[Peace] Fwd: [wbw-discussion] ​Guided Missiles, Misguided Policies, and Changing Direction Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love WWIII

[John W.]

That was really excellent.  Utopian, given the depravity of human nature,
but excellent.



On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:01 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace <
peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

David Swanson is extraordinary, as an activist, educator, and as a
> explicator of our current, and possibly future, predicament. The video link
> of his talk, below, has its problems but can be accessed even with its
> hiccups.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *David Swanson <davidcnswanson at gmail.com>
> *Subject: **[wbw-discussion] Guided Missiles, Misguided Policies, and
> Changing Direction Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love WWIII*
> *Date: *June 24, 2021 at 10:57:24 PM CDT
> *To: *David Swanson <david at davidswanson.org>
>
> *Guided Missiles, Misguided Policies, and Changing Direction Or How I
> Learned to Stop Worrying and Love WWIII*
>
> By David Swanson, Remarks for *Peace and Justice Works*
> <http://www.pjw.info/d_swanson062421.html>, June 24, 2021
>
> https://worldbeyondwar.org/guided-missiles-misguided-policies-and-changing-direction-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-wwiii/
>
> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bqt6OkrGM0
>
> Thank you for inviting me. I’d like to speak briefly and spend a good deal
> of time on Q&A. I’d like to start by considering this question: If it’s
> true that madness is more common in societies than individuals, and if the
> society we live in is aggressively hastening (as I think is
> well-established) climate collapse, ecosystem devastation, wealth
> inequality, and institutional corruption (in other words, processes that
> are clearly counter to conscious, stated desires) is this society perhaps
> no exception to the rule? Is it perhaps insane? And are there perhaps other
> interconnected madnesses that we don’t see entirely clearly, precisely
> because we are members of this society?
>
> What about locking huge numbers of people in cages at an expense much
> greater than giving them good lives? What about devoting land, energy, and
> resources to feeding animals to feed people, using food that could have fed
> ten times as many people without the environmental destruction and animal
> cruelty? What about employing armed and trained killers to tell people
> they’re driving too fast and shouldn’t bicycle on the sidewalk? Could it be
> that lots of stuff a saner culture would call loony looks as normal to us
> as burning witches, bleeding patients, and exhibiting eugenically awesome
> infants looked to others in the past?
>
> In particular, what if it just isn’t permanently and universally normal
> and rational to be taking all the steps being taken to hasten nuclear
> apocalypse? We’ve got scientists saying the catastrophe is more likely now
> than ever, and that the nature of it would be worse than ever previously
> understood. We’ve got historians saying the near misses are more numerous
> than ever before known. And yet we’ve got media outlets informing everyone
> that the problem vanished 30 years ago. We’ve got a U.S. government dumping
> vast treasure into building more nuclear weapons, refusing to foreswear
> using them first, and talking about them as “usable.” One of the key
> reasons for the danger having supposedly passed is that the number of times
> the existing stockpiles of nukes could eliminate all life on earth has been
> reduced — if you can dignify that with the term “reason.” Much of the world
> is clamoring for the elimination of nukes, while another chunk of the world
> is defending their manufacture, distribution, and routine threats of using
> them. Clearly, somebody is right, and somebody is crazy. By somebody I mean
> a whole society, not its individuals, and despite the exceptions.
>
> What about the whole idea of killing people? Killing prisoners to teach
> them not to kill people? Killing people who look, from the perspective of a
> distant video camera, like they might be an adult male in the wrong place
> and near a cell phone suspected of belonging to someone unliked, plus any
> men and women and children who happen to be nearby? Killing people who
> cross a border and run from armed fighters? Killing people who get in the
> way of police and look like their skin has a bit too much pigment? What if
> the whole practice of killing all of these people has something wrong with
> it? What if it’s as deranged as the doctors who bled George Washington to
> death, or Phil Collins’ belief that he died at the Alamo, or Joe Biden’s
> idea that the U.S. government doesn’t interfere in other nations’ elections?
