community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Please respect diversity of tactics
by ...
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 2:19 AM
...
A plea to actually respect a diversity of non-violent tactics.
I attended the picnic, rally, and march today in Pittsburgh. I thought it was (for the most part) an awesome display of what is possible when people join together for a common goal. There was one distubering thing that occured which I feel the need to bring attention to. During the march some individuals wheeled out a dumpster which they used to block the street. The dumpster was then moved out of the streets by other activists. The group that organized this march supports a diversity of non-violent tactics. POG announced prior to the march that it was un-permitted, that is was of a disruptive nature, and that people should participate how they saw fit. It is extremely disappointing that some people took it upon themselves to decide what tactics were acceptable and which were not. How would they feel if other peace activists attempted to stop you from marching without a permit because they didn't support such a tactic. What if they followed you while you were flyering and removed any flyers you left at business's because they didn't support the flyer you were leaving. Whether you agree or disagree with the tactics being used it's not in solidarity to cancel out the actions of others. You did not have to participate or condone but you shouldn't reverse the work of others.
Please people: If you are unable to stop yourself from disrupting the non-violent tactics of others do not go on a march that is advertised as supporting such tactics. It is not your place to force your prefered tactics on others.
word
by alex
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 2:25 AM
agreed.
Alex,
pog member
agreed
by pr0t3s7
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 9:33 AM
When the large dumpster was rolling along the street i heard a few comments like "this is a peaceful pr0test" and "hey, that's private property" spewing from the mouths of a few individuals. It is quite interesting that these people are so concerned about the welfare of an inanimate object. I thought that people understood this, but dumpsters don't have feelings, however, iraqui infants are sentient beings just like the rest of us. The point is that we are attempting to stop a WAR and yesterday's demonstration was intended to be disruptive enough to break the spell of complacency that enthralls many americans. We were not out for some self-congratulatory "liberal" walk around the neighborhood. What these moderates must understand is not only the discrepancy inherent between non-sentient objects and conscious beings, but the fact that THEY, like us, are considered criminals in the eyes of the law. It's funny that this small grouip of people was willing to illegally violate PERSONAL POSSESION rights by blocking intersections, but when it comes to moving a large metal segment of extended private property domain, not only do they want no part, but they actually take it upon themselves to move the dumpster. My point is quite simple: america is about to escalate a murderous campaign against a civilian populace, and, in opposition, we must escalate out actions. I am not talking about throwing things at the police, either (and, if you noticed, no one attempted to harm another person). Seriously, I never knew why so many people despised moderate "liberals" until yesterday. Some lady yelled at my friend for writing "@'s" in CHALK on a wall at starbucks. Do you people think that "escalate out actions" is a catch phrase? Really, I do not believe that these counter-productive moderate individuals care if Iraqui children are incinerated or not; to them (the counterproductive and authoritarian individuals) pr0tests seem to be a social gathering to allow them to talk about how "cool" they are for "resisting". Where are these people when it comes to organizing these events? It's hilarious that the organizers had no problem with more kinetic acts of resistance while certain non-active individuals that have never been to f00d not bombs, helped plan for an event, or done anything of significance took the time to attempt to unravel the actions of others. Let's just get one thing straight, we are trying to stop a WAR, not have an outdoor neighborhood party.
viva anarchquia!
Right on
by Sam
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 9:49 AM
Even if you don't agree with everything that's being done, you should still allow it to be done.
solidarity
by itchy
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 10:04 AM
pr0t3s7, I am in agreement with your concerns. The actions of those who moved the dumpster back were really messed up. People need to remain in solidarity with one another on the streets. I do disagree with your broad generalizations of "liberal" protesters. It is important that we not become reactionary when discussing these very legitimate concerns. While it is true the people who moved the dumpster back have not been organizing the anti-war marches of the last couple months they are committed people who are a asset to the movement. There is no cause to dismiss or malign them.
I mean we've got a million people in Pittsburgh and a thousand show up at a march. That thousand is an AWESOME number for Pittsburgh, but I'm not break solidarity with those who showed up. I'll save my condemnations for those who know what's happening and do nothing. The folks who marched without a permit are our friends and allies. Diversity of tactics doesn't mean that only more "radical" stuff is valid or should be supported. It means we need to support all non-violent tactics against this war. A couple people at one event broke the DOT framework and it isn't the end of the world.
