Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

The Nobel Peace prize is given for environmental concerns. sm

Posted By: whorn on 2007-10-15
In Reply to: and while we are on the subject...what does global warming have to do with peace anyway??? nm - Observer

The Nobel Peace prize was given in 2004 to Wangari Maathai of Kenya, an environmental activist, for forming the Greenbelt Movement, so the Peace prize being given for environmental concerns is not new......


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Nobel Peace Prize Winners since 1975 sm

Nobel Peace Prize winners since 1975





template_bas

template_bas

From the Associated Press
October 12, 2007

Nobel Peace Prize winners since 1975:

* 2007: Former Vice President AL Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for efforts to educate about the effects of man-made climate change.

* 2006: Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, the Bangladeshi bank he founded.

* 2005: Mohamed ElBaradei, Egypt, and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

* 2004: Wangari Maathai, Kenya.

* 2003: Shirin Ebadi, Iran.

* 2002: Jimmy Carter, United States.

* 2001: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

* 2000: Kim Dae-jung, South Korea.

* 1999: Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders).

* 1998: David Trimble and John Hume, Northern Ireland.

* 1997: Jody Williams and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, United States.

* 1996: Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, East Timor.

* 1995: Joseph Rotblat, Britain, and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs.

* 1994: Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat; Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, Israel.

* 1993: Nelson Mandela and F.W. DE Klerk, South Africa.

* 1992: Rigoberta Menchu, Guatemala.

* 1991: Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar (also known as Burma).

* 1990: Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet Union.

* 1989: The Dalai Lama, Tibet.






   

* 1988: The U.N. Peacekeeping Forces.

* 1987: Oscar Arias Sanchez, Costa Rica.

* 1986: Elie Wiesel, United States.

* 1985: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, United States.

* 1984: Desmond Mpilo Tutu, South Africa.

* 1983: Lech Walesa, Poland.

* 1982: Alva Myrdal, Sweden; Alfonso Garcia Robles, Mexico.

* 1981: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR.

* 1980: Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Argentina.

* 1979: Mother Teresa, India.

* 1978: Anwar Sadat, Egypt; Menachem Begin, Israel.

* 1977: Amnesty International, Britain.

* 1976: Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, Northern Ireland.

* 1975: Andrei Sakharov, Soviet Union.


Yeah. That Nobel Peace Prize recipient
What do you have against clean environment, alternative energy, jobs creation and a global warming plan?
He didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
"What do you have against clean environment, alternative energy, jobs creation and a global warming plan?"

I don't have anything against a clean environment, alternative energy or job creation. I don't, however, buy into the global warming hype, especially when it's pushed as hard algore is trying to sell it because he is a politician and I don't trust him anymore than I trust the rest of them. There HAD to have been someone more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize than that clown. (I'll bet he traded some of his carbon credits for votes.)
Nobel peace price
Is not a popularity contest.  It is a privately funded award bestowed by the esteemed leaders in the field.  To question their choice based on brain-washing political propaganda is ridiculous. Their choice does not need to be defended.  Attacks are s-o-o-o-o transparent.
Bush peace prize, LOL
I dont think any leader would try to invade America..unless, like what they are trying to do in Europe..create a European Union, band together as one.  Then one day..probably many years off, they just might be stronger than America or equal to America's strength.  I think things in the world would be much more stable with a fairer playing field..you know, countries just as strong as America who could keep a watch on our administrations who are too over-zealous.  Kind of makes me a little ashamed that our president was not nominated, that a *dictator revoluntary* got nominated..not that I would ever think Bush or his ilk would be nominated..The Noble Peace Prize does not nominate warmonger/chickenhawks..and I question the brainwashing of Americans that Chavez is so bad, such a *dictator, revoluntary*.  Maybe America needs a *revoluntary*, in ideology, of course (I am not suggesting strong arm tactics)  to get this country turned around on the right track.  However, the way America describes Chavez, I wonder if it is true..Gotta do some checking.  I know one of my *heros* was Che Guevara (even named one of my cats after him..smile)..and when you read the history of Che Guevara..He was a privileged person who became a doctor, saw the poverty and injustice and inequality in the world and became a revoluntary..and, of course, America had a hand in his assassination. 
Reasons Why Chavez Is Up For Noble Peace Prize

An article published in VHeadline.com on November 26
last year, headlined Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez Frias proposed for the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize aroused great interest


Since that piece was published, Chavez has continued
his humanitarian projects, the most recent of which
are extending Mission Miracle in alliance with Cuba to
correct blindness and sight disorders to the whole of
the American continent, including the US and the
Caribbean. He has also offered crude oil, gasoline and
heating oil at preferential, financed rates to smaller
Caribbean countries, as well as Uruguay and Paraguay
which are struggling with the sky high price of
energy.

The improvement in cash flow of these countries
generated by the financing aspect at 1% per year,
allows their governments to use this surplus to invest
in social programs.

This initiative has also taken into account poor
communities, schools, hospitals, old peoples homes
facing a predicted brutally cold winter in the United
States ... part of this program includes donations of
heating oil as well as financing part of the
deliveries from CITGO, a 100%-owned US-based
Venezuelan company based in Houston with 8 refineries
delivering to over 14,000 gasoline stations. Pilot
projects will be underway in Chicago and Boston as of
October 14.

As per the Nobel Peace Prize website the 2004 winner
was Wangari Maathai of Kenya for her contribution to
sustainable development, democracy and peace.

If these three qualities are key to winning the Nobel
Peace Prize then Chavez has all these in abundance ...
and more. He must be the world's leading democrat
having been to the polls 9 times since 1998. He
promotes peace by asking for troops out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, so that these sovereign nations can exercise
self-determination and define their own path in the
future.

Other accomplishments, which have been pushed by
Chavez' personal leadership in Venezuela are the
Social Missions, all grouped under the humanitarian
banner of Mision Cristo (Christ's Mission). The most
important of these, Mision Robinson has taught 1.4
million Venezuelans to read and write; Mision Barrio
Adentro (Neighborhood Within) offers free primary
healthcare in the poor areas and is now reaching 14
million Venezuelans out of a population of
approximately 25 million; Mision Mercal sells cheap
staple foods and has impacted more than half the
population at the time of writing.