>
> What if killing people is certifiably bonkers even in an imaginary
> scenario in which the United Nations has authorized a good humanitarian war
> and the people being killed are all wearing uniforms, and nobody’s tortured
> or raped or looted, and every murder is super respectful and free of hatred
> or animosity? What if the problem is the careful avoidance of peace that
> gets each war started, not the details of the atrocities? What if “war
> crimes” as a phrase to say a lot in public so that nobody thinks you’re a
> fascist or a Republican is actually as nonsensical as “slavery crimes” or
> “mass-rape crimes” because war is a crime in its entirety? What if every
> war for decades has actually killed disproportionately the so-called wrong
> people, the elderly, the very young, the civilian? What if there’s nothing
> worse than war that can be used to justify war? What if wars are
> principally generated by wars and by preparations for wars? If this were
> true — and I’m willing to debate every claim that it isn’t — would there
> not be something a little bit shy of playing with a full deck to be found
> in the practice of investing trillions of dollars in the machinery of war?
>
> The case made on the World BEYOND War website is, of course, that the
> diversion of money into war preparations that make people less safe, not
> more safe, itself kills vastly more people than have been killed in all the
> wars thus far. It does this by depriving us of those things we could have
> spent the money on, things like food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing,
> etc. If this is true, and if it’s additionally the case that war fuels
> hatred and bigotry and racism, that war and preparations for it devastate
> the natural earth, that war is the one and only excuse for government
> secrecy, that the war bases and weapons sales and free training and funding
> prop up horribly oppressive governments, that the war business erodes civil
> liberties in the name of some mysterious substance called “freedom,” and
> that war coarsens a culture while militarizing police and minds — if all of
> this is true, the offense of war that those infected by the madness call
> “the defense industry” might just be the most coocoo confabulation ever
> concocted.
>
> This much I’ve said a billion times. And a billion and five times I’ve
> replied to the World War II delusion that you all will ask about as soon as
> I shut my mouth. No, WWII did not have anything to do with saving anyone
> from any death camp. The U.S. and allied governments explicitly refused to
> accept the Jews out of Germany, and for openly antisemitic reasons. No step
> was ever taken to halt the murders of the camps. The war killed several
> times what the camps did. The war came about after years of Western arms
> race with Japan and support for Nazi Germany. U.S. corporations critically
> supported the Nazis right through the war, for profit reasons and
> ideological ones. The Nordic race nonsense and the segregation laws and
> much of the extermination inspiration and technology came from the United
> States. The nuclear bombs were not needed for anything. Nothing about WWII
> proves that violence is needed for anything. And if it were needed for
> opposing Nazism, hiring lots of top Nazis into the U.S. military wouldn’t
> have made much sense. See my book *Leaving World War II Behind* for the
> long version.
>
> Now, I want to say something even crazier. Or, if I’m right, I want to say
> quite sanely that something is even crazier than war. I have in mind the
> advancement of the risk of World War III, of the first war waged directly
> between big rich countries since WWII, of a war likely to involve nuclear
> apocalypse. I don’t think most of the people moving the world toward WWIII
> think of themselves as doing that. But I don’t think even the CEO of
> ExxonMobil thinks of himself as advancing the cause of climate collapse
> either. If the U.S. president wanted to start WWIII and be aware of doing
> so, he would simply launch the nukes. But here’s what I really want us to
> think about: if a society wanted to start WWIII without being aware of
> doing so, what would it do? I know Freud took a lot of flack for saying
> people had some mysterious death wish even though they would deny it. But I
> think at this point the burden of proof is on those who would try to prove
> him wrong, because I don’t think an effort to accidentally start WWIII and
> blame it on somebody or something else would look particularly different
> from what U.S. society is doing right now.
>
> The U.S. military has plans for war on China, and talks about a war on
> China being perhaps a few years off. They call it a war with China, of
> course, and can count on Congress Members to saturate us with the idea that
> China has aggressively threatened U.S. prestige by growing wealthier, or
> aggressively moved into the waters just off the coast of China. But the
> fact is that, despite major increases in its military spending as the U.S.
> has moved bases, troops, missiles, and ships (including what the U.S. Navy
> ridiculously calls the Big Stick carrier strike group) near China, China
> still spends about 14% of what the U.S. and its allies and weapons
> customers spend on militarism each year. Russia is at about 8% of just U.S.
> military spending and falling. If there were a credible enemy for the U.S.
> military on this planet you’d be hearing a lot less about UFOs right now.
> We’ll also hear about Chinese violations of human rights, but bombs don’t
> actually improve human rights, and if human rights violations justified
> bombs, then the U.S. would have to bomb itself and many of its dearest
> allies as well as China. Also how do you threaten war against someone for
> how they manufacture products that you buy? Well, maybe making sense isn’t
> the goal. Maybe war is the goal.
