Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Why Don't we Start Following Our Hearts and Minds?

By Amy Oyler at Jan 07, 2008


Change Text Size a- | A+

On March 17, 2003 President Bush declared that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave Iraq, as we were entering into combat operations. Since that day, when we declared War, we have been occupying a country, with the stated mission of "winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people", to "liberate them" and "bring democracy".


Almost 5 years later, we reflect on a brutalized conutry, and a brutalized coalition force. There is now a war being faught directly against the civilian population, after we destroyed their cities, interrogated the people, arrested and detained the people of Iraq for questioning and interrogations. We sent hundreds of people to Guantanamo Bay, many (and in some cases all) of which were unrecorded,  unrepresented, held without charge, and withheld the right to contact their families. It is estimated, that between 600,000 and 1,000,000 people have died resulting from the initial war, occupation, and subsequent humanitarian crises that has occured since that day in 2003. After bombing or shooting into the civilian places of gathering such as mosques, hospitals, schools, and homes, it is obvious for anyone to see...that we are not succeeding in winning the hearts and minds, libertaing, and installing our democracy, in Iraq.

There are many reasons that we went to war in Iraq. We have begun, and since increased our country's presence in the Middle East. We have relations with Israel, with Saudi Arabia, with Pakistan, with Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Syria. We have friendly relations with some of these countries, and aggressive relations with others. Regardless, we certainly maintain a concrete presence in this region. It is largely known that for decades, we have reinforced our presence for purposes of bartering power, of advancement in mainting a role of holding and maintaining strategic resources, and for the protection of our affiliated countries (allies, if you will), and our interests.

The problem with this, is that our country, because it is the largest superpower in the world, and because for decades, it has held the largest amount of incfluence throughout the world, is playing a game of Risk with the rest of the world. These are not countries that need to fall under one. What we need to remember, is that instead of it being about strategy, and accomplishment, and power, and acquirements; this is about people.

This is about human beings; you, me, our families, our friends, this is about everyone.

When our diplomats talk sternly to one another at UN meetings, when we make threats of violence against a country for not bending to what we think is best for them, and when we attack another country because they adamantly refuse to cooperate, we are dealing with people. We are killing them. We are destroying their comfortable ways of life, their routines, their communities.

Indeed, Emma Goldman once said (I believe she quoted Carlyle): "War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one village and another village; stick them into uniforms, equip them with guns, and let them loose like wild beasts against each other."

My question is, instead of trying to win their hearts and minds, why don't we follow our hearts and minds?

Let's follow the hearts and minds of our people who are stuck over there. These are our friends, our brothers, sisters, and partners. These are not pawns in an elaborate game of world domination. Let's follow the hearts and minds of the people who live in the countries we have dominated. They are not to be forgotten, in the game of conquest. When we invade a country, we must take care of the innocent population who gets caught in the crossfire.


We are the wealthiest country in the world right now. We spend 452 Billion dollars per year on this war. Why don't we cut the payroll, bring most of the soldiers and most of the equipment home, and spend a significant amount on paying reparations to the Iraqi people. We wouldn't even have to spend all of the difference. We could use even 100, or 200 billion a year for this, and spend the rest on domestic issues like health care, education, transportation, and other social, civillian plans. The people who remain there, can be available to work with the Iraqi government (all of the Iraqi government, the parliament, the council, the prime minister), as well as within the International Community (as to build support, as to participate on a positive note, in world affairs, and to work together), to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq.

Above all, we must give up on "Winning the Hearts and Minds". Why should we have to win them over to somewhere they clearly do not wish to be? It obviously isn't working, and quite frankly, it's turned into a complete disaster.

I believe that it is time for a change. We as a nation are very frustrated about where we've been led in this war, the neglect on our domestic front, our lack of preparedess for disaster, and our lack of adequate representation by the people we voted into office. Maybe it's time we start following the hearts and minds of the people, here, and abroad, and start working to affect a positive change in this world, and in how we look at it. We should think long and hard about this, and make sure that the people we vote for in office this time around are held accountable for the decisions they make, and ensure that we, as a people, can go along with these decisions, that we know the facts, and we actually start helping people instead of hurting them. 

 

585234

The Carlyle quote

By Boutin, Christian at Jan 08, 2008 13:16 PM

"War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one village and another village; stick them into uniforms, equip them with guns, and let them loose like wild beasts against each other."

The quote is great, but it\'s not entirely accurate.  The game of Risk in which cowards send others to die for their own interest is really more to be associated with "major powers".  Or at least "equivalent powers".  For example, the seven years war, the first world war.  Same applied to the cold war.  But that, in my honest opinion, doesn\'t apply to wars in which there is a clear aggressor with overwhelming force, in which it is more difficult to call defending side pawns on a chess set.  In any event, great article!  Cheers!

Reply this comment

Loading_border