<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Bob, do you have any evidence that Kirk's opponent is any different regard I/P?<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Robert Naiman <naiman@justforeignpolicy.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Brussel Morton K. <mkbrussel@comcast.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> david@gill2010.com; Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>; Stuart Levy <slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu>; David Gill <davidgill2010@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wed, July 28, 2010 10:52:34 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] House Votes Today on Afghan, Pakistan Wars<BR></FONT><BR>I haven't discounted other issues at all. On the contrary, at the<BR>outset I said: folks may support Gill over Johnson based on other<BR>issues, and with that I have no argument.<BR><BR>I am ambivalent about the Congressional race. I am not campaigning for<BR>either candidate. I respect the people who are campaigning for
Gill,<BR>and wish them well. I am certainly not against tilting at windmills in<BR>general. :)<BR><BR>But as it stands I expect to direct my attention elsewhere. I will<BR>probably spend more time on the Senate race, because Mark Kirk is True<BR>Evil - never met an AIPAC proposal he didn't want to champion - and I<BR>would very much like to keep him out of the Senate, a goal I believe<BR>to be quite feasible.<BR><BR>On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Brussel Morton K.<BR><<A href="mailto:mkbrussel@comcast.net" ymailto="mailto:mkbrussel@comcast.net">mkbrussel@comcast.net</A>> wrote:<BR>> So where does Bob Naiman stand with regard to the candidates in the forthcoming election?<BR>><BR>> He seems to be "parsing" his positions. A political tactician rather than a strategist?<BR>><BR>> Note: I'm pleased that Tim Johnson has "turned" on the war, and congratulate him on that, but history and other issues should not be discounted so
readily.<BR>><BR>> --mkb<BR>><BR>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:<BR>><BR>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:05 AM, David Gill <<A href="mailto:davidgill2010@yahoo.com" ymailto="mailto:davidgill2010@yahoo.com">davidgill2010@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>>>> "Arrogant refusal"? For many years I've stated that we need to begin to<BR>>>> immediately withdraw the vast majority of our troops from Afghanistan.<BR>>>> This is not a "parsed" statememt, Mr. Naiman, and it is vastly different<BR>>>> than the position of either President Bush or President Obama.<BR>>><BR>>> I accept your clarification. You are certainly right that this is not<BR>>> President Obama's position; it is a position which today is still well<BR>>> ahead of the center of national debate.<BR>>><BR>>>> I publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq before it occurred; had my
positon<BR>>>> carried the day, rather than Tim Johnson's position, millions of people who<BR>>>> are dead today would instead be alive.<BR>>>> Those who deny the truth and importance of that statement demean the worth<BR>>>> and dignity of each of those human beings.<BR>>><BR>>> I certainly don't deny it. Tim's vote for the war was wrong, as he has<BR>>> acknowledged. But I'm not willing to put 2003 above all else, when we<BR>>> still have wars to end.<BR>>><BR>>>> Mr. Estabrook appears to have no understanding of the district, and has no<BR>>>> grasp of the electoral history of the district. A 57-43 defeat is nowhere<BR>>>> near "2 to 1"-- Carl implies that I previously lost by 33-34 points when in<BR>>>> fact it was 14-15 points, less than half of what Carl purports. And he<BR>>>> appears to have little understanding of the
implications of directly<BR>>>> providing care to individuals in the district-- witness that my share of the<BR>>>> vote in DeWitt County was three times the typical Democratic percentage.<BR>>>> I've now been caring for people in McLean County for three years, and we're<BR>>>> seeing that same phenomen replicated here. Mr. Johnson's shill, Mr.<BR>>>> Estabrook, couldn't be any further from the truth when he states that I have<BR>>>> "no chance of winning"-- we are well on our way to winning in McLean County<BR>>>> and handily winning the district overall. On top of everything else<BR>>>> (increased name recognition, relocation to McLean County, increased public<BR>>>> understanding of Mr. Johnson with regards to term limits lies and initiation<BR>>>> of endless wars and tax cuts for the wealthy and allowing of Big Pharma to<BR>>>> pillage our
