the propeace community - The War On Terror - Comments

What We Focus On Expands

Susan Livingston — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:03:33 -0500

I've seen the progressive media pushing our panic buttons over the "impending war in Iran," and I don't want to see the propeace community accept this unfortunate bit of framing and the despair engendered by the implied inevitability of such a conflict. Please join me in grasping at four straws. If we focus on them, they will expand.

First, I think even the present administration would think twice about invading Iran if it had doubts about the willingness or ability of Israel as a strong ally, and Israel is preoccupied with the new regime in Palestine right now. Second, there is good evidence that the EU nations would not make the same mistake twice; several have committed to and already commenced significant troop withdrawals, and Iran's converting to the euro seems a friendly enough gesture. Third, it seems clear that Iran would have China as a strong ally to reinforce its home-turf advantage. Finally, with an $8+ trillion national debt, recovery from a huge natural disaster, a depleted and demoralized military, and a newly-awakened electorate, we are not the same country we were in the wake of 9/11.

Editor, propeace.net

Your Comments... The War On Terror

Jack O Roses — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:57:59 -0500

Although it was not my intention to dissect the motives of this administration, I understand clearly that the failure of their 'war on terror' policies is not a simple matter of inablility or ineptitude. I wish that it were just that. That the resources of the Middle East is THE issue and motivation of these corporate criminals should be crystal clear to anyone capable of rational, analytical thought. That this administration wishes to expand its imperialist war is made plain in the words and deeds of the members of Bush's band of war-mongers. There is apparently no limit to the American blood and treasure they are willing to expend in pursuit of their policies. Also clear is the complete inability on the part of all of our elected 'leaders' to think and act creatively; to show courage and offer an alternative to the present course of this administration .

Naturally the question arises - What shall we do "to create a peaceful world"? After exposing the motives and the "misdirection of those in power"... "what is our next step"? I personally attempt to deal with these questions in two ways - the practical and the philosophical. For the former, I will soon write and post an essay here on ProPeace that I will call "What to do? What to do." A hint - Jason is absolutely on the right track.

As for the latter, the 'philosophical', I will refer you to essays posted on my blog www.usaourcountry.blogspot.com. There I am able to make a deeper analysis of conditions and offer alternative points of view as we consider solutions to this conflict. There you will be better able to consider in a broader context my own thoughts and ideas and there you are encouraged to offer your own thoughts and perspectives.

Jack O Roses
www.usaourcountry.blogspot.com

articulating the vision

Jason White — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:37:22 -0500

stereoman wrote:

...If there were just a few thousand trained peacemakers in Iraq instead of a hundred thousand occupying troops, they might make some headway in mitigating the insurgency.

stereoman wrote:

...what business do I have criticizing my government for their way of addressing it?

I had to highlight these because they shed light on the vision that we must become even better at articulating. It is easy to read the newspaper and be outraged about how contrary "their" way of handling things seems to "us". Much harder is to pragmatically describe alternatives.

I approached my congressman (a Democrat) in person at his "Bring Home the Troops Town Hall Meeting" about the moot issue of troop levels in Iraq, saying that it really didn't matter if we had zero or 50,000 or half a million there, if we wanted real results we should replace 100,000 troops with 100,000 peacemakers. His eyes glazed over and he seemed not to even comprehend the point I was making. But to his credit, at that very meeting he announced that he was signing on the Department of Peace legislation, HR-3760, which would create a cabinet-level department for putting into practice the vision of resolving domestic and international conflict non-violently.

The American people must find and elect leaders that understand what this means and why it is important. In that respect, it is all in our hands. To those of you who are outraged and whining, get over it and let's get busy finding and empowering better leaders and building non-violence into our institutions and culture!

And while we watch the pitiful thrashing of an archaic and intensely destructive way of governance, and while we find and empower leaders who know better, we will continually address our own personal expressions of violence, including the over-use of the Earth's resources.

Many thanks, Steve.

--Jason.

perspective

stereoman — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:39:08 -0500

It is imperative at this point in time to look beyond the anti-Islamic and anti-terrorist rhetoric and focus on the economic reasons for waging war in the Middle East, because our nation is at great risk of repeating the same mistake we made in 2002, when Congress authorized the Administration to use "any means necessary" to address the perceived threats of Saddam, with accompanying Executive power "as if" war had been declared. This time of course, the target is Iran, but the reason is exactly the same. In November of 2000, Saddam painted a target on his back by switching his country's oil currency from dollars to Euro's. On Mar. 20, 2006, Iran will be doing exactly that same thing.