>
> If you wanted to bring WWIII closer, what would you have to do? One step
> would be to make war normal and unquestionable. Go ahead and check that one
> off. Done. Accomplished. Flags and pledges to them are ubiquitous. Thank
> yous for a supposed service are everywhere. Military advertisements and
> paid-for pre-game ceremonies are so omnipresent that if the military
> forgets to pay for one, people will create one for free. The ACLU is
> arguing that young women should be added to young men in being forced to
> register for a draft to be compelled against their will to go to war as a
> matter of civil liberties, the civil liberty to be completely stripped of
> all liberty.
>
> When President Joe Biden went off to meet with President Vladimir Putin,
> both major political parties generally encouraged hostility. *The Hill*
> newspaper sent out an email with a video of the movie * Rocky*, demanding
> that Biden be Rocky in the ring with Putin. When, despite everything, Biden
> and Putin behaved almost civilly and issued a tiny little statement
> suggesting they might possibly pursue some unspecified disarmament, and
> Biden stopped calling Putin a soulless killer, the two presidents then held
> a pair of separate press conferences. There were no Russian media questions
> allowed at Biden’s, but U.S. media brought the craziness to both. They
> hurled nutty accusations. They demanded red lines. They wanted a commitment
> to war as a response to so-called cyber-war. They wanted declarations of
> distrust and enmity. They wanted self-righteous revenge for the supposed
> stealing of the 2016 election and enslavement of President Donald Trump.
> They would have appeared, I’m convinced, to a disinterested observer from
> one of the UFOs they’re always going on about, to have wanted WWIII.
>
> The U.S. military and NATO have indeed said that war can be a response to
> cyberwar. At Putin’s press conference, he discussed various actual laws,
> existing and potential. Russia and China and other nations have long sought
> treaties to ban weaponizing space, and to ban cyberwar. At Biden’s press
> conference, I don’t think a single law was mentioned once by anyone. Yet
> the constant theme was imposing the “rule based order” on others in the
> name of stability. But nothing boosts instability more than replacing the
> very idea of written laws with arbitrary decrees from might-makes-right
> officials who believe in their own goodness — believe it so much that they
> announce, as Biden did, that were the U.S. government to interfere in
> anyone else’s election, and were the world to find out about it, the whole
> international order would crumble. We know of 85 foreign elections the
> United States has blatantly interfered in during the past 75 years, not to
> mention assassination attempts on over 50 foreign leaders, and we know that
> in poll after poll the world says it fears the U.S. government above all
> others as a threat to peace and democracy. Yet the international order does
> not collapse because it does not exist, not as a set of moral standards
> based on respect.
>
> If you wanted to move the world closer to WWIII without realizing you were
> doing it, you could convince yourself that you were simply imposing a Pax
> Americana for the world’s own good, whether the world liked it or not, even
> while knowing in some back corner of your mind that sooner or later the
> world would not stand for it, and that when that moment came, some
> Americans would die, and that when those Americans died, the U.S. media and
> public would scream for blood and vengeance as if the past many millennia
> had taught them nothing, and BOOM you’d have what you never even knew you
> wanted, just like you have the day after browsing amazon.com.
>
> But how to make sure to get those Americans killed? Well, nobody else has
> ever done this, but one idea would be to station them — and here’s a real
> stroke of genius — with their families along, on bases all over the world.
> The bases would prop up and control some horrible governments, enraging
> local populations. The bases would cause environmental damage as well as
> plagues of drunkenness, rape, and lawless privilege. They’d be sort of
> giant gated Apartheid communities that the locals could enter to work
> menial jobs if they got out by sundown. Maybe 800 of these bases in 80
> nations or so ought to do the trick. They wouldn’t strictly speaking be
> justifiable in terms of unavoidable future wars, given what can be moved
> where how quickly by airplane, but they might just make future wars
> unavoidable. Check that off the list. Done. And almost unnoticed.
>
> OK, what else? Well, you can’t very well have a war against enemies
> without weapons, can you? The United States is now the leading weapons
> supplier to the world, to rich countries, to poor countries, to so-called
> democracies, to dictatorships, to oppressive royal despots, and to most of
> its own designated enemies. The U.S. government allows weapons sales,
> and/or gives free money with which to buy weapons, and/or provides training
> for 48 out of 50 of the most oppressive governments in the world according
> to a ranking funded by the U.S. government — plus plenty of nasty
> governments left out of that ranking. Few if any wars happen without U.S.