Treasury and on and on), the anti-incumbent fever overtaking<BR>>>> thuis region far outweighs the national anti-Dem feeling. Or perhaps Carl<BR>>>> has talked with a different set of 100,000 voters than I have over the past<BR>>>> 12-15 months?<BR>>><BR>>> "handily winning the district overall"? Bet you dinner that it's not so.<BR>>><BR>>>> It doesn't help to have people who are purportedly interested in "peace and<BR>>>> justice" back an incumbent whose votes have produced millions of deaths, but<BR>>>> we'll succeed in spite of such foolishness.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Over the past several weeks, I've come to the conclusion that even leaving a<BR>>>> few thousand troops in Afghanistan/Pakistan is unwise, and I would support<BR>>>> no AfPak military funding other than that necessary to bring all of our<BR>>>> troops home
now.<BR>>><BR>>> This is a strong position, and I praise you for taking it. I hope you<BR>>> will take advantage of opportunities to state it publicly.<BR>>><BR>>>> And yes, Mr. Estabrook, we do indeed need to "plumb the souls" of<BR>>>> candidates-- because there will be future wars and war votes, and one should<BR>>>> try to understand the heart of a candidate-- does he love his fellow human<BR>>>> being, or does he simply stick his finger up and see which way the wind is<BR>>>> blowing. My opponent was gung-ho for war when it was supported by 80% of<BR>>>> the public; now that the majority of the public opposes the war, so does<BR>>>> he. Mr. Estabrook's gullibility never ceases to amaze me-- in fact, I<BR>>>> suspect that he actually has agendae other than peace and justice, as he<BR>>>> couldn't truly be as gullible as he
appears to be. When the next invasion<BR>>>> is popular, my opponent will likely be right there, riding the wave,<BR>>>> supporting the war.<BR>>><BR>>> I can't agree with you here. As I pointed out, Rep. Johnson's voting<BR>>> record is now very well ahead of the national debate. Yesterday, Rep.<BR>>> Johnson was with less than 10% of the House voting in favor of<BR>>> withdrawing U.S. troops from Pakistan. You can't plausibly attribute<BR>>> that to "finger in the wind."<BR>>><BR>>> Moreover, we currently have a majority in Congress who are voting for<BR>>> war *despite* the fact that the majority of Americans are against it,<BR>>> so right now we could use more of this kind of opportunism, not less.<BR>>><BR>>>> David Gill, M.D.<BR>>>><BR>>>> ________________________________<BR>>>> From: C. G. Estabrook <<A
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu" ymailto="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">galliher@illinois.edu</A>><BR>>>> To: Stuart Levy <<A href="mailto:slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu" ymailto="mailto:slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu">slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu</A>><BR>>>> Cc: Brussel Morton K. <<A href="mailto:mkbrussel@comcast.net" ymailto="mailto:mkbrussel@comcast.net">mkbrussel@comcast.net</A>>; <A href="mailto:david@gill2010.com" ymailto="mailto:david@gill2010.com">david@gill2010.com</A>;<BR>>>> Peace-discuss List <<A href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>><BR>>>> Sent: Wed, July 28, 2010 5:16:08 AM<BR>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] House Votes Today on Afghan, Pakistan Wars<BR>>>><BR>>>> It's not enough to have a Congressional representative vote to defund the<BR>>>> war -<BR>>>> we have to be
sure he's doing it for the right reason?<BR>>>><BR>>>> The House votes no more money for war - and we have to plumb the souls of<BR>>>> the no<BR>>>> voters before we approve?<BR>>>><BR>>>> And while we're probing souls, what do we say about that of a candidate who<BR>>>> arrogantly refuses to tell us how he'll vote? He's supposed to do that so we<BR>>>> can<BR>>>> decide whether to vote for him or not. Instead, he's marketing himself like<BR>>>> toothpaste. (I admit that's what Obama did.)<BR>>>><BR>>>> And we are spending far too much time on this. David Gill has no chance of<BR>>>> being elected. It's a gerrymandered Republican district (as he points out)<BR>>>> in a<BR>>>> year when there will be a substantial vote against the administration and<BR>>>> the<BR>>>> Democrats.
