There never was a good war or a bad peace. ~Ben Franklin
"The western campaign against Libya wasn't undertaken to protect human rights or foster democracy," said al-Sakhawi. Rather, it was undertaken because "Egypt, Libya and Tunisia together might pose a threat to Israeli regional dominance."
Suicide attempts among U.S. military per day: 17 (seventeen)
quote:file under: vox populi
"As mayors, we recognize there is an absurdly false choice being put to Americans that we somehow have to pick between all the priorities we care deeply about but can't touch massive spending on the military."
~U.S. Council of Mayors
"I’m tired of seeing our young people getting killed and getting their arms and legs blown off. What do you say to the mother, father, wife of our military killed there — that we support a corrupt government in a fight we can’t win?’”
~Congressional Representative Walter B. Jones, R-NC, in Feb 2011
TPF Press Release: In response to President Obama's President's anemic withdrawal plan for U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, please see the TPF Media Advisory, 25th June 2011, under the title "Anti-war movement in Tulsa not satisfied with Obama's timeline for Afghanistan Withdrawal
: TPF Expected War $$ to Come Home under Obama"
see this review of the documentary (broadcast date, 19 March 2011, in the UK)
watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/presstvglobalnews#p/u/38/h3jtxT9wOo8
excerpt from the film:
During World War I, 10% of all casualties were civilians.
During World War II, the number of civilian deaths rose to 50%.
During the Vietnam War, 70% of all casualties were civilians.
In the war in Iraq, civilians account for up to 90% of all deaths.
"The killing of civilians and willfully causing great suffering is a war crime."
~Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949
‘What’s freedom worth if it’s bought with a gun?’
"While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it. Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop."
"The military actually destroys jobs in the civilian economy."
facts & figures;
A 2007 study by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts found that government investment in education creates twice as many jobs as investment in the military. Spending on personal consumption, health care, education, mass transit, and construction for home weatherization and infrastructure repair all were found to create more jobs per $1 billon in expenditures than military spending does.
1945: An estimated 100,000 Okinawan civilians die in Battle of Okinawa; Japan surrenders; US takes control of Okinawa
1972: Okinawa reverts to Japan; US bases stay
2014: Planned date for removal of US bases from Okinawa, almost 70 years later; now postponed indefinitely
"Human beings will do anything, anything. I am convinced. That's why when all those beheadings started in Iraq, it didn't bother me. A lot of people here were horrified, "Whaaaa, beheadings! Beheadings!" What, are you fucking surprised? Just one more form of extreme human behavior. Besides, who cares about some mercenary civilian contractor from Oklahoma who gets his head cut off? Fuck 'em. Hey Jack, you don't want to get your head cut off? Stay the fuck in Oklahoma. They ain't cuttin' off heads in Oklahoma, far as I know. But I do know this: you strap on a gun and go struttin' around some other man's country, you'd better be ready for some action, Jack. People are touchy about that sort of thing. And let me ask you this... this is a moral question, not rhetorical, I'm looking for the answer: what is the moral difference between cuttin' off one guy's head, or two, or three, or five, or ten - and dropping a big bomb on a hospital and killing a whole bunch of sick kids? Has anybody in authority given you an explanation of the difference?"
The Tulsa Peace Fellowship's Counter-Recruitment Update/Digest, for July 2011
War in Libya Fought for Oil
June 11, 2011
Much of the war has actually seemed extremely odd, as if it didn’t match up. There seemed to be many more reasons for the administration not to get involved. Why, Greenwald asks, in the middle of debt crises “and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war — would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war?” Wasn’t there a big risk in not seeking congressional approval, thus going forward with an illegal war? Why, in an Arab Spring which makes this contradiction so obvious, would we attack Qaddafi for behaving exactly the way we pay other allies to behave? Didn’t Washington see considerable risk in engaging in a third/fourth outright war in against a Muslim country? Wasn’t there some concern, even if only for PR purposes, within the administration that the rebels on whose behalf we would ostensibly fight this war have direct ties to al-Qaeda? Did Obama not calculate a future political vulnerability of engaging in what he knew would be deliberate mission creep, or as Greenwald says, that the real goal of the war was “exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued — regime change through the use of military force”?
Last month McClatchy reported on Wikileaks cables which revealed an oil deal emerging in the last few years in Libya that U.S. officials didn’t like. The Italian oil company Eni, the largest corporation in Italy and one in which the Italian government holds a 30 percent stake, was wagering a deal with the Russian oil company Gazprom, with which Vladimir Putin is connected. In the deal, Eni would have given Gazprom access to Libyan oil and helped Gazprom build a pipeline across the Black sea. The leaked cables reveal U.S. officials plotting ways to prevent such a success from a Russian oil giant. War was never mentioned in the cables, but since the start of Obama’s intervention in Libya, the deal has officially been put on hold.
In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war
By Glenn Greenwald
Jun 11, 2011
Is there anything more obvious -- as the world's oil supplies rapidly diminish -- than the fact that our prime objective is to remove Gaddafi and install a regime that is a far more reliable servant to Western oil interests, and that protecting civilians was the justifying pretext for this war, not the purpose? If (as is quite possible) the new regime turns out to be as oppressive as Gaddafi but far more subservient to Western corporations (like, say, our good Saudi friends), does anyone think we're going to care in the slightest or (at most) do anything other than pay occasional lip service to protesting it? Does anyone think we're going to care about The Libyan People if they're being oppressed or brutalized by a reliably pro-Western successor to Gaddafi?
[T]o believe that humanitarianism (protection of Libya civilians) was why we went to war in Libya requires a blindness so willful and complete that it's genuinely difficult to describe.
