|
|
back to antiwar page
From: pad ([email protected])
Subject: * 60 reasons NOT to go to war .......... View: Complete Thread (4 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.support.tinnitus
Date: 2003-02-25 10:24:16 PST
There are a lot more objections to plans by the US government to
invade Iraq than those listed below, including the big reasons: war
kills people; aggressive wars are always wrong; war destroys the
environment. The list also avoids comparison with the peril of
conflict with North Korea, the complex role of Iraqi opposition
movements, and detailed discussion of the effects President Bush's
invasion will have on the already shaky US economy. The reader may
have personal reasons to add to the list: a friend or family member in
Iraq or in the US military stationed in the Persian Gulf region.
IS IRAQ AN IMMINENT THREAT?
1. Saddam Hussein has done nothing to provoke an invasion, is neither
a proven threat to US security or to the borders of any nation in
Middle East region, and commands a weakened military force. An
unprovoked invasion based on a desire for regime change would be an
act of military aggression by the US.
2. Saddam knows that if he tried to deploy any weapons of mass
destruction, Iraq would suffer massive retaliation. He has no
motivation to use them -- unless Iraq is invaded, in which case he may
unleash them against US soldiers and other targets in an act of
desperation. Saddam is
volatile and murderous (against his own citizens), but he's not stupid
or suicidal, or he wouldn't have remained in power for over 20 years.
3. There is no right of one nation to wage preemptive war against
another. A US invasion would violate international laws, the Geneva
Convention, the UN charter, the Monroe Doctrine of military action as
a defensive last resort, and the US Constitution's restriction of the
use
of US armed forces to the defense of our borders. Article 6 of the
Constitution requires the US to adhere to international treaties and
agreements.
4. The only nation in the region to favor war is Israel, for its own
strategic purposes. The rest, include nations that share borders with
Iraq, do not consider it an imminent threat. Iraq hasn't attacked any
other country in 12 years.
5. The discovery by the UN inspectors and by intelligence of certain
weapons -- mostly remnants from the 1991 Persian Gulf War -- proves
that Iraq must be watched and contained by the US in the cooperation
of other nations under the UN umbrella. It's not a license for
invasion.
6. Iraq has been under an arms embargo since 1991. In 1998, the
International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq's nuclear
capability had been dismantled. If Iraq were producing weapons-grade
uranium and plutonium, the size of the industrial facilities required
to do this would hardly escape international notice, let alone
detection by the UN inspectors. There is no plausible evidence that
Saddam has any means of delivering shortrange warheads, nerve gas, or
other biochemical weapons, even if he still possesses them. Bush's
claim that the International Atomic Energy Agency had found Iraq to be
six months away from developing a nuclear weapon was a lie.
7. The inspectors themselves have insisted that none of their
discoveries presents a valid case for the US to make war on Iraq.
They don't wish
to see the inspections, which are nowhere near complete, cut short to
accommodate the US's desire to invade. Chief inspector Hans Blix says
that Iraq seems to be "making an effort" to cooperate (AP report,
February 7). It's clear that Bush is determined not to accept the
results
of the UN inspections. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, in a fit
of Catch-22 reasoning, "The fact that the inspectors have not yet come
up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and
of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation." (CNN, January 15, 2003)
8. Bush has repeated the claim that the UN must live up to its
responsibility, that it must back a U.S. invasion of Iraq or it will
prove itself irrelevant. But UN's stated mission is to avert wars,
including preemptive attacks, not support military aggression. If the
UN caves in and endorses Bush's invasion plans, then it will truly
have betrayed its responsibility. Calling Germany, France, Belgium,
Russia, China, and
other nations "isolated" because they might not back the US and
Britain is ludicrous.
8. In his January 28 State of the Union address, President Bush asked
Americans to "[i]magine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and
other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein...." This is a fantasy
scenario. Fantasy scenarios are not a valid basis for war.
