We live in a Country where we have no policy that says a Nation must attack us before we consider attacking them.  We live in a Country where all sides need not agree on war in order to go to war.  These are simple and reasonable demands that can do a lot to end the next war now. 

In 2008, former Secretaries of State formed a commission to investigate the War Powrers Act and the Presidential Right to Use Force.  The findings of the War Powers Commission found that current rules interupt cooperation between executive and legislative branches of government at times when we the people need such cooperation the most. 

Your Congressman and Senator likely has stated that He/She agrees with the findings of the War Powers Commission, yet they do nothing to make the findings binding.  Ask them to do so.  Write your own letter or use some of the wording provided below:

To:
Subject: Make findings of the War Powers Commission binding

Please create and enact legislation based on the findings of the War Powers Commission. This commission headed by former Secretaries  Christopher and  Baker contend that the War Powers Act of 1973 failed to promote cooperation between branches of government. 

Make it that the President may not use force without the agreement of the People of the United States.  Do not let the finding of the War Powers Commission go unanswered and unattended.  Make this law now for the good of your People.

Sincerely,

                                                                             
(name) 
                                                                         
(town)

                                                       
phone for verification

EuCom deploys radar, troops to Israel (click title to see Article in Army Times )

The above referenced article shows how much is going on that does not make front page news.  It is one thing to support allies.  Could these policies be considered one sided by those asked to disarm? Should we really wonder if some Arab States feel less valued?  Is anyone going to be surprised if a country reacts?  If they do react, should the reaction actually be considered hostile? If  missles ( or "protection")  appear next to your door, what would you do? If the reaction is no surprise, than was it done on purpose to assure escalation? Could the snake be eating it's tail?

The premise of this equipment is to knock down missles coming in from Iran.  So now for the first time, the US has a permanent base in Israel.  Perhaps the main US export is really the principle of a right to defend oneself, no matter the cost, no matter the collateral damage to innocent people of countries.  We know where force gets us.  It gets us to more force.

There is so much we can trade in order to begin a economic interest and dialogue, through which we can learn more about each other and learn how to live with each other.  There is so much culture to intrigue us and keep us from being bored.  There is so much to learn and celebrate that avoids homogeny.  As we trade more, we can move towards research together; perhaps investing in solar and wind turbines in their lands.  Work together to see how such equipment reacts in their terrain. Make jobs.  Instead, putting guns on peoples doors is the best our leaders can come up with. Instead our policies make countries whom we consider hostile to do more trade with China, Russia, India, Europe etc.  We need economic ties in order to have a less pressured basis to start talks.  Or we have to allow those with economic ties to speak on our behalf lest we simply be bullies, aka, the my way or the highway policy. 

On the surface, sending weapons sounds like a sound policy and one easy to sell to both parties.  Among everything it is, it is also sad and dangerous.

Saving Gas

Is the Iraq conflict a war about oil? Any reasonable person can effectively argue for or against the topic. Without knowing which side is ultimately right, one progressive tactic can be done.  Take oil out of the equation as much as possible.  Use less, need less.  Do what each can to make oil less valuable.

Peacedrum has adopted the use of commuter scooters more.  They are not the answers for everything, but they can cut down the need to drive conventional vehicles by at least 40-60% of someone's personal driving needs.  They are cheap.  They get anywhere from 60-80 mpg. They often come from mom and pop shops and small business people.  

I purchased one to test it.  So far so good.  Here is an example of what we are talking about.   Sample Scooters
Want less.  Do more

(back to www.peacedrum.org)

June 26^th 2008- Redondo Beach California.

Members of Dry September, a PeaceDrum affiliate band from the Los Angeles area, held a house concert in Redondo Beach on June 26^th.  At the show they distributed template letters asking for Congressional oversight on how war supplemental funding is used.  The letters urged troop support and troop dependent support, yet asked for a cease in monies for search and destroy tactics, end to bunkerbusters, and no monies to private militias like BlackWater Intl.  The second message was remind elected officials that  "if you fund the  war, you own it." 

There was no surprise that letters were going to be distributed at the event.  PeaceDrum helped market the show by making flyers and contacting local music magazine in the Los Angeles area. People gathered for a wonderful night of non political music and networking in a relaxed setting.  The letters went out and reports are many called their Congressional leaders.