People don't have a lot of experience with a diversity of tactics. It is very easy for people to to let their desire for an event to procede the way they wish to lead to them acting authoritarean towards others. Most but not all people I've talked to who disagreed with the use of the dumpster understood why they couldn't move it out of the street. From conversations yesterday I also know the organizers of the event were very disappointed that people broke from the agreed upon framework of the event to move the dumpster back. I've asked them to talk about stuff like this at the march 30th event, but I don't know if they will. This is a important dialogue to have within the movement.
escalating and sense
by robotinc
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 10:25 AM
I think escalating by invading coporate franchises (GAP, Banana Republic, Starbucks) was understood by anyone marching who happened to see. But I was hanging with the yuppies in the back, for the most part, and I could sense their astonishment and concern when misplaced / broken objects appeared in the street in front of them. The sense seemed to be: what's going on at the front, and does it make sense for us to be here? I think it's completely appropriate to provoke that question, but we have to be careful not to alienate the mainstream liberal allies who took the streets with us. Perhaps it would help to explain "diversity of tactics" toward the end of the rally, so people get a better idea of why things are turning out more chaotic than they expected. Diversity of tactics, unity of purpose. Let's keep it together.
-another POG organizer
well, duh
by robotinc
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 10:28 AM
Drat. I think I've been influenced by the media. Where it says "POG organizer" above, please replace with "POG member".
A plea for solidarity
by Sarah
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 10:51 AM
What the heck is wrong with everyone?
Do people not remember what it was like in the year after 9-11? How the peace movement self destructed and the events were uninspired with low attendance. Was there any civil disobedience or direct action in that year? Think about what has been accomplished since January of this year. Please stay in solidarity with one another. Don't break the diversity of tactics framework and don't malign your fellow activists.
If people actively work against what others are trying to do we can expect a couple things.
One, there will be a split between the two sides of the movement. The radicals will just march by themselves because they already have the numbers to do so. The radical marches will move towards property damage and other more militant actions. The liberals will move towards only permitted events with preset routes and "peacekeepers". The radical marches will have more anger, energy from the drummers, and more youth/diversity. The liberals will be more sedate, generally older, have kids with them, and become content with boring ineffectual events.
Two, polarization will increase between the two groups. There will be pressure for each group to distance itself from the work of the other. Name calling, disruption of work, calls to boycott, and more will occur as each side becomes frustrated by the loss of effectiveness the split has produced.
Three, the media and police will no longer have a united front to contend with. The media will find the liberals who openly disagree with more radical tactics. The liberal events will lack any type of buzz or credibility with those in the anti-corporate movement. The cops will be able to crackdown on those who march without a permit and the media will be able to completely ignore those who do.
All of that IS THE SITUATION IN MANY OTHER CITIES. Everywhere I go I hear "wow you all in Pittsburgh are doing some awesome stuff; I wish things were like that here. Everyone hates each other and most groups don't speak". We have a unique movement in Pittsburgh. Please don't fuck it up.
radicals
by someone from pog
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 11:21 AM
I'd just like to add one thing
POG does get a lot of complaints from people when things happen like dumpsters get moved back by other marchers. The question people ask us is the following "There are hundreds of people here who support using dumpsters as blockades, why are we letting those who don't determine our actions. Does this event support a diversity of tactics or not? Why don't we just say only radicals should come on the march and tell the less militant folks to come to the picnic-rally?"
I obviously don't agree with that sentiment, but it is important people realize what's going on. There is A LOT of pressure on us and the Thomas Merton Center to distance ourselves and our supporters from one another. The same way we get complaints the TMC gets complaints saying "why are you associating yourself with groups that support marching without permits or putting dumpsters in streets." Both sides are at a sort-of happy medium where there is no violence, no breaking things, or provoking of the police and DOT is respected, but is entirely possible that won't hold. This is a real problem and I'm asking people to think hard about the issues involved.
chill
by pr0t3s7
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 11:31 AM
Calm down, itchy, i think i made a sincere attempt to focus upon the individuals whose actions were inappropriate (i stated that my opposition was directed towards "the counterproductive and authoritarian individuals"). However, I will reiterate the fact that my opposition lies with those people who take upon the position of the counterproductive police of the movement, not with all liberals in general. The strategy of "diversity of tactics" is designed to create space for various levels of opposition. Hence, as I support the aforementioned tenet, I refuse to condemn individuals for having a "liberal" standpoint. Some people cannot place themselves in certain positions, and this is understandable. I applaud (with a few obvious exceptions) all who attended yesterday's event. If the individual wishes no more than to walk in the streets in opposition to state policy, then I am ecstatic that this person took the time to participate. However, as we are all reasonably knowledgeable of the degree to which the impending acts of state aggression will wreak atrocious havoc upon the civilians of Iraq, I would encourage people to do all that they can to shatter the rigid mold of complacency.
yes. agreed
by itchy
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 11:53 AM
exactly. I just want to make sure we are not painting all with one brush. I honestly believe that those who moved the dumpster back (just like some people who do shit like throw rocks from permitted demos with kids around) can be reached and a constructive dialogue begun.
anyway, with all this banter about one incident let's not lose site of what happened. That was the second best local event I've been to. It was truly breathtaking. The fact that people kept up that energy level for hours was amazing. The solidarity between people was an inspiration. We have a lot to pat ourselves on the back for Pittsburgh. Way to represent!