Chavez, however, is up against some very stiff
competition including Colin Powell (for his efforts to
end the 21-year civil war in Sudan); the ex-governor
of Illinois, George Ryan (for his campaign to abolish
the death sentence in the US); Israeli Mordechai
Vanunu (for denouncing the existence of nuclear
weapons in his country); the Japanese Hidankyo group
(survivors of the US' atomic bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki).


Right with you there, too!! I have horrible environmental allergies!...nm
nm
Well over 12,000 sick & dying in NYC - environmental catastrophe.sm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/437417p-368502c.html
Obama conceals environmental report.....
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=580722
It may not be new....but if you read the criteria for the prize...
set out by the man who endowed it..."environmental concerns" or anything remotely like it are listed there. Over the years it has become a political statement rather than a true peace award. Sad, in my opinion, and even if it were given for environmental concerns, it should not have been given for flawed science. Again, just my opinion.
Give the lady her prize, She got the-----
Congratulations! One box of brand new light bulbs will be coming your way.
And the prize is? I know, a free copy of
.
It's like Palin won a pagent and the prize is $150,000 clothes
yeah! what a waste of money.
Bingo. Give that girl a prize.
I can no longer say that sm - m and I never agree on anything. I can't handle a 61-cent hike in cigarettes. Just got off the phone with my husband who has been told to book a hotel suite for the duration while I go through withdrawal. I will be taking my last puffs with coffee and the inauguration. My quit date is Tuesday, Jan 20, just as soon as O is sworn in.

Having said that, cigarettes tax has always been the source of funding for SCHIPS and I see no reason for that to change, though you and the other posters have made good points about looking for other sources of unhealthy lifestyle choices OTHER nonsmoking Americans make.
Yep. I have my concerns too. But....
he is the master of his own destiny...and we shall see where he attempts to take us.
What concerns me...... sm
is not so much whether or not I can survive the high bills. Of course, I am concerned for my kids, but I am really concerned about the elderly in the cities where they depend on electricity to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. The extreme temperatures are hard on the elderly.
I think the flip flop prize still belongs to Joe Biden...
from "He is not ready to lead; the job does not lend itself to on-the-job experience" to "He is ready to lead." Talking about the #1 on his ticket. Think that one still takes the prize. :)
Offshore concerns

To follow is a post on today's MTS Main board under off shore concerns/mg.  Maybe some of you could help her out. 


I mentioned this a few messages below, but the blog has its first post. I am NOT supporting any Ad things on there and will not be making anything off this. 


http://violatingamerica.blogspot.com/


If you have a link that would be useful to others to write their gov't reps, companies, news sources, etc, feel free to post them or e-mail me so i can get them up there.  I am also looking for any news stories or any information we can get.  One way or the other, we might be able to make a difference. 


The OP brought up her concerns....
I brought up mine. I find mine more concerning than hers. And I don't understand why Democrats accept certain behavior in their own and lamblast the other side for the same perceived weaknesses. Why is that?
I do think these are valid concerns...(sm)

and ones that have to be addressed.  However, I don't see anything wrong with setting a goal, which is what Obama has done by saying it should be closed in 1 year.  I think he purposely left himself some leeway by saying a year, and at the same time let people like me who support him that it will get done.


Personally I think they should be tried in a military court, which would avoid a lot of the bureaucracy that is associated with the regular US court system.  They may want to go by the world court rules when trying them?  You're right.  Noone knows exactly how this is going to be done yet, but we all know that something has to be done.


As far as housing them here, I don't see a problem with that.  Right now we house murderers, rapists, and some of the worst criminals immaginable.  I don't think that these prisoners from Gitmo would pose anymore of a threat that some that are already there.  However, I do think that Gitmo prisoners would have a really hard time in a prison here because of other prisoners. 


Obviously, there is a lot to be worked out, especially when it comes to those in Gitmo who are actually guilty, but there has to be something done soon about the ones who aren't.


The only thing that concerns me
is having that information hacked into for anyone to have access to.  I think that is my biggest concern.
So you don't believe we have national security concerns?
If you do believe we have national security issues then what is your answer to keeping us safe?
I share your concerns and agree
with everything you have said, but after having been in this business since the early 70s, I've learned never to expect anyone to speak up on behalf of MTs except the MTs themselves. I have never paid membership fees to AAMT and have never had the need to pay for certification, but I would pay MT union due in a heartbeat.
In reply to the concerns you raised.
My first reaction when reading your post was one of curiosity. I was an IC during the latter Clinton years and I do not recall paying 40% of my earnings to tax. What I remember was an aggregate tax payment composed of income tax, social security tax and self-employment tax, which essentially represented a burden I shouldered as an IC that compensated for the lack of employer contribution to SS, Medicare and FICA. To my knowledge, this tax structure has not changed since then for ICs. I also remember paying my taxes quarterly, and being responsible for calculating enough tax not only to cover my required amounts, but also to pay in extra each time if I wanted to generate a return at the end of the year. I made a decision NOT to be an independent contractor because I was a single parent with a mortgage. The self-employment levy felt like double tax to me as compared to what I had been accustomed to as an employee and, most definitely the total percentage of tax burden as an IC was greater than that of a full employee status.

On checking my returns from those years (which I still keep in the house) I find the total tax burden I had for all the components of my tax liability amounted to 27%. I am wondering if you did not get a return back then because you did not contribute more than the minimum rate during the course of the year and that later on, your contributions did allow you to have a return. Also, to account for the lower rate during Bush years, did your family situation change between Clinton years and Bush years, did you get married, have children, add an earned income tax credit deduction, add dependents, start itemizing your taxes. All these changes would account for a lower percentage rate of your tax liability, thus allowing for a return.

I am also wondering why you would look back instead of forward when assessing the issue of whether or not you will be "taxed more." Have you read Obama's tax plan? If not, please go to this link and take a look. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief
Essentially this is what you will find (please excuse the format challenges of cut and paste).
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
• Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
• Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.
• Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.

It also might be worthwhile to check out the plan on the economy here
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Scroll down to At a Glance and browse the links of interest to you.

Here's the link for healthcare
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Again, scroll down to At a Glance and select links of interest.