The bill for funding failed in the House, so the time spent calling Congress was well spent.  Sadly, the supplemental passed in the Senate.  War funding is not part of the National Budget.  It is simply large hole in the bucket of Democracy.

Enjoy Music by Dry September.  Peacedrum looks forward to helping other affiliate bands who want to do the same.

                     back to www.peacedrum.org

The difference between Anti War and Pro Peace is not a semantic difference.  People tend to interchange the two terms.  Yet someone who is pro peace could rightfully have grave differences with an Anti War camp.

Anti War movements are historically short term. They tend to dissolve once a conflict has subsided, leaving way for aggression to return.  Pro Peace is about continued conflict resolution and making progressive policies that hopefully last.

Anti War is often very divisive, pitting "us vs them" and creating righteous camps.  Pro Peace can talk to anyone to find common ground and foundations to progressively move forward.

It is possible for Anti War to engage in practice that is less than peace.

Having said this, can anyone really explain our American mixology of guns and Jesus. How on earth can those mix? Actually, they can mix on earth where our weakness creates a self rationalized comfort zone. Those who believe in guns and Jesus are simply protecting themselves from self destruction.  It is about them.  Their self.  We keep hearing about a greater good.  Yet teachings of the concept of greater good describe a sense so pure it does not even hold evil as an opposite. It can't because it is pure good. Greater good. 

There is a greater chance of bringing an end to war by adopting concepts of pro peace as opposed to anti war. The later is somewhat exclusionary and we need to unite. Such unification can also support troops who have given all they have and all that they are.  There is a greater chance of ending the next war by adopting pro peace policies and making them law.

There is no victory in war.  There is no victory in peace.  There is only war in war.  There is only peace in peace.  There is no such thing as "giving peace a chance".  You either adopt concepts of peace or abandon them

"There can be no peace if National policy adopts as a deliberate instrument, the threat of war."  Franklin D Roosevelt

President Bush is about to ask Congress for another ridiculaous amount of tax payer money to fund his war.  A small portion of any supplemental actually goes to troops.  Yet Congress continues to buy the war, knowing that after five years, War is clearly not the answer.

Below is a template that asks that no more money go to privateer armies such as Blackwater.   If you use this letter as is, please add your own words on why you agree. hand written words of support to individualize you input.  _________________________________________________
To:
From:
Subject: Continued War Funding,
End the funding of BlackWater with taxpayer money

As a voter, I am extremely disappointed in the lack of backbone Congress showed in not standing up to the Bush Veto about War Supplemental.  We all know the percentage of funds that actually go to fund the troops from a supplemental is quite low and that there are always ways to fund the well being of troops.  

Furthermore, I absolutely disapprove that any funds are made available to private security contracts like BlackWater or any other such companies.  Our Executive branch should not have a private militia at the expense of taxpayers; whose numbers are not part of the troop surge reports.  Nor are such independent contractors subject to the same Military laws that our enlisted men and woman have to adhere to.  I ask that the use of such militias can only be allowed by consent of Congress and subject to Congressional oversight.  

The last election proved that the Country does not support this war.  There is no reason to vote any longer for an elected official who does not strongly follow the will of the people.   To support this war in any way or to vote in the future on issues that passively continue this war will absolutely cost you my vote. You need to ask yourself, how do you expect to end a war by funding a war?

Sincerely,

Constituent of:
Phone Number:

You can stream it.  You can have it as a jukebox.  You can request a download for your MP3 player. Peacedrum Vol.2 compilation of peacedrum affiliated artists is now available.

This compilation offers bands from all over the world, breaking barriers, getting together, mixing music with action, making us all neighbors.

Have fun with it.

So often, when the topic of this war comes up, people tend to utter notions of not liking the war.  They always add the ’now that we are there’ clause.  We even hear this on popular Sundays news hours by Congressional leaders and experts.   It is a mantra that has a nice pleasing buzz.

I have one question about  ’now that we are there....’  When did that become the basis for policy in America.  And now it is used for more than war.  The failing banking and housing industry gets to use it for their bail outs.  ’We do not like it , but now that we are here...’    Is this an uncommon law that has not been made public?  It guides America way to often. 

