65,000 More troops of 3 years...

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 17 Jan 2007 20:32

Dawn Of Freestyle wrote:The Secretary of Peace needs to have a seat at the table of power. I believe the perspective given by this department would be extremely valuable, especially when the president is making decisions related to foreign policy. i.e. sending more troops into Iraq.

Yes, I do believe we need to incorporate a new curriculum into our schools, one that teaches the effectiveness of non-violent movements throughout history, one that gives children the skills necessary to resolve conflicts peacefully. There are already successful programs in some of the schools that have been proven to reduce gang involvement and have reduced overall violence in schools. The DoP would research the programs that are already in existence and help fund and expand the programs that have demonstrated success --at the request and approval of local school boards.

The funding requested for this Department would be equivalent to 2% of the current Defense budget. Much of the money would be used to fund local community programs that are currently run by non-profits, programs that typically are operating on shoestring budgets.

The DoP would be a resource for our already overburdened law enforcement agencies, judicial systems and corrections facilities.

I'm not sure why you have said, "to promote foreign interests." I don't see this at all.

I wouldn't call proven research on violence prevention and conflict resolution "propaganda." We are calling on the highly trained professionals in this field to come together under the umbrella of a DoP to offer the best practices approach to addressing the violence that is prevalent in our communities and around the world. They would research, articulate and facilitate non-violent solutions.

Yes, when talking about peace we have to take into consideration our environment (and the resources at the heart of many conflicts), racism (that currently creates tension between diverse cultures and ethnic groups) and society (and the structures/institutions and cultural beliefs within the society).

We live in a very interconnected world and no one situation can be examined in isolation. Especially conflict, which is deeply rooted in the history of societies at all levels...history of oppression, imperialism, economic inequalities, and beliefs of supremacy or the "chosen people complex." The black and white, right vs wrong, good vs evil approach will not work...never has, never will.

Enough said!!

Can you tell I'm very passionate about this topic?

You should run for first female president...

Genzu · Post by **Genzu** » 17 Jan 2007 22:19

Switch Kicker wrote:You should run for first female president...

She's already planning to, though I don't know when.

Peace.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 18 Jan 2007 07:22

Genzu wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:You should run for first female president...
She's already planning to, though I don't know when.

Peace.

0_o I see. Well I didn't know that. lol, good luck with that.

That would be the ultimate. A Footbagger president. I suppose being the first female president would be a pretty cool thing too.

Dawn Of Freestyle · Post by **Dawn Of Freestyle** » 18 Jan 2007 10:47

Actually I would prefer to be "The Spokes Person for the United People of the Earth." In my dream last night everyone was holding signs that read, "One People." It probably came as a result of listening/watching Kan'Nal perform at the Earth dance 2006. http://www.kannal.org/video.htm

It also reminds of a bumper sticker I really like that reads, "One People, One Planet, One Future."

Maybe I'll be appointed as the Secretary of Peace...

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 18 Jan 2007 11:18

Dawn Of Freestyle wrote:Actually I would prefer to be "The Spokes Person for the United People of the Earth." In my dream last night everyone was holding signs that read, "One People." It probably came as a result of listening/watching Kan'Nal perform at the Earth dance 2006. http://www.kannal.org/video.htm

It also reminds of a bumper sticker I really like that reads, "One People, One Planet, One Future."

Maybe I'll be appointed as the Secretary of Peace...

But... If we obtained world peace... Life would be boring. And you never know. Sometime in the distant "One Future," there might be two planets instead of just one.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 11:36

The passion is great, and that you can handle my occasionally, over-the-top criticism.

I will provide examples of the "propaganda" I spoke of. Ill have to check back at those bills. I don't want to base my criticism on House bill portions that will never pass. Although..... the ambiguity of many bill sections may allow the implementation of all those portions.

But first, I have to do a few quick comments (respectfully) about Dawn's proposed Iraq plan, since that is more focused on this tread:

I'll break them up for readablility.

