|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Peace |
|
World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
Current rating: 0 |
by Ricky Baldwin
Email: baldwinricky (nospam) yahoo.com (verified)
Phone: 217-328-3037 |
15 Sep 2005
|
|
"Voices in th Wilderness" co-founder is coming to Champaign Sept. 16-17 to discuss peace activism in three separate forums Friday and Saturday. See below for schedule. |
(Champaign) Kathy Kelly is an author, an activist and a co-founder of “Voices in the Wilderness”, a group that has been advocating peace between the US and Iraq since long before the recent surge in anti-war activity.
When Kelly helped start the group in 1996, most Americans would have said there was no ongoing war with Iraq. Kelly and other “Voices” activists had a different story to tell.
A group of peace activists had positioned themselves along the Iraq border just prior to the First Gulf War in 1991, calling for a halt to the US invasion. Five years later, a group of those activists and other peace advocates, including Kathy Kelly, founded “Voices in the Wilderness.”
Economic sanctions, they pointed out, were contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under the age of five, far too young to have a say in the affairs of their country. Kelly has also been an outspoken critic of the US use of depleted uranium weapons and more recently the US occupation of Iraq.
In Champaign this Friday and Saturday Sept. 16-17, Kelly will be speaking along with other peacemakers at the following events:
Friday, Sept. 16 at noon at the Campus YMCA (1001 S. Wright St. in Champaign)
“Other Lands Have Dreams: from Baghdad to Pekin Prison.”
Kelly will discuss her work as a peace activist.
Friday, Sept. 16 at 6:30 pm also at the Campus YMCA
“Creating Peaceful Tomorrows: An Evening of Commemoration and Critique”
Kathy Kelly and John Titus of Peaceful Tomorrows (an organization founded by those who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks and who now advocate for peace).
Saturday, Sept. 17 from 10am - noon at the Lewis Lounge in the Newman Center (604 E. Armory in Champaign)
“Peacemaking in a Troubled World: How My Faith Informs My Commitment to Social Justice”
A panel discussion featuring Kathy Kelly, John Titus of Peaceful Tomorrows, Ann Burger (Presbyterian pastor), Robert McKim (UI Professor of Religious Studies and Philosophy), and Reverend Ben Elton Cox, Sr, (retired pastor and one of the original Freedom Riders).
Contact: Carol Inskeep 344-9155
Or carolinskeep (at) yahoo.com |
See also:
http://www.anti-war.net
http://vitw.org/
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Sep 2005
|
No mention of the UN oil-for-food skimming that bilked the Iraqi civilians out of millions of dollars in aid?
No mention of the French and Russians skirting the sanctions and dealing directly with the Iraqi government for their own greedy ends?
No mention of the fact that the Baath party was diverting funds and materiel for their own uses instead of supporting their citizens?
No mention of the effectiveness and efficiency of DU 120mm SABOT rounds against enemy armor vs utilizing traditional and more collaterally destructive rounds due to a greater number of less accurate rounds fired?
Ricky, you never fail to offer the simple-minded and ubiquitously anti-US version of the truth. |
|
Neo-Con "Case" Built on Same Lies as the War |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2005
|
Mortland mouths the party line when he writes:
> No mention of the UN oil-for-food skimming that bilked the Iraqi civilians out of millions of dollars in aid?
From the Financial Times:
"A joint investigation by the Financial Times and Il Sole 24 Ore, the Italian business daily, shows that the single largest and boldest smuggling operation in the oil-for-food programme was conducted with the knowledge of the US government."
http://www.atsnn.com/story/111510.html
>No mention of the French and Russians skirting the sanctions and dealing directly with the Iraqi government for their own greedy ends?
From Counterpunch:
Once it became clear some months ago that Saddam Hussein had been telling the truth about not having weapons of mass destruction or connections to al-Qaida, it should have been an embarrassment to the neo-conservatives who talked President George Bush into war with Iraq.
They were not in the least embarrassed, though, because they had known well before the invasion that Saddam had done everything he could possibly do to assure the world that he was no threat to the region, the US and the world.
Their intent all along was no secret: They wanted "regime change" to fit their plans for an American empire, with a permanent outpost in Baghdad.
To do this, they had to clear out all the obstacles in their path - which meant open assaults on the international institutions that had been developed to prevent war, through diplomacy backed by the threat of sanctions.
This meant demeaning the United Nations, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors of chemical and biological weapons under Hans Blix, and the International Atomic Energy Agency under Muhammad al-Baradai.
France, Germany, Russia and China had become obstacles to regime change in Baghdad, either at the UN Security Council or at Nato, or both.
