|
Here is the post for NYC Indymedia, much of which is taken from the AP:
It's Official: NYC Council Opposes War
NEW YORK -- In a vote that elicited a range of emotional responses, the City Council approved a resolution Wednesday opposing war with Iraq except as a last resort.
The 31-17 vote in the city hardest hit by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks came after months of behind-the-scenes debate about whether the council should take a position, particularly given the city's position as a symbol in the war on terrorism.
"If we're going to be looking for a fight, let's fight poverty, let's fight firehouse closures, let's fight racism and sexism," said Yvette Clarke, a Brooklyn Democrat who supported the resolution.
But Queens Democrat Alan Jennings said that after losing one of his closest friends in the World Trade Center attack, he was in no mood to vote for an anti-war measure.
"Our troops are in the Middle East at this time to fight for our democracy," Jennings said. "I think this resolution sends the wrong message to our men and women in uniform."
The resolution was first drawn up in October, but got stalled in back-room battles over semantics. Last month, it was abruptly pulled off the agenda moments before the council had been scheduled to vote on it.
The wording of the original resolution opposed a war "without the authority of the United Nations" and said that such a war would pave the way for "similar" actions by other rival states such as Taiwan and China and India and Pakistan."
Those words were replaced with language that allows for a pre-emptive attack if "other options for achieving compliance with United Nations resolutions calling for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the means of their development have failed."
Despite the toned-down language, City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a Manhattan Democrat who is the leader of the panel, said the measure was clearly "an anti-war resolution."
"War should be the last possible resort and we're not sure we've reached that last possible point," Miller said.
Debate over the resolution seeped out publicly in recent weeks after 100,000 to 350,000 people took part in an anti-war protest near the United Nations last month. Recent polls show that 75 percent of New Yorkers oppose a war without the support of the United Nations.
Since last September, anti-war resolutions have been approved in cities including Los Angeles; Kalamazoo, Mich.; Chicago; Portland, Maine; and Milwaukee. | Make a quick comment on this article. |
Comments
|
Additional Comments From The Ryan Sentinel |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
13 Mar 2003
Modified: 10:34:36 PM |
New York City Council Passes Anti War Resolution
Usama Bin Laden Hails the decision of the NYC council. "Allah be praised" said the Shiek and the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. "I haven't seen anything this helpful since those idiots in Urbana voted for the same thing.
Saddam,from his bunker in Bagdad, was later quoted: I love the New York City Council, and excuse me, I am getting the hell out of here.
An estimated 3000 innocent souls from groud zero were unavailable for comment as they were all dead.
Council Women Danielle Chynoweth, oblivious of history, congratulated the pasifist members of the council and was heard to say, "WE HAVE PEACE IN OUR TIME". In a related news story, Urbana business association was unvailable for comment as there is no longer any viable businesses in Urbana to obtain quotes from.
|
|
Re: New York Becomes 141 City To Pass Anti-War Resolution |
by Eric Burton
eburton (nospam) mail.millikin.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2003
|
Or perhaps he's intelligent enough to see that without a war and without increased U.S. presence in the Middle East, it will be much harder for him to create a holy war.
Any U.S. presence in the Middle East, and especially under such controversial circumstances is going to spark resentment and anger. The only proven effective way to vent these things is through terrorist acts, since we've destroyed more democracies there than we've helped create.
If the U.S. was interested in regime change, they would aid the Iraqi people in taking control of the country and setting up their own government. The U.S. didn't win against England by having france come over and fight them for us, we asked for their help and aid in what was our fight.
So perhaps Bin Laden's a little pissed about the resolution. How will he spark generations of hate towards the U.S. if there's no war before he dies. |
|
Editorial Comments Always Welcome At The Sentinel |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
14 Mar 2003
Modified: 09:26:12 AM |
Eric,
So you think we should not go to war because it may create hatred towards the US and invite terrorist attacks? I guess the USS Cole, the embassy bombings and 9-11 were just a sick form of Arab temper tantrum.
The point is, we are already at war. A war which we did not want or initiate.
The people of Iraq are too busy hanging from meat hooks or having the bejesus shocked out of their testicles to overthrow this Saddam. His strategy is divide us by appealing to weak minded of our public opinion who believe if we are simply nice, we will not be attacked.
In any case, if we are successful in an Iraqi Liberation, it could blossom democracies (real ones were people get a voice, not the tin horn communist dictators that you refer to) throughout the Middle East. This is their last best chance for a true peace in the Arab world.
BTW, should we not have attacked Hitler because we would be afraid that he would get really mad?
Thanks for you comments,
Jack |
|
Classified State Department Report Report Doubts Bush's Iraq "Democracy Domino" Theory |
by W and Jack Don't Know Shit
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Mar 2003
|
A classified report by the State Department concluded that overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to generate democratic reform in the Arab world, the Los Angeles Times said on Friday.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A classified report by the State Department concluded that overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to generate democratic reform in the Arab world, the Los Angeles Times said on Friday.
The conclusion undermined one of President Bush's explanations for his plans to invade Iraq, as expressed in his speech in February at the American Enterprise Institute.
"A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions," Bush said in the speech.
The Los Angeles Times quoted the report as saying, "Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve ... Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."
The newspaper quoted an unnamed intelligence source as saying the thrust of the document "is that this idea that you're going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible."
"Even the document's title appears to dismiss the administration argument. The report is labeled 'Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes,"' it said.
State Department officials declined to comment on the report or say whether it even existed.
Advocates of the "democratic domino" theory have argued that democratic governments in the Middle East would be more favorable to the United States and its ally Israel.
Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, for example, said last month that democratic institutions in Iraq could help create Palestinian interlocutors for the Israelis.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that the invasion of Iraq could reshape the region to enhance U.S. interests.
Opponents said that on the contrary democratic governments would by definition reflect public opinion, which in most Arab countries is more hostile to the United States and Israel than the existing authoritarian governments.
The Los Angeles Times quoted the report as saying that political, economic and social problems are likely to undermine stability in the Middle East "regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change." |
|
Theory And Conjecture Are Not Facts |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -4
14 Mar 2003
Modified: 03:13:43 PM |
Dear ML,
Good afternoon. You forgot to sign your name to it. Tired of getting pounded by me aren't you. The fact that one or two holdovers from the Carter Administration remain at the State Department is of no surprise to me.
The same theories were stated after we defeated Japan and Germany. Last time I checked those countries are relatively strong, albeit ungrateful, democracies.
Have a great time badmouthing America at protest this weekend. Your time grows short. Victory is coming.
As always,
Jack |
|
I May Owe ML An Appology |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
14 Mar 2003
|
|
I assumed that the last article submitted by the Los Angeles Times was done by our good friend ML. This may not be true. ML, usually has the courage to submit her stuff and sign her name regardless of the whacked out content. No, I have it on reliable sources that this worthless article was submitted by none other than, the self appointed Urbana Foreign Minister, Willing to Bare All for for the cause, The Pied Piper of the Left: You know her You tolerate her, You Voted for Her???? Let's put your hands on your ankles (like the Urbana Taxpayors) and give a nice warm welcome to Danielle Chynoweth. |
|
Re: New York Becomes 141 City To Pass Anti-War Resolution |
by Eric Burton
eburton (nospam) mail.millikin.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Mar 2003
Modified: 09:26:25 AM |
Well, since we didn't get ourselves involved in WWII because of Hitler or what he was doing, that's a pointless argument. And besides, these are two very different wars in two very different worlds.
The problem with installed democracies is that they never work. Please see: Afgahnistan.
If we're in this for humanitarian reasons, we should aid the Iraqi people in establishing their own democracy, similar to what happenned in Iran before we helped the Shah take power. If we're in it for our safety against terrorism, we should aid the Iraqi people in establishing their own democracy, nothing would speak better of our good will and suit our needs at the same time than helping the populace of an oppressed country to take their power. If we're trying to get into war because of Saddam's disregard for UN regulations, we should invade ourselves first, then wait for UN support of disciplanary action against Iraq. If we're in it for oil, which I think is the reason, (that and keeping GW's image up) then we should focus on our excessive culture and how much we waste instead of invading other countries to take what we want.
I think that covers it all.
Thanks for your time. |
|
Eric -I Assume You Are Student And Not A Professor At Milikin |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
16 Mar 2003
Modified: 09:57:45 PM |
Eric,
With all do respect, Eric. What was the first U.S. ship lost in WWII. For your information, it was The U.S.S Rueben James, which was torpedoed during a convoy in the North Atlantic,months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. I suppose you have heard of Lend Lease.
In any case, you attempt to make another point about installed democracies. I would say that Japan, (Douglas Mac)wrote their constitution. Last time I checked it was still doing okay. Germany, also was an installed democracy by the sheer defeat by us and our allies. For that matter so, was Italy. For brevities sake, that is all I will mention for now, if you what more let me know.
Eric, How is it you would suggest we aid the Iraqi people under the current regime? We allowed them to sell oil and Saddam simply used it to purchase the means for more weapons of mass destruction. Virtually none of this money went to the Iraqi people.
As for this war being about Oil, the simplest way for us to get a cheap barrel of Oil would be to lift the current sancitions and let Iraqi oil flow into the market. Increased Supply reduces demand. I recommend you take economics. It sure is useful.
Or, we simply could take the oil by conquest. During the Gulf War, we were within 185 miles of Bagdad and controlled the entire region of Kuwait. To our south was Saudi Arabia. No one in the world could have taken this from us then. Yet we did not steal, pump or take a drop that was not given to us by our allies in an effort to defray the cost of the war. I wonder why, wasn't George Bush Sr. President at the time.
The fact is that anyone who has an interest in Oil would benefit if the price/barrel was high not low. An increased and non-opec controlled price would simply lower the price thereby allowing consumers in the US to pay a much smaller price to fill up their SUV's. (That hurt didn't it)
Eric, I assume that you are probably a student and with a little effort you will learn the effects of your beliefs once you get a couple of paychecks under your belt. Good Luck in your leasons and learn them well. You may want to diversify who it is that you are learning all of this bullshit from. Or, at the very least, ask for your money back. Now I think that about covers it.
Your Friend,
Jack
|
|
From The Ryan Sentinal |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -3
20 Mar 2003
|
URBANA SURRENDERS
In a stunning turn of events, the city of Urbana and Representative Danielle Chynoweth surrendered to Iraqi forces early this morning. Saddam Hussein was unavailable for comment as he is most likely dead. However, Iraqi representatives were overjoyed at the news until they realized that this town would be a burden, to their already stretched, resourses.
"We're extremely dissapointed" representative Danielle Chynoweth said. "It is still early in the battle and we are attempting to find someone else to surrender too". "This time we will be smart and refuse to show the city's financials until our terms are excepted."
More on this story as it develops. |
|
Re: New York Becomes 141 City To Pass Anti-War Resolution |
by Illinois Citizen
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Dec 2003
|
Hello Jack Ryan,
Are you the same Jack Ryan who is the Illinois Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate? |
|
