Hi,

This is a website from moveon.org where locations of peace vigils throughout the
world (for March 16th) are being posted.  www.globalvigil.org  I did not see the
Lakeport one there yet (and don't have the zip code handy)  Would someone with
all the details go to this site and post it?   Thanks.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've gotten a couple of emails in the past two days about a global
candlelight vigil planned for Sunday (March 16) -- the idea is that the
candles come on as the sun goes on, in a rolling wave of affirmation for
peace around the world.

There's going to be a march here in Lakeport on Saturday (March 16):  are
there others (besides me) who would like to set up a vigil like this in
*Clearlake* on Sunday?

Best,
Victoria
--
Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

Haven't verified any of this though did hear of the woman from Ireland on Amy
Goodman's Democracy Now....

JoAnn


http://truthout.org/docs_03/030503A.shtml


http://truthout.org/docs_03/030503A.shtml
Arrest Me By William Rivers Pitt  | t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 4 March 2003
George W. Bush is out of control.
I'll say it again.
George W. Bush is out of control.
I'm waiting for the black government cars to come squealing up in
front of my house,
for the thump of leather on my stairs, for the sound of knuckles on
my door,
for the feel of steel braceleting my wrists, for the smell of urine in
some
dank Federal holding cell as I listen to questions from men who no
longer feel
the constricting boundaries of constitutional law abutting their duties.
Sounds paranoid, doesn't it? Straight out of the Turner Diaries,
maybe.
Sounds like I'm waiting for the ominous whop-whop-whop of the
blades on a black
helicopter churning the air over my home. Sounds like I'm waiting to
find a laser
dot on my chest above my heart before the glass breaks and the
bullet pushes my
guts out past my spine.
Crazy, right?
Ask Andrew J. O'Conner of Santa Fe, New Mexico if it sounds
crazy.
Mr. O'Conner, a former public defender from Santa Fe, was
arrested in a
public library and interrogated by Secret Service agents for five
hours on
February 13th.
His crime?
He said "Bush is out of control" on an internet chat room, and was
arrested
for threatening the President.
Ask Bernadette Devlin McAliskey of Ireland if it sounds crazy.
She was recently passing through Chicago from Dublin, where she
passed security,
when she heard her name called over a loudspeaker. When she
went up to the ticket
counter, three men and one woman surrounded her and grabbed
her passport.
McAliskey was informed that she had been reported to be a
"potential or real
threat to the United States."
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey has spent the better part of her life
struggling
for the Irish nationalist cause. She did not lob Molotov cocktails at
police.
Instead, she became a member of British Parliament at age 21, the
youngest
person ever elected to that post. In 1981 she and her husband were
shot by
a loyalist death squad in their home. She has traveled to America
on a regular
basis for the last thirty years, and has been given the keys to the
cities of
San Francisco and New York.
Upon her detention in Chicago last month, McAliskey was
fingerprinted and photographed.
One of the men holding her told her that he was going to throw her
in prison.
When she snapped back that she had rights, she was told not to
make the boss angry,
because he shoots people. "After 9/11," said one officer, "nobody
has any rights."
"You've evaded us before," said the officer before McAliskey was
deported back to
Ireland, "but you're not going to do it now." She never found out for
sure how she
was a threat to the United States, and is currently filing a formal
complaint with
the U.S. consulate in Dublin.
There are those who will brush these incidents off. Andrew
O'Conner has been
an activist for years, and has not hidden his disdain for this looming
war in Iraq.
Bernadette McAliskey is a world-famous fighter for her people.
Some will say the opinions and freedoms of people like this do not
matter in the
grand scheme. Others will wave these incidents away as random
examples of
thoughtless action by petty dictators who were foolishly given
badges and authority.
I don't.
It is ironic, in a grisly sort of way. Hard-right conservatives spent the
entirety of the Clinton administration baying to anyone fearful
enough to
listen that the President was coming for their freedoms, that it was
only
a matter of time before the Bill of Rights was destroyed. The myth of
the
black helicopters, the apocalyptic views of the Turner Diaries, and a
smoking crater in Oklahoma City all testified to the brittle paranoia
these
people promulgated in those years.
Now, those same people have representatives with parallel views on
virtually
every domestic and foreign policy idea in control of the House, the
Senate,
the White House, the Supreme Court, the intelligence services and
the United
States military. These are the people who brought us the Patriot
Act,
versions 1.0 and 2.0, the people who are responsible for the most
incredible
constitutional redactions in our history.
Ask Mr. O'Conner and Ms. McAliskey about it. They can tell you
what happens
to undesirables these days.
When you murder peaceful dissent in America, you murder America
itself.
When you harass innocent people for their past and present views,
you spread
fear within an already terrified nation. This is not about some fool of
a
Secret Service agent jumping the gun on an innocuous online
comment, or an
airline security officer with a penchant for bullyragging 55 year old
women.
This is a failure from the top down, an empowerment - by the man
charged
with defending our constitution - of lesser jackasses with large
badges who
do not understand nor care for the importance of their positions.
This is about failed leadership, and the despoiling of everything that
makes
this place precious and unique and sacred.
In other words, Bush is out of control.
Bush is out of control.
Bush is out of control.
Come and get me.

------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two
books -
"War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books,
and
"The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto
Press.
He teaches high school in Boston, MA.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03
------- End of forwarded message -------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I thought I was telling everyone that my letter got published in the
Record-Bee on weds, 3/5 but when i asked 2 on the list, they did not get
it....thyme



On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:47:08 -0800 (PST) "John Arnold \(Jack\)"
<j1j11j@...> writes:
> 10 Reasons to Oppose the War with Iraq
>
> 1. War with Iraq won't make us safer.
> A unilateral attack by the United States will inflame anti-U.S.
> sentiment and may
> stimulate more attacks by extremists.
>
> 2. There is no imminent threat.
> There is no hard evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Iraq has
> little means to
> deliver chemical and biological weapons to threaten countries in the
> Middle East,
> let alone the U.S.
>
> 3. A preemptive attack violates the U.N. charter.
> The U.N. Charter forbids member countries from attacking another
> country except
> in self defense. If the U.S. puts itself above international law it
> will further
> encourage other nations to do the same.
>
> 4. Our allies don't support us in this war.
> U.S. allies in the Middle East oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our
> European allies
> have urged the U.S. to work through the U.N. An invasion of Iraq
> would isolate
> the U.S. from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of
> international
> cooperation and mutual defense that are key to U.S. and global
> security.
>
> 5. Thousands of innocent people may die.
> Pentagon estimates say that an invasion of Iraq could lead to the
> deaths of
> 10,000
> innocent civilians.
>
> 6. Young American men and women will fight and die.
> U.S. military action and possible occupation is likely to produce
> far more
> casualties than the previous Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan.
> Many combatants
> will suffer physical and psychological repercussions for years after
> the war
> ends.
>
> 7. Funding for education, environment and health care is already
> being cut in
> order to pay for the "war on terror."
> Estimates put the cost of a war with Iraq at $60-$100 billion with
> ongoing
> billions for occupation and rebuilding Iraq.
>
> 8. Things may not be better after a war.
> We have no guarantee that a new regime in Iraq will make life any
> better for the
> Iraqi people or be any friendlier to the U.S. than the current one.
> The Taliban
> were once our allies in Afghanistan. Will the new regime in Iraq
> become our enemy
> after a few years?
>
> 9. There are other options.
> The U.S. can work through the U.N. using mechanisms such as the
> resumption of
> weapons inspections, negotiation, mediation, regional arrangements,
> and other
> peaceful means.
>
> 10. The American people have deep misgivings about this war.
> Many people know deep down that this war makes no sense. They are
> starting to
> speak up and make themselves heard. You can add your voice to
> activities in your community.
>
> =====
> THINGS TO DO TODAY:
>
>                  1) Punch a wasp's nest
>                   2) Attack Iraq
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> PeaceActionLake-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

Maybe if we all laugh a little we can get through this horror with sanity
intact.  This parody was sent to me as a fw:fw:fw, so this posting makes
four.  It seems to have originally appeared in the Guardian newspaper
(London).

