Green Party: Seeking Peace on 9/11

This message was part of an e-mail sent out from national Green Party headquarters today, September 11, 2009:

Seeking Peace on 9/11

Today members of the Green Party of the United States and our state Green Parties reflect on a number of personal tragedies resulting from the events of September 11, 2001, and continue to work to prevent further tragedies resulting from these events.

We note the importance of remembering those who died eight years ago and those survivors who work today for justice, peace, and the stability of a sustainable, democratic society.

We urge the Obama administration to fulfill the promises made to reverse the Bush administration policy of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to 9/11.  We challenge President Obama to abandon his plans to commit another 20,000 American troops to the occupation of Afghanistan and demand that he withdraw all troops from Iraq, as he had promised during his Presidential campaign.

We believe that building a strong base of Green officeholders will increase pressure on the local, state, and federal level for more peaceful alternatives to occupation and war.  We need your support to run more candidates.

On September 20th, 2001, the Green Party of the United States noted that a military response to the events of September 11, 2001 would lead to “a protracted war [that] will result in thousands, perhaps millions more civilian casualties, including many Americans, leading to further attacks against the U.S. and other nations and to possible destabilization of a region that includes Pakistan, which owns nuclear weapons…”

The Green Party notes that although a major incident has yet to occur in the United States, the U.S.-led response to the events of September 11, 2001 has resulted in 5,130 American deaths, over 30,000 injuries to American soldiers, an unknown number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan – listed in published reports as anywhere between 100,000 and one million people – major bombings in Madrid in March of 2004 and London in July of 2005, and continued instability through the Middle East.

The Green Party continues to work toward its goal, also stated on September 20, 2001, of “peace with justice: peace which preserves the human rights and stability for all people in the Middle East, the U.S., and the rest of the world, and justice for those who have suffered death, injury, and loss”.

Today we remember the losses of September 11, 2001, and re-commit ourselves to building a nation of peace, justice, human rights, and stability through our continued growth as an alternative to two administrations of war.  We hope you will continue to support the Green Party of the United States.

34 thoughts on “Green Party: Seeking Peace on 9/11

  1. Kimberly Wilder Post author

    I love the Green Party press release. But, I did want to point out something that my husband constantly notes:

    Obama did keep his promises. Obama was never a peace candidate (even though people sold shirts with his name and peace signs.) During the presidential campaign, Obama specifically promised a surge in Afghanistan.

    So, I like the Green Party press release. But, it is a little bit of lazy messaging to suggest that Obama ever did say “peace.” It’s kind of what the peace movement and deceived Democrats are saying. Instead of admitting that during the campaign, they were either to enraptured to hear that Obama was for war, or too pointedly strategic against the Reps to care that Obama was for war.

  2. HS

    First, Kimberly stated what I was thinking in that President Obama promised to wind down Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. The Green Party is simply wrong and putting their hearts before reality.

    I do have an honest question. Realizing that we live in the real world, what would the Greens propose we do in the event of another major terror attack on the US? I suspect something that would be construed as appeasement, with WWII European history as a guide, but I really do want to know. Again, not meant to be an attack on the Green Party. They have very lofty and admirable goals, I just want to know how they would handle another terror event.

  3. Thomas M. Sipos

    A few years ago, listening to Air America, I heard some woman (Rachel Madow, perhaps?) intimating that Bush was crazy because he’d attacked Iraq, making it harder to battle the real threat from Iran or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia (because most of the 9/11 attackers being Saudi Arabian).

    I’ve heard that Michael Moore’s film, Fahrenheit 9/11 (which I confess, I never saw), intimated that Bush should have gone after Saudi Arabia, instead or Iraq. (Why, because a few individual terrorists were Saudi Arabian?)

    My point is, I think many “progressives” are more concerned with electing Democrats, and thereby obtaining at least some power, than they are with real peace intitiatives.