I have provided Obama website links because you expressed doubts about democratic policy. McCain's website also should have similar information available on these issues as well for your comparison. After reviewing the information (if you were not already familiar with it), ask yourself where the information is coming from that is making you fearful that your taxes will be raised. I would really be interested in any response you may feel inclined to post in this regard. On a personal note, I will not be trusting McCain with the economy or with handling my HARD EARNED tax money. I do NOT want one more single penny to be used to fund the war, bankroll Israel's apartheid and nuclear weapons arsenal, prop up our struggling corporations or trickle up into the pockets of the richest among us in the form of continued Bush tax cuts to the rich, which McCain has openly stated he will continue if elected.
The constituents who brought her their concerns...
does freedom not extend to them also? They don't have a right to at least ask about the books? Which is what they did...and she took their concerns to the city council, which is her job as mayor. Why do you seek to curtail others' freedom in the name of freedom? They did not get what they wanted, but they certainly should have the freedom to ask and be heard. Isn't that exactly what you are saying we must protect??
You are expressing a lof of our concerns and fears
The dems won't even tell us where they are going to get the money from. They should do the math, Obama promises that middle income will not be taxed any more. Right, that's exactly like when Clinton promised during his campaign he would not increas middle income takes and within days after getting into the white house he not only didn't keep his promise but he gave the middle income the largest tax increase since who knows when. So why should I believe Obama? Especially since his voting record shows that he voted to increase taxes.

This is not a hateful post. It is a true fear that a lot of us have. You CANNOT redistribute the wealth and give to the poor who aren't doing anything to deserve it. For all those liberals who are for this type of program please send in your name and address so you can pay my share since you believe its okay. I don't! I work very hard for what I have. I'm already working 14 hours a day and I still hardly have enough money to pay bills, let alone save anything for a retirement. Why should they take more from me.

People need to be held responsible for themselves. If they need charity, that is what the churches are suppose to be for, and other organizations that help the poor. The people need to pick up some skills so they can get out in society and earn a living like the rest of us do.

For all the conservatives out there you need to keep expressing your opinions and fears. People need to be aware of what this Obama is and what his socialist programs will turn America into. This is not the America that our founding fathers fought for. Socialists have infiltrated the system, written laws that protect them and screw us, all the while telling you that you need to feel patriotic about getting screwed. Conservatives need to stand up for what's right and not be bullied by the liberals anymore.
This is not hysteria - it is people expressing their concerns
The moment somebody brings up something that is questionable (and with good reason) about Obama the liberals are quick to say it's hysteria. Watching all the news stations its the same way. It was even brought up on one of the stations tonight about the vicious attacks on Palin. Now their coming out with a porn movie intentionally starring someone that looks like her (I'll be a lot of the liberals and liberal media are happy about that). But once again I heard the liberals say that the poor democrats have been "picked on" for so long that this is okay behavior. The disgusting way they turn it around and will say conservatives are "picking on Obama", but with their dirty campaign tactics and commercials they are only "bringing to light" the truths about McCain. It's all very one sided and I see that on this board too.

Conservatives have a very real and very valid concern about Obama and his shady past (to include where he was born and if he is actually legitimate to become president). The people who are his mentors, spiritual advisors, who gave him his start in politics, and the people who are advising him, along with the dirty bashing from liberal media, makes it very hard for one to have any "faith" in this person. He is so busy covering up his past, his voting record, the people he associates with, etc, etc. Sure he's a stellar speaker. After all - he is a lawyer. He knows how to capture his audience with stories. But lynch mob....I'm hearing it on Obama's side too.
The subject did not change. I will address you concerns
You remember the one about the fact that our tax system has always been progressive and the table posted above shows you just how moderate in comparison Obama's proposed tax rate is. What I want to know is were those 7 republican presidents between 1932 and 1981 all MORE socialist than Obama or what?
Then you haven't been listening to a lot of people's concerns
It is clear half the country feels safer with McCain. The other half doesn't care.
Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com.  As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum. 
Peace
Several people have told me I am wrong?  About what?  Jews and socialism/communism?  Guess those posts didnt come through on my computer.  Other things?  If you mean disagreeing, we all do on this board, so what.  I didnt think you kept track of who agrees with who.  That is what is meant by debate, disagreeing and agreeing and getting heated up and calming down and, shock..ending the debate with a hand shake and maybe a cup of coffee or cola afterwards.  Peace!
Not only will we not leave them with peace,

deficit in American history, caused by WHAT?


And I just love how anyone who doesn't agree with them is labeled as having no values.


What kind of values does someone have to take a healthy surplus upon entering office and not only SQUANDERING it but then going on to create the biggest deficit in American history?


What kind of values does someone have to send our children to an unnecessary war to die and/or be injured while neglecting to give them inadequate supplies?


What kind of values does someone have to send our children off to a foreign land to die for his own personal bogus war, when he was too much of a coward to serve in combat duty himself?


What kind of values does someone have to take the blood of 9/11 victims and the fear of all other Americans and USE it to wage a bogus war against Iraq when that was his goal before he was even elected President?


What kind of values does someone have to not care enough about securing or borders or our ports or protecting our airspace and chemical/nuclear plants and decreases the budget for rail and subway security?


What kind of values does someone have to have to neglect to develop enough smallpox vaccines FOUR YEARS after the worst attack in American history, when bio attacks using smallpox was felt to be a threat?


What kind of values does someone have to have to make sure that his huge war budget includes FREE comprehensive medical benefits for all Iraqi citizens while he presides over a country where many of his own citizens who work 40 hours or more a week can't even afford health insurance?


What kind of values does someone have to have to deny American scientists the opportunity to study stem cell research, using the argument that he wants to "protect life" when he presides over a country where our children are being routinely molested and MURDERED by animals who the government refuses to keep in jail? 


Out of all the talk on these boards about life being "precious" as it regards stem cell research, I have yet to see ONE SINGLE POST about the multitude of children that have been abducted, sexually abused and murdered in this country in the last six months.  What kind of values does someone have to have to care more about cells in a petrie dish than the children who are already here?


Those examples aren't values. Those examples do nothing but reflect the values that are ABSENT in an egotistical moron of a president who, at his very BEST, is nothing but DANGEROUS.