Yeah
by Sam
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 12:51 PM
As someone mentioned above, we have a great thing going on right now. We can't afford to let bickering over tactics and ideology divide us.
Still, this is an issue that deserves serious thought and dialogue.
The question to ask is: how can we avoid alienating those who aren't into the more militant stuff while at the same time embracing a diversity of tactics?
Worthless Grandstanding
by George K.
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 1:20 PM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
I read your boards in amazement. Your group is so isolated and childish, that words cannot describe. I just completed a nice read about rolling dumpster tactics. What tripe. Don't you understand that anything you do that will effect action must utilize violence that is now being used by the people you are protesting? You are a group of idiots. The "war" is a just one, and it is inevitable, and your "peace" protests mean absolutely nothing to most people here in Pittsburgh, Beaver County, Washington County, etc... What you are, are a bunch of unsatisfied, pseudo-intellectual, non-practical, unskilled, socialists. You would not know how to support your country in a time of need if the situation presented itself in glaring technicolor at your feet. What does your group choose to do? You chose to support a brutal dictator, who has done far worse to the general well-being of the human race than the United States ever has done in its breif history of 400 years or so. Study world history, you idiots. World domination is a natural occurance, and since we generally have a more "moral" country than most others on the planet, you should make the attempt to support US actions, not try to grab some of your own slice of 15 minutes at a meaningless convention of do-nothing people on a sunny afternoon.
Your comrades march in the streets warbling for peace, while the dictators of the world are repressing the people that need US help to break away from their repressors. Staging a sit-in in Iraq, and rolling a dumpster into the street will not save any babies there that Saddam allows to starve, will it? People are dying, US bombing or not. Your peace movement is misguided and insignificant. The "millions" worldwide protesting that I have seen on other independant media sites are laughable as well. Nothing these people do will stop what needs to be undertaken by the countries involved.
And quit the whining about the UN resolutions. The United States CREATED the UN and the US can DISMANTLE the UN too. The UN is just a set of mutual agreements, that will not hold together if we decide not to play anymore. Besides, why should a pissant little country like CAMROON be considered an equal to the US when voting in the UN? They are not our equal. Neither are France, Germany, and Russia.
Now go push that dumpster back, boys and girls.
Re: Worthless Grandstanding
by Sam
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 2:24 PM
<<Your group is so isolated and childish, that words cannot describe.>>
Which one? Around 50 groups endorsed the action. And if you really think so, then why is it worth your time to post here?
<<Don't you understand that anything you do that will effect action must utilize violence that is now being used by the people you are protesting?>>
Not necessarily. History is full of examples of nonviolent social change. For example, Solidarnosc in Poland destroyed the Communist dictatorship there without ever resorting to violence.
<<You are a group of idiots.>>
Name-calling does not constitute a logical argument, George.
<<The "war" is a just one...>>
Really? Let's take a look at Aquinas's principles of just war:
First of all, such a war must be declared by a just authority. The U.S. belongs to the UN, and the UN charter forbids the use of force unless a.) a country is in imminent danger or b.) it is specifically authorized by the UN. Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the U.S., and the U.S. has not been authorized to employ force.
Secondly, such a war must be declared for a just cause. What is the cause of this war? It's not exactly clear. But there are other countries with much more established ties to terrorists, other governments that mistreat their people, and other countries who violate UN resolutions flagrantly. There's been no call to invade them, and in many cases (such as that of Israel), the U.S. has in fact defended them. I'd also submit that the inspections could've worked. Saddam could've been disarmed peacefully.
Thirdly, the war must be declared with the right intention. We have no way of knowing Bush's true intentions, but if they really were to disarm Iraq, then he'd advocate disarming the rest of the Middle East, too, to ensure that Iraq isn't encouraged to get ahold of WMD again.
So, the coming war actually meets *none* of the criteria for a just war.
<<...and it is inevitable, and your "peace" protests mean absolutely nothing to most people here in Pittsburgh, Beaver County, Washington County, etc... >>
And that's why Wilkinsburg and Pittsburgh both unanimously passed anti-war resolutions? That's why so many people at yesterday's actions were honking in support?
