Peace Throughout The World

The Badger Association of the Blind and Visually Impaired will be hosting a
"Discussion on Iraq" Wednesday February 5 at 6:30pm.

The two speakers at this event will be George Martin and Dr. John McAdams.

The Dove:
Mr. Martin works for Peace Action Milwaukee. He is a well know spokesman
for peace and was a guest speaker when Noam Chomsky was recently in
Milwaukee.

The Hawk:
Dr. McAdams received his Ph.D. from Harvard University and is an associate
professor of political science at Marquette University. Professor McAdams
teaches American Politics, Public Opinion, and Voter Behavior, and has
taught at the Kennedy School of Government.

It is important for all of us to be informed on the current situation in
Iraq, open our minds, and understand the facts. Take some time, come to the
Badger Association Wednesday, and find out those facts on BOTH sides of the
debate.

If you have any information to pass along pertaining to the issue or know of
good web sites please bring that information to share with others.

The forum will be a 20-minute presentation from each presenter, and a brief
rebuttal from the first speaker. After that the floor will be open to
questions.

The discussion is open to all. Please pass this invitation on to your
co-workers, friends, and family.

The Badger Association is located at 912 North Hawley Road in Milwaukee,
just 1 block north of Wisconsin Avenue. For directions call 414-258-9200 or
for questions I can be reached at 414-615-0120.

Jenni
c/o Charles Sweet
Annual Campaign Manager
Badger Association of the Blind
and Visually Impaired, Inc.

People say, "[we] don't take part in activities until it hits home..." and it's probably true. I'd be a victim of that. In fact, my fiance is involved now, and is going for an entire week doing Active Duty Training next week (not just the 2 days we thought he'd be gone). This makes me involved too. In fact, we all are involved whether or not we want to accept it.

[image=http://www.kohlsaat.com/swill/pk12_03_02headstails.JPG]


So, this isn't Star Wars, but we carry our own ethics, beliefs, hopes, and dreams from our favorite worlds into the world we live in today. I will be at this meeting (above stated) on Wednesday at 6:15 p.m. after work, sitting next to the Peace Campaign Manager. I hope you will join us.

Kevin and I went to the meeting at The Badger Association of the Blind and Visually Impaired, which hosted a "Discussion on Iraq" 6:30pm. The two speakers were George Martin and Dr. John McAdams. One took the side of Peace; the other on War. It was very interesting! There was a discussion afterwards and I asked a question too--although they didn't answer it very well. I asked "Our country is a fearful country. I understand standing up for Israel but I don't think our nation should go to war. What will our country gain from war? What do we get? A greater deficit from sending troops? We'll still have terrorists. Bin Laden will still be out there." The Pro-War guy, Dr. McAdams, a PHD from Harvard, only answered with how other countries would benefit--not us. The Peace guy, "George" (Dr. Martin, "The Dove") only heard part of my statement and thought I was suggesting we go to war and wasn't a good match against Dr. McAdams. McAdams spoke more eliquently and Dr. Martin was very frustrated.

We met with Kevin's friend, Charlie Sweet, Annual Campaign Manager for the Badger Association of the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc.

It was a very interesting discussion. We're both glad we went.

Jenni

I think there are a couple of ways the US could benefit. First of all just getting rid of Saddam Hussein would benefit the US. Once he is gone America will probably play a big factor in forming a new government in Iraq. Also many terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, that operate in Iraq could be defeated easier if there are US forces in Iraq.

I realize that you and others in this forum are anti war, and I respect your opinions, but I believe if this is done right and not done half ass like in '91 that a war would benefit the US and calm things down in the middle east at the same time.

Craig

All opinions, including yours, are welcome here

Hmmmm...

<Step on soapbox>

A couple of problems with that scenario:

1) There are no terrorist organizations "based" in Iraq, there may or may not be a terrorist cell there. Having troops in Iraq won't help the war on terrorism much.

2) One of the major goals of Osama's little possie is to remove all western troops from the middle east. Stationing troops in Iraq is providing him with motivation for continued terrorism, more targets, and more fodder he can feed to his followers about American imperialism.

3) An occupation army would further polarize the mid east and would be even more of a destablizing influence than Saddam himself is.

"Once he is gone America will probably play a big factor in forming a new government in Iraq."

Yes - and that is exactly what other Muslim governments are afraid of - that we will create a puppt state ala a bannana republic.


