A few more links:

• postcards from a NY peace protest;
  
• The International Task Force of the American Library Association's Social
  Responsibilities Round Table's a comprehensive list of
  alternative resources and information on the War in Iraq
  
• Michael Moore's April 7th message (he didn't provide a permanent link, so you may have to go looking for it), about how well he's done after speaking out against war at the Oscars, and how the backlash against him that pundits predicted is wildly wrong.
  
• A Washington Post article questioning US claims of forbidden nuclear materials("American troops who suggested they uncovered evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iraq unwittingly may have stumbled across known stocks of low-grade uranium, officials said Thursday.")
  

And The Must See Item of the day: Photos showing the staging of the statue pull-down publicity photos. It's fascinating to observe that there is almost no one present at the 'celebration'. The comments about the cast of extras is also quite interesting.

Allow me to catch up on my clippings before editorializing.

Do U.S. forces have something against journalists? Attacks on the Palestine Hotel, where all foreign media reporters stay, Al Jazeerah, and Abu Dhabi TV imply either bad intent, or that US forces are just shooting up everything. Either way, it's not pretty.

Two cameramen - who worked for the Reuters news agency and Spain's Telecinco - died when a US tank shell hit their hotel. A third journalist was killed when a missile hit the offices of al-Jazeera TV....

The 15th floor of the Palestine hotel - where most of the foreign media is based - was hit by a tank shell at about 1200 local time (0800 GMT).

"One of the tanks had its barrel pointed up at the building. We went inside and there was an almighty crash, a huge explosion that shook the hotel," reported Sky TV's David Chater.

US military officials expressed regret at the incident, and said one of their tanks had fired on the hotel in response to incoming sniper and rocket fire.

"A tank was receiving small arms fire... from the hotel and engaged the target with one tank round," General Buford Blount, commander of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad, told Reuters.

But BBC correspondents and other journalists who were in the building at the time said they heard no fire coming from the hotel.

Reuters said Ukrainian cameraman Taras Protsyuk died and a reporter, a photographer, and a technician were wounded when the shell hit the building....

In a separate incident, al-Jazeera said its correspondent Tareq Ayoub died and a cameraman was injured when two missiles hit its office, virtually destroying it.

Reporting from Iraq is fraught with danger

US military officials said the building was struck by mistake.

"It is something we all regret. But I don't believe that it is possible that it was deliberate," US State Department spokesman Nabil Khoury told the network.

But the Reporters Without Borders pressure group said al-Jazeera had been careful to inform the Americans of the exact location of its offices and demanded an inquiry into the attack.

Abu Dhabi television said its Baghdad bureau was also hit by US bombing.

Reporters for the local paper also raise the possibility that the attacks, especially on Al Jazeera, were intentional.

*

A posting by a member of the Iraq Peace Team entited 'There will be No Victors in this War,' reminds us of the terrible human cost of this invasion. Then she passes on some information she's heard there in Baghdad.

Last night I heard that the U.S. military is bringing not only embedded press with them when they enter, but also 3,000 Iraqis who very well might become "embedded dancers" frolicking in the streets to demonstrate how jubilant Iraqis are to be "liberated." Should this happen, we only hope that there will be a few journalist who will document the truth. The feeling here is anything but joyous and jubilant.

Last night in my journal I wrote, "How could either of our countries allow so much power to be given to one person?" I was thinking of the respective leaders of each country. I place the greater burden on the U.S. because we claim to have a democracy. Again I will say with such a heaviness of heart, there will be no victors in this war. Tragically we in the states have forced this war on the Iraqi people, a people who only want peace. Dear God, I don't know how I'll bear it if we in the States now take on a triumphal attitude and declare ourselves victors and liberators of the Iraqi people.

While I had marveled at the acknowledgement in the press that the images of a Hussein statue being pulled down was 'aided' (they didn't use the word staged) by Marines, it will be interesting to learn whether or not the people in the images were of Baghdad residents, or of people brought in from elsewhere.

*

Here's an interesting article about The Moral Questions of War from a medical journal, which spells out requirements for a just war that I have not seen elsewhere:

Some argue that war can never be morally justified, and Benjamin Franklin, one of America's founding fathers, believed: "There never was a good war or a bad peace." International law accepts the notion of a just war, but it's worth remembering the seven conditions of such a war. The cause must be just. A lawful authority must decide to resort to force. The intention of the war must accord with international law. The use of force must be a last resort. The probability of success should be high. (This condition seems to favour the powerful. Norman Cousins observed that: "The possibility of war increases in direct proportion to the effectiveness of the instruments of war.") The cost benefit ratio should be positive. The means used must conform with international humanitarian law.

If these seven items are correct, this war doesn't qualify. The UN disapproved this course; the intention of 'regime change' is illegal (as opposed to disarmament, which was legal and approved by the UN); the use of force was used in place of successful inspections, and so was not being used as a last resort, but rather as a first choice.

The conditions listed above, based on a 17th century theologian are one of many lists of conditions. I see lists available on the web of other lengths, including a shorter one attributed to Thomas Aquinas that requires a) just cause, b) war is the last resort; and c) there's a reasonable chance of success at the goal, which is to bring peace. Again, 'regime change by force' isn't recognized as a just cause, and because inspections were working, the last resort argument fails.

I note that the Vatican says conditions for a just war have not been met, despite various web pages purporting to use Catholic theory that rationalize war by chosing biblical text in which saints fail to advise soldiers to lay down their arms. (Proving points by their absence is such fun!)

*

This has to be the most amazing quote I read yesterday:

"Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things."

