I'm sorry, I don't understand what point(s) you are making at all. I suspect that you are just disagreeing in order to be disagreeable.
Everybody who organizes - in my experience - thinks in terms of what issues would be effective to organize around. For example: I worked as a union organizer. What does a union organizer do? You basically interview the workers, and try to find out what their issues are. If there is an issue that the majority of workers raise, that is likely to be a good issue to try to organize the workers around. If there is an issue that just one worker raises, that is probably not going to be a good issue to try to organize the workers around. Now let us consider the threatened U.S. military strike on Syria. How shall we organize against this? Well, there are a number of possible choices. We could, for example, point out that a U.S. military strike on Syria, absent a Syrian attack on the U.S., or authorization by the U.N Security Council, is a clear violation of the U.N. Charter. Another possibility is that we could point out that a U.S. military strike on Syria, absent a Syrian attack on the U.S., or authorization by the U.S. Congress, is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. Both of these things are true. Which angle do you suppose is likely to be more effective in organizing Americans against an attack that press reports say could come in the next few days? On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Robert Naiman > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > During Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia, a resolution endorsing the > bombing > > was defeated on the floor of the House in a tie vote, thanks to > organizing > > of Democrats by Kucinich. This helped pressure the Clinton > Administration to > > negotiate an end to the war. > > =============== > > Oh my, half of the bicameral guardians have gone missing: > > > https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/featured_articles/990324Ewednesday.html > > Badly divided, the Senate voted on Tuesday night to support NATO air > strikes against Yugoslav military targets. > > The vote, 58 to 41, approved a one-sentence resolution authorizing > President Clinton to launch American bombing and missile attacks as > part of NATO's efforts to end the crisis in the Serbian province of > Kosovo. Sixteen Republicans joined all but 3 of the Senate's 45 > Democrats in support of the measure. > > A bipartisan group of senators wrote the resolution's spare language > on Tuesday afternoon after it became clear from meetings with > Clinton's top national security advisers that an aerial assault was > imminent. > > Throughout the day, senators from both parties expressed reservations > about, or outright opposition to putting American pilots at risk and > bombing a sovereign European nation. But with NATO's air attack > seemingly inevitable, many Senate critics muted their protests and > reluctantly closed ranks behind the administration's policy, which > aims to halt a Yugoslav army offensive in Kosovo and force the > Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, back to the peace table. > > > > > > > > During Obama's bombing of Libya, Boehner had to scramble to prevent the > > passage by the House of a resolution sponsored by Kucinich that would > have > > compelled the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Instead, the House passed a > > Boehner-crafted resolution that rebuked Obama for violating the War > Powers > > Resolution. > > ====================== > > > > Senate Passes Resolution Calling for No-Fly Zone Over Libya > > By Dan Friedman > > Updated: May 29, 2013 | 5:19 p.m. > March 1, 2011 | 9:19 p.m. > > The Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday > calling for the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly > zone over Libya and urged Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi to resign > and allow a peaceful transition to democracy. > > The resolution, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark > Kirk, R-Ill., has no force of law. And its symbolic impact on U.S. > posture toward Libya is uncertain. But the resolution puts the full > Senate on record behind an aggressive posture and could bolster a > growing number of calls for the United States—which has already sent > warships carrying hundreds of Marines into the region—or its allies to > take limited military steps in support of Libyans seeking to overthrow > Qaddafi. Earlier on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told > lawmakers that all options to address the Libyan crisis are on the > table. > > “There is a bipartisan consensus building to provide assistance to > liberated areas of Libya and to work with our allies to enforce a > no-fly zone," Kirk said in a statement. > > The resolution condemns "gross and systematic violations of human > rights, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic > reforms," by Qaddafi and urges him to "ensure civilian safety" and > "guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations." It > also applauds a move by the U.N. Human Rights Council to recommend > Libya's suspension from the council and calls for the U.N. General > Assembly to vote in support of that step. > > Menendez has been a staunch critic of Libya's role in the 1988 bombing > of Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and Scotland's 2009 > release of a Libyan convicted of playing a role in the bombing. Both > the resolution and a Menendez statement issued on Tuesday reference > Libya's acceptance of responsibility for the Pam Am bombing, which > killed 270 people, including 189 U.S. citizens. > > > > > > Just a month or so ago, the House leadership maneuvered to block a > > bipartisan amendment by Gibson and Welch to the defense appropriation - > > which I think would have passed - to block U.S. arming of the Syrian > rebels. > > Instead, the House passed by voice vote a much weaker amendment that > > prohibited funding for any military action in Syria that violated the War > > Powers Resolution. > > > > ========================== > > Merely legalistic hair-splitting over the WPR does nothing to alter > the assumptions built into the current noise levels; namely, that the > USG has any credibility whatsoever as regards the supposed > justifiability of yet more violence in Syria or, for that matter, the > DRC. > > Yet more evidence that"moral outrage" is a tired fig leaf in the > geopolitics of which of the 57 varieties of machismo/authoritarianism > will prevail in various regions of the planet in the 21st century. > > George Carlin was right. > > E. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected]
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