Yes - I think Saddam needs to be taken out. I just don't know how or by who. At the very least we need the support (legitimacy) that only the UN can provide. If we go in without UN support we undermine the purpoose of the UN and at the same time illegitamize (word?) or own cause.


<Step off soap box>

Of course, I have an opinion about this and it isn't exactly what you call the most popular opinion so I generally keep the mouth shut but I'm going to open here.

Personally, I have no desire to war with anyone. I have no desire to see American troops sent to far off lands to get fragged by more friendly fire than enemy fire. The fact that we suspended biological, chemical, and nuclear inspects for even a moment and just now are expecting compliance is a little troublesome to me in its lack of consistancy. Nor do I find that the UN lends legitamacy to anything considering 80-90% of any UN military operation is made of American soldiers and equipment. A nod of the head is not in my estimation as credible as lending to any need your money, your equipment and most importantly your people.

Now, America is a bully. It has been that way since the end of World War II and I'll be willing to admit that in any discussion. We have a decidedly American style of foreign policy that sets the rest of the world's teeth on edge.

But just like Dan said, he doesn't know how or he doesn't know who but someone....What if there is no one? What if no one steps forward? What if no one stops Iraq from imposing its will through biological, chemical or worse nuclear threats or actions on sovereign nations in the middle east? VX gas, Anthrax, small pox, nuclear missles. We shake our heads and say, "Oh no they probably don't even have that." Well folks of the same nature and inclination took planes full of fuel and changed everything for us. I think maybe we are too quick to forget. If allowed to continue Hussein could easily let an entire region live under the fear, anxiety, and potential destruction if we stand by and do nothing. "All that it takes for evil to conquer is if good men do nothing." It was true with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...it's true today.

People claim that it's about the oil or it's about Bush wanting to be relected (Because it worked so well for his Dad?!). Well it's a lot of things but for me it's this little question that eases my conscience when we handle dictators and those who would murder their own people wholesale or members of sovergin nations who border their country, If we had stepped into WWII earlier, If we'd have gone in even 6 months earlier how many people would not have burned in incinerators, how many would we saved from roadside mass graves?

I am not by any measure a Warmonger. I have a deep seated respect for human life. But I also have a deep seated belief that we cannot turn our backs on the world. Whether they want us to or not we are the final major power and someone has to make sure that history does not repeat itself nor does anyone make the same mistakes the US has made (read: Nuclear Bomb). Be it South Korea, Iraq or anyone. Someone has to do something. Does anyone else see anyone toeing that line? Not me.


M

It's really good to hear some of your statements and read what you think--it helps me by giving me new points of view on the topic of War with Iraq, even though I'm generally on the side of peace if you flip a coin between peace and war. It's also good to read your views because it shows that we are Star Wars freaks/fans with minds and care of what's going on in our world as well! Carry on!

I agree with most of what you say Marcie.

To clarify one point I made - I think the UN can give legidamacy to the operation not because of WHO does the fighting, but because the whole world (or most of it anyway) AGREES that the fighting needs to be done. The US going against the will of the UN could relegate the UN to the same status as the League of Nations in the early part of the 20th century - a largely impotent body that was powerless to do anything.

For this job to get done right with minimal casualties we need the support of the civilized world. If you infuriate a group of people that thinks nothing of killing themselves and innocent civilians to further their own cause things will get very bad very quick. It doesn't take much imagination to see how radical and non-radical governments could spin the purpose of an American and British only occupation force. This scenario changes drasticly with support and involvement from neighboring governments however.

BTW - I think the last thing Saudi Arabia or other "friendly" mideast nations want is a democratic, free Iraq - secular or otherwise - especially if Iraq becaome prosperous under these conditions. This would put at risk their own hold on power.

Word, Marcy. Word.

I think you hit on something, Dan. There are going to be problems in the middle-eastern community, whether we "occupy", set up a puppet government, or just take out Hussein. We forget that not everyone shares the same idealogies in that corner of the world. A lot of countries hate each other, but first and foremost, they all pretty much hate us. And don't sing me the Saudi Arabia song. Are they happy we helped them out when Saddam came knocking? Sure. Are they chummy with us. . .well, the verdict is still out on that one. After all, we can pack up and leave if things get bad--they ain't going anywhere.