POWELL'S SPEECH BEFORE THE UN
9. Secretary of State Powell's presentation at the UN was full of
evasions and misrepresentations of history and fact. Powell
offered proof that Saddam has lied (hardly surprising behavior from a
dictator) and violated several UN Security Council resolutions, but
offered no reason why internationally coordinated containment of Iraq
should be abandoned and an invasion should be launched. "The thin
tissue of 'new' information about the failure of Iraqi officials to
cooperate with UN weapons inspectors merely made the case for
providing more support for the inspection process. Much of the
information that Powell provided is subject to interpretations that
might differ from those the
secretary of state offered. But if Powell's read is correct, then all
of his evidence points to the conclusion that the weapons inspectors
are
looking in the right places and that they are having a very serious
impact on the ground in Iraq. This conclusion, in turn, argues for
stepping up inspections, rather than abandoning the process and moving
toward a war footing." ("Powell Failed to Make Case for War", Madison
Capital Times editorial, February 9, 2003)
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=wsj:
2003:02:09:198761:OPINION
10. Lots of other nations have also violated UN Security Council
resolutions -- should we invade Turkey, Israel, Morocco, and
Indonesia? The US itself obstructed enactment of UN Security
Council resolution 487, which required Israel to place its nuclear
facilities under the control of the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
11. Most of the accusations reported by Powell were from anonymous
and unverifiable sources. "What Powell served up to the Council was a
sorry mess of fuzzy aerial photographs of buildings, a cute
'organizational chart' of supposed al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, a
couple of tape recordings that are capable of multiple interpretations
and, as before, a large number of undated reports by unnamed Iraqi
defectors." ("Responding to Colin Powell", by Rahul
Mahajan,CommonDreams.org,
February 7, 2003)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-03.htm
12. The credibility of Powell's presentation has been undermined by
reports, initially from Britain's Channel 4 News, that his British
intelligence documentation (a dossier prepared by the British
Government entitled, "Iraq -- Its Infrastructure of Concealment,
Deception and Intimidation") had been plagiarized from an article
written in September, 2002 by a graduate student from California named
Ibrahim al-Marashi and published in the Middle East Review of
International Affairs, a small periodical. Some of the original
language had been altered to suggest that Iraq has been spying on
foreign embassies and assisting terrorist groups. "They even left in
my mistakes," said al-Marashi. The dossier also uses material from
articles by Sean
Boyne and Ken Gause that appeared in Jane's Intelligence Review in
1997 and November, 2002. 11 of the dossier's 19 pages were
plagiarized: none of the sources were acknowledged, and all
were publicly available. The dossier thus reveals little useful or
new information, and uses some information that's 12 years old.
13. "[C]hief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has rejected many of
Powell's claims. For example, the respected Swedish diplomat has
insisted that there is no evidence of mobile biological weapons
laboratories, of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment
before his teams arrived, or that his organization has been
infiltrated by
Iraqi spies." ("Mr. Powell, You're No Adlai Stevenson" by Stephen
Zunes, CommonDreams.org, February 6, 2003)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0206-07.htm
14. "[A] picture of a pilotless Iraqi aircraft capable of spraying
poison chemicals turned out to be the imaginative work of a Pentagon
artist.... The worst moment came when General Powell started talking
about anthrax and the 2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and New York,
pathetically holding up a teaspoon of the imaginary spores and --
while not precisely saying so -- fraudulently suggesting a connection
between Saddam Hussein and the 2001 anthrax scare." ("You Wanted to
Believe Him - But It Was Like Something Out of Beckett", by Robert
Fisk,
The Independent, February 6, 2003)
http://www.counterpunch.com/fisk02062003.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0206-04.htm
15. "Powell's claims that Iraq could spray anthrax from one its F-1
Mirage jet fighters could sound alarming until one realizes that no
Iraqi military aircraft could even get as far as the border without
being shot down by US planes or the sophisticated anti-aircraft
systems of
neighboring states." (Zunes, same article)
16. "[Saddam's] evasiveness alone does not meet the [UN]
resolution's definition of material breach.... [E]ven if Saddam
Hussein is not completely disarmed, he is functionally disarmed. The
use of military force under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter
is based upon the need to maintain world peace and security, not to
enforce largely technical violations." (Zunes, same article)
17. "General Powell said America was sharing its information with the
UN inspectors but it was clear yesterday that much of what he had to
say about alleged new weapons development -- the decontamination truck
at the Taji chemical munitions factory, for example, the cleaning' of
the Ibn al-Haythem ballistic missile factory on 25 November -- had not
been given to the UN at the time. Why wasn't this intelligence
information given to the inspectors months ago? Didn't General
Powell's beloved UN resolution 1441 demand that all such intelligence
information should be given to Hans Blix and his lads immediately?"
