From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Direct Action to Stop the War :: Press Conference
Tuesday 04 March 2003, San Francisco :: a broad coalition calls on the world to "break the rules" in the event of war :: mass direct action, civil disobedience and non-cooperation to shutdown San Francisco's financial district
Standing in front of the Pacific Stock Exchange at Pine and Sansome, anti-poverty organizer Jason Negrón-Gonzáles (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), labor organizer Howard Wallace (SF Labor Council), Grey Panther Margot Smith, Veteran for Peace George Johnson, Kate Raphael (Out Against the War), Friar Louie Vitale, Arab-American anti-capitalist Rayan El-Amine, organizer Renee Saucedo (SF Day Laborers Program), and establishmentarian R. Warren Langley (fmr. President, Pacific Stock Exchange; ret. Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force) hold a press conference calling for "direct action to stop the war."
download player [part 2 and audio-only follow]
download player [part 2 and audio-only follow]
For more information:
http://www.actagainstwar.org
Listen now:
video:
dasw.ram
RealVideo metafile
RealVideo metafile
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
hey, any posibility of uploading another version of the DASW press video? lots of players don't support mp4.
best,
-skye
best,
-skye
I just caught Langley on The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly started the segment by warning that once the bombs start dropping all dissenters should shut up. He then interviewed Langley about his contemplated civil disobedience. By the end, it looked like Langley had succeeded in shutting up O'Reilly when he told him he didn't care what O'Reilly thought of him and that he was ready to face the consequences for his actions. A little breakthrough moment there.
I worked closely with Warren Langley at one time when we were involved with the test and development of missile guidance systems for the Dept. of Defense, and I considered him a good and admired friend. We continued to exchange Christmas cards for a number of years after he moved on, but we finally lost contact.
I would like to send him a somewhat personal message regarding his intention to "stop the war." I read with great interest his article and found his reasons to be noble, as expected. However, I would like to point out a contradiction in his argument.
Mr. Langley says that he supports disarming the Iraqi government and feels that, among other things, "constant pressure" is an important tool toward that goal. This is where the contradiction comes in. Constant pressure is exactly what is being applied and has been for some months. But every display of public disapproval such as demonstrations against the war only serve to reduce the pressure and to convince Saddam that the American people are opposed to war and that our president surely won't dare to proceed in making good his threat. Unless the pressure game can be continued with intensity, it will fail.
So far the pressure has succeeded in the destruction of a few missiles. Not nearly good enough. It has provoked discussions and debates in the United Nations which have brought the issue to the attention of the entire world. As a result, most Americans are becoming aware that indeed Hussein is a threat to our safety, a brutal despot, and a liar. This realization is progress at least.
A disruption of business will certainly serve to hurt our economy and result in a financial hardship to millions of Americans, but is this really what you hope to achieve? It will not bring the troops home; to believe so is naive. It will undoubtedly reassure Saddam that there is no real resolve in America to disarm him, and so the bluff will be called, and the game will be over one way or the other.
Each person must do what his conscience dictates. Thankfully doing so is still possible in this country. The good and innocent people of Iraq deserve the same freedom.
I would like to send him a somewhat personal message regarding his intention to "stop the war." I read with great interest his article and found his reasons to be noble, as expected. However, I would like to point out a contradiction in his argument.
Mr. Langley says that he supports disarming the Iraqi government and feels that, among other things, "constant pressure" is an important tool toward that goal. This is where the contradiction comes in. Constant pressure is exactly what is being applied and has been for some months. But every display of public disapproval such as demonstrations against the war only serve to reduce the pressure and to convince Saddam that the American people are opposed to war and that our president surely won't dare to proceed in making good his threat. Unless the pressure game can be continued with intensity, it will fail.
So far the pressure has succeeded in the destruction of a few missiles. Not nearly good enough. It has provoked discussions and debates in the United Nations which have brought the issue to the attention of the entire world. As a result, most Americans are becoming aware that indeed Hussein is a threat to our safety, a brutal despot, and a liar. This realization is progress at least.
A disruption of business will certainly serve to hurt our economy and result in a financial hardship to millions of Americans, but is this really what you hope to achieve? It will not bring the troops home; to believe so is naive. It will undoubtedly reassure Saddam that there is no real resolve in America to disarm him, and so the bluff will be called, and the game will be over one way or the other.
Each person must do what his conscience dictates. Thankfully doing so is still possible in this country. The good and innocent people of Iraq deserve the same freedom.
> Hussein is a threat to our safety
Please explain exactly how he is a threat to the US. With his missiles that can fly 100 miles?