> weapons. Most wars today happen in places that manufacture few if any
> weapons. Few if any wars happen in the handful of countries that
> manufacture most of the weapons. You may think China is coming to get you.
> Your Congress Member almost certainly thinks China is keenly focused on
> eliminating his or her right to send free mail and appear on television at
> will. But the U.S. government funds and arms China, and invests in a
> bio-weapons lab in China whatever may or may not have come out of it. The
> weapons dealers do not imagine, of course, that they are bringing on WWIII.
> They’re just doing business, and it’s been gospel in Western madness for
> centuries that business causes peace. Those who work for weapons dealers
> mostly don’t think they’re causing war or peace; they think they’re serving
> their U.S. flag and so-called service members. They do this by pretending
> that most of the weapons companies’ customers do not exist, that their only
> customer is the U.S. military.
>
> All right, the weapons bit is well covered. What else is needed? Well, if
> you wanted to roll a society into WWIII over a period of years or decades,
> you’d need to avoid the vicissitudes of elections or popular mood swings.
> You’d want to increase corruption to the point that shifting power from one
> big political party to another didn’t change anything terribly important.
> People could have a bit of emergency funding or a new holiday. The rhetoric
> could vary dramatically. But let’s say you gave the White House and the
> Congress to the Democrats in 2020, what would have to happen for the death
> train to remain on the tracks? Well, you’d want no actual wars to end.
> Nothing makes wars more likely than other wars. With both houses having
> voted repeatedly in the previous Congress to end the war on Yemen, vetoed
> by Trump, you’d need those votes to cease immediately. You’d want Biden to
> pretend to sort-of partially end the war on Yemen, and Congress to go mute.
> Same with Afghanistan. Keep forces there and on surrounding bases quietly,
> and make sure Congress does nothing in the way of actually forbidding the
> continuation of the war.
>
> In fact, it would be ideal to block Congress from ever lifting its grubby
> little paws again as it pretended to do on Yemen when it could count on
> Trump vetoes. Perhaps it could be permitted to repeal the AUMF (or
> authorization for the use of military force) from 2002, but keep the 2001
> one around just in case it was ever needed. Or perhaps that one could be
> replaced by a new one. Also, the Senator Tim Kaine scam could be allowed to
> advance a bit perhaps — this is where Congress itself repeals the War
> Powers Resolution that specifies how it can prevent wars, and replaces it
> with a requirement that presidents consult with Congress before feeling
> free to ignore Congress. The trick is to market this abandonment of the War
> Powers Resolution as a strengthening of the War Powers Resolution. OK, that
> should work. What else?
>
> Well, boost military spending beyond Trump levels. That’s key. And invite
> the so-called progressive members of Congress to lots of meetings, maybe
> even give them a few rides on presidential airplanes, threaten a few of
> them with primaries, whatever’s needed to keep them from actually trying to
> block military spending. Five of them in the House could block anything the
> Republicans oppose, but 100 of them putting out a public letter pretending
> to oppose what they facilitate will do no harm at all. OK, this part’s
> easy. What else?
>
> Well, avoid peace with Iran. What good would that do? Just stall and
> prevaricate until we’re past the Iranian elections and they’ve got a new
> super-hostile government, and then blame the Iranians. That’s never failed
> before. Why would it fail now? Keep funding and arming the attacks of
> Israel on Palestine. Keep Russiagate going, or at least don’t renounce it,
> even if the journalists start appearing — rather than just being — crazy. A
> small price to pay, and nobody likes the media anyway, no matter how much
> they obey it.
>
> What else? Well, a major tool that has increasingly proven its worth is
> sanctions. The U.S. government is brutally sanctioning numerous populations
> around the globe, fueling suffering, animosity, and bellicosity, and nobody
> knows it, or they think of it as law-enforcement rather than law violation.
> It’s brilliant. The U.S. government can even impose sanctions, cause
> suffering, blame the suffering on the local government’s efforts to
> alleviate suffering, and propose a coup as a solution straight from the
> Rule Based Order (we rule, so we give the orders).
