|
|
Nader wants to withdraw US military forces from
Iraq in 6 months
Subject: (OT) Nader - US withdrawal from Iraq in 6 months
From: [Salvador]
Date: 10/23/04 1:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20041023130913.19078.00003121@mb-m29.aol.com>
Dressing Up the Puppet Government
Press release from Nader Presidential campaign, June 10, 2004
The Bush Administration is feeling the pressure of the
failure of its Iraq occupation so much so that they have
flip-flopped and have sought an international costume for
its continued occupation of Iraq.
But the Nader Campaign continues to urge the United States
to set a definite date for withdrawal, not only of Mr.
Bremer and his civilian authority - but also of the U.S.
military, its corporate private mercenaries and its
outsourcing corporations like Halliburton. "The spiral
of violence will not reverse until a dual military and
corporate exit strategy is announced," said Independent
Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader. Nader has urged a six
months exit with internationally supervised elections,
continued humanitarian aid, neutral, Islamic and Arab
countries providing security.
To read more, click here:
http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=47
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Liberal Nader critic balks at withdrawal plan
Subject: Re: (OT) Peace activists & Nader
From: [Salvador]
Date: 10/26/04 1:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20041026013547.24078.00002734@mb-m13.aol.com>
Comments below are responses to the following article:
"Peace activists have nothing to lose by voting for Nader"
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Election2004/nader.htm
===========================
[Salvador]
>> He [ Nader ] wants to withdraw all American
>> troops within six months after being sworn in.
[Derek Larsson]
> Hardly original,
Who gives a damn whether its original or not?
The point is Nader wants to withdraw within six
months, and Kerry and Bush do not.
To read Nader's plan, click here:
http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=47
Nader's plan of notifying the world that America
intends to withdraw in six months will force other
nations to either help us OR watch the Iraqis fight
it out themselves. In either case, American forces
should withdraw within six months. A vote for Nader
may help such a policy come true, regardless of who
wins the election.
[Derek]
> Dennis Kucinich ran on a platform of withdrawing
> within 3 months.
The key word is "ran." Too bad he's not running now.
Your point?
[Derek]
> He is supporting John Kerry.
Apparently the lesser of two evils scenario.
But less evil is still evil.
[Derek]
> Howard Dean did not put any specific
> deadline but sought to internationalize the
> situation as soon as possible.
Howard Dean is a moron. He did more damage to the
anti-war position than anyone around. His asinine
behavior in the primaries was reprehensible. His
message was very clear: If you're anti-war, you're
nuts. Whether that was his intention or not is
anyone's guess, but that was the end result.
[Derek Larsson]
> He [Dean] is supporting John Kerry...
Big shock. Kerry has the full support of a first-
class moron who single-handedly destroyed the
anti-war movement in the Democratic primaries.
[Salvador's suggestion]
>> Vote Nader for president, but vote the straight
>> Democratic ticket for everything else.
[Derek]
> Kerry is a Democrat!!
You're missing the point. Yes, a vote for Nader will
probably help give Bush a second term, but if
the Democrats take control of Congress, it will
weaken Bush a great deal. Therefore, Bush will be
forced to move towards a more peaceful solution
in Iraq. And the more votes Nader gets means Bush
will probably look at Nader's alternative policies,
particularly if the Democrats control Congress.
[Derek]
> You cannot be *for* Democrats and yet leave
> Bush [et al...] in power...
Sure we can. It's called divided government.
I for one don't have a problem with it. Divided
government makes it difficult for politicians
like Bush and Kerry to continue selling the
American people down the river with continued
unnecessary wars.
[Salvador]
>> Don't let the LEADERS do your thinking.
>> Think for yourself.
[Derek]
> You've got a whole lot of work to do ...
You claim to admire John Lennon, but you're
doing the exact opposite of what he said:
Don't follow leaders.
Sure it's okay to vote for someone you like,
but don't get emotionally involved over someone just
because you think he's the lesser of two evils.
