• Creating World Peace-The Butterfly Solution May 4 - 12:29 pm

When is WAR not "war"?

It can be said without exaggeration that every society must rid itself of its predators. Whether it is a farm village in India or Africa attacked by tigers and lions, or major cities where people are attacked by gangs or criminals, society must address this predation. For this to work, however, there must be an awareness that in place of power and predation exists a rule of law, so that rulers are representative of social interests as opposed to being merely masters who must obeyed. So representative governments have gradually replaced kings, and in the more advanced societies they have also replaced petty dictatorships. This has become a mark of our success, that we live in a socially successful human environment that prospers under the rule of law which ensures certain freedoms and inalienable human rights. On the other end of the spectrum exist social systems where such freedoms are lacking, and where the people who live under such oppressive rule languish in poverty and fear.

This the world is now faced with, often on many fronts, such as North Korea, certain African states such as Zimbabwe and the Congo, and other states quickly sliding into regressive governments, such as Liberia, or characterized by an anarchy of competing war lords, such as Somalia. Of these repressive regimes were also Afghanistan under Al-Qaeda, and most evidently in the present, Iraq. As the world struggles with rules of legitimacy, there are some nations, and perhaps some social cultures, that are either mired or backsliding towards repressive regimes and modes of government. Again, these regimes are most often characterized by grinding poverty and repression, often controlling its population through a clever tactic of fear, in particular fear of a foreign enemy, or fear of their internal security forces. But when such regimes gain sufficient power to be able to export their fear and repression outside their borders, in particular if they possess the power to wreak great havoc on societies where the rule of law has dominated over repression, then such regimes must now be identified as predators. It is unfortunate for their peoples that of these repressive regimes there are many, but fortunate for the rest of the civilized world that they are largely powerless. When one of these regimes rises in military might, however, so that they can attack a neighboring country, or through its agents of terror attack deep into the heart of other nations, as happened on 9/11, then we have a problem with a predator. Such a predator behavior has been identified most currently in the nation of Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein, and his Baathist Party. The result most often is that the other nations rally together to defend themselves against a predatory nation, one that acts outside the rule of law for its citizens, so that domestically they live in fear, a fear which must not be exported to others. Alas, this is also to be understood that we are then faced with a state of war.

War is never to be seen as being of popular appeal, for there is no glory in dying. But nor should it be avoided if it is for the purpose of controlling a predator to society. In the same vein, it might be more accurate to not call it "war", but rather give it a name that better defines what it is that needs to be done: predator control, or the arrest of criminal activities, or the dismantling of a socially oppressive regime. These labels fit more accurately what it is the US and Britain and their allies have set out to do in Iraq. In a war, it is in the interest of one party to fight another for the purpose of gain, whether it be territory, or wealth, or enslavement of its population. The parties who are allied against Iraq's present regime are not seeking such gains, though they had been accused of hungering for Iraqi oil. In fact, it would be more economically advantageous to deal with Iraq as an equal nation so that they could sell their oil into the world markets, if that is their wish, rather than taking it by force by enslaving the population to do so. It is too costly to do the latter, as all the late imperial powers discovered, and more advantageous to trade for goods than to take them by force. Then, it is also a matter of rule of law, so that a predatory regime is replaced with a government where human rights are respected and the nation's population can live within rules that guarantee their freedoms and dignity as human beings, so they no longer live in fear. This is the large task ahead of the US-British led coalition, which is meeting with a stiff resistance from nations and peoples, all well intentioned, who do not appreciate the need to control predatory behavior. The difference between Iraq attacking a nation versus the coalition attacking Iraq is that one is a predator, which does not respect human rights and has the power to spread destruction outside its borders; whereas the other is a coalition of nations under the rule of law, who ensure the dignity and human rights of its peoples. The two are not the same, nor are their actions, though some would claim they are. Same as it is in the nature of rule of law to call on a third party to resolve disputes, to render judgements, so has it been the efforts of the coalitions to seek such third party judgement from the United Nations. However, the fact that the participants in this judgement had rendered themselves incapable of opposing a predator nation calls into question their effectiveness as a third party body, same as it calls into question whether or not theirs is a clear understanding of the nature of the threat. Because of possible conflicts of interests, such as lucrative contracts with the predatory nation, there has been hesitancy to exercise a clear mandate against the offending regime. But a predator does not respect weakness, rather is fed by it so that it becomes emboldened. And if this is so, then the weak position of the present United Nations body merely encourages the scepter of war, not by the coalition against Iraq, but by all predatory nations against the world. The United States and their allies acted decisively in Afghanistan, and social change has already occurred there, though this will not be an easy task to change the life habits of a people who had fought amongst themselves for centuries. It is a start, and rule of law will gradually assert itself there. However, this rule of law has no chance of coming into fruition in Iraq, such as it now stands.