[T]he point here is not that the U.S. invaded Libya in order to steal its oil. That's not the West's modus operandi. The point is that what distinguishes Gaddafi and made him a war target is not the claimed humanitarian rationale (he brutalized his own people) ... Instead, what distinguished Gaddafi and made him a war target was that he had become insufficiently compliant -- an unreliable and unstable servant to the West.
The very idea that the U.S. Government woke up one day and suddenly decided that it can no longer abide a leader who mistreats his own people -- and that's why we went to Libya -- is so ludicrous that it's actually painful to hear that people believe that. It so obviously confuses pretext with cause. If Gaddafi had continued to be as compliant as he had been in the past, does anyone really believe we would have invaded his country and spent months trying to kill him and replace him with another regime?
That's not to say that Gaddafi's "resource nationalism" is the only or even overriding motive for the war in Libya. Wars are typically caused by the interests of multiple factions and rarely have just one motive. As Jim Webb explained in arguing that the U.S. has no vital interest in Libya, the French and British are far more reliant on Libyan oil than the U.S. is (and this reader offers a rational dissent and alternative explanation for the war). But the U.S. has long made clear that it will not tolerate hostile or disobedient rulers in countries where it believes it has vital interests, and that's particularly true in oil rich nations (which is one reason for the American obsession with Iran). It's just hard to believe that any rational person would believe that the war in Libya is unrelated to the fact that Gaddafi has been increasingly obstructionist in allowing Western oil companies access to that nation's oil and that Libya is so rich in oil.
Growing Congressional Condemnation of Obama’s Libya War
Defunding Vote Looms
by Jason Ditz, June 19, 2011
Though there are a handful of diehard hawks in the Senate for whom any war on any flimsy justification is to be praised, the Republican Party is seeing a major rethink on war, with the unilateral war in Libya.
[T]he House is expected to vote, potentially in a matter of days, on defunding the conflict. Such votes were being fought tooth and nail by House Republican leadership just weeks ago, but now livid at the president’s claims that Congress has no oversight over the war, they are not just allowing the vote but it seems to have a strong chance of passing through the House with plenty of bipartisan support.
Congress has gone from mocking to livid, and the war has gone from controversial in the eyes of many Congressmen to an illegal challenge of Congressional authority. The president could be facing the first real Congressional backlash at unchecked warmaking power in decades, with both lawsuits and the power of the purse being brought to bear against the administration’s claim Congress can’t stop the U.S. from prosecuting a Libyan War.
TPF comment: The U.S. Constitution states unequivocally that the power to declare war resides with the U.S. Congress, not with the president.
file under: imperial president over-stepping his bounds
House Leadership: Bill to Defund Libya War Coming Soon
Boehner Slams Obama Claims that Libya War Doesn't Require Congressional Support
by Jason Ditz, June 16, 2011
Members of the House Republican leadership announced today their intentions to move forward with a bill to defund the war in Libya, barring a major change of perspective from the Obama Administration, which yesterday claimed the war was immune to the War Powers Act requirement for Congressional support for deploying US troops overseas.
House Speaker John Boehner (R – OH) slammed the claim, insisting that the suggestion does not “pass the straight face test.” Indeed, the letter and spirit of the act, passed during the Vietnam War era, make the administration’s claim extremely difficult to understand.
An amendment barring spending military appropriations bill funding on the conflict already passed with strong bipartisan support.
NATO Admits Killing Civilians in Tripoli Attack
Claims 'Weapons System Failure' in Attack Which Killed Toddlers
by Jason Ditz, June 19, 2011
NATO has admitted a missile strike hit a civilian home in the Libyan capital of Tripoli today, killing a number of civilians including at least two toddlers. Though far from the first strike to kill civilians in the Libyan War, it is the first that NATO officials have admitted to.
US and French forces began attacking Libya on March 19, ostensibly based on a UN resolution calling for them to “protect civilians” with a no fly zone. Though officials have argued this extended to allowing the continuing air war, it will be difficult to defend the growing number of civilian killings by the NATO forces themselves.
Tulsa Peace Fellowship
who we are:
The Tulsa Peace Fellowship is the activist wing of the peace movement in Eastern Oklahoma, and part of the nationwide Peace, Justice & the Environment (PJ&E) movement. TPF offers citizens and community groups tools and resources to participate personally in our democracy, to help shape federal budget and policy priorities, and to promote peace, social and economic justice, and human rights. TPF is a registered non-profit organization and a non-partisan civic-sector organization, loosely affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Church of the Restoration, north side of Tulsa.
"Waging Peace One Person at a Time".
Through its counter-recruitment task force, TPF is a member of the National Network in Opposition to the Militarization of Youth (NNOMY) representing some 188 counter-recruitment groups in cities and towns across the country. On the web: http://www.nnomy.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=v...Tulsa Peace Fellowship is open to members of third parties, progressives, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party members, etc. If you have not already done so, please join the new social networking tool for TPF on Ning, in lieu of TPFtalks on yahoogroups, which has fallen into disuse Thank you! You can check out our new tool here: http://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com (new for 2011) Also still going strong: our announcement list on yahoo! email@example.com (since 2002) Go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/ and search for "tulsapeace"
TPF needs your support.
You can donate online via PINC (pull down menu for US$ donations)
Or, please mail a check or money order made out to the"Tulsa Peace Fellowship" to :
The Tulsa Peace Fellowship
c/o UU Church of the Restoration,
1314 N. Greenwood Ave, Tulsa Oklahoma. 74106-4854
Find on a map: Google Maps link
Contributions to TPF are not tax deductible at the present time. Details on tax status available
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. Tulsa Peace Fellowship HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THESE ARTICLES NOR IS Tulsa Peace Fellowship ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATORS.
SOURCE ARTICLE LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE SOURCE ARTICLE LINKS, OR INDEED, THE WEBPAGES MAY NO LONGER EVEN EXIST.