Antiwar nuts advertise seize of recruiting station
Mar 12 at 10:10am by Macranger
Protests are normally legal so long as the protest is peaceful. This protest however isn’t planning to be peaceful, in fact it’s kidnapping.
This subversive group is intending to storm a federal property and hold recuiters captive.
“This March 19 hundreds of cities across the U.S. will hold events to mark the anniversary of the war in Iraq and remember the tragic toll the world has and continues to pay; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 30,000 wounded, at least 100,000 Iraqis killed, four million displaced, and nearly a trillion dollars squandered.
While there will be events in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, members of Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) feel it is important that there be a local event connected to our community’s long-standing, successful efforts to use education and action to oppose the war and undermine the militarism that leads to perpetual war(s).
On Wednesday, March 19, POG will be holding a torch-lit march to a modern day castle of abominations—our local military recruiting station. If the station remains open, we intend to evict it and everything inside of it, occupy the location, and transform it into something useful for the community. We’ll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors. Of course, the station may be closed and recruiters may flee or hide behind the police apparatus that enables the war to continue. That is often the case, and we’ve seen in the past the overwhelming resources the state directs against these anniversary events because of their importance as a symbol of dissent. We believe in acting effectively, in confronting the war, at times and places of our choosing. When the state brings the resources necessary to suppress direct action against the war, it makes sense to hold a symbolic protest, and we still consider that a success, as it exposes the reality that it is ultimately on the local level that our countries war policy will be decided.”
Muling this over with an FBI agent, who thanked me for the information, they plan on meeting the “Group”, most likely before the protest occurs, or at the scene. Typical charges:
• Conspiring to impede an officer of the United States.
• Injuring and damaging government property and or personnel.
• Entering and damaging a military station for unlawful purposes.
For good measure unlawful imprisonment (carries life sentence in some cases).
Nevertheless they will not get the opportunity to “occupy” anything except a jail cell. I suggested GITMO.
h/t LGF Also MM with more updates.
Get Ready for the Antiwar Left to Implode
Nov 26 at 12:12pm by Macranger
“Iraq’s government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.
In Washington, President Bush’s adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it “a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations.”
As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq’s sovereignty.
In a televised address Monday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said his government will ask the U.N. to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time, with its authorization to end in 2008. He insisted that the U.N. remove all restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty.
Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said.
U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last.
The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.
The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.
Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran’s nuclear aspirations.”
A long-term US military presence in Iraq in some measure is a forgone conclusion. If for no other reason than the last few sentences of the clip tell us. By our presence in Iraq we keep the pressure on Iran to behave. Iran knows this and it’s why they have been trying to destabilize our presence by equipping and training insurgents. Now that they have effectually failed at that due to the success of the surge, it’s in Iraq’s best interest if they keep us there.
Of course this cause mass implosions on the antiwar left as they find out that none of this offer is not only sweet to the Right, but to most of their candidates on the left. Their big business supporters are not going to want to miss out on the winfall which will come from such an agreement.
There are all kinds of win-wins in this deal, specifically with improving our economic outlook for the future, just as it did after WWII with our presence in Europe and Asia.
At the end of the day you can’t argue with success. Right now it’s military and on the horizon will come the political success. All of which is bad news for Democrats who sold the country out and cursed our name with our enemies when the chips where down. Now - as noted this weekend - they will be trying to take some benefit for the success they had nothing to do with and in fact abhored.
Now that it’s a daily reality they will be shifting their message from “Cut and Run” to “Let’s hang around for the Vittles”, which is not going to sit well with the uber antiwar minions who think they single-handedly brought the democrats to power in 2006.
They’re about to get their little Koolaid-Pumping Hearts Broken, and I’m buying front row seats to that show!
Think it’s popular to bash the American Effort in Iraq?
Nov 25 at 10:10am by Macranger
Think again. One after one, just off the “Democrats were elected to the majority in 2006 because the public hates the war” mantra, every antiwar movie this summer has bombed BADLY. The lastest victim is Brian De Palma’s movie about GI’s raping a 14 year old girl.
” IT’S hard for Hollywood pacifists like Brian De Palma to capture the hearts and minds of America if
Americans won’t see their movies. While the public is staying away in droves from “Rendition,” “Lions for Lambs” and “In the Valley of Elah,” audiences are really avoiding “Redacted,” De Palma’s picture about US soldiers who rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then kill her and her family. The message movie was produced by NBA Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who insisted on deleting grisly images of Iraqi war casualties from the montage at the film’s end. Cuban offered to sell the film back to De Palma at cost, but the director was too smart to go for that deal. “
In all the really bad comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, Hollywood apparently thought that they could make a buck off of the perceived public’s displeasure with the war. It seems that the millions of dollars they lost in that assumption may have us rethink about just how displeased they are?