So this is not "war" against Iraq that is called upon, that which now faces the decision to be made in the United Nations, but rather the removal or control of a predator. Let us pray that the leaders and delegates of the undecided nations can come together for this ugly and unpleasant task, of removing Iraq's oppressive regime and incapacitating its ability of exporting fear and destruction on the world community. And in the process, let us pray that the people of Iraq, when this mission is done, will breathe the free air of a nation once again ruled by law, so they too can become part of the world community where this is so.

A WorldCitizen.

Candlelight Vigil for Peace.

Please visit http://www.globalvigil.org and plan a candlelight vigil
for peace in your area on Sunday, March 16 at 7 pm. MoveOn.org and
the Win Without War coalition, together with Archbishop Desmond Tutu
and many faith-based organizations, are calling this vigil, and we
need your help.

Beginning in New Zealand, this will be a rolling wave of candlelight
gatherings that will quickly cross the globe. It's up to you to make
this happen. Today we are asking individuals, like you, to organize
a vigil in each community. We're hoping that thousands of small
groups around the world will be inspired to come together and
stand for peace.

For more information about how to make this happen in your community
and to join with millions of others around the globe, go to

http://www.globalvigil.org

It's time for the world to come together in this moment of darkness
and rekindle the light of reason -- and of hope. It's time to renew
our commitment to building a positive world for our children.

With your help, we will see the first candlelight vigil to sweep
around the globe on the evening of March 16th. Together, we will
lead the nations of the world away from an unnecessary war and
toward a peaceful and prosperous future.

This is a key moment in history. Be a part of it. Go to:

http://www.globalvigil.org

Thank you.

The Great War Machine has begun its move against the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Let us pray that success and Peace are close behind, without a great shedding of innocent blood.


Editors, Humancafe

Today the War Began.

Today the war began. I couldn't concentrate on work. I needed to give
myself an hour or two.
Close by to where I live there's a place called Bengali Headland (in
Sydney's Northern Beaches). It's a narrow national park that runs along
the shoulder of very spectacular cliffs. It's also an aboriginal sacred
place that has peaceful energy even on days when the weather is bouncing
off the cliff. This is where I go when I need to sit quietly, walk
quietly or generally reflect. Today I just sat and watched the ocean
knowing that on another shore, innocent people are dying for reasons
that I don't really understand.
Along with millions of others in this global village of ours I've
walked, petitioned, prayed, meditated and written for peace. It's
disempowering to see so many voices unheard. And while our voices have
echoed against this deafness I sincerely believe the echoes will be
heard. Things don't always work out the way we planned. Maybe this
echo will vibrate in our hearts to remind us of our social consciences.
I feel this happening already. Maybe this is an opportunity to help us
remember our personal responsibility in being there for ourselves, our
friends and families, our immediate and global community.
If we hurt our neighbour, we hurt ourselves and if we empower our
neighbour, we empower ourselves.
I hope this global journey we've embarked upon will wake us up so we can
actualise the flip side of this darkness.
Let it bring out the best in all of us and if we stumble from time to
time God help us to be gentle with ourselves and each other.

Kahla Gerard
Mortgage Strategist


visionworks int. pty ltd

providing honest and ethical service in all aspects of
property finance

kahla@yourvisionworks.com.au
PO Box 372 Avalon Beach NSW 2107
(T) 02 9918 5188
(F) 02 9918 5199
(M) 0414 875 900

www.yourvisionworks.com.au
currently under construction

visionworks Int. Pty Ltd Disclaimer
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It
may also be subject to professional privilege. If you are not the
intended recipient, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or
copying of this email and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please telephone Kahla Gerard on
+ 61 2 9918 5188 or reply be e-mail to the sender. Please destroy the
original transmission and its contents. Visionworks International Pty
Ltd and Kahla Gerard expressly deny any liability for unauthorised use.