I'm not wild about sending our people over there, mainly because I know if Hussein has any goodies left in the bottom of the bag, he's going to pull them out. Should we be scared? Well, as Marcy suggested, inaction and complacency cost us 3,000 lives 2 years ago. Who knows what it could cost us in the future? Chances are we will be attacked on our own soil if we go to war (mainly because we have no idea how many "sleeper" cells exist in our country right now, but that's a whole separate issue), but if we don't, those attacks, when someone tries them in the future, could be bigger and nastier.

I don't like the president. I don't like war. I don't like the idea of losing some of my friends who are in the service. I don't like how Bush, Sr. didn't take care of the problem the first time around. If we're going to go in, we had better do it the right way, and for the right reasons. The UN isn't the answer (good observation comparing it to the League of Nations, Dan), the United States is. God willing, we can make the world a better and safer place to watch Star Wars in.

Peace is the most noble of causes. Many of the great historical figures of the 20th century were dedicated to non-violence, and I would not take anything away from them. What they believe in and what they strived for are wonderful ideals, but, often unrealistic. Sometimes talking will only get you so far. Yes, some countries aren't standing with us at the moment, and yes UN support would help unite the world. But the countries that are for stalling also signed the initial resolution which stated to the world that if Iraq did not comply, that the world would act. If those countries now sit out of it, then what is the point of the resolution in the first place? Where will the UN find steel behind its words if it doesn't act when it says it will? How will North Korea act if the UN's threats appear empty.

People have said it's a war for oil, to make Bush's friends richer. To me, that's basically saying that the president is willing to trade American lives, lost through friendly fire, hostile fire and training accidents, not to mention Iraqi civilians, all to make his friends some extra money. That's murder in my world. You may disagree with Bush's political views, or with his actions, but to state that he is willing to lose lives for nothing more than profits is marking him as evil. I pity the nation whose citizens believe that their government is corrupt and evil. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I don't think that any president is so evil as to waste human lives for money. If it's all for oil, then why introduce a billion dollars to study hydrogen energy sources? Sometimes politicians tell the truth.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the country realized that we are not far enough away from hostile forces. Congress reacted by declaring war, something that is very rare in history. We've had more presidential assassinations than declarations of war. When those planes were taken over in 2001, our outlook on the world shifted again. We could no longer ignore what we had ignored for a decade. The US had to make sure that countries that have shown malice in the past were complying with rules they agreed to. The countries of the world cannot stand back and let madmen gather weapons. The United Nations cannot allow its threats to become empty words.

I am not in favor of any American dying in war, or any Iraqi soldier forced into fighting, nor am I ever likely to be in the armed services. I realize this with the same clarity that I know I am unlikely to become an astronaut, yet I still passionately believe that our space program should continue, if not increase. With this knowledge it's easy for me to say what I think about war. I have faith in our military leaders, our hardware and our soldiers that we will keep losses to a minimum. During Desert Storm, if you took the number of troops and compared it to an equal number of American citizens, more people would have died in the civilian population than did die in the troop population. Wars aren't fought as they once were. Yes, perhaps Saddam will respond with biological or chemical weapons. According to Powell, the Iraqi troops have already been given approval to use such weapons. M1A1 tanks are equipped to filter out such weapons, but Pugeots driving in France, BMWs in Germany and Fords in the US aren't. I would prefer that it was someone else's role, I think the US has had enough tragedies lately, but I don't see anyone else in the world stepping up except for the British.
We may all want peace, but who here will miss Saddam when he's gone?

Will our occupation further irritate Osama? Yes, it most definitely will. Fifty white stars on blue field flushed against alternating stripes of red and white irritate him. My annoying habbit of continually drawing breath irritates him. But I thought we weren't letting him hold the world hostage. I still gather in large numbers with other Americans and I still go into large buildings.

Dwayne

I am really looking forward to having some very interesting discussions Saturday! And no - that's not meant to be sarcastic.

I could wite more, but I'd much rather discsuss it in person. My fingers are getting tired.

They say the oil is really for France. And I think our country is brave to want to stand up for other countries, but if we're so brave, why are we so afraid that we're willing to kill so many innocent people in Iraq for one insane man (Saddam)? And, although I think we all agree, Hussein is nutts, he didn't hit us yet--so we're striking first. I don't understand the logic.