No problem. Peace to you. NM
...
I hope for peace
Well, Im gonna post more than I would normally about myself..sigh..Im Jewish (though not practicing)..so that kind of makes my heart, mind and soul a bit concerned and tied up with all this, however, I am an American first and foremost and what happens in Israel and Palestine, that is their concern.  I do not live there.  I see what is happening and frankly I agree with Sharon's decision.  It pains me cause I cannot believe how it would feel giving up a home after 30+ years or so..where are these people going to relocate..My heart truly is heavy for them.  I dont like Sharon, never have and I think his political life is quite over.  I think the land has to be shared by both Palestine and Israel.  Whatever decisions their leaders make, I as an American truly have no say.  Quite a few in Israel are fanatics, totally Orthodox.  My family, my friends, my ex, my boyfriend, we all look upon the Orthodox as kind of radical as can be.  If you dont agree, I invite you to visit New City in upstate NY or Borough Park in Brooklyn (many other areas too, of course, but these two areas are my *home areas*).  You will find extremely fanatical Jews who if you are not Orthodox Jew wouldnt even look your way or give you the time of day.  I think the situation between Israel and Palestine is quite complex, longstanding, for sure, and something we as Americans really dont understand.  A childhood friend of mine went to Israel after high school to join the Army.  She was an American citizen and did not have to.  She and I have had long discussions, believe me.  This is too complex a situation that has been going on for eons. When Sadat and Begin signed a peace accord, my heart was full of joy, I cried my eyes out.  My father was more leery.  The Middle East is a complex land and we as Americans really cannot understand all the turmoil, passion, pain, etc., that has occurred and is still occurring.  Sure, to debate it is fine but to make an absolute decision about how you feel.  Please keep an open mind.  All I hope for is peace in the Middle East and peace in America.
Can we keep the peace and also debate, please?
Here we go..how many days was there peace over here on the liberal board..three?  Five?  Oh geez..I did not generalize..I most certainly have seen many anti choice people screaming out against a womans right to choose about her body..all I was stating is I sure hope they are screaming also for the children who are lost in the system, living in horrible homes or group homes.  From what I can see, there are so many children waiting for adoption, in foster care. Lets help them FIRST..
I am sad you feel that way. Peace will sm
only come with justice. This is still very much an open wound for America, half of us that is.

It amazes me that Americans were gung-ho to spend 30 million investigating Clinton's famous BJ, yet do not question why only 1/4 of that amount was spent investigating 911 - a blow job was more important to America than 3,000 of its citizens murdered.

In the long run it has everything to do with peace
As it disrupts the global economy and the ability of this planet to feed its population it will have very much to do with peace.  Power struggles, especially over oil/food/usable land = wars, historically. 
The peace party......
and what ultimately might get us into a nuclear confrontation.
Peace offering up above.

We all love our country.  Let's focus on that.  No matter who wins, there is a lot of work to be done.


G'night.


Peace back at ya.

Peace? And Unity?
If peace and unity is what obama supporters are touting, well then heaven forbid anyone disagree or have different opinions.  That has been shown on these very boards today.  Peace and unity indeed.
and you can smoke your reefer in peace

Ann Wright, a Felon for Peace
Ann Wright: A Felon for Peace
    Tomdispatch Interview with Ann Wright

    Friday 11 November 2005

    She's just off the plane from Tulsa, Oklahoma, the cheapest route back from a reunion in the little Arkansas town where she grew up in the 1950s. For thirty years, she and her childhood friends have climbed to the top of Penitentiary Mountain, where the local persimmon trees grow, for a persimmon-spitting contest. (All in the great spirit of just having fun and being crazy.) She holds out her hands and says, I probably still have persimmon goop on me!

    We seat ourselves at a table in my dining room, two small tape recorders between us. She's dressed all in black with a bright green over-shirt, a middle-aged blond woman wearing gold earrings and a thin gold necklace. As she settles in, her sleeves pull back, revealing the jewelry she'd rather talk about. On her right wrist is a pink, plastic band. This one was to be a volunteer in the Astrodome for Hurricane Katrina. I did two days work there, then three days in Covington, Louisiana, the first week after. On her left wrist, next to a watch from another age, are two blue plastic bands: And this one, she says with growing animation, fingering the nearest of them, was my very first arrest of my whole life on September 26th in front of the White House with 400 of my closest friends. This is the bus number I was on and this is the arrest number they gave me and then, later on, I had to date it because now I have two. She fingers the second band. Last week 26 of us were arrested after a die-in right in front of the White House in commemoration of the two thousandth American and maybe one hundred thousandth Iraqi who died in this war. So now, she announces, chuckling heartily, I'm a felon for peace.

    When she speaks - and in the final g's she drops from words (It's freezin' in Mongolia!) - you can catch just a hint of the drawl of that long-gone child from Bentonville, Arkansas. In her blunt, straightforward manner, you can catch something of her 29 years in the Army; and in her ease perhaps, the 16 years she spent as a State Department diplomat. Animated, amused by her foibles (and those of her interviewer), articulate and thoughtful, she's just the sort of person you would want to defend - and then represent - your country, a task she continues to perform, after her own fashion, as one of the more out-of-the-ordinary antiwar activists of our moment.

    Last August, she had a large hand in running Camp Casey for Cindy Sheehan at the President's doorstep in Crawford, Texas; then again, that wasn't such a feat, given that in 1997 she had overseen the evacuation of 2,500 foreigners from the war zone that was then Sierra Leone, a harrowing experience for which she was given the State Department's Award for Heroism. That's why I joined the Foreign Service, she comments, her voice still filled with some residual excitement from those years. I wanted to go to places you wouldn't visit on vacation. In fact, the retired colonel opened and closed embassies from Africa to Uzbekistan and took some of the roughest diplomatic assignments on Earth, including the reopening of the American embassy in Kabul in December 2001.

    On March 19, 2003, the day before the first Cruise missiles were launched against Baghdad, she resigned from the Foreign Service in an open letter sent from the U.S. embassy in Mongolia (where she was then Deputy Chief of Mission) to Secretary of State Colin Powell. In it she wrote, in part:

    This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

    Once used to delivering official U.S. statements to other governments, she now says things like: Everyone should have to be handcuffed with the flexi-cuffs they use now and feel just how unflexible they are, just how they cut, and then imagine Iraqis, Afghans, and other people we pick up in them 24 hours a day. She relaxes, sits back, awaits the first question, and responds with gusto.

    Tomdispatch: I thought we'd start by talking about two important but quite different moments in your life. The first was not so long ago. Let me quote from a New York Times article on a recent Condoleezza Rice appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was a day that echoed the anguish, anger and skepticism that opinion polls show have begun to dominate the thinking of Americans. The hearing was punctuated by a heckler who called for an end to the war, only to be hustled out. Now, I believe this was you.