We cannot argue against the impending invasion of Iran on the basis of their perceived nuclear threat because it is a straw dog, just as it was in the case of Iraq.

Earlier today I was reading about the ongoing impasse between the Israeli government and the newly instated Palestinian Authority with its majority Hamas Party. Mahmoud Abbas, former Prime Minister and head of the somewhat discredited Fatah party, made the observation that "there is no military solution to this conflict."

The same is true in Iraq. I would offer a different impression from Jack's, that the struggle between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq has been going on for far longer than the Occupation, and can only be addressed, as Mr. Abbas intimated, by non-military means. If there were just a few thousand trained peacemakers in Iraq instead of a hundred thousand occupying troops, they might make some headway in mitigating the insurgency.

It's important to look at the conflict from this different perspective, not to compare current conditions to what would happen in the absence of troops, but to consider what would happen in the presence of peacemakers. Even more importantly, the impending invasion of Iran should be viewed in the context of Iraq. The invasion was based on false pretenses and as a result we are mired in an unnecessary Occupation rather than released by the completion of a necessary task.

If we look beyond the familiar "grave threat" rhetoric to the underlying reason for invading Iran, then we can recognize the enemy within: our addiction to oil. What have I done today to address my addiction to oil? If the answer is "nothing", what business do I have criticizing my government for their way of addressing it?

Steve

=========

Our lives begin to end the moment that we become silent about things that matter. (Martin Luther King Jr.)

Re: Jack,I agree with your

Artie — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:21:46 -0500

Jim Gagnepain wrote:

Jack,
I agree with your concerns about the ineffectiveness of our actions in our "War on Terror". However, I think there is more to it than that. I think this Administration has used the tragic events of 9/11 to exert our control over Mid-Eastern oil. This is why they were not content with merely pursuing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and went after Iraq.

Absolutely. Iraq is the geographic dead center for the remaining 2/3 of the world's oil reserves, and as Bush said in that rare moment of honesty, "we are addicted to oil." Addiction is a strong word, one that even Buhs supporters have a hard time with. But it's accurate. With only 5% of the worlds population, we consume 25% of the oil, more per capita than any nation on earth. For every barrel of oil we produce in the US, we import two barrels, and lots of comes from places where they don;t particularly like Americans.

The truly scary part about the addiction is that global supply is dangerously close to global demand, and demand is growing. Major supply interruptions could at occur at any time - consider the events Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran. We saw what happened to prices in the aftermath of Katrina. Imagine windless Katrinas all over the world that drives oil to $200 per barrel or more.

For an enlightening roundtable discussion of the dire implications of this addiction, check out the MP3 of James Howard Kunstler and Richard Heinberg at:

http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/roundtable/021806.html

Artie

Jack,I agree with your

Jim Gagnepain — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:19:18 -0500

A document commissioned by James Baker entitled Strategic Energy Policy Challenges was turned over to Vice President Cheney in April of 2001, 5 months before 9/11. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis.

One of the most telling passages in the document reads: 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.

'This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader ... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.

'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'

Jim
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/
Favorite Quote: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Einstein

peace is our topic

Jason White — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:43:53 -0500

Hi Jack, thank you for you very well written analysis. Tell us what you would do to create a peaceful world. Certainly a first step would be to expose the misdirection of those in power as you have done. So let's say that everything you have said is true. What is our next step?

Peace.Jason.

The War On Terror

Jack O Roses — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:31:41 -0500

Thanks for the input, Brian. Please try to stay on topic...

Jack O Roses
www.usaourcountry.blogspot.com

Elite*Justice

Rainbow Brain — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:53:47 -0500

If the American system was truly built and functioned upon the ideals and beliefs of liberty and justice for all, for the equal rights and protection of all, it would require any citizen involved in an accidental shooting or vehicular incident, etc. to appear before a district judge, and at the very least that person would be required to attend and pass a gun safety education class, or in the case of a vehicular accident it would be driving safety, just as one must undergo anger management if arrested for assault, or Alcohol treatment if convicted of a DUI.

That some are exempt or can buy their way out of these situations is proof of the propaganda farce and elite system of justice and privilege which is the true mark of an empire building and global domination driven system of government and commerce, which is only interested in creating a Ã¢â‚¬Å“demo-cracyÃ¢â‚¬Â in its own image.

BL*M

Love*Rulz - @
www.Timeless-ink-Press.com

The War On Terror

Jack O Roses — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:42:28 -0500

By all appearances, the way it was framed by Washington, the War On Terror clearly wasn't meant to be won -- merely fought. Terrorism was never defined, the enemy was never identified (beyond whatever state or entity the American government deemed "evil") and no parameters for victory were ever set