Amos Williams has a 40 year history of serving and protecting the people of this nation and this state.
AS A SOLDIER 1966-1968
In 1966, at age 18, Amos left his studies at Wayne State University and enlisted in the United States Army at the height of the Vietnam war. He server in Vietnam as a forward observer directing artillery and air strikes in close support of his infantry company with the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Bridge. He was wounded three times before returning home to Michigan in November 1968. He was awarded bronze stars, purple hearts, a combat infantry's badge and other metals.
AS A POLICEMAN 1968-1985
Within 30 days of returning to Michigan, Amos was appointed to the Detroit Police Department. During the next 17 years he worked as a police officer, sergeant and lieutenant in all areas of police work including Internal Affairs. In 1972 he was assigned to work undercover as an investigator for a grand jury investigating police corruption. In 1980 he attended and graduated from the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia.
While working on the police force, he finished his undergraduate requirements and received his Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice. In 1983 he enrolled in law school. In 1984, an Agent Orange cancer resulting from exposure in Vietnam caused him to have an amputation of his right hand and he was retired from the police department in 1985.
AS A LAWYER 1986-2006
Amos received his Juris Doctorate in 1986 from Detroit College of Law. During the next 20 years he became a well-known and respected attorney representing people and small businesses who were the victims of injustice.
Williams said Granholm, "needs an attorney general who will guard her flank and watch her back, instead of lusting after her seat." He said Cox's performance has been substandard on civil rights, insurance redlining, gas gouging, consumer protection, environmental protection and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
Compiled by Lyn Chabot
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Gary Orr for Michigan Senate (25 District)
Gary Orr has learned first hand what is important in life while raising three children with his wife, taking care of his elderly mother, working full time, and working for the citizens of Marysville as their mayor.
JOBS
As Mayor of Marysville, Gary fought to keep 750 jobs in the community from being outsourced. He understands that Michigan's economy must evolve to survive and that's why he worked to bring in the Marysville Ethanol Plant. This effort will benefit the economy by creating new jobs, supporting local farmers, and providing a source for alternative energy. Gary will fight for the working class in Michigan because he is one of us!
EDUCATION
Gary believes that we must also make the most of the economic engines we have right here in our own backyard our schools, our community colleges, and our universities. If we finally make improving education and access to education - our first thought as policymakers, instead of an afterthought, we'll have the highly trained, 21st Century- skilled workforce that no employer can resist.
GIVING BACK TO CONSUMERS
Families' budgets are getting squeezed from all sides these days. Heating and gas costs are through the roof, Michigan has some of the highest insurance rates in the country, and people are being forced to choose between the medicine and food. We need someone in Lansing who is willing to put his foot down and take on these big corporations. Reigning in these costs will help consumers buy the cars we make, shop in our stores and do all the other things that will kick start our economy. Gary Orr will do just that.
HEALTH INSURANCE IS A FAMILY VALUE
Too many people in Michigan are living without health insurance - missing out on potentially-life saving treatments, and cost-saving preventive care. Uninsured people end up waiting until illnesses become emergencies and the expense of caring for them falls to all taxpayers - eating up resources that could be spent on schools or invested in infrastructure. Gary Orr believes that we must make sure everyone has a chance at affordable coverage - for their sake and for our economies' sake.
Gary Orr is BlueNovember.Org's pick for Michigan State Senator.
Compliled by Patti Reis
JOBS
As Mayor of Marysville, Gary fought to keep 750 jobs in the community from being outsourced. He understands that Michigan's economy must evolve to survive and that's why he worked to bring in the Marysville Ethanol Plant. This effort will benefit the economy by creating new jobs, supporting local farmers, and providing a source for alternative energy. Gary will fight for the working class in Michigan because he is one of us!
EDUCATION
Gary believes that we must also make the most of the economic engines we have right here in our own backyard our schools, our community colleges, and our universities. If we finally make improving education and access to education - our first thought as policymakers, instead of an afterthought, we'll have the highly trained, 21st Century- skilled workforce that no employer can resist.