<<What you are, are a bunch of unsatisfied, pseudo-intellectual, non-practical, unskilled, socialists.>>
Well, some of us are socialists (including myself). And we're all obviously unsatisfied with the current situation. Pseudo-intellectual? Nah, the pseudo-intellectuals are the ones who think what Rush tells them to think. Unskilled? Hardly. We have doctors, teachers, and lawyers among us (though personally, I don't think that any job is truly unskilled). And "non-practical" isn't a word.
And by the way, it's ridiculous to characterize everyone who opposes this war as a radical. 1/3 of the population opposes it, as do Henry Kissinger, Norman Schwarzkopf, and the Pope.
<<You would not know how to support your country in a time of need if the situation presented itself in glaring technicolor at your feet.>>
We *are* supporting are country. Unlike you, who apparently want to increase are susceptibility to terrorism and waste tax dollars on war that are much-needed domestically.
<<You chose to support a brutal dictator, who has done far worse to the general well-being of the human race than the United States ever has done in its breif history of 400 years or so.>>
Saddam would never have come to power if not for the United States, which installed the Ba'ath Party. He never would've gassed the Kurds if the U.S. hadn't given him the gas. He wouldn't have been able to massacre Iranians if the U.S. hadn't supported him.
And I assure you, though Hussein is doubtless a brutal dictator, the U.S. is responsible for far more death than he. The U.S. installed the Shah. The U.S. made Osama bin Laden. The U.S. supported Pol Pot. The U.S. supported Suharto in Indonesia. The U.S. supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The U.S. killed Allende and installed Pinochet. The U.S. massacred American Indians. The U.S. turned a blind eye to genocide in Rwanda. The U.S. supported apartheid in South Africa. The U.S., right now, is supporting torture and repression in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, El Salvador and Colombia.
One need only look at history to realize that there's no guarantee the U.S. will put a better ruler in Saddam's place.
Go tell an Egyptian, a Colombian, or a Palestinian why his/her suffering is less important than that of an Iraqi.
<<Study world history, you idiots. World domination is a natural occurance, and since we generally have a more "moral" country than most others on the planet, you should make the attempt to support US actions, not try to grab some of your own slice of 15 minutes at a meaningless convention of do-nothing people on a sunny afternoon.>>
Okay, so we're childish, but you're the ones calling names?
Study anthropology. Humans lived without "world domination" for well over 99 percent of ther existence.
And your judgement of "morality" is an almost entirely subjective one. That said, we have more crime than any other capitalist "democracy". We've propped up murderous dictators throughout history, as I mentioned above. We've engaged in imperialist adventurism for practically as long as we've existed. We're the richest country in the world, but have a higher poverty rate than many poorer countries. The average CEO makes about 500 times that of the average worker. 75 million Americans are without health insurance as of last year. Is *that* morality?
But morality is irrelevant. One country's measure of its own moral goodness doesn't give it a right to interfere with others' right to self-determination.
<<Staging a sit-in in Iraq, and rolling a dumpster into the street will not save any babies there that Saddam allows to starve, will it?>>
You're way off-base with this comment. Saddam is not a good guy, but it's the sanctions that starve the babies. Prior to the sanctions, Iraq had a very high standard of living. It had the lowest infant mortality rate and the most modern healthcare system of any Middle Eastern country. There's absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that Saddam is starving his people.
There *is*, however, evidence that the U.S. knows sanctions are killing children, and that they're supposed to do just that. State department documents reveal that the U.S. intended for the sanctions to sow discontent among the Iraqi people and get them to overthrow their government. The U.S. has been deliberately hurting innocent people in order to further a policy goal. In other words, the U.S. has been committing an act of terrorism.
You're not really concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people. If you were, you'd demand we invade Egypt, Colombia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia as well. History is full of examples of people taking their destiny into their own hands. They don't want the U.S. to take their destiny into its hands. The only democracy the U.S. will allow Iraq is one in which U.S. puppet candidates are guaranteed election. There's no reason to suspect they won't simply put in another Shah.
<<Besides, why should a pissant little country like CAMROON be considered an equal to the US when voting in the UN?>>
Cameroon is not considered an equal to the U.S. when voting in the UN. The U.S. is a permanent member of the Security Council. Cameroon is not. The U.S. has been made to seek the support of countries like Cameroon due to the overwhelming opposition to its policy on Iraq.