To neutralise them with American public opinion, the neo-cons used their contacts in the news media to broadcast the argument that these countries were pursuing selfish interests related to Iraq`s oil.
Out of this soup came the "oil-for-food scandal"...
http://www.counterpunch.org/wanniski12112004.html
>No mention of the fact that the Baath party was diverting funds and materiel for their own uses instead of supporting their citizens?
Hmmm, that sounds a lot like the Bush Adminstration getting us into a war with lies to make their oil corp campaign contributors happy and even richer, then can't find its ass with both hands when a hurricane takes out a major city in the US.
>No mention of the effectiveness and efficiency of DU 120mm SABOT rounds against enemy armor vs utilizing traditional and more collaterally destructive rounds due to a greater number of less accurate rounds fired?
Uh, the Iraqi insurgency doesn't have any tanks, but they don't seem to need them. And good luck, Jim, on not breathing any of the DU dust blowing in the wind in Iraq. I'd be looking into such working conditions before re-upping. DU can do nasty things to you and your children, whatever your politics -- and excessive, unwarranted loyalty to rich people that want to use you as a tool.
>Ricky, you never fail to offer the simple-minded and ubiquitously anti-US version of the truth
Ah, once again for Deadland, freedom of speech is to be fought for and invoked by the President, but anyone who actually uses it for what it is intended for, to question those in power, is automatically branded as unAmerican. Sorry, Mort, but Ricky is a bigger patriot than you'll ever (not dare) to be. |
|
Re: World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2005
|
Dose of Reality, last things first:
1) Officers don’t “re-up.”
2) Your attacks on my name are devastating. What’s yours again?
3) Wow, there’s that haughty intellectual elitism again from the vocal minority that infuriates and ostracizes so many that they would rather be anti-“progressive” than actually embrace that or any other ideology. Keep up that condescending tone – your aim at your foot is better than mine at your head.
4) Did I use the words “patriot” or “UN-american?” That’s a negative, Ghost Rider. I said “anti-US,” as in: “hoping more US troops die and are shown on CNN and the federal government’s mission fails and our military is globally embarrassed in order to say ‘I told you so.’” All sides, left, right and otherwise have bastardized the word “Patriot.” Which is unfortunate, because I happen to like the sound of the word itself. “UN-American” doesn’t even make sense to use in this context – that would be those who aren’t American citizens.
5) Drive on with that 1st Amendment – I never said Ricky didn’t have the right to think or say what he wants. But I have the right to say what I think about him and his rhetoric. And you have the right to say what you think about me. If I “branded” Ricky as anything, then apparently my opinion means something to you. Otherwise, my words are just so much garbage that you disregard as incoherent drivel anyway because I don’t agree with you, yes?
6) DU – the 120mm SABOT is the only commonly used DU round in the US arsenal, fired from an M1A1 tank. We’re not using SABOT rounds against the insurgency – they’re heavy darts (the projectile itself is less than two inches in diameter and is not explosive) that are for heavy armor penetration. It makes no sense to use a SABOT round even against a structure, as it does little or no damage to an open system like a building, or even a car with glass windows. Only in a closed system, like a buttoned-up tank, does the overpressure cause any effect. The DU issues in question are from the 1st Gulf War and from the initial attack in the second. A traditional lead small arms bullet is much more effective against personnel. A 25mm HE round, 120mm HE round, AT-4 or TOW missile is much more effective against buildings and civilian vehicles. And AT-4 and TOW use is severely restricted in urban areas. Are SABOT rounds being used anyway against insurgents and buildings? I’m sure you can dig up something that says we are, but I can assure you that those cases are few and far between, as it makes no tactical sense to use them.
7) Concerning DU itself – I am well aware of health issues related to DU dust. I’ve accepted that, and many other hazards in my line of work. DU is bad stuff. So are mines, IEDs, gas, and oh yeah, people who want to kill me because of the uniform I wear. It comes with the territory. Do I like DU? Noooo… Do I have to deal with it? Yep, until DoD R&D finds a better alternative.
8) I only have one party line – “Do other legitimate views exist that should be taken into account?” I pick and choose what I assimilate into my own views by how much I believe the sources from which those opinions and purported facts come. Yes, I have my own opinions, as clearly stated above. The problem I have is not that you and yours have opinions. The problem I have is that you honestly believe that you are infallibly correct and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and dumb and a stupid-head.
9) “This war is for oil and the corporations” certainly sounds like the lefty party line to me…but for all the browbeating, condescending holier-than-thou garbage on this site, it often provides another aspect to consider in many arenas. (Are you taking notes on how to be a team player and listen to others? You don’t have to like it, but it would behoove you to listen.)
