federal Building and voice their opposition to an endless war.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
500 people in the biggest center of resitance in this country; pathetic--at best a few days ago the least pathetic excuse for a national organization managed 86000 people nationally out of 250 million; the media, government and congress are all in the pockets of the war party--there is no resistance within the united states; eventually the rest of the world will stop "us"; but probably only at the expense of general nuclear annihilation. the american people are the worst scum in the history of the world & will be held responsible for destroying the last vestiges of law, morality and sanity if, and its a big if, some time in the future some remnant of civilization remerges. god bless americans. if anyones trying to travel outside this country i suggest you try to pass for canadian. (don't forget to include the good people of israel as well, our only allies);
palestine is the test plot for the new world order--perhaps we'll just start wiping out nations alphabetically
palestine is the test plot for the new world order--perhaps we'll just start wiping out nations alphabetically
Actually, l'resistance was 133 to 296(?) in the House!
OK I think.
Remember God and ???
In the bible he told a prophet to find somebody in this city that deserved salvation.
I think America deserves to be spared.
Osama was wrong!
(every gringo is not a bad gringo)
OK I think.
Remember God and ???
In the bible he told a prophet to find somebody in this city that deserved salvation.
I think America deserves to be spared.
Osama was wrong!
(every gringo is not a bad gringo)
Thanks, SF. In case the odd asshole points out that our numbers are "small", keep in mind that anti-Vietnam War protests didn't get big until AFTER it started. Our movement is just starting to grow.
Long live the Revolution.
Long live the Revolution.
A friend of mine who is with the National Militia movement has been talking about ways to get "in step" with the peace protesters.
I'm afraid I had to tell him that there was NO chance that anyone involved in these protests would pay any attention to him whatsoever, being seen as even worse than the government.
Which is really a shame...
These people are, by-and-large, republicans. They vote. They, in the most part, support the peace movement. They are primarily made up of people who just want the government to leave them alone....and want the government to leave everyone else alone, also.
If the organizers of this protest were to contact sierratimes.com and ask for militia / constitutionalist involvement, they would get it..
and imagine the horror on the face of the government censors when the images came in..leftist college students, radical enviromentalists, Militia in uniform, and "bubba in his pickup" all protesting together....
I'm afraid I had to tell him that there was NO chance that anyone involved in these protests would pay any attention to him whatsoever, being seen as even worse than the government.
Which is really a shame...
These people are, by-and-large, republicans. They vote. They, in the most part, support the peace movement. They are primarily made up of people who just want the government to leave them alone....and want the government to leave everyone else alone, also.
If the organizers of this protest were to contact sierratimes.com and ask for militia / constitutionalist involvement, they would get it..
and imagine the horror on the face of the government censors when the images came in..leftist college students, radical enviromentalists, Militia in uniform, and "bubba in his pickup" all protesting together....
86,000 nationwide out of 250 million. There were probably more people at an individual football game the same weekend. Compare to England (a very small country) with half a million and italy with one and a half million. What clearly emerges here inspite of bush’s attempts to paint a picture of an "international community" against terror is the isolation of the u.s. (and israel of course) against the rest of the world. These are the real sides. I don’t see any credible evidence of any serious resistance within the u.s. It will have to be the rest of the world that stops the judea-american juggernaut. And as the targets and rationales proliferate I believe they will. The question is will it be only at the cost of nuclear global annihilation? For any serious u.s. resistance to emerge it would be necessary for one or more large national umbrella organizations to appear. They would need to unite the current scattered sectarian political oppositions with the general population of more simple sanity based oppositon. This is what eventually happened in the Vietnam era. I don’t see any evidence of this to date. And once the Iraq war starts (if we are to judge from the previous Iraq war) all opposition will melt in a furor of patriotic flag-waving over "support for our troops". To summarize: if internal opposition is to be credible it will have to develop rapidly and be nationally based and unified. Remember that the vast majority of the American people only get their information from the mainstream press which is, to use Robert Fisk’s phrase, merely at this point "a mouthpiece for the centers of power". And that there is a compliant congress, much more like an old soviet -style parliament than a democratic debating body. Taking a cue from Lyndon Johnson, only when its possible to put 800,000 people in the street in washington on a regular basis will there be any possibility of internal resistance restraining the empire.