Best,
Victoria


The Saddam and George show

Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam Hussein's challenge to a
televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have happened
had they met

============================================================================
==================

Tim Dowling Tuesday February 25, 2003 The Guardian

============================================================================
===

Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised debate between George
W Bush and Saddam Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in New
York. We will begin with a brief opening statement from each of you.

Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my evil friend to the UN,
one of the great American institutions for the propulsion of freedom
throughout the world.

Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today's debate we may find
some common ground between the Iraqi people's commitment to peace and human
progress and America's desire to destroy the Middle East.

Bush: Do I answer that?

Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do you have any links
with al-Qaida?

Bush: I do not.

Blair: The question is for President Saddam.

Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and simply, if I had links with
al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed to tell the
world, but since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it follows that I
have no such links.

Bush: Neither do I.

Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr Bush, if America and Iraq were
to go to war tomorrow, who would win?

Bush: That's easy. America, right?

Saddam: Even I knew that one.

Bush: That's because the great United American States of America are on the
side of rightliness and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of
Iraq, North Korea and... how many are in an axis? Three?

Blair: I think you're allowed as many as you like.

Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France.

Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq is not part of any
Axis of Evil.

Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania?

Blair: Let's move on. Saddam, are you willing to destroy your stockpile of
Samoud 2 missiles in accordance with UN weapons inspectors' orders?

Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed these so-called weapons,
we would never destroy them, but since we do not have any such weapons, we
are happy to comply, even though these non-existent weapons certainly do not
exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I've tested them myself, and we
don't have any.

Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr President, is there any way
that Saddam Hussein can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order
to reach a negotiated solution?

Bush: Listen to me. It's very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with
the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist
compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation
1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even
more fully than that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other
weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of,
without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which
I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough.

Blair: The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work
on it over the weekend.

Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature.

Saddam: OK.

Blair: Sorry, but I'm not sure that "disarmature" is a word. I defer to the
UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr Richard Stilgoe.

Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the action of disarming"
according to the OED.

Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off.

Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it.

Bush: Too late.

Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an anagram of 'Demands a
Sushi'?

Saddam: Yes, I've heard them all.

Bush: I don't eat sushi. Is there a fish option?

Blair: I'd like to remind everyone at home that the Monica Lewinsky-Tonya
Harding fight follows after the break.