GIVING BACK TO CONSUMERS
Families' budgets are getting squeezed from all sides these days. Heating and gas costs are through the roof, Michigan has some of the highest insurance rates in the country, and people are being forced to choose between the medicine and food. We need someone in Lansing who is willing to put his foot down and take on these big corporations. Reigning in these costs will help consumers buy the cars we make, shop in our stores and do all the other things that will kick start our economy. Gary Orr will do just that.
HEALTH INSURANCE IS A FAMILY VALUE
Too many people in Michigan are living without health insurance - missing out on potentially-life saving treatments, and cost-saving preventive care. Uninsured people end up waiting until illnesses become emergencies and the expense of caring for them falls to all taxpayers - eating up resources that could be spent on schools or invested in infrastructure. Gary Orr believes that we must make sure everyone has a chance at affordable coverage - for their sake and for our economies' sake.
Gary Orr is BlueNovember.Org's pick for Michigan State Senator.
Compliled by Patti Reis
Friday, September 08, 2006
BRING ME HOME
The BRING ME HOME: Soldier Awareness Project is an idea inspired by the work of other peace activists. While attending the State Democratic Convention in Michigan, one of our youngest members was given a toy "army man." On the bottom of the tiny plastic soldier were the words "BRING ME HOME."
Clearly, the idea is to evoke the tragic human cost our men and women pay as they serve our country in this unjust war. The plastic soldiers are left in public places for others to find. The intent is to offer people a moment of reflection as they read the soldier's message. Our hope is that some will leave the soldier for yet another person, but, mostly, we hope a few will be inspired to do more.
Write a letter to your local paper.
Tell members of your community why we must bring our soldiers home.
Call your senators or member of congress.
Tell them to bring our soldiers home.
Vote for Democrats and Independents who want to end this war and do the work to stay out of others.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Choosing Granholm for governor is an easy decision
BlueNovember.Org endorses Jennifer Granholm for governor of Michigan. Her record proves she is a proponent for community ideals and for the common good. Her opponent, Dick Devos, on the other hand, has a record of working against ordinary people and for the interests of corporations and the privileged few.
Education
Granholm has increased spending per student to the highest level in state history. She is a union supporter, which is good for teachers, and she is an advocate for increased core curriculum standards for public schools. Devos has spent millions advocating a voucher system that would take tax revenue from public schools and give it to private schools. Devos has tried to spin this plan as one to help "poor" students who seek alternative education. We aren't buying a plan that diverts public money to private institutions that have no public oversight.
Granholm earns respect for community mindedness and for seeking the common good. Devos earns a cold shoulder for his lack of commitment to our common interests with respect to educating Michigan children.
JOBS and RESPECT FOR MICHIGAN WORKERS
Jennifer Granholm pushed the Republican controlled house and senate to increase the minimum wage. When they wouldn't budge, she initiated the drive to get it on the fall ballot. She said, "We'll let the Michigan voters decide." It wasn't until the Republican majority admitted opposing the minimum wage increase would be a political liability that they put their own version of an increase on the table. Governor Granholm signed the compromise into law earlier this year. The lowest paid and often hardest working people in the state will finally see a pay increase in October 2006. Granholm has worked to bring good jobs to the state. Google, Ann Arbor; Whirlpool, Benton Harbor; Duncan Aviation, Battle Creek, are just a few of the companies Granholm helped bring to Michigan.
Dick Devos was never a proponent to raise the minimum wage and he has created more jobs in China than in Michigan. In fact, after laying off more than one thousand Michigan workers, Devos invested millions of dollars in China.