Being less evil is still evil.
If we lived in a perfect world, Bush would
be tried as war criminal for starting the
war in Iraq, and Kerry would be tried as
a collaborator for giving him permission
to do it.
But since we don't live in a perfect world,
the best we can do--since we weren't given
a real choice by either major party--is vote
for someone we truly like, even if we know
he/she won't win. For me, it's Nader.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Critics accuse Nader of being Republican
shill
Subject: Re: (OT) Peace activists & Nader
From: [Salvador]
Date: 10/18/04 10:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20041018224908.26483.00002849@mb-m07.news.cs.com>
Comments below are responses to the following article:
"Peace activists have nothing to lose by voting for Nader"
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Election2004/nader.htm
====================
[Salvador]
>> ... On the major issues of war and peace, President
>> Bush and Democratic Senator John Kerry are virtually
>> identical.
[Derek Larsson]
> Clearly, you don't know what the hell you are talking
> about.
>
> Kerry NEVER supported an invasion and an endless
> occupation.
You're confusing Kerry's verbal spin with his voting
record.
On October 11, 2002, the United States Senate approved
H.J. Resolution 114, "Authorization to Use Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution 2002." Senators John Kerry and
John Edwards voted Yes to the Resolution. On March 19,
2003, the Bush Administration launched a military strike
against Iraq.
[Derek]
> He voted for bringing the issue of Hussein to the United
> Nations to get the inspectors inside.
He says that, but that isn't what Resolution 114 was
about. The Resolution contained a lot of legal ease
which gave Bush what its title suggested: "Authorization
to Use Military Force Against Iraq..." Nothing more,
nothing less.
[Derek]
> He [Kerry] knew that there were be NO WAR at all if
> the U.N. Inspectors were allowed to do their job
> and spend the necessary time to make a final
> declaration about Iraq's weapon situation.
If Kerry had so much faith in the UN Inspectors, why
did he vote YES to H.J. Resolution 114, "Authorization
to Use Military Force Against Iraq...?"
[Derek]
> He [Kerry] knew that by following a process that
> respected international law - the issue could be
> diffused and resolved peacefully and without
> reckless bloodshed.
Don't kid yourself. John Kerry, like most people in
the world, knew President Bush intended to launch an
attack against Iraq with or without other nations
because Bush said repeatedly that he was prepared
to "go it alone" if necessary. Kerry knew Bush was
prepared to "go it alone" when Kerry voted for the
military force resolution on October 11, 2004. If John
Kerry truly believes the Iraq War was the "wrong war,
wrong place, wrong time," then he should never have
voted in October 2002 to give Bush carte blanche
authority to use military force against Iraq in the
first place. Bush waited five months before launching
the attack (from Oct 11, 2002 when Resolution 114 was
passed by the Senate until March 19, 2003), so strictly
on a factual basis, Bush did not act like he was overly
eager to go to war once Congress gave him permission
to do so. Although I disagree with Bush's decision to
go to war, I have to admit that waiting five months
seems more than reasonable, within the context of the
political environment at that time.
[Derek]
> Bush and Cheney are part of the Project For The New
> American Century (PNAC) right-wing think tank that
> actively promotes regime change all over the world
> by means of bloodshed. This group was itching to start
> a war with Iraq long before Sept. 11.
I agree that Bush came to the White House unprepared for
the job and allowed his cronies to run his policies. But
why remove someone we don't like by replacing him with
someone with identical beliefs? If we put Kerry in the
White House, then we're really giving a second wind to
the Iraq War. My view is let's keep the guy in power who
started the war and hold his feet to the fire to bring it
to an early end. Voting for Nader is another way to hold
Bush's feet to the fire. Voting for Kerry is a green light
to the war mongers.