This article was forwarded to my husband and me by
Rev. Cindy Eucalyptus who, with her husband Denis,
co-pastors the Middletown Community United Methodist
Church. The article, by Prof. Katherine van Wormer,
makes for interesting and thought-provoking reading.
Among all the email campaigns circulating right now,
one of the things I appreciate about the sending of
this email is that its original author is
well-documented (Being a member of the "corporate
media,"  I'm also sensitive to incorrect and
unverified information, and consequently like to give
professionalism the recognition it's due. Kudos to
you, Bil!).
Enjoy! -- Cynthia Parkhill
----------
From: <cindytree@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:45:29 -0800
To: "John Mitchell" < john@...>, "Jonathan
Donihue" <thelemite@...>, "Ellen/Scott Sommers"
<sommers17@...>, "Cynthia Parkhill"
<cparkhill@...>
Subject: Fw:
From: "BIL TUCKER" <biltucker@...>
Date: Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:56:29 PM America/New_York
To: "Shawn and Julie" <medart@...>, "Cris and
Cyndi" <tuckers57@...>
Subject:
Reply-To: "BIL TUCKER" <biltucker@...>
Being trained as a scientist and a researcher, I am
very sensitive to providing incorrect or unverified
information, or using information without permission.
 Therefore, I emailed Prof. van Wormer and asked if
she was the author of the article copied below and if
it was permissible to distribute it.  This is her
response:
"Yes, please do help me distribute my article on Bush
as a dry drunk..
That is the point. I was hoping for mainstream media
but it's really
making the rounds. We all know something is amiss with
these war
plans. The personal and economic cost is so great that
it's hardly
rational. You could buy an awful lot of oil with all
those billions so it's
more than oil.
         Many thanks,
Katherine van Wormer"
"Addiction, Brain Damage and the President "Dry Drunk"
Syndrome and
George W. Bush
by Katherine van Wormer
Katherine van Wormer is a Friend (Quaker), is
Professor of Social Work
at the University of Northern Iowa, and is co-author
of the recent
'Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002)'.
A longtime member
of the CERJ colloquium, Katherine can be reached
at:Katherine.VanWormer@....
Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came
across the article
"Dry Drunk" -- Is Bush Making a Cry for Help?' in
'American Politics
Journal' by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede ...
in the case of
George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.
Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and
supporters of Alcoholics
Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe
the recovering
alcoholic who is no longer drinking -- one who is dry,
but whose
thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be
'dry' but not
truly sober.
Such an individual tends to go to extremes. It was
when I started
noticing the extreme language that colored President
Bush's speeches
that I began to wonder. First there were the terms --
"crusade" and
"infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next
came "evil-doers",
"axis of evil", and "regime change", terms that have
almost become
cliches in the mass media.
Something about the polarized thinking and the
obsessive repetition
reminded me of many of the recovering
alcoholics/addicts I had treated
(a point worth noting is that because of the
connection between
addiction and "stinking thinking", relapse prevention
usually  consists
of work in the cognitive area).
Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I
flinched at the
single-mindedness and ego- and ethno-centricity in the
President's
speeches (my husband likened his phraseology to the
gardener character
played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There).
Since words are the
tools -- the representations -- of thought, I wondered
what Bush's
choice of words said about where he was coming from.
Or where we would
be going.
First, in this essay, we will look at the
characteristics of the
so-called "dry drunk" -- then we will see if they
apply to this
individual, our president -- and then we will review
his drinking
history for the record.
What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk" traits
consist of:
Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity grandiose
behavior. A rigid,
judgmental outlook. Impatience. Childish behavior.
Irresponsible
behavior.  Irrational rationalization. Projection.
Overreaction.
Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except
exaggerated
self-importance. He may be pompous, especially with
regard to
international  dealings, but his actual importance
hardly can be
exaggerated. His power, in  fact, is such that if he
collapses into
paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with
him.
Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia
in statements such
as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue
states and their
terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or
use weapons of
mass destruction against the United States and our
allies and friends."
The trait of projection is evidenced here as well,
projection of the
fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation
which may not be so
inclined.
Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in
virtually all his
speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the
world, in almost a
Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference
to Israel: "Look
my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity
is important ...
this is evil versus good."
Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the
Internet list
above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize
is symptomatic of
the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe
this thinking
distortion in 'Addiction Treatment: A Strengths
Perspective' as
either/or reasoning -- "either you are with us or
against us". Oddly,
Bush used those very words in his dealings with other
nations.
All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking
commonly found in
newly-recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview
traps people in a
pattern of destructive behavior.
Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in
persons prone to
addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to
brain chemistry
irregularities; messages in one part of the brain
become stuck there.
This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts.
President Bush seems
unduly focused upon getting revenge on Saddam Hussein
("he tried to kill
my Dad"), leading the country and the world into war,
accordingly.
Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is
proposing to
Congress is not the right to attack on one country but
a total shift in
military policy: America would now have the right to
take military
action before the adversary even has the capacity to
attack. This is in
violation, of course, of international law as well as
national
precedent.
How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant
Quinn provides the
most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek
editorial, "Iraq:
It's the Oil, Stupid". Many other opponents of the
Bush doctrine
similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession
over first, the
war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation
goes deeper than
oil, that Bush's logic is being given too much credit;
I believe his
obsession is far more visceral.
On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held
up the sign, "Drunk
on Power". This, I believe, is closer to the truth.
The drive for power
can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself.
Senator William
Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s,
'The Arrogance of
Power', masterfully described the essence of
power-hungry politics as
the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in
itself. "The causes
and consequences of war may have more to do with
pathology than with
politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational
pressures of pride and
pain than with rational calculation of advantage and
profit."
Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far
from a patient man:
"If we wait for threats to fully materialize", he said
in a speech he
gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long".
Significantly, Bush
only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to
take up the
matter of Iraq's disarmament with extreme reluctance.
Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the
characteristics of the "dry
drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking
away from the script;
his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's
Schroeder) who
dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing
about only one
thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.
In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits
characteristic of
addictive persons who still have the thought patterns
that accompany
substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific
findings, we will
discover that scientists can now observe changes that
occur in the brain
as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse.
Some of these changes
may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however,
these cognitive
impairments would not be obvious to most observers.
To reach any conclusions we need of course to know
Bush's personal
history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I
consulted several
biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness -- years
of binge drinking
starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI
in 1976 in Maine,
and one arrest before that for a drunken episode
involving theft of a
Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield's book,
'Fortunate Son',
Bush later explained: "[A]lcohol began to compete with
my energies ...
I'd lose focus". Although he once said he couldn't
remember a day he
hadn't had a drink, he added that he didn't believe he
was "clinically
alcoholic". Even his father, who had known for years
that his son had a
serious drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: "He was
never an
alcoholic. It's just he knows he can't hold his
liquor".
Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the
decision to
abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born
again Christian,"
going as usual from one extreme to the other. During
an Oprah interview,
Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed
to think about
what he was doing. When asked in another interview
about his reported
drug use, he answered honestly, "I'm not going to talk
about what I did
20 to 30 years ago."
That there might be a tendency toward addiction in
Bush's family is
indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his
daughters for
underage drinking and his niece for cocaine
possession. Bush, of course,
deserves credit for his realization that he can't
drink moderately, and
his decision today to abstain. The fact that he
doesn't drink moderately
may be suggestive of an inability to handle alcohol.
In any case, Bush
has clearly gotten his life in order and is in good
physical condition,
careful to exercise and rest when he needs to do so.
The fact that some
residual effects from his earlier substance abuse --
however slight --
might cloud the U.S. President's thinking and judgment
is frightening,
however, in the context of the current global crisis.
One final consideration that might come into play in
the foreign policy
realm relates to Bush's history relevant to his
father. The Bush
biography reveals the story of a boy named for his
father, sent to the
exclusive private school in the East where his
father's reputation as
star athlete and later war hero were still remembered.
The younger
George's achievements were dwarfed in the school's
memory of his father.
Athletically he could not achieve his father's
laurels, being smaller
and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack
of intellectual
gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well
liked, however. His
military record was mediocre as compared to his
father's as well. Bush
entered the Texas National Guard. What he did there
remains largely a
mystery. There are reports of a lot of barhopping
during this period. It
would be only natural that Bush would want to prove
himself today, that
he would feel somewhat uncomfortable following, as
before, in his
father's footsteps. I mention these things because
when you follow his
speeches, Bush seems bent on a personal crusade. One
motive is to avenge
his father. Another seems to be to prove himself to
his father. In fact,
Bush seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his
father failed to do
-- to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the
"evildoer" Saddam.
To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic
patterns of what
alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk". His
behavior is consistent
with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage
brought on by years
of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the
classic patterns of
addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are
here: the
tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a
massive 100 billion
dollar strike-first war); a "kill or be killed
mentality;" the tunnel
vision; "I" as opposed to "we" thinking; the black and
white polarized
thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing
thinking).
His drive to finish his father's battles is of no
small significance,
psychologically. If the public (and politicians) could
only see what
Fulbright noted as 'the pathology in the politics'.
One day, sadly, they
will."
May God bless and watch over us, every one.
Bil

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

10 Reasons to Oppose the War with Iraq

1. War with Iraq won't make us safer.
A unilateral attack by the United States will inflame anti-U.S. sentiment and
may
stimulate more attacks by extremists.

2. There is no imminent threat.
There is no hard evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Iraq has little means
to
deliver chemical and biological weapons to threaten countries in the Middle
East,
let alone the U.S.

3. A preemptive attack violates the U.N. charter.
The U.N. Charter forbids member countries from attacking another country except
in self defense. If the U.S. puts itself above international law it will further
encourage other nations to do the same.

4. Our allies don't support us in this war.
U.S. allies in the Middle East oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our European allies
have urged the U.S. to work through the U.N. An invasion of Iraq would isolate
the U.S. from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international
cooperation and mutual defense that are key to U.S. and global security.

5. Thousands of innocent people may die.
Pentagon estimates say that an invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of
10,000
innocent civilians.

6. Young American men and women will fight and die.
U.S. military action and possible occupation is likely to produce far more
casualties than the previous Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan. Many combatants
will suffer physical and psychological repercussions for years after the war
ends.

7. Funding for education, environment and health care is already being cut in
order to pay for the "war on terror."
Estimates put the cost of a war with Iraq at $60-$100 billion with ongoing
billions for occupation and rebuilding Iraq.

8. Things may not be better after a war.
We have no guarantee that a new regime in Iraq will make life any better for the
Iraqi people or be any friendlier to the U.S. than the current one. The Taliban
were once our allies in Afghanistan. Will the new regime in Iraq become our
enemy
after a few years?

9. There are other options.
The U.S. can work through the U.N. using mechanisms such as the resumption of
weapons inspections, negotiation, mediation, regional arrangements, and other
peaceful means.