Under those circumstances, he can't expect even to do as well as<BR>>>> his<BR>>>> 2-1 losses before. Does he think he'll get Tea-party support? There isn't<BR>>>> even<BR>>>> a strong enough pro-war sentiment in the district for his attempt to stay to<BR>>>> the<BR>>>> right of Johnson on the war to garner him many votes.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Let's get back to an issue more serious than David Gill's bashfulness about<BR>>>> his<BR>>>> views on killing people - like dirty T-shirts... --CGE<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> On 7/28/10 4:40 AM, Stuart Levy wrote:<BR>>>>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:08:04AM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<BR>>>>>> I have no idea how you voted, but I'll leave it to the candid member of<BR>>>>>> AWARE to say whether you "defended Obama" by objecting vigorously to
my<BR>>>>>> news summaries that criticized his candidacy and pointed out his<BR>>>>>> obfuscation of his position on the war. I recall that you exploded at<BR>>>>>> one<BR>>>>>> TV taping when I guyed you a bit for offering a "commercial for Obama."<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> I know that our present system is a parody of democracy, but in principle<BR>>>>>> we're supposed to vote for legislative candidates who will vote correctly<BR>>>>>> on the issues. There is no issue more important than the war this year,<BR>>>>>> and<BR>>>>>> it seems that, unusually enough, we have a choice: an incumbent who is<BR>>>>>> consistently voting against the war, as he promised to do; and an<BR>>>>>> opponent<BR>>>>>> who refuses to make a similar promise. The choice isn't
hard for anyone<BR>>>>>> opposed to the war.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Well... as I mentioned in David Gill's facebook thread, we still don't<BR>>>>> know why Tim Johnson has flipped on the wars (even though I called him<BR>>>>> this week to confirm that I'm glad he did). And as I said there,<BR>>>>> one can imagine several plausible reasons -- including that this war<BR>>>>> is now being promoted by a President of the opposite party, which could<BR>>>>> change in a couple years. If a President Palin attacks Venezuela,<BR>>>>> what would Johnson think of that? Given that uncertainty, I don't think<BR>>>>> the<BR>>>>> choice is as clear as you say.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> It'll mean more if we can see that Gill is taking a position which is<BR>>>>> opposed to the President of his own
party. He's done that on health care,<BR>>>>> as far as I can see. And Gill commented, just last night, after<BR>>>>> conferring<BR>>>>> with Progressive Dems. of America, that he will now issue a position<BR>>>>> on (I think) war funding, which he had not done before.<BR>>>>> I look forward to reading it.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>> On 7/27/10 10:40 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:<BR>>>>>>> It is a blatant lie to say that I defended Obama, and this statement<BR>>>>>>> reveals<BR>>>>>>> a kind of turpitude that I should not have expected. Furthermore, you<BR>>>>>>> know<BR>>>>>>> that I didn't vote Democratic (for Obama), so your second sentence is<BR>>>>>>> simply<BR>>>>>>> disingenuous
obfuscation.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> You might remember that in the previous election, Gill was against the<BR>>>>>>> Iraq<BR>>>>>>> war; Johnson supported it and the policies of Bush. My contacts with<BR>>>>>>> Gill,<BR>>>>>>> although limited, were encouraging: He explicitly stated his opposition<BR>>>>>>> to<BR>>>>>>> our wars and occupations and to U.S. militarism in general (Is Johnson<BR>>>>>>> voting<BR>>>>>>> for cutting the military budget—and by how much if at all?. How has he<BR>>>>>>> voted<BR>>>>>>> on that budget?). Whether Gill would vote the way I prefer if in<BR>>>>>>> Congress<BR>>>>>>> is<BR>>>>>>> unanswerable now, but his stances in the past were far
superior to those<BR>>>>>>> of<BR>>>>>>> Johnson, not only on the issues of militarism, terrorism, national<BR>>>>>>> "security", and war and peace, but on many other progressive issues as<BR>>>>>>> well.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> Your manichean approach to these candidates is unworthy if not unusual.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> --mkb<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> P.S. I am sending this to Gill to see if and how he responds.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:52 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> This is unworthy of you, Mort. It's also stupid to stay with a<BR>>>>>>>> candidate<BR>>>>>>>> just because he's a
Democrat.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> We have a Congressional representative (whom I ran against in 2002) who<BR>>>>>>>> voted for the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> He now says he was wrong to do so. More importantly, he has promised<BR>>>>>>>> to<BR>>>>>>>> vote against any more funding for the Mideast war - and he has<BR>>>>>>>> consistently<BR>>>>>>>> voted that way. Isn't that what we've been trying to get Congress<BR>>>>>>>> members<BR>>>>>>>> to do?<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> His rather desperate opponent refuses to make a similar promise. (Since<BR>>>>>>>> Gill has little chance anyway - look at the returns for the
last 3 or 4<BR>>>>>>>> elections in the 15th CD - he wouldn't want to offend anyone who's<BR>>>>>>>> either<BR>>>>>>>> for or against the war.) He asks us to vote for him (because he's a<BR>>>>>>>> Democrat) and then he'll decide later how much blood he wants on his<BR>>>>>>>> hands.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> Haven't you been lied to enough? Of course, I do remember your<BR>>>>>>>> defending<BR>>>>>>>> Obama in similar terms. How do you think that's worked out?<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> How long will they be able to seduce and abandon you? --CGE<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> On 7/27/10 9:25 PM, Brussel Morton K.