(Fisk, same article)
18. Neither Bush nor Powell has shown credible proof of a connection
between Saddam and al-Qaeda. According to The New York Times, the
CIA and FBI deny that any such clear evidence exists (February 2,
2003). Saddam and Osama bin Laden have long been hostile to each
other. Bin Laden has called Saddam "an apostate, an infidel, and a
traitor to Islam." Al-Qaeda leaders have also been known to be
present in allied states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan, and
have been in contact with officials in those nations. "A number of
European officials and US terrorism experts... said that Powell's
description of the Iraq-Zarqawi-al-Qaeda nexus appeared to have been
carefully drawn to imply more than it actually said. 'You're left to
just hear the nouns, and put them together,' said Judith S. Yaphe, a
senior fellow at the National Defense University who worked for 20
years as a CIA analyst. 'It doesn't take me yet to the point where I
can say
I've seen evidence which convinces me that Saddam Hussein supports
al-Qaeda.'" (The Washington Post, February 6, 2003)
19. "A senior administration official with knowledge of the
intelligence information said that evidence had not yet established
that Baghdad had any operational control over Zarqawi's network, or
over any transfer of funds or materiel to it." (The Washington Post,
February 6, 2003) The information about Zarqawi allegedly comes from
suspects who confessed under torture in Jordan -- hardly a reliable
source.
20. Powell's assertion of "decades long experience with respect to
ties between Iraq and Al Qaida" and statement that "Terrorism has been
a tool used by Saddam for decades" obfuscate the fact that before
August, 1990, Saddam was considered a friend to the US and received
American weapons. Al-Qaeda has existed for less than ten years.
There were no Iraqis among the September 11 hijackers; no money or
phone calls connected with the hijackers have been traced to Iraq.
None of al-Qaeda's leaders are Iraqi.
21. Powell noted that the Ansar al-Islam, a 600-member cadre of armed
Islamists linked with al-Qaeda, holds territory in Iraq. But Ansar
al-Islam is located in an autonomous Kurdish zone in northern Iraq,
protected by the US and outside of Saddam's authority. Why didn't the
US already attack these camps there as part of the War on Terrorism
after September 11, 2001? The only persuasive reason is that the US
preserved Ansar al-Islam for leverage against Iraq and an excuse
for a later war. Powell offered no proof that Baghdad has had any
control over or involvement with Ansar al-Islam, or over any transfer
of
funds or weapons to the camp. Ansar al-Islam's stated mission is to
overthrow Saddam's secular Baathist government and replace it with a
Muslim theocracy, not to make friends with Saddam.
22. "When [Powell] warn[s] that the UN Security Council 'places
itself in danger of irrelevance' if it fails to endorse a US-led war
on Iraq,
[isn't he] really proclaiming that the United Nations is 'relevant'
only to the extent that it does what the US government wants?" ("Colin
Powell Is Flawless -- Inside a Media Bubble", by Norman Solomon, Media
Beat [FAIR], February 6, 2003) http://www.fair.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0206-08.htm
23. Fabricated information has been used to persuade Americans of
phony threats in the past. Three examples: the Gulf of Tonkin
incident, in
which the Johnson Administration fabricated a report of an attack on
U.S. vessels in order to expand the Vietnam War in 1964; falsified
aerial
photographs of Iraqi forces preparing to invade Saudi Arabia in 1990;
and concocted reports Iraqi soldiers were dumping Kuwaiti babies out
of hospital incubators.