10. The American people have deep misgivings about this war.
Many people know deep down that this war makes no sense. They are starting to
speak up and make themselves heard. You can add your voice to activities in your
community.

=====
THINGS TO DO TODAY:

                  1) Punch a wasp's nest
                   2) Attack Iraq

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Thanks for sending free faxes to the President and Congress urging them to
support
the United Nations Inspectors.  Now please foward this email to anyone you think
might want to win without war.

======================

Tell President Bush and Congress to Help, Not Undermine
The United Nations' Inspectors

To send free faxes to the President and your Members of Congress, visit the
TrueMajority Action Center. Just click this link:

http://www.truemajority.com/index.asp?action=2425&ms=irqad3

United Nations inspectors have returned to Iraq to hunt down and destroy weapons
of mass destruction.  This is a triumph for the UN, the rule of law - even for
President Bush who pushed so hard for this.  So why does he seem hell-bent on
making sure that no matter what happens it will lead to war?

So here are three quick things you can do to tell President Bush and Congress
that we want to win without war:

First, send your faxes by going to the TrueMajority Action Center.  Here's the
link to the Action Center:

http://www.truemajority.com/index.asp?action=2425&ms=irqad3

Second, forward this to anyone else you think might want to win this thing
without
killing anybody.

And finally, check out www.unitedforpeace.org to find rallies and other
activities
in your area you can join.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Todd Feiler <gardenship@...> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 06:11:28 -0800 (PST)
> From: Todd Feiler <gardenship@...>
> Subject: Re: Special report on technological development
> To: Jack young Arnold <j1j11j@...>
>
>
>
>  The Tech News <editor@...> wrote:
> The Tech News, March 2003
>
> Production Mini-plants in mobile containers. Co-investment Program
>
> "...Science Network will supply to countries and developing regions the
> technology and necessary support for production in series of Mini-plants in
> mobile containers (40-foot). The Mini-plant system is designed in such a way
> that all the production machinery is fixed on the platform of the container,
> with all wiring, piping, and installation parts; that is, they are fully
> equipped... and the mini-plant is ready for production."
>
> More than 700 portable production systems: Bakeries, Steel Nails, Welding
> Electrodes, Tire Retreading, Reinforcement Bar Bending for Construction
> Framework, Sheeting for Roofing, Ceilings and Façades, Plated Drums, Aluminum
> Buckets, Injected Polypropylene Housewares, Pressed Melamine Items (Glasses,
> Cups, Plates, Mugs, etc.), Mufflers, Construction Electrically Welded Mesh,
> Plastic Bags and Packaging, Mobile units of medical assistance, Sanitary
> Material, Hypodermic Syringes, Hemostatic Clamps, etc.
>
> Science Network has started a Co-investment program for the installation of
> small Assembly plants to manufacture in series the Mini-plants of portable
> production on site, region or country where required. One of the most relevant
> features is the fact that these plants will be connected to the World Trade
> System (WTS) with access to more than 50 million raw materials, products and
> services and automatic transactions for world trade.
>
> Due to financial reasons, involving cost and social impact, the best solution
> is setting up assembly plants on the same countries and regions, using local
> resources (labor, some equipment, etc.)
>
> Science Network participates at 50% (fifty percent) for investment of each
> Assembly plant.
>
> Request more information: Letters to the Editor
>
> By Robert B. Lethe, Editor
>
>
> Mini-plantas de produccion en contenedores moviles. Programa de Co-inversion
>
> "...Science Network suministrara a paises y regiones en vias de desarrollo la
> tecnologia y el apoyo necesario para la fabricacion en serie de Mini-plantas
de
> produccion en contenedores moviles (40-foot). El sistema de Mini-plantas esta
> diseñado de forma que todas las maquinas de produccion van instaladas fijas
> sobre la propia plataforma del contenedor, con el cableado, tuberias e
> instalaciones; es decir, completamente equipadas... y a partir de ese momento
> están listas para producir."
>
> Mas de 700 sistemas de produccion portatil: Panaderias, Producción de clavos
de
> acero, Electrodos para soldadura, Recauchutado de neumaticos, Curvado de
hierro
> para armaduras de construccion, Lamina perfilada para cubiertas, techos y
> cerramientos de fachada, Bidones de chapa, Cubos de aluminio, Menaje de
> polipropileno inyectado, Piezas de melamina prensada (vasos, platos, tazas,
> cafeteras, etc.) Silenciadores para vehiculos, Malla electrosoldada para la
> construccion, Bolsas y envases de plastico, Unidades moviles de asistencia
> medica, Material sanitario (jeringas hipodermicas, Pinzas hemostaticas, etc.)
>
> Science Network ha puesto en marcha un programa de Co-inversion para la
> instalacion de pequeñas Plantas ensambladoras para fabricar en serie las
> Mini-plantas de produccion portatil, en el lugar, region o pais que lo
> necesite. Una de las características relevantes es el hecho de que dichas
> plantas quedaran conectadas al Sistema del Comercio Mundial (WTS) con acceso a
> mas de 50 millones de mercancias, materia primas, productos, servicios y las
> operaciones automaticas de comercio internacional.
>
> Resulta obvio que por razones economicas, de costes y de impacto social, lo
> apropiado es instalar plantas ensambladoras en los mismos paises y regiones
asi
> como utilizar los recursos locales (mano de obra, ciertos equipamientos, etc.)
>
> Science Network participa al 50% en la inversion de cada Planta ensambladora.
>
> Solicitar mas informacion: Letters to the Editor
>
> Robert B. Lethe, Editor
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If you received this in error or would like to be removed from our list,
please
> return us indicating: remove or un-subscribe in subject field, Thanks. Editor
> © 2002 The Tech News. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more


=====
THINGS TO DO TODAY:

                  1) Punch a wasp's nest
                   2) Attack Iraq

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

hursday morning, March 6, 2003
Network TV  says  war with Iraq is almost certain within  two weeks.
The Russians are leaving Iraq now, just in case.
Hans Blix dutifully suggests that the U.N. inspectors could be out of the Iraq
within 48 hours.
Is war inevitable?
Some people asked the Pope to go to Iraq--The U.S. wouldn’t bomb Iraq if the
Pope
were there.
But, WHAT IF, instead of fleeing, the U.N. INSPECTORS  REMAINED IN IRAQ?
Would Bush bomb the international U.N. inspectors?
The U.N. could PASS A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE INSPECTORS TO STAY IN IRAQ!
The U.N. could send much larger numbers of inspectors.
Bush could still have a military presence—to guard the U.N. inspections.
Why don’t we LOBBY FOR THE INSPECTORS TO STAY!
Its worth a try!
If you're on the moveon.org list, ask them if they'd take up this cause.
If you have other  ideas, I’d love to hear them.
Kathy Harness
Please write or call as many of the following people as you can, as soon as you
can.
 
