Anti-Authoritarian Feeder March on Dec. 20th : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

On Saturday, Dec. 20th, at 11:15am, join us at the corner of W. 44th and Lorain for a drum brigade and anti-authoritarian feeder march to the NOAC rally at Market Square.

End the Occupation of Iraq!
Say NO to the "War on Terrorism!"
Bring the Troops Home Now!

In a time where Iraqis are killed by the thousands and Americans by the hundreds...

Where protesters are beaten and assaulted in Miami, and the "war on terrorism" continues to clamp down on freedoms here at home...

WE MUST RESIST!

what is a "feeder" march?
inside logo speak, dude, doesn't help get people out.

dumb du dumb dumb
by holdyourhandforyou? Saturday December 20, 2003 at 02:52 AM

Hey dude, maybe you could do a web search and find out for yourself what one is. No, you're right; too complicated. Instead, we should dumb everything down because the non-activists are too inept to know what a goddamn feeder march is.

Here's a hint...it FEEDS the MARCH.

What, you want mass famine for the people of iraq?

I agree with David. Bringing the troops home at this point would be a huge mistake. Regardless of your stance on the war, the U.S. started this and now they MUST finish it. Even hero of the far left, Howard Dean, says he would not pull the troops out until the country is stable and would actually INCREASE the force. The U.S. now has an obligation to be the leaders in the rebuilding of Iraq, not the E.U., not NATO, not the overrated beauracrats at the United Nations, but the United States. Protest the war if you want (although at this point it won't accomplish much) but use some common sense. Pulling the troops out now would be a disaster to all.

You say...

>>>The U.S. now has an obligation to be the leaders in the rebuilding of Iraq,.....

The U.S. is not going to help rebuild Iraq. The U.S. is busy turn Iraq into a colony.

Among the first steps the U.S. authority has taken in Iraq is to start to sell off state owned industries and other companies to private investors (i.e. non-Iraqis).

The U.S. should be paying reparations.

Open your eyes and use some common sense. We can't pull out right now. The place would become the worlds first 4th world country! Back in the 40's your extreme left / socialist / commie grand parents said the same thing about Germany and Japan after WW II. In the end it was the commies who became the colonist. We did our job and came home. The same thing will happen in Iraq but it won't happen over night.

Perhaps the most dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy is that U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq in order to "prevent civil war." This is an argument even accepted by some liberals who opposed the invasion of Iraq, but defend the Occupation now that the troops are there. Perhaps they have internalized the image of Muslims as uncontrollable savages out to slit throats.

The fact is that many of the ethnic and religious divisions in the Middle East have been widened, not narrowed, by colonial rule. Outsiders tend to worsen internal differences, not improve them. Continued outside interference can actually exacerbate internal tensions and in the process actually cause a civil war.

Colonial rulers have always tended to side with one faction against another. They need native leadership to help them carry out indirect rule, and often offer advantages to leadership from a particular ethnic or religious group. Belgian colonial rule over Rwanda constructed the resentment of Tutsis by Hutus, much as British colonial rule over Indian exacerbated tensions between Hindus and Muslims.

The American tendency to select "good guys" to fight "bad guys" in internal conflicts strongly resembles this colonial history. The U.S. entered Somalia as a "peacekeeping" force to keep warring clan militias apart, but took sides against one warlord, and paid the consequences. In former Yugoslavia, U.S. interventions opposed Serbian nationalists, but sided with Croatian and Albanian nationalists. The massive expulsion of Kosovar Albanians started after NATO began bombing the Serbs, and was followed by a reverse expulsion of the Serbs. Outside intervention in brought a "peace" based only on successful "ethnic cleansing."

It is simply not inevitable that in the absence of Western troops, Iraqis will naturally want to slit each others' throats. Despite their ethnic and religious diversity, Iraqis have a set of common experiences that have helped construct a state identity over the past century. Iraqis' resistance to Turkish and British colonial forces, and the overthrow of their pro-Western monarch, were only the beginning. In recent decades, Iraqis have also together faced Saddam's harsh repression, a brutal border war with Iran, and bombing, sanctions, and occupation by the Americans and British. Iraqis have far more in common with each other than with foreign rulers or exiles.