    Ann Wright: [She chuckles.] Yes! Not a heckler, I was a protester.

    TD: Tell me about it.

    AW: It was as much a protest against the Senators as against Condoleezza Rice, because they were not holding our Secretary of State responsible. I picked up the Washington Post that morning and noticed that Condoleezza was going to testify on Iraq, and I thought, well, I'm free until noon. When I walked in, I was not planning on doing anything.

    But I sat there for two hours and Senators were saying: We've heard the administration is discussing a military option in Syria and perhaps Iran. The committee needs to be brought in on this, because we've only given you authorization for military action in Iraq. In an almost rude, dismissive tone, the Secretary of State essentially replied: We'll talk to you when we want to; all options are on the table; and thank you very much. Then the senators just kind of sat there. It was like: Come on, guys talk! Pin that woman down! We, the people, want to know. I want to know. And then they just started off on something else. It was like: No! Come back to this question. We don't want to go to war in Syria or Iran...

    TD: And did you stand up?

    AW: So I stood up. I was back in the peanut gallery. I've never done anything like it before in my whole life. I took a deep breath and went, Stop the killing! Stop the war! Hold this woman accountable! You, the Senate, were bamboozled by the administration on Iraq and you cannot be bamboozled again! Stop this woman from killing!

    At that point, I ran out of things to say because I hadn't really planned it. [She laughs.] I was looking around. There was only one police officer and he was just ambling toward me. It was like he enjoyed what I was saying. I thought, until he gets here I've got to say something more, so I went: You failed us in Iraq, you can't fail us on Syria! The police office finally said, Uh, ma'am, you've got to come with me. This is the first time - somebody told me later - anyone's ever seen a protester put her arm around a police officer. [She laughs.]

    TD: So you weren't hustled out?

    AW: Noooooo. It was a slow walk and there was silence in the room, so I thought: Well, I can't let this go by and I started another little rant on the way out. That part wasn't mentioned in the news reports.

    TD: At least some papers like the Washington Post mentioned you by name. The Times merely called you a heckler.

    AW: Well, how rude! I wasn't heckling anyway. I was speaking on behalf of the people of America.

    TD: This obviously takes you a long way from your professional life, because you were in the Foreign Service for...

    AW: Sixteen years...

    TD: ... and in all those years this would have been rather inconceivable.

    AW: Having testified at congressional hearings as a Foreign Service officer, particularly on Somalia issues back in '93 and '94, I was always humbled to go into those rooms as a government employee. I always found it interesting when people in the audience stood up to say something. You know, I learned later that most protestors do it in the first ten minutes because that's when the cameras and all the reporters are sure to be there.

    As it happened, the chairman of the committee declined to have me arrested. The police officer said, Well, if you're disappointed, I can arrest you. I replied, If you don't mind, I'll just run on over to my lunch appointment. I was actually on my way to a presentation by Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, where he would describe the secrecy of the administration and the way the State Department was isolated by the White House and the National Security Council.

    TD: Another moment of protest, one I'm sure you thought about very carefully, took place the day before the shock-and-awe campaign against Iraq began. That day you sent a letter of public resignation to Colin Powell which began - and not many people could have written such a sentence - When I last saw you in Kabul in 2002...

    AW: Indeed I had volunteered to go to Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001 to be part of a small team that reopened the U.S. embassy. It had been closed for twelve years. I have a background in opening and closing embassies. I helped open an embassy in Uzbekistan, closed and reopened an embassy in Sierra Leone. I've been evacuated from Somalia and Sierra Leone. And with my military background, I've worked in a lot in combat environments.

    I volunteered because I felt the United States needed to respond to the events of 9/11, and the logical place to go after al-Qaeda was where they trained, knowing full well that you probably weren't going to get a lot of people. The al-Qaeda group is very smart and few of them, in my estimation, would have been hanging out where we were most likely to go after them in Afghanistan. Actually, I was amazed the administration went in physically. I thought, like the Clinton administration, they would send in cruise missiles. Considering the severity of September 11, I guess the military finally said: Well, it looks like we're going into that hell-hole where the Russians got their butts whipped. Everybody knew it was going to be tough.

    TD: You've commented elsewhere that a crucial moment for you was watching the President's Axis of Evil State of the Union address from a bunker in Kabul.

    AW: A bunker outside the chancellery building meant to protect against the rockets the mujahedeen were sending against each other after they defeated the Soviets. We had taken [then interim leader] Hamid Karzai, who had been invited to the State of the Union, to Bagram Air Base and sent him off three days before. We told him, You've got to start getting together some detailed plans for economic development funds because the attention of the United States doesn't stay on any country for long; so, get your little fledgling cabinet moving fast. Well, the President started talking about other interests that the United States had after 9/11 and these interests were Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Just as he said that, the cameras focused on Karzai and you could almost see him going: Hmmmm [she mugs a wince], now I know what they were telling me at the embassy. And we were sitting there thinking, Oh my God...

    TD: You had a functioning TV?

    AW: Barely. We had a satellite dish made of pounded-out coke cans - these were being sold down in Kabul - and a computer chip sent in from Islamabad, because we wanted to hear from Washington what was going to happen with Afghanistan. When, instead of talking much about Afghanistan, the President started in on this axis-of-evil stuff we were stunned. We were thinking: Hell's bells, we're here in a very dangerous place without enough military. So for the President to start talking about this axis of evil... everyone in the bunker just went: Oh Christ, here we go! No wonder we're not getting the economic development specialists in here yet. If the American government was going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and clearing out the Taliban and preparing to help the people of Afghanistan, why the hell was it taking so long? Well, that statement said it all.

    TD: Did you at that moment suspect a future invasion of Iraq?

    AW: I'm a little naïve sometimes. I really never, ever suspected we would go to war in Iraq. There was no attempt at that moment to tie 9/11 to Iraq, so it didn't even dawn on me.

    Anyway, that was the preface to my letter of resignation. I wanted to emphasize that I had seen Colin Powell on his first trip to Kabul. I wanted to show that this was a person who had lots of experience.

