[O29] Troops out NOW or "at some unspecified date in the future to be determined according to the whim of Congress"?

Fri Sep 30 17:18:56 PDT 2005

I agree with Keith.Don't let the democrats push us
into their agenda of imperialism.We can't trust them.
Their time table for withdrawl is a trick and a trap
for the anti-war movement.90% of the Iraqis want the
immediate withdrawl of all coalition troops now.This
hasn't changed since the war started.The least we can
do is support their demands!In solidarity with the
Iraqi resistance.Troops out now!!

--- Keith Rosenthal <keithmr81 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> gary,
>    it seems that you are saying that you don't
> support the antiwar movement taking up the demand,
> "troops out now!" (see below).  i think this is a
> mistake.
>    first of all, poll after poll conducted by the US
> occupation forces in Iraq, show that a majority of
> Iraqis want the US to leave NOW.  this is why so
> many Iraqis are actually arming themselves to join
> the resistance to the US military presence in Iraq.
>    second, "practically speaking," expecting
> Congress, if left to their own devices, to set a
> date for withdrawal at some point in the future is
> not going to happen.  The Republicans sure won't do
> this, and the leaders of the Democratic Party
> (Kerry, Dean, both Clintons, etc.) have said time
> and again that they won't "cut and run" from Iraq. 
> for our movement to demand that these politicians
> "set a date" for withdrawal would be to sow
> illusions that the politicians actually are against
> the war and want to bring the troops home -- they're
> not; they want to keep troops their indefinitely to
> protect their geopolitical strategic assets in the
> region (i.e., oil, military bases, etc.), and to
> prepare for the possibility of further interventions
> in the region (Iran, Syria, etc.)
>    finally, i don't think raising the demand "Out
> Now!" will shrink the movement as you argue; in
> fact, the way I see it, the movement is in the
> process of growing and blossoming around such
> figures as Cindy Sheehan and others who call for
> "Out Now!" or, as she led the crowd in chanting at
> the demonstration in D.C. last weekend, "Not one
> more [death or dollar] for this war!"  
>    right now, 60% of people are against the war, and
> a majority of those are for bringing all of the
> troops home now.  at the moment, while bush
> continues to slide in the polls, people's distrust
> for government increases, and more and more people
> are completely sick of the war in Iraq, the antiwar
> movement is in a unique position to go on the
> offensive and be bold in winning even more people to
> join us in organizing around the demand: "Out Now!" 
> 
>    gary, you may argue that a majority of people in
> this country do not yet support the position of
> immediate, absolute withdrawal tomorrow.  well, a
> majority of people in this country also aren't yet
> sure if ALL the troops should withdraw or some
> should stay.  yet, it would be ridiculous for our
> movement therefore to take up the demand: "withdraw
> a fraction of the troops at some unspecified date in
> the future as the members of Congress see fit!" just
> to mirror the whole of American public opinion on
> this question.  the role of the antiwar movement is
> not just to mirror the sentiment of the whole of the
> American public, but also to attempt to influence it
> and bring it forward, closer to the goal of actually
> ending the war.  
>    more and more people everyday are beginning to
> think that the troops should come home now.  these
> people are veteran protesters, veterans of the US
> Army, teenagers and retirees, men and women, black
> and white.  it would be a mistake, just at the
> moment that more Americans are beginning to join the
> Iraqi majority in calling for immediate withdrawal,
> for the antiwar movement to then backtrack on this
> position.  just when we are beginning to have the
> potential to bring tens of millions of people
> nationwide into the streets around the demand: "Out
> Now," is not the time to backtrack or equivocate. 
> as Martin Luther King, Jr., once famously put it,
> "Justice delayed is justice denied."
>    during the vietnam antiwar movement, people
> sometimes asked, "well, how can we just bring the
> troops home tomorrow?"  people responded by saying,
> "easy, with helicopters and boats."  we have to send
> a message to the troops, the Iraqis, and the
> American politicians that the American antiwar
> movement will not stand for this war one day longer.
>  we want to end the killing not even tommorrow, but
> today!  we want all of the money going to this war
> to be immediately put towards hurricane relief,
> jobs, education, healthcare, and social security . .