LETHAL FORCE VS WAR AND PEACE

When is the use of force necessary, or justified? When we need to arrest criminals, those who had trespassed against others, or who had committed violent crimes, then it is generally acceptable to use force to restrain them, or to remove them from society. In a social order ruled by law, the mechanism for doing this is usually left to the legally authorized police force. But on a world scale, where there is planetary level crime committed, then the police force is inadequate to the task, for it calls for a use of force commensurate with the level of crime. In all cases, such force is lethal, for the crime against which it is moved is also lethal, in that the criminal nation will kill en masse the people of a nation, with or without the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Such use of lethal force is escalated on a world scale as a mobilization of military forces, which is called war. That war is undesirable is mostly accepted in this modern age by a great number of people, if not a majority in the civilized world. Nevertheless, such use of lethal force is necessary when faced with an adversary where trespass and violence is commonplace and often on a large scale. There is no peace where such force is used; for war is, as is oppression, of necessity unpeaceful. Yet, for those who desire peace, they remain powerless against such adversarial, lethal forces, of those who would forcibly subdue people into submission, into coercion without their agreement. If they resist, of necessity, such an adversary will kill them. The ones who honor and desire peace, especially those who then express their desired peace through demonstrations or through the expressions of their beliefs, would be the first coerced under such a regime. They would be the first eliminated, their right to speak freely and the right to assemble crushed. In an oppressive regime of tyranny, no freedom of expression can be tolerated. Demonstrations for peace against their own government can only happen in free nations.

In today's Iraq, where the people had been living in an atmosphere of such fear for decades; same as the Eastern European countries lived in fear of their Communist regime, same as the people under Hitler's rule lived in fear; such demonstrations cannot take place, for such a regime does not tolerate opposition, in any form. Therefore, those who today demonstrate for peace would be its first victims. That instead such demonstrations can take place within the nations being criticized for the actions is a demonstration of the freedoms they enjoy, though it of necessity places these peace demonstrations in favor or Iraq's oppressive regime, which is a non sequitur. To oppose with force such oppression is then a necessary and just response. This is the "war" now being waged by the US and British led coalition of nation against the regime of Saddam Hussein, and it is both just and necessary. In effect, it is a war to give people the right to demonstrate for peace, inside Iraq.

Saddam may be indeed dead, and so perhaps bin Laden, but their legacy of oppression will survive them, for it comes from a criminally coercive mentality, so that their mantle would be taken up by others. That lethal force is necessary to break this power is the same force that would be used against a criminal mafia boss, and his underlings. That the coalition's lethal force is so great is commensurate with the power that it must unseat. As long as such power exists, there can be no peace for either the people coerced within their nation, or for the world subject to their terrorist acts. War is the use of lethal force against another nation, same as is the lethal force used to arrest criminals. When such criminals are then captured and restrained, then may they be brought forth before a world court of law and tried for their crimes. This is what happened at the end of the campaign against Hitler's Nazis, though he escaped capture through suicide. Peace followed, but it came at a price, that lethal force had to be used in war. It is hoped, and it appears to be the aim, to use a specifically targeted minimum force against the Iraqi regime to avoid damage to the civilian population at large as much as is humanly possible. But in war, as in any use of lethal force, there will be those who die.

In peace, when this objective is achieved, there will be a new legacy of protection of human rights. Rather than continuing to live in fear and oppression, there is a hope that if this campaign against these criminals, though it required lethal force, there will be hope that the new order offered to the people of Iraq will be one that is a rule of law rather than oppression. And if this comes to pass, then history will look back upon this battle against the regime of Iraq not as a war, but rather as a necessary arrest of criminals, as a condition of peace.

If we were to abandon the people of Iraq for the sake of peace, it would be an unjust peace. And an unjust peace is as terrible as an unjust war.

God Bless America and its coalition of nations, and the fine men and women who fight for our freedom, for that of all oppressed peoples.

Ivan

You don't make peace by making enemies.

Peace.

The Mind of the Iraqis

Very good article by Melinda Liu, Newsweek.