    TD: In the whole Vietnam era, few, if any, government officials offered public resignations of protest, but before the invasion of Iraq even began, three diplomats - Brady Kiesling, John Brown, and yourself - resigned in a most public fashion. It must have been a wrenching decision.

    AW: I had been concerned since September 2002 when I read in the papers that we had something like 100,000 troops already in the Middle East, many left behind after the Bright Star [military] exercise we have every two years in Egypt. I thought: Uh-oh, the administration is doing some sneaky-Pete stuff on us. They were claiming they wanted UN inspectors to go back into Iraq, when a military build-up was already underway. It's one thing to put troops in the region for pressure, but if you're leaving that many behind, you're going to be using them. Then, as the mushroom-cloud rhetoric started getting stronger, it was like: Good God! These guys mean to go to war, no matter what the evidence is.

    By November, I was having trouble sleeping. I would wake up at three, four in the morning - this was in Mongolia where it was freezing cold - wrap up in blankets, go to the kitchen table, and just start pouring my soul out. By the time I finally sent that resignation letter in, I had a stack of drafts like this. [She lifts her hand a couple of feet off the table.] I did know two others had resigned, but quite honestly I hadn't read their letters and I didn't know them.

    TD: You were ending your life in a way, life as you had known it...

    AW: Thirty-five years in the government between my military service and the State Department, under seven administrations. It was hard. I liked representing America.

    TD: Was there a moment when you knew you couldn't represent this government anymore?

    AW: I kept hoping the administration would go back to the Security Council for its authorization to go to war. That's why I held off until virtually the bombs were being dropped. I was hoping against hope that our government would not go into what really is an illegal war of aggression that meets no criteria of international law. When it was finally evident we were going to do so, I said to myself: It ain't going to be on my watch.

    TD: Was it like crossing a border into a different world?

    AW: It was a great relief. During the lead-up to war, I had begun showing symptoms of an impending heart attack. The State Department put me on a medivac flight to Singapore for heart tests. The doctors said, Lady, you're as strong as a horse. Are you just under some kind of stress? Yes, I am! The moment I sent in that letter, it was like a great burden had been lifted from my shoulders. At least I had made my stand and joined the other two who had resigned.

    TD: And what of those you left behind?

    AW: In the first couple of days, while I was still in Mongolia, I received over 400 emails from colleagues in the State Department saying: We're so sad you're not going to be with us, but we're so proud of the three of you who resigned because we think this going-to-war is just so horrible; then each one would describe how anti-American feeling was growing in the country where they were serving. It was so poignant, all those emails.

    TD: Why don't you think more people in the government - and in the military where there's clearly been opposition to Iraq at a very high level - quit and speak out?

    AW: There were a few. [General] Eric Shinseki talked about the shortchanging of the [Iraq] operations plan by a couple of hundred thousand people. He was forced out. But see, in the military, in the Foreign Service, you're not supposed to be speaking your own mind. Your job is to implement the policies of an administration elected by the people of America. If you don't want to, your only option is to resign. I understood that and that's one of the reasons I resigned - to give myself the freedom to talk out.

    There are a lot of people still in government service speaking out, but you've got to read between the lines. The senior military leaders in Iraq, what they've been saying is very different from what Donald Rumsfeld and the gang in Washington say. These guys are being honest and truthful about the lack of Iraqi battalions really ready for military work, the dangers the troops are under, the days when the military doesn't go out on the streets. They're signaling to America: We're up a creek on this one, guys, and you, the people of America, are going to have to help us out.

    TD: ...Let's talk about [Colin Powell's chief of staff] Larry Wilkerson as an example. He assumedly left after the election when Colin Powell did, so almost a year has passed. He saw what he believed was a secret cabal running the government and it took him that long after he was gone to tell us about it. I'm glad he spoke out. But I wonder why there isn't a more urgent impulse to do so?

    AW: If you look at Dick Clarke [the President's former chief adviser on terrorism on the National Security Council], he had all the secrets from the very beginning and he retired in January 2003. Yet he didn't say anything for over a year and a half, until he published that book [Against All Enemies] in 2004. If he had gone public before the war started, that man could have told us those same secrets right then. So could [the National Security Council's senior director for combating terrorism] Randy Beers. I worked with both of them on Somalia, on Sierra Leone. I know these guys personally and it's like: Guys, why didn't you come forward then?

    As you probably know, on the key issues of the first four years of the Bush administration, the State Department was essentially iced out. I mean, look at the Iraq War. Colin Powell and the State Department were just shoved aside and all State's functions put into the Department of Defense. Tragically, Colin Powell, who was trying to counsel Donald Rumsfeld behind the scenes that there weren't enough troops in Iraq, never stood up to say, Hold it, guys, I'll resign if we don't get this under control so that logical functions go in logical organizations and you, the Defense Department, don't do post-combat civil reconstruction stuff. That's ours. He just didn't do it. To me, he was more loyal to the Bush family than he was to the country. His resignation was possibly the one thing that could have deterred the war. Then the people of America would really have looked closely at what was going on. But tragically he decided loyalty to the administration was more valuable than loyalty to the country. I mean, it breaks my heart to say that, but it's what really happened.

    TD: So what is it that actually holds people back?

    AW: I think the higher up you go, the more common it is for people to retire, or maybe even resign, and not say what the reasons are, because they may hope to get back into government in a different administration. Dick Clarke had served every administration since George Washington and maybe he was looking toward being called back as a political appointee again. Sometimes such people don't speak out because they feel loyalty to the person who appointed them. Nobody appointed me to nothin', except the American people. I'm a career foreign service officer and I serve the American people. When an administration wasn't serving the best interests of the American people, I felt I had to stand up.

    TD: And are you now pretty much a full-time antiwar activist?

    AW: [She laughs.] That's the way it's turned out.

    TD: What, if anything, do you think your military career, your State Department career, and this... well, I can't call it a career... have in common?

    AW: Service to America. It's all just a continuation of a real concern I have about my country.

    TD: And what would you say to your former compatriots still in the military and the State Department?

    AW: Many of the emails I received from Foreign Service officers said, I wish I could resign right now, but I've got kids in college, I've got mortgages, and I'm going to try really hard, by staying, to ameliorate the intensity of these policies. All I can say is that they must be in agony about not being able to affect policy. There have been plenty of early retirements by people who finally realized they couldn't moderate the policies of the Bush administration.

    TD: What message would you send to the person you once were from the person you are now?