Granholm scores points for valuing hard work and for "insourcing" jobs to our state (It bears repeating here that she is a supporter of unions. As for Devos, with his record of outsourcing and pushing to make this a "Right to Work" or non-union state, and we were actually using a point system, we would have to give negative numbers here.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS or "THE BIG PICTURE"
Regardless of how many slick ads Dick Devos produces, he is not the kind of person we want as an advocate for Michigan citizens simply because he has never been an advocate for ordinary people and their needs. Jennifer Granholm has spent the larger portion of her life defending people and protecting their interests. It is also important to note Granholm inherited a nearly four billion dollar debt from outgoing Governor Engler. She made hard choices, but she paid down that debt. Devos has strong ties to the current Bush administration. Most Americans now agree our federal government is a mess and it has made a mess of our common interests. Education, civil liberties, job security, environmental protection, a quest for peace: all eroded under Bush administration policies. Dick Devos spent several hundred thousand dollars on Bush's presidential campaigns. This must mean he agrees with Bush policies. So, while Devos ads call for "change", it seems to us that "change" means more of what got us into trouble in the first place. We don't need a George W. Bush type-guy in Lansing.
Jennifer Granholm is clearly the best choice for governor of Michigan.
Democrats again call for change in Iraq
September 4, 2006
The President
The White House
Washington , D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
Over one month ago, we wrote to you about the war in Iraq . In the face of escalating violence, increasing instability in the region, and an overall strain on our troops that has reduced their readiness to levels not seen since Vietnam , we called upon you to change course and adopt a new strategy to give our troops and the Iraqi people the best chance for success.
Although you have not responded to our letter, we surmise from your recent press conferences and speeches that you remain committed to maintaining an open-ended presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for years to come. That was the message the American people received on August 21, 2006 , when you said, “we're not leaving [ Iraq ], so long as I'm the President.”
Unfortunately, your stay the course strategy is not working. In the five-week period since writing to you, over 60 U.S. soldiers and Marines have been killed, hundreds of U.S. troops have been wounded, many of them grievously, nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and the cost to the American taxpayer has grown by another $8 billion dollars. Even the administration' s most recent report to Congress on Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq indicates that security trends in Iraq are deteriorating, and likely to continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. With daily attacks against American and Iraqi troops at close to their highest levels since the start of the war, and sectarian violence intensifying, we can only conclude that our troops are caught in the middle of a low-grade civil war that is getting worse.
Meanwhile, the costs of a failed Iraq policy to our military and our security have been staggering. As you know, not a single Army non-deployed combat brigade is currently prepared to meet its wartime mission, and the Marine Corps faces equally urgent equipment and personnel shortages. Lieutenant General Blum, the National Guard Bureau Chief, has stated that the National Guard is “even further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army.” Your recent decision to involuntarily recall thousands of Marines to active duty to serve in Iraq is but the latest confirmation of the strain this war has placed on our troops. At the same time, the focus on Iraq and the toll it has taken on our troops and on our diplomatic capabilities has diverted our attention from other national security challenges and greatly constrained our ability to deal with them.
In short, Mr. President, this current path – for our military, for the Iraqi people, and for our security – is neither working, nor making us more secure.
Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq’s sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the “U.S. Policy in Iraq Act” you signed into law last year.
We also think there is one additional measure you can take immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere –consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department. From the failure to deploy sufficient numbers of troops at the start of the war or to adequately equip them, to the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, to disbanding the Iraqi military, to the failure to plan for the post-war occupation, the Administration’ s mistakes have taken a toll on our troops and our security. It is unacceptable to dismiss the concerns of military personnel and their families when they are affected by the consequences of these failures, as the Secretary of Defense recently did in Alaska by suggesting that volunteers should not complain about having their deployments extended. While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy.
Mr. President, staying the course in Iraq has not worked and continues to divert resources and attention from the war on terrorism that should be the nation’s top security priority. We hope you will consider the recommendations for change that we have put forward. We want to work with you in finding a way forward that honors the enormous sacrifice of our troops and promotes U.S. national security interests in the region. We believe our plan will achieve those goals.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
The President
The White House
Washington , D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
Over one month ago, we wrote to you about the war in Iraq . In the face of escalating violence, increasing instability in the region, and an overall strain on our troops that has reduced their readiness to levels not seen since Vietnam , we called upon you to change course and adopt a new strategy to give our troops and the Iraqi people the best chance for success.