All of this really makes my head hurt sometimes, but as of this moment, I don't feel threatened enough nor have I heard enough logical reasoning to start a war with Iraq. And yes, I'm one of those people in this country who doesn't trust Bush or his administration. From what I've read and heard (stories through NPR, which I listen to daily, the latest monograph from Gore Vidal--a man for whom I have great respect), I feel there's more to this than meets the eye.

Do I think oil is an underlying factor in this? Yes. Do I think this impending war with Iraq is a diversion from the real problems which afflict this country (the ecomony, the worst unemployment rate in over 20 years [according to last night's ABC news], the severe healthcare issues)? As this progresses, I cannot help but lean toward that, as well. And to compare the issues with Iraq (a country that probably has a few materials for weapons of mass destruction, but isn't using them yet, so far as we know) and North Korea (a country that is openly challenging us, has the ability to create weapons of mass destruction, and is very prepared to use them), I think we are barking up the wrong tree at the moment. After listening to the commentaries coming from North Korea yesterday, I'm more afraid of them than I ever could be of Saddam at this moment.

I have some very severe issues with this administration. And I often wonder what the world situation would be like today, how the aftermath of 9/11 would have been handled under a Gore administration (or even a Nader administration). I am saddened that our men and women are going overseas to possibly fight a war that I, at this moment in time, cannot justify fully; I am depressed at the state of our country, fraying at the seams while our President speaks only of war. I am tired and worn, and I am deeply disappointed and distrustful of my country's leaders. I cannot help but be very pessimistic and worrisome.

Events will determine if my feelings will change (the old adage that "time reveals everything"). But for now, I believe we are making some seriously wrong choices, and that we are ignoring the issues that really matter while we watch this international cockfight between Bush and Hussein progress.

[humbly retreats from the soapbox now...]

I would have to agree with you--Korea is pretty scary right now--and seems like more of an immediate threat right now. War leads to more war? And we do have such a natioinal deficit, I can see even more war down the road. Our economy is dying. It makes me wonder if there will be some kind of peace activits that break off into some kind of group down the road as a rebellion against all this. An alliance?

Several days ago, SecDef Rumsfeld signed an order to have Air Force fighters ready at a moment's notice to transfer to Guam so that we are in striking distance of North Korea. An aircraft carrier left Japan to head for the Gulf region, but not before another carrier was sent on its way to Japan to replace the original, all so that the US can act against North Korea if it has to. I do agree that it could be a worse situation than Iraq, but we are taking steps to prepare for conflict there as well.

As for the Oil theory, I really find that line of logic offensive to the Bush administration. Say what you will about his politics or ideals, I don't think he's willing to trade lives for money. You can disagree with him all you like, but it's another thing to consider him openly evil or immoral.

Are we in direct danger from Iraq at the moment? Possibly not. Maybe he'll never give his weapons to terrorists. But the weapons he is making will allow him to strike countries surrounding him, countries that he has openly threatened or even invaded in the past. Can we really stand by and let him test his weapons on these countries? When it happened in the Czech republic, we stepped in. When a former Soviet republic started to do it, we took efforts to stop it. We tried to help in Mogadishu. We have a long, and I would hope to say proud, history of trying to help people who cannot otherwise defend themselves. Sometimes this gets us into a lot of trouble, but does anyone really want to sit here, let the world go to hell and say "Well, it's over there." We tried isolationism before, shortly after World War I. The United States ignored conflicts, we sat in our hemisphere. Slowly we started the Cash and Carry policy. The world paid a horrible cost for not taking action earlier. One nation invaded another, took it over in six days, but we sat here. I'm not saying that Hussein will reach that level, I doubt genocide is on his agenda, but he clearly is not the kind of person who should be leading a nation or amassing weapons. I don't care how far away he is, what he's doing to the world is wrong.

And yes, I'm sure if you listen to NPR you don't trust the Bush administration. If they had been around during the Civil War, they probably wouldn't have trusted Lincoln either because he was a Republican. Just like if you listen to Charlie Sykes or Mark Belling, every Democrat is some sort of liberal nut out to spend all your money and make you live in a fish bowl. The problem with a bipartisan system is that many people in the country aren't bipartisan. The other affiliation is not always evil or corrupt. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are lying. There are lots of good people in the world that share opinions opposite of mine. I don't agree with everything Russ Fiengold believes in, but I think he's a good man of integrity. I think the same thing about Herb Kohl. I trust them. I don't take my opinions from someone on the radio. They have an agenda sure as any politician. Extremists on both sides should generally be discounted. I hardly share everyone here's opinion on matters, but I don't think any of you are lying to me or horrible people, you just have a different view of the world. George Bush has never done anything to make me think he can't be trusted. I think he honestly cares about human lives and the American people.