    This being so, many “progressives” will balance their condemnation of a Republican war (Iraq) by bashing some other Muslim or Arab nation. This way, they’re hinting to the American people: “See, we’re not anti-American. We support war too! We bash Arabs too! We only oppose the way Bush is fighting the war, or the specific Arabs he’s attacking. But we’re not crazy, extremist peaceniks. We can be trusted with power. Please elect Democrats and we promise to bomb some Arab nation somewhere.”

    “Progressives,” and certain “libertarians,” need to stop worrying about being called anti-American, they need to stop caring what voters think, and just speak what’s in their peacenik hearts and let the chips fall where they may.

    Winning elections is not worth the cost of selling your soul.

  4. B

    “I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” – Barack Obama, 2/19/08 http://bit.ly/o0YIV

    Sounds like a promise to end the war in Iraq that has so far been broken, unless he makes major moves in the next three months.

  5. B

    HS –

    Whenever I am faced with a question about what to do about something, political or otherwise, before I ask myself “What do I do to get out of this?” I ask myself “What did I do to get into this?” That way I can know that if the thing I do to respond to a situation is similar to what I did to bring the situation about, I might not want to do it. Instead of asking “what would you do if there were a terrorist attack?” ask “if there were a terrorist attack, why would it happen?” The answer would likely be that someone was angry that a foreign power was threatening their way of life, sovereignty, self-determination, etc on a mission of spreading “democracy,” maintaining control of fossil fuel resources, maintaining military hegemony, preserving geopolitical stability, etc.

    The first step is to back away from these things, because they only incite more reaction. If we do that, I bet there will be less chance of a terrorist attack. If I did happen, do what the GP suggested: seek “peace with justice”. Bring those who commit terrorism to justice, while maintaining a peaceful relationship with those who had nothing to do with it.

  6. HS

    Thanks, B! I think energy independence and renewable energy for our cars and power could significantly reduce our footprint in the world if our government desired to go that route. In that angle, I can agree with you to some extent.

    I am confused about the “bring those who commit terrorism to justice” comment. That shows you are willing to seek criminal justice against them. But Afghanistan is a good example of the Taliban government hosting those who committed the crime (if we are to refer to 9/11 as a crime). Our law makes it illegal to aid and abet a crime, to include accessory after the fact, knowingly housing them and such. In your view, how far do we go to bring them to justice?

  7. HS

    Sorry for the incessant questions. I just want to better understand the mindset instead of being outright dismissive.

  8. libertariangirl

    B–Instead of asking “what would you do if there were a terrorist attack?” ask “if there were a terrorist attack, why would it happen?”

    me_ awesome statement!

  9. libertariangirl

    “terrorism” is in the eyes of the beholder. all violence is terrorism if your on the receiving end

  10. libertariangirl

    ‘seems like it will be an endless price-tag thats so tremendous ,
    and most disturbingly the death toll is so horrendous
    so I send this to those that say they defend us
    send us into harms way , we should all make a remembrance that…
    this is bigger than terrorism
    blood is blood is blood and um
    LOVE IS TRUE VISION

    michal franti / Bomb the World
    ‘you can bomb the world to pieces , but you cant bomb it into peace’

  11. Gene Trosper

    Until the green party embraces the principle of non-aggression, I remain skeptical of their “peace and justice” mantra. Peace and justice begins at home. When their platform and activists reject using force to achieve their laudable goals, then they can truly work for peace and justice because no matter what the scale — city hall or the killing fields in a foreign land — peace and justice can never be accomplished through threats and force.

  12. paulie

    B makes good points here.

    Heather,

    I am confused about the “bring those who commit terrorism to justice” comment. That shows you are willing to seek criminal justice against them. But Afghanistan is a good example of the Taliban government hosting those who committed the crime (if we are to refer to 9/11 as a crime). Our law makes it illegal to aid and abet a crime, to include accessory after the fact, knowingly housing them and such. In your view, how far do we go to bring them to justice?

    Not very far. The Taliban government asked for evidence of the charges against the suspects before handing them over to a foreign (infidel) court, as their religion requires them to do for guests in their “house”. The US demanded that they be handed over without any evidence being provided, which is what led to the war.

