Huzzah! Fantastic! Congratulations!

I'm so glad to see both the content of what you're doing here, and that you're using a weblog. Together it brings me hope that more thoughtful dialogue will reach very far and wide indeed.

This forum asks:

"What are our greatest challenges to fostering dialogue and deliberation about this difficult issue?"

Listening to an NPR "war diary" on this afternoon's "All Things Considered," a Portland (OR) member of the Peace Institute at a demonstration was attempting to dialog with a demonstrator at another rally whose focus was supporting the troops. The latter person kept expressing her unwillingness to enter into dialog, saying she was only there to show her support, and wondering why the other woman wasn't carrying a similar sign.

I note much friction on the subject of who owns the right to "support the troops" -- and I've yet to hear or read about any attitudinal distinction between individuals and their collective (as well as individual) actions. In conservative Christian circles one encounters the notion of "loving the sinner while hating the sin" -- and the target of such an expressed value frequently resents it. Is there a similar rhetoric operating secretly in the hearts of anti-war activists?

Regarding the implements of war, there probably isn't much support on either side of this argument for any form of weaponry as an offensive tactic.... but oh dear, there's the challenge at the base of all this divisiveness: who's offense, and who's defense? At this point, the BIGGEST challenge to dialog is letting go of the chicken/egg issue. It's simple in theory, but difficult in practice.

About me: I'm a wedding officiant who encourages mindfulness in loving unions, and who struggles with the concept of a mindful war.

I am open to discussing these issues. I am personally in favor of war in specific situations. I am not a pacifist per sé neither am I a "war is the answer to every situation" person. I have been in favor of WWII, and so far the Iraq War. WWI, The Korean War, and Viet Nam have been more of a confusing thing to me - I don't know enough about these to have formulated an opinion. Would my input be welcome on this Forum? I have been reading Tom Atlee's comments for many months. Thanks, Paul Lutz

I think the most critical thing to realize about promoting D & D on this topic is the issue of timing. If you are going to do it, then you have to do it now.

I have been involved in an online forum over the past several weeks, and I have uncovered some interesting points that others may wish to consider. I find that people are landing on some specific issues related to the war, that makes discussion and deliberation much more "pallatable". Specifically, if the war is discussed in terms of the following: weapons of mass destruction, the relation of the Middle East (in particular Israel and the PLO) to the war, oil, freeing the Iraqi people, and regime change. Leading discussions in terms of these issues seems to soothe the emotion of an anti-war/pro-war arguement or debate. This then allows for a more focused discussion and deliberative process.

About me:
I work in a regional governmental agency in Kentucky.