> The good and innocent people of Iraq deserve the same freedom.
And they will gain it for themselves, from the bottom up. As they did in Indonesia, against a far more murderous dictator armed by the US.
Please explain exactly how he is a threat to the US. With his missiles that can fly 100 miles?
> The good and innocent people of Iraq deserve the same freedom.
And they will gain it for themselves, from the bottom up. As they did in Indonesia, against a far more murderous dictator armed by the US.
The bellicose nature of the Bush administratration has accomplished much more than just destroying a few absolete missiles in Iraq. It has also provoked nations all around the world that have found themselves on Bush's sixty-plus long hit-list of countries to attack to attempt to develop their own WMD programs to defend themselves from history's largest and most sophisticated army every.
What lesson will Iran learn from the double standard applied to N. Korea compared to Iraq (i.e. secretly assemble a small nuclear stockpile and be able to threaten U.S. allies in the region). Furthermore, what would we say to a country like Russia or China if they were to invade a country on their border under the banner of the war on terrorism.
Even more likely would be the implementation of the so-called 'transfer' plan in Palestine. Under the fog of war, Israel has openly admitted its intentions not only to retaliate against Iraq, but also to target thousand and thousands of Palestinean organizers and community leaders, as well as those live in areas designated for future settlements.
Even if you think that bombing Iraq (with more bombs on the first day than were dropped during the entire Gulf War) is what's best for Iraq, you must also deal with the direct effects of that action. Do we really think that taking out Saddam (along with hundreths of thousands of Iraqi civilians) will make us any safer from international terrorists, upset with U.S foreign policy, who can go plenty of other places other than Iraq to buy their weapons. If we are ever to make ourselves safe again, it will have to come through the mobilization of our vast resources to help ameliorate the acute social problems that breed and promote exactly what Bush says he's fighting.
What lesson will Iran learn from the double standard applied to N. Korea compared to Iraq (i.e. secretly assemble a small nuclear stockpile and be able to threaten U.S. allies in the region). Furthermore, what would we say to a country like Russia or China if they were to invade a country on their border under the banner of the war on terrorism.
Even more likely would be the implementation of the so-called 'transfer' plan in Palestine. Under the fog of war, Israel has openly admitted its intentions not only to retaliate against Iraq, but also to target thousand and thousands of Palestinean organizers and community leaders, as well as those live in areas designated for future settlements.
Even if you think that bombing Iraq (with more bombs on the first day than were dropped during the entire Gulf War) is what's best for Iraq, you must also deal with the direct effects of that action. Do we really think that taking out Saddam (along with hundreths of thousands of Iraqi civilians) will make us any safer from international terrorists, upset with U.S foreign policy, who can go plenty of other places other than Iraq to buy their weapons. If we are ever to make ourselves safe again, it will have to come through the mobilization of our vast resources to help ameliorate the acute social problems that breed and promote exactly what Bush says he's fighting.
Your qualifications are irrelevant unless you're talking physics, Jude - in which case you still have to provide evidence supporting your argument - not just your faith-based opinion. Science doesn't work on faith.
"The good and innocent people of Iraq deserve the same freedom. "
Zionist Project for the New American Century - p14
=======================================
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,
the
need
for
a
substantial
American
force
presence
in
the
Gulf
transcends <--
the <--
issue <--
of
the
regime
of
Saddam
Hussein."
===================================
So.....why are you lying to us, Jude?
What is your motive?
"The good and innocent people of Iraq deserve the same freedom. "
Zionist Project for the New American Century - p14
=======================================
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,
the
need
for
a
substantial
American
force
presence
in
the
Gulf
transcends <--
the <--
issue <--
of
the
regime
of
Saddam
Hussein."
===================================
So.....why are you lying to us, Jude?
What is your motive?
Judith Claussen/Warren Langley
i have interpretated the role of UNMOVIC in Iraq to include inspection, verification and continued monitoring to disarm Iraq of prohibited weapons of mass destruction. UNMOVIC, composed of scientific experts and financed by the "oil for food" program, is the group to safely and economically disarm Iraq. Their mandate for the continued monitoring would prevent Iraq re-acquiring prohibited weapons.
i have interpretated the role of UNMOVIC in Iraq to include inspection, verification and continued monitoring to disarm Iraq of prohibited weapons of mass destruction. UNMOVIC, composed of scientific experts and financed by the "oil for food" program, is the group to safely and economically disarm Iraq. Their mandate for the continued monitoring would prevent Iraq re-acquiring prohibited weapons.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network