The war itself has forced President Bush to use more
restraint than he did at first, and certainly more than
Kerry will use if elected. Bush demonstrated his shift
in strategy when he abandoned plans to install a Zionist
to head the transitional Iraqi government when the US
transferred sovereignty to the Iraqis last June. Zionist
puppet Ammad Chalabi was backed by the neo-Conservatives
in Washington to lead a puppet regime in America's
military footprint in what was once the most dominate
country in the Middle East: Iraq. Since the bloody
confrontations in Fallujah and Najaf, President Bush
has apparently shifted the strategy of America's Iraqi
occupation away from Zionist rule, and is apparently
trying to build a real Iraqi government. Only time
will tell if he succeeds, but at least he's trying.
[Derek]
> Bush lied to try and dupe the public there were
> "mushroom clouds" and "unmaned drones" that would
> attack the U.S.
You don't need to convince me that Bush made a colossal
mistake by launching the war with Iraq. But again, he
didn't go there alone. Senators Kerry and Edwards went
there with him. They gave him a lot of authority for
no good reason. Now we're stuck in Iraq, and Bush
isn't the only one responsible.
As I stated earlier, I am not a Bush supporter, but at
the end of the day, the 2004 Presidential election is
not about good versus evil or right versus wrong, or
even war versus peace. The 2004 Presidential election
is merely a power struggle and nothing more, as long as
we limit choices to Bush or Kerry.
[Derek]
> Nader is a fraudulent fiananced puppet of the RNC and
> the Bush campaign to try and throw the public off.
> It's not working.
Nonsense. Kerry's misrepresentation of his voting record
is the most fraudulent thing in the 2004 election. At least
with Bush, we know what we're getting (a punishment from
God?). With Kerry, we don't really know what to expect,
other than we know he is just as pro-war as Bush once was.
In fact, Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, have
both criticized Bush for not having enough troops in
Iraq. So what should we expect is Kerry's solution for
that; a massive withdrawal? I don't think so. It sounds
like Kerry is planning to send more troops to Iraq, not
less. Furthermore, Kerry has suggested on several
occasions that we need to worry about Iran developing
the nuclear bomb. It sounds like Kerry is proposing a
military strike against Iran as well. Is that his
solution to the problems in the Middle East? Does Kerry
think attacking more Moslem countries will enhance
America's credibility as a superpower?
This is why voting for Ralph Nader is not throwing your
vote away. The sad truth is the American people were
note given a choice between the two major candidates.
Genuine peace activists cannot vote for Bush
because he started the Iraq War, but the Democrats
should have given us an anti-war candidate. Since they
didn't, we have no choice but to vote for Nader. And if
it helps Bush get a second term, then so be it.
Ralph Nader has done a lot of good for this country.
John Kerry only talks about the good things he wants
to do. But his record does not match his talk.
A wise man once said, judge a man by his deeds, not
his words. A good tree cannot give bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot give good fruit. That says it all.
Salvador Astucia
==
To learn more about Ralph Nader, click here:
http://www.votenader.org/
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Salvador explains why Republicans like Nader
Subject: Re: (OT) Peace activists & Nader
From: [Salvador]
Date: 10/21/04 4:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20041021040120.03437.00001470@mb-m27.news.cs.com>
Comments below are responses to the following article:
"Peace activists have nothing to lose by voting for Nader"
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Election2004/nader.htm
====================
[...]
[Derek]
>>> Nader is a delusional freak, fraud, who has been
>>> caught redheanded sitting on the lap of Karl Rove.
[Sixties Gen]
>> Not true.
[Derek]
> Yes true, try pulling your head our of your own ass.
> These are just some of the facts of this puppets
> pathetic and fuadulent freak-show of a campaign.
> [...]
Just because Republicans are helping Nader doesn't
mean he is a Republican puppet. When a third-party
candidate runs, he/she is generally labeled liberal or
conservative to some degree. Consequently, the
perception is a third-party candidate will help one
of the two major parties with the opposing ideology
because the third-party guy will take votes from
the party with a similar ideology.
For example, in 1992, Ross Perrot ran as a third
party candidate, and was viewed as a conservative.
Therefore, it is widely believed that he took votes
away from Republican candidate, George H. W.