BLOOD FOR OIL
24. The Bush Administration's intention to seize control of Iraqi oil
resources has been acknowledged by many officials and government
supporters of Bush's war plans. US Senator Richard Lugar, Republican
Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has
threatened France and Russia, saying that if they don't support Bush's
invasion plans they'll get no share in Iraq's oil resources. (Tehran
Times,
repeated in Oil and Gas International's 'World Industry News', January
27, 2003) http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/
world_industry_news/jan03_fran\ce.html
25. Jack Straw, U.K. Foreign Secretary, acknowledged in a recent
speech to British ambassadors that oil is the main motivation for
Blair's support for Bush's war, much more so than any threat of WMDs.
The Blair government is concerned about global energy supplies,
especially oil imports, during the coming years.
26. The most outspoken war-for-oil proponent is Richard Perle, chair
of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group. Perle's Rand
Corporation report briefing submitted in July, 2002, recommended
invading Iraq as a first step in gaining US control over oil
throughout the
Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia (Boston Globe, September 10,
2002).
27. Contrary to the White House's claim that oil revenues from Iraq
after the invasion should benefit the Iraqi people, Newsday reported
that
administration officials plan to use oil money to pay for the expenses
of the U.S. postwar occupation of Iraq, which is expected to cost
from $12 billion to $48 billion a year (January 10, 2003). Iraq has
the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia; other
Arab and Muslim nations would recognize the appropriated Iraqi oil
money as proof of the US's motivation for the invasion.
28. "Oil giants including ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and
ConocoPhillips are the most likely to lead any development efforts in
a
post-war Iraq," according to energy analyst Peter Zeihan of Stratfor,
an intelligence-consulting group based in Austin, Texas ("Reaping the
spoils
of war: Ousting Saddam could put US oil giants in 'driver's seat',"
CBS.MarketWatch.com, January 31, 2003).
MORAL CLARITY VS. THE AXIS OF EVIL
29. The White House's rhetoric about moral clarity is a mask for the
Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld doctrine: unprovoked preemptive invasion to
further US interests; first-strike use of nuclear weapons; unilateral
military action; withdrawal from or rejection of international
treaties and agreements; increased surveillance and erosion of
constitutional rights at home. These policies, unprecedented in the
history of the US's international relations, are inconsistent with
democracy, but they're typical of empires, fascist and totalitarian
dictatorships, and other
belligerent states.
30. Pentagon's classified 'Nuclear Posture Review' discusses
'offensive strike capabilities' -- scenarios in which the US might
launch nuclear
attacks on countries like Iraq and North Korea. "Rumsfeld Won't Rule
Out Nuclear Bomb" (Reuters headline, February 13, 2003).
31. The US helped install and aided numerous murderous dictators over
the past half century -- including Saddam Hussein, whom the US
government sent weapons throughout the 1980s. The US shipped arms
(including anthrax seed stock) to Saddam throughout the 1980s ( Donald
Rumsfeld played a major role in negotiating arms deals) and also
undermined international disarmament efforts. "One example was [the
US's] torpedoing of Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons, in April 2002 when it
appeared Bustani's efforts could create obstacles to the US war
plans by initiating chemical weapons inspections in Iraq. And the
United States remains the world's largest arms dealer, hardly a
recommendation for its self-proclaimed position of world peacekeeper."
("Powell Before the UN: Sale or No Sale?" by Robert Jensen,
Philadelphia
Inquirer, February 6, 2003)
32. The US's 'precision' warfare will kill thousands, possible tens
or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The US plans to drop 800
cruise missiles on Iraq in the first 48 hours of the war. A UN report
(www.casi.org.uk) predicts a humanitarian disaster, with up to a half
million injuries during the early stages of the war.
http://www.casi.org.uk
33. Under US occupation, the Iraqi people can look forward to the
installation of a new leader, probably an Iraqi general, with a bloody
resume similar to Saddam's. "Iraqi opposition leaders have voiced
serious concern about reported US plans to rule the country by
military decree after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.