(next post)

-n

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 18 Jan 2007 11:40

HighDemonslayer wrote: And i will post less here, .

Props on following that post up with two more immediate posts.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:00

Wow , can you shread and post at the same time?

We should have some audio links, so we can post verbally while we kick(until we pass out)

I meant, less overall posts in the Discussion forum, most of which topics are lame.
This one is important.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:02

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

While certainly not an identical situation, the recent announcement/withdrawl of Israeli troops from some territories, resulted in increased rocket and other attacks.
The opposition seeked to portray the situation as Israel being defeated by the resistance. To appear as the victor, encourages further aggression. Using a cooperative media, Hamas/Hezbollah and similar groups, "won".

Armed conflict against Israel, and civilians if necessary, was "proven" to be a winning tactic.

While withdrawing of U.S. troops must be done eventually, Groups will be jockey-ing to claim victory. Whomever deals the hardest blows to the fleeing Americans will have credibility and power. And murdering as many of their political\religious rivals during the power vacumn is probably guaranteed.

The political will does not exist to use the heavy weapons necessary to defeat the array of local enemies.
Civilian casualties, and the resulting infrastructure damage as a result is considered un-acceptable.

So large, armed offensives during the pull-out, and after, to seize power will occur.

It looks like a lose-lose, for the cause of peace, to withdraw now. It's probably a lose-lose whenever it occurs.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:10

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

International security and peacekeeping troops, composed of whom exactly?

Which neighboring countries, with compelling national interest in screwing Iraq for their own benefit will be included.

How long would creating such a force take? Would the "glacial" pace of the United Nations take years to create such a force?

We have seen the United Nations flee Iraq after one truck bomb, surely their staff and troops would not last long on the ground.

These questions seem reasonable.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:20

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Can the U.S. "order" it's citizens to return from foreign countries?

Iraq has much experience with world-class corruption.

If it is going to be millions,or billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars going over there ,trusting them to spend it honestly is folly.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

Absolutely, the lack of accountability is a travesty to the taxpayer, an contributes to the bankruptcy of the U.S. If Reconstruction activities are paid by the U.S........ with Iraqi-only accountability, is like no accountability.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions.

Different conflict, completely different situation.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:38

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission,

to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, (...)(....)

Really? What about all the neighboring billionaire oil countries? When will they pay. The U.S. has paid enough.

(.....)
which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations.(....)

Brilliant.....include as many Muslims who are of the same factions that are currently in an endless bloodbath there. Provide Iraqi religious factions with even more foreign targets, comprised of the groups they have hated for 1000 years. Insure that more children and women will be collateral damage as the men destroying each other, hide behind the women and children.

(....)

(.....)

Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

Does this paragraph concede that the U.N. will not approve the mission?

I gotta ask.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:48

Still going...point by point.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

Such reconciliation will be very challenging, as evidenced by the many grudges, and geo-political rivalries mentioned in th above paragraphs.

Surely the Iraqis themselves will have to host conferences, and insure that nobody bombs it.

My only problem with #6, is that it is implying that we develop and fund this process.
What do Westerners (US specifically) know about reconciliation between these cultures?

What principles in opposition to human nature, and in opposition to their own traditions will be foisted upon them?

And what is there to fund? Sounds like more fleecing of the U.S. taxpayer.

-n

Dawn Of Freestyle · Post by **Dawn Of Freestyle** » 18 Jan 2007 12:50

You referred to this as "Dawn's Plan." I can't believe I did not start by giving credit to the creator of this plan...Congressman Dennis Kucinich from Ohio. Perhaps I have too much confidence in this man, but from what I know of him, he is truly a genius. Read his book, "A Prayer for America."

He was the only person in Congress to vote against the war from the very beginning. He predicted what would happen if the US invaded and everything he said then has proven true.

I'm busy making arrangements (scheduling meetings with my Representatives in congress) for my trip to DC in February for the Peace Alliance National Conference. I'm especially looking forward to this conference because Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, Michael Beckwith, Dennis Kucinich and even Steven Tyler (of Aerosmith) will be there. It will be very inspirational and transformative... Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I do not have time right now to defend all points you are questioning about Representative Kucinich's plan to get us out of Iraq, but may get back to it sometime in the near future... I would still assert that it is the best plan I've seen.

