MAY 21: Petitions to Snowe & Collins
UPDATED w/Ch. 7 Coverage:
Original post:
On Wednesday, May 21st we will deliver copies of the signatories to to the petition below to the Bangor offices of Senators Collins and Snowe after a brief press conference at the Center at 11:00 a.m. (not noon as announced earlier). Let us know if you can join us. The copy of the petition is below, in case you missed it the first time
We are heartened by Rep. Michaud and Allen’s votes against continued funding of the Iraq War. This week as the Senate considers funding of the Iraq War, we need to ask our Senators to do the same. To sign the petition below by e-mail, click reply and add your name and town at the end of the message or e-mail to info@peacectr.org to let us know you would like to sign it.
Ilze Petersons
We urge Sen. Collins and Sen. Snow to vote against any further funding of the Occupation of Iraq. Any further Iraq funding should go only toward military withdrawal, reconstruction, and reparations — not continued military presence. We want our tax dollars back in Maine and our country to rebuild our own communities for real security and to care for the veterans physically and psychologically wounded by this war.
Signed:
Posted
on
Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am under
Dear LLze Petersons,
As a former Vietnam Veteran (Drafted)I am against war as much as anyone you have ever known. I won’t even go hunting since my return from Vietnam because I don’t believe the Deer and Moose have a “Sporting” Chance. I also believe there wouldn’t be so many “Sportsmen” out there if the Deer could shoot back. However It seems to me you are constantly preaching to the Choir so to speak when you only march in America where you know it is safe and you are safe from the Government which you obviously hate. I would like to see you take your marches worldwide and march for peace in Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Palestine, China, Russia and dozens of other “Peace Loving” countries around the world, since only in your opinion is the United States the only country to waging war right now. Maybe you could convince Al Qaida with you tactics that they are wrong to fly planes into our buildings.Or is it only the war in Iraq you object to? I would like you to tell us how you feel about killing in general. You don’t like American soldiers being killed, right? And you are sure that thousands of Iraqi civilians are being killed indiscriminately and were not committing acts of violence against those soldiers, right? Are you against all killing? Yes? Than what is your stand on abortion and the killing of the most innocent among us? I would bet my last dollar that you feel a woman has the right to choose. Right? Where is the Peace and Justice for the unborn who because they can’t speak up for themselves are expendable. Where is the woman’s right to be held accountable for her own actions. Only in the case of rape where I can understand the baby being put up for adoption should that baby be killed, not aborted or terminated but killed. If you are against killing then you need to be consistent and you need to come out with a policy speech that says the Peace & Justice Centers will not support abortion under any circumstances. Go to Iraq, Afganistan, Iran with your marches and ask them to also lay down their arms and take up peace again, and stop pretending that the United States is the root of all evil in the world. We fought two world wars not because we were too strong at the time but because we unilaterally disarmed especially after the first world war. We have the greatest military today because we have chosen not to be attack again like we was at Pearl Harbor, especially in a nuclear age were one weapon can ruin a whole lot of peaceful people’s day and yours also.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pmHi Robert. Eric here. I’m a member of the PJCEM Education Committee. Thanks for the comment. You’re obviously thinking a lot about the great issues of our time and I thank you for letting us know how you feel.
Just so you know, we actually consider the question of pacifism versus “just” wars and refusal to kill versus killing in legitimate self defense all the time. We have a range of people at the Center who have differing opinions about these matters, and about abortion.
I have just a couple of links that may be of interest given some of your other concerns. One, the peace movement IS global, including inside Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries in every part of the world. Look at this:
11 million march against war.
Two, it is important for US citizens to address our own government about nuclear weapons because the US military possesses the biggest nuclear arsenal and continues to modernize and expand it most vigorously while it issues statements and policies suggesting that the US would use this fearsome arsenal. See HERE and HERE for more.
Again, thanks for the comment. I hope I’ve tried to suggest to you that the concerns you have are ones we all share with you, not concerns born of “hate” for our country.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:36 pmI also believe in bringing an end to the war in Iraq, and removing any occupying presence from the country. This war was waged because of false intelligence and fear mongering, and in my opinion should have never been undertaken. However, I disagree with one notion you seem to be supporting; we must stop funding “reconstruction” and or “reparations”. Billions of dollars a month are flowing into Iraq to “rebuild” it’s infrastructure, yet we see no evidence that any “reconstruction” is actually taking place. At the same time the Iraqi oil industry is seeing profit margins of billions of dollars and they are not taking part in their own rebuilding effort, instead they are sitting back and letting the United States foot the bill.
What we need to do is cut off all funding for reconstruction and divert the billions of dollars being sent overseas back into our economic and social systems. This will provide an immediate boost to our economy, and at the same time will alleviate the harsh pressures being levied on the tax paying citizens of this country.
We also can not refuse to fund the military in Iraq at this point because of one simple fact; they are there! The men and women who have been put in harms way deserve to be provided for an protected, and that means we must continue to fund the military while they are present in the middle east. I hope that we start a withdrawal process soon and return these brave men and women home, but until they are home they must receive the full support of the country which they are risking their lives to defend and serve. Taking the funding from the armed forces, and from these individuals, serves no purpose but to weaken their defenses and allow for more casualties or deaths. That does not make sense.