-Donald Rumsfeld, on the collapse of order in Baghdad, resulting in widespread looting, even of hospitals.

So much for our obligation under international war to protect noncombatants and maintain order in the absence of the authority we have overthrown...

So Baghdad was taken, and then Baghdad fell into chaos. A little reported fact from this same article: "Russian President Vladimir Putin says under no circumstances should a new colonialism be allowed to establish itself in Iraq. Speaking at a summit in St Petersburg with the leaders of France and Germany, he says Iraq's fate must be in the hands of the Iraqi people."

*

A peace protest in London drew 20,000 people to register the fact that, just because the US is winning, doesn't mean the war has been legitimate.

"It doesn't matter how many people turn out, it's about registering a protest that a principle has been violated, international law has been violated and everyone who cares must register a protest."

The Stop The War Coalition spokesman had other, very relevant comments:

"I don't really believe the fighting is over - I think the invasion is sliding into a colonial occupation," he said.

"Every day for the last week, innocent Iraqis have been shot by US and UK troops.

"Unfortunately the people in the Pentagon have made it clear that they want to extend this war into a list of other countries that they want to take on - including Syria and Jordan and Iran.
"We are demonstrating because we don't want that to happen."...

On Saturday, protests against the war also took place in around 40 other countries, including New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Greece and France.

*

Iraqometer currently lists 1,400 Iraqi civilian casualties, and a cost per U.S. taxpayer of $1,125.

After days of working 12+ hours and fitful sleep, I'll have time to catch up here tonight!

There's a lot of news. Some of it is amazing. I'll leave you with this quote:

"Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things."
-Donald Rumsfeld, on the collapse of order in Baghdad, resulting in widespread looting, even of hospitals.

This isn't new, but I still enjoy Peter Freundlich's commentary on the "logic" behind this war.

All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.

It continues. Do follow the link and read the whole thing.

*

Unbelieveably awful: Oakland police injured peaceful protesters with wood and rubber bullets at the Port of Oakland yesterday. They also injured longshoremen who were standing nearby, and who criticized the obviously excessive force employed.

*

According to the big dictionary that my partner has handy, pacifism is defined as follows:
pacifism:
1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. the principle or policy of establishing and maintaining universal peace or such relations among all nations that all differences may be adjusted without without recourse to war.
3. non-resistance to aggression.

I am unfamiliar with the third definition. I guess Tibet would fall into that category, though they offered some symbolic resistance when initially invaded by China.

I consider myself a pacifist, but also believe in defending myself in non-lethal ways. Definition 3 really doesn't fit into my personal definition.

*

Definition three is ALL a correspondent is obsessed with. I received an article subtitled "pacifists protect tyrants and incite wars," which is one of the least plausible things I have received recently.

It actually cites Fox News. No. Really. I rudely accused the author of studying comedy. I mean, Fox News?!?!? I feel bad about making that accusation, but the premise is so incredible.

Quote: "History will record with severity the huge social, human and political cost of the activism of the erroneously named 'pacifists'."

Okay, everyone reading this was required to take a history course at some point, correct? How many times have you read chapters devoted to how pacifists have undermined world peace by being non-violent? Did you answer never? A cookie for you.

This article has amazing quotes, such as: "During the decade of 1970, the handing over by U.S. government of several Southeast Asian nations to communists -who unleashed indescribable massacres of millions of innocent civilians, such as in Cambodia- was in most part precipitated by pressures on behalf of 'pacifists'."

This indicates great confusion. I hate to be the one to point this out, but it's rather obvious that the US government _did not own_ Southeast Asia. All 50 states are in non-Asian areas. There are a couple of territories, which are still there, and which are not communist. Since you can't give what you don't have, it's pretty clear that the U.S. was not handing Southeast Asian nations out like candy at Halloween to commies. Duh.

A close reading of the article indicates that, while massacres by leftists are heinous, massacres by right-wingers (the Shah, Pinochet, Contras, etc.) are apparently peachy, because they merit no mention at all. Being killed by right-wingers: good. Being killed by left-wingers: bad. I had never looked upon death in such a politically qualitative way, but there it is.

My favorite aspect of the article really is the idea that pacifists incite wars. Because it's so completely wacky. Let's look at the current war.

1. Who armed Saddam Hussein?
a. militarists
b. pacifists
2. Who sold Hussein components to build weapons of mass destruction?
a. militarists, including Cheney's company Halliburton
b. pacifists
3. Who tried to get Iraq a greater line of credit despite evidence of chemical weapons use, in an attempt to ensure Iraq's victory over Iran?
a. militarists
b. pacifists
4. Whose support of arms and credit allowed Hussein to kill his domestic rivals and consolidate his power?
a. militarists
b. pacifists.

It's unfair for me to set up a "straw man" like this, making fun of the author's complete blind spot for all militarism (and US militarism in particular). But it's terribly satisfying, in a low and vulgar way.

Opposition to the use of violence does not create violence. Weapons sales and fundamentalism and extreme political dogmas and greed and fear create violence, especially when combined. Sitting on the sidewalk, eating an apricot and praying for peace is not going to make your neighbors burst from their homes with submachine guns and go on killing sprees.

At least, not on my planet. Which is earth.

Blogger, my blog publisher/enabler, is having some technical difficulties. I may be able to upload this, but I can't publish to my food page. Which is a shame, because I have a really long entry that failed to go through twice this evening.

So I'm going to save some wacky pro-war mail commentary I've received for tomorrow night. You'll have to remove your logic cap to enjoy it, however. It's rather 'out there.'