(post house vote addenda)--yes there are still good individual americans just like there are good individual jews in israel and america but they don't have anymore effect on the policies of the isralei government than a handful of resisters here have on the congress-press-executive decisions to take out whoever they choose; intellectuals write articles--a few people show up at rallys and sit-ins and such but there is no national movement or organization and until there is there will be no drag on government policies which (in my opinion) accurately reflect the opinion of the vast majority of americans; who therefore as per w.w. 2 germans deserve the indictment against them for the acts of their government. Now whether an indidivual chooses to make a personal "moral" statement of resistance or to remain silent and not jeopardize their own (and their loved ones} temporary security is a another matter. But as to any possibility of any internal drag on u.s. imperial designs actually being effective, there is no evidence to suggest that possibility. As to the "revolutionary" fellow...i'm sure we'll see him in a few years in a nice mainstream position of servility and compliance, denying agressively the immature folly of his reckless youth. The only forum for resistance is the internet and its kind of a ghetto inside a ghetto were a tiny minority of individuals imagine that they have some "power" because they never function outside that ghetto for very long.
(post house vote addenda)--yes there are still good individual americans just like there are good individual jews in israel and america but they don't have anymore effect on the policies of the isralei government than a handful of resisters here have on the congress-press-executive decisions to take out whoever they choose; intellectuals write articles--a few people show up at rallys and sit-ins and such but there is no national movement or organization and until there is there will be no drag on government policies which (in my opinion) accurately reflect the opinion of the vast majority of americans; who therefore as per w.w. 2 germans deserve the indictment against them for the acts of their government. Now whether an indidivual chooses to make a personal "moral" statement of resistance or to remain silent and not jeopardize their own (and their loved ones} temporary security is a another matter. But as to any possibility of any internal drag on u.s. imperial designs actually being effective, there is no evidence to suggest that possibility. As to the "revolutionary" fellow...i'm sure we'll see him in a few years in a nice mainstream position of servility and compliance, denying agressively the immature folly of his reckless youth. The only forum for resistance is the internet and its kind of a ghetto inside a ghetto were a tiny minority of individuals imagine that they have some "power" because they never function outside that ghetto for very long.
That's just not true. I just returned from spending a month in Italy, Germany and France and enjoyed the same hospilitality I have always received from the citizens of these countries. They can readily tell I'm from the United States but they never talk politics to me or say anything about our country other than to say they would like to visit or have visted such and such place. How many of us have met people visiting from foreign countries and struck up a conversation? Do you ever right off the bat start talking about politics with them? I don't. I wish them well and hope they enjoy their time here. The Europeans are the same way. Most people view people as other people and don't judge them by what country they're from.
I am proud of all the peace demonstrations in San Francisco, including the fantastic 500 who had the strength to sleep overnight outside the cold federal building to protest war. We live here in the belly of the beast, the heart of the imperialist war machine with its propaganda churning 24-7-365, and that's no jive. We are protesting with no labor movement, as exists in Europe, where labor is far more advanced. Our protests today are larger than ever before, and we have only just begun this round. The British protest of 400,000 in September was comendable but not surprising: (1) It is the US that is leading the charge against Iraq and thus the demonsration had a strong anti-US factor, as do all peace demonstrations around the world, as they should; and (2) Labor is much stronger in the UK than here and is an integral part of all progressive mass movements.
It has long been known that if we should go abroad, we should tell people we are from San Francisco, a city famous for its peace demonstrations, although the rest of the US has plenty of peace demonstrations. In fact, I suggest people pick a city to name as their place of origin; the rest of the world will treat you better if you do. Most large cities have sister city programs with foreign cities, and thus this approach works better.
All of our protests are worthwhile and are growing. Those include not only the sit-ins, but also the calls and letters to Congress, marching in the street demonstrations, and participating in grassroots activities that make possible a peace community, such as promoting rent control by defeating Prop. R on the San Francisco ballot. We need to build a grassroots base i n this country to successfully elect labor/peace candidates who are not Democrat-Republicans. The response of the peaceniks in the US has been excellent.
It has long been known that if we should go abroad, we should tell people we are from San Francisco, a city famous for its peace demonstrations, although the rest of the US has plenty of peace demonstrations. In fact, I suggest people pick a city to name as their place of origin; the rest of the world will treat you better if you do. Most large cities have sister city programs with foreign cities, and thus this approach works better.