10) Why I do what I do is of no concern to you. I took an oath to the State and Federal Constitutions, not any administration. That doesn’t mean that I get to arbitrarily decide which orders I like and don’t like depending on my mood or political bent – the other half of that oath is to obey the orders of those appointed over me. It means that all current situations and leadership are temporary, bad decisions will need to be fixed, good decisions will need to be maintained, superiors will get promoted or move on, but right, wrong or indifferent, I execute the orders I get within the scope of my lane, in the best and most moral manner possible. I hold no allegiance to any person in particular except for my family and friends.
11) If you think I’m a tool (just a tool in general, or a tool of the administration), well, you go right ahead and keep thinking that. I won’t change your mind, and I don’t intend to. But I would like you to consider that other points of view are not necessarily wrong if they don’t fit into your prefabricated notions of how the world is or should be. |
|
Re: World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2005
|
Dose of Reality, last things first:
1) Officers don’t “re-up.”
2) Your attacks on my name are devastating. What’s yours again?
3) Wow, there’s that haughty intellectual elitism again from the vocal minority that infuriates and ostracizes so many that they would rather be anti-“progressive” than actually embrace that or any other ideology. Keep up that condescending tone – your aim at your foot is better than mine at your head.
4) Did I use the words “patriot” or “UN-american?” That’s a negative, Ghost Rider. I said “anti-US,” as in: “hoping more US troops die and are shown on CNN and the federal government’s mission fails and our military is globally embarrassed in order to say ‘I told you so.’” All sides, left, right and otherwise have bastardized the word “Patriot.” Which is unfortunate, because I happen to like the sound of the word itself. “UN-American” doesn’t even make sense to use in this context – that would be those who aren’t American citizens.
5) Drive on with that 1st Amendment – I never said Ricky didn’t have the right to think or say what he wants. But I have the right to say what I think about him and his rhetoric. And you have the right to say what you think about me. If I “branded” Ricky as anything, then apparently my opinion means something to you. Otherwise, my words are just so much garbage that you disregard as incoherent drivel anyway because I don’t agree with you, yes?
6) DU – the 120mm SABOT is the only commonly used DU round in the US arsenal, fired from an M1A1 tank. We’re not using SABOT rounds against the insurgency – they’re heavy darts (the projectile itself is less than two inches in diameter and is not explosive) that are for heavy armor penetration. It makes no sense to use a SABOT round even against a structure, as it does little or no damage to an open system like a building, or even a car with glass windows. Only in a closed system, like a buttoned-up tank, does the overpressure cause any effect. The DU issues in question are from the 1st Gulf War and from the initial attack in the second. A traditional lead small arms bullet is much more effective against personnel. A 25mm HE round, 120mm HE round, AT-4 or TOW missile is much more effective against buildings and civilian vehicles. And AT-4 and TOW use is severely restricted in urban areas. Are SABOT rounds being used anyway against insurgents and buildings? I’m sure you can dig up something that says we are, but I can assure you that those cases are few and far between, as it makes no tactical sense to use them.
7) Concerning DU itself – I am well aware of health issues related to DU dust. I’ve accepted that, and many other hazards in my line of work. DU is bad stuff. So are mines, IEDs, gas, and oh yeah, people who want to kill me because of the uniform I wear. It comes with the territory. Do I like DU? Noooo… Do I have to deal with it? Yep, until DoD R&D finds a better alternative.
8) I only have one party line – “Do other legitimate views exist that should be taken into account?” I pick and choose what I assimilate into my own views by how much I believe the sources from which those opinions and purported facts come. Yes, I have my own opinions, as clearly stated above. The problem I have is not that you and yours have opinions. The problem I have is that you honestly believe that you are infallibly correct and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and dumb and a stupid-head.
9) “This war is for oil and the corporations” certainly sounds like the lefty party line to me…but for all the browbeating, condescending holier-than-thou garbage on this site, it often provides another aspect to consider in many arenas. (Are you taking notes on how to be a team player and listen to others? You don’t have to like it, but it would behoove you to listen.)
10) Why I do what I do is of no concern to you. I took an oath to the State and Federal Constitutions, not any administration. That doesn’t mean that I get to arbitrarily decide which orders I like and don’t like depending on my mood or political bent – the other half of that oath is to obey the orders of those appointed over me. It means that all current situations and leadership are temporary, bad decisions will need to be fixed, good decisions will need to be maintained, superiors will get promoted or move on, but right, wrong or indifferent, I execute the orders I get within the scope of my lane, in the best and most moral manner possible. I hold no allegiance to any person in particular except for my family and friends.