    AW: You trained me well.

    TD: If in this room you had the thirty-five year-old woman about to go into Grenada, as you did back in 1983, what would you want her to mull over.

    AW: I would say: You were a good Army officer and Foreign Service officer. You weren't blind to the faults of America. In many jobs, you tried to rectify things that were going badly and you succeeded a couple of times. My resignation wasn't the first time I spoke out. For instance, I was loaned, or seconded, from the State Department to the staff of the United Nations operation in Somalia and ended up writing a memo concerning the military operations the UN was conducting to kill a warlord named Addid. They started taking helicopters, standing off, and just blowing up buildings where they had intelligence indicating perhaps he was there. Well, tragically he never was, and here we were blowing up all these Somali families. Of course the Somalis were outraged and that outrage ultimately led to Blackhawk Down.

    I wrote a legal opinion to the special representative of the Secretary General, saying the UN operations were illegal and had to stop. It was leaked to the Washington Post and I got in a bit of hot water initially, but ultimately my analysis proved correct. I was also a bit of a rabble-rouser on the utilization of women in the military back in the eighties, part of a small group of women who took on the Army when it was trying to reduce the career potentials of women. I ended up getting right in the thick of some major problems which ultimately cost the Army millions of dollars in the reassessment of units that had been given incorrect direct-combat probability codings. I was also part of a team which discovered that some of our troops had been looting private homes in Grenada. The Army court-martialed a lot of our soldiers for this violation of the law of land warfare. We used their example in rewriting how you teach the code of conduct and, actually, the Geneva Convention on the responsibility of occupiers.

    TD: You know a good deal about the obligations of an occupying power to protect public and private property, partially because in the 1980s you were doing planning on the Middle East, right?

    AW: Yes, from 1982 to 1984, I was at Fort Bragg, North Carolina when the Army was planning for potential operations using the Rapid Deployment Force - what ultimately became the Central Command. One of the first forces used in rapid deployment operations was the 82 Airborne at Fort Bragg. I was in the special operations end of it with civil affairs. Those are the people who write up the annexes to operations plans about how you interact with the civilian population, how you protect the facilities - sewage, water, electrical grids, libraries. We were doing it for the whole Middle East. I mean, we have operations plans on the shelf for every country in the world, or virtually. So we did one on Iraq; we did one on Syria; on Jordan, Egypt. All of them.

    We would, for instance, take the UNESCO list of treasures of the world and go through it. Okay, any in Iraq? Yep. Okay, mark 'em, circle 'em on a map, put 'em in the op-plan. Whatever you do, don't bomb this. Make sure we've got enough troops to protect this. It's our obligation under the law of land warfare. We'd be circling all the electrical grids, all the oil grids, all the museums. So for us to go into Iraq and let all that looting happen. Well, Rumsfeld wanted a light, mobile force, and screw the obligations of treaties. Typical of this administration on any treaty thing. Forget 'em.

    So everything was Katy-bar-the-door. Anybody could go in and rip up anything. Many of the explosives now being used to kill our troops come from the ammo dumps we did not secure. It was a total violation of every principle we had for planning military operations and their aftermath. People in the civil affairs units, they were just shaking their heads, wondering how in the hell this could have happened. We've been doing these operations plans forever, so I can only imagine the bitchin' and moanin' about - how come we don't have this civilian/military annex? It's in every other op-plan. And where are the troops, where are the MPs?

    TD: If back in the early eighties you were planning to save the antiquities of every country in the Middle East, then obviously the Pentagon was also planning for a range of possible invasions in the region. Do you look back now and ask: What kind of a country has contingency plans to invade any country you can imagine?

    AW: One of the things you are likely to do at a certain point in your military career is operations plans. It did not then seem abnormal to me at all that we had contingency plans for the Middle East, or for countries in the Caribbean or South America. At that stage, I was not looking at the imperialism of the United States. I just didn't equate those contingency plans with empire-building goals. However, depending on how those plans are used, they certainly can be just that. Remember as well that this was in the days of the Cold War and, by God, that camouflaged a lot of stuff. You could always say: You never can tell what those Soviets are going to do, so you better be prepared anywhere in the world to defeat them.

    TD: And we're still prepared anywhere in the world...

    AW: Well, we are and now, let's see, where are the Russians? [She laughs heartily.]

    TD: Tell me briefly the story of your life.

    AW: I grew up in Arkansas, just a normal childhood. I think the Girl Scouts was a formative organization for me. It had a plan to it, opportunity to travel outside Arkansas, good goals - working on those little badges. Early State Department. Early military too. It's kind of interesting, the militarization of our society, how we don't really think of some things, and yet when I look back, there I was a little Girl Scout in my green uniform, and so putting on an Army uniform after college wasn't that big a deal. I'd been in a uniform before and I knew how to salute, three fingers. [She demonstrates.]

    If you look, we now have junior ROTC in the high schools. We have child soldiers in America. We're good at getting kids used to those uniforms. And then there's the militarization of industries and corporations, the necessity every ten years to have a war because we need a new generation of weaponry. Corporations in the military-industrial complex are making lots of money off of new types of weaponry and vehicles.

    TD: While you were in the military, did you have any sense that these wars were actually living weapons labs?

    AW: Particularly seeing the privatization after Gulf War I, going into Somalia. All of a sudden, as fast as military troops were arriving, you had Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root in Somalia. They started saying, You need mess halls, oh, we'll do the mess halls for you. And it turned out they had staged a lot of their equipment in the Middle East after the Gulf War. So it was in Somalia lickety-split. The privatization of military functions is now so pervasive that the military can no longer function by itself, without the contractors and corporations. These contractors, these mercenaries really, are now fundamentally critical to the operations of the U.S. military.

    TD: So a Girl Scout and...

    AW: In my junior year at the University of Arkansas, a recruiter came through town with the film, Join the Army, See the World. I had been an education major for three years. Nurse, teacher, those were the careers for women. I didn't want any of it. So, in the middle of the Vietnam War, I signed up to go to a three-week Army training program, just to see if I liked it. And I found it challenging. Even though there were protests going on all over America, I divorced myself from what the military actually did versus what opportunities it offered me. I hated all these people getting killed in Vietnam, but I said to myself: I'm not going to kill anyone and I'm taking the place of somebody who will be able to go do something else. All these arguments that... now you look at it and go: Oh my God, what did you do?