Although you have not responded to our letter, we surmise from your recent press conferences and speeches that you remain committed to maintaining an open-ended presence of U.S. forces in Iraq for years to come. That was the message the American people received on August 21, 2006 , when you said, “we're not leaving [ Iraq ], so long as I'm the President.”
Unfortunately, your stay the course strategy is not working. In the five-week period since writing to you, over 60 U.S. soldiers and Marines have been killed, hundreds of U.S. troops have been wounded, many of them grievously, nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians have died, and the cost to the American taxpayer has grown by another $8 billion dollars. Even the administration' s most recent report to Congress on Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq indicates that security trends in Iraq are deteriorating, and likely to continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. With daily attacks against American and Iraqi troops at close to their highest levels since the start of the war, and sectarian violence intensifying, we can only conclude that our troops are caught in the middle of a low-grade civil war that is getting worse.
Meanwhile, the costs of a failed Iraq policy to our military and our security have been staggering. As you know, not a single Army non-deployed combat brigade is currently prepared to meet its wartime mission, and the Marine Corps faces equally urgent equipment and personnel shortages. Lieutenant General Blum, the National Guard Bureau Chief, has stated that the National Guard is “even further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army.” Your recent decision to involuntarily recall thousands of Marines to active duty to serve in Iraq is but the latest confirmation of the strain this war has placed on our troops. At the same time, the focus on Iraq and the toll it has taken on our troops and on our diplomatic capabilities has diverted our attention from other national security challenges and greatly constrained our ability to deal with them.
In short, Mr. President, this current path – for our military, for the Iraqi people, and for our security – is neither working, nor making us more secure.
Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq’s sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the “U.S. Policy in Iraq Act” you signed into law last year.
We also think there is one additional measure you can take immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere –consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department. From the failure to deploy sufficient numbers of troops at the start of the war or to adequately equip them, to the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, to disbanding the Iraqi military, to the failure to plan for the post-war occupation, the Administration’ s mistakes have taken a toll on our troops and our security. It is unacceptable to dismiss the concerns of military personnel and their families when they are affected by the consequences of these failures, as the Secretary of Defense recently did in Alaska by suggesting that volunteers should not complain about having their deployments extended. While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy.
Mr. President, staying the course in Iraq has not worked and continues to divert resources and attention from the war on terrorism that should be the nation’s top security priority. We hope you will consider the recommendations for change that we have put forward. We want to work with you in finding a way forward that honors the enormous sacrifice of our troops and promotes U.S. national security interests in the region. We believe our plan will achieve those goals.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Third Thursday Peace and Justice Rally
Join BlueNovember.Org
Thursday Afternoon
October 19, 2006
4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.
Sanborn and Pine Grove
Port Huron, Michigan
This is a nonviolent, non-confrontational event.
This is a nonviolent, non-confrontational event.
We do not interfere with traffic, nor do we engage in hostile interactions with passers by.
Signs will be available, but you may bring your own.
Signs will be available, but you may bring your own.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Silent Peace Visualization July 20
Help wake up your neighbors!
Join BlueNovember.Org and take a stand for peace.
Demand an end to senseless loss of life.
Demand an end to this incredible waste of money.
Tell Bush to bring our troops home now.
Thursday
July 20,2006
4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.
Corner of Sanborn and Pine Grove
Port Huron, Michigan
We will all be wearing identical peace sign tee shirts. You may purchase one to keep ($10.00)or borrow one for the event.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Paying Taxes is Patriotic!
By ‘Downtown’ Lincoln Brown
George W. Bush has maintained a platform of lowering taxes, and I’m not opposed to lowering taxes if the government is acting in a fiscally responsible manner. It should be incumbent upon our elected officials to work to administer functions of the government in a manner which should be neither stingy nor lavish, but within the confines of necessity, reason and common sense.