Correspondents say the groups feel betrayed by the proposals, which
they say would give them no input in the running of a new regime,
despite a decade of consultations with Washington.... They are also
deeply unhappy at a reported American idea to allow thousands of
troops from Turkey --a long-standing foe of the Kurds -- to cross the
border into northern Iraq in the event of war.... Iraqi opposition
leaders also warn that the plan risks drawing more nations into the
conflict." ("Iraqi opposition condemns US plan", BBC, February 12,
2003)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2752397.stm
34. We can expect numerous international consequences from the
invasion: strikes from Iraq against Israel, which possesses nuclear
weapons that Sharon might use in retaliation; greater regional
destabilization; a surge in hostility and terrorism against the US and
other western nations. The consequences of war are always
unpredictable.
35. The US has used blackmail and armtwisting to persuade other
nations to vote on its side in the UN. In 1990, the US cut off $70
million in aid to Yemen because it voted nay on a Security Council
resolution to remove Iraq from Kuwait. ''The Yemen precedent remains a
vivid
institutional memory at the United Nations,'' said Phyllis Bennis, a
fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies (quoted by
the Inter Press Service, November 11,2002).
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1111-02.htm
36. While the Bush Administration has focused US attention on Iraq,
which played no role in the September 11, 2001 attacks, Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda have nearly been forgotten. In Afghanistan, many
areas have reverted to control by warlords, some of them reviving the
opium trade, repressive rule, and violations of human rights. Bin
Laden, Mullah Omar, and the anthrax terrorist (probably American)
remain at large.
37. Powell's claimed on February 11 that the tape of Osama bin
Laden's voice, sent to Al Qatar's al-Jazeera television station,
proves
that Saddam and al-Qaeda are in league. But bin Laden vehemently
denounced Saddam as an infidel on the tape.
38. The war on Iraq is a distraction from economic problems at home,
as well as various corporate scandals -- some of which, such as Enron,
have ties to the White House.
39. Nothing will suit Osama bin Laden's worst purposes better than a
war led by the US against an Arab or Muslim country.
IS WAR INEVITABLE?
40. In November, Richard Perle assured British members of Parliament
that the invasion is indeed inevitable, even if the UN inspection team
doesn't find evidence of nuclear and biochemical weapons.
41. Bush Administration officials favored an invasion of Iraq long
before September 11, 2001, according to several policy blueprints,
such as
"Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A
New Century," drafted for the future Bush cabinet in September 2000 by
the think tank Project for the New American Century; and the 'Defense
Planning Guidance' policy reviews from the office of the Secretary of
Defense, from as early as 1992 ("Dick Cheney's
Song of America: Drafting a plan for global dominance" by David
Armstrong, in Harper's Magazine, October, 2002).
42. The Bush Administration plans on sending 250,000 American troops
in the Gulf region by March.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
43. A ground invasion of Iraq may meet massive resistance, costing
the lives of many American soldiers. Many American casualties in the
invasion itself will also come from friendly fire. The best way to
support US troops is to remove them from harm's way.
44. The US dumped 320 tons of depleted uranium in spent ammunition on
Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. This is the battlefield into which
American soldiers will be sent. Exposure to radiation from depleted
uranium is the likely cause of numerous health problems in thousands
of
Gulf War veterans.
OFFICIAL SECRETS AND LIES
45. The White House and the Pentagon have relied on public relations
experts such as Victoria Clarke, formerly of Hill & Knowlton, and the
Rendon Group to steer public opinion in favor of an invasion, while
persuading the American people to forget about Osama bin Laden, the
alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. ("War
Is Sell", by Laura Miller, PR Watch, Volume 9, No. 4)
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q4/war.html
46. Bush hired accomplished liars and convicted felons to fill key
positions: UN Ambassador John Negroponte; Information Awareness Office
chief John Poindexter; and Elliot Abrams, senior director at the
National Security Council. All were convicted of lying to Congress
and the American people in the Iran-Contra scam. Their convictions
were later overturned on technicalities.
47. The policies of the Bush White House have proven over and over
that it favors the interests of a small elite of wealthy CEOs and top
corporate managers and shareholders -- the class to which George W.
Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of his cabinet and advisors belong.
To this class, appeals to patriotism are useful when rallying the
American people behind ideas like the call to invade Iraq. But
patriotism should
apparently never interfere with corporate profits. While Dick Cheney
was CEO of Halliburton Energy from 1998 through 2000, Halliburton did
$23.8 million of business with Iraq.