>
> Also we’d better be sure to keep the climate catastrophe on track, and for
> a number of reasons. First, if the nuclear apocalypse never comes, the
> climate one will. Second, the climate disasters can be used to fuel
> international crises that — with enough prodding and arming — can lead to
> wars. Third, the military can actually be marketed as a climate protector,
> because, although it’s a major contributor to climate change, it can
> announce how concerned it is and use natural disasters to excuse invasions
> and establish new bases. And nothing builds up war spirit better than
> refugees, no matter who caused the horrors that they’re fleeing.
>
> Even disease pandemics can help advance the cause, as long as a reasonable
> and cooperative response to them is avoided. We’ll want to balance blaming
> China with avoiding blaming bio-weapons labs or their international
> partners and investors. The U.S. government can completely control through
> the media what possible explanations for the origin of a pandemic are
> acceptable and which ones are deemed, ironically enough, crazy. What we’ll
> want to avoid is questioning the priority of maintaining labs that can
> create new tools for wars, and proposing any global solutions to pandemics
> that might foster cooperation or understanding rather than profit and
> division.
>
> OK, isn’t this enough? What else could be needed? Well, you can’t very
> well put WWIII straight onto the stage unrehearsed, can you? We’ll want to
> have some full-dress rehearsals, major ones, the sort that could
> accidentally morph into the real thing — the biggest ones ever in Europe
> and in the Pacific. And more missiles in place near Russia and China, and
> more nations invited into NATO — especially some of those right on the
> border of Russia that Russia says it would never sit still for. War in
> Ukraine is too obvious. How about a coup in Belarus perhaps? What you want
> is to risk WWIII without jumping straight in with both feet. After all, the
> other guys need to start it. Let’s think. How did the U.S. get into WWII?
>
> Well there was the Atlantic Charter. Let’s make a new one. Check. There
> was sanctioning and threatening Japan. Make that China. Check. There was
> supporting Nazis in Germany. Make that Ukraine. Check. There were big new
> bases and ships and planes and troops in the Pacific. Check. But history
> doesn’t repeat exactly. There are many opportunities. Drone murders and
> bases and so-called anti-terror operations across Africa and Asia. Coups
> and destabilizations in Latin America. Plenty of hot spots. Plenty of
> weapons. Plenty of propaganda. Cyberwars anywhere at anytime and who can
> say who started them for sure? War is getting easier and easier.
>
> Now let’s ask a different question. What would U.S. society look like if
> it wanted to avoid WWIII? Well, it would drop the exceptionalist schtick
> and join the world, stop being the biggest holdout on human rights
> treaties, stop being the biggest vetoer at the UN, stop being the biggest
> opponent of the International Criminal Court and International Court of
> Justice, start supporting the rule of law instead of the #RuleBasedOrder,
> start supporting democracy at the United Nations instead of as a word you
> say in speeches, and prioritize cooperating in global efforts to address
> environmental and health issues.
>
> In a United States intent on avoiding WWIII, you’d see masses of people
> demanding the money be moved from militarism to human and environmental
> needs, you’d see opposition to militarism across the population as well as
> from movements that are directly impacted by militarism and generally
> pretend they aren’t, such as environmentalism, anti-poverty, immigrants’
> rights, civil liberties, and transparent government movements. You’d see
> moves to demilitarize, close foreign bases, close domestic bases, divest
> funding from weapons, convert war industries to peaceful and sustainable
> industries. You’d see people who appeared on television and were right
> about upcoming wars allowed to appear on television again rather than being
> banished to blogs and the bottom dregs of Facebook algorithms. You’d see
> lying about wars treated as something other than the top qualification to
> lie about more wars.
>
> You’d see a lot more basic straightforward reporting on wars, including
> what’s called the humanizing of people. I’ve never understood what people
> supposedly are prior to being humanized, but it seems they’re decidedly not
> humans. Take, for example, a seven-year-old boy in Yemen who tells his
> mother that he wants to go to school. His name is Chakir and he speaks with
> a bit of difficulty caused by funny teeth and bad habit. But that’s not why
> his mother doesn’t want him to go to school. She’s afraid of missiles. She
> teaches Chakir at home. He sits at a little wooden desk next to the dining
> table, and he pretends to be at school. His mother loves him and finds him
> adorable and enjoys having him there, although she gets tired, needs a
> break, and knows school would be better. But then the buzzing grows louder.
> Chakir crawls under his desk. He smiles. He tries to think it’s funny. But
> the buzzing gets even louder. It’s straight overhead. Chakir starts to cry.
> His mother gets down on her knees and goes to him. When Chakir is finally
> able to get some words out, he says “It’s not safer here than at school.
