(seen at Barhamblog)

Here's a quote from Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg trials after WWII

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

(referred by Ideajoy)

This afternoon I find myself wondering what we mean when we say the word peace. - Saint Eros

(from here)

(referred via Bloggedy Blog)

The Command Post: A Warblog Collective

(from Jordon Cooper)

I was watching some news today and was suprised at some comments by some anti-war protesters that link a war gone bad in Iraq is good for getting rid of George W. Bush. Let's leave ones feeling for W. at the door and think about the statement. A war bogged down generally involves a lot of deaths, both civiliian and military. At one time the peace movement is saying don't go to war for oil (their words, not mine) but on the other hand you would like the war to go badly so Bush's popularity will go down. This isn't a chess match but a war with Iraqui and American lives at stake. I would think you would want it to go quickly. While I am don't believe in the war, the last thing I want it to do is drag out for political reasons.

On a different topic with the war. People are blaming the Americans for underestimating the power of the secret police in Iraq. If I was an Iraqi citizen, I wouldn't be dancing in the streets either. Not because I was anti Brit or American, because who wants to be killed by some pro-Saddam martyrs. Even the Saudi papers are saying people are saying different things on and off camera. On camera they are "anti-American", off camera, they are "anti-Saddam". Historically I think of the denazification of Germany and it took years to root out. I have to think that the de-baathification of Iraq would also take years to identify and neutralize (I don't mean kill, I mean not let them kill or intimidate others) the secret police. At the same time, I wonder if the Arab world would allow the kind of time and methods that would be needed to eliminate the radical parts left over. I have this fear of a Northern Ireland type of aftermath, no matter who is running the place and I have to think that is the worst case scenerio.

From Emmanual Goldstein's book excerpted in George Orwell's 1984:

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed.

(seen via Kottke.org)

(seen at Mark's blog)

"How think you that you obey Christ's commandments, when you spend your time collecting interest, piling up loans, buying slaves like livestock, and merging business with business?... And that is not all. Upon all this you heap injustice, taking possession of lands and houses, and multipying poverty and hunger."

John Crysostom, Bishop of Constantinople

(referred via Jordon Cooper)

Here's an idea, borrowed from the world of non-profits and venture capital, for the eventual reconstruction of Iraq, and for all future conflicts built on the same model: matching grants. What if we decided that anytime someone decides to embark on one of these "humanitarian" pre-emptive attacks -- allegedly done in the interest of the people being invaded -- the invading country has to provide matching grants for the recovery of the country. Basically whatever they spend tearing it down, they need to spend building it back up again. So if they spend $80 billion on swords, they have to cough up $80 billion on ploughshares at the other end. War is already filled with dozens of generally agreed-upon conventions: don't interrogate POWs on TV, don't pretend to surrender and then shoot when you get close. How about we add a new one for countries that decide to bomb for peace?

(seen here)

(from Speaker's Corner)

With the war ongoing, stories like this one are going to continue to pop-up. Anti-war demonstrations also continue as exemplified by the demonstrators who took to New York's Fifth Avenue this morning. I can't help but think, however, that these protests are a little hopeless. Bush continues to turn a deaf ear and the reality of it is, the war probably won't last long enough for there to be a real affect.

(referred to this article by No More Mister Nice Blog)

American pilots who bombed Baghdad on Friday spoke of the thrill of a successful attack in the teeth of fierce anti-aircraft fire.

"It was exhilarating," Commander Jeff Penfield said after landing his F/A-18E Super Hornet back on the Abraham Lincoln, which is supporting the U.S.-led invasion force from the Gulf.

"It was all nice and calm in the city," he said. "Once those bombs hit all hell broke loose. I bet we saw 15 SAMs (surface-to-air missiles), about three or four up our way so we had to defend a couple of times.

"What I felt more than anything was exhilaration."...

(seen on Mike Gingerich)
Spearhead--"you can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace"


(image from Busy Busy Busy)