Bush and helped Democratic candidate Bill
Clinton. Since Nader is perceived as being more
liberal than Perrot, the natural assumption is he will
divide the liberal voters, thereby helping the
Republicans get their man in. (Clear as mud, right?)
It's just common sense that the Republicans would
help Nader if they thought it would help divide
the Democrats. But it is a mistake to assume Nader is
a puppet just because the Republicans are exploiting
his campaign, the same way the Democrats exploited
Perrot's in 1992.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Die-hard Democrats resist Nader
Subject: Re: (OT) Peace activists & Nader
From: [Salvador]
Date: 10/19/04 12:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20041019004625.13148.00003136@mb-m28.news.cs.com>
Comments below are responses to the following article:
"Peace activists have nothing to lose by voting for Nader"
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Election2004/nader.htm
====================
[Sixties Gen]
>> The only wasted vote is one cast for someone you
>> don't wholeheartedly support, in the mistaken belief
>> that he/she won't be as bad as his/her opponent.
[Mister Charlie]
> Bullshit. Knowing how the thrown away votes for
> Nader got bush INTO the office, anyone stubborn
> enough to do it again is clearly out of touch
> with the goal. And reality.
Why remove someone we do not like only to replace him
with someone with identical beliefs? Many liberals have
a problem facing this reality, but the truth is Kerry's
voting record on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act were
in complete support of President Bush's Iraq policy
and the overall War on Terrorism.
In fact, Kerry constantly says the world is a better
place without Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, but we
all know--especially peace activists know--this is a
lie. The world has become far more dangerous since
Saddam Hussein was toppled from power without cause
by an uninformed president, supported by both the
Republican party and the opposition Democratic party.
[...]
[Sixties Gen]
>> Let me ask you, Charlie (or anyone else reading
>> this), in what presidential election, past, present
>> or in the future, would it be appropriate to vote
>> for a third party? And why?
[Mister Charlie]
> IF there was as viable a third party as the two
> biggies then NOW would be fine. But that's not the
> case. Nader hasn't got a chance and you know it.
> So all you are doing is patting yourself on the back
> for voting your conscience. And by doing so the
> person who you want to get rid of as badly as we
> do is going to stay in office. ANOTHER four
> years.
Correction: Liberal Democrats are the ones who want
to get rid of Bush at all costs. Those of us who
can think outside the box realize it doesn't matter
whether Bush is in power or Kerry is in power, because
their views are identical with respect to war and peace.
The only difference is Bush has mellowed over his first
term, and Kerry is just as gung ho as ever.
> SO what exactly is it that you accomplish?
For those who say voting for Nader is throwing your vote
away, I say Hogwash! The sad truth is the American people
were not given a choice between the two major candidates.
Genuine peace activists cannot vote for Bush because he
started the Iraq War, but the Democrats should have given
us an anti-war candidate. Since they didn't, we have no
choice but to vote for Nader. And if it helps Bush get a
second term, then so be it. Again, Bush and Kerry are
two pro-war candidates, so it doesn't really matter
which one wins.
At the end of the day, the 2004 Presidential election
is not about good versus evil or right versus wrong,
or even war versus peace. The 2004 Presidential election
is merely a power struggle and nothing more, as long as
we limit our choices to Bush and Kerry.
To learn more about Ralph Nader, click here:
http://www.votenader.org/
Salvador Astucia
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
Nader wants to stop plans to build military
bases in Iraq (aka, "military footprint")
Subject: Re: (OT) Peace activists & Nader
From: [Salvador]
Date: 10/23/04 2:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20041023022652.15036.00005410@mb-m02.aol.com>
Comments below are responses to the following article:
"Peace activists have nothing to lose by voting for Nader"
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/Election2004/nader.htm
====================
[Salvador]
>> >> Just because Republicans are helping Nader doesn't
>> >> mean he is a Republican puppet...It's just common
>> >> sense that the Republicans would help Nader if they
>> >> thought it would help divide the Democrats. But it
>> >> is a mistake to assume Nader is a puppet just
>> >> because the Republicans are exploiting his
>> >> campaign, the same way the Democrats exploited
>> >> Perrot's in 1992.
