Anti-War Demos Planned for 11 Cities Saturday
NEW YORK, Oct 26 (OneWorld) - Preparation for nationwide protests against the Bush administration's war plans against Iran and the continued occupation of Iraq are in full swing.
"Every month, nearly 100 service-people and countless more Iraqis are killed, some 12 billion of our tax dollars are spent, and the death and destruction continue," said Medea Benjamin of CODEPINK, an anti-war group that has organized several demonstrations since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. "People everywhere want the war to end, but Washington has failed to take decisive action," Benjamin added in a statement. "We want this war to end. Our goal for the 11 regional peace demonstrations is to focus national attention on the urgency of ending the war and to highlight the impact of war spending on domestic needs." The October 27 antiwar protests will take place in Boston; Chicago; Jonesborough, Tennessee; Los Angeles; New Orleans; New York; Orlando; Salt Lake City; San Francisco; and Seattle. Organizers said they expect that people in all the 11 cities will participate in the rallies in large numbers because working and middle-class Americans are suffering from economic hardship due to the massive spending of tax dollars on military operations abroad. The protests come at a time when the Bush administration is seeking Congressional approval for additional spending on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has asked for $196.4 billion for war-related operations this budget year.
The administration has dismissed that analysis by saying it was based on "speculation." "It's just a ton of speculation," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future." Democratic politicians pointed out the vast difference between today's estimates and those the White House offered before the war began in 2003. "That estimate is a far cry from the administration's original claim of a $50 billion price that the Iraqis could pay themselves," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "The depth of this tragedy is stunning, particularly for our military families -- and for prospects for peace in the region." However, despite their opposition to the war, Democrats have not given any clear indication that they would take a firm stand against Bush's request for additional money for war. Analysts say the proposed additional spending on military operations indicates that the plans to carry out an attack on Iran cannot be ruled out. On Thursday, the Bush administration declared its readiness to roll out an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Tehran. Independent foreign experts have repeatedly warned about the consequences of such measures, arguing that it would fuel anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim world, and place at further risk the lives of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We can't bomb a country simply because we don't like it," said Carah Ong, an analyst at the Washington, DC-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a policy think tank. "Doing so would be recklessly shortsighted and only strengthen the hands of hard-liners in Iran. Last week, Bush suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to "World War III." Vice President Dick Cheney also used threatening language against Tehran saying that Iran would face "serious consequences" if the government there does not abandon its nuclear program. Iran has repeatedly said it has no intention to build nuclear weapons and that its atomic program is meant for peaceful purposes, which is its right under the UN treaty on nuclear nonproliferation (NPT). The Center and many other organizations are currently trying to build pressure on Congress to prevent a military attack against Iran and opt for a diplomatic solution. The group has also started a signature campaign to send a petition to Congress demanding as much. "If we want to see a change in Iran's behavior," said Ong, "we must pursue courageous diplomatic leadership to establish a serious, sustained dialogue." ....................................................................................
....................................................................................
|
Related links
Comment List
"So, what is the solution?"Time: 10/28/2007 01:15
Comment: Is enough just to protest? Is it enough to hold rallies and demonstrations? Is it enough to build pressure on Congress? Is it enough to rally because every month nearly 100 service-people and countless more Iraqis are killed, some 12 billion of our tax dollars are spent, and the death and destruction continue?
