Conference turris::womannotes-v3

 
                       NEWS AND VIEWS FROM
                    RON DELLUMS OF CALIFORNIA
 
2136 Rayburn Building              201 13th Street, Suite 105
Washington, DC 20515               Oakland, CA 94617
202-225-2661                       415-763-0370
 
For Release:  January 17, 1991     Contact:  H. Lee Halterman
                                   or Donald R. Hopkins
                                   703-0370
 
DELLUMS CALLS FOR CEASEFIRE AND NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PERSIAN GULF
CONFLICT
 
Washington, DC--Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-8th C.D. Calif) today
took the well of the House of Representatives to make the
following remarks:
 
"Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I entered the well of the House and I
said to my colleagues that I did so with a very heavy heart.  I
tried without success to challenge my colleagues and the nation
to think beyond war as a way of solving international disputes--a
position that I arrived at with careful thought as a matter of
great conscience.  I enter the well again today with a very heavy
heart.
 
"Shortly after 6:30pm yesterday evening, sitting before the
television, I was suddenly numbed with the reality that we were,
in fact, at war with Iraq.
 
"And the tears just began to flow, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues
of the House.  They flowed without control.  I cried tears of
sadness, tears of outrage, tears of disappointment and tears of
self-doubt.
 
"Tears of sadness because I realized that we had placed hundreds
of thousands of people in harm's way.  And I have said for twenty
years here that I respect all life on this planet and have a
profound respect for human life and I believe that we ought to
treasure it, and it should be perceived as quite previous.
 
"I shed tears of outrage because I continue to believe,
resolutely, that we did not have to go to war, and that there is
an alternative to killing and dying..
 
"I shed tears of disappointment because, again, human beings on
this planet have lost the great opportunity--and we as people
have lost the great opportunity--to show ourselves and the world
that we have the audacity to think beyond war; that we can evolve
beyond the archaic notions of fighting and killing and dying as a
way of solving problems.
 
"And I shed tears of self-doubt, Mr. Speaker, because I sat there
in my living room, crying, trying to figure out:  was there any
other thing that I could have done--and other stone that I could
have turned--to try to prevent this incredible madness.
 
"Finally, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, let me say that as
our nation goes to war, I have great concern for our troops and
for their families back home.  While I offer every support for
our military personnel and I pray for their safety, I remain
opposed to the political decision by the President to mobilize
those troops to war.  I came to this position as a matter of
conscience  I cannot turn off my conscience for political
expediency.
 
"Mr. Speaker, if we have, indeed, demonstrated a military
superiority in this conflict, let us now call for a ceasefire and
begin the negotiations necessary to complete this conflict with
as little loss of life as possible, and regain our dignity and
regain our stature as human beings capable of thinking beyond the
madness of killing and dying.
 
"I yield back the balance of my time."

    But Herb, tell us how you *really* feel.
    
    D!

re: .1
Thanks.  Human life is well-represented in the Bay Area -- Dellums, Bates,
Pelosi, Boxer, etc -- it's good to know that our representatives value
life and peace over all.

	MKV

        re:  i offer this topic for discussion of what we can do for peace.
        
        First, we can ask ourselves, is peace worth fighting for?
        
        Dan

    
    re:.5
    there are at least 2 other topics where such questions are being
    debated. my intention was that this topic be a space for those who
    have already asked such questions and determined for themselves
    that war in the gulf is not the best answer.
    

    
    The only way you can do now is go to the street and 
    do whatever you can to stop the war - even if violence
    is necessay.

    
 >   The only way you can do now is go to the street and 
 >   do whatever you can to stop the war - even if violence
 >   is necessay.

IMO, peacefull ways will never come about through the lesson of violence. This
is like teaching a child to behave nicely toward others by beating hir.

I really do wish I knew how to "change the ways of the world" to value peace
and negotiation and not territory and military might.  Perhaps we should be
lobbying with a "monied coalition."  If we could convince the big bucks that
peace is nice, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to loan money for destruction.

Still Imagining,

Barb

    I feel that activists for peace devalue their cause if they
    resort to violence.
    
    Bonnie

Another strong message at the SF march on Saturday was the need to
keep the march non-violent.  Many people carried signs echoing -.1, and
monitors asked people to notify them if they saw any violence
breaking out.  I didn't see any violence, and news reports said there
was none throughout the march.  

	MKV

    re .7,
    
    I have heard numerous times about "peace through negotiation" or 
    "peace through strength", but this is the first time I hear such things
    as "peace through voilence".  Beats most of the absurd statements I 
    heard so far, even "the war to end all wars".
    
    Eugene

    Peace will be possible when the human race has evolved to the point
    where sociopaths like Saddam Hussein are either not possible, or at
    least not allowed to gain positions of power.  Until then, we must ever
    be vigilant, and when necessary strike out against those who would
    enslave us.  50 years ago, that meant we needed to go to war against
    Hitler.  Today, that means we need to destroy Saddam Hussein.
    
    Mike

    What can we do for peace?  Begin with peace in our daily lives.  Begin
    with handling our own emotions without violence.  Begin with turning
    compassion within yourself and towards others.  Begin with changing
    someone's mind towards a more gentle direction.  Begin with hugging
    those who seem to need it, even if it feels foolish at first.  Begin
    with teaching children there are ways to get your toy back from the
    child who took it other than hitting.  Begin by teaching people (young
    and older) that we are ALL to be respected, we ALL deserve to live, and
    no amount of land or money or possession is worth the taking of human
    lives.  
    
    Begin with where you are, and move outwards into the world.
    
    -Jody
    

And if so threatened that war is unavoidable then you must

pursue it with ruthless, amoral, relentless zeal. This is the only way
War can give way to peace. War is so terrible that it must done with as soon
as possible. 

Could you please take the debate on whether or not to wage war to any of the
numerous stings in which the discussion is raging, and allow the basenote
author and some of the rest of us the space to discuss what can be done for 
peace?

Thank You,

Barb

    The subject of peace, in its generic sense, is open to all sorts of
    discussion.  For instance, there are those who feel that peace at any
    price is the best way.  There are others who feel that peace is
    desireable but that sometimes it isn't possible or desireable to
    maintain peace at all costs.   So when we discuss peace, we need to
    discuss the ramifications of all peace related activities.  A cost
    benefit analysis, as it were.
                                    
    In my opinion, such discussions are well within the purview of the
    stated objective of this topic. 
    
    Besides, the base note author has not been exactly timid in declaring
    his intentions that he will be heard, in other notes and in other
    conferences.  As long as I stay within corporate and conference
    guidelines, I quite intend to present my point of view here as well.
    
    Mike

THe previous notes are still making a judgement about starting a War. I think this
note is about the state transition 

			WAR ---> PEACE

rather than
			PEACE---> WAR


My argument is thus

	IF STATE="WAR" THEN
	BEGIN
	DO EXPEDITE("WAR") UNTIL STATE="PEACE";
	END;

	
Or more figuratively "You cant get off the back of the Tiger unless he falls 
asleep".

    Can we talk about not getting on the tiger in the first place?  How to
    go about living and continuing in peace whether there is a tiger at the
    gates or not?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    i'd be interested in seeing where the author of .16 has seen my
    'intentions' in other notes and conferences.
    
    as to 'war (expedite) => peace', or whatever the hell it was,
    this topic was dedicated to the proposition that that is false. 
    don't don't bother to try to convince me otherwise.
    

    If it your desire to discuss how we go from the state of war to a state
    of peace, that is easy.  Peace will break out when one side or the
    other's will to resist goes away.   
    
    Mike

    re: .20 (JWHITE)
    
    It seems that I have confused you with someone else when I spoke of
    stated intentions.  Nevertheless, you still have not been timid about
    putting forth your point of view in other notes and in other
    conferences.  It is still my intention to do likewise. 
    
    I don't propose to convince anyone of anything, least of all you.  I do
    propose to speak out concerning the responsiblilities that peace
    protester take on.  It is my firm conviction that the protesters do
    what they do without taking into account that other people will have to
    pay severe prices for the actions of the protesters.  I just want to
    make certain that those who protest in public understand just what the
    full ramifications of their actions are.
    
    Mike 
         

Jody, I liked your suggestions above.  Teach peaceful alternatives,
teach love for all the people of the world, teach children from the
beginning that there's another way.  (We've seen plenty of examples in
this notesfile (not to mention life) of adults who still believe
violence is necessary.)  

Probably only by teaching people from childhood
otherwise will we get to peace.  And yes, starting in our own spheres,
in our own lives, in our own conversations, avoiding impulses to anger
and violence, stop, breathe, love those you would perceive as your
enemy, move with them to find common ground and respect differences.

	MKV

 
	ATLANTA (UPI) -- Coretta Scott King opened the annual celebration of
Martin Luther King Jr. Day by calling for a cease-fire in the Persian
Gulf war and denouncing the war as ``another misguided attempt to make
the United States the world's policeman.''

	The wife of the late civil rights leader also praised Israel for not
retaliating to Iraqi missile attacks.

	Mrs. King opened the celebration Sunday, the eve of Martin Luther
King Jr. Day, with her annual ``State of the Dream' address at Ebenezer
Baptist Church, where King and his father served as pastors.

	``It takes courage and wisdom to refuse to be sucked into the cycle
of retaliation, and I hope and pray that Israel will be able to continue
to exercise restraint,'' Mrs. King said.

	Her address, which echoed her late husband's 1963 ``I Have a Dream''
speech, spoke of the unfinished war on poverty and racism and called for
a cease-fire in the Persian Gulf.

	In a moving ceremony that opened with ``The Star-Spangled Banner,''
Mrs. King reaffirmed her late husband's plea for a world where
ambassadors, not missiles, settle international disputes.

	``Let us be clear that we are not fighting for democracy for there is
no genuine democracy in the Persian Gulf,'' Mrs. King said. ``This war
is yet another misguided attempt to make the United States the world's
policeman.''

	Speaking from her husband's former pulpit to a capacity crowd of more
than 700, Mrs. King challenged a government she said spends 55 cents of
every taxpayer dollar on the military and only two cents on education.

	``We can be thankful that the hostages are home from Kuwait and Iraq,
'' she said. ``But the real hostages of U.S. militarism are American
schoochildren, the nation's 3 million homeless people, the 20 million
Americans who experience hunger every day.''

	During her speech, Mrs. King spoke of the peaks and valleys of the
civil rights movement in the past year: Nelson Mandela's release and
visit to Atlanta; President Bush's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1990;
the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.

	``I wish the president and the U.S. Supreme Court would understand
that America has had affirmative action programs for white males for
two centuries,'' she said. ``It is only reasonable that women and
minorities receive a fair share of the great wealth that we have helped
produce.''

	The King Week festivities continue Monday with an ecumenical worship
service at Ebenezer Baptist Church, with former Atlanta Mayor Andrew
Young as the keynote speaker, and a parade up Peachtree Street.

    There's a book called _The_Chalice_and_the_Blade_, which talks a lot
    about war, peace, etc.  It proposes a new way of looking at our past.
    Instead of comparing patriarchies and matriarchies, it postulates
    that our world (or most of it anyway) is based on a dominator model
    and discusses what a parternship model would be like (and maybe was in 
    our past).  It also discusses ways that we might get there from here.
    I'm not sure how much of it is relevant to all the issues in this note, 
    but anyone interested in peace and what a peaceful world might look 
    like would probably find the book interesting.
    
    Karen.

    
    .25
    
    Sounds wonderful. We could even try teaching people that war isn't
    inevitable..
    
    D.
    

    
    which other conferences?
    

|               <<< Note 662.23 by THEBAY::VASKAS "Mary Vaskas" >>>

        You've made  some  very  valid points about teaching peace to
        children so when  they  grow  up, they realize the truths and
        nasties of war and  death.  But.  .  .
        
        Until there's a way to change  even  the  mildest of mannered
        people  from  their desires to kill others  on  the  highways
        (whether driving too slow, fast, erratic, erotic, etc.  .  .)
        the idea just  can't  work.    Mass  Pike  should be deemed a
        battle zone itself !  (As well as the New Jersey Turn Pike or
        the Cross Island Express Way (LI,NY), etc, etc.  .  .)
        
        It would have to begin with many other little things.  Mainly
        since those little things would be  enough  to keep anger and
        frustration from disappearing.  
        
        Just another point of view. . .
        
        Matt

    
    i have changed the name of this topic since, amazingly, the original
    left too much room for 'interpretation'.
    
    i propose an analogy to the abortion topics: an equally heated issue.
    there is the abortion topic per se, where debate/discussion is
    allowed according to strict rules, due to the controversial nature
    of the subject. then there are the 'taking action for [choice/life]'
    topics, which are 'safe' spaces for those who've made up their minds,
    do not wish to debate any further- indeed see the interruption of
    debate in such a string as harassment- and are on to the next step
    in their quest for their ideals.
    
    hence the new title.
    
    

        re: taking action for peace
        
        Peace just for Americans, or peace for Kuwaitis as well?
        
        Dan

    re: .25 (Barb)
    
    >  <sarc on>      
    >
    >IMO...Right, really disgusting that anyone might value life more than
    >death. Besides, why don't we tell the world we are fighting a war of
    >"liberation," and then tell our own people that's it's their patriotic
    >duty to shut up.
    >
    >   <sarc off>

    Your sarcasm is unwarranted, and does you and your cause more harm
    than good.  However, be that as it may.
    
    I have not asked anyone to shut up in this conference or in others.  I
    have merely asked that they recognize that the act of protesting is not
    without cost.  I am asking that people acknowledge these costs, and
    decide if they believe that what they are doing is worth the price. 
    If, after sufficient honest thought, one decides that the price is
    worth it, then so be it.  I am also reminding them that they are not
    the ones who pay the heaviest price for their decision.  If asking
    people to completely think through the consequences of their actions is
    somehow reprehensible, then I stand corrected.  
    
    >As regards your right to your opinion, of course you
    >have it.  Some of us, including *myself*, are simply saying we would
    >like to discuss this topic without all the sidetracks.  Is there a
    >reason you don't find all the other strings with this discussion
    sufficient, or is it getting personal, perhaps?

    You're damn right it's personal.  I have two family members, one of
    which is my son, who are now serving on active duty in our armed
    forces.  While neither one is in Saudi Arabia right now, they both can
    be ordered there at any time.  If they go, I want them to go into
    battle with a country that backs their efforts as much as possible, and
    I want an enemy that is as demoralized as possible.  It would have been
    nice if the battle hadn't been joined, if Saddam would have been
    willing to negotiate and all that, but we are long past that point now.  
    
    So, as you see, this is no mere intellectual exercise for me.  
    
    Peace is truly a desireable thing, and is something I devoutly wish
    for, but to sit here and plot ways to get it without reference to any
    possible consequences for one plan or another, is rather ostrich-like,
    in my opinion.  All actions, whether in support of war or peace, all
    have consequences, some good and some bad.  I just want to make sure
    that while we are all here sitting about our electronic campfire
    swapping feel-good stories and plotting this or that protest campaign,
    we don't lose sight of any potential negative consequences. 
    Consequences that effect our troops far more directly than they do
    either you or me. 
    
    Mike
                          

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1.28                           Welcome!                            28 of 28
REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet."              13 lines  21-JAN-1991 17:17
                            -< Please be care-full >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here is a caution, cribbed shamelessly from another conference, which
    we should all take to heart.
    
    It is permissable for noters to write here about their thoughts and opinions
    regarding the war in Iraq.  It is not the place to insult or attack those
    who hold opinions other than our own.  We will delete any note that is
    not within the usual or the above guidelines.

    Please use restraint and tolerance for other people's point of view when 
    replying on this subject.

    						Ann A. Broomhead, for
    						the Womannotes moderators

    re:  'taking action for peace: the anti-war note'
    
    still seems a bit vague to me ... or at least it allows for various
    interpretations, or at least starting points and some argument at
    cross-purposes
    
    Certainly, above all, there is 'taking action for peace' , working
    toward a world order [if you will] where the perceived need for a war
    would not occur.
    
    Turning the eye inward and recognising our own internal violences and
    learning to channel these energies into more peaceful and productive
    expression -- teaching these skills and viewpoints -- WILL WORK --
    someday.
    
    It would even eventually end the war in the Gulf as the ripples of
    peace grew wider.  Comes a day, when no one _will_ fight, that the
    fighting will stop.
    
    HOWEVER, this evolutionary process doesn't seem to be the optimal
    choice when one [one's country] is _already_ enmeshed in a war.  I
    think that's where 'the anti-war note' comes in, I think.
    
    Are we being asked to put forward actions to:
    
    	1st - end the current war	or  1st - train for peace
        2nd - prevent further ones	    2nd - that will someday
    						  end the current war
    
    I suspect the order of business is as presented above left without
    pursuing further hostilites.
    
    Annie
    
    
    

    nit
    
    Joe White,
    
    there is another jwhite on the net, I believe he hangs out in soapbox
    and he holds very different political points of view than you do.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .34 (Barb)                                

    I have deleted .32 for two reasons.  First because the note to which it
    was responding was also deleted, and second because you pointed out
    that I was being sarcastic, which was something I accused you of.  It
    didn't feel like it at the time, but on reflection, I have to admit
    that you are right.  Whatever else I may be, I do try to be fair.
    Sometimes, especially concerning this subject, I have a hard time with
    that.

    Barb, I don't want anyone to feel guilty, or to keep quiet if they
    truly believe that their actions are what's best for the country and
    the world at large.  I really mean that.  While I can't help how you
    interpret other peoples requests to consider how it hurts the troops, I
    can help how you interpret mine.  Hence the discussion.

    I just want people to accept that when they protest, they do carry some
    responsibility for their actions.  In the case of peace protests,
    whatever else they may accomplish, they *do* help the enemy.  On the
    other hand, protests designed to support the war effort have an
    opposite effect, aside from showing the enemy that we are all against
    him.  That effect is that our government might get the idea that they
    should continue the war beyond the point where it is really necessary. 
    I want those protesters to think about what they are doing too.
                                                            
    As for myself, I think I understand the consequences for what *I* have
    been supporting over the last several months, and to the extent
    possible, I am prepared to accept them.  I also recognize that the full
    brunt of the consequences of my actions is not borne by me.  I would
    just like others to do the same, that's all.  

    Anyway, I may be guilty of putting things in the strongest possible
    terms sometimes, but consider that a reflection of the depth of my
    feelings and beliefs on the subject.  If I have hurt anyone's feelings
    here in this conference, I now publicly apologize.  I will do my best to
    moderate them in the future.
                                 
    Finally, and just so you know, I have no personal reasons for pursuing
    this other than what I have described.  Concern for the safety of my
    family members is pretty personal, though.

    Mike                                      

    re: . 36 (bonnie)
    
    Thank you Bonnie.  I thought I was going nuts on this one.
    
    Mike

Mike,

I have deleted reply .34 because it contained almost the entire text of the
note you deleted.  Phew!  Hope this doesn't cause too much confusion in this
string.

I understand what you are trying to say, but am still not all the way there
with you.  I think that if folks do not consider the consequences of their
actions (which, clearly does not always happen, speaks the *hothead*), there
is nothing that you can do or say to be their conscience for them. 

Too many folks have - as I perceive it - come down like a ton of bricks on
anyone who dares utter the word peace around here.  There have been some
replies that directly tell folks to "shut up."  It is an irony in the same
class with calling "pc folks witch hunters." 

I was, seriously, trying to understand why the hot debate over using this string
to place your thoughts as opposed to other strings designed for that debate.

I thank you for your response - I guess a part of internalizing peace comes when
two folks decide to deescalate instead of escalate, no?

I REALLY hope all in your family stay well.

Barb

    The discussion in the processing topic about the large number of men
    who have been proclaiming their support for the war in this notes
    conference brings up an interesting point.  Women tend to support war
    less than men, and I have been under the impression that they are more
    inclined to oppose the Gulf War (although there are obvious
    exceptions).  Given that, I have posed the question elsewhere in this
    notes conference on what special contributions women might have to
    offer to the peace movement.  I ran across an interesting suggestion
    for action that heterosexual women can take:  Lysistrata.
    
    I would like to post the reference to Lysistrata, and also pose the
    question of whether you think it is even appropriate or ethical to
    engage in this kind of action against pro-war males.  I am not saying
    that I advocate this myself--and not being female, I am not going to
    express any opinion on the subject.  

    Here is the reference:
 
Quoted from Gene Sharp, _The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part Two,
The Methods of Nonviolent Actions_, p. 191:
 
"57. Lysistratic nonaction
 
    The prescription for stopping war contained in Aristophane's play
_Lysistrata_ -- that wives should refuse sexual relations with their
bellicose husbands -- is so special a form of selective boycott that it
merits individual classification.  This method has been applied on at
least two known occasions.  Stan Steiner reports that at the beginning
of the seventeenth century the women of the Iroquois Indian nation
conducted the "first feminist rebellion in the U.S.":
 
   The year was 1600, or thereabouts, when these tribal feminists
   decided that they had had enough of unregulated warfare by their
   men.  Lysistratas among the Indian women proclaimed a boycott on
   lovemaking and childbearing.  Until the men conceded to them the
   power to decide upon war and peace, there would be no more warriors.
   Since the Iroquois men believed that women alone knew the secret of
   birth, the feminist rebellion was instantly successful. <31>
 
In late December 1963 the African women in the Mpopoma township in
Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia, sought the wider agreement of wives to
deny their husbands all marital rights until an outbreak of bombings
and explosions had ceased. <32>"
    
    -- Mike

    
    re:.36
    now *that's* scary
    

    
>    Are we being asked to put forward actions to:
>    
>    	1st - end the current war	or  1st - train for peace
>       2nd - prevent further ones	    2nd - that will someday
>    						  end the current war
    
    i really believe that these are not mutually exclusive. rather, that
    the warmongers would have us believe this so as to paralyse us.
    
    that is, i believe in both.
    
    
    

    re.40 the 'Lysistrata Strategy'
    
    Indeed this strategy has been proven to work in more than the two cases
    you cited.
    
    However, it does require a few attributes in those that are being
    denied:
    	    - that they be concerned with progeny
    	    - that taboos on same-sex physical gratification exist
    	    - that relative proximity of the partners exists
    	      [a soldier thousands of miles away will not be
    	       impacted by a wife or lover taking this stance]
    	    - that those being denied have the power to effect change
    
    There have also been instances where this sort of boycott has been
    attempted and has resulted in violence to many of the women imposing
    it.  Given the somewhat checkered record our legal system on violence
    committed under these circumstances, ones commitment must be _very_
    high indeed to take these risks.
    
    Additionally, from my own personal standpoint, a mere change in
    position on the war might not reverse the boycott.
    
    Alternatively, if one feels deeply enough, one can walk away from those
    who espouse violence.  This is not an easy choice, either to make or to
    implement; but, if done and combined with education of one's children,
    it will effect a long-term solution.
    
      Annie

    re .40, that's not an option for those of us who don't have bellicose
    husbands to deny.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re.42
    
    I was not proposing a dichotomy -- false or otherwise.  My thinking
    does not tend to be binary.
    
    I agree that they are not mutually exclusive.  However, after a bit of
    talking at cross-purposes from strong personal convictions favouring
    one or the other, I felt that we were being asked to talk about what
    was being asked for, not what we were talking about.
    
    I was in search of clarification.  I didn't get it.  I don't truly
    require it to continue, but I'd like it.  I feel like I have been told
    'you've got it flummoxed again, Annie' with no re-direct.
    
      Annie

    
    re:.45
    i'm sorry if i misinterpretted. i'm afraid i'm getting rather sick
    of the whole thing.
    
    if i understand your question correctly, i would say, at the risk
    of over-simplification (which is why i've avoided saying it that
    way), that this topic was started to discuss ending the current
    hostilities in the gulf as soon as possible- that is, restoring
    peace to the region- having rejected the notion that *any* sort of
    military action is the best way to bring about that peace.
    
    i am quite aware that reasonable people might disagree with such
    an approach. i respect their right to hold that opinion and in
    some other space i might, if my digestion could handle it, be
    willing to discuss and debate. but here, in this one topic, i
    had hoped for a space to explore this approach without challenge.
    
    if this exploration leads to 'long term' kinds of action, if that's
    the best we can do, so be it. if we can find more immediate insights,
    all the better.
    
    it's certainly absurd to try to start a topic, any topic, and dictate
    what it's content should be. i've merely tried to express how i'd
    like this topic to go.
    

	When Iraq made war against Kuwait last August, there was no 
	American involvement. That war continued for 5 months, despite
	the efforts of almost every nation to stop it by diplomatic
	means. George Bush has now taken action for peace. If he had not
	committed US forces, Iraq would still be continuing their war on 
	Kuwait. If US forces were to leave today, Iraq would still be
	continuing their war on Kuwait. Stopping US involvement will
	*not* stop the war. It will only prolong it.

					Tom_K

Well, there's different interpretations of what diplomatic effort
means.  I don't consider issuing ultimatums a real diplomatic effort.
We will never know now what may or may not have been possible.

john

    re .48, I agree that issuing ultimatums does not equal diplomacy.  It's
    ironic that in personal relationships people are always told never to
    issue one another ultimatums because it is wrong and shows that the
    person is not really willing to compromise to save the relationship.  I
    guess most people think this only applies to personal relationships,
    though, and not international politics.
    
    Lorna
    

RE:  Lorna

Good point.  I agree 100%.

john

    
    .49
    
    This must be what those people mean who say the personal *is* the
    political.
    
    D.
    

                   
    From a peace rally in San Francisco last week, a few slogans:
    
    
    "Peaceful Protests Please."
    
    "I support the troops; it's their commander-in-chief I oppose."
    
    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
    
    "Our schools stink, but our air raids are magnificent."
    
    "War is multiple orgasm envy."
    
    "Waging war for peace is like f***ing for virginity."
    
    "What if Kuwait's main export was broccoli?"
    
    
    D.                                                     
                               

    RE: Lorna
    
    I second the "good point".  
    
    E Grace

    Diplomacy notwithstanding, when one enters negotiations one should 
    make it clear which items will _not_, absolutely not, be open
    to negotiation. In this case, "Iraq out of kuwait" has never been,
    nor should have been, open to negotiation. Hussein sees this as
    something we should ultimately bargain away, thus the impasse 
    leading to war.

    Alright, to do my part I hereby declare that I will not have sex with
    any bellicose men until this war is over.
    
    What?  Well, yeah, I probably won't have sex with bellicose men after
    the war is over either, but let's not mention that, shall we?
    
    :-)
    
    D!
    
    [Sorry to make light of a heavy situation, but it is not something I
    feel comfortable discussing seriously in this forum, and the whole
    thing is depressing me to tears anyway.]

RE:         <<< Note 662.54 by SA1794::CHARBONND "Yeh, mon, no problem" >>>

>    Diplomacy notwithstanding, when one enters negotiations one should 
>    make it clear which items will _not_, absolutely not, be open
>    to negotiation. In this case, "Iraq out of kuwait" has never been,
>    nor should have been, open to negotiation. Hussein sees this as
>    something we should ultimately bargain away, thus the impasse 
>    leading to war.

It's not at all clear to me that Bush could not have negotiated the
withdrawal from Kuwait.  Nothing seemed negotiable to Bush in my view.
Bush seemed incrediblly inflexible to me to the point where no
progress was possible nor was there an opportunity for Iraq to back out.  So I
hold to my position that I think it may have been possible to
negotiate a solution had the approach been more flexible and less
win/lose.  And I still believe that our  objectives might have been
reached.  Course, many people will now lose their lives and be injured and
we will do it the hard way.  I also think it takes two to tango and
don't place all the blame on Bush.

We collectively in the world spent incredible amounts of money and
energy on weapons but very little on peace and how to resolve
conflicts.

john

    re: .55
    
    the play is Lysistrata

    RE: .57  John

    > It's not at all clear to me that Bush could not have negotiated the
    > withdrawal from Kuwait.

    He wasn't the only one who tried, though.  In the final days before
    the deadline, Saddam was even *promised* (by the Sec Gen to the UN, 
    if I'm not mistaken) that the Palestinian question would definitely 
    be addressed and war would be averted if he even said the *words* 
    that he would withdraw from Kuwait.  

    The response from Iraq appeared to be more than "no" - judging by the
    disappointment on the Sec Gen's face, it was more likely, "HELL no."

    Iraq made it clear from Day One that withdrawal from Kuwait was a
    non-negotiable item, but that he'd be happy to discuss the situation
    regarding the Israelis (eg, the occupied territories) *instead*.  He
    demanded that it be Item One on the agenda.

    I don't see how George could have gotten around him on this.  Even the
    sanctions were a form of "economic force" - it was evident from the
    beginning that compromise would not be likely with Iraq's current leader.
    
    At least one of his own advisors was executed for disagreeing with
    his military strategy (when they were involved in the war with Iran.)
    
    What chance does diplomacy have when a leader is this accustomed to
    being granted the supremacy of his actions and ideas?
    
    He is currently bombing a country that has steadfastly refused to become
    involved in this war (which happens to be against International Law, eg.,
    a war crime against Israel.)  
    
    When the time was right (for Iraq!!) to start a war with us, we'd be in
    the same position facing Israel now.  We'd watch ICBM's lobbed towards
    New York or Washington or Boston (with nuclear warheads in them by then,)
    and the discussions would increase after some number of successful hits.
    
    Look at how many times terrorism has been waged against the US in the
    name of anger at Israel (because the US is allies with Israel and
    some terrorists would rather not risk taking direct action against
    Israelis.)  Now, Iraq is launching missiles at Israel as the response 
    to a dispute with the US.
    
    In the face of a terrorist mentality (the "If we're mad at Israel, we'll
    kill innocent passengers at an airport terminal" and "If one country
    attacks us, we'll attack their friend who isn't involved at all") - how
    does diplomacy play a role in this?
    
    I hate war, I really do.  But after studying this situation for months
    and months, I'm convinced that we would have been dragged into a conflict
    with Iraq sooner or later (at a time when Iraq was in a position to do
    far more damage to us than it is capable of doing today.)
    
    I wish it weren't so.  I simply don't believe that Saddam would have let 
    us off the hook so easily (since a war with us is a win-win political
    proposition for him, if he lives to tell the tale.)  

    Getting back to the original topic, the FCNL is an excellent source of
    information for those who are opposed to the war and are interesting in
    finding out what kinds of actions they can pursue toward that end.  The
    phone number for the update message is (202)547-4343.  You can also
    call their office at (202)547-6000 to obtain information about
    receiving regular FCNL mailings.  You can received the newsletter for
    $20 a year.

    I received a packet from the FCNL recently that included Joe Volk's
    news release "The War That Didn't Have To Be" (which I sent out on the
    mailing list fairly recently), along with a Statement of FCNL
    legislative priorities for the 102nd Congress, and a listing of how
    every Senator and Representative voted on the key resolutions
    concerning war with Iraq.  This kind of information can be an excellent
    source of information in lobbying efforts.  The FCNL expressed very
    clearly many reasons against war with Iraq in one of its monthly
    newsletters last fall, when the U.S. military buildup was just
    beginning.  I have found the FCNL to be a continuing resource of great
    value.

    -- Mike

>    re .48, I agree that issuing ultimatums does not equal diplomacy.  It's
>    ironic that in personal relationships people are always told never to
>    issue one another ultimatums because it is wrong and shows that the
>    person is not really willing to compromise to save the relationship.  I
>    guess most people think this only applies to personal relationships,
>    though, and not international politics.
    
 
	There should always be a bottom-line which you don't compromise.

	If your partner was beating you, would you consider letting this 
	continue, to prolong the relationship? or would you insist it stops?

	Heather

    
    Thanks, Heather, I had the same thought.  I suspect that it if comes
    down to personal integrity vs The Relationship, the other party has
    already stopped compromising.
    
    CQ

    I have deleted my 662.56 entry (a reaction to a Lysistrata(sp) entry).
    After thinking about it for a while, I decided it was in poor taste.
    It was an attempt at light-hearted humor that may have misfired.
    I apologize if anybody was offended. I did not intend to offend
    anybody.
    
    
    				herb

    re .61, if my partner were beating *me* I would most likely either
    leave or fight back.  If my partner were beating somebody else I might
    think that the problem was between the two of them, and none of my
    business.  (Unless the person being beat up was my child.  I don't
    have any children in Kuwait.)
    
    Lorna
    

>        <<< Note 662.64 by WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "an existential errand" >>>

>    re .61, if my partner were beating *me* I would most likely either
>    leave or fight back.  If my partner were beating somebody else I might
>    think that the problem was between the two of them, and none of my
>    business.  (Unless the person being beat up was my child.  I don't
>    have any children in Kuwait.)
    
>    Lorna
 
So you allow your neighbor's children to be beaten? and don't call the 
police(UN)?  
A gang has moved into your neighborhood and starting at the far end of the 
street rapes/beats each household, loots/destroyes each house. as they move 
down the street you will do nothing until they reach your house? what if in 
each house the original gang(small in size at the start) conscripts the
able-bodied to fight with them? under threat of having worse done to 
their loved ones at home the conscripts join the rapists/looters. Do you still
do nothing? 

Suppose the beating/raping was being done to you in your own home? do you 
Leave, never to return? or do you call the police(UN)?   

The "none of my business" attitude is what caused the death of a woman in New 
York who was stabbed to death as 30+ people watched and the death(?) of the 
woman recently in Roxbury when no one came to her aid. There are lot's of 
other cases.

Amos

    re .65, Amos, what I would be willing to do in the defense of my
    neighbor's children would depend upon the esteem in which I held them.
    
    If *everyone* minded their own business, including the rapists, the
    murderers, and Saddam Hussein, these problems wouldn't exist in the
    first place since the offenders would have been minding their own
    business.  So, I think minding one's own business is good, if we could
    only get everyone to do it.
    
    When deciding to help out others, whether in my neighborhood or on the
    world scale, I would always have to consider whether trying to save the
    initial victim is worth the additional loses which might follow as a
    result.
    
    Lorna
    

    
>    If *everyone* minded their own business, including the rapists, the
>    murderers, and Saddam Hussein, these problems wouldn't exist in the
>    first place since the offenders would have been minding their own
>    business.  So, I think minding one's own business is good, if we could
>    only get everyone to do it.
 
	I don't see how you can say that rapists "minding their own business" 
	is OK - raping IS their business.
	The same with murderers.

	And that's the point, these people are doing what they want to, and 
	they don't care what the affect is on others.

	We tried reasoning with them and that didn't work.

	We are now trying to do the only thing we can, so they stop murdering
	and raping, and we can eventually get peace.
   
>    When deciding to help out others, whether in my neighborhood or on the
>    world scale, I would always have to consider whether trying to save the
>    initial victim is worth the additional loses which might follow as a
>    result.

	No, I really can't agree with this, I can't stand back and watch
	innocent people raped, murdered, mugged.........

	Heather 

    re .67, Heather, perhaps, we can agree to disagree.
    
    I disagree with your perception that rape is a rapists business.  To my
    mind, rape is really *not* anybody's "business."  A person who winds up
    raping another person didn't become a rapist because he applied for a
    job, took a night class, or chose a hobby.  A person who winds up a
    rapist, in my opinion, has at some point decided that it is alright
    to touch another person's body, without their permission, and that is
    *not* minding one's own business.
    
    With the possible exception of Israel, I disagree with the way all of
    the other countries in the middle-east run their countries and,
    therefore, I would not choose to risk my life to preserve their way of
    life.  That is my choice, Heather.  If you disagree, fine.  You
    disagree.
    
    I would not choose to risk my life to save a neighbor who happened to
    be a rich man, who hoarded his wealth while others lived in poverty
    around him, and who mistreated women.  This is the type of "neighbor"
    that the Kuwait seems, in my opinion, to be.
    
    Lorna
    

    I would be thrilled if my neighbors banded together to help in
    situations when someone was being bullied. This is, I believe how
    the concept of a police force got started.
    
    If, to expand the analogy, the UN were driving this effort to help with
    the current bully (the Iraqui one), I would also have no problem. What
    we have here, is the richest guy on the block and a couple of upper
    middle class buddies being vigilantes for their own personal reasons.
    They might help *me* out of my situation, but at the same time, they're
    *encouraging* the bully two blocks away to beat up on people, also
    for their own personal reasons. 
    
    And meanwhile, some of the rich guy's buddies are cousins of the bully
    they're beating up on, and they kind of *like* him. 
    
    --DE
    

    re .69, exactly.
    
    Lorna
    

    
>    If, to expand the analogy, the UN were driving this effort to help with
>    the current bully (the Iraqui one), I would also have no problem. What
>    we have here, is the richest guy on the block and a couple of upper
>    middle class buddies being vigilantes for their own personal reasons.
>    They might help *me* out of my situation, but at the same time, they're
>    *encouraging* the bully two blocks away to beat up on people, also
>    for their own personal reasons. 
 

	The UN is a driving force, without them their would not be the ability
	to show such world-wide support.
	Without the declarations, non of the countries would have made the first
	move for conflict to be used when the sanctions were not working.
	Saddam would have continued his occupation and attrocities.
    
	Do you mean you think of the US as the "richest", if you do, I don't,
	I see them with the biggest deficit, and biggest problems with their 
	ballance of payments.

	I see many countries that are supporting the UN declaration, they are
	not doing it for their "own" interests.

	If that were the case, the UK would be a lot less supportive, and some 
	of the other European and Japanese countries would be supporting it 
	more.

	For goodness sake, the UK is a net oil exporter, if that's all we were 
	in it for, then we wouldn't need to bother, we could let everyone
	else fight for whatever they wanted, or leave the situation as it was.

	We are there primerally to free Kuwaite. If that wasn't the case, we 
	wouldn't be there.

	One of the things that has come out of this, is that people who
	thought monetary Union and political Union for Europe was close, have
	had their eyes opened. If we want to do this, there's a great deal more
	hurdles to overcome than we ever thought of.

	Heather

		   GULF WAR WORD QUIZ
                   ------------------

	     Match sanitized phrase at left
	     with correct meaning at right:



      1. Pounding positions             A. Killing

      2. Softening up                   B. Killing

      3. Collateral damage              C. Killing

      4. Saturation strikes             D. Killing

      5. Carpet bombing                 E. Killing

From the net.  Posted by me to provide a different viewpoint and not to
argue for or against anything...

  
Following are excerpts from a report produced on Dec. 10, 1990 by
      Wendy Chamberlain McFadden
      Director of News Services
      Church of the Brethren General Board
      1451 Dundee Ave.
      Elgin, IL 60120        1(708) 472-5100
 
 
relayed by jlynch@cdp.uucp on Dec. 12, 1990.
 
I have capitalized noteworthy passages.

 
Following are excerpts from the News Services of the Church of 
the Brethren General Board, 1451 Dundee Ave., Elgin, IL 60120,
produced by Wendy Chamberlain McFadden, Director of News Services,
on Dec. 10, 1990. For further information, call (708) 472-5100.
This report was relayed by jlynch@cdp.uucp on Dec. 12, 1990.
I have capitalized portions of the text which, I feel, are noteworthy.
 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
Bill Keim, assistant head of the Sandy Spring, Maryland Friends School, 
was one of two Brethren in a Christian Peacemaker Team delegation to Iraq,
Nov. 21 to Dec. 1. The group delivered medical supplies for children
and sought the release of U.S. citizens. They also listened to the
Iraqi side of the Middle East conflict. Bill Served as the Church of
the Brethren General Board's Africa/Middle East representative
from 1985 to 1987. .....
 
A primary goal in all of our discussions was to listen carefully to
the perspectives of our Arab hosts so that we could carry their concerns
back home. These conversations took place with a wide variety of people
ranging from high governmental officials to average citizens of Iraqi,
Jordanian, Palestinian and Lebanese descent. One of the most interesting
aspects of these talks was the consistency of the message we received.
Three important themes emerged from these exchanges:
 
Iraqi grievances with Kuwait: There seems to be little doubt that Iraq
had a number of legitimate grievances with Kuwait. ALTHOUGH THE WESTERN
PRESS HAS CHARACTERIZED THIS DISPUTE AS AN ARGUMENT OVER OIL PRICES
AND PRODUCTION LEVELS, it is much more complex.
 
JAD:
[The American press is not monolithic. There are some journalists and 
editors who have been delving for all facets of this issue. But the 
mass media is essentially monolithic, and it deserves blame for looking
the other way in the face of numerous glaring sidelights that should
motivate investigative reporters (an endangered species) to explore 
beneath the surface of this earth-shaking issue.] 
 
A key factor in their quarrel is a border dispute involving a major
oil field. According to the Iraqis, 90 percent of that oil field is
on their side of the border. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Kuwaitis
developed extensive oil wells on their side and seriously depleted
the oil reserves in this field without compensating Iraq. 
 
Another issue relates to the aid provided by Kuwait to Iraq for the
war with Iran. At one level, this was a war for land and control of
the strategic Shatt al Arab waterway, but at another level, it was
an effort to block the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. The ruling
families in Kuwait and the other Gulf states stood to lose a great
deal if that movement spread from Iran into the Arabian Peninsula.
 
To prevent that development, these states provided Iraq with massive
financial assistance during the war. Iraq viewed this aid as grants
to support a common cause, but after the war, Kuwait demanded
repayment.
 
With these two issues already straining relationships, Kuwait insisted
on maintaining oil production levels beyond the limits established
by OPEC, thus lowering the international market price of oil. This
seriously threatened Iraq's ability to meet heavy financial
obligations and development needs resulting from the war. 
 
JAD:
[On the evening of Jan. 18th, an on-the-air caller to WBAI-FM in 
New York City commented that his career was in banking and finance
and that his work had brought him in contact with Kuwaiti investors.
I present his remarks now, not as evidence, but as insight into the
mysteries surrounding this whole affair which now threatens the world. 
He stated that, although no one knows how much money the Emir of 
Kuwait has invested in the U.S., he roughly estimates the amount to
be in the realm of about 1/4 trillion dollars. He also stated that
the Emir reaped a net profit when the price of crude oil declined
because the profits on his U.S. investments, investments which far
outweighed his oil assets, were inversely proportional to the price
of crude oil.]
 
A related allegation is that Kuwait was also using its enormous
foreign reserves to manipulate and weaken Iraqi currency. In total,
these economic maneuvers were viewed in Iraq as deliberate acts of
economic warfare.

Regardless of the REASONS FOR SUCH RELIANCE ON THE MILITARY OPTION,
it is clear that any war with Iraq will have tremendous long-term and
short-term costs and will seriously undermine U.S. interests in the
region for decades to come. Although the administration is frantically
assuring the American public that a war with Iraq will not be another
protracted Vietnam, the cost in human life will be just as devastating.
With conservative official estimates of U.S. losses set at 20 to 30
thousand, other experts predict that as many as 50,000 Americans will
die. That number equals the number lost over seven years in Vietnam, 
but those deaths would likely be experienced in six months or less.
......
In sorting through the claims and counter-claims, I am heartened by
the words of Mahdi Saleh, the speaker of the National Assembly. In
responding to our delegation's plea for the release of all hostages,
he said that he and the government shared our opinions but were
looking for "THE SLIGHTEST HINT OF SOFTENING IN THE AMERICAN POSITION"
before taking that step. Saddam Hussein's decision to release all
hostages came as no surprise, therefore, following Bush's move toward
talks. That official Iraqi response provides some verification of the
genuine desire for peaceful resolution that we sensed in all of our
meetings with Iraqi officials and citizens.
 
JAD:
[Following the release of the hostages, Bush stated that Hussein's
concession removes another obstacle from the U.S. course of action.
Bush's chilling and cynical remark plainly exposed to the world his
unswerving desire for war, as has been implied by his every gesture
since the invasion. Conversely, prior to August 2nd, his every 
gesture bespoke indulgence and encouragement of Saddam's invasive
overtures. Hence, I have to surmise that Bush schemed to lure
Saddam into Kuwait in order to justify a war that had been on the
drawing board for quite some time.]
 
......
First, we in the West must not insist on formulas that require the
public humiliation of Saddam Hussein. The opening U.S. position --
that Hussein must totally withdraw his forces before any negotiation
takes place -- is clearly a formula for humiliation.
 
JAD:
[This "formula for humiliation" is yet another sign of Bush's
eagerness for war. When diplomacy sincerely seeks negotiation, the
means for mutual compromise are always offered up by mediators.
Bush's diplomatic table has always been barren. Indeed, he had 
never lowered the cocked pistol from his opponent's head. Bush's
humiliating boast that he will "kick Saddam Hussein's ass" was 
another move calculated to ensure that Saddam would not permit 
himself to back down as the collision drew nearer.
Before Bush attacked, Barbara Ehrenreich stated that she had found
out that the Pentagon's "nightmare scenario" was that Saddam would
back down and that war would be averted. Does anyone have further
details to corroborate this statement?]
 
While the White House would have us believe that the ball is in
Saddam Hussein's court, it is George Bush who clearly holds the reins
of destiny. If he sincerely desires a peaceful solution, the makings
of a settlement are out there begging to be brought together. If not,
we will soon face a war that will seriously undermine our highest
aspirations for the new world order.
                          
           (end of article  --  more articles to come)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
    transcribed by John DiNardo

    	RE: .73  John

    	As many others have pointed out in the past weeks and months, the
    	biggest "nightmare" of the conflict with Iraq is that they would
    	finish production of their nuclear weapons (in addition to the
    	chemical and biological weapons they already have) to be used in
    	attacks against civilian targets in the United States and elsewhere.

    	In other words, it is perceived that a very, very, very serious 
    	threat existed that a future war with Iraq would have been inevitable
    	if the current war had been averted (and that Iraq would have been
    	in possession of nuclear ICBM's by then.)  After hearing the messages
    	that Saddam has released to the world in the past 6 months *himself*,
    	regardless of anything our government has said about him - I believe
    	it.  Saddam has convinced me with his own words.  I don't care how
    	many little American British children's heads he patted fondly when 
    	they were still in captivity in Baghdad.

    	As for George Bush not showing "gratitude" for the release of the
    	hostages:  If we (as a country) allowed hostages to be used by Iraq
    	as bargaining chips, then we'd be ENCOURAGING the taking of American
        hostages in the future, which would put many more of us in danger.

    	When bank robbers takes hostages, the police negotiate for their
    	release, but they never entertain the idea that the robbers may
    	have some "right" to the money for being willing to release people
    	they never should have endangered in the first place.  It simply
    	isn't true.

    	Neither is it true that Iraq had some new "right" to keep Kuwait
    	after their bloody invasion of it simply because they released
    	many, many thousands of international civilians that they should
    	never have detained and threatend as human shields in the first place.

    re: 74
    
    Well said (IMO), Suzanne.
    
    Christine

    	Correction to .74 - "American *and* British children" (not
    	"American British children.")

    Let me first say that I am against going into this war (see 593.151),
    but I also think that the demonstrations on the street agaist the war is
    unwise once the war started.  The demonstration will undermine the
    morale of our soldiers who are serving their country with their life
    and blood.  A simple letter to the government will serve the same
    purpuse (as for me, I am a new immigrant and not a citizen yet, so
    I think it is highly inappropriate for me to write any letter.  So
    I am left with the notesfile to voice my opinion).
    ...
    I have also been following the reports on the demonstrations on both sides. 
    One interesting fact is that only the supporters of war carry
    U.S. flags in their demonstrations.  I don't understand why the
    anti-war demonstrators don't carry them.  I am pretty sure they are
    patriotic too, so why not carry the flags in their demonstrations.  It
    can only help their cause.  I don't know if it is a simple case of
    neglect or if it represents something deeply rooted. 
    
    Eugene   

    re .77, I think that anti-war demonstrators don't carry U.S. flags
    because carrying a country's flag is usually taken to mean that you
    support what that country's govt. is doing (and they don't).
    
    Lorna
    

        .77, .78,  Anyone showing up with a U.S. flag at an
        anti-war demonstration will probably get hit and have the
        flag taken from him/her and burnt.
        
        Dan

    American flags are actually rather common at antiwar demonstrations,
    and those who burn them are rather rare (but of course they get a lot
    of media coverage). To cite one example, back in 1980, when I
    participated in a demonstration against draft registration at my
    college, the march was led by people holding up a large U.S. flag. 
    Sorry to disappoint you, Dan, but no one burned it.

    -- Mike

    re .78,
    
    The demonstrators ought to understand that the flag stands for
    America and the Constitution it represents.  Carrying the flag will
    surely bring more sympathy to the demonstrators.  What other symbol can
    more clearly project the message of "support for the troops not war"?
    
    re .79, I guess you are right.  Some of these guys are real
    fire-eaters.  But apart from those extreme fellas, there are
    parents of soldiers and Vietnam Vets in the demonstrations.  Now as I
    said before, I don't not think it wise to demonstrate on the street,
    but I would like to say to the people who do it as a matter of
    conscience and principle, if you want to do it, do it right.
    
    Eugene
                                                               

    It looks to me like the demonstrations lately have been quite 
    peaceful. It's too bad that the first few had rabble-rousers
    to give them a bad name. No matter what they do now, people with
    A Bone to Pick will never let us forget it.
    
    --DE
    

    I've been doing a lot of reading and thinking about things.  War,
    peace, support, patriotism, morality, and how to have a world that all
    people would support.  I see conflict in individual lives, conflict in
    this notesfile, conflict in demonstrations, conflict in the gulf.  It's
    all the same. This world does not work the way we are living in it.

    We and our governments value money.  We value it because it will make
    us happy.  But does it?

    We and our governments value control.  We value it because it will make
    us happy.  But does it?

    We and our governments value prestige.  We value it because it will
    make us happy.  But does it?

    (Why does it never occur to us to be happy first?)

    To me all of these "values" are indirect values.  We value things
    because we believe they will bring us what we really want. 
    Peacefulness, joy, love, excitement.  What would the world be like if
    we were able to directly ask for and receive what we all want, at
    heart?  We know the Iraqis want peace.  We know we want peace.  We know
    the Soviet people want peace.  What happens at the government level
    that makes governments not want peace?  The PEOPLE who run governments
    -- Bush, Saddam Hussein, etc. -- are just people.  They "value" the
    same indirect things we do.  What makes them different is that they are
    able to use entire countries to propel their quest to fill some void in
    themselves using indirect means.  That doesn't work.  I know it doesn't
    work for me in my personal life and I don't believe it works for my
    country.

    I recently read an article in _Oral History Review_ on a dissertation
    about conscientious objectors (COs) in World War II.  Lots of different 
    reasons for refusing to fight in WWII, the "good" war.  One that
    astounded me was that some COs did not believe WWII was the good war. 
    Their comments about the beginning of the war have tremendous parallels
    to the situation in the Gulf -- that the U.S. engineered involvement,
    that the U.S. helped Hitler build up, that the attack on Pearl Harbor
    was known about several days beforehand but not prevented in order to
    create a righteous war mood in the U.S.  The belief of these COs was
    that the motivation of the U.S. governments and others was to build the
    economy.

    The point of this article that struck me the hardest is that even if
    you take the most moral outlook on why World War II was fought -- to
    rescue others from tyranny and oppression, to end the horror of the
    Holocaust and overt racism -- it was ineffective.  WAR DOES NOT WORK. 
    Yes, you can disarm a Hitler.  Yes, you can disarm a Saddam Hussein,
    and if that's the only goal, yes, it can be successful.  But has racism
    ended in Europe?  No, it's as bad if not worse than ever.  Has peace
    and respect for other nations grown?  No, it's stayed the same.  Will
    disarming Saddam Hussein end Arab tensions?  No.  Will it improve
    U.S/Arab relations? No.  Unless we change the underlying patterns of
    HOW our societies and relationships go wrong, we do nothing but change
    the actors on the stage.  We are doomed to play out the same play.  We
    are doomed to repeat history because we have learned nothing about how
    to live the future so that we don't create more of the same history.

    Where nonviolent, pro-peace demonstrations are valuable, to me, is that
    they express direct values.  They are a strong message about what IS
    important, how the world SHOULD work.  It doesn't really matter that
    the world DOESN'T work that way, yet, as long as there still is a voice
    expressing a vision for what MAY work -- the way we haven't really
    given a chance yet.  Those whose knee-jerk reaction is "yeah, go home,
    Pollyanna, give it up, things don't work that way, face reality, we
    gotta talk tough and fight tough" are a part of the mindset that has
    created this whole world that doesn't work.  If we work together,
    instead of having petty infighting on a "my demonstration is better
    than your counter-demonstration" level, there is some possibility for
    creating a new history in the future.  I think it is unimportant how
    the pro-peace message is received in other parts of the world, so long
    as in our country it is reported and acknowledged as a voice of direct
    truth, one direct truth.

    Maybe waging war for peace is the answer.  I have certainly gone all
    the way up the scale and back about what I think about this war.  But
    based on history, and based on my own internal principles, I don't think
    so (I liked the analogy to f***cking for virginity myself!).  It's
    playing Stratego with real people's lives.

    I support people.  I feel for the people on the front lines and for
    their relatives here, and I would never be disrespectful toward someone
    who did what they thought was the right thing to do.  For me, the right
    thing to do is to speak out for peace -- NOT against soldiers, but FOR
    peace.

    It is important to LISTEN.  Two ears, one mouth, no accident.

    Pam

re: .83

Thanks, Pam.

	MKV

    re .83, yes, great reply.  Thanks.
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE: .83
    
    	If you *do* care about the message the peace demonstrations are
    	giving at home, then it might be a good idea to cool them for
    	awhile (until we are at a point where you can realistically expect
    	the positive portion of this message to be received.)
    
    	Saddam Hussein sends his personal thanks to the peace movement
    	for helping his cause.  It may not matter what he thinks (God
    	knows, his version of reality is pretty warped - he even claims
    	that the SCUD missiles have been knocking the Patriot missiles
    	out of the sky.)
    
    	It DOES MATTER, however, that Americans can hear him thank the
    	Peace movement for helping him - so at the present time, all the
    	good parts of the peace message are being LOST.
    
    	People can demonstrate for anything and everything they want, as
    	long as they realize that the message is not coming across in the
    	moral way they intended it.  Right now, the message is coming
    	across that the peace movement is trying to help us lose the war
    	with an enemy who is now threatening to use nuclear weapons against
    	us.
    
    	If you care how Americans see the peace movement, it's time to
    	regroup, I would think.
    
    	No offense intended to anyone.

    re: .86   Hi, Suzanne.
    
    To me your questions concentrate on how the peace movement looks.  We
    and Bush and Saddam Hussein can play media tricks until kingdom come
    and there's no way to ensure that any message anyone sends is fairly
    broadcast by anyone else.  There is NO WAY to control what Hussein
    chooses to say or do.  So we can just give it up on that front.
    
    I don't care what the peace movement looks like.  I care about what it is.  
    
    It is not direct to muzzle the heartfelt impulse to speak out for peace
    so that a war MAY be more effectively fought.  It is playing games. 
    Someone has to start making the world a more straightforward place. 
    Manipulation is how we have been running the world, and it doesn't
    work.  Maybe we should try honesty.
    
    If we talk war here, who will believe the U.S. truly wants peace in
    that region?  If we soak a region with bombs, who will believe that we
    really love them all and want them to be free?  
    
    _I_ wouldn't believe us if I were them.  What message are they getting
    from us already?  "Do as I say, not as I do" is what I hear.
    
    Seems to me the peace movements can't do any *more* harm to our public
    image within Iraq; and if U.S. soldiers believe that there are vast
    pro-Iraq rallies here, then they are not getting accurate information
    from the U.S. government, which is a separate problem.
    
    Pam

RE:  Pam

Great note well expressed.  Thank you.

RE:             <<< Note 662.86 by CSC32::CONLON "Woman of Note" >>>


Suzanne, when you say the message is coming across that the peace
movement is trying to help us lose the war, is what you mean that "I
interpret the peace movement's intention as trying to lose the war?"
or "in my opinion, the peace movement is aiding Saddam Hussein"?
I would have no problem with either of those statments.  I guess I'm
not sure what you mean when you say "the message is coming across".  It
seems to be more in the mind of the interpreter (as an interpretation
of the effects of the peace movement).  However, I for one, appreciate
the feedback on how you see the effects of the peace movement.

By the way, I understand that your position is that you think that
this is just war because Saddam Hussein is dangerous and needs to be
stopped.  I respect your opinion.  A lot of people agree with you.
I happen not to be one of them but I just want to say that I hear you
and acknowledge the rational and agreement.  Of all the arguments for
the war, in fact, I find this the most convincing.

peace,
john

    I am reminded of when "The Hostages" were being held in Tehran.  People
    in this country started putting yellow ribbons -- little ones, great big
    huge building sized ones, and everything in between -- on *everything*. 
    The hostages were told by their warders that the people back home were
    saying they (the hostages) were "yellow cowards".
    
    Sometimes you can't worry about what people will think.  Not if they
    will distort everything for their own use.  If there were no Peace
    Demonstrations, President Saddam would probably be saying that we were
    all murderers.
    
    sigh.  I'm going back to the culture shock note.
    
    E Grace 

    	When I say the peace movement is "coming across" as being a help
    	to Saddam Hussein, I'm not speaking for myself.  I know what the
    	message is, even though I personnally support the war.

    	The feedback I'm seeing from others (outside the peace movement)
    	is a very, very negative perception of the peace movement and
    	what is assumed to be the underlying agenda.

    	If the message is "Let's have Peace" and it comes across as some
    	other message that is being perceived in a very, very negative
    	way - I think the peace movement should be concerned.

    	If you want to influence others that Peace is preferable to war,
    	then it doesn't seem consistent to try to convey this message in
    	a way that infuriates others.  It ends up being a verbal way of
    	waging war on those who support waging war on Saddam Hussein -
    	thus proving that a war (of sorts) is an effective way to get
    	ones message across, after all.
    
    	It's too late to stop the beginning of this war.  We're in it now.
    	So we either win it or lose it (that's how wars go.)  If we stop
    	it now, we lose - and we put ourselves in worse danger than before.
    	Our government is not going to let this happen.
    
    	If we want a world that doesn't end up at war, we need longterm
    	social change.  Even if the peace movement could convince Bush
    	to let us lose this war (which will not happen,) it wouldn't
    	keep us from having another one later.  It would only put us in
    	worse danger than we are already.
    
    	It would be wonderful if we had some other world where people
    	like Saddam Hussein were not likely to bomb one country because
    	he's pissed off at another.  But it's the world we're faced with
    	right now, and he could just as easily bomb us for being mad at
    	Israel as he bombs Israel for being mad at us - and he now says
    	he has the capability of using nuclear, chemical, and biological
    	warheads on his missiles.
    
    	We can't stop him by telling him we want peace.  He already regards
    	the Peace movement as a "Go ahead, we're behind you!!" mandate.
    
    	So he has to be stopped some other way before it's too late.
    
    	I'd like peace as much as anyone, but I have to be realistic about
    	what we're facing.  

    re: .90, Suzanne,
    
    "If we want a world that won't end up at war, we need longterm social
    change."
    
    Thank you!  I couldn't have said it better!  All we are disagreeing
    about is when is the appropriate time to START longterm social change. 
    I say now; you say, after this one last conflict.  We don't agree.
    
    For what it's worth, I know many people in peace movements and none of
    them is violent.  It suits the media and it suits the government to
    portray peace demonstrations in as "newsmaking" a fashion as possible
    -- what sells?  What angle suits the government's purposes?  If there
    are fifty parades and there's violence at one of them, which one do you
    think will be the feature on the 11:00 news?
    
    I have a few questions, not so that I can hear the answers, but for all
    those out there who oppose peace demonstrations to think about for
    themselves.  
    
    1.  Where do you get your information about peace demonstrations and
        what they are like?
        From people who support the war?  From the media?  From people
        who are in the peace demonstrations?  Who are your eye-witnesses?
    
    2.  Is it possible that whatever position you have taken on this
        issue, you could be absolutely correct?  How about that you 
        could be dead wrong?  Will we ever KNOW for certain?  
    
    3.  Does any of this matter, as long as you are following your own
        code of honor and ethics, and allowing others to follow theirs?
    
    I stand for peace.  My belief at the moment is that, in general, we
    cannot have peace by waging war, and that this war in particular is not
    the type of war that will bring peace.  Saddam Hussein is a threat but
    is partly so because we encouraged him to be one when it suited our
    purposes; now it suits our purposes to create other potential threats
    in the region so we can fight him.  We pretend to ourselves that we are
    pouring water on the fire but we are dousing it with gasoline.
    
    I don't think it's possible to "win" a war.  It's just degrees of
    losing.  I'd like to change the rules on what "losing a war" means.
    Social change is C H A N G E, not rearrange.
    
    Pam

    Mr Hussein will use anything he can to further his own purposes.
    (So, by the by, will Mr. Bush) Because of that, *I* am supposed to 
    change my behavior to pretend to support that which I find to be
    totally against my grain, outrageous, and the beginning of the
    total devestation of this planet?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    --DE
    

Nit -- I don't believe anyone is going to "win" this war.  

We can only hope that it lasts only months instead of years or decades,
and that not too much of the world and human life are destroyed in 
the meantime.  We all need to do what we can towards that common goal,
and I think it's important to recognize that though we might not all
choose the same means, stifling each other can only do more damage.

I really don't want anyone to think that all of us support
the destruction and killing.  Some people think it's a necessary evil,
others (like me) think that additional evil isn't justified.
Discussion and expression of different views at least helps us
keep the humanity alive, instead of pretending that the diversity of all
our well-thought out opinions does not exist, instead of pretending
that we blindly follow some single creed.  Thinking, expressing and
sharing ideas, communicating -- these are some of the gifts of humanity --
these should not be sacrificed with all the other sacrifices of this war.

	MKV

    RE: .92 
    
    > Because of that, *I* am supposed to change my behavior to pretend to 
    > support that which I find to be totally against my grain, outrageous, 
    > and the beginning of the total devestation of this planet?
    	
    Gee, who asked you to do this?  I must have missed it.
    
    Regrouping and rethinking does not mean pretending to support something.
    And it was just a suggestion.  No one said anyone *has* to do anything.
    
    Peace is an important enough goal to be worth finding ways we can all
    help in the cause at a time when peace is more feasible.  If we tear
    each other apart arguing about what it takes to reach peace in the
    longterm, it will surely be more difficult, wouldn't it?
    
    Meanwhile, each individual has the right to regard this war in any
    way we each choose - and I've never stated otherwise.

    	RE: .93
    
    	The US (and Allied Forces) didn't bring this action in Iraq
    	out of thin air.  We had no guarantee of peace by staying
    	away from the Arabian peninsula.
    
    	When it comes to "destruction and killing," Baghdad is a far
    	safer place to be than Tel Aviv these days (except for the
    	dangers of the Iraqi anti-aircraft fire that falls back to
    	ground after missing airborne targets.)  They don't need
    	gas masks or sealed rooms in Baghdad.  They don't have an
    	enemy threatening to gas them.
    
    	We're all entitled to our opinions on the war, but when it
    	comes to individuals stating that they "represent" peace
    	in ways that make most of the rest of the country want to
    	stand up and shout in favor of the war, it's worth a moment
    	to think about the overall effect the movement is having.
    
    	At the moment, the peace movement is having the opposite
    	effect of influencing people to want "peace."  If that's ok,
    	then no problem, I guess.
    
    	Other efforts at social change can use the dynamics involved
    	with demonstrations, etc., to advantage.  This situation is
    	different.
    
    	This is all I'm trying to say.

    Well, maybe I'm just jaded from years of noting in Womannotes,
    but I don't often do things any more to have "an effect" on other
    people.
    
    If my saying this war is a Big Mistake makes people *want* this war,
    that says more about them than it does about me. I can survive being
    called "stupid"; I can't survive on a dead planet.
    
    We have no guarantee of peace by staying away from *any*where. We have
    no guarantee of peace by getting *involved* anywhere. If this were a
    "Get Rid of Hussein and Come Home" deal, I'd probably not be so upset.
    
    This is going to involve more countries and more lives than we have
    any idea of (God Forbid) and at the end, the US will have lost big. We
    will be resented by all of the Middle East, most-if-not-all Third World
    countries, and most of the rest of the world.  Nobody is going to win
    this one. Not if we bomb Iraq off the map. Not if we kill Saddam
    Hussein. No matter what. Everybody loses *this* one. 
    
    --DE
    
    
    

    RE:  .96  DE
    
    > Well, maybe I'm just jaded from years of noting in Womannotes,
    > but I don't often do things any more to have "an effect" on other
    > people.
    	
    A peace "movement" seeks to convince many others that there are peaceful
    solutions to problems, though, doesn't it?  "Peace" takes cooperation
    among those who would otherwise employ war in situations that might be
    handled effectively in other ways.  Thus, the effects on others would
    appear to be an important consideration of the peace movement.
    
    I didn't mean to imply that your personal convictions have a big effect
    on others.  I was referring to the movement as a national group.
    
    > If my saying this war is a Big Mistake makes people *want* this war,
    > that says more about them than it does about me. I can survive being
    > called "stupid"; I can't survive on a dead planet.
    
    Again, I was referring to the movement, not to you as an individual.
    The effect of the peace movement has been to mobilize many people in
    this country to overt action (including demonstrations) of support for
    the war.  In other note, you called this "war frenzy."  It might have
    happened spontaneously (in the absence of the anti-war demonstrations,)
    but the level of fervor seems to have been raised significantly by the
    amount of coverage of the anti-war movement given to a country that
    doesn't view it as a positive message of "peace."
    
    Not that it matters, of course.  We all have the right to hold and
    express our own opinions.  I'm not suggesting that any of us don't
    (or shouldn't) have this right.
    
    As Pam mentioned earlier, WE ALL WANT PEACE.  We disagree on how to
    get there.
    
    If we made the mistake of allowing Saddam to progress far enough in
    his career to threaten us, it does not justify allowing him to become
    a bigger (and more dangerous) threat now.  It doesn't justify allowing
    him to get to the point of launching multiple nuclear attacks against
    our cities before we take a stand against him (and I believe with all
    my heart that this was - and is - a very serious possibility from him.)
    
    If we'd had a clear choice of peace vs. war (or a living planet vs. a
    dead one,) then I'd be against the war as much as you are.  I don't
    think we had that choice.  The choice I see was "a war now with a better
    chance of coming through it ok" vs. "a war later where we'd be lucky to
    have much of a country left."
    
    Although I'm sure we disagree, I don't see the U.S. (and the Allied
    Forces) as *starting* something that could lead to world destruction.
    I see our combined forces as *addressing* a problem that was already
    poised to lead to world destruction.  If the Allied Forces are success-
    ful, it can be stopped.  If not - we wouldn't have had any better luck
    by waiting until the situation was worse before taking action.
    
    > We have no guarantee of peace by staying away from *any*where. We have
    > no guarantee of peace by getting *involved* anywhere. 
    
    We have no guarantees of peace at all.  Guarantees of peace are simply
    not possible.
    
    In lieu of peace, I'd rather know that a threat against us is being
    addressed.  Peace takes cooperation.  Without it, we can only offer
    ourselves as slaves to any aggressive force who is unwilling to share
    this goal with us (and who has the means to use force against us.)
    
    A commitment to non-aggression (and pacificism) is possible on a
    personal level, and I commend it.  But it's not always practical for
    a whole society (especially one that wants to survive on its own
    terms in a rough world with aggressors threatening at the door.)
    
    It's an unfortunate reality in our present world.  We can work and
    hope for a better world, but not without someone making an effort
    to prevent someone like Saddam Hussein from taking our choices away
    from us.

    	It wasn't my intention to convince anyone that s/he should support
    	the war - obviously, it's a very personal choice.
    
    	Neither did I mean to imply that anyone *must* regroup or rethink
    	the approach the peace movement is taking.
    
    	Our government's policy in the Persian Gulf is firm and it has the
    	support of the overwhelming majority of the U.S. (which, of course,
    	doesn't make it infallible, but means that we can't expect any big
    	changes in the near future.)
    
    	We can only hope that the chosen path is successful (as much as
    	possible) so that the conflicts can be resolved and our troops
    	can come home soon.

                 From editorial cartoonist Steve Benson
                 (Chords worked out my me - there are probally better
                  ones)

                 "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag Pt. 2"

    G                              D                   G   
    C'mon, all you women and men, Uncle Sam needs your help again.
                                               D                      G
    He's got himself in a terrible jam, 'cause he ain't got no energy plan.
                                             D                   G
    So pick up your gun, it's time for war, 'specially if you're black or
         poor.

             G        C F D               G
    (CHORUS) And it's 1,2,3, what are we fightin' for ?
                     D
    Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, 
                  G                    C F D            G
    We're out to get Saddam.  And it's 5,6,7, the Saudi Desert's great!
                A7                             D             G
    Well, there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die!


    G                                   D                        G
    C'mon mothers throughout the land, pack your sons off to the burnin' sand.
                                    D                            G
    C'mon fathers, don't hesitate, they need your daughters in Kuwait.
                                        D              G
    Wipe those tears, no time for sobs, sacrifice your kids for jobs.

    
    (CHORUS)
    G                                 D                      G
    C'mon generals, let's move quick, George drew his line, let's make it stick.
                                       D                                G
    He's no wimp, just read his lips, start droppin' bombs, send in the ships.
                                     D                      G
    The Allies back us all the way, just fight their war, its' we who'll pay.

    
    (CHORUS)
    G                               D                  G
    C'mon, Congress, don't be slow, you should be the first to go..
                                       D
    Grab that gas mask, fight the foe, for EXXON, Gulf and TEXACO.
                                    D                G
    Super unleaded is what we seek, so let's go kill for Arab sheiks !

    
    (CHORUS)

    .99
    I find this in very very bad taste. An I am strongthly offened.
    
    You will here from my lawyer. 

    no one's lawyer should be called here, because
    
    	-THE CONTENT OF NOTES CONFERENCES IN DEC SHOULD STAY IN DEC!!!!
    		shouting intentional.
    	-bad taste is neither against the law nor against company policy
    	-no one attacked *you*, thoth::filz
    
    if your posting was a joke, stet this reply.  I hope it was a joke.
    
    p.s. please check your spelling
    
    Sara

I wonder if there is a misunderstanding here.  This song is an update
of a Vietnam protest song and the lyrics are not be taken literally
(ie, it is a satire)...

john

Really, send your lawyer to Country Joe and the Fish, or whoever...

	MKV

Bad taste may not be against company policy but discrimination and harassment
on grounds of veteran status *is*.

In a conference that uses this particular policy's subclause on sexual
discrimination and harassment regularly it would be nice if it was evenly
applied...

The piece of doggerel a few back is harassing (at least I perceive myself to be
harassed by it).

/. Ian .\

    May I suggest that a person who feels harassed by any note in the file
    should first contact the author of the note, and then the moderators
    rather than making their complaints in the file.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

Hi all.  I'm sitting here open-mouthed that this statement has gone unchallenged
in 20-odd replies...

From PSMITH's .83 -     
	"The point of this article that struck me the hardest is that even if
    you take the most moral outlook on why World War II was fought -- to
    rescue others from tyranny and oppression, to end the horror of the
    Holocaust and overt racism -- it was ineffective.  WAR DOES NOT WORK. 

Excuse me?  What are you talking about?  
My sister at age 3 months was killed in Auschwitz in the summer 
of 1944.  I regard the fact that my parents survived, and that I exist at all,
as owing entirely to the fact that war does indeed work.
(I guess I take my existence (and that of my parents) rather personally.)
	
	Yes, you can disarm a Hitler.  Yes, you can disarm a Saddam Hussein,
    and if that's the only goal, yes, it can be successful.  But has racism
    ended in Europe?  No, it's as bad if not worse than ever.  Has peace
    and respect for other nations grown?  No, it's stayed the same.  
Again, I am open-mouthed that you could say such a thing.  Is it really
all the same to you, the evil that Hitler did and the evil that (to cite 1
example) the French in North Africa did?  Is it not possible to distinguish 
between the fact that world remains an imperfect, maybe even nasty place in
which injustice and evil continue, and the fact that some evils really are
greater than others. Although of course we try to eradicate all evil,
the fact that we have not yet been completely successful does not equate
to our not being completely ineffective at it, either.

You know, you really do have to make distinctions.  It just doesn't work
to ignore history and say "nothing has changed anyway.  there is still
evil in the world."  I regard the argument you make to be an unanswerable
one !against! an absolutist stand for non-violence, not, as you seem to believe,
for it.  But mostly, I am simply amazed that anyone could really believe it...

    "Maybe waging war for peace is the answer.  I have certainly gone all
    the way up the scale and back about what I think about this war.  But
    based on history, and based on my own internal principles, I don't think
    so.  

I don't know.  I wouldn't, as a statement of principle, say that the best
way in theory to achieve peace is to wage war.  But historically, in
particular circumstances, it sure seems to be the only way that works.
I too hope that we can avoid those circumstances -  but we didn't this time,
and the world didn't in 1939 either.  

	Kathy 

    Re:106... powerful note....

    Geh mit Gott (jetzt kommen die Traenen)
    

    	RE: .106 Kathy
    
    	Very moving note, and I agree 100%.
    
    	War can't be expected to solve every problem in the world, but it
    	is still sometimes necessary (and well-justified) - especially when 
    	used to stop someone like Hitler.  
    
    	I feel the same way about Saddam Hussein.  Almost every new word
    	and deed done by this leader convinces me that we had no choice
    	but to stop him now, regardless of any mistakes (or oversights)
    	we may have made that helped him get to power.
    
    	Thanks very much for your note.

    re .109 Agreed. Everything I read about Saddam Hussein reinforces
    my impression that he is directly comparable to another former
    ally-of-convenience - Stalin. Truly frightening. 

re: Kathy in .106

Thank you for your note.

Kathy

Education and World Peace, Krishnamurti

From "Education and the Significance of Life"

NOTE:  This was written in 1953 from a series of talks.  I have not
updated the personal pronouns in use at the time.


To discover what part education can play in the present world crisis,
we should understand how the crisis has come into being.  It is
obviously the result of wrong values in our relationship to people, to
property and to ideas.  If our relationship with others is based on
self-aggrandizement, and our relationship to property is acquisitive,
the structure of the society is bound to be competitive and
self-isolating.  If in our relationship with ideas we justify one
ideology in opposition to another, mutual distrust ill-will are the
inevitable results.

Another cause of the present chaos is dependence on authority, on
leaders, whether in daily life, in the small school or university.
Leaders and their authority are deteriorating factors in any culture.
 When we follow another there is no understanding, but only fear and
conformity, eventually leading to the cruelty of the totalitarian
state and the dogmatism of organized religion.

To rely on governments, to look to organizations and authorities for
that peace which must begin with the understanding of ourselves, is to
create further and still greater conflict; and there can be no lasting
happiness as long as we accept a social order in which there is
endless strife and antagonism between man and man.  If we want to
change existing conditions, we must first transform ourselves, which
means that we must become aware of our own actions, thoughts, and
feelings in everyday life.

But we really do not want peace, we do not want to put an end to
exploitation.  We will not allow our greed to be interfered with, or
the foundations of our present social order to be altered; we want
things to continue as they are only with superficial modifications, and
so the powerful, the cunning, inevitably rule our lives.

Peace is not achieved through any ideology, it does not depend on
legislation; it comes only when we as individuals begin to understand
our own psychological processes.  If we avoid the responsibility of
acting individually and wait for some new system to establish peace,
we shall merely become slaves of the new system.

When governments, dictators, big business and the clerically powerful
begin to see that this increasing antagonism between men only leads to
indiscriminate destruction and is therefore no longer profitable, they
may force us, through legislation and other forms of compulsion, to
suppress our personal cravings and ambitions and to co-operate for
the well-being of mankind.  Just as we are now educated and encouraged
to be competitive and ruthless, so then shall we be compelled to
respect one another and to work for the world as a whole.

And even though we may all be well fed, clothed, and sheltered, we
shall not be free of our conflicts and antagonisms, which will merely
be shifted to another plane, where they will be still more diabolical
and devastating.  The only moral and righteous action is voluntary,
and understanding alone can bring peace and happiness to man.

Beliefs, ideologies, and organized religions are setting us against
our neighbors; there is conflict, not only among different societies,
but among many groups within the same society.  We must realize that
as long as  we identify ourselves with a country, as long as we cling
to security, as long as we are conditioned by dogmas, there will be
strife and misery both within ourselves and in the world.

Then there is the whole question of patriotism.  When do we feel
patriotic?  It is obviously not an everyday emotion.  But we are
sedulously encouraged to be patriotic through school-books, through
newspapers and other channels of propaganda, which stimulate racial
egoism by praising national heroes and telling us that our country and
way of life are better than others.  This patriotic spirit feeds our
vanity from childhood to old age.

The constantly repeated assertion that we belong to a certain
political or religious group, that we are of this nation or of that,
flatters our little egos, puffs them out like sails, until we are
ready to kill or be killed for our country, race, or ideology.  It is
all so stupid and unnatural.  Surely, human beings are more important
than national and ideological boundaries.

The separative spirit of nationalism is spreading like fire all over
the world.  Patriotism is cultivated and cleverly exploited by those
seeking further expansion, wider powers, greater enrichment; and each
of us takes part in this process, for we also desire these things.
Conquering other lands and other people provides new markets for
goods as well as political and religious ideologies.

One must look at all these expressions of violence and antagonisms
with an unprejudiced mind, that is, with a mind that does not identify
itself with any country, race, or ideology, but tries to find out what
is true.  There is great joy in seeing a thing clearly without belong
influenced by the notions and instructions of others, whether they be
the government, the specialists, or the very learned.  Once we really
see that patriotism is a hindrance to human happiness, we do not have
to struggle against this false emotion in ourselves and it is gone
forever.

Nationalism, the patriotic spirit, class and race consciousness, are
all ways of the self, and therefore separative.  After all, what is a
nation but a group of individuals living together for economic and
self-protective reasons.  Out of fear and acquisitive self-defense
arises the idea of "my country" with its boundaries and tariff walls,
rendering brotherhood and the unity of man impossible.

The desire to gain and to hold, the longing to be identified with
something greater than ourselves, creates the spirit of nationalism;
and nationalism; and nationalism breeds war.  In every country the
government, encouraged by organized religion, is upholding nationalism
and the separative spirit.  Nationalism is a disease and it can never
bring about world unity.  We cannot attain health through disease, we
must free ourselves from the disease.

It is because we are nationalists, ready to defend our sovereign
states, our beliefs and acquisitions, that we must be perpetually
armed.  Property and ideas have become more important to us than human
life, so there is constant antagonism and violence between ourselves
and others.  By maintaining the sovereignty of our country, we are
destroying our sons; by worshiping the State, which is but a
projection of ourselves, we are sacrificing our children to our own
gratification.  Nationalism and sovereign governments are the causes and
the instruments of war.

...

Craving security here of in the hereafter, we create institutions and
ideologies which guarantee that security; but the more we struggle for
security, the less we shall have it.  The desire to be secure only
fosters division and increases antagonism.  If we deeply feel and
understand the truth of this, not merely verbally or intellectually,
but with our whole being, then we shall begin to alter fundamentally
our relationship with our fellow men in the immediate world around us;
and only then is there a possibility of achieving unity and
brotherhood.

...

>>The point of this article that struck me the hardest is that even if
    you take the most moral outlook on why World War II was fought -- to
    rescue others from tyranny and oppression, to end the horror of the
    Holocaust and overt racism -- it was ineffective.  WAR DOES NOT WORK. 
    Yes, you can disarm a Hitler.  Yes, you can disarm a Saddam Hussein,
    and if that's the only goal, yes, it can be successful.  But has racism
    ended in Europe?  No, it's as bad if not worse than ever.  Has peace
>>    and respect for other nations grown?  No, it's stayed the same.

This reply make me SICK!

I wasnt around for WWII and probably neither was the writer of this note.
IT ISNT JUST SOME MACHO MEN who get it! My entire home town was laid waste
in WWII. All the streets where my parents lived were devastated, flattened!
 
This talk MORAL wars and JUST  wars is rubbish, If you are threatened you must
FIGHT. The Kuwaiti's have suffered the same fate as many European countries.
Perhaps the U.S.A. is so powerful it can let the rest of the world ROT!

Maybe Americans will stop equating MACHO and war when some American towns
really experience  what wars about. As regards the Europeans not doing enough,
both the French and German Govts are under pressure to contribute more from 
their own people.

Say you dont like wars, but dont ever equate staying out to some high moral
clap trap. 

A curse on isolationism

p.s.
	My apologies to .106 I wrote this before .106 was entered.
 I did not enter it because of an interruption.

re .105:

I am well aware of the procedure Bonnie. If I was more than highly irritated
by the continued anti-service bias in this and other conferences I would indeed 
have followed procedure (you missed the third step: involve Personnel)

I was merely responding to the earlier note that implied that the doggerel
was merely in bad taste and hence not violating PP&P. The border line between
bad taste and verbotten harassment and discrimination is a very vague one, and
its position tends to depend on whether you are in the target group or not.

I am irritated by the doggerel, but I can ignore it for now.

/. Ian .\

    Ian, with all due respect I'm afraid that the military is not a
    protected category within the meaning of personnel policy.  

true, but *veterans* are... hence demeaning the forces, or casting aspersions
on their motivations, morals and patriotism, is both directly and indirectly
casting such aspersions on veterans.

To whit, I find the repeated suggestion that the forces are fighting to protect
oil (acting as mercenaries for the oil companies) a direct attack on the 
patriotism of those serving. Attack that and you attack the patriotism of
all vets. I believe I am interpreting 6.03 correctly in saying that such an
attack on the values of a veteran is contrary to policy and subject to the
invocation of the disciplinary procedure.

I suspect this needs a test case: perhaps I should look for a nice juicy attack 
to take directly to personnel for a ruling on the matter?

I am certainly getting angrier by the minute: surely in a conference so 
dedicated to the human feelings of one of the groups protected by the policy
you should feel sympathy for the other groups?

/. Ian .\

    Ian, I think you may be seeing anti-military commments and reading them
    as anti-soldier comments.  To say what a group is doing has no
    necessary connection with the motivations of the group members.  Every
    serving member of the forces in the middle east may be acting from the
    highest patriotic feelings, and yet the group as a whole may be serving
    a very base purpose.  Consider the feelings of Iraqi forces:  to say
    that they are serving a madman doesn't detract from their individual
    bravery, patriotism, or ethical character, does it? 

    I hope this reply will be taken in the supportive spirit in which it is
    offered.
    
    I am against all war.  I am against the administration's policies for
    bringing about all wars. 
    
    I am not against the men and women who, in the case of volunteers,
    choose to serve, or against those who are conscripted to serve.  I
    support individual's decisions to join the armed services.  I support
    individual's decisions to conscientiously object to serving in the
    armed forces and support decisions for war.
    
    My heart aches for all those whose lives have already been lost, and
    for their families, friends, and loved ones who will miss them.
    
    I was an anti-war protester in '69, '70 - '72.  I never defiled the
    troops returning home.  I often didn't understand why they chose to
    serve, but I never dishonored their decision to serve.  I feel that
    those who were there had their lives changed by experiences with which 
    I have no familiarity or commonality.  Our lives took different paths.
    
    We all make decisions/choices based on information we have and taking
    into account our personal belief systems.  Naturally, there are as many
    different decisions/choices as there are people in the world.
    
    I am sorry that you feel abused, Ian.  I hope my reply here helps you
    see that although I personally am against war and policies that
    encourage war, I am not against those who are doing the actual
    fighting.  I think that others here in the file also think this way.  I
    also think that we have a right to say what we think about the war,
    either pro or con, without remarks taken as a direct attack on any
    individuals in the file.
    
    in peace,
    
    sue

    re: .119, thanks, Sue, for expressing so clearly what I feel, too.
    
    
    Sorry this is long; I'm only in two days a week and have to
    squeeze all I have to say into one reply!  

    Re: .106, .113, and others supporting them

    What I was talking about in .83 and others is different from what
    you understood me to say.  As I said, I don't know if it is
    possible to get peace from war.  Maybe you are right.  From my
    perspective, however, all that I see war producing is temporary
    outbreaks of peace while nations regroup.  What I focused on is
    that although Hitler and the Holocaust was stopped (and of course
    that is a major step forward), RACISM and RACIST SCAPEGOATING has
    not stopped.

    To make a medical analogy, you can say that it might be necessary
    to do an operation to save someone dying from lung cancer; but
    unless they stop smoking 3 packs a day the cancer is going to come
    back.  AND if the doctors who perform the operation smoke 3 packs
    a day themselves, it is hard for them to truthfully counsel the
    patient to cut down.

    The atmosphere in the world is full of smoke.

    It is not my intention to offend anyone who smokes by this
    analogy, nor to cause pain to anyone who has cancer or a loved one
    with cancer.  Yet they may still be offended or feel pain.
    Similarly, it is not my intention to offend or cause pain or anger
    to anyone who fought in or was directly affected by World War II
    or any other war.  I know dreadful things went on, I can feel pain
    and empathy, I know the actions of the allied troups eventually
    caused the Holocaust machine to shut down.  Nothing is totally
    good or bad, even war.

    When I say "war does not work", I am saying that although it
    removes a specific cancer, it does not change the
    cancer-encouraging environment.  We succeeded in removing Hitler.
    We failed in removing the mindset in people that caused him to
    flourish.  Another Hitler can grow.  Saddam Hussein has grown.  We
    helped him to grow (and I think he was the same man then) and we
    are now helping others to grow to fight Hussein.  What "Hitler"
    will we be removing in 10 years that we help create now?  Do we
    really have a plan for this cycle to END?  Or are we focusing on
    short-term quick results?  Is there the slightest possibility that
    we could have avoided this by taking different actions a year ago?
    What made us take the actions we did to make this war happen so
    suddenly?  We are doing the best we can but maybe we need to try
    something totally different.

    So we are looking at this issue from two different angles.  In
    this precise moment, it is possible that war is the answer.  I am
    not looking at this precise moment, so much as I am looking at all
    the moments before and all the moments afterward.  To me, this war
    is meaningless unless we truly plan to change the world's
    atmosphere.  There are no good guys and bad guys, only real, innocent
    people (not target-rich areas) that are dying every day.
    
    The nationalistic attitude in the article John replied with, the
    distrust, the greed, the "us against them" mindset make war
    INEVITABLE.  A person with lung cancer, with all the good
    intentions and willpower in the world, will not stop smoking
    unless that person becomes totally clear that smoking = death for
    them.  Similarly, a world obsessed with nationalism and greed and
    distrust, with all the good intentions and willpower in individual
    people, will create the conditions for "inevitable" war again and
    again and again.

    When I say social change, I really do mean C H A N G E.  And that
    change can start, as someone (Dawn?) said, with our own lives and
    how we interact with the people around us.

    re: .106, Kathy, I think where we disagree is that you feel that
    war HAS worked.  I think war's like cutting the head off a
    dandelion without getting the root out.  We don't tell children in
    playgrounds to "go ahead and hit back.  They won't do it again."
    We seem to think differently at the national level than we do at
    the kindergarten level.  We seem to think we are in the role of
    the teacher, not in the role of one of the children.  Also, I do
    not judge you for your beliefs; I would appreciate it if you would
    try to read from my viewpoint in return.  I'm really not crazy or
    stupid! :-)

    re:  .113, I am sorry that my reply makes you "SICK."  I don't have
    any preconceptions that war is macho, and I don't suggest
    traditional isolationism.  I am suggesting something different
    from what we have done before.  I would really appreciate it if
    you would reread .83 and Krishnamurti's comments posted in John's
    .112, for instance, and come up with another theory of what this
    viewpoint is all about.  

    Pam

    Thanks, Pam, for entering your thoughtful comments.
    
    -- Mike

    	Something that made our foreign policy choices a bit tougher in
    	the Middle East (in the past decade or so...)
    
    	Our main concern was the cold war with the USSR.  They had very
    	close ties to Iraq (the USSR sold them a lot of military arms,
    	planes, etc.) - and we had to try to keep a balance with the
    	Soviets in mind.
    
    	Now things have changed - the cold war with the USSR is over.  
    	It's a completely different situation.
    
    	Now that we see where all this has taken Saddam, he has to be
    	stopped.  We can improve foreign policy - but we can't just
    	give up on trying to stop a Hitler (or a Saddam) because we
    	failed to stop him sooner.

Ian, et al. --

I think if you read back you'll find that many, if not most, of the 
people writing here against the war have expressed explicit support
for the individuals who are actually doing the fighting.  It's in
fact consistent in my mind to believe that the situation should be
solved without war (that more time and effort should have been used
in trying non-violent solutions), and to feel concern for the lives of the 
people who are most likely to be killed in it.  