    TD: Don't you think this happens now?

    AW: Absolutely! I sympathize with the people in the military right now. The majority didn't sign up to kill anybody. You always prayed that, whatever administration it was, it didn't go off on some wild goose chase that got you into a war you personally thought was really stupid.

    TD: Would you counsel a young woman now to go into the military?

    AW: I think we will always have a military and I think the military is honorable service as long as the civilian leadership uses it in appropriate ways and is very cautious about sending us to war. And yes, I would encourage people to look at a military career, but I would also tell them that, if they're sent to do something they think is wrong, they don't have to stay in, though they may have to take some consequences for saying, Thank you very much but I'm not going to kill anybody.

    In fact, if I were recalled to active duty, which is possible... I put myself purposely at the Retired Ready Reserve so that, if there was ever an emergency and my country needed me, I could be recalled, and in fact there are people my age, 59, who are agreeing to be recalled. The ultimate irony would be resigning from my career in the diplomatic corps and then having the Bush administration recall me, because my specialty, civil affairs, reconstruction, is in really short supply. I'm a colonel. I know how to run battalions and brigades. I can do this stuff. But I would have to tell them, sorry, I refuse to be placed on active duty. And if they push hard enough, then I'd just have to be court-martialed and I'd go to Leavenworth. I will not serve this administration in the Iraq war which I firmly believe is an illegal war of aggression.

    TD: You know, if someone had said to me back in the 1960s that a Vice President of the United States might go to Congress to lobby for a torture exemption for the CIA the way Dick Cheney has done, I would have said: This couldn't happen. Never in American history. I'm staggered by this.

    AW: Me, too. The other thing that's quite interesting is the number of women who are involved in it. There were something like eighty women I've identified, ranging from high officers to CIA contractors being used as interrogators in Guantanamo. Talking about things that will come back to bite us big time, this is it. And we are complicit, all of us, because, quite honestly, we're not standing out in front of the White House every single day, and every time that Vice President leaves throwing our bodies in front of his car, throwing blood on it. We need to get tough with these guys. They're not listening to us. They think we're a bunch of wimps. We've got to get tougher and tougher with them to show them we're not going to put up with this stuff.

    TD: You've quoted Teddy Roosevelt as saying: To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. I was particularly struck by that word servile. Do you want to talk about dissent for a moment?

    AW: Well, we shouldn't be hesitant about voicing our opinions, even in the most difficult of times which generally is when your nation is going to war and you're standing up to say, this isn't right. That's tough and, in fact, the first couple of months after I resigned, oh man, all that TV and nothing on but the war, and very few people wanted to hear me. It probably was a good four months before anybody even asked me to come speak about why I had dissented, and that was a little lonely. [She chuckles.]

    TD: Any final thoughts?

    AW: We now have a two-and-a-half-year track record of being a very brutal country. We are the cause of the violence in Iraq. That violence will continue as long as we're there, and the administration maintains that we will be there until we win. That means to me that this administration is planning for a long-term siege in Iraq. It means that young men and women in America should be prepared for the draft because the military right now cannot support what this administration wants. In fact, yesterday I was talking to about ninety high school seniors in Fayetteville, Arkansas, a very Republican part of the United States. I said: Your parents may support this war, but how strongly do you feel about it? If it drags on for years and there's a draft, how many of you will willingly go? Only three put up their hands.

    We are continuing down a very dangerous road. The United States and its citizenry are held in disdain in world opinion for not being able to stop this war machine. So one of the things I'm doing is ratcheting up my own level of response. A dear friend, Joe Palambo, a Vietnam veteran in Veterans for Peace who went to hear the President in Norfolk when he talked about terrorism, was recently cited in the newspapers this way: There was one protestor in the second row of the audience who stood up and railed against the President, saying: You're the terrorist! This war is a war of terrorism! Joe called me right after that happened and said, Hey, Ann, I heard what you did in the Senate and I thought, I'm going to go do the same thing to the President.

    I mean, we're going to dog these guys all over the country. Our Secretary of State, our Secretary of Defense, our Vice President, our President, our National Security Adviser, the head of the CIA, any of these people who are the warmongers, who are the murderers in the name of our country, wherever they go, the people of America need to stand up to them to say, No! Stop! Stop this war. Stop this killing. Get us out of this mess. Because that's the only time they hear it, when we stand up in these venues. They don't come out to the street in front of the White House to see the hundreds of thousands of people who are protesting. They ignore that. But for those fifteen seconds, if you can stand up so that everybody in that audience sees that there's one person, or maybe even two or three... Who knows?


  -------


Jewish Voices For Peace
Not all jews agree with this latest Israeli/Bush aggression, myself included.  Check out the web site Jewish Voices For Peace.Org.
Jewish Voice For Peace
It is Jewish Voice For Peace.Org, not Jewish Voices For Peace as I previously posted.  Sorry.
history of peace symbol

http://www.nonukesnorth.net/peacesymbol.shtml 


Someone asked me awhile back about the peace symbol and where it came from. In the event that you do not know this story, it is quite interesting especially in light of the **nuclear** problems we are having 49 years after the symbol's creation. Altho there are those who swear it is the reincarnation of some ancient rune of an evil, Anton LeBay, devil-worsipping, anti-Christ **secret** society, they are referring to the V (for victory sign) that Churchill and Nixon and others have used over the years. The V being evil has something to do with Masons and **secrets** the rest of us are not privy to. Anyway, when Gerald Holtom designed the peace sign as we know it some far-far-far right and fundamental religious groups spread the notion that the symbol was an outgrowth of the **V** and a Satanic Communist symbol.


The real story, especially the semaphores, which I did not know much about before researching this a few years ago, is pretty cool.


So no opinion on war and peace, HL security
nm
Here's one. Palins' stance on war and peace.
nm
Yes, and Hamas once again broke the peace.
nm
Ron Paul on peace and non-intervention. sm
Here is a clip of an interview of Ron Paul yesterday on the issue of neutrality in Gaza.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYNLXYLM44c&eurl=http://www.dailypaul.com/node/78202&feature=player_embedded
read this from Veterans For Peace

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/09/arrest-bush-che.html


(I don't know how to make sophisticated links.) 


It's not just about torture of terrorists.  It's many, many other things they have done.