 
Contact info for members of Security Council (Ambassador, email and fax):
France
S.E. Ambassador M. Jean-Marc de La Sabliere
france-presse@...
(212) 207-9765
FRENCH PRESIDENT CHIRAC:
Fax:  directly to the president of France,  Jacques Chirac at +33-147-42-2465.
Fax:  French  foreign minister at +33-1-4317-5203
Fax:  Prime Minister of France at  +33-142-43-2677. The '+' stands for your own
country's ISD access code.
This is often '00' or '11'. Australia has 0011(ph) and 0015(fax) access codes.
Russia
H.E. Ambassador Mr. Sergey Lavrov
rusun@...
(212) 628-0252
China:
H.E. Ambassador Wang Yingfan
chinamission_un@...
(212) 634-7626
Cameroon
S.E. Ambassador Martin Belinga-Eboutou
info@...
(212) 249-0533
Guinea
H.E. Ambassador Mamady Traore
guinea@...
(212) 687-8248
Mexico
S. E. Embajador Adolfo Aguilar-Zinser
mexico@...
(212) 688-8862
Syria
H.E. Ambassador Dr. Mikhail Wehbe
syria@...
(212) 983-4439
S.E. Ambassador Dr. Ismael Gaspar Martins
ang-un@...
(212) 861-9295
Chile
S.E. Ambassador Juan Gabriel Valdes
chile@...
(212) 832-0236
Germany
H.E. Ambassador Dr. Gunter Pleuger
contact@...
(212) 940-0402
Spain
H.E. Ambassador Inocencio F. Arias
spain@...
(212) 682-4460
Pakistan
H.E. Ambassador Munir Akram
Pakistan@...
(212) 744-7348
 
 
 
 
 

=====
THINGS TO DO TODAY:

                  1) Punch a wasp's nest
                   2) Attack Iraq

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Vicki Carmichael,
PeaceActionGroup mail forwarding system is self subscribe / un-subscribe .
To leave the PeaceActionLake group follow the instruction at the bottom of this
letter.
Jack


> Victoria,
>
> Please take me off your list.
>
> Thank you
>
>
>  Vicki Carmichael <clvic@...> wrote:Victoria,
>
> Please take me off your list.
>
> Thank you
>
>
> --- victoria brandon <vbrandon@...> wrote:
> > I'm sorry the link doesn't work:  if anyone still
> > wants to hear this piece,
> > go to www.npr.org, click on "archives" then on
> > Weekend Edition Sunday, and
> > search for "peace."  But the story seems to me not
> > nearly as important as
> > resolving the question, especially since there seems
> > to be some confusion
> > about what has been decided already (the day of the
> > bombing?  the next day?
> > Clearlake? Lakeport? elsewhere?)  And it looks like
> > time is getting
> > tragically short.
> >
> > To move from tragedy to comedy, or more accurately
> > mere irritation:
> > *please* could posters to the list set their
> > emailers to plain text rather
> > than HTML???  And set up your acct with Yahoo *not*
> > to translate messages
> > into HTML (which seems to be their bizarre default).
> >  Many mailing lists are
> > set to automatically reject postings that aren't in
> > plain text, or that
> > include attachments, since for those of us with
> > dialup internet access it
> > takes about ten times as long (easily) to load the
> > messages.
> >
> > Best,
> > Victoria
> > --
> > Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> PeaceActionLake-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


=====
THINGS TO DO TODAY:

                  1) Punch a wasp's nest
                   2) Attack Iraq

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Greetings:  This article was in my inbox this morning.  Unfortunately no
place of publication was given, but it seems worth reading.

Best,
Victoria


A War Where You Get Your Money Back
Bush's Fairy Tale World
by Sydney Schanberg
February 19 - 25, 2003


The president imagines a war without sacrifice.
(courtesy of whitehouse.gov)

War is in the air. The nation has been placed on "high" terrorism alert,
with warnings about possible chemical or biological attacks by Islamic
extremists. Police and military patrols have been stepped up at crowded or
sensitive sites. An anti-aircraft missile launcher is parked next to the
Washington monument. Many people, especially in big cities like New York
where these steps are quite visible, are exhibiting anxiety and fear.
Overseas, more than 150,000 Americans in uniform are poised in the Persian
Gulf region for a war against Iraq, a dictatorship targeted by the United
States for its refusal to destroy all its terror weapons.
But at the same time, paradoxes abound. The president, slashing taxes
despite the looming war, says the ailing economy will soon rebound. In fact,
it may be the first American war—maybe the first war ever—where, despite the
huge cost, the taxpayers will get money back when it's over. You've got to
admit, this is the weirdest Armageddon man has ever seen.

Here's how President Bush says it will work. First, we'll defeat Saddam
Hussein's military forces with a juggernaut attack from air, land, and sea.
The Pentagon estimates this will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion
dollars, depending on the war's duration. Then our military will stay behind
in Iraq for another couple of years to clean out all of Saddam Hussein's
loyalists and prepare the country for democracy. This will run up another
big bill.

In the meantime, the president will have pushed his latest round of
"stimulus" tax cuts through Congress so that the average family in America
will have an extra $1000 or $1500 a year in their pockets.

The president does grant that some brave American men and women will die in
the Iraq war (and in other "rogue state" regime changes to follow), but he
says somberly that they will have given their all for the greater good.

Mr. Bush also acknowledges that his global mission against "evildoers" plus
the tax givebacks to our lucky citizens will produce enormous annual
deficits and create an unprecedented national debt. He assures us, however,
that over time the tax cuts will stimulate such a surge in new investment
and jobs that even with the lowered tax tables, the nation's coffers will be
refilled and then some. Neat, huh? But, hey, this is America. We can have it
all.

It's almost too good to be true. In fact, it's preposterous. But I've been
reading and listening closely to the texts of the president's statements—and
also those of his confident aides—and this is indeed President Bush's
blueprint. You could look it up for yourself. True, I've used some irony to
highlight the scenario, but only so as to see it more clearly.

Without any irony, let me say that I served in the army and as a reporter
later in life covered two wars up close. And while I know better than to
measure a new military mission by the lessons of wars past, I believe it
fair to say that Americans have never experienced anything like the
undertaking we seem to be embarking on now. It is truly uncharted territory.

Other than to urge the citizenry to stock up on survival supplies such as
duct tape, plastic sheeting, radio batteries, and bottled water, our
government has asked no sacrifices of the civilian population. No rationing
of scarce goods. No call on the nation's youth for compulsory national
service, either in the military or at other essential jobs like teaching or
health care work or helping the disadvantaged. National service would make
the sacrifice a shared one and would do something actually concrete about
"bringing America together"—that empty political slogan we get gassed with
every four years at campaign time. In brief, if we're at war, then why isn't
the home front being mobilized?

As someone who remembers World War II from a schoolkid's perch in a New
England mill town, I feel the need to ask: Why aren't all of us being asked
to pitch in? Why is the White House saying nothing about the possibility of
hard times ahead?

It's no wonder so many Americans are confused over how they should feel
about initiating a "preemptive" war against Iraq. The language-spinning on
all sides has been intense. Almost from the day of the terrorist carnage of
September 11, 2001, the president has said that we are at war. But for
several months, he never mentioned the Iraqi dictatorship as a suspect. For
good reason, since there is still no evidence that the tyrant Saddam
Hussein, despicable as he is, played a role in the planning or execution of
the suicide attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers. It was
the followers of another maniac, Osama bin Laden, nesting in Afghanistan,
who threw New York City and all of America into a convulsion of panic,
bravery, rage, and mourning on 9-11-01.