Emotions run high, fear especially, with many conflicting confusing reports for the people of Iraq. They may not trust the coalition troops, having been told they will all be killed by them. Reason is sadly lacking in a nation where lying was the modus operandi, and where torture and persecution was the norm. It will be a big job for the American-British led coalition to rebuild a country where the minds of the people had been so badly damaged. A systematic hunt for the former criminals will no doubt yield many who had been part of Saddam's torture machine. To establish a rule of law, of reason, will take a great deal of work to win over the minds and hearts of the people. Fear, fear of exploding bombs, fear of hunger and thirst, fear of the Fedayeen, fear of abandonment and revenge, fear of an unknown future, fear of their vengeful mullahs; all these fears must be removed to make liberation work. It will be done. The result? A foothold of democracy and rule of law, ruled by reason rather than fear, followed by humanitarian aid. We should not be quick to raise our flag while the people cower in fear. The UN flag may be a good interim. But in the end, it must be a new Iraqi flag.

The future Iraq will be very different from what had been history, and quite possibly the needed model for all the other peoples of the region. Then we can pray for peace.


Editors

War near end?

Odd that there materialized so little resistance
for Baghdad. Is it over in 17 days, or are we in
an unexpected interlude? Is guerrilla warfare
next? I suspect not, that the regime in fact has
fallen, that it has no leadership, and that the
tapes of Saddam only prove that his doubles are
alive. And if this is so, then superior force,
training, courage, discipline, and great skills in
mega-management was more than the Republican Guard
could counter. The real issue is that this part
of the operation may be over, but the truly hard
work is only begun. A functioning government by
rule of law, a constitution, equal rights for men
and women, freedom of religion, human rights
guarantees, all still have to be hammered in
place. Humanitarian aid must be part of this
euqation as well. This will be the most difficult
thing of all, to bring together a people who
deserve better than they had, but who very likely
do not know what that is.

Let us pray for a great Peace to follow, for if it
all falls into place, that this new government
works, then it will be an Arab victory for the
people of Iraq.

Ivan

LOOTING BABYLON?

The people of Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Nasiryah, are all rejoicing at their newfound freedom, flashing thumbs up, and animatedly speaking to the coalition troops in both Arabic and English, making themselves understood that they are grateful for the end of the Saddam regime. The ugly side of this celebration is that looting has also taken hold in the vacuum of civil and military authority. The Marines and Army personnel are not their civil authority, and their military has been blown out of their boots, many choosing to leave them behind by the side of the road as they desert or surrender en masse. This is the new reality of Iraq, where on one hand there is joy and jubilation, but on the other there is chaos and destruction.

The war ended more quickly than most had expected, which is a welcome surprise, but the reaction of the Iraqi people, after years and decades of privation and oppression, is like a match set to spilled kerosene. Buildings burn and are looted of all possessions that can be carried or pushed or pulled out of there. It is no surprise, since the people watched which buildings were being targeted by coalition bombs, mainly government buildings and installations, and those were the first targeted by the looters. If the Americans and British can destroy them, and they won, then why not we? After all, these are the things that were taken from us by the Saddam gangs, so we are only taking back what is ours. But there is a fallacy in this thinking, for the nation must be rebuilt, and what had not been destroyed should be preserved, same as what had been demolished must be rebuilt. When the civil government is once again operational, hopefully soon, then the task at hand will be to return the country to operational normalcy. This includes the necessities of life infrastructures, such as water and electricity, the schools and hospitals, the shops selling goods, administrative offices, and the internal police which will need to disarm the kalishnikovs and grenades still in the hands of ordinary citizens. Not an easy task, but it must be done, if the people are to stop living in fear. Already some citizens set up barricades against the looters, and either beat or kill those looting, which is a kind of vigilantism. It is understandable, in the vacuum of civil order, same as the celebration taking a turn to looting in the first days. They needed to vent their frustration, their fear, their sadness, and this is the way it came out. But it cannot continue, for by continuing to loot, especially those institutions which will be so necessary to their future, they are looting their own future in the process.

It is heartening to see that little looting took place against other civilians, nor against their shops, so there is some modicum of respect and understanding that the real enemy was not their fellow citizens but the machinery that ran the Saddam regime. But when incubators were taken from hospitals, or medicines, or other equipment, this was truly a travesty, for then all who will need these services will not have them. Humanitarian aid is sure to follow, but it cannot come into such a chaotic conditions. So for the Iraqi people to show the world that they are made of better stuff, they need to reign in the looting, and begin the process of reconstruction. Freedom often comes at a high price, and the price to be paid here is one of loss, which must be followed by the sacrifices necessary to put aside ones personal gain for the benefit of all in society. And that is a freedom that is unstoppable once it is set in motion. I believe the Iraqi people, who are well educated and who hail from the ancient civilization of Babylon, will do it.

Ivan