Is it enough to note people everywhere want the war to end, but Washington has failed to take decisive action? No, it is not enough. Bewailing in empirical misery due to your humanitarian ideals is not enough. We must ask, are there any viable and defensible arguments for viable and defensible solutions being considered? Proposed? To look for a solution, we must ask, as so many so easily come to agreement here with the conclusions of the article, what are those who make these decisions with which so many others disagree, thinking? What is going on in their heads that leads them to negate the more common humanitarian feeling so many have here? It is not just the President's Administration that is in favor of the militarism and the stupendous loss of life. It is the Congress too. The Congress has repeatedly given the green light to this too. No one is pulling the wool over their eyes about what is happening. So what is in the heads of these leaders that makes them think this way? What is it? What is it that makes these horrible death inducing invasions so worth while for those who repeatedly vote for them and make up so many gyrating political maneuvers and purportedly logical machinations about how and why the carnage cannot simply just end? What is it? You know what it is. It is what you were taught is school. It is the empirical deduction. When one weighs and measures all the empirical facts, these empirical half truths and approximations lead to the conclusion that these wars must proceed. For that is all that empiricism can ever offer, a half truth. Consider how, almost everyone in the West with even half an education knows that if the Middle East oil doesn't fall completely into our hands, something much worse will become of all of us. For we must have a good economy. We must have continued economic growth, the kind fostered by the endless stream of foreigners encouraged to enter this country illegally. And to have a good economy, we need the Middle East oil too. And, because our empirical-ness cannot be surpassed by the empirical primitiveness of all those foreigners we kill, we must have the oil for the good of the entire world... Right? This is what poses for the empirical truth staring you in your Western educated eyes. And yet, the humanitarian instinctively knows it is all a lie. But, the humanitarian is also an empiricist. And the humanitarian, when they cross over the line away from empiricism toward truth, they suddenly find themselves without any bearing, lost, fearful and feeling inappropriately radicalized. And as all the credible empirical soothsayers have predicted, pretty soon we will need even more oil than that which comes out of just the Middle East. This is the empirical mindset that wholly negates the more instinctive humanitarian mindset that believes these things must stop for humanitarian reasons. But unfortunately, the humanitarian position has no viable counter argument to this claim that gets us over the hurdle of the sure necessity for those who possess our empirical-ness to continue to call the shots. We have the Space Shuttle don't we? We have Harvard University, don't we? We invented the Internet, Nintendo, Purple Hair, Viagra and Oxycontin too, didn't we? Well, I thought so! All these newly elected Democratic politicians just like the Neocons are all empirically confident, that if these wars were to stop, no one but the long dead Boogie Man Osama bin Laden is going to like the hardship strewn result for all Westerners that will be inevitably worse than seeing so many defenseless foreigners slaughtered for our self-righteous control of their oil. So, you see, it does little good to call the smug little Condoleezza Rice a "war criminal." For though Condoleeza Rice certainly is a war criminal by any sane measure, she also believes she is doing what is empirically best and required of her in her position as the U.S. Secretary of State. Condoleezza Rice views herself as an Alexander the Great, a Napoleon, and as the Duke of Wellington all wrapped up into one. Condoleezza Rice is winning the war and saving the world for her team one Iraqi death at a time. Condoleezza Rice, the little black princess of blood for this adminstration does all this empirically, not humanitarianly. Why? Because you don't win wars for your team humanitarianly. Wars are won empirically. The belief mechanism here is the same with everyone else who is supporting the war tacitly or not. Empirical reason simply trumps humanitarian blubbering every time. And, if you won't, I'll lay down your cards for you. You lost this hand. A bluff means nothing here. You cannot win as a humanitarian because there is no reason you should win in the face of good, solid empirical reason. And that is what we have here in the arguments made for continuing and even expanding these oil wars. YOU simply don't have the empirical guns! And that is what you, the Iraqis, the Iranians and all these Cindy-moms of those fool soldiers are up against too. So blame the lame-headed empirical-ness of our culture, and not the people who have been taught all their entire lives that empirical reason is truth. If you want to end the wars, then you must defeat empiricism itself. And, I can tell everyone here, it is possible to defeat empiricism, though it also is not very likely within our feeble collective human grasp on such short notice. For as empirical reason was to superstition, so too is Categorical Knowledge to empirical reason. I am going to suggest everyone here read the immediately preceeding sentence at least one more time for cognition. The idea is nascent, and a terrible truth. Categorical Knowledge is defined as that knowledge that is true in every instance with no exception. Categorical Knowledge is a road that leads away from empirical barbarity of approximations about which everyone here writes with such horror about while citing their humanitarian beliefs while couching them in ineffective mealy-mouthed empiricisms. And, if you're really interested in defeating the empiricists of these wars and getting some of your otherwise somewhat foolish humanitarian ideals recognized, and implemented, you can start to learn a little about Categorical Knowledge. For Categorical Knowledge, unlike humanitarianism, trumps empirical reason every time. Don Robertson, The American Philosopher |
Printable version
Back to top