Bin Laden and most of his coterie have so far escaped the military and
intelligence assaults that Washington retaliated with. From time to time, he
taunts America with taped messages, calling on Muslims everywhere to rise
against the United States and its ally Israel.

The Bush administration now claims that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden's Al
Qaeda movement have connections, and that anyway they are part of the same
global problem—the threat to world stability posed by rogue nations and
terrorist organizations. Few nations dispute the threat. The debate is over
how to deal with it.

Is Iraq the most serious and immediate threat? The Central Intelligence
Agency tells us that, unlike Iraq, North Korea already has a handful of
nuclear weapons plus the long-range missiles to deliver them to Alaska,
Hawaii, or our West Coast (though these missiles have yet to be tested).
That's probably why Pyongyang isn't Bush's first choice for a shooting war.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons and—according to a CIA report delivered to the
White House last June (see Seymour Hersh's story in the January 27 issue of
The New Yorker)—has been sharing "sophisticated" nuclear technology with
North Korea since 1997. Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province is also a
harbor and staging area for the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces that escaped
U.S. troops and bombs in Afghanistan last year. But Pakistan avoids being
labeled a rogue nation because it is one of Washington's putative allies in
the war against terrorism, so the Bush administration has played down the
many blemishes on the relationship.

And then there's Saudi Arabia. Money out of that kingdom is a major funding
source for bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cells. But Washington has military
bases in Saudi Arabia and still needs its oil, having for decades
consciously shunned any aggressive program to make the U.S.
energy-independent.

The paradoxes and contradictions are like the endless, shifting sands of the
desert. If over the years you've played footsie with a multitude of rogues
in the geopolitical balance-of-power game, when blowback happens, it can be
difficult to choose which one to go to war with first.

Which brings us to the winner of the beauty pageant, Iraq. Unless Saddam
Hussein agrees to go into exile or is deposed in a coup very soon, we are
told that intense bombing and Special Forces' lightning raids will commence.
Washington analysts believe that Saddam Hussein, knowing that his final
defeat is certain, would then unleash a scorched-earth response, spewing
Baghdad's lethal chemical and biological arsenal on American ground
troops—and on any other enemy within his reach.

Let us assume an eventual American victory. What, then, comes afterward in
Iraq? Bush officials went before a Senate committee last week and offered
the first blueprint; they said it would take a little more than two years
for our occupation forces to turn over a reviving Iraq to a new set of
government leaders. To me, the two-year timetable sounds like a fairy tale.
Even a five-year plan defies what we know from history.

As a foreign correspondent, I spent long periods both in democracies (India,
Ceylon) and dictatorships (Pakistan, Indonesia). I witnessed one
country—Cambodia—gutted by war and genocide, with most of its leadership
class, including its Buddhist monks, simply erased by the Khmer Rouge. More
than a decade later, around 1990, the United Nations came into Cambodia in a
big way with a rebuilding plan. Several billion dollars were spent, and a
respectable job was done of producing the country's first free elections.
Now another decade has passed. Cambodian democracy is still embryonic. The
country is largely dysfunctional, the government ineffectual when it is not
being corrupt. It will take at least another generation, maybe two, before
we'll be able to tell if Cambodia is on its way to health and stability.

Two years to put Iraq on a democratic footing? The Bush administration is
blowing smoke. And while it's understandable that the president and his team
want to put the best face on their war plan, they owe the American public
something better than smoke. The Iraqis have never known democracy. Many of
them may not desire it. Simply put, there's no way you can in two years
transform a tribal, religiously divided, feudal police state into a
fledgling democracy.

There are two questions here. First, is the Bush administration committed to
this "regime change" for the long haul? The long haul means staying in Iraq
for several years and footing a big chunk of the bill—enough money to create
schools for all Iraqis and a justice system and decent public health
facilities and a stable currency and an independent press. Almost none of
this democratic infrastructure exists in Iraq today. And even less will
exist after a war.

The second question is whether the Bush administration, the most secretive
in memory, is willing to talk straight to its own people here at home. Right
now, little flows from the White House but the fog of spin-meistering. This
fundamentalist president may truly believe he is on a God-given mission. But
as George W. Bush himself says, this is a critical juncture in world
history. And because it is, the voters of the most powerful nation need some
human explanations—even if those explanations paint a true world of grays,
rather than the misleading simplicity of black vs. white, good vs. evil.

We are in new terrain, with it becoming clearer by the day that devastating
weapons may be out of the bag. Americans can rise to challenges, but not if
you try to con them into thinking they can be masters of the universe
without pain.
--

Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

Victoria,

Please take me off your list.

Thank you


  Vicki Carmichael <clvic@...> wrote:Victoria,

Please take me off your list.

Thank you


--- victoria brandon <vbrandon@...> wrote:
> I'm sorry the link doesn't work:  if anyone still
> wants to hear this piece,
> go to www.npr.org, click on "archives" then on
> Weekend Edition Sunday, and
> search for "peace."  But the story seems to me not
> nearly as important as
> resolving the question, especially since there seems
> to be some confusion
> about what has been decided already (the day of the
> bombing?  the next day?
> Clearlake? Lakeport? elsewhere?)  And it looks like
> time is getting
> tragically short.
>
> To move from tragedy to comedy, or more accurately
> mere irritation:
> *please* could posters to the list set their
> emailers to plain text rather
> than HTML???  And set up your acct with Yahoo *not*
> to translate messages
> into HTML (which seems to be their bizarre default).
>  Many mailing lists are
> set to automatically reject postings that aren't in
> plain text, or that
> include attachments, since for those of us with
> dialup internet access it
> takes about ten times as long (easily) to load the
> messages.
>
> Best,
> Victoria
> --
> Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PeaceActionLake-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Victoria,

Please take me off your list.

Thank you


--- victoria brandon <vbrandon@...> wrote:
> I'm sorry the link doesn't work:  if anyone still
> wants to hear this piece,
> go to www.npr.org, click on "archives" then on
> Weekend Edition Sunday, and
> search for "peace."  But the story seems to me not
> nearly as important as
> resolving the question, especially since there seems
> to be some confusion
> about what has been decided already (the day of the
> bombing?  the next day?
> Clearlake? Lakeport? elsewhere?)  And it looks like
> time is getting
> tragically short.
>
> To move from tragedy to comedy, or more accurately
> mere irritation:
> *please* could posters to the list set their
> emailers to plain text rather
> than HTML???  And set up your acct with Yahoo *not*
> to translate messages
> into HTML (which seems to be their bizarre default).
>  Many mailing lists are
> set to automatically reject postings that aren't in
> plain text, or that
> include attachments, since for those of us with
> dialup internet access it
> takes about ten times as long (easily) to load the
> messages.
>
> Best,
> Victoria
> --
> Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I'm sorry the link doesn't work:  if anyone still wants to hear this piece,
go to www.npr.org, click on "archives" then on Weekend Edition Sunday, and
search for "peace."  But the story seems to me not nearly as important as
resolving the question, especially since there seems to be some confusion
about what has been decided already (the day of the bombing?  the next day?
Clearlake? Lakeport? elsewhere?)  And it looks like time is getting
tragically short.

