Tell Congress: No War On Iran

| Resist!

  • voza0db

    CALL and don’t forget to call them the REAL NAMES!

  • Alan MacDonald
  • Great video share dB.

    This is the kind of savvy protest I could get behind. I do have a caveat though as just marching in the streets and stating truths will not change a darn thing – so, tell us activist leaders, what’s the master plan? How do you propose we get the job done? Give me a good reason to invest my time and risk my freedom. The cause is just but we need a method to win not just the day but the future.

  • kevinzeese

    We will be building a campaign around this issue. The major goal of any campaign is to create a national consensus on the issue and a mass movement that cannot be ignored. The protests in the street, like the above one in LA, and the others held in 90 cities is one tactic. We will keep building that tactic so those protests grow. The phone calls to Congress as described on this page is another. Movements require campaigns using a variety of tactics to succeed. No one tactic is going to be sufficient. One of the strategies of the antiwar movement is to link the issue to others, e.g. the climate crisis which cannot be confronted without facing up to militarism, racism abroad and at home where militarized police terrorize many black and brown communities. If we can combine these issues, this will be a significant movement. We see the potential of this campaign to be a dominant force in the 2020 election year. The fact that it is an anti-Trump election year means that Democrats will participate in the movement. This could help it grow tremendously. One key will be, if Trump is removed and replaced by a Dem is to keep the antiwar and movements going and not destroyed by the Democratic president, as Obama was so good at doing.

    We discuss a lot of this in our movement school, see www. PopularResistance.org/school/

  • I concur that a good strategy employs multiple tactics.

    What I am hearing about that strategy and tactics from reading your response is this…

    Build a mass of loud angry people touting signs in the majority of cities and streets across the country.

    Call Congress and tell them you don’t like what they’re doing and we the people won’t vote for you next time if you don’t change your ways (we the people don’t have the budget to compete with the 1%ers by the way so we wont’ be able to pay you enough to do what we say so just know Congressperson that when you’re ‘elected’ again, we’ll keep calling and tell you what a poor excuse for a human being we think you are – Take That Congressperson!)

    Get Democrats to participate in the movement (Democrats are just as much a part of the warmonger system as the Republicans are so how does this benefit the anti-war movement?) Both Obama (D) and Trump (R) made campaign promises to end wars – did either follow through?

    Get a Democrat in office vs. Trump and keep the anti-war movement going (it was not Obama that dissolved the old anti-war movement; it was the people who believed this new president would make things okay again so they went back to their everyday lives because they wanted to and they needed to). Take away the perceived cause of the problem (Trump) and you take away the reason and fervor for participation in the movement.

    Did I accurately comprehend the plan? If I did not, please correct my misconceptions. I may be coming across as an a*s; please understand that I wouldn’t bother to say anything if I didn’t give a damn. I would much rather give positive and encouraging feedback; but, I am not a politician and I will not spout lies just to get you to like me enough to ‘vote’ for me.

  • voza0db

    If they are REALLY INTELLIGENT slaves they can’t tell on unencrypted medium what the plans are!

  • Okay I’m feeling a little abashed at being so critical of the work others do. So, I’ll offer up something that may be found constructive instead.

    Let’s conduct an abbreviated thought experiment with a hypothetical scenario. Here’s the scenario – A nation is facing an existential threat from an external nation. This external nation is committed to subjugating our nation so it can control and exploit our nation’s wealth. Our nation has no intention of being subjugated by another nation. So our nation has to figure out how to stop this.
    The initial thing we do is frame our objective: Prevent immediate threat of subjugation and remove threat of future aggression by this nation while minimizing harm to our own nation. Then we need to go through the lengthy process of determining how.

    First we assess the aggressor nation’s strengths – 1) bigger more advanced military 2) greater financial strength 3) leadership suffers from moral disengagement 4) effective domestic propaganda machine 5) a few powerful allies. Next we assess their weaknesses – 1) Their home base is far away so it costs them more to do battle on our home turf 2) Deluded as their domestic population is, they do not want a military conflict 3) they have multiple valuable assets within reach of our military 4) they are scorned by a majority of other nations 5) their aggression toward our nation may expand to many other bystander nations.