In any case, the UN is the law. If the U.S. acts outside of the UN, the UN could conceivably authorize the use of force against U.S. forces. Furthermore, acting without the authority of the UN is arguably an impeachable offense.
And the U.S. didn't create the UN (man, and you tell *us* to study history?). The UN was created by the U.S., the U.K., the Soviet Union, and China.
I agree with you, Sam
by Ken Kaminski
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 3:30 PM
naaa1123@yahoo.com
Someone's on shaky ground as soon as they start assigning "responsibility" for history and global politics. Saddam Hussein is not himself a "problem," nor is he a root or cause of any other "problem." Rather, he is a symptom of the current world order, installed directly and explicitly by the defenders of capitalist imperialism and responding to their economic aggression. He's just another chapter in the book of capitalist exploitation and Third World retaliation, and another war in name of the Western ruling class isn't going to be what stops it. This war is cut from the same fabric as the policies which gave rise to the situation it seeks to amend. George Bush isn't out to change anything, he's out to perpetuate that which already is.
I agree!
by Jan
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 4:02 PM
toney7799@cs.com
I agree with letting others do what they want to do and not judge or yell at others cause you may think its disruptive. THAT' S WHAT WE ARE THERE FOR--- TO DISRUPT AND CHANGE SOCIETY!!
Just marching is not going to get us what we want.
People are so brainwashed and pussied down nowadays. I applaud the people who wrote in chalk, went into Starbucks, Gap, and Banana Republic, and disrupted the gas station!
SMASH THE STATE
by Jan
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 4:04 PM
SMASH THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!
Diversity of tactics
by Ken
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 4:24 PM
I just wanted to say that first I do greatly support a diversity of tactics including disruption of all sorts to stop this war. I marched in the front for nearly the entire march and I support raiding Gap, Starbucks, Exxon, etc. I must admit though that the dumpster thing didn't make me angry just I didn't quite understand it. To be confrontational the authority must be confronted and in this case, a dumpster was turned over on the side street. If you really wanted disruption, then I'd suspect you'd smash a window from McDonald's etc that symbolize globalization, or sat in the streets as I strongly advocated or marched right into downtown as I also advocated. I just would like a response to perhaps help me understand the dumpster action and hopefully when we respond to authority with some sort of disruption, it will be a better one such as the ones I mentioned above.
Let's stay united as one movement regardless though I do strongly support that.
dumpster
by --
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 5:03 PM
Ken,
No one thought moving the dumpster was going to stop the war. The only objective was to block traffic for a greater amount of time then marching would. That's it. A dumpster was picked because it wouldn't be damaged in moving it and those who "owned" wouldn't lose anything in the process. While it is only a small act of non-violent disruption imagine 50 dumpsters on 50 streets.
Dumpster mover for peace :)
Yea
by Evan N
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 5:05 PM
great post sam. On the dumpster issue - i dont really think it was necessary. Rolling a dudmpster in the street wont save an iraqi baby, all it will do is piss people off, it has no good influence on the current situation, and not a bad one either really. just a waste of time and energy
989
by 0000
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 5:10 PM
Evan N,
We can all disagree on which tactics are most effective, but we must not undo the work of others. I totally respect you're opinion that it is ineffective. Hell, most of my family thinks marching without a permit is ineffective. Some people think marching at all just pisses people off. They however don't go out and stop us from doing it. We're all doing the best we can.
See you on the streets. In solidarity.
misunderstood
by Evan N
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 5:28 PM
I wasn't supporting the reversal of the dumpster pushing. nor the initiation of it, i was just saying both ways its a waste of energy and time. I support a diversity of tactics all the way, i just think the dumpster thing is a petty issue that shouldnt be stressed or argued over or energy wasted over
really?
by pr0t3s7
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 5:30 PM
evanN, why is it that you have stressed your opposition to an individual action that occured within the context of a much larger mobilization constructed around inclusive principles that allowed the dumpster action to occur? "Rolling a dumpster into the street wont save an iraqui baby, all it will do is piss people off"? Exactly what action that occured on saturday WILL save an iraqui baby? marching in the street unpermitted? let's be realistic and refrain from casting the proverbial first stone without first analyzing ourselves. we have seen that, march or no march, our g0vernment is inexorable in its will to perpetuate violence against a civilian populace. subsequently, we must take action to minimize incentive for this war. one way of attempting to thwart the efforts of the US bureaucracy is to make complaceny a difficult occurance, that is, to break the spell of social apathy prevalent in our communities. the organizers of the march understood this, for which reason the march was unpermitted. do you honestly believe that 1,000 people marching in the middle of the street doesn't "piss people off"? As the hundreds of global anti-war pr0tests have yet to "save an iraqi baby" shall they also be considered to be "a waste of time and energy"? if your opposition to a particular occurence is applicable to the greater pr0test movement, maybe you should step back and look at yourself before making pathetic attempts at textually minimizing the actions of others.