To move from tragedy to comedy, or more accurately mere irritation:
*please* could posters to the list set their emailers to plain text rather
than HTML???  And set up your acct with Yahoo *not* to translate messages
into HTML (which seems to be their bizarre default).  Many mailing lists are
set to automatically reject postings that aren't in plain text, or that
include attachments, since for those of us with dialup internet access it
takes about ten times as long (easily) to load the messages.

Best,
Victoria
--
Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

if you want to change how you participate with the group

Yahoo - Group - PeaceActionLake - "edit my membership" on the right

 Aqeelaw@... wrote:

Hi:

I just attempted to join, per your instructions, however, my request was denied because I previously joined the group after your initial invitation.

Aqeela

 peachem2001 <showland6@...> wrote:

Victoria - A week or so ago the group decided to meet at 5pm at either the
gazebo in Lakeport or at the gazebo at Austins, on the day following the
attack. I couldn't connect to your link on this site but maybe I have a copy or
can copy to the URL address on Explorer.  I'd like to know what other groups
are doing and maybe we could carpool down to Calistoga or Santa Rosa. Too
many people in this group don't have computers so it's hard to get the word
out. I know I'm supposed to be doing hard copies but  that takes time, which
we don't have - altho now the lunatic is saying his war is starting Mar. 15 - and
that's the date of the next big protest!

Peace!
Shirley

victoria brandon <vbrandon@x> wrote:
> There was an item on Morning Edition (NPR) today about various peace
groups
> and their plans for demonstrations if and when the administration actually
> commences this lunatic war.  The precis:
>
> > In the United States, peace groups mobilize forces for massive protests in
> > anticipation of a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Anti-war organizations in
> > major cities say they have detailed logistical plans to take to the streets
> > and shut down traffic
>
> To listen to the full story go to:
>
> <http://search1.npr.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?Action=FilterSearch&filter=
archi
> ve_filter_clean.hts&ResultTemplate=allow_re_sort.hts&SortSpec=Date+
Desc+Scor
> e+Desc&CleanQuery=peace&QueryText=&how_long_ago=7&collection=
WESU2&x=16&y=10
> >
>
> and click on the appropriate link.
>
> This brings up the obvious question:  what, if anything, are WE going to do
> in this all too likely eventuality?
>
> Best,
> Victoria
> --
>
> Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

Victoria - A week or so ago the group decided to meet at 5pm at either the
gazebo in Lakeport or at the gazebo at Austins, on the day following the
attack. I couldn't connect to your link on this site but maybe I have a copy or
can copy to the URL address on Explorer.  I'd like to know what other groups
are doing and maybe we could carpool down to Calistoga or Santa Rosa. Too
many people in this group don't have computers so it's hard to get the word
out. I know I'm supposed to be doing hard copies but  that takes time, which
we don't have - altho now the lunatic is saying his war is starting Mar. 15 -
and
that's the date of the next big protest!

Peace!
Shirley

  victoria brandon <vbrandon@x> wrote:
> There was an item on Morning Edition (NPR) today about various peace
groups
> and their plans for demonstrations if and when the administration actually
> commences this lunatic war.  The precis:
>
> > In the United States, peace groups mobilize forces for massive protests in
> > anticipation of a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Anti-war organizations
in
> > major cities say they have detailed logistical plans to take to the streets
> > and shut down traffic
>
> To listen to the full story go to:
>
> <http://search1.npr.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?Action=FilterSearch&filter=
archi
> ve_filter_clean.hts&ResultTemplate=allow_re_sort.hts&SortSpec=Date+
Desc+Scor
> e+Desc&CleanQuery=peace&QueryText=&how_long_ago=7&collection=
WESU2&x=16&y=10
> >
>
> and click on the appropriate link.
>
> This brings up the obvious question:  what, if anything, are WE going to do
> in this all too likely eventuality?
>
> Best,
> Victoria
> --
>
> Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

Dear MoveOn member,

As we continue our Iraq campaign, we're also working to track the
most pressing domestic challenges from the Bush administration.  While
Iraq is taking all the media focus, the right wing is using this
diversion to cover attacks on almost every front.

Tomorrow -- Thursday, March 6th -- our ability to withstand this
onslaught may come down to one crucial Senate vote.  This vote
-- on the Miguel Estrada judicial nomination -- is widely seen as
a key moment defining whether the Democratic opposition can turn
back the worst of the right-wing initiatives.
The Senate will be voting on the filibuster* on the nomination of
Miguel Estrada to the D.C. appeals court.  We need to support this
filibuster and the courageous Senators who are stepping forward
at this key moment.  Please call your Senators *immediately* to make
your voice heard.
We've arranged a TOLL-FREE number for you to use.  Please call it
twice to speak with both your Senators:
    1-888-508-2974

If that number is busy, please call your Senators directly, at:
    Senator Feinstein
    DC Phone:    202-224-3841
    Senator Boxer
    DC Phone:    202-224-3553
Make sure the staffers know you're a constituent.  Then urge your
Senators to:
   "Please SUPPORT the filibuster to stop Miguel Estrada.
    Please vote AGAINST cloture."
Please let us know you're making these important calls, at:
   http://www.moveon.org/callmade2.html
Miguel Estrada is a stealth right-wing extremist who has never served
as a judge before, yet has been nominated by the White House to a seat
on America's second-highest court.  He stonewalled the Senate during
his confirmation hearings last year, refusing to answer basic questions
about his legal & judicial philosophy.  Estrada is widely thought to be
President Bush's top choice for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  His
silence on his views on the law is a direct challenge to all of us.
Calling Estrada's behavior "a new height of arrogance," Senators Tom
Daschle (D-SD) and Harry Reid (D-NV) have finally gotten their fellow
Democrats to take a unified stand on principle, and are rightly
refusing to allow Estrada's confirmation.
They have launched a filibuster -- a tactic of last resort that is a
minority party's only recourse to ensure that a narrow majority party
does not gain absolute power.  It's a bold move.  If the filibuster
holds, as it has for 3 weeks now, it will send a clear signal that the
right wing can not ram its radically unfair agenda through Congress.
If it fails, that will send the opposite, frightening message.
In effect, the Estrada filibuster is now our main line of defense
safeguarding the democracy we believe in and the society we want our
children to inherit.  Republicans have just called for a "cloture" vote
-- an attempt to break the filibuster -- to take place this Thursday.
MoveOn members have played a huge part in making this filibuster
possible.  For weeks, key Senators have been citing our thousands of
phone calls as a major force keeping the Democrats together.  Even
today, they're talking about what a difference we're making.
Unity among Senators to maintain this filibuster is crucial.  Please
call your Senators right now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
--The MoveOn Team
   Carrie, Eli, Joan, Peter, Wes, and Zack
   March 5, 2003
P.S.:
A recent New York Times story on the filibuster is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/politics/12ESTR.html
For more information on Estrada, there's a good fact sheet at:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7795
* For more information on filibusters, see our bulletin at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin11.html
________________
This is a message from MoveOn.org.  To unsubscribe from this list,
please visit our subscription management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=1128-1661935-L1ElXDudUK4I0yDC65afWw