All of our protests are worthwhile and are growing. Those include not only the sit-ins, but also the calls and letters to Congress, marching in the street demonstrations, and participating in grassroots activities that make possible a peace community, such as promoting rent control by defeating Prop. R on the San Francisco ballot. We need to build a grassroots base i n this country to successfully elect labor/peace candidates who are not Democrat-Republicans. The response of the peaceniks in the US has been excellent.
Reading Socialist diatribe reminded me of how much the anti-war crowd is a mirror of The Black Knight in the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
ARTHUR:
You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.
[pause]
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
[pause]
I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my court at Camelot.
[pause]
You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me?
[pause]
You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT:
None shall pass.
ARTHUR:
What?
BLACK KNIGHT:
None shall pass.
ARTHUR:
I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Then you shall die.
ARTHUR:
I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT:
I move for no man.
ARTHUR:
So be it!
ARTHUR and BLACK KNIGHT:
Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc.
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT:
'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
No, it isn't.
ARTHUR:
Well, what's that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I've had worse.
ARTHUR:
You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Come on, you pansy!
[clang]
Huyah!
[clang]
Hiyaah!
[clang]
Aaaaaaaah!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR:
Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--
BLACK KNIGHT:
Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.
ARTHUR:
What?
BLACK KNIGHT:
Have at you!
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR:
Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Yes, I have.
ARTHUR:
Look!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
ARTHUR:
Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT:
Right. I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR:
You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT:
Come here!
ARTHUR:
What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I'm invincible!
ARTHUR:
You're a looney.
BLACK KNIGHT:
The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR:
Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
ARTHUR:
You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.
[pause]
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
[pause]
I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my court at Camelot.
[pause]
You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me?
[pause]
You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT:
None shall pass.
ARTHUR:
What?
BLACK KNIGHT:
None shall pass.
ARTHUR:
I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Then you shall die.
ARTHUR:
I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT:
I move for no man.
ARTHUR:
So be it!
ARTHUR and BLACK KNIGHT:
Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc.
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT:
'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
No, it isn't.
ARTHUR:
Well, what's that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I've had worse.
ARTHUR:
You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Come on, you pansy!
[clang]
Huyah!
[clang]
Hiyaah!
[clang]
Aaaaaaaah!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR:
Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--
BLACK KNIGHT:
Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.
ARTHUR:
What?
BLACK KNIGHT:
Have at you!
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR:
Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Yes, I have.
ARTHUR:
Look!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!
ARTHUR:
Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT:
Right. I'll do you for that!
ARTHUR:
You'll what?
BLACK KNIGHT:
Come here!
ARTHUR:
What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I'm invincible!
ARTHUR:
You're a looney.
BLACK KNIGHT:
The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR:
Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
Judging by the looks of the people in the protest pictures, I'd say that they should get some jobs or at least some hobbies.
I added the indymedia.org and protest.net pages to my favorites list, so that I can coordinate my vacations around their schedules. I don't want to have to look at those ugly faces if I don't have to.
Last time I tried to go up to Sonoma for the weekend, there was a "peace rally" on the Golden Gate Bridge that backed up traffic all over the city. All they really accomplished was to cause thousands of cars citywide to sit idle in the streets, belching toxins into the air. I almost called Greenpeace on them.
If you guys want to protest this weekend during Fleet Week, my advice to you is to gather in a group as tightly as possible, dress in multicolored costumes, and hold big signs. That way the warships with live ammo will have a better target to aim at.
I added the indymedia.org and protest.net pages to my favorites list, so that I can coordinate my vacations around their schedules. I don't want to have to look at those ugly faces if I don't have to.
Last time I tried to go up to Sonoma for the weekend, there was a "peace rally" on the Golden Gate Bridge that backed up traffic all over the city. All they really accomplished was to cause thousands of cars citywide to sit idle in the streets, belching toxins into the air. I almost called Greenpeace on them.
If you guys want to protest this weekend during Fleet Week, my advice to you is to gather in a group as tightly as possible, dress in multicolored costumes, and hold big signs. That way the warships with live ammo will have a better target to aim at.
Judging by the looks of the people in the protest pictures, I'd say that they should get some jobs or at least some hobbies.
I added the indymedia.org and protest.net pages to my favorites list, so that I can coordinate my vacations around their schedules. I don't want to have to look at those ugly faces if I don't have to.