Are there bigger problems in the country than Iraq? Yes, but since they aren't as controversial, they receive less coverage. Do you really think the government shut down on all other things? A stimulus package has been introduced, hydrogen research proposed, education changes called for... But they don't make headlines, and they don't lead to the drama of potential lives lost or amazing pictures on our television screens. The US is still working on every aspect of government.

Dwayne

I certainly respect your comments and beliefs, Dwayne, but I cannot completely agree with you. I'm not anti-Republican, and I do get my news and commentary from other sources (NBC, ABC, BBC, CNN, etc...). And I have a respect for other Republican presidents now past (even Nixon!). They may not have enacted policy I agreed with as Republican presidents, but I never felt that they were ever out of control of the situation. I had some measure of trust with them.

I don't feel that way with Bush. I feel like we're on a downward spiral with events in and outside of this country, and I don't trust Bush and his administration to carry things out logically. And this is the first time I've ever felt like this. Granted, I didn't vote for him, but no matter who is elected, you should have some measure of trust in your top leader. I have none with him. The evidence and my intuition tells me he's the wrong man. Frankly, he scares the pants off me.

And I don't think he's evil, but nor can he be naive and be president simultaneously. Perhaps calculating is the better word. I feel like there's more to this whole Iraq thing than meets the eye. And, sure, he's aware of our state of affairs at home, and he's doing the bare minimum to keep us pacified to go after a man who has done very little lately, except maybe send a few bucks to Al-Qaeda (weren't we supposed to be targeting them when this all started after 9/11?--granted, Saddam is a link in the chain, but he's not the whole chain). I understand helping those who are oppressed, but Iraq is not the only country where this occurs or can occur. I mean, they are killing each other in various African states, and you rarely hear a thing about it. And I know that Bush is aware of North Korea, but his reaction has been less than satisfactory, imo, and this situation, I feel, is far more volatile than the situation in Iraq (he included them in his "axis of evil", and I cannot believe he didn't realize that was equivalent to waking a sleeping beast--not very politic of him, but very arrogant and naive).

Also, while I don't think the UN should wait too long to make a decision as to how to handle Iraq's disarmament, but I do think they should be given time to determine if there really is a true threat. I have not read or heard of such glaring evidence--only scattered tidbits which can be interpreted in various ways. Just because Bush is emoting impatience does not mean the UN must let him go off and start a full-scale war.

But I respect your opinions, Dwayne. In the end, it's always to each, his own.

[Edit: Sorry--I can't seem to type well today. Time to go home soon...]

This week in Germany:

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said, "The dangers of a military action and its consequences are plain to see. Precisely because of the effectiveness of the work of the inspectors, we must continue to seek a peaceful solution to the crisis. In the world of the 21st century the UN is key to conflict prevention, crisis management and peace building. The place and timing of this detailed account underline once more that the UN Security Council is and remains the center of decision-making on the Iraq crisis. Germany supports this approach. Given the implications they could have for future decisions, the findings have to be examined carefully."

I agree entirely.

I like your observations, Dwayne. It strikes me as I read these points/ counterpoints just how great a country we live in, where such things can be debated without fear of some type of gestapo breaking down our door in the middle of the night to haul us off. I agree with Beret, too--I don't necessarily like the direction we're heading. However, a country divided is still a country. No one man is bigger than the country or government he represents. Regardless of the political party "in power", we will prevail as a people. It sounds arrogant, and maybe it is. It doesn't matter if it's diplomacy or all-out warfare, the United States of America and its way of life will stand. If that's really what's at stake in matters of our foreign policy (and I would pray that it is), then I say what many veterans would say--it's worth fighting for.

And for what it's worth, the Korea situation worries me a bit more--they are probably one of the few countries in the world that could give us a run for the money, militarily speaking.