    Next we assess our nation’s strengths – 1) united populace willing to fight to the death to protect their country, their home, their way of life 2) many local and distant ally nations 3) we have the home turf advantage 4) we possess the moral high ground as the attacked 5) we have valuable assets we can trade for external assistance. Then we assess our weaknesses – 1) smaller military 2) it may be costly for our allies to assist us 3) our home turf contains our families and food source 4) our sustenance stores are diminished 5) our adversary does not respect the rule of law.

    Now we determine what opportunities may exist such as using diplomacy (mutual gain) to convince our allies to assist us by preventing our adversary from using their turf as a staging area and using small units for gorilla attacks to disable key military installations. Always making sure our how works toward our objective.

    And we determine the threats such as what might our adversary do in response to our tactics such as use bombs to wipe out our military bases.

    And we reassess our plans according to those opportunities and threats until we have thought of every potential opportunity we can exploit and every possible weakness we can shore up and every action our adversary may take and every response to our actions our adversary might make until we are confident we have a winning plan with multiple backup plans that all work toward our objective of vanquishing this aggressive nation.

    This thought experiment, in great brevity, touched on SWOT analysis followed by strategic and tactical planning. This process is used in board rooms and war rooms. It can be very helpful in producing a successful path forward (as long as the details of the plan are not made public of course).

    Whether we participate to play or participate to win depends on the stakes in the game. My view is that a war with Iran raises the stakes to the level of a potential global war. Those are high stakes that in my view necessitate doing our utmost to win (prevent war or stop is before it spirals out of control) or many lives may be lost including our own. So, while acting in an a**holish manner is not excusable, perhaps under the circumstances (at least my view of them), it is understandable.

  • Yes I’m aware of that dB.

  • kevinzeese

    Not quite. It is not an electoral-based strategy. When I said get Democrats involved, I was talking about Democratic voters. They swelled the peace movement during the Bush era. I see a lot of Democrat-groups today on email pushing various actions to stop the war against Iran. There is potential there to get them involved in efforts to stop the Iran escalation.

    The problem with this is that groups like MoveOn and DFA are so aligned with the Democratic Party that when push comes to shove, they will put the Democratic Party ahead of the peace movement. This was a problem during the Iraq War under Bush. We had an excellent movement, not only big marches of tens of thousands or even more than 100,000 but a wide array of other actions, e.g. confronting elected officials at public meetings, sitting in offices in Congress, mass telephone campaigns, teach-ins etc.

    At a key point in 2006 when pressure was building to stop funding for the Iraq War, we were on the verge of winning. Democrats were caught in a difficult situation. MoveOn saved them by coming out for an alternative to a bill that stopped the funding for the war. They supported a bill that stopped funding except to stop terrorism, protect US troops etc. The exceptions basically meant funding would continue. When MoveOn did that they stabbed the peace movement in the back and gave Democrats an out — they could vote to stop war funding but in a bill that was so weak with exceptions that swallowed cutting war funding.

    We need to build a mass movement that represents national consensus on specific issues, with a small percentage of people who are active in various forms of strategic protest. That is the kind of movement that no politician can ignore. That is our task — mass movement building with strategic and aggressive actions.

  • Thank you for the clarification and historical content. Honesty, I’m not convinced that strategy (based on what you’ve shared on this public site) will work in this day and age. I think it will raise awareness but I don’t believe it will stop the war machine. I hope I am wrong and that everyone involved (for the sake of all of us) experiences great success.

  • Alan MacDonald
  • Michael Falk

    Nothing will work until the government and their corporate masters are brought to their knees and the only way to do that is to close down the entire country like the French have done. Pick a day, Memorial Day, Independence day, Labor Day, whatever, to close down all commerce, all transportation, schools, no work, etc for a massive demonstration on Washington that will not abate until demands are met. It will take a lot of coordination, planning and money to pull it off but other countries aside from France have been able to do so as long as the will and method are there. Monumental change requires monumental action. Demonstration in the streets will not do it if you simply consider what we’re up against and it’s significant to say the least.If Americans aren’t angry enough to put aside their luxuries and conveniences to participate in a massive display of unflagging solidarity then all else is an exercise in futility. .Revolutions, and this will require a revolution of sorts, come from the desperation of people willing to sacrifice and lose blood. Our corporate government and their media propaganda are well schooled in appeasement and delaying tactics which only adds to the difficulty of forcing the will of the people which begs the question, are we willing enough to sacrifice and loose blood?

  • Alan MacDonald

    Protest Data Base by date, location, etc. is essential.

    Are there any tech folks here??