  13. paulie

    no matter what the scale — city hall or the killing fields in a foreign land — peace and justice can never be accomplished through threats and force.

    True.

  14. HS

    Paulie,

    Under your logic, could we have used the admissions and evidence of the Africa embassy bombings to present to the Taliban government in an effort to bring al Queda leaders to justice? We also could use the USS Cole if there was direct evidence or admissions at that time too.

    But I suspect the Taliban would not have granted permission to enter their house. I do remember they used the Christian missionary women as negotiating leverage, saying they would release them if we agreed not to attack.

  15. Dave Schwab

    “Realizing that we live in the real world, what would the Greens propose we do in the event of another major terror attack on the US?”

    I think Ralph Nader’s response was reasonable – go after Osama Bin Laden and bring him and his minions to justice. Sort of makes more sense than launching two aggressive wars at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and the American Constitution.

    “This being so, many “progressives” will balance their condemnation of a Republican war (Iraq) by bashing some other Muslim or Arab nation. This way, they’re hinting to the American people: “See, we’re not anti-American. We support war too! We bash Arabs too! We only oppose the way Bush is fighting the war, or the specific Arabs he’s attacking. But we’re not crazy, extremist peaceniks. We can be trusted with power. Please elect Democrats and we promise to bomb some Arab nation somewhere.”

    “Progressives,” and certain “libertarians,” need to stop worrying about being called anti-American, they need to stop caring what voters think, and just speak what’s in their peacenik hearts and let the chips fall where they may.”

    That is how Democrats behave, not progressives. Did the Green Party ever try to act tough by saying we should bomb some other Arab nation? No, it did not. But Democrats, and their fake anti-war organizations like MoveOn, always try to appease the military-industrial complex while convincing anti-war voters to stay in the tent. Pretty easy for them, actually – talk peace, and make war. MoveOn gets what they want, and so do Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

    (By the way, progressive does not equal Democrat. Democrats recently moved to steal the label, because they made ‘liberal’ seem pretty bad. But that doesn’t make Democrats any more progressive than Bush was conservative. Democrats are corporatist liberals.)

    Anyway, we still haven’t talked about the root of anti-American terrorism.
    *warning, close page now to avoid CIA entanglement*
    The US’s unquestioning support for Israel’s military action against Palestine, including the recent slaughter in Gaza and the introduction of apartheid, has made a lot of Muslims very unhappy. In countries like Saudi Arabia, they have a difficult time expressing their unhappiness, since the United States is propping up a military dictatorship to ensure that the oil keeps flowing.

    In this situation, you create lots of desperate, angry people. How can we deal with it? Either use military force to keep the Arab world in the constant grip of the US. Or support democracy everywhere and resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict in a fair, mutually acceptable way. The latter approach is what we call peace with justice.

  16. armando

    man lidia is sitting next to me and were having a converstion abou this topic. this is so sad i wish that this never would have happened. i am an ib world student and i think that the paquistanians should not have doen this.! 🙁

  17. lily

    hey armando isnt this so sad…..
    good thing we werent there wen that hapend

    i just love you alot armando

    muuuaa

  18. armando

    man why didnt this site post my comment. i think that oboma has done a great job so far in office. i mean come he is way better than bush.! and thats what is so important. he is trying his best to do what he can for this country and all we want to do is critisize him for what he hasnt done. look at the postitves. and plus too i think that bush should have been more hands on with the whole terrorist bombing. so i think that obama should keep doing what he is doing because he is doing it well.!

  19. paulie

    Heather,

    Under your logic, could we have used the admissions and evidence of the Africa embassy bombings to present to the Taliban government in an effort to bring al Queda leaders to justice? We also could use the USS Cole if there was direct evidence or admissions at that time too.