11) If you think I’m a tool (just a tool in general, or a tool of the administration), well, you go right ahead and keep thinking that. I won’t change your mind, and I don’t intend to. But I would like you to consider that other points of view are not necessarily wrong if they don’t fit into your prefabricated notions of how the world is or should be. |
|
Re: World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2005
|
While I personally enjoy Dose of Reality's acerbic wit, I'm afraid the debate has deteriorated away from the main issues. Since Officer Mortland obviously has a good mind, is there any chance he might be able to address what Baldwin, et al, are really protesting: FOREIGN POLICY!!!!
To help, maybe Officer Mortland could answer these questions:
1) Was Saddam's stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction a sufficient enough threat to the continental United States to warrant an all-out invasion of Iraq?
2) If this war is about the human rights of Iraqi citizens, then why don't we invade the Sudan as well? Should this be the role of the United States, "policeman of the world"?
3) If this war is about terrorism, why doesn't the United States invade Saudi Arabia?
4) Are you satisfied with the criminal investigation of 9-11? Do you believe the people who helped to conspire the attacks on 9-11 have been successfully identified and apprehended?
5) Can the United States govern an additional 26 million Iraqis?
6) When does a nation's sovereignty, its right to self-determination, become null and void and require outside military intervention?
What I do not question here, is Officer Mortland's dedication to his country and his allegiance to his unit. His service is respected and gratefully appreciated.
That said, as an American citizen, I remain confused, outraged, and suspicious why the Officer Mortlands of the world have been sent to start a fight and kill Iraqis, and then hang around to react to every crazy, religous nut's latest atrocity. Perhaps Officer Mortland might have some insights what the Pentagon, White House, and State Department are thinking in regards to Iraq. (And Dose of R., you are one funny writer even if you don't mean to be. Keep up the good work.) |
|
Re: World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
by James Mortland
james.mortland (nospam) us.army.mil (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2005
|
*Reality check!* Thanks, Local, I needed that.
Unfortunately, I wasn't trying to address those issues directly. It probably sounds like a cop-out, but my original focus wasn't intended to be on the foreign policy issues themselves, but the fact that there are alternative views that are often ignored, no matter which part of the ideological spectrum each individual calls home.
There's questions I'd like answered as well, but in recent years I've drifted away from the "why is/isn't X this way?" (external and backward-looking) to "how can I accomplish X from the point I'm currently at?" (internal and forward-looking)
I'm biting my tounge regarding the issues you've brought up, because - point blank - it's an excercise in futility to bring up mainstream or right wing views on this website.
The only thing that baiting (or taking the bait) does here is cause me to spend more time typing, and cause Dose of Reality to piss himself. Nothing gets resolved, no one wins, because no one wants to back down and comprimise in a reasonable manner - myself often included.
Occasionally I read things here that just torque me the wrong way a bit too far and I just have to post things like my initial response - and then I wind up in a week-long ideological battle.
By the way, "Officer Mortland" makes me sound like a cop. James or Mortland would be fine, but I do thank you for the kudos. |
|
Re: World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
by bystander
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2005
|
|
My views are more in line with Dose than with Mortland, but I must disagree with LY's reference to Dose's "acerbic wit." Quite the contrary, I find Dose to be an arrogant, petulant, and childish little prick who can't take on a serious argument without insulting people. He's an excellent illustration of someone who believes in progressive causes -- until it comes to speaking respectfully to another human being. |
|
Re: World-renowned peace activist in Champaign |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Sep 2005
|
Well, Mr. Mortland, you are free to stay out of the debate here if you want. This site is intended to be a forum for good conversations and you are welcome to publish whatever views you wish. Realize, when you post pre-emptive strikes like,
"Ricky, you never fail to offer the simple-minded and ubiquitously anti-US version of the truth." You're going to draw rapid fire, and indeed, mire yourself in the futility you speak of.
It's too bad we can't have point-counterpoint debates with knowledgable people like yourself and Dose, but maybe wars bring out the strongest of passions in us all and such a debate is not possible.
I will note that your practical philosophy of how to accomplish X from where you are currently at may keep you alive during combat, however, it's the White House's, Pentagon's, and State Department's job to ask why this and why that before sending you to accomplish X. And as citizens, we have the right to question why they are sending Mr. Mortland to where he is at and what is the X he is supposed to be accomplishing. And as sure as Colin Powell's little viles in front of the UN, these are fair questions to ask. Or maybe I'm being simple-minded. |
|