> It’s not safer here than at school, Mommy!” The drone passes over. They’re
> still there. They’ve not been obliterated. The next day, Chakir’s mother
> allows him to board a bus to school. The bus is struck by a U.S.-supplied
> missile via the Saudi military and U.S. targeting. Chakir’s mother buries
> part of one of his arms, which is found in a tree. Now he’s humanized. But
> they’re all humans. The victims are all humans, though if the media won’t
> humanize them, people will deny it to themselves. In a society bent on
> avoiding war, the humanizing would be relentless. And when it wasn’t,
> protests would demand it.
>
> Of course there is a wide gap between driving hard toward WWIII and
> proceeding to abolish all militaries. Of course it can only be done by
> stages. But when the stages are not understood as steps away from
> apocalypse and in the direction of sanity, they tend not to work very well,
> even to backfire. War has been so reformed and perfected that people
> imagine guided missiles killing only and exactly those who really need
> killing. We can’t survive much more reforming of war. The United States
> could radically scale back its militarism, destroy all of its nuclear
> weapons, and close all of its foreign bases, and you’d see a reverse arms
> race among other nations as a primary result. The United States could
> simply stop selling weapons to others and see militarism rolled back
> significantly. The United States could withdraw from NATO and NATO would
> vanish. It could stop badgering other nations to buy more weapons, and
> they’d buy fewer weapons. Each step toward a world beyond war would make
> such a world appear more reasonable to more people.
>
> So, that’s what we’re working on at World BEYOND War. We’re doing
> education and activism to build a culture of peace and to advance
> demilitarization around the globe including through divestment of funding
> from weapons and through efforts to close bases. We’re also working to
> align more movements and organizations against war by making the
> connections across divisions, such as by pressuring the conference
> scheduled for November in Scotland to stop excluding militarism from
> climate agreements, and working to demilitarize domestic police forces. I’m
> not sure we shouldn’t be also developing alliances with mental health
> workers, because either war is crazy or I am. I ask only that you take your
> time in deciding which.
>
> --
> *David Swanson *is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is
> executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org <http://worldbeyondwar.org/> and
> campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org <http://rootsaction.org/>.
> Swanson's books <http://davidswanson.org/books> include *War Is A Lie
> <http://warisalie.org/>*. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org
> <http://davidswanson.org/> and WarIsACrime.org <http://warisacrime.org/>.
> He hosts Talk World Radio <http://talkworldradio.org/>. He is a Nobel
> Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Peace_Prize> recipient. Longer bio and
> photos and videos here <http://davidswanson.org/about>. Follow him on
> Twitter: @davidcnswanson <http://twitter.com/davidcnswanson> and FaceBook
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Swanson/297768373319#>, and sign up
> for: Activist alerts
> <https://actionnetwork.org/forms/activism-alerts-from-david-swanson?source=email&referrer=david-swanson>.
> Articles <https://actionnetwork.org/forms/articles-from-david-swanson>. David
> Swanson news <https://actionnetwork.org/forms/david-swanson-news>. World
> Beyond War news <https://actionnetwork.org/forms/world-beyond-war-news>. Charlottesville
> news <https://actionnetwork.org/forms/charlottesville-media>. Connect
> with WBW:
> [image: https://facebook.com/worldbeyondwar]
> <https://facebook.com/worldbeyondwar>[image:
> https://twitter.com/worldbeyondwar] <https://twitter.com/worldbeyondwar>[image:
> https://youtube.com/user/worldbeyondwar]
> <https://youtube.com/user/worldbeyondwar>[image:
> https://instagram.com/worldbeyondwar]
> <https://instagram.com/worldbeyondwar>[image:
> https://linkedin.com/company/worldbeyondwar]
> <https://linkedin.com/company/worldbeyondwar>
>
> --
> This is a listserve to discuss the building of a global nonviolent
> movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace.
>
> Participants on this list must be respectful toward each other, not
> advocate violence, and not promote electoral candidates.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WBW discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to wbw-discussion+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wbw-discussion/CAF1z47KUdmagGwWkrRwW-ikNAETBA6c_%3DP%3Djc%2BJVu-pDc0jq%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wbw-discussion/CAF1z47KUdmagGwWkrRwW-ikNAETBA6c_%3DP%3Djc%2BJVu-pDc0jq%2BA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20210625/a542dc7d/attachment-0001.htm>