The preamble of the constitution of the United States reads:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
“We the people of the United States;” is inclusive of every citizen of the United States whether born a citizen or those who have immigrated to this great nation. We the people of the United State should have a patriotic desire to pay taxes so we can establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The Constitution isn’t some “God damned piece of paper” it’s a contract that limits the authority of the Government and establishes a system of checks and balances. The Federal Government should be limited to administration, oversight, and operation of those functions of the Government that establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Americans should be very willing to pay taxes to establish justice, to maintain the courts, police forces, and jails, prisons, or even medical and mental health programs to help individuals overcome their addictions to drugs and alcohol. Paying taxes to help insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare may help to alleviate the cost of establishing justice, because those programs may help to give people hope and lead content lives where they may not turn to drug and alcohol use.
Americans should want to pay taxes to insure domestic tranquility, to pay for programs that help maintain the infrastructure of this great nation, to maintain the road ways, the national parks, to help keep the environment clean, to help fight disease, pestilence, famine, and poverty. Programs which help belay the cost of child care for single parents who want to work to make a better life for their children and their selves. We should desire to pay taxes to fund programs that provide for education to help raise the conscious of our great nation, to give our people basic skills that help ensure that our population and our great nation continues to survive and thrive. We should want to pay taxes that insure our elderly have a place to live and that their needs are seen too so that our citizens do not fear for our future. We should pay taxes so that these programs are fully funded so that we do not have a national debt that casts doubt upon our future and lays a burden at the feet of future generations. We should pay taxes to fund programs and research that ensures that our natural resources are not depleted leaving a burden for “our posterity” and we should find ways for our nation to be self reliant, yet still part of a world community that participates in free and fair trade.
It’s not only patriotic to pay taxes to provide for the common defense, but it’s patriotic to voluntarily serve in one of the branches of our nations armed services. If we do not maintain a military that is capable of deterring our adversaries, tyrants and despots may seek to overthrow our nation and subjugate the population. We should be able to defend our nation and render aid to those nations who enter into joint defense contracts with us. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen should not want for pay or have concerns about the capabilities of our equipment. We must be concerned that we do not obsess about our security, our ability to defend our nation to the point of bankrupting our nation or leaving a burden for our children and grandchildren, but we should maintain our forces at a level capable of response and deterrent. The constitution reads “Provide for the Common Defense” not “attack and overthrow nations and subjugate populations whose natural resources we desire.” Also patriotic Americans would want to pay taxes to help keep America safe from terrorism and would not allow our government to borrow over $5 billion a month from China to fund that war.
All Americans should want to pay taxes to promote the general welfare, to diminish the effects of poverty, to help those who cannot care for themselves, to give hope to those that have little or no hope, to ensure that we have trained and skilled medical professionals who can provide the necessary medical care that should be made available to ALL Americans, which is part of our constitutional responsibility as American Citizens. Once you’ve reached a point in your life where you have the basic necessities, where you have some additional conveniences and recreational opportunities, you should want to be patriotic and help others to achieve these austere goals. It’s also patriotic to try and rise above your situation; you should be willing to work to earn an income to provide for yourself and your family, to do your part in helping other Americans who are in need. Americans should want to pay taxes that help maintain these functions of our federal, state, and local governments, that operate these functions with the funding necessary to provide these basic services and goals as called for in the very beginning of the constitution. The reason these services should be fully funded by the taxes we pay is so as not to leave a burden for “ourselves and our posterity.”Operating the Government in a state of perpetual debt is non-constitutional, it should be made illegal. When William Clinton was President he called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to ensure that the United States operated within its budget, with the funds collected through taxation. Each year we could have a small surplus to help in times of emergencies, to give aid and comfort to other countries or peoples in need, and to help secure the blessings of liberty by having a reasonable national nest egg for ourselves and our posterity. I’m not calling for rampant over-funded social programs and I do not believe that our citizens should pay exorbitant taxes that do not allow them to live comfortable lives; our citizens should even have the ability to save for their old age and enjoy conveniences, entertainment, and recreation.