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Gary - Our problem is both time and money - we don't have enough of
either to get a good mail managing program - Jack is working very hard
to get this list up and running but he has to look for free services
and Yahoo has 'em. If anybody knows of any better, free mail managing
programs would you look into it and let us know...  I know of one that
manages a couple of lists I'm on called Delphi Forums - but I don't
have time or the moxy to figure it all out. I have enough trouble just
not getting kicked off the lists for ineptitude...:-)

Also please use the delete key freely - We will have duplication
(probably mostly my fault) because we're trying to be sure we're
communicating with all 65 people on our list. I'd like to say to you
all, "If you don't receive this please let me know" but I don't think
that would help very much...:-) But I could ask you who are receiving
our mail to let me know - peachem2001@.... And if you know
someone else who signed a petition or marched with us, ask them if
they're getting the mail... There is so much important stuff going on
right now, I hate to think they're missing out.

Shirley

On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Gary Peterson wrote:

> Nothing personal but my email is already overwhelmed.
> I've repeatedly received the same messages, even one encouraging me to
> buy a car.
> I don't trust yahoo, know they censor and even take off anti-war sites.
> Nice to hear from others; not so nice to have to spend a lot of time
> tryin to keep your  email open.
>
>

Hi Henriatta --
What a great idea!  I've sent an email and am forwarding to a stack of
people on my list.

Best,
Victoria

John Brady Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States
embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

The following is the text of his letter of resignation to Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell.


> Dear Mr. Secretary:
>
> I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the
> United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy
> Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my
> upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country.
>
> Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign
> languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and
> journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs
> fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most
> powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
>
> It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would
> become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish
> bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is
> what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature.
> But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by
> upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of
> the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

> The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with
> American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war
> with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has
> been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days
> of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective
> web of international relationships the world has ever known.  Our current
> course will bring instability and danger, not security.

> The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic
> self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American
> problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence,
> such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam.
> The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a
> vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic
> way against the threat of terrorism.  But rather than take credit for those
> successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make
> terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely
> defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate
> terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated
> problems of terrorism and Iraq.

> The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of
> shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that
> protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11
> did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem
> determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our
> model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in
> the name of a doomed status quo?

> We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world
> that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too
> much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S.
> interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims
> were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan
> is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the
> Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind,
> as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied
> Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the
> answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles
> in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with
> Micronesia to follow where we lead.

> We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is
> impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But
> our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it
> would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism.
> Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering
> and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is
> fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum
> metuant" really become our motto?

> I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in
> Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and
> closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even
> when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a
> difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system,
> with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us
> rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will
> tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of
> liberty, security, and justice for the planet?

> Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You
> have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy
> deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an
> ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the
> President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international
> system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties,
> organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more
> effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its
> interests.

> I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience
> with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration.  I have
> confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and
> hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies
> that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the
> world we share.

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:42:57 -0800 "Henrietta Wise" <buffalohenny@...>
writes:
>  I called the Turkish Phone number at the UN in New York.  I also
> asked for their email telling her, I wanted to thank someone for the
> their recent No Vote in the their Parliament and congratulate Turkey
> for their stance.  I have enclosed my letter which has the
> Ambassador's name and e mail address  may be of interest to someone.
>  regards Pat  (email is   turkuno@...)
>
> .
> Ambassador Umit Pamir
>
> Dear Sir,  Just for some identification, I am a 70 year old citizen
> of the USA and write to thank you for the recent No Vote in your
> Parliament. You will never know how many cheered and rejoiced at
> this unexpected response. :-)  That vote was  fantastic.  Please
> understand and know that many , many citizens here  do not  support
> this war nor our non elected President in this endeavor.   All I can
> do is write to you and others  asking that you listen to the second
> most powerful Super Power in the world, the humanity and the
> citizenry that took to the streets on February 15th across planet
> Earth.  In the face of unbelievable pressures from our government
> continue to be firm and strong.
>
> Most Sincerely,  Pat Starkovich
>

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

There was an item on Morning Edition (NPR) today about various peace groups
and their plans for demonstrations if and when the administration actually
commences this lunatic war.  The precis:

> In the United States, peace groups mobilize forces for massive protests in
> anticipation of a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Anti-war organizations in
> major cities say they have detailed logistical plans to take to the streets
> and shut down traffic

To listen to the full story go to:

<http://search1.npr.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?Action=FilterSearch&filter=archi
ve_filter_clean.hts&ResultTemplate=allow_re_sort.hts&SortSpec=Date+Desc+Scor
e+Desc&CleanQuery=peace&QueryText=&how_long_ago=7&collection=WESU2&x=16&y=10
>

and click on the appropriate link.

This brings up the obvious question:  what, if anything, are WE going to do
in this all too likely eventuality?

Best,
Victoria
--

Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

One thing that is so interesting about the current protest movement in
America (and elsewhere too!) is that it includes  among its ranks so many
individuals  who have never been inclined to protest war before, as well as
those who are customarily "on the fence" when it comes to a pro or con
approach.

Those of us who are against ALL war, as I am prone to be (and I must
confess that I'm what some people might call a "bleeding heart"), should be
mighty careful  not to look askance at those who are less fixed in their
opinion than we are.   Consider those who might not disapprove of all wars,
might even cheer for some wars,  but who stand in opposition to the current
proposed war with Iraq  because they see THIS PARTICULAR WAR as
unprovoked, unwise, economically unfeasible and darn right  dangerous.  We
should welcome these  folks with open arms.  We should be careful not to
scandalize them with comments that they might mistakenly perceive as too
extreme.  We don't want to chase them away.  We are much stronger, much
more powerful, much more inclined to be heard,  for having these new
protestors  in our ranks.  They are our allies.  Let's keep them.

This, our new group site, looks like a good place to post our
newsletters. I'm working on #2 right now and if you've found something
you think the group should know about please shorten it to a couple of
paragraphs, put the URL on and send it to me at my mchsi address:
<showland6@...>
Things are moving so fast I'm going to try to do the newsletter once a
week - but it might be every other week - no guarantees...  Posting
your "Finds" on the net  and in the news here would be faster.  Your
Finds being newsarticles and items you want to share.
Kudos to Jack for getting this Site up for us - And to Martha for the
web pages:
See them at: <http://www.2xtreme.net/~rhysnda/PeaceAction/>

Looks like our communication is getting off the ground - Now to
education for the masses... The more you read and hear, the more I hope
you'll help us spread the word.  Like I watched Now with Bill Moyers
last night. I'm trying to get a transcript to use - In an interview
with Nat Hentof they gave a very clear picture of why our peace
protests seem to be ignored by Washington. Check out
<http://www.fair.org/media-woes/censorship.html>

Shirley
Keep on writing... The pen is mightier than the sword, we hope...