Within hours after my column "Bush’s Bad Idea Must Not Go Unchallenged" was posted on Common Dreams I started to receive e-mails in response. A week later I had over 50 e-mails from all over the U.S. plus Canada and the U.K.

Though it’s only a tiny sample, the demographics are interesting. There were 27 men and 19 women (the rest I couldn’t determine) About a dozen messages were just a line or two; one was two pages; most were two or three paragraphs. All were civil and most were careful with spelling, punctuation and grammar (not always common in e-mails) Ten gave no geographic location, three were from Canada, two from U.K. and the remainder from 15 states, including five from the DC area. The largest number came from Ohio, with multiple responses also from Maine, California, and Washington (state).

I was encouraged that everyone who wrote agreed that attacking Iraq was a bad idea, even though not all of them liked my ideas. Three upbraided me for questioning the effectiveness of the Green Party, and a few proposed other ideas like teach-ins, a general strike, or a mail-blitz on the Senate. Other suggestions included impeaching Bush, an Internet chain-letter, and a Constitutional amendment for a referendum on declaring war.

Several people expressed disappointment that I had, after all, no "magic bullet" to prevent Bush from going to war. That’s true: I don’t. I’m not sure "magic bullets" are a very good idea. Quick, easy fixes to complex human problems -- especially fixes that involve explosives -- hardly ever work in the long term, and have, historically, killed a lot of people. The scenario is simple:

Government too powerful? Blow up a Federal Building. Palestinians on land you want? Blow up their homes. Don’t like American imperialism? Blow up the World Trade Center. Saddam Hussein a menace? Blow up his country.

But none of my correspondents sought such solutions. Most supported long-term changes: new political parties, instant runoff voting, campaign finance reform, reducing US dependence on oil, supporting the UN -- all worthy ideas.

But most also recognized that we don’t have time to effect such changes before we get dragged into a war that could make them moot. GlobalSecurity.org has posted an "Iraq Countdown Clock" that postulates that Bush will attack Iraq on Nov. 6, the day after the U.S. election.

So I’ve kept looking for something that could help people speak up and stand up against the rhetorical bullets of "axis of evil" and "war on terrorism"; something that could quickly become an icon for opposition to attacking Iraq; something that would help people start conversations and identify allies.

Bumper stickers are good -- and Common Dreams is offering them, very reasonably. But bumper-stickers go on cars, not where people hold conversations.

And conversations are critical. Conversations -- at the kitchen table, the water-cooler, the church dinner, the board meeting, over a beer or a lunch-bucket, across the back fence, in the grocery checkout line or waiting room -- are how people form opinions and define stakes, learn that they are not alone in their doubts, and participate in developing public consensus about issues that matter to them. We need these conversations and they need to involve us all, -- "Joe Six-Pak", kids in high school, retirees in senior centers, single moms and minimum-wage workers -- not just readers of Common Dreams.

A good icon would need to be very cheap, universally available and unique enough to attract attention, something that could be pinned to a lapel, tacked on a door, or hung from a rear-view mirror.

How about a Moebius strip? Anyone can make one:

Cut a paper strip about eight inches long and a half-inch wide. Make it into a loop by bringing the ends together, but before you fasten them, twist one end so that its back side meets the front side of the other end. Glue, tape or staple the ends together to make a ring with a twist in it.

It’s a three-dimensional object with one continuous side and one continuous edge. It’s simple enough for young children to make, but has curious physical properties and the potential for appealing metaphors. It’s easily crushed or torn, but quickly replaceable; it’s not hazardous or threatening, and not useful for anything much except conversations. You can write on it -- all the way around until you come back where you started -- something like NO ATTACK ON IRAQ!

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies has suggested that if Bush believes that attacking Iraq "is politically risky, he won’t do it."

It is infinitely sad that our President makes decisions about killing and war on the basis of political risks to himself. But if this is his game, we can beat him. There are signs that he may be starting to see those risks.

We don’t need a "magic bullet" to destroy Bush’s Bad Idea. We just need to come together and say NO! to attacking Iraq with enough voices to demonstrate that it’s politically risky. Maybe a simple paper icon could help do that.

Caroline Arnold is retired from the staff of former Senator John Glenn, and chairs the Kent Environmental Council in Kent, Ohio. E-mail: csarnold@neo.rr.com

###