[Derek]
>> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > Oh my God ... that's just too funny
>> >
>> >
>> > You sound just like Dick Cheney telling us
>> > just because Hussein had no weapons
>> > doesn't mean we didn't face a "mushroom cloud"
>> >
>> > LIIIIIIEEAAAAAARRRRRRRR
>> >
>> > LIE
>> >
>> > LYING LIAR
[Salvador]
>> You're starting to get a little emotional, Derek.
>> Remember what Lennon said: don't put too much
>> faith in leaders. Haven't I taught you anything?
>> Just cool your jets and listen to the voice of
>> reason.
>>
>> Being a citizen in a free society isn't necessarily
>> about winning or losing an election. It's about
>> having a degree of influence over the policies
>> made by the folks who run our government. Nader
>> has a lot of good ideas, particularly about the
>> Iraq war. He wants to withdraw all American
>> troops within six months after being sworn in.
>> That's a different plan than either Bush or
>> Kerry. By running, Nader is getting his plan
>> out there. It's a plan that's "outside the box."
>> If Nader gets even a few percentage points of
>> the popular vote, that means a lot of Americans
>> agree with his plan. And politicians pay attention
>> to things like that. Without Nader, total withdrawal
>> wouldn't even be a serious discussion. With Nader,
>> it's a viable option.
>>
>> Now let me give liberal folks like you yet another
>> viable option:
>>
>> Vote Nader for president, but vote the straight
>> Democratic ticket for everything else. That way,
>> you'll keep Bush in, but you'll weaken his party,
>> thereby ripping away a lot of his power. And
>> by voting for Nader, you'll be sending Bush the
>> message that you and a lot of other people want
>> all soldiers out of Iraq within six months.
>>
>> There's a lot more at stake than merely winning
>> or losing an election. Being free means participating
>> in the process. Don't let the LEADERS do your
>> thinking. Think for yourself.
>>
>> Peace.
>>
>> Salvador
[Mister Charlie]
> Bush doesn't give a shit about any message we send
> him after the election. Cheney and Bush are the most
> arrogant bunch in a century, harking back to robber
> baron days. What they say now and what they do
> after Nov 2 are two entirely different things. Nader
> getting 2% or 6% of the vote isn't going to send ANY
> mandate to Bush.
I don't deny that Cheny is a rat, and Bush definitely
made the wrong decision to invade Iraq. But another
aspect of the occupation plan was to install 14 military
bases in Iraq, something Bush has apparently halted,
or at least slowed down. The original plan was to
put an Israeli loyalist in charge of Iraq which would
mean Israel would indirectly control the 14 military
bases, not to mention the oil reserves.
Bush has already dropped the notion of installing
a permanent US footprint in Iraq and I expect he will
try to pull out sooner than later. Israeli loyalists
are pushing hard to get Bush out and Kerry in because
they know Kerry will deliver the goods. Kerry is another
Israeli loyalist and will certainly push for the military
bases to be built in Iraq. The Zionists' desperation
to unseat Bush revealed itself fully two days ago when
born-again Christian and non-Jewish Zionist Pat Robertson
was critical of Bush, claiming he (Robertson) warned Bush
that a lot of American soldiers would die in if Bush chose
to use military force against Iraq. I wonder how much
money the Zionists paid Robertson to turn on Bush.
Anyway, I think we should keep Bush in office by voting
for Nader, thereby giving Nader's withdrawal plan more
credibility. And as icing on the cake, it would be
nice to weaken Bush further by taking Democratic
control of the House and Senate.
Salvador
===
Ordering information for Salvador Astucia's books can be found at
http://www.jfkmontreal.com/raveningwolf/
Also see Astucia's homepage:
http://www.jfkmontreal.com
|
|