agreed.
by --
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 5:31 PM
the real issue at hand isn't the dumpster persee it's the violation of the framework. Issues associated with Diversity of Tactics is what is really being discussed with the dumpster as the spark of conversation.
dude
by Evan N
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 5:57 PM
chill out , what is your deal. I didnt make fun of anyone who rolled the dumpster, i didnt support them , or the people that rolled it back. IN MY OPINION (i do support a diversity of tactics) IN MY OPINION the dumpster thing didnt really do anything but anyone is free to do whatever the hell they want so just chill out and quit getting all edgy just because i support different tactics than you do. Feel free to roll dumpsters, i'm not against it and i wont stop you, i also wont roll dumpsters. I'm jsut saying its a petty thing to make a big deal about. chilllll
diversity of tactics
by voodoo
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 8:54 PM
i thought the movement of the dumpster was fairly petty......what was it meant to cause? we were in no danger of being arrested and it didn't do anything but block the procession of protesters.
i think the people that did move it had a lot of good ideas and a lot of useful tactics (the invasions of different stores were brilliant), however this was not one of them
De-evolution into Punditry
by George K.
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 9:34 PM
Dodgerambler@yahoo.com
Well said Sam. It was amusing that all posts following your devolved into the same smattering of pap that I am used to seeing here and there on many "protest" sites. Why do I read them? Because I exist to understand what I can, that is all.
But to be practical, no matter what you would like to assign as a "rule" for a "just" war (according to St. Aquinas) the rules are subject to the practicalities of the situation at hand. Those "rules" were developed at a time when the Catholic church held sway over Europe and wanted to exert its influence over the government in all aspects. Aquinas wanted to inject a little sanity into the process of conflict, but it did little good, didn't it?
As for all of the citations of misguided influence that the US has had over the last 80 years or so in world politics that has resulted in countless deaths....we are a growing world power that will continue to expand at the expense of the "little guy". It is a fact of life, sir. It cannot be stopped, much like when the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle. Things expand with an inertia that is relentless. If people can try to influence events to benefit them in the future, why not? That is what is going on with US global policy.
Ah yes, you mention the UN sanctions....as it was spelled out, Iraq was permitted to sell its oil for food and medicine. If that country did not do so, is it the fault of the UN for not enforcing the sanctions properly? Interesting....
The antiwar.com writer Justin Raimondo has recently written (last week?) an article decrying the new tactics of the anti war protesors: disruption of commerce and vandalism. He wrote, as I wrote in another message today, that this will backfire on your movement if you are not careful.
As for being children, your people do have a childlike attitiude. One of "can't we all just play nice?" That is just not a realistic, aware POV. Sorry.
As for having lawyers and doctors in your movement, you have impugned yourself even more. I have met many lawyers and foudn them products of the very system you decry, and I have met many doctors that believe magentic bracelets heal artheritis. I do not mean to lump them all together, but don try to bolster your cause with their credentials.
As for the history of the UN....the US proposed and created the UN. The other signitories were along for the ride. China hardly even counted at the time. The UK was bombed into the third world, and the USSR had its own problems. Yes, the US created the UN.
since when i POG anonmous
by NOAH PRESSION
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 10:20 PM
why is POG adopting a tactic of anonymintiy?
terrible
by pr0t3s7
Monday, Mar. 17, 2003 at 11:48 PM
George K, it is overtly apparent that your utterly comical lack of knowledge pertaining to United Nations policy has done little to stop you from propagating an incoherent and pointless rant. To focus upon a specific manifestation of ignorance, i will reply to your statement that "Iraq was permitted to sell its oil for food and medicine". Have you not read the statements of "oil for food" coordinator Denis Halliday? Halliday, a man who had been a UN member for 30 years, blatantly stated his opposition to US imposed economic sanctions. He was quoted as saying "the death of one Iraqi child attributable to economic sanctions is one death too many. Unfortunately, we are faced with thousands" (http://www.wsws.org). Moreover, UNICEF (the United Nations children's fund) issued a report stating that "the oil for food plan has not yet resulted in adequate protection of Iraq's children from malnutrition/disease" (http://www.wsws.org). By the United Nations' own estimates, over 1.5 million Iraqis have died as a result of the imposition of economic sanctions. The United Nations has placed an immense amount of effort into the retainment of products deemed to have a "dual purpose". Therefore, many vaccines (the hepatitis b vaccine, for example) have been withheld from Iraqui civilians by actions perpetrated by the US government (the US is responsible for 90% of the retainments). Moreover, the sanctions have banned the import of chlorine to purify the water, causing the subsequent rise in rates of infant dysentery.
viva anarchia
POG
by POG'er
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 8:17 AM
Not everyone in POG is anonymous at demos. It's a personal decision just like it is for you. Some of us are always asked for by cops at demos, and we're not necessarily comfortable with that.