I would agree about North Korea, I think the only problem is that since it's a relatively newly revived problem, compared to Iraq, it's harder to judge. Iraq was a problem as I was getting ready to graduate high school, and as the Vietnam War is generally the last big thing studied in history, the thought of a draft was wondering around in our heads, especially when you get that registration card in the mail. CNN showed us all the images, so now when we hear that Iraq isn't cooperating, it's easy to focus on them as a target. It really doesn't help their cause that there are rumors of terrorist connections. Meanwhile we've had troops on the Korean front since Truman. And South Korea, who we've been protecting for decades, elected a leader who ran largely on an anti-American ticket. Thanks for the support South Korea. I realize a few soldiers acted badly while on station there, but it's probably no less than many South Korean criminals have done. I believe that the US mandate for the military is to be able to operate at full capacity in three theatres at once. While I don't like the idea, it sort of gives a "World War" feeling to things, it's a possibility with our current strength.

As for Iraq, I guess it just frightens me. It bothers me that the US stopped inspections for nearly a decade. What made us think they would comply? It also bugs me that the first scientist to finally be interviewed by inspectors was a biologist. Okay, so you're not working on biological weapons, but you have a biologist working at a weapons plant? What's his great addition to the team? "I've discovered that explosions are bad for the human body. So is shrapnel. It rips through the epidermis and really makes a mess of the guts, or the 'fleshy parts' as we biologists call them." Not to mention, for years they've been trying to shoot down planes in the no fly zone, yet another thing they agreed to.

And I still think, from what I've heard of the first resolution, that the UN already declared an intention to respond with military force. I would feel better having their support in things, but if the inspections continue and countries don't see a smoking gun, should we roll the dice and bet Saddam doesn't have weapons? If six months pass and there is more "soft" evidence as some people have called it, will that be enough? At some point the UN has to act on its own words or else it will lose credibility. It will either have to state that it believes Iraq has complied, which would satisfy the resolution, or it has to agree to an attack to satisfy the second part. Otherwise, the resolution is meaningless and that will hurt every resolution after. Like I said, I'm not gung ho to go to war and to blow the country to pieces, but I'm also not willing to wait five years to find out if anyone is killed by small pox, VX gas or a nuclear weapon.

I respect everyone's right to disagree with the president, or even to not trust him. Certainly that's part of being an American. I just see no reason to think he's lying to me. Then again, I'm one of the few people I know who honestly likes Jimmy Carter. There's no way I would blame him for the hostage situation or the oil crisis. Also, for Bush to go to war, he still needs a lot of approval, if not from Congress, then from his generals, admirals and Cabinet. I also hope that the CIA, NSA and military know a lot more about what's going on, and what Saddam has, than I do.

And regardless of my opinions, even if Powell shows up with a picture of Saddam holding a vial clearly labeled "VX" (which would be strange since they don't use English characters), I'd still never be angry with people who want peace. I'd completely disagree with you, but the desire to not cause human losses is a good way to live.

Dwayne

Just thought I would let people know about a campaign to clog politicians with emails and phone calls in a "cyber march." While I'm still not quite on the peace side (I'm closer than I was), I still wouldn't keep from telling people how to get involved for what they believe in. Democracy is the key and all that, and I really believe that if the people aren't behind something, the country shouldn't do it. Anyway, the campaign is called "Win without war" I believe. In the coming days, there will be a commercial with Martin Sheen (who isn't really the president you know... some people forget that) and he'll tell everyone all about it. I think there's a website, but I never heard the address, a quick search should find it.

Dwayne

Yes, interesting comments all....while I am usually a hawk in situations like this, I truly believe we shouldn't go to war without an alliance of nations. If we do so, it will be considered an act of aggression.

However, no matter what happens, I will fully support our troops - the last thing they need is a Vietnam War-style homefront with flag burnings, violent peace marches and spitting on them when they return home.

Anyways, the Martin Sheen website is
WinWithoutWar

or

MoveOn

I think Dubya need to go read his favorite book again. I'm not religious, but HE sure is.

"Thou shalt not kill."
Ten Commandments

"Wisdom is better than weapons of war"
Ecclesiastes, 9:18

"Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
Matthew, 26:52

"Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren: return every man to his house: for this thing is done of me. And they obeyed the words of the LORD, and returned from going against Jeroboam."
Chronicles, 11:4

Apparently some folks...local folks even, have actually gone to Iraq to position themselves as voluntary human shields. One of the guys is the owner of Trounce Records. A lady from Germantown has also gone.

I wonder if this could be construed as treason...or just plain stupid.