Iraqis appear to be tired of war and indignities, and tend to support a new government that incorporates Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites. Yet the CPA's Iraqi Governing Council, dominated by elite exiles, does not fit the bill. Many Iraqis resent the exiles' collaboration with the Americans, increasing the risk of a real civil war. The CPA has set up an advantage whether the Council succeeds or fails. If the Council succeeds, it will be compliant to U.S. wishes. If the Council is weakened or torn apart by its ethnic, religious or political divisions, the U.S. can justify a continued troop presence to "stabilize" the country and its oil supply.

The suggestion that full sovereignty should be delayed due to the risk of civil war is not one we would make to ourselves. Americans fought for their independence even though they were torn by internal differences. No Americans advocated in 1861 that the British should back send the redcoats to prevent our own bloody civil war. Contradictions in a sovereign state sometimes lead to a civil war, but denying full sovereignty is not a solution. Frustrated by outside control they cannot change, Iraqis may take their frustrations out on each other.

Bush is repeating the mistakes of the Roman emperors, justifying the extension of an empire by claiming the "barbarians" are not capable of ruling themselves. Our continued military presence in Iraq may not prevent a civil war, but instead guarantee one. The only way it may ultimately prevent a civil war is to turn Iraqis, regardless of their own differences, to turn against us.

This is a very thoughtful and insightful comment. I had to show my appreciation and agreement.

Exactly what happens to the economy and lack of social structure? At least with the US occupation, and it would be better with the UN, there is the hope that Iraq's destroyed social infrastructure will be rebuilt. Eventually the US will hand the government over to the people in Iraq, albeit a group that fits their political goals. Iraq needs stability and capital investment, not hollow slogans used by leftists in an attempt to use this war to party build.

I don't understand the kneejerk leftist response of saying that "oh the us won't rebuild iraq anyways", but then spouting some simplistic analysis on "war profiteering."

i don't think it's realistic that the u.s. will just leave iraq one day en mass. even if a democrat is elected they won't do that. i think the only thing that could actually happen would be if the u.n. would go in replacing u.s. soldiers and then slowly remove their global presense.

if we want the u.s. out, then the u.n. will go in. once the u.n. is in we can all put pressure on them to get out.

but either way, if the us leaves, the un will go in, and if the us doesn't leave, then the un is less likely to go in.

or so me thinks.

I don't think that the U.S. is "eventually" going to give it to the people of Iraq. By simply giving some minor "authority" to a group of thieves (aka The Governing Council) who have raped the Iraqi's of their oil, land, dignity, and structure, the U.S. is not actually handing over any form of power, but simply disguising its power under Arabic capitalists.

The U.N. is very afraid of entering the Iraqi terrory now, mainly because there is a huge anti-Western sentiment all across the nation, as well as across the whole of the Middle East. The U.N. did nothing to stop this war from happening, in the eyes of the Iraqi's, and therefore they are the profiteers as well. Plus the U.N. is fearful because it was already heavily attacked in Baghdad at the U.N. base.

Currently the majority of people in Iraq are protesting for direct democratic elections, which the U.S. is saying no to. The country is almost in a state of civil war and revolution, chaos is everywhere, and the military is having a harder and harder time mainting authority over the Iraqi population, that is why they are willing to hand some power to a Governing Council chosen by the capitalists. This is just as bad as leaving the country for the people to decide what to do with it.

The ideal situation would be to completley get out of Iraq. An even more ideal situation would be to completely get out of the Middle East, that would greatly improve relations, but that will never happen as long as the capitalists will reamin blood hungry and greedy. I'm afraid Iraq is going to become a colony for the Western powers, primarily the USA and the UK, and troops will remain and America will exercise great power over the region.

Cleveland Indy Media Center