Other POG members have been harassed by the Secret Service.
COINTELPRO-like programs still exist. People are jailed all the time for their political beliefs. There are plenty of posts here explaining why some people wear masks. It's not a POG policy or decision, it's just what some of us feel is effective and comfortable.
Re: George K
by Sam
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 8:49 AM
Justin Raimando's a Libertarian, so it's to be expected that he'd be opposed to anything infringing upon private property rights.
And while it was the U.S. (along with Britain) that proposed the UN, it was not the Bush administration that did. Obviously, there's a world of difference between the U.S. gov't in the 1940s in the U.S. gov't today.
pr0t3s7 one sided view
by George K.
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 10:22 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
pr0t3s7...Ahh, so blame the US for the ineffectiveness of the UN? Is that it? And the fact that the repressive regime in Iraq, led by a man who apparently can do no wrong in your eyes, is constantly building palaces as monuments to his own greatness at the expense of his own peoples welfare.
You only post propaganda that fits your viewpoint, the same as any pro-war website.
The same humanitarian crisis existed in Somalia, where the UN and US donated hundreds of tons of food and meds to the people, and the supplies never made it to the masses because of corrupt dictators.
And, when out troops restrained themselves in the miniconflicts that ensued, it only got them killed. So much for non-violent help.
By the Way, I keep things simple for you and the others here. Logic has a way of escaping your arguements. And when I begin to see websites such as Inforwars being cited, I know that your information sources are poor. I almost expect to see citations from Art Bell here soon.
hahah
by pr0t3s7
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 11:42 AM
hahaha george k's responses seem to be statements manufactured by an individual opposed to war who wants to make the "pro-war" side appear to be a bunch of lunatics. hahha seriously, your imbecilic "replies" should make it on chris rock's net comedy special. Saddam can do "no wrong in [my] eyes"? hahha, the complete fabrication of an opinion which i supposedly hold is not an effective debate technique (but it would be great for BET'S comicview, hahahaha). Exactly where did I state that "saddam can do no wrong"? haha, your baseless accusations stem from an inchoate comprehension of debate; you desire to polarize all opinions in a manner that neglects the existence of free speech. This tactic is truly pathetic. "Blame the US for the ineffectiveness of the UN"? Well, I did explain that the US is the nation which was responsible for 90% of the instances involving the withholding of medical supplies from the Iraqi populace. I cited the UN because your statements about the oil for food campaign were either spawned of complete ignorance about UN policy or an effective attempt at humor. Please continue to post, as your "arguments" (hahhaha) provide further support for the anti-war movement.
viva anarchia!
POWER OF PEOPLE
by DARREN
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 2:20 PM
OK, I COMMEND POG FOR THE AMOUNT OF DEMONSTRATIONS THEY HAVE BEEN HOSTING, NOW THAT, THAT'S OUT OF THE WAY. I HAVE A BONE TO PICK, WE ARE HERE TO STOP A WAR WE ARE UNITED UNDER THAT FACT, BUT WE HAD NO COVERAGE THAT DAY, OR IN THE PAPERS THE NEXT DAY, DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT WE MARCHED ON EVERY DAMN BACK ALLY IN OAKLAND. WE NEED TO MAKE A IMPRESSTION, AND CHANTING AND SHOUTING AT DOORS AND ALLY WAYS DOES NOT DO SHIT. CHILL OUT ABOUT THE DUMPSTER, ITS NOT THAT BIG OF DEAL. WE HAD A 1000 PEOPLE, WE COULD HAVE REALLY MADE IT A GOOD DAY. BUT INSTEAD WE AVOIDED EVERY SIGN OF CONFLICT. THOSE STREETS WERE OURS, WE SHOULD HAVE USED THEM. GOOD JOB ON THE DUMPSTER ATLEAST THERE WHERE A FEW INDIVIDUALS THAT WHERE WILLING TO PUT THERE BALLS ON THE LINE FOR SOMTHING THEY BELIEVE IN.