    Yes, absolutely. Any evidence that would have pointed to the guilt in international crimes of people under the protection of the Taliban regime should have been presented to them with a demand for extradition. Instead, the Bush gang decides to flaunt the superior firepower of the US military and demanded that the suspects be handed over without evidence – something that I hardly imagine the US would do if the Taliban, the Chinese, or any other nation demanded the US hand over people who are living here. Even accused nazi war criminals get an appeals process in the US before they are sent to Israel or Europe for trial.


    But I suspect the Taliban would not have granted permission to enter their house. I do remember they used the Christian missionary women as negotiating leverage, saying they would release them if we agreed not to attack.

    You may or may not be correct. If at that point the evidence was flat out rejected, the invasion would have been more justifiable. Although, if I had my way, it would be legal to have sent in a strike team and assassinate the Taliban leadership – instead of a protracted war and occupation that has killed many thousands of Afghanis, Americans, and others, maimed and made homeless many more, created additional ill will that may lead to future terrorist attacks, and shows no signs of ending any time soon.

  20. Kimberly Wilder

    Gene Trosper seemed to say that the Green Party needed to have a “non-aggression stance” in order to be taken seriously on peace.

    I may be naive, but is non-aggression the same as “non-violence”?

    One of the main values of the international green movement, and the Green Party is non-violence.

  21. paulie

    @15 on that issue, you and I absolutely agree.

    Almost entirely, same here, although I would not call the Democrats corporate liberals – I still tend to use ‘liberal’ in the original, “classical” sense.

  22. paulie

    Armando,

    What exactly is Obama doing well?

    Obama has:

    Increased Bush’s military budget

    Tripled Bush’s deficit

    Expanded “nation-building” plans in the Middle East (AKA imperialism)

    Continued medical marijuana raids

    Expanded the corporate ripoffs (“bailouts, stimulus”) upon the taxvictims

    Continues (and justifies) Bush policies like torture, unauthorized wiretapping, indefinite detention without charges, etc, etc.

    Change? It’s like W went to Cabo and got a tan.

  23. Catholic Trotskyist

    This is a serious post, I promise!Kimberley, what Gene is talking about is mainly the stupid libertarian idea that taxation is aggression. Since people can go to jail for not paying taxes, it does follow that taxation actually requires a threat of violence. However, since society requires taxation in order to prevent even more violence because of the necessary government services that it pays for, this proves that the non-aggression principle doesn’t work.

    Armando, thanks for your message. Obama is indeed doing a great job. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t bring all the changes we want within a year. All that matters is that he is better than Bush, and has slowed the damage that Bush has done. Most people live in reality; they don’t care if people will really keep their promises or will give people the reforms that they really want. They just care if things are slightly better than they would have been. No amount of ballot access reform will change that. The country is divided between roughly 35% conservatives, 30% liberals, 20% moderates, 5% radical left, 5% radical right and 5% libertarian. The numbers will shift, but radical change is not expected. It’s all about who can maneuver for power.

  24. Zippy the Clown

    “Change? It’s like W went to Cabo and got a tan.”

    Sure, there’s been change. Obama added two letters to the description of the sitting president –
    – from “half-wit” to “half-white.”

  25. Eric Dondero

    Fuck the Peace. What we Libertarians need is a renewed commitment to fighting and DEFEATING!!! Islamo-Fascism, in Europe, Asia, and most especially right here at home, (under the guise of Obama-ism).

    Those fuckers killed 3,000 of our compatriots. Revenge their deaths!!!

    As Todd Beamer said: “Let’s Roll…”

  26. The New New New New Reform Movement [?????????]

    “Obama did keep his promises. Obama was never a peace candidate (even though people sold shirts with his name and peace signs.)”

    Kim, how ever, his main slogan and thrust was “Change”! [It made some of the papers, I remember seeing it more than once!]

    The only “change” [Dumbankie at Treasury, Gates at DoD, and a wide spread paradigm akin to George W’s third term] Citizens For A Better Veterans Home has been able to find is rifling thru the sofa cushions ……….

    Don Lake, don’t blame me:

    Perot Perot Nader Nader Nader

  27. W is a 911 terrorist

    #33 is correct and there will be no peace without justice for the real 9/11 terrorists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *