Fired by The Door Magazine

Captivated

Image: Surreal by Angel Estevez
Words:Worlds Away by Crumbacher-Duke



A voice has called to me across the open blue/The fog is lifting so as not to hide the view/I see the starlight of the morning/shine from somewhere beyond the bay/worlds away, worlds away, heaven knows where my heart goes and wants to stay/worlds away, worlds away, heaven knows the north wind blows as if to say world away/the falling earth below me, upward still I climb from terra firma to the very edge of time/I feel the soaring of my spirit outside the yonder light of day/worlds away, worlds away.../Open my eyes to find I'm not where it would seem/the twilight memories fade that hold on to the dream/I've journeyed from my mortal borders/I've heard angelic music play/worlds away, worlds away.../

Image: Yes by Michael Gorshe

Never Leaving nor Forsaking

(seen at Jordon Cooper)

To some, God is the transcendent power waiting for us in everything
To others, God is an oppressive power used to bind and blind the wretched of the earth

To some, God is the creator who breathes the breath of life into our bodies
To others, God is the creation of an infantile humanity, superstitious and scared to grow up

To some, God is a motherly parent, birthing creation and holding her people to her breast
To others, God is tyrannical father, never pleased enough, loathed and feared as he traps us in dependence

To some, God is a liberator, hearing the cries of the oppressed and moving to help them
To others, God is a collaborator, deaf to the cries of the oppressed and siding with the powers that be

To some, God's hands were split open by violence in suffering love for women and men
To others, God's hands are stained with the blood of the countless atrocities and needless human suffering

To some, the praises of the church rise like incense to be breathed in by the God of live
To others, the smoke of Auschwitz and Hiroshima rises like a finger accusing God, like smoke which blinds God's eyes

Some of us find all our hope and sense of meaning in God
Others have lost all faith in God

(from Alternative Worship)

(from Jason Evans)

As the war in Iraq draws to a close, I pray that the gaping wounds it has left might not go unattended, so that they fester and spread the germs of yet another conflict. I pray for all of the wounded: victims and profiteers, soldiers and civilians, cheerleaders and dissenters. For the President, but also for the mothers of the dead. For the civilians lying in Baghdad’s looted hospitals, but also for those in the military hospitals of Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. Because as Martin Luther King once said, “The judgment of God is upon us. And unless we learn to live together as brothers, we will perish together as fools.”

- Johann Christoph Arnold

(a poem by me, today)

Sight Unseen

Slam shut the open window of my soul!
This fog obscene just clouds my eyes;
Lost in this mist, my travels stop here,
For confusion obscures my view.

These toxins of yours bleed into my air,
It chokes and crowds my oxygen out;
Surrounding me, my world becomes less,
This poison of yours infects me.

Your plague spreads deep through my flesh and my blood,
It taints and condemns my universe;
For it never stops, and never ends,
My time shortened by your disease.

While little or nothing flows from your realm,
My life is crippled and drowned in pain'
Please be my guide, you know this wound best,
And cleanse my affliction you've made.

Yet try as you might, it's never enough
To cure all my pain and suffering;
No insight seems good to halt it now,
While my efforts are meaningless.

So searching for where your weakness appears,
It stings and it burns my eyes so much;
The cure is blurred and beyond my grasp,
With no end in sight it remains!

(from They Blinked)

the reservoir of the unspoken must grow.

Beating the System

Humanity

(from They Blinked)

everything demands
a set
of
contextually embedded
assumptions;
those moments of
shared existence
that are the indivisibly
small units of
atomic meaning that
morph through endless phase transition
recalibrating what has come to be
called reality.

Still Small Voice

---

WARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWAR
WARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWAR

peace

WARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWAR
WARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWARWAR

Remember the Tortured

(seen originally via bloggedy blog)



(originally at LivingRoom)

Blessed are the Innocent

(from The Silhouette)

Fellow Blogger Joshua Claybourn had an interesting post today about the war in Iraq, entitled "I Believe". With a huge dose of Sarcasm Joshua attacks the anti-war camps with a whole bunch of arguments. Read them at http://www.joshclaybourn.com .

I note that no mention in his articale was made to the thousands of Iraqi dead, both civilian and military while their country was invaded. He attacks france for things the French have sold Iraq, yet ignores the fact that America supported Saddam in becoming so powerfull in the first place, although Mr Rumsfeld would be able to tell us more, after all he was involved in that to. There is also no mention of the fact that despite all of this talk of WMD's, no concrete proof has been found, but what does that Matter, when youve got the CIA to make sure that some will be found. Also not mentioned are the hundreds of thousands who have been effected since the last Gulf War, due to the use of Depleated Uranium Shells, or the fact that the furthest Iraqi missiles were capable of reaching was still thousands of miles short of the USA. Also forgotten is the fact that Iraq may support Palestine, but America supports Israel. Priorities are also forgotten there, after all, Israel is and was breaking more UN resolutions than Iraq, Israel was and is in possession of WMD's, etc. Also, strangely no mention of the fact that the US's alliance with the Kurds has allowed Kurds to be in Arab majority towns, where trouble is started because the two factions despise each other. No mention of the fact that before Gulf War 1 Iraq was a comparitivley rich country people were not starving, of course, Dubya's father made sure their prosperity didnt last.

So it appears that alot of facts were forgotten on the writing of his articale, the only decent thing I could do would be point this out

(seen from Fatblueman)

George W. Bush assures us that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people. But any asset priced in dollars is at least partly an American asset because it adds to the demand for dollars, allowing America to export more dollars and receive more goods and services in return. So the test of America's sincerity will be whether its new regime in Iraq continues to accept euros for oil.

(from this article)

(from Jordon Cooper)

New doctrine of Pax Americana & war
From Tom and Christine Sine

War has begun in Iraq. I am deeply concerned that there has been no national debate in the news or by our national leaders regarding the new doctrine of Pax Americana that underlies America's new more aggressive foreign policy.

Please understand we share with people in many parts of the world a growing concern about terrorism. But we don't believe the U.S. administration has made any clear link at this time between the secular nation of Iraq and the terrorist networks that threaten many nations. In fact, a number of strategists feel it would be much more useful to concentrate our attention on dealing with the immediate terrorist networks instead of widening the war in a way that could unwittingly recruit many disaffected young Arabs to join the terrorists in their Jihad against the West.

Let me share a viewpoint seldom heard in the U.S. for discussion and response. The goal for invading Iraq "...is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions" according to Jay Bookman writing for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on September 29, 2002. [Remember when it was first reported that Saddam was using weapons of mass destruction in violation of international law he was our ally and we were even supplying him with weapons. While others protested, the Reagan White House was virtually silent because he was our brutal tyrant.]

Bookman argues that a new doctrine of Pax Americana has been formulated by this administration based on the recent reality that the United States has emerged from the cold war as the only super power. He argues the real agenda isn't about Iraq but the pursuit of American military and economic supremacy throughout the world through a new policy of the use of preemptive military power.

On September 20, the administration published a new more aggressive foreign policy in the "National Security Document." This new National Security Document declares that this is "... a time of opportunity for America. We will work to translate this moment of opportunity into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and national interests." www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf [give it a careful read & share it with others and ask their opinion of this new decisive shift in U.S. foreign policy]

This document presents as a goal using America's overwhelming military and economic power to pursue America's vision of what is best for America and the world. Bookman feels that this statement reflects our leaders quietly pursuing the aspirations of empire... for all the best possible reasons from promoting global economic growth to securing world peace. He states, "In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent military and economic domination of every region of the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality it envisions a stark expansion of global military presence." Bookman believes the real goals in the pending invasion of Iraq is to send a message to other countries to either cooperate with U.S. policies or face the consequences and to establish a permanent military base in Iraq to significantly increase American influence in the entire region.

Make sure you read the entire document and take some time to interact with some of the questions they pose.

I am glad that some people have been questioning it. I know when Condoleeza Rice was named NSA there were some writings of hers that laid out a very similar approach. At the time there seemed to be some hope that Colin Powell would counteract that but I guess not.

(from Signposts)

I have been following a cross-blog exchange between wood at connexions and mark byron about a post that wood had written. If you start from there, you can follow the dialogue.

I am finding myself agreeing with both of them on different points. Wood says:

You see, I think the biggest mistake both Liberals and Conservatives (using the American definitions of the words) make again and again is to assume that

"If Liberals/Conservatives (delete as applicable) really knew all the facts and had a grasp of the meanings behind it, they wouldn't be Liberals/Conservatives (delete as applicable)."

But the thing is, there are both Liberals and Conservatives who aren't ignorant. And in fact they have exactly the same information and grasp of things... they just come to a different conclusion.

I do this. In my head I am being charitable by thinking that people I disagree with are misguided or stupid - because otherwise if you understood the situation and still disagreed wtih me, there may be some explanation which (in my head) is less charitable to you.

Anyway, Mark mused a little about the dispute and concluded:

We'll tend to interevene if there are bad guys who threaten our economic or geopolitical interests. We don't intervene when there are bad guys who don't threaten our interests (Zimbabwe, Congo, Liberia/Ivory Coast, Burma) and we definately don't intervene when the bad guys aid our long-term interest (the Saudis, Singapore, some of the 'stans). Where US foreign policy is hypocritical is intervening where there are strategic interests and ignoring ones that have merely humanitarian interests.

However, I don't think that makes our actions in Iraq immoral. It makes inaction in places like Liberia and Zimbabwe immoral, but it doesn't make action in Iraq immoral.

Mark expresses a different point of view than the one that I hold, but I thought that there was wisdom in this analysis.

(from John Campea)

The United States and Great Britain are now admitting they violated the international rules of war convention adopted by the United Nations by using the banned weapons known as “cluster bombs”. US officials claimed that although they did use the weapons, they were NOT used in areas that had civilian populations. Contrary to that statement, dozens of dud American cluster shells have been found scattered around Baghdad by CNN and other American news correspondents.

The hypocrisy of this whole sorted affair astounds me. “We’re going to attack you because you have banned weapons. Don’t mind us as we use banned weapons ourselves to attack you with!”.

“We’re going to attack you because you have chemical weapons! I know the inspectors didn’t find any, and we can’t find them either, but we know you HAD them because WE’RE THE ONES WHO GAVE THEM TO YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE”

“We’re going to attack you because you have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Don’t pay any attention to the fact that we currently have 10,215 fully operational Nuclear warheads.”

Look, I’m honestly not trying to reopen the war debate. If you agreed with the war or not, you have to admit that as a westerner our hypocrisy is a little embarrassing… even if the war was just.

(seen via Fatblueman)

"Judgement is mine", saith the Lord

The religious overtones in President Bush's speeches increasingly grate on many ears in Europe, where leaders invoking God in times of war are widely suspect of using faith for political purposes.

The German president, French premier, and Belgian foreign minister have joined religious leaders in expressing alarm at Bush's beliefs and the place of religion in U.S. politics.

In his speeches, Bush has asked for guidance from "the loving God behind all of life and all of history" and warned Americans that "we are in a conflict between good and evil."

These references may not seem so out of place in the United States, where all presidents say "God bless America" and where "In God We Trust" is emblazoned on dollar bills.

But they stand out and sometimes even shock many Europeans who remember how German soldiers trooped off to World War I with "Gott mit uns" (God with us) stamped on their belt buckles.

(from this article)

(from They Blinked)

Former Sec. of State Lawrence Eagleburger:
Bush Should Be Impeached If He Invades Syria or Iran

Yesterday, Lawrence Eagleburger, who was US Secretary of State under George Bush Sr., told the BBC:

"If George Bush [Jr.] decided he was going to turn the troops loose on Syria and Iran after that he would last in office for about 15 minutes. In fact if President Bush were to try that now even I would think that he ought to be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in this democracy."

(from Signposts)

I listened to a press conference with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld where he said the bombing campaign was so precise there was minimal damage to Iraq's civilian infrastructure." Here is a link I found to his comments. He went on to say: "I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do," Rumsfeld told reporters late Thursday.

Yet, this in the age today:

Baghdad remains in the grip of an electricity and clean-water crisis.Lieutenant-General William Wallace, the senior army officer in Iraq, said army engineers were attempting to locate civil authorities who knew the workings of the electricity grid, which failed a few nights before the fall of Baghdad.

But he warned: "Getting water and power and sewage back on in this city is going to be a monumental task."

Isn't it good to see that when Rumsfeld starts his spin doctoring he consults with his senior military people in Iraq.

Around and around we go.

(seen from Adam Beach)

Vaclav Havel:

"The feeling that 'if nothing is happening, nothing is happening' is the prejudice of a superficial, dependent, and hollow spirit, one that has succumbed to the age and can prove its own excellence only by the quantity of pseudo-events it is constantly organizing, like a bee, to that end."

(President of the Czech Republic)

(seen at The Heresy)

There have been many in the anti-war camp who have shown a blind bias against everything the coaliton was doing. However I don't believe this discredits the entire peace movement. I oppose this war on a number of levels which have yet to be resolved.

Is this a war of liberation or expanding American influence or both? It is true that many Iraqi's are happy their tyrant is gone. That doesn't mean this war was entirely about liberation. This question has yet to be answered. The war has successfully convinced the American public that they are right and invincible. A dangerous combination.

Will this war bring about more terrorism than it solves?
Osama Bin Laden, the one sure enemy to cause mass destruction was motivated by that last stunning western victory in Iraq. How many more Bin Ladens have been so motivated?

The pro war movement seems to be thoroughly convinced that there was no other option in Iraq. A careful study of non-violent action would reveal that the "peace niks" have successfully overturned many oppresive regimes in the last 30 years. These revolutions are far less bloody and far more effective at bringing true peace.
Military action may bring regime change but it rarely brings lasting fruitful peace.

(from Barbieux.net)

The following is a letter to the editor in today's[Tuesday, April 8] Tennessean. It is both well written, receiving the Tennesseans 3-star award, and it speaks so much truth that I felt it necessary to reprint it here:

Only myth justifies this organized violence

When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked if this war was going ''according to schedule,'' he retorted, ''I didn't know wars had a schedule.'' Of course, the question was inane and Rumsfeld's jab at the press, one of his favorite pastimes, was well-placed.

Although wars seldom go according to a set schedule, they always go according to a predetermined myth. Because war is the ultimate acting-out of organized violence, there must be a set of beliefs underlying a nation's felt need to kill people and break things.

The myth of war is that set of beliefs, often unconscious, that imbues a people with the illusion of righteousness, that divides the world into distinct realms of good and evil. The enemy is always the embodiment of evil and we are the essence of goodness and light. Without this absolute conviction of heart, mind and spirit, it is difficult to rouse a people's passion long enough to sustain cooperation.

Our administration has successfully evangelized America with this myth of grandiosity. Associating Iraq with the horrors of 9/11, which is easy to imagine but hard to prove, our myth-makers have elevated preemptive aggression into a preordained mission. And as we gather in houses of worship our priests, ministers and rabbis are constrained to pray for the success of this war.

In fact, we must cloak the myth of war with the blessing of our respective traditions, knowing all along that the prophets and Jesus lived, and thus died, to expose this myth as the very lie that perpetuates humankind's senseless folly.

Mark Forrester

Nashville 37216

(referred via John Campea)

The following quote is from Scott Ritter, former United States Marine, and also former Chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998. Interesting thoughts he shares:

"The threat that Iraq poses from weapons of mass destruction I think has been clearly exposed as a lie. We were told to expect chemical weapons to rain down on troops as soon as they crossed over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, but that didn't happen. We were then told that as we closed in on the so-called 'red line' around Baghdad - the 50-mile circle - that as soon as we breached that, chemical weapons would be used. That didn't happen. Then we said chemical weapons would be used as a last-gasp defence of Baghdad but that didn't happen. What chemical weapons? We were told that the presidential palaces were brimming over with weapons of mass destruction, but we now occupy many of the presidential palaces and we've found nothing."

"If Iraq were to have weapons of mass destruction today, they would have had to reconstitute a manufacturing base since 1998, since weapons inspectors left. No one has provided any information of a substantive nature that sustains that allegation. Clearly Iraq had the potential, they had time, they had four years between the time I left and other inspectors left in 1998 and the time that the new UNMOVIC inspectors returned in the fall of 2002."

"I have clearly stated that Iraq could reconstitute a limited capability within six months, so the potential is there for Iraq to have done this, but that potential doesn't automatically translate into reality, and we did have inspectors on the ground for almost four months, and they found nothing. Furthermore they investigated over a dozen sites highlighted by the Central Intelligence Agency as being prime suspects for producing weapons of mass destruction and they have found nothing."

"The threat that Iraq poses from weapons of mass destruction I think has been clearly exposed as a lie. We were told to expect chemical weapons to rain down on troops as soon as they crossed over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, but that didn't happen. We were then told that as we closed in on the so-called 'red line' around Baghdad - the 50-mile circle - that as soon as we breached that, chemical weapons would be used. That didn't happen. Then we said chemical weapons would be used as a last-gasp defence of Baghdad but that didn't happen. What chemical weapons? We were told that the presidential palaces were brimming over with weapons of mass destruction, but we now occupy many of the presidential palaces and we've found nothing."

"If Iraq were to have weapons of mass destruction today, they would have had to reconstitute a manufacturing base since 1998, since weapons inspectors left. No one has provided any information of a substantive nature that sustains that allegation. Clearly Iraq had the potential, they had time, they had four years between the time I left and other inspectors left in 1998 and the time that the new UNMOVIC inspectors returned in the fall of 2002."

"I have clearly stated that Iraq could reconstitute a limited capability within six months, so the potential is there for Iraq to have done this, but that potential doesn't automatically translate into reality, and we did have inspectors on the ground for almost four months, and they found nothing. Furthermore they investigated over a dozen sites highlighted by the Central Intelligence Agency as being prime suspects for producing weapons of mass destruction and they have found nothing."

(the entire interview here)

(from Cre8d journal)

I woke up to a beautiful, warm day and then checked my emails.

Josh sent me and some others an email which read:

"I'm looking forward to your commentary on Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein and his evil regime."

Let me repeat once more: to be anti-war does not mean I am pro-Saddam and I'm glad that he is not in power any more. I just didn't agree with the method to remove him.

As Richard responded,

...if anyone believes that this war was prosecuted "to free the people" I dare to suggest that they haven't thought about the way foreign policy has worked post-WWII. The list of oppressive regimes which our governments have supported is long and depressing. I see no evidence that they are not prepared to offer support to such regimes in the future if it serves "the national interest". If the Iraqi people find freedom as a by-product of this war, then I for one will be glad -- but I think it is a very big "if". There is a long way to go before peace and security can be established in the region, and it won't be imposed by Armoured Divisions...
There was surely never any doubt that this war could result in a military victory for the Coalition. But whether the peace can be won is another question altogether, and one which will take much longer to answer.

There's an interesting article in our paper this morning:

The Americans 'liberated' Baghdad yesterday, destroyed the centre of Saddam Hussein' s quarter century of brutal dictatorial power, but brought behind them an army of looters who unleashed upon the ancient city a reign of pillage and anarchy.
"It is the beginning of our new freedom," an Iraqi shopkeeper shouted at me. Then he paused, and asked: "What do the Americans want from us now?"

"You'll see the celebrations and we will be happy Saddam has gone," one of them said to me. "But we will then want to rid ourselves of the Americans and we will want to keep our oil and there will be resistance and then they will call us terrorists."

(from this post)

(from Living Room)

Last night well after midnight watched the statue of Saddam topple and I had mixed emotions. I have to run to present a paper I've just written but let me share some of them very briefly with you.

- I was really excited that someone who had done so much harm was gone from power. I felt satisfaction as I saw that statue hit the ground.

- I worried that perhaps this wasn't the end of Saddam and that the celebrations were perhaps a bit premature.

- I felt great happiness to see the joy of those celebrating on the streets of Baghdad.

- I felt amazed at the power and speed of the progress of the ¡®allies¡¯ campaign

- I felt distressed about the 1000 or so Iraqi citizens that have been killed so far in the fighting that brought the regime to topple.

- I felt distressed about the deaths of the soldiers on both sides of this conflict.

- I felt angry that humanity seems to breed characters like Hussein who are often unjust in the way they rule and cause real suffering to so many others.

- I wondered where the Weapons of Mass Destruction that this conflict seemed to be about are? I worried that if they exist they still might be used.

- I felt disillusioned with the worlds leadership that they could not find a peaceful solution to dealing with this complicated situation.

- I felt concerned that the dispute has left our world with major splits - not only between some middle eastern countries and the 'coalition' but also Europe after the France v US fiasco.

- I felt worried about the splits within my country, about how we will resolve our feelings about this war. I worry about the impact of seeing war 24 hours a day on our children.

- I felt desperately worried that whilst many Iraqis celebrated - that this conflict may have actually caused many others to react even more strongly against the West. Has this war inflamed the situation and been a recruiting poster for terrorist action against the US and its allies?

- I felt angry at the waste of money that has been poured into this conflict. Hundreds of billions of dollars blown up in just a few weeks.

- I felt concerned for the Iraqi people who still await aid and relief. For those who have not had fresh water in weeks, for those who are beginning to suffer treatable diseases as they wait.

- I worried about the damage that this conflict has done to relationships between people of different faith communities here in Australia. I felt sad about the reports I've had from Muslim friends who have been verbally abused on the streets of Melbourne from being Saddam's cohorts.

- I worried about 'where to from here?' Who will lead this country? What will their agenda be? How will the different racial groups that live in Iraq move forward? Will this 'peace' last?

- I prayed, I smiled, I shed a tear and I went to bed and lay next to my wife and wondered about where humanity was headed.

(also from Signposts)

It is finished. The troops have "marched into Bagdhad, toppled Saddam (albeit in statue form), and:

Posters of Saddam were shredded and many people cheered "Bush! Bush!" and "America! America!" as others tore up 250 Iraqi Dinar notes that bear the face of Saddam.

I know that some people see this as a victory over anti-war protestors - see josh's blog or this article for examples. Some have indicated that this shows that the war was justified after all, and I know I will probably get flamed for this, but I have a couple of thoughts. First, if you were a citizen of a country where for 24 years, any sign of disloyalty to the regime in power was punishable by torture and death, do you think you might take the same care (at least initially) to avoid showing any potential disloyalty to the new leaders of your country? I think it is telling to see that many of the same actions we saw previously as signs of allegiance to Saddam (kissing posters etc) are now echoed in the images we are seeing of Iraqi people and their "allegiance" to the US and George Bush.

I am not saying that the citizens are sad to see Saddam go, or that they should be. But evaluating the success or failure of this incursion is more complex than simply saying that the means are justified by the ends, and any critique of those means should therefore be abandoned. Similarly, to take this snapshot of joy and celebration as the last word on the Iraqi people's thoughts about the war is overly simplistic.

Secondly, winning an armed dispute is relatively simple. Simple in the sense that the goals, the outcomes and processes are clear. Concrete in the sense that countries are willing to back that war with money and resources.

Reconstruction is much more complex, and much less popular, and likely to be subject to much less scrutiny from the international community. The war is done, we can tie that up with a bow and set it aside and turn our attention to whether Tiger Woods will manage a three-peat this weekend.

I have lately been reading We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families by Philip Gourevitch about the genocide in Rwanda. This, together with Crimes Against Humanity by Geoffrey Robertson amounts to a chilling indictment on the will and capacity of the international community to provide real solutions to the problems of human rights abuses and to assist in the reconstruction of societies after the conflict has ceased.

In short, winning the war does not mean that people leave their conflicts behind. They bring with them their baggage about government and politics, their baggage about local conflicts, their baggage about their view of social structures. Sadly, too many people will see that the war has been won, but in truth, the hardest, least popular and longest task is ahead.

(from Signposts)

If we review the spin doctoring by in particular FOX news, but also our world leaders over the last few months there seems to be an ebb and flow that is emerging:

Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and will sell them or use them if we don't remove that possibility

This is not just a rogue nation but a terrorist nation. Subtle messages are sent that Saddam is linked to the terroist attacks on September 11. These are so successful that in a recent poll during the invasion - 49% of Americans believed that Saddam was responsible for the S11 attack.

Saddam is running a brutal regime and we need to liberate the Iraqi people

Weapons of Mass destruction are not here which seems to mean that they are probably in Syria. Syria has been arming and now allowing Iraqi regime members to flee there.

Dare I say it: we need to attack Syria

And so in summary, we have a rogue nation (the US) together with its allies invading a sovereign nation. They are 'justified' because of a key side benefit of the invasion (not the reason presented to the United Nations). It is wonderful to see the people of Iraq free.

But I am very fearful of the precedent and the consequences for our future.

(seen via Kottke.org)

The responsibilities of the peace movement are far too weighty to be squandered in sputtering and ultimately politically irrelevant feel-good acts of blocking traffic or ripping down fences at military bases. As war breaks out, the peace movement must engage even more deeply, not marginalize itself. It must exert what influence it can muster to limit and constrain the exercise of American military power and to do all possible to prevent this conflict from becoming a prelude to endless war. But even more immediately, it's the peace movement that must actually hold the Bush administration to its promises of liberating Iraq. The peace movement should take an active role in debating and trying to shape the post-Saddam outcome by fighting, first of all, for a thorough roll-up of the Ba'ath regime, for indictment and prosecution of Hussein and his gang, for the fullest democracy possible, respect for the Shiahs and Kurds, for a postwar government that respects human rights. That formula includes an authentic U.S. and international commitment to fund reconstruction and development. And let's not forget the Bush-Blair promise to finally get serious about the Palestinians.

At the time of the O.J. trial, I wrote that resentful white Westside Yuppies would have actually been disappointed if Simpson had been convicted, as that would rob them of their self-righteous indignation. Let's do a reality check. If you're in the peace movement and your secret hope is that an arrogant George W. Bush will get his comeuppance in Iraq, that the war will go awry and that it will sink into a bloody I-told-you-so quagmire, then you better have a long, soul-searching meeting with yourself. This is not Vietnam, where the U.S. intervened to support a tinpot dictatorship against an indigenous revolution. This time the U.S. is intervening -- perhaps for all the wrong reasons — against a dictatorial regime a dozen times worse than that of Nguyen Thieu's. As American tanks roll into southern Iraq, we should hope that they will, in fact, be met with rice and roses and then go right on to Baghdad to finish off Saddam. To the Iraqi people who must now cower under our bombs and missiles and pray to God to be spared, we owe them at least that perk — and much, much more.

(from this article)

(referred via Jordon Cooper)

This concept of placing America in God's camp sticks in the throat of a lot of American clergy.

"It is by no means certain that we are as pure as the driven snow or that our international policy is so pure," says Fritz Ritsch, Presbyterian minister in Bethesda, Maryland.

The Reverend Ritsch says it also makes their job as clerics harder by giving Christians in America an easy way out.

They do not need to examine their souls because their president has told them they are on the side of good.

"There is an opportunity here for spiritual enrichment in this country that is just getting missed."

---

The millions of Americans who believe in the biblical prophecies see this war in a very particular way and among them, George Bush's stark talk of good versus evil plays very well.

If America prevails, millions will say it was divinely ordained.

But many others will suspect that it had more to do with the power of American weaponry than the active intervention of the Almighty.

---

(quotes from this article)

(seen via The Invisible Sun)

A truly Canadian Apology to the USA, courtesy of Rick Mercer from This Hour Has 22 Minutes, CBC Television:

Hello. I'm Rick Mercer on location here in Washington.

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry. I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron, but it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all, it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you, doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own. It would be like if, well, say you had ten times the television audience we did and you flood our market with great shows, cheaper than we could produce. I know you'd never do that.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours. As word of apology, please accept that all of our NHL teams which, one by one, are going out of business and moving to your fine country.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you want to have your friends by your side. Yes, I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

I'm sorry we burnt down your White House during the War of 1812. I see you've rebuilt it! It's very nice.

Your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer, but we feel your pain.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way, which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. Because we've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

For 22 minutes, I'm Rick Mercer, and I'm sorry.

(This Hour Has 22 Minutes is located here)

(seen via Tim Gonyou)

Mbeki: Africa to be the next Iraq

"The prospect facing the people of Iraq should serve as sufficient warning that in future we too might have others descend on us, guns in hand to force-feed us," with their democracy, he said.

(seen at John Campea)

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." -- Jack Handy

(from Kottke.org)

Always on edge

Dan Gillmor on how the permanent war on terrorism means permanent suspension of civil liberties:

Liberties ebbed and flowed in America's past. Leaders curbed liberties, with the public's often ignorant endorsement, in times of crisis. But the rights tended to come back when the crises ended.

The fabled pendulum of liberty may not swing back this time. Why?

For one thing, the damage that one evil or deranged person or group can cause has grown. Even if America somehow persuades all Islamic radicals that we are a good and just society, there will still be some evil and deranged people who will try to wreck things and lives in spectacular ways. In other words, the "war on terrorism" can't possibly end.

In thinking about this issue and what the U.S. gov't is doing here (whether it's deliberate or not), and I keep coming back to George Orwell. This is straight out of 1984. War is peace. If you want a stable country, you limit civil liberties. No freedom, no sudden movements, no free thinking, no chance of things getting out of control. How do you do that? Wage war full time. Too busy fighting to worry about freedom. The few control the many through their own fear and patriotism. Brilliant and scary.

(from Ready, Aim, Inspire!)

There are two things which will always be very difficult for a democratic nation: to start a war and to end it.

- Alexis De Tocqueville

(seen at Tim Gonyou's blog)

Another thing to think about. Almost all who know would agree that Idi Amin was an evil dictator who inflicted both civil and human rights violations upon his people the likes of which the world has only seen perpetrated by it's worst dictators. Yet only the poor and militarily limited nation of Tanzania responded in an effort to liberate Uganda from it's evil dictator and oppressor. They received no support from any other nation, financial or military. They were successful but it crippled a poor country even further.

Now a little over 20 years later some of the world's richest nations feel that they must liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator and oppressor. Not saying that that isn't valid. But why are some evil dictators more deserving of this special attention? Or perhaps better phrased, why do some oppressed and suffering people deserve liberating while others don't?

(referred via Jordon Cooper)

“There were things that we found on site that presented themselves and at least in my mind and to my opinion confirmed many of the reports that you’ve seen over the last eight months that this site was indeed being used for some type of chem or bio production. BUT THAT IS NOT CONFIRMED.”

The capitals are mine. Let me just check I’ve got this straight. He’s certain Ansar were preparing chemical and biological weapons but he has no proof. Hmmm. I’m not sure that would stand up in a court of law. But hey – they’re just terrorist towelheads and we’re honest Americans so no one’s going to question whether we’re telling the truth, right?

(from this post at Northern Iraq Weblog)

(from Mike Gingerich)

My point i guess is unfortunately lying and swindling are more reality then i think we would like to admit. It is easy to watch something that is a game and say that's fake. But when it is something less fake like "news" coverage we believe it is real. I think it is the same exact thing. Try not to forget that CNN is a busniess and what is the pupose of businesses.

(seen at Slacktivist)

Wal-Mart's reductionist view can understand nothing truly human, only homo economicus -- the "consumer." This perspective leaves no room for identities such as "citizen" or "neighbor." For Wal-Mart -- and for much of the business press -- we serve no purpose and have no function other than as consumers.

Therefore, they assume, if we ain't out shopping, we must be home watching TV.

It's difficult to fathom how deeply insulting this idea -- "the CNN effect" -- really is. Like President Bush, Wal-Mart fails to grasp that for most Americans -- even most of the ones at the stimulus-response "Support the Troops" rallies -- the nation's going to war is a serious, grave affair, calling for sacrifice and a sense of propriety. Most Americans do not feel it is appropriate, while other Americans are fighting and dying, to stroll the aisles of a big box wasteland where a smiley face flies around enticing us to buy hideous, cut-rate crap.

The "CNN effect" hypothesis could be tested by measuring the level of retail sales during WW2 -- or at least during the week's following America's entry into it. My guess is sales went down, and not because of some reductive "radio effect."

Image: Growth by Josiah Munsey

(comment in response to this post by Jordon Cooper)

There are strong simularities between the people celebrated on the posters and on the collectable. both are seen as

Defenders of freedom
Empowered by God
Rewarded by God
Directed by God

I will admit there are a couple of differences.

One intentionally kills civilians and the other unintentionally kill civilians. One is backed the largest military in the world with advanced technology and seemingly endless resources. The other is a poor Palestinian who is taught hatred and knows nothing but a struggle against a superior power.

Which of these should know better? Which one of these has an easy choice to build a better future for everyone?

(from Been There...Still There)

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we would find in each person's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
--Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

(from Liveprayer's devotional today...)

The ultimate reality TV program. Over the past several years, reality TV
programs like "Survivor" have become the hottest and top-rated programs on
television. The appeal was in watching real people living in real life
situations. They are cheap to produce and garner high ratings which equate
to a financial bonanza for the networks that air them. With the initial
success of these types of programs, came a flood of new ones. They all
started to look the same, so to make themselves stand out, they had to come
up with more bizarre concepts that began to push the limits of good taste
and decency.

Pretty soon it was a race to see who could be the raunchiest, who could
degrade people the most, and just how low they could get before the public
said enough. That brought us wonderful television programs that made a
mockery of God's institution of marriage, let us see people eat living
insects and raw animal parts for a few dollars, and allowed us to cheer for
a race between an elephant and dozens of midgets who were harnessed to a
747. Sadly, the public watched this garbage in great numbers. Never saying
it was enough, only wanting more. The only thing left to do was actually
have someone die, right there on LIVE television. Even the sleaze merchants
of reality TV couldn't justify crossing that line.

But wait, along comes the war. I have long contended that the news has quit
being about news, but is actually a form of entertainment. Why do you think
Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings are all paid Hollywood-type
salaries? They are ENTERTAINERS! TV could now give the public the ultimate
reality TV program, complete with death and destruction, under the guise of
news.

Peace

(a poem written by me, April 1, 2003)

---

We once were vampires, grasping life,
To beat it down, and bury it deep,
So hungry for eternity.
We once were addicts, consuming life,
To stop the walls from closing in
Which squeeze our hearts so small.

We once were lovers, embracing life,
To take it in, and be fulfilled,
To capture for all time.
We once were artists, transcending life,
To rise above this world we share,
That binds us down with chains.

Yet life would not come down to us
And give us meaning for this world;
So then we fought, to make this life,
Be present in our midst;
Yet life bled down, to take our place,
When our lives had stopped forever.