As Americans show our willingness to work towards the austere goals in the preamble, we should also hold our elected representatives accountable and ensure that they are not mismanaging the resources and providing reasonable services at a reasonable cost. I do not believe that we should spend on defense five times as much as any other nation, but to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility I could see spending twice as much on defense as any other nation. The budget savings in decreasing the amount of defense spending would make hundreds of billions of dollars available to help fund these programs.
We should not elect politicians who are corrupt and fiscally irresponsible, who put their own self interest or those of “special interest” ahead of the interest of this great nation, their constituents, and our posterity.
We should as American Citizens want to pay taxes for those ideals spoken of in the preamble of the Constitution, we should want to make America a country where all citizens are treated equally by our government, where other peoples look upon our country as an example of what they desire their nation to be. These ideal expressed in the preamble are goals that all patriotic Americans should strive for and should be willing to pay for.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Be a Voice of Dissent. Demand Peace.
At this critical time in our history, we must lift our dissenting voices over the steady drone of our government's war machine. Do at least one thing every day to further the call for peace. Make it an important part of your day.
1. Talk to your family members, friends, and neighbors.
2. Call, write, or email your elected representatives. Tell them you expect them to bring our troops home from Iraq and keep them out of Iran.
3. Write a letter to your local newspaper. Tell your community why this war must end now.
4. Attend or create a protest in your community.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The war in the distance: Why the U.S. should not attack Iran
By Philip Terrie
I wonder how many Americans are paying attention to an important international drama that could determine the fate of our country and our place in the world. President Bush and his neocon cheerleaders are preparing for air strikes against Iran, possibly, according to recent reports, with nuclear weapons. Their claim is that Iran is itself developing nuclear capabilities, despite expert opinions that Iran is at least ten years away from deployable nuclear devices.
While the emergence of yet another nuclear power is surely not something we want, all Americans should think very carefully about what the likely consequences of an American attack on Iran will be. To Iranians, this will be what Pearl Harbor was for the United States in 1941: an unprovoked attack on their homeland by an aggressive, expansive power. It will set them violently and implacably at war with the United States.
Iran, unlike Iraq, is a relatively wealthy and developed country, with a population approaching 80 million and a well-equipped military. While there is widespread opposition to the authoritarian theocracy maintained by fundamentalist mullahs, there is also a profound sense of patriotism and loyalty to the Iranian state. Nothing would unify the country more than an attack by the United States. The notion of regime change, precipitated by American military intervention, is a neocon fantasy.
It is equally absurd to imagine that Iranians would passively accept an assault on their sovereignty. With its air force and missiles, Iran can stop the movement of oil from the Persian Gulf; this would inevitably lead to a world-wide economic depression, lasting as long as the Iranians want it to. Michigan will hemorrhage jobs, and our state will sink closer to third-world misery. Iran commands allegiance from Shiite militias throughout Iraq; if they are ordered to conduct operations against American troops, the result will be horrible loss of American lives, on a scale far beyond anything we have seen so far.
Iran is capable of unleashing terrorist attacks in Israel and in the United States that will make 9/11 seem tame. If attacked, what is to prevent them from striking back with any means at their disposal? If they do, Israeli and American civilian deaths will be counted in the tens of thousands, if not more. It will be a war without end. Does the United States have an army ready and willing to invade and occupy, indefinitely, a country larger, more unified, and better equipped than Iraq was in 2003? If not, will we launch nuclear warheads against Iranian cities?
I do not like the idea of Iran’s joining the nuclear club; Iran is an unpredictable, anti-Semitic theocracy. But we should remember that for decades the United States faced a far more menacing adversary in the Soviet Union. The doctrine of containment and engagement was hardly perfect, but World War III did not break out, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq on the basis of faulty or contrived intelligence and clearly had no idea what the consequences of an occupation of that country would mean. Can we be confident that it can accurately assess the long-term consequences of an attack on Iran? Given the debacle in Iraq, can we ever trust this administration?