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>> Plugging for Tim Johnson is becoming tedious. So is denigrating David<BR>>>>>>>>> Gill.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> I'll bet on Gill's humane qualities any day over Johnson's. I suspect<BR>>>>>>>>> that there's more behind your campaign for Johnson than just his<BR>>>>>>>>> (recent opportunistic?) war issues He goes to church and he's against<BR>>>>>>>>> abortion . Does he still believe in the war on terror, which at least<BR>>>>>>>>> until recently he supported? Forget about public health and other<BR>>>>>>>>> issues<BR>>>>>>>>> such as taxes and the economy.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
--mkb<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>> Rep.Johnson voted for the Kucinich-Paul resolution.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>> His arrogant Democratic opponent, David Gill, seems to want us to<BR>>>>>>>>>> vote<BR>>>>>>>>>> for him without telling us how he would vote on war funding. Would he<BR>>>>>>>>>> have voted for the Kucinich-Paul resolution?<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>> Given the consistent lying from Democrats about what they'd do in<BR>>>>>>>>>> regard to the war, I can see no reason for people opposed to the war<BR>>>>>>>>>>
to<BR>>>>>>>>>> vote for them in November. Certainly not for David Gill, when he will<BR>>>>>>>>>> not even echo Tim Johnson's promise to vote against money for war in<BR>>>>>>>>>> the Mideast. --CGE<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/10 11:53 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>> [Note that while we can be pretty confident that Rep. Johnson will<BR>>>>>>>>>>> vote no on the war money, we have no such assurance, as far as I am<BR>>>>>>>>>>> aware, that he will support the Kucinich-Paul measure calling for<BR>>>>>>>>>>> the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> withdrawal of U.S. forces from Pakistan; another reason to
call,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> using the toll-free number provided below.]<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>> The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this afternoon on<BR>>>>>>>>>>> the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>> This morning, the Senate version of the Afghanistan war supplemental<BR>>>>>>>>>>> was brought up in the House under "suspension" rules, which require<BR>>>>>>>>>>> a<BR>>>>>>>>>>> 2/3 majority to pass. This expedited procedure is generally used for<BR>>>>>>>>>>> measures considered "uncontroversial," which is odd, to say the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> least, since the war in Afghanistan is anything but
uncontroversial,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> with the most recent evidence being the release by Wikileaks of<BR>>>>>>>>>>> secret documents on the war, which the New York Times reported<BR>>>>>>>>>>> "offers an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official<BR>>>>>>>>>>> portrayal." [...] If 90% of the Members who voted for the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment on July 1 vote no this afternoon on<BR>>>>>>>>>>> the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> war supplemental, the measure will fail. [...] Also on the House<BR>>>>>>>>>>> calendar today is H.Con.Res. 301, a "privileged resolution"<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
introduced by Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Bob Filner, and Ron Paul, which<BR>>>>>>>>>>> invokes the War Powers Act to force a debate and vote on the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> deployment of U.S. forces in Pakistan.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>> As Representative Kucinich points out, what U.S. forces are doing in<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Pakistan has never been authorized by Congress. The 2001<BR>>>>>>>>>>> authorization of military force targeted those who planned and<BR>>>>>>>>>>> carried out the September 11 attacks and those who harbored them. It<BR>>>>>>>>>>> was not a blank check to attack anyone we don't like, or anyone our<BR>>>>>>>>>>> friends don't like. U.S. forces in Pakistan are targeting people
who<BR>>>>>>>>>>> did not, as far as we know, plan or participate in the September 11<BR>>>>>>>>>>> attacks, and against whom no evidence has been presented that they<BR>>>>>>>>>>> harbor those who did. Whether one thinks the enterprise worthy or<BR>>>>>>>>>>> not, U.S. participation in a war against the internal foes of<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Pakistan has never been authorized by Congress. There's nothing in<BR>>>>>>>>>>> the 2001 authorization of military force about a barter agreement in<BR>>>>>>>>>>> which we attack people in Pakistan that the Pakistani government<BR>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't like in exchange for permission to attack people in Pakistan<BR>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't
like.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<BR>>>>>> <A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>>>>>> <A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR>>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<BR>>>>> <A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>>>>> <A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<BR>>>> <A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>>>> <A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> --<BR>>> Robert Naiman<BR>>> Policy Director<BR>>> Just Foreign Policy<BR>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org<BR>>> <A href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</A><BR>>><BR>>> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan<BR>>> <A href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern"
target=_blank>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern</A><BR>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>> Peace-discuss mailing list<BR>>> <A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>>> <A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Peace-discuss mailing list<BR>> <A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>> <A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Robert Naiman<BR>Policy Director<BR>Just Foreign
Policy<BR>www.justforeignpolicy.org<BR><A href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" ymailto="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</A><BR><BR>Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan<BR><A href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern" target=_blank>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>