Last time I tried to go up to Sonoma for the weekend, there was a "peace rally" on the Golden Gate Bridge that backed up traffic all over the city. All they really accomplished was to cause thousands of cars citywide to sit idle in the streets, belching toxins into the air. I almost called Greenpeace on them.
If you guys want to protest this weekend during Fleet Week, my advice to you is to gather in a group as tightly as possible, dress in multicolored costumes, and hold big signs. That way the warships with live ammo will have a better target to aim at.
I added the indymedia.org and protest.net pages to my favorites list, so that I can coordinate my vacations around their schedules. I don't want to have to look at those ugly faces if I don't have to.
Last time I tried to go up to Sonoma for the weekend, there was a "peace rally" on the Golden Gate Bridge that backed up traffic all over the city. All they really accomplished was to cause thousands of cars citywide to sit idle in the streets, belching toxins into the air. I almost called Greenpeace on them.
If you guys want to protest this weekend during Fleet Week, my advice to you is to gather in a group as tightly as possible, dress in multicolored costumes, and hold big signs. That way the warships with live ammo will have a better target to aim at.
This morning's Senate vote authorizing President Bush to wage war on Saddam Hussein's dictatorship reveals much about how American politics has changed since Sept. 11. Simply put, Democrats have recognized that McGovern-style isolationism is utterly without broad political appeal. The Senate voted 77-23 in favor of the resolution, with a solid majority of Democrats (29 of 50) voting "yes." (Joining the 21 dissenting Dems were liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and erstwhile nominal Republican Jim Jeffords of Vermont.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6032-2002Oct10/.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65394,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8613-2002Oct10.html
Contrast this with the slender 52-47 vote by which the Senate approved the 1991 Gulf War resolution. Republicans were virtually as solidly united then as now, with only two dissenters (Iowa's Chuck Grassley and Oregon's Mark Hatfield). But only 10 Democrats voted in favor. By my count, 63 current members of the Senate voted on the Gulf War resolution either in the Senate or the House. Here's how they break down in terms of their votes in 1991 and 2002:
- 34 voted "yes" both times, including five Democrats and 29 Republicans. (Two of the Republicans, Alabama's Richard Shelby and Colorado's Ben Nighthorse Campbell, were Democrats in 1991).
- 15 Democrats voted "no" both times.
- Only two senators who voted for the Gulf War cast "no" votes this morning: Jeffords and Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who chairs the Intelligence Committee. (Graham's objection appears to have been that the resolution didn't go far enough; the Orlando Sentinel notes that he "had tried unsuccessfully to broaden the resolution to allow Bush to attack terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.")
- 12 of today's senators--11 Democrats and one Republican (Grassley) voted "no" in 1991 and "yes" in 2002.
Here's an even more striking statistic. Of the 13 Democratic senators who face the voters Nov. 5, only four--Illinois's Dick Durbin, Michigan's Carl Levin, Minnesota's Paul Wellstone and Rhode Island's Jack Reed--voted against the resolution. Of those four, only Wellstone faces a serious challenge. Among the other nine, six were in the House or Senate in 1991, and all of them voted against the Gulf War. In addition, every senator whose state was hit in the Sept. 11 attack--including New York's Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton--voted "yes."
This is all the more remarkable given that in 1991 many of today's peacenicks' objections didn't apply. The first President Bush already had a broad international coalition, and no one could argue liberating Kuwait was "pre-emptive."
The House approved the resolution yesterday afternoon by a vote of 296-133, with a majority of Democrats (126-81) voting "no." It's not surprising that isolationist sentiment would be greater in the House, where lawmakers answer to narrower constituencies and generally have safe seats.
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=455
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6032-2002Oct10/.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65394,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8613-2002Oct10.html
Contrast this with the slender 52-47 vote by which the Senate approved the 1991 Gulf War resolution. Republicans were virtually as solidly united then as now, with only two dissenters (Iowa's Chuck Grassley and Oregon's Mark Hatfield). But only 10 Democrats voted in favor. By my count, 63 current members of the Senate voted on the Gulf War resolution either in the Senate or the House. Here's how they break down in terms of their votes in 1991 and 2002:
- 34 voted "yes" both times, including five Democrats and 29 Republicans. (Two of the Republicans, Alabama's Richard Shelby and Colorado's Ben Nighthorse Campbell, were Democrats in 1991).
