[Peace-discussion] I would love to see us listed as an endorser and GPUS listed as a Sponsor!!!
Henry D.
henryduke2004@yahoo.com
Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:12:23 -0800 (PST)
--0-1425624554-1165785143=:32323
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
this was long winded... Yes I think its okay for GPAX to sign on if there is no cost. Were it a 50 dollar cost, I would offer to pony it up.
thanks joni,
hd
"Henry D." <henryduke2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
While establishing a "dept of peace" is not a bad idea, I don't think we have enough energy or time to shunt away from direct action against the democratic and republican yay-sayers to the war and a new draft.
Joni: I have repeatedly stated that I favor a liberal endorsement policy subject to reversal if an ill advised/contraversial one develops.
David: The GPUS has released many opinions and press releases aiding US policies of intervention in Iran and Iraq. Would endorsement of a liberal, well-meaning-if-imperialist demand not allow us to break with it were it ever to come to pass?
If it doesn't cost money I shouldn't think any GPUS folks would oppose putting our name on an endorsement letterhead, and it should help provide dialogue with the Democratic party imperialist "do-gooders" in Code PINK and the Dennis K campaign.
Having said that, I favor a more concrete position to call for US troops home now, cessation of all US military Aid to Israel, and for reparations and international trials directed at the chief promoters and profiteers of the US war against Iraq and Afghanistan.
What legislation is Dennis K promoting calling for an immediate withdrawl or timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?
What legislation is Dennis K promoting calling for impeachment or trials for the promoters of an illegal, preemtive war and occupation of a sovreign nation?
The minimal condition of support for any candidate, in my humble opinion, should be the demand of bringing the US troops home now or on an explicit, expedited timetable.
Anyone know any candidates other than Ralph Nader, that could take 5 - 15 percent from the other candidates funded by the corporate war parties?
Don't support lesser war, or war by any other name. Support peace, and victory to the aspirations of people who struggle against invasion, occupation, and violence.
We are winning,
Henry H Duke
David Rolde <davidrolde@comcast.net> wrote:
I would be very nervous about the Green Party endorsing the establishment of a Department of Peace in the US federal govt. Some of the endorsing groups (e.g., Amnesty International) are liberal imperialist groups that have encouraged the US to launch imperialist wars on "humanitarian" pretexts. Some of the sponsoring groups (e.g., AI again, Tikkun, etc.) are Zionist groups. There are some good groups endorsing too. But the main reason I'm nervous about this isn't because of who is involved in this initiative but rather because it is a bad concept. The US government is a negative force in the world. The US government has a history of getting involved in many conflicts with the stated goal of working for "peace". These operations have generally been disingenuous and have resulted in terrible suffering for millions of people. The people of the USA need to learn to be humble and not to think that we can provide the solutions to fix the world's problems. People around the
world and in the USA need to have self-determination and control over their own resources. The US government cannot be allowed to be the policeman or "peacekeeper" of the world. A department of "peace", trying to figure out how to intervene here there and everywhere, could be a very bad thing. We should shut down the US govt's Department of War but not replace it with a Department of "Peace". The Department of War already has an Orwellian euphemistic name: Department of "Defense". "Peace" would just be another meaningless word meaning war.
- David Rolde
GRP of MA
On Dec 9, 2006, at 8:27 PM, Joni LeViness wrote:
http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/50/127/
what do you all think?
Peace,
joni
--0-1425624554-1165785143=:32323
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<div>this was long winded... Yes I think its okay for GPAX to sign on if there is no cost. Were it a 50 dollar cost, I would offer to pony it up.</div> <div> </div> <div>thanks joni,</div> <div>hd<BR><BR><B><I>"Henry D." <henryduke2004@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <DIV>While establishing a "dept of peace" is not a bad idea, I don't think we have enough energy or time to shunt away from direct action against the democratic and republican yay-sayers to the war and a new draft. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Joni: I have repeatedly stated that I favor a liberal endorsement policy subject to reversal if an ill advised/contraversial one develops.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>David: The GPUS has released many opinions and press releases aiding US policies of intervention in Iran and Iraq. Would endorsement of a liberal, well-meaning-if-imperialist demand not
allow us to break with it were it ever to come to pass?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If it doesn't cost money I shouldn't think any GPUS folks would oppose putting our name on an endorsement letterhead, and it should help provide dialogue with the Democratic party imperialist "do-gooders" in Code PINK and the Dennis K campaign.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having said that, I favor a more concrete position to call for US troops home now, cessation of all US military Aid to Israel, and for reparations and international trials directed at the chief promoters and profiteers of the US war against Iraq and Afghanistan.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>What legislation is Dennis K promoting calling for an immediate withdrawl or timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?</U></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>What legislation is Dennis K promoting calling for impeachment or trials for the promoters of an illegal, preemtive war and occupation of a
sovreign nation?</U></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The minimal condition of support for any candidate, in my humble opinion, should be the demand of bringing the US troops home now or on an explicit, expedited timetable.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Anyone know any candidates other than Ralph Nader, that could take 5 - 15 percent from the other candidates funded by the corporate war parties?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Don't support lesser war, or war by any other name. Support peace, and victory to the aspirations of people who struggle against invasion, occupation, and violence.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We <EM><STRONG>are</STRONG></EM> winning,</DIV> <DIV>Henry H Duke</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><B><I>David Rolde <davidrolde@comcast.net></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I would be very nervous about the Green Party endorsing the
establishment of a Department of Peace in the US federal govt. Some of the endorsing groups (e.g., Amnesty International) are liberal imperialist groups that have encouraged the US to launch imperialist wars on "humanitarian" pretexts. Some of the sponsoring groups (e.g., AI again, Tikkun, etc.) are Zionist groups. There are some good groups endorsing too. But the main reason I'm nervous about this isn't because of who is involved in this initiative but rather because it is a bad concept. The US government is a negative force in the world. The US government has a history of getting involved in many conflicts with the stated goal of working for "peace". These operations have generally been disingenuous and have resulted in terrible suffering for millions of people. The people of the USA need to learn to be humble and not to think that we can provide the solutions to fix the world's problems. People around the world and in the USA need to have
self-determination and control over their own resources. The US government cannot be allowed to be the policeman or "peacekeeper" of the world. A department of "peace", trying to figure out how to intervene here there and everywhere, could be a very bad thing. We should shut down the US govt's Department of War but not replace it with a Department of "Peace". The Department of War already has an Orwellian euphemistic name: Department of "Defense". "Peace" would just be another meaningless word meaning war. <DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV> <DIV>- David Rolde</DIV> <DIV>GRP of MA <DIV><BR> <DIV> <DIV>On Dec 9, 2006, at 8:27 PM, Joni LeViness wrote:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline> <BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A href="http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/50/127/">http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/50/127/</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN
class=718502601-10122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>what do you all think?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=718502601-10122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Peace,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=718502601-10122006><FONT face=Arial size=2>joni</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
--0-1425624554-1165785143=:32323--