Also, we have an order for 500 footbags and I'm sure Daryl would appreciate my help

One More Thing:

Peace would not make the world boring...we know excitement does not only come about through violence... Remember there will always be conflict...we just have to be creative at resolving things peacefully...that's not boring.

Just go skydiving or watch Vasek shred if you want some excitement...life offers so many ways to keep yourself entertained I could never get bored.

Another Planet with intelligent life...highly likely, but we'll deal with them when the time comes

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:53

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

How many individual reconstruction projects have been destroyed one or more times?

Any major re-construction, funded by countries other than the United States, should begin ONLY after the violence ceases.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 12:56

points 7 thru 10 will go a lot quicker, later...

And i did notice that this plan was attributed to Dennis Kucinich.

more later.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2007 13:05

I am not expecting detailed responses from Dawn, you are very busy.

Since it is Dennis's plan, It was good to ask the questions about it, that nobody else seems to have asked.

And since Dennis is in a position to run for Prez. again, or assume a position of power in a new Peace Dept., we have to intellectually investigate the specific ideas or plans he believes, or would foist upon us.

Good luck with the conference, and I am going in with Mike on ordering some of those 500 footbags.

Peace is not boring.

-n

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 19 Jan 2007 16:53

I'm a loser

Gosh ken - I know you have reasons to dislike me, but a loser?

~peace
Damon

Dawn Of Freestyle · Post by **Dawn Of Freestyle** » 20 Jan 2007 01:17

Hey Switch Kicker,

Just wanted to say I love your support and positive comments!!

Peace and love from Idaho!

Dawn Of Freestyle · Post by **Dawn Of Freestyle** » 22 Jan 2007 00:38

First, I wanted to say how much a appreciate Switch Kicker for his support in this discussion!! Know that the support goes both ways.

Know that I fully support you in your resolve to not participate:

Switch Kicker wrote: I'm not going to fight his war, and I no longer agree to do the duties they're ordering me to do. I'm not going to go to Iraq to fight this pointless fucking war.

I empathize with your situation, it sounds like they are really screwing you over.

Next, I would like to say, God I sure hope your twin brother doesn't end up in Iraq.

PegLegHolly wrote: my twin bro is signing up for the marine corp to run away from his problems here. i really hope that he doesnt have to go over there.

Last, I would like to share this message that I just received with Switch Kickers comment in mind:

Switch Kicker wrote:this is us falling down a cliff with no gear, no protection pads, and no cell phone to call for help once we smack the rock hard ground.

The CLIFF ANALOGY appears here as well!!

As 25 More US Troops Die in Iraq on Saturday, Kucinich Appeals to Bush to Rethink Escalation

Washington DC (Jan. 21) - US Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Dem. OH) today called upon President Bush to rethink his policy of escalation in Iraq in the wake of the deaths of 25 more US servicemen in Iraq on Saturday, 12 in a helicopter crash and 5 in combat in Karbala. The deaths marked the third highest number of combat related US mortalities in Iraq on any given day since the start of the war. The President is preparing 21,500 more troops to send to the region to quell the rising insurgency.

"The President must see that emerging events argue strongly against an escalation. This is the time for an honest reappraisal, not a headlong surge over a cliff. The Administration is sending a procession of troops to their deaths on a mission impossible for a cause improbable. It is urgent that the President change his direction and begin to deescalate the war and bring our troops home alive," Kucinich said.

Last week Kucinich presented Congress with a 12-point plan which called for the United States to end the occupation, withdraw all troops and close all military bases in Iraq, simultaneous with reaching out to the world community for help in building an international security and peacekeeping force in Iraq.

"When the US indicates a new policy which renounces the occupation and unilateralism, the world will be ready to help." Kucinich said.

Peace from Idaho to all of you!