> .and we want it to happen today! 
>    
> Solidarity,
> Keith Rosenthal
>        
> 
> 
> gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  judith leblanc's proposal to build a broad movement
> calling on congress to set a date for removal makes
> more sense than insisting on NOW, when practically
> speaking we're not going to get NOW any more than we
> achieved this during the vietnam debacle. as people
> who lived during that time might recall, set the
> date was the demand that guaranteed that we would
> flank around our movement the broadest possible mass
> base--------------- and as folks know, there's
> strength AND pressure in numbers. and numbers are
> not what you'll get with a political purity based on
> NOW, any more than was the case during vietnam.
>  
> further, the article made no reference to john kerry
> and 2008. maybe that's what kerry has in mind, but
> if the troops can be brought home sooner, will
> anyone object?
>  
> finally, it appears that the troops will not be
> brought home, but rather SENT home by the
> insurgency, the shiites, and other iraqi forces,
> like their counterparts in vietnam. and while our
> job is to hasten the day of departure at our end,
> it's also important to avoid the chauvinist attitude
> that says that all depends on us-----------------
> which is reflected in the purist demand for NOW. 
> 
> John Harris <john.r.harris at verizon.net> wrote:
> The antiwar movement is indeed at a turning point
> and now is not the time 
> to turn back to a messege reflecting a weaker period
> in our history. I would 
> hope that we maintain a strong focus on the demand: 
> Bring the Troops Home Now! 
>  
> It seems that Judith Le Blanc's message: "Now is the
> time to build a massive, 
> broad movement calling on Congress to set the date
> for removal of all U.S. 
> troops and bases from Iraq." would somewhat
> contradict the central focus 
> of the antiwar movement which demands immediate
> withdrawel of all the troops. 
> As the two prowar parties in Washington become more
> and more isolated 
> from the vast majority in this country, they will
> see a need to set the date for 
> withdrawing the troops. Nothing short of demanding
> immediate withdrawel 
> of all the troops will force the war makers out. The
> challenge upon us is to 
> convince millions more that the occupation has no
> legitimacy whatsoever and 
> that the best timetable for bringing the troops home
> is three years ago when 
> they were first sent over there. If they set a date
> of 2008 as proposed by John 
> Kerry during the elections then it implies that the
> occupation has some legitamacy. 
> We have won nothing until all the troops and bases
> are out of there. Our job is 
> not to demand a date or to design a timetable for
> them but to demand that they 
> leave NOW. That is the only language that the war
> makers in Washington 
> understand. They will design their timetable. Our
> date is NOW.
>  
> The time has arrived when we must begin calling on
> ourselves to build a mass 
> social movement independent of support for either of
> these two parties not "calling 
> on Congress". A movement that redefines the
> political agenda pointing toward a 
> struggle for human needs and international
> solidarity. A movement that speaks to 
> the needs of those of us who work for a living.
> Student strikes are now on the 
> agenda. Mass protests among the troops are now on
> the agenda. Mass protests 
> targeting the War Machine are now on the agenda. We
> must never slide into 
> the mode of thinking that we can give advice to
> these people as to what would be in 
> their best interest. Their best interest lies in
> spreading death and misery throughout the 
> world in the interest of profits and control of
> resources and markets. Their best interest 
> lies in controlling the oil resources of Iraq and
> the entire region which means 
> consolidating a protectorate and having permanent
> bases in Iraq. 
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BostonMarch20 at yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:BostonMarch20 at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> gary hicks
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:51 PM
> To: massgreens needtoknow
> Subject: [BostonMarch20] After September 24th
> -------------------------------------------- WHAT
> NEXT?
> 
> 
>   Found at:
> http://www.pww.org/article/articleprint/7783/Peace
> movement at a turning point [input]   [input]  
> ---------------------------------
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> O29 mailing list
> O29 at massglobalaction.org
>
http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org
> 

__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com