This train of thought is utterly flawed for it is only used for the absolute worst in failed policies.  And nothing is ever done to fix the policy.  We still do not have any law, policy or any assurance that prevents us ( the U.S.A) from attacking a nation that never attacked us.  In fact we did have such an International law, created by the US, in the US created UN by which self defense is only allowed in response to direct attack.  Iraq never attacked us. We broke our own International law.

So really, we are left with bubkus, sitting on our hands, with nothing but a comfort slogan of ’ now that we are there...’  And even with no end in sight, that mantra seems to be OK for millions of americans who truly believe themselves to be good people.

America has not lost.  America is lost.  There will be no solutions until we are true to ourselves, our policies, our laws.  With that in mind, " now that we are there..." can simply not be followed or supported. 

(Here is a copy of the letter peacedrum.org and our music members, freinds and fans are sending out to Congress.  Please use it as a template and replace the text in itlaics with your own information)

To: Rep or Senator
From:  yourname

Please oppose the War Supplemental.

Last week, several peace activists were arrested for occupying Sen. Mikulski's office.  Others were called idiots by Mr. Obey.  To Mr. Obey and others like him, I would like to ask, what is crazier, squatting in opposition of this war, or funding this war.

Please oppose the War Supplemental.  These are the reasons why

·        We need more oversight

·        There are plenty of ways to fund troops

·        No money should go to the likes of KBR , who handled Walter Reed, or Haliburton, Bechtel.

·        We should work more with Iraqi Companies and help their employment so they can stand on their own two feet instead of funding No-Bid Contracts

 ·        You can not end a war by funding the war

·        Those who fund the war own the war

Reported by AP Wire posted on Easy News France:

US Activists, Iraqi Lawmakers Demand US Troop Withdrawal Saturday August 5th, 2006 / 19h00

AMMAN (AP)--"Peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, Tom Hayden and 13 other U.S. activists on Saturday joined Iraqi lawmakers in demanding a timetable be fixed for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. "I'm optimistic that the majority of the American people want a withdrawal sooner, rather than later," Hayden, a former California state senator told reporters in the Jordanian capital after talks with seven Iraqi Shiite and Sunni lawmakers. "It's going to be an important issue in the Congressional elections and the (2008) presidential campaign has already begun," he said. About half of the activists will head to Syria on Sunday and Lebanon on Monday to "assess the humanitarian crisis" caused by the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah over the past 25 days, killing hundreds and displacing hundreds of thousands. Neither Sheehan, who returned earlier Saturday to the U.S., nor Hayden would be part of the team. Hayden wondered whether the Lebanon conflict was "a desperate effort by the Israeli and U.S. neoconservatives to escalate their way out of defeat in Iraq before the November elections." "Are they trying to scramble and subdivide the whole Middle East? Do they hope this escalates into a conflict with Syria and Iran which some of them want," he said. The activists, representing the largest U.S. anti-war coalition, United for Peace and Justice; the national woman's peace group, CODEPINK; and Global Exchange, arrived in Jordan Thursday for two days of talks with the Iraqi members of parliament. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to meet the activists during last month's talks with U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington in which he asked for more U.S. troops and finance for his beleaguered government. Salman al-Jumaili who is the speaker of the largest Sunni coalition in the Iraqi parliament and his Shiite counterpart, Jabar Habib Jabar, joined the activists in issuing three demands: a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops; a commitment not to have permanent U.S. bases in Iraq; and a commitment by the U.S. government to "pay for rebuilding Iraq." "We have found a voice inside the U.S. that backs us. We told them that we in Iraq want to see the light at the end of the tunnel," al-Jumaili told reporters. On Thursday, two of the Pentagon's most senior generals, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Congress that Iraq could move toward civil war if the violence raging in Baghdad between Sunni and Shiite Muslims continued. U.S. officials have been pressing Prime Minister al-Maliki, a Shiite, to disband the Shiite militias and make overtures to Sunni insurgent groups saying restoring security in Baghdad is essential if the government is to survive. Hayden called Iraq "a gradual shrinking space for the Bush administration." Actual Story http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=37510&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2