I wonder how many Americans are paying attention to an important international drama that could determine the fate of our country and our place in the world. President Bush and his neocon cheerleaders are preparing for air strikes against Iran, possibly, according to recent reports, with nuclear weapons. Their claim is that Iran is itself developing nuclear capabilities, despite expert opinions that Iran is at least ten years away from deployable nuclear devices.
While the emergence of yet another nuclear power is surely not something we want, all Americans should think very carefully about what the likely consequences of an American attack on Iran will be. To Iranians, this will be what Pearl Harbor was for the United States in 1941: an unprovoked attack on their homeland by an aggressive, expansive power. It will set them violently and implacably at war with the United States.
Iran, unlike Iraq, is a relatively wealthy and developed country, with a population approaching 80 million and a well-equipped military. While there is widespread opposition to the authoritarian theocracy maintained by fundamentalist mullahs, there is also a profound sense of patriotism and loyalty to the Iranian state. Nothing would unify the country more than an attack by the United States. The notion of regime change, precipitated by American military intervention, is a neocon fantasy.
It is equally absurd to imagine that Iranians would passively accept an assault on their sovereignty. With its air force and missiles, Iran can stop the movement of oil from the Persian Gulf; this would inevitably lead to a world-wide economic depression, lasting as long as the Iranians want it to. Michigan will hemorrhage jobs, and our state will sink closer to third-world misery. Iran commands allegiance from Shiite militias throughout Iraq; if they are ordered to conduct operations against American troops, the result will be horrible loss of American lives, on a scale far beyond anything we have seen so far.
Iran is capable of unleashing terrorist attacks in Israel and in the United States that will make 9/11 seem tame. If attacked, what is to prevent them from striking back with any means at their disposal? If they do, Israeli and American civilian deaths will be counted in the tens of thousands, if not more. It will be a war without end. Does the United States have an army ready and willing to invade and occupy, indefinitely, a country larger, more unified, and better equipped than Iraq was in 2003? If not, will we launch nuclear warheads against Iranian cities?
I do not like the idea of Iran’s joining the nuclear club; Iran is an unpredictable, anti-Semitic theocracy. But we should remember that for decades the United States faced a far more menacing adversary in the Soviet Union. The doctrine of containment and engagement was hardly perfect, but World War III did not break out, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq on the basis of faulty or contrived intelligence and clearly had no idea what the consequences of an occupation of that country would mean. Can we be confident that it can accurately assess the long-term consequences of an attack on Iran? Given the debacle in Iraq, can we ever trust this administration?
Friday, April 28, 2006
The People's Platform: We are all in the same boat
http://www.bluenovember.org
Visit BlueNovember.Org to read The People's Platform: We are all in the same boat.
The People's Platform includes twenty statements demanding new directions in American politics. The platform addresses our individual needs and collective responsibilities.
The truth is that our fate is sealed with those with whom we share a community. And, now, in the twenty-first century, our communities start locally but also reach around the planet.
Not many of us can be insulated from the effects of our neighbor's fate. And, although the greediest among us may ignore the needs of our fellow humans, most of us would not trade our visceral shared experience for their insensate ignorant bliss.
The People's Platform calls on us all to restore the values inherent in our democratic ideals with the hopeful language of community and respect.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Rescuing Democracy One Person at a Time
BlueNovember.Org is a St. Clair County, Michigan, grassroots, progressive group of citizens who are working to transform our local, state, national, and world communities. We might not be able to change the social conscience of the world in a giant leap, but we can surely make progress toward rescuing our democracy one step at a time, one person at a time. BlueNovember.Org began when we held a Funeral for the American Dream on January 20, 2005, the dark day that gave the Bush administration four more years to do things they so love to do: gut our economy, weaken our standing in the world, torture more people, wage an immoral war, ignore the needs of our Katrina victims, vilify science, kiss up to the religious fanatics (American al Qaeda), provide millions in corporate welfare, ruin public education, spy on people without court order, and create more hate in this country than we've had since the civil rights era.
A funeral might sound like the end, but for BlueNovember.Org, it was the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