- 15 Democrats voted "no" both times.
- Only two senators who voted for the Gulf War cast "no" votes this morning: Jeffords and Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who chairs the Intelligence Committee. (Graham's objection appears to have been that the resolution didn't go far enough; the Orlando Sentinel notes that he "had tried unsuccessfully to broaden the resolution to allow Bush to attack terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.")
- 12 of today's senators--11 Democrats and one Republican (Grassley) voted "no" in 1991 and "yes" in 2002.
Here's an even more striking statistic. Of the 13 Democratic senators who face the voters Nov. 5, only four--Illinois's Dick Durbin, Michigan's Carl Levin, Minnesota's Paul Wellstone and Rhode Island's Jack Reed--voted against the resolution. Of those four, only Wellstone faces a serious challenge. Among the other nine, six were in the House or Senate in 1991, and all of them voted against the Gulf War. In addition, every senator whose state was hit in the Sept. 11 attack--including New York's Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton--voted "yes."
This is all the more remarkable given that in 1991 many of today's peacenicks' objections didn't apply. The first President Bush already had a broad international coalition, and no one could argue liberating Kuwait was "pre-emptive."
The House approved the resolution yesterday afternoon by a vote of 296-133, with a majority of Democrats (126-81) voting "no." It's not surprising that isolationist sentiment would be greater in the House, where lawmakers answer to narrower constituencies and generally have safe seats.
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=455
Ffutal claims "This is all the more remarkable given that in 1991 many of today's peacenicks' objections didn't apply. The first President Bush already had a broad international coalition, and no one could argue liberating Kuwait was "pre-emptive."
That's hogwash. In the Fall of 1990 the majority in congress, along with the majority in America were against the military solution that was being offered by Bush I. Most people favored giving diplomacy a fair chance as the first options.
It was only after the warmongers came up with the infamous Saddam baby killing propaganda that the numbers change. Lies won over common sense.
The majority of women and colored folks in Congres voted against the war.
Also you missed that Chikenhawk Joe Lieberman, the Israeli Firster, voted for the war both times.
That's hogwash. In the Fall of 1990 the majority in congress, along with the majority in America were against the military solution that was being offered by Bush I. Most people favored giving diplomacy a fair chance as the first options.
It was only after the warmongers came up with the infamous Saddam baby killing propaganda that the numbers change. Lies won over common sense.
The majority of women and colored folks in Congres voted against the war.
Also you missed that Chikenhawk Joe Lieberman, the Israeli Firster, voted for the war both times.
Ffutal claims "This is all the more remarkable given that in 1991 many of today's peacenicks' objections didn't apply. The first President Bush already had a broad international coalition, and no one could argue liberating Kuwait was "pre-emptive."
That's hogwash. In the Fall of 1990 the majority in congress, along with the majority in America were against the military solution that was being offered by Bush I. Most people favored giving diplomacy a fair chance as the first options.
It was only after the warmongers came up with the infamous Saddam baby killing propaganda that the numbers changed. Lies won over common sense.
The majority of women and colored folks in Congres voted against the war. White men voted for the war.
In your data, you missed that Chikenhawk Joe Lieberman, the Israeli Firster, also voted for war on both occasion.
That's hogwash. In the Fall of 1990 the majority in congress, along with the majority in America were against the military solution that was being offered by Bush I. Most people favored giving diplomacy a fair chance as the first options.
It was only after the warmongers came up with the infamous Saddam baby killing propaganda that the numbers changed. Lies won over common sense.
The majority of women and colored folks in Congres voted against the war. White men voted for the war.
In your data, you missed that Chikenhawk Joe Lieberman, the Israeli Firster, also voted for war on both occasion.
You have to realize that for every 1 person who protests, there are 10 additional anti-war people who are scared shirtless by the prospect of losing their wage-slavery job and thereby food for their kids.
Keep up the protests, keep them non-violent and you'll win.
Compared to last year's butchery in afghanistan these numbers are quite impressive. I'd say 90% of the anti-war sympathizers haven't yet got off their butts.
Peace out
Keep up the protests, keep them non-violent and you'll win.
Compared to last year's butchery in afghanistan these numbers are quite impressive. I'd say 90% of the anti-war sympathizers haven't yet got off their butts.
Peace out
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network