To me, it's a curious leap of logic to think that those who oppose war 
don't care as much for the soldiers.  It would be much easier for me to 
support war as an option if I could rationalize sending them off to be 
killed, or if people weren't involved at all; if it was, in fact, 
just a bunch of planes and ships and tanks and guns, instead of 
brothers and sisters and children and uncles and aunts and cousins 
and mothers and fathers and grandparents and friends being killed.

re: preventing war
I'm afraid we're taking another giant step backward.  If we could teach
the sacredness of life, and that wars aren't "good", and that hitting back
isn't a solution, and national boundaries are just imaginary lines
on maps, our world might get closer to being at peace.  But to teach
children that "thou shalt not kill", and then have a handful of
politicians play judgement, get to waive the rule, and say "except in
*this* case, which is important because, umm, <reason of the week
determined by what a PR person thinks the most people will support>,
in which it's ok to kill lots and lots of people", there's no
consistent message, and the next generation has no better chance of
avoiding war (each one more likely than the last to eliminate the human race)
than we did.

	MKV

    It is very, very difficult to always distinguish between an attack on
    what a person *does* and an attack on what that person IS. That is
    particularly true when what a person *does* is at the core of his or
    her being. (e.g. the professional solder, the Evangelical Christian,
    the revolutionary adherent to Islam,the fir trapper, the prostitute,
    the synthetic chemist, <whatever>)
    
    What makes it so difficult is that in common human parlance/intercourse
    there AIN'T no difference.
    
    One can hide behind the statement "I have no problem with you, I have
    no intention of being personally disrespectful", it is just that X
    (which only coincidentally just happens to be your lifetime
    committment) is a bunch of garbage"; how *that* can be communicated
    without also communicating "you are a bunch of garbage" is difficult
    for me to understand. (not difficult to understand from a formal logic
    or semantic point of view mindyou,  or even from a noting protocol
    perspective, but rather from a human point of view) 
    
    I personally feel that *most* people who use such an argument are being
    morally and personally disingenuous, albeit logically consistent.

    re .122, Suzanne,
    
    I know what you're saying, and it makes total sense from a traditional
    foreign policy analysis perspective.
    
    But, here's what I mean by really *changing* our perspective of what's
    going on:  why were we at cold war with the USSR?  I'm not looking at
    historical events or assumptions about what the Soviets or we were up
    to.  I'm looking at MINDSET.  Maybe because of nationalistic attitudes,
    distrust, greed, and an "us against them" mentality???  An atmosphere
    where war is an OK alternative? 
    
    We've just changed the actors, not the play...
    
    Pam

    >I personally feel that *most* people who use such an argument are being
    >morally and personally disingenuous,

    Herb, your ad hominem remarks are duly noted.

    -- Mike

    RE: .126  Pam
    
    > Maybe because of nationalistic attitudes, distrust, greed, and an 
    > "us against them" mentality???  An atmosphere where war is an OK 
    > alternative? 
    
    It's so easy to chalk everything we do up to this (after all, we heard
    this refrain over and over and over during the Vietnam era.)
    
    It's not this simple, though.
    
    > We've just changed the actors, not the play...
    
    Couldn't be farther from the truth.  Again, it's an easy thing to say,
    but the situation (and the other players) are quite different.

    When typing what I just did above, I tried to think of a way of
    excluding you explicitly, Mike.
    I wasn't able to think of a way of doing it.
    I stand by my ad hominem remark, that pseudo intellectual discussions
    are often (more or less transparently) ad hominem attacks.
    
    Which I believe is why so many people are so often angry in this
    conference.
    
    
    				herb

    Think about the impact of invalidating a life committment!

    I remember once as a young man in the Navy I had a good friend who
    among other things was a Boston Irish Catholic born of the depression.
    (perhaps those of you who are old enough may remember the kind of
    influence Father Feeney and Joe McCarthy had on Bostonians)
    This friend and I would often get involved in discussions about racism.
    One day I challenged him with "how in the world can you justify racism,
    there are nuns and priests who are black". That ended the 'discussion'
    About three a.m. the following morning I was thrown abruptly out of my
    bunk and my -drunken- friend attacked me. Fortunately, he was too drunk
    to be dangerous.
    I was invalidating *his* Christianity and therefore, him. (I obviously
    don't remember, but i'll bet you there was the same snarl, the same
    sneer in my voice that I so often see in print here.)

    .113
    
    I guess I need to reread your note, but this is what it triggered in
    me.
    
    My parents lived in Russia during the revolution, and in Germany
    during WWII.  They obviously were in the wrong places at the
    wrong time.  Their motherland is Lithuania, and we know what's
    happening there now (or do we? afterall, all eyes are on the gulf
    right now); but my point is, war helps nothing, nobody.  When my
    mother and father lost their homes, it's because one of the
    armies seized it--Russian, Germany, and yes, American.  When they
    were displaced and relocated to Siberia, the army relocated them.
    When they came out of the cellar after a shelling, and saw their
    livestock dead in the fields, it was the war's bombs that killed them.
    
    So in my opinion, war certainly is not for the benefit "of the people."
    In Vietnam, Americans were seen as the enemy by the South Vietnamese
    as well--they lost their villages, their homes, family, livestock,
    to America's napalm and bombs.  
    
    So what is the purpose of war?  What are we protecting? Certainly not
    the people.  ANd I agree, if America had one war on its land, if 
    we got to see the destruction, let's say, the Empire State building
    destroyed into a pile of rubble, I think the 'flag wavers' out there
    would have a different opinion of war and its supposed necessity.
    
    BTW, did anyone see LA LAW?  I strong protest show against war;
    talked about what happened in Panama--15 dead civilians for every
    one American casualty...15,000 civilians left homeless.  ANd we
    went over there to save [what]?
    
    Maia
    

    	The last time Americans saw the destruction on our "own soil,"
    	it was in Pearl Harbor - 1941.
    
    	It proved the necessity of the war and resulted in very widespread
    	popular support for World War II.

    .re -1
    
    Maybe just a nit, but was Pearl Harbor "our soil" then?  I know Hawaii
    wasn't a state until the 50's sometime; Pearl Harbor was a naval
    base.  Not sure what 'possession' we had then of Hawaii.
    

    re: .132
    
    Also, I have heard from more than one place that we had cracked the
    Japanese code and knew of the planned Pearl Harbor invasion several
    days beforehand.  From this point of view, Roosevelt allowed Pearl
    Harbor to be bombed to galvanize the public into wanting war.
    
    Possibly the same thing with us telling Iraq "we have no treaty with
    Kuwait" in response to his asking about invading.  We didn't take a
    strong line then, when we had dozens of trained diplomats to assist
    in mediation and nobody in Kuwait had yet been harmed.  Why did we
    fight so weakly for peace then?  Why did we wait until he had done what
    we already knew he was capable of doing?  My belief is that Bush has
    wanted to go to war and he created a situation where it is "impossible"
    to do anything else.  
    
    Pam

    re.133
    
    in December of 1941 the United States was owned by the USofA.  It was
    our territory, so I suppose it must have been our soil ...

    
    	Hawaii was a "Territory" before it was a state.  People born there
    	were American citizens.
    
    	As a young child, my American citizenship was contingent on my
    	being raised in "America" a certain number of years (because I
    	was born in a foreign country and had the option of choosing to
    	be a citizen of the other country without going through any sort
    	of naturalization process) - and the territory of Hawaii counted
    	as "America" for the purpose of my American citizenship.
    
    	It was "our soil."  Definitely.

    "Our Soil" = " we are the world "
    
    sorry.
    
    OK.  If it was 'our soil' then, did the Japanese bomb the civilian
    neighborhoods, or was it a direct attack on the military?  Just asking.
    
    I feel Bush made it clear the other night during his great pep
    rally--when he talked about America finally clearing her name and
    being able to get respect for other nations again--this smacked,
    to me, of "winning in Iraq" so we could "forget we lost in Vietnam."
    What he hasn't figured out yet, imho, is that this Iraq-thing
    is not going to erase the Vietnam thing.
     
    m.
    

    	Maia, you brought up the point in the statement about what would
    	happen if a war happened on our own land, or whatever.  You suggested
    	that the "flag wavers" would feel differently about it - so I wrote
    	a note to remind you that an attack on our land was instrumental in
    	garnering widespread, popular support for WWII.
    
    	If you don't like the term, "our soil," I'm sorry.  Your original
    	statement was still worth challenging (based on past experience.)
    	Ok?
    
    	The Japanese attacked military targets at Pearl Harbor, and also
    	engaged in strafing runs in residential neighborhoods.
    
    	Last time I looked, the bullet holes in the administrative buildings
    	at Hickam AFB (near Pearl Harbor) were still there - left as a sort
    	of monument.

    
    EW: .134
    
    I agree with you 100%.  I have said it all along this
    war is Bush's war.
    
    He set the stage for the war to begin.
    He compared Saddam to Hitler.
    He persuade everybody that war is the only answer.
    He refused to have a real peace talk with Iraq.
    
    Remember: Arab people don't consider Saddam comparable
    to Hitler.  Most of them consider him as the only Arab hero
    who stand up against US imperism.
    
    Yes, Iraq shouldn't invade and takeover KW.  But what about
    Isreal's taking over West Bank?  Is this the biggest US double
    standard?
    
    Are we fighting with Iraq in order to protect Israel?  We all
    know that Israel would like to see SH removed long time ago.

    	Most of the Arab world is currently at war with Saddam (as members
    	of the Coalition.)  Iran isn't Arabic, remember.
    
    	Saddam has waged war against three Islamic nations now, including
    	his recent invasion of Saudi Arabia.
    
    	All the nations who have appealed for peace (including Iran and the
    	Soviet Union) have requested that Iraq leave Kuwait.  Saddam insists
    	that this is a non-negotiable item (no matter who asks him to do it.)
    
    	As far as Israel is concerned, Saddam and the PLO aren't merely
    	asking for the West Bank to be given up.  When they talk about
    	the "occupied territories," they mean the whole country.  They
    	do not recognize Israel's right to exist, so the only solution
    	to the Arab-Israeli conflict that they would accept is the END
    	of the state of Israel.  
    
    	Israel has the West Bank as a buffer due to the refusal of her
    	neighbors to EVER accept the existence of Israel.  They won it
    	as the result of Arab aggression, and they hold onto it because
    	the goal of their enemies is to eradicate Israel *completely*.
    	
    	Compromise is difficult when one side insists on the complete
    	eradication of the other from the Middle East.

From the interviews I've been hearing on NPR the PLO wants more than the actual
land Isreal is on. They want all Isreali's dead. Maybe they are only interviewing
the fanatics.

I think Isreal should get out of the occupied territories and that they are not
right in their treatment of the Palistinians. They do have a right to survive
though and many in the Middle East want them killed. That is the group that
supports Saddam. I'd be hard pressed to be real fair if I was living in Isreal
under the fear they must survive with. liesl

    	Yes, Liesl, it is also my understanding that the desire for
    	eradication of the state of Israel means seeing all Israelis
    	dead (per Saddam, and many others.)
    
    	As Bonnie mentioned, Israel keeps the occupied territories
    	because they offer protection from some exceptionally hostile
    	neighbors who are bent on Israel's complete destruction.
    
    	Israel has had the West Bank etal for 24 years - and I don't
    	blame them for protecting themselves against the death threats
    	they've lived with in the Middle East for over 40 years total.

By occupied territories I was thinking of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Every
time I look at this problem  it seems there is no way out. liesl

    	As someone else mentioned in notes, Israel is about the size of
    	Rhode Island compared to the Arab nations (which total an area
    	similar to the size of the U.S.)  

Again Hitler was a popular leader of his time and not just in his own country.
He had widespread support in many Germanic (Analogy Arabic) countries and
was able to "anschluss" (annexe) Austria
(Saddam should have annexed Jordan First)
 with the support of majority of Austrians. Hitler was supported as being the 
man to tell the old style
imperial powers where to get off. His support extended to the U.K. where the
Facist party lead by Mosely engaged in in pro-National socialism demonstrations.
Hitler had the support of Italy and Spain (Franco) in Europe.
	Hitler was a charismatic leader who was able to summon support from 
a wide international audience. 
	Lets take the analogy further, Hitler was, in part, created by the 
foriegn policy of victorious powers of the first world war. (Saddam was created
and supported by the foreign policies of countries opposed 
to Islamic fundamentalism).
	I think the analogy with Hitler is very apt, but perhaps in more 
historical detail than histrionics.
	

re .139

>    I agree with you 100%.  I have said it all along this
>    war is Bush's war.

	Did Bush invade Kuwait?

			Tom_K    

    Just to throw some interesting tibbits out..
    
    Guess which oil company drill the first oil weels in Kuwait?
    
    Zapata Oil company... Now who was the president of Vapata Oil
    at the time?
    
    
    George Bush.....

granted that the Bush foreign policy did not exactly have its act together in
July.

still, it's more than a small stretch to bring GBush to task for SH's bloody 
invasion! 

    
    I haven't read through the last few day's replies in this string so I
    don't know if it was mentioned, but if anyone around Boston is looking
    for peace/anti-war buttons, I found some at a store in Cambridge - send
    mail and I'll send the name.
    
    D.

    Please see note 593.178