POWER OF PEOPLE
by DARREN
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 2:20 PM
OK, I COMMEND POG FOR THE AMOUNT OF DEMONSTRATIONS THEY HAVE BEEN HOSTING, NOW THAT, THAT'S OUT OF THE WAY. I HAVE A BONE TO PICK, WE ARE HERE TO STOP A WAR WE ARE UNITED UNDER THAT FACT, BUT WE HAD NO COVERAGE THAT DAY, OR IN THE PAPERS THE NEXT DAY, DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT WE MARCHED ON EVERY DAMN BACK ALLY IN OAKLAND. WE NEED TO MAKE A IMPRESSTION, AND CHANTING AND SHOUTING AT DOORS AND ALLY WAYS DOES NOT DO SHIT. CHILL OUT ABOUT THE DUMPSTER, ITS NOT THAT BIG OF DEAL. WE HAD A 1000 PEOPLE, WE COULD HAVE REALLY MADE IT A GOOD DAY. BUT INSTEAD WE AVOIDED EVERY SIGN OF CONFLICT. THOSE STREETS WERE OURS, WE SHOULD HAVE USED THEM. GOOD JOB ON THE DUMPSTER ATLEAST THERE WHERE A FEW INDIVIDUALS THAT WHERE WILLING TO PUT THERE BALLS ON THE LINE FOR SOMTHING THEY BELIEVE IN.
coverage
by --
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 2:35 PM
there was a nice front page article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette the next day.
Coverage
by POG'er
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 5:29 PM
Look, the corporate media cannot be relied on to get a message out. Just isn't going to happen. Yes, we walked down a back ally. We also blocked 5th Avenue and Forbes Avenue for miles. They're both 4 lanes or more in places. Where else should we have gone?
All of the major corporate media outlets locally covered the rally and picnic and decided not to stick around for the march even though they knew it was happening and would be bigger news than the rally and picnic. We can't make decisions for them.
If you have problems with what we're doing to organize, why don't you organize with us? We're open and consensus-based.
About Oil for Food
by Sam
Tuesday, Mar. 18, 2003 at 5:40 PM
About the oil for food program:
Profits from Iraqi oil are put in a UN-held bank account at the Bank of Paris in NYC. Hussein doesn't determine what he gets to spend the money on -- he has to ask for UN permission first.
Since the oil for food program began, there have been improvements in the general health and welfare of the Iraqi people (though the sanctions still are devestating), indicating that the money earned from the oil-for-food program is, in fact, being spent on food, medical supplies, etc.
Yeah!
by John
Wednesday, Mar. 19, 2003 at 5:50 PM
johncihon@yahoo.com
I added a piece about DOT in the comments section for 'personal story 1', but I just wanted to add a bit here. I didn't realize that a debate on this topic was taking place over here, although I stand by everything I said, I might have toned it down a notch had I known this debate was actively going on.
I think that there is a strong chance that the moderates who least understand the actions of more militant protesters will not read this debate.
I feel that nothing will stop the war now, but I see great value in almost everything that was done on Sunday. I have talked to so many people who have never been interested in protest activities before this war, and I so want to keep them excited and energized when we make this war blow over. Sunday also served notice that there's a bunch of people in Pittsburgh who don't like the way things are, and the only reason that the Shadyside business district didn't get smashed is because we chose not to. We terrified the manager of the Gap, and all we did is enter his store. I imagine he never knew just how many of his neighbors hate the system that he supports. Hopefully we can keep this energy going, and make sure that business as usual doesn't keep going.
I feel we NEED to keep what we have been doing going. We also NEED others to continue to support as in theory, and keep coming.
In reference to the kid who tried to burn a flag being talked about under personal story 1:If present world situation doesn't make one want to burn a flag, then I don't know how much worse it's going to get before moderates will 'give us permission' to burn flags.
Lastly, a bunch of us got together for spaghetti after the march, I'd love to do it again next time. Non-structured social time will help allow needed dialogue and understanding to happen. I understand having responsibilities, but I'd love some of you who honked at us from your car on your way home to join us next time.
Sincerely,
John
p.s.-I have included my email address and name with this letter to allow discussion with anyone who wishes to do so. Also, I'm not afraid of the man monitering me anymore.
Hypocrisy...
by T.S.
Thursday, Mar. 20, 2003 at 5:36 PM
Original thread... "Please people: If you are unable to stop yourself from disrupting the non-violent tactics of others do not go on a march that is advertised as supporting such tactics. It is not your place to force your prefered tactics on others. "
Right... it's not their place to try and disrupt acts of civil disruption? So it's OK to disrupt society, but not OK to disrupt people disrupting society. Hmm... I think I'm starting to understand now...
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)