URGENT CALL TO ACTION - emergency antiwar demo, Tuesday 1st Dec, 4:30pm

• < Previous Event
• Next Event >

Comment

Comment by Tony Nuspl on December 2, 2009 at 12:36pm

My response to Obama's speech. There are at least three things Obama has decided that are what we wanted:

1) an exit date, the time frame of ending the occupation of Afghanistan by July 2011 -- his administration will be judged by this benchmark, come elections in 2012; he also reasserted that at least "combat brigades" will be out of Iraq by summer 2010, and "all of our troops by the end of 2011" --again, if executed as promised, both Iraq & Afghanistan would be wound down, with this schedule, before he's up for re-election.  There is courage involved in staring down the Pentagon on this, forcing the generals' hand by insisting they function under a sign of 'urgency' in providing a soluion, and not settle into chronic war-making in Afghanistan.

2) a direct statement that we do not intend to occupy the country indefinitely (Obama stated "We have no interest in occupying your country."), putting the kaibosh on the Pentagon's plans for endless war, and explicitly repudiating neo-con plans for so-called "nation-building" --and one can hope that means no permanent bases, either;

3) a promise to uphold human rights, with specific mention of closing Guantanamo --unfortunately, he did not acknowledge the problem at Bagram prison, the other legal black hole, but again, there were encouraging elements to his speech.

I too was sickened by the 9/11 nonsense in his speech.  At least he avoided demonizing the Taliban (Bush said al-Qaeda and the Taliban were "the same thing."); the prospect of working together with some Taliban was even mentioned.  The President stated: "We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens."

Comment by Tony Nuspl on December 2, 2009 at 12:35pm

A special thank you to two new people who drove up from Tahlequah for the event, and other newcomers. Some regulars were there from Fort Gibson and Vinita.

Tulsa World did not come, so no need to pick up that paper. However, Fox23 TV news was there, and provided coverage on Dec 1st 10 o'clock news.  Also KRMG radio Tulsa said they'd run an interview with a TPF member, morning of 2nd Dec. Finally, look for coverage in North Tulsa Magazine, an online publication.



Lots of thumbs up, peace signs, honks for peace, and words of encouragement from passers by.

Comment by Jean Mcmahon on November 30, 2009 at 7:16pm

I will contact Code Pink event page and tell them..I will also tell them to post Oklahoma City's event if Rena has not done so yet..Huti will be there too..

Comment by Tony Nuspl on November 30, 2009 at 7:03pm

The anti-war movement in Tulsa is livid with Obama's proposed escalation of hostilities in Afghanistan

The Tulsa Peace Fellowship's statement of opposition to Obama's escalation in Afghanistan:

* There should be no additional troops sent to Afghanistan. Rather, U.S. troops should stop occupying that country, return States-side to home base, and then demobilize. There is no military solution in Afghanistan, as the preceding 8 years of grounds troops and aerial occupation have proven. Some of our NATO allies have already concluded that the mission in Afghanistan is futile, and they are withdrawing their troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible. The U.S. should not be the last to leave. NATO forces should be replaced with peacekeepers from Islamic countries, under the aegis of the U.N.

* There is no threat to U.S. national security in Afghanistan. None of the 9/11 attackers came from there. Al-Qaeda has all but disappeared; some reports say it’s down to a core membership of eight or 10 individuals who remaining in that country, individuals who could be apprehended by non-military means with the help of international policing, without the need for the continued military occupation of the country, without the need for alienating yet more Afghanis through aerial bombardment of their homes, causing untold numbers of civilians deaths. Military occupation generates resistance because it is humiliating, disruptive, arbitrary, and terrifying to civilian non-combatants, pushing some of them to turn against the U.S./NATO forces and join the insurgency.

* We demand a timeline for withdrawal of U.S./NATO forces and a declared end to the hostilities. Without an exit date, the Afghanistan escalation looks like it is designed for unending war profiteering by arms manufacturers and DoD contractors. Without an exit date, the presence of U.S./NATO troops is perceived as a provocation to the Afghanis and serves to fuel the insurgency against U.S./NATO troops. We suspect that the Pentagon's self-serving motivation in extending the hostilities is to set up a permanent base of operations in Afghanistan, as it has done in Iraq; we oppose the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, and call for the closure of U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The yearly bill for each soldier in Afghanistan is between $775,000.00 a year per and $1,000,000 a year per U.S. soldier sent 7,000 miles away from any U.S. border: this outlandish expense has precious little to do with U.S. national security, nor is there any "mission" that could justify this expense in far-off Asia.

* After 8 years of meddling in Afghanistan by U.S./NATO forces, the West is no closer to understanding the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan between warring ethnic groups, nor does it have soldiers who speak the language or understand the culture, and is likely backing the wrong side in the civil war between two tribal groups of Pashtuns: on the one side the Durranis, on the other the Ghilzai. There will be no peace so long as meddling foreign powers back the Durrani in their attempt to impose their rule from Kabul, over the trival homelands of the Ghilzai.

* Civilian-led development funds should be used to help Afghanistan recuperate from the U.S. occupation of that country. After 8 years a military incompetence, it is time U.S./NATO forces gave way to a combination of peacekeeping forces and humanitarian agencies to lead the reconstruction efforts needed there. Civilian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should be ceded priority of place in further attempts to re-establish civilized standards of living for Afghanis. In particular, funds should be disbursed through non-military international organizations to help internally displaced persons (IDP), i.e. homeless Afghanis in need of being resettled, people who are forced at present to live in tent communities because of the hostilities.

* The military prison at Bagram, in Afghanistan,