Finally, I can not disagree with you more concerning Iran. This country is run by a extremist military fascist, and no amount of diplomacy is going to deter them from their ultimate goals. Have we learned nothing from the mistakes of individuals such as Neville Chamberlain? When good men sit back and allow evil to proliferate it only makes that evil stronger. Eventually it will become so bold as to think it is invincible. Adolph Hitler was given that allowance, and in seven years time murdered and tortured over twenty million people.
I believe strongly in avoiding war at all costs, but sometimes with men war is the only answer. It is a sad fact, but one that has played out through the annals of history. Human beings are violent and are fueled by greed and self realization, some more so than others. Sometimes war can not be avoided. I think it is wise to weigh the circumstances instead of using one blanket philosophy as a guide in all things.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmHi Rene, thanks for the thoughtful comment. Our petition does state that we do want the troops funded for withdrawal, which is not the same thing as refusing to fund them.
On the matter of Iran, I think it’s a big mistake to label the whole country “evil”. Hitler comparisons are not apropos. Iran has not invaded its neighbors. If it was possible to construct any kind of parallel (and we can debate whether or not it is), the US has taken on the role of invader in the region, so there is your parallel. But I don’t think it’s useful to label the US “evil” either.
If we wish to weigh circumstances, we might consider a statement current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made during his confirmation hearing before the US Senate on December 5, 2006:
GATES: “I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent.
“They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.”
In that context–that is, seeing Iran as a nation with interests and a population to protect–is it unreasonable for them to see themselves as requiring deterrence? That’s the sort of thinking that drove the Cold War for decades. If the US and Israel steadfastly refuse to entertain concepts like a nuclear free Middle East, we should not be surprised by how others will react because it reflects our own history.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI’m glad to see you do support the troops being funded throughout the withdrawal period because I believe that to be absolutely essential. We can not strand the men and women of the armed services in the middle east over political quibbles.
I think you took my comment regarding Iran out of context. I was not implying that the entire region or populous was “evil”, rather I was using the statement as more of a representation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his governing body. Any man that steps forth into the public light and calls for another country and it’s people to be “wiped off the map” and calls the Holocaust, one of the worst tragedies in human history, a myth, can certainly be classified as an embodiment of evil. As for the comparison as a Hitleresque figure, maybe Vladamir Putin is closer to the model, but none the less, Ahmadinejad certainly displays many of the prominent traits.
As for nuclear proliferation on a whole, I do not see any way it can be reasonably stopped. The United States, nor any other modern nation, can justifiably hinder another sovereign country from exploring nuclear science as a means of energy production or self defense. The notion is too hypocritical to be defensible. These countries will move forward with their plans, and if the U.S. or any other country tries to deter them through sanctions they will simply engage in a form of “economic warfare”, and allied with other middle eastern nations, create an inflated foreign petroleum and commodities market that will destroy the U.S. from the inside out.
That being said, what manner of diplomacy do you see as being effective with a nation like Iran. They obviously have no regard for human rights or freedoms, and dismiss most attempts at diplomacy as propaganda. What would your suggestions be as to how we should approach such a nation in negotiations that would be contentious at best? I’d love to hear your thoughts and opinions because it’s something I think about all the time.
As I stated before, I believe war should be avoided at all costs, but war is created by situations and environments, and the current social and economic status of the entire world is creating a perfect stimulus for another great all engulfing conflict. This is another lesson we should learn from our history, and we should be working to diffuse this situation now. I just don’t see our government or leadership working aggressively enough to diffuse the situation, and fear it will end badly. Again, I would love for you to share your opinions and debate with me. Thanks for your thoughtful reply
August 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pmSaying that Iran has “no regard for human rights or freedoms” is probably unwarranted. They have at least a little regard since they do better than most US allies in the region, though that really is not saying much. They do have elections that are much more substantial than Saudi has, for example. I think a correct analysis is that democratic process in Iran is hurt by US-sponsored aggression. Having provocateurs & spies in your country, and assassins gunning for your officials throughout the neighborhood, all enabled by US presidential finding as Andrew Cockburn and Sy Hersh have reported, is great for strengthening hardliners. (We oughtta know, after the PATRIOT Act, wars, and torture quickly became US policy after 9/11.)
I won’t defend Ahmadinejad. Mainly he strikes me as a sophomoric thinker and a klutz. He wouldn’t even have the power to launch any sort of attack on the west. His speeches are rambling and lacking in coherency. His supposed remark about “wiping Israel off the map” is a misquote if you look into it. Saying that doesn’t diminish his racism and antisemitism against Israelis.
Of course Israel has its own firebrands, like Avigdor Lieberman who wants to deport every Palestinian or Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit who called for Gaza neighborhoods to be “wiped out” just a few months ago. That kind of genocidal talk makes the Israeli press, but is not reported here.
As far as diplomacy with Iran goes, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki seems like a pillar of reason compared to the provocations and threats that issue forth from our administration, John McCain, and Barack Obama alike. Last month, Mottaki offered a temporary halt to uranium enrichment in exchange for “constructive approach and the resolution of regional and international affairs and problems”. That was a non-starter, mocked mercilessly by Rice.
Of course their military guys are more likely to have their backs up. But if you try just for a moment to view things from the Iranian position, is it so hard to see why they behave like they do?
I totally agree with you that the situations should be diffused, rather than the flames fanned. Our government, both from the D & R sides of the aisle are wrongly approaching Iran. Thanks for the comments.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:01 pm