48. While withdrawing and blocking numerous other international
treaties and agreements, such as the International Criminal Court, the
Kyoto accords to stem global warming, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, the Bush Administration remains dedicated to secretive,
unelected international trade authorities. Cabals like the WTO,
NAFTA, IMF, and World Bank wield the power to overrule local and
national laws, have undermined democracy, human rights, and
environmental protections while privatizing public resources all
around the world -- to the benefit of US-based global corporations.
Cabals like the WTO, NAFTA, IMF, and World Bank wield the power to
overrule local and national laws, have undermined democracy, human
rights,
and environmental protections while privatizing public resources all
around the world -- to the benefit of US-based global corporations.
49. War with Iraq threatens greater erosion of human rights, civil
liberties, and constitutional protections on the home front. The
Center for Responsive Politics (with the help of a broadcast by Bill
Moyers' NOW on PBS) has exposed a draft of legislation drawn up by the
Justice Department, titled "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of
2003." The bill would expand the USA PATRIOT Act, giving the
executive branch massive and unprecedented powers to conduct
surveillance and to search and detain Americans without judicial
oversight. It would create target people based on their support for
unfavored political groups, authorize secret arrests, and create new
death penalties.
BIPARTISANSHIP
50. Leading Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and
aspiring presidential candidates Lieberman, Edwards, and Kerry, all
voiced their approval of Bush's invasion plans after the latter's
State of the Union address on January 28. Many Democrats joined
Republicans in the vote to surrender Congress's constitutional power
to declare war over to George W. Bush in October 2002. House
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi voted against it but then announced
that she'd support Bush's unilateral invasion in an interview on Meet
the Press.
51. Democrats have either acted in agreement with Republicans, or
have retreated so far to the right that they've given Republicans to
take even
more extremist positions. The Clinton Administration set the stage
for the worst policies of Bush & Co.: Clinton blocked implementation
of Kyoto measures; approved trade pacts like NAFTA; helped concentrate
corporate control over media (Telecommunications Act of 1996); scaled
back constitutional protections (Antiterrorism Act of 1996); ordered
bombing raids against Iraq; and maintained the sanctions that have led
to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, especially children.
Leslie
Stahl: "We have heard that over half a million children have died. I
mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price
worth it?" Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I
think this is a very hard choice. But the price -- we think the price
is worth it." (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996)
52. But other Democrats have spoken out against the war, including
Sen. Robert Byrd on the floor of the Senate. Senator Edward Kennedy
and Rep. John Conyers have introduced legislation that would block
President Bush from initiating an invasion. Many Democrats voted
against handing the power to wage war over to Bush.
53. Other parties have united and taken an unequivocal stand against
the war. The Green Party of the United States has issued strong
statements, in harmony with Green Parties throughout the world,
especially Germany, France, and Belgium, where the influence of Greens
helped maintain their governments' defiance of demands from the Bush
Administration.
THE RESISTANCE & ALTERNATIVES TO WAR
54. There are many peace-based measures the US can take to end
conflicts in the Middle East: ending the economic sanctions and help
rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, especially provision of food, water,
and medical supplies; imposing sanctions against selling weapons to
Iraq and all other belligerent nations, including Israel; pressing
Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and dismantle
the settlements.
55. The US must work with other nations to eliminate all nuclear and
biochemical weapons from the Middle East and to reduce drastically
American dependence on fossil fuels. If apprehension and prosecution
of Saddam Hussein are necessary, in the unlikely event that he
launches a suicidal attack on any nation, they must be accomplished
through international channels, with full international support.
56. The US has run on a destructive, belligerent wartime economy
since 1940. Even if the war in Iraq is averted, the US will find
itself engaged
in future wars, including 'low-intensity conflicts' in which the US
drops bombs or pays locals to fight. 70% of all the money spent by
the US in past 60 years went to military use, including weapons of
mass destruction. American must end its permanent wartime economy and
the
corporate-military control of our government. There is no other hope
for our nation and our planet.
57. A growing list of US city and county councils and state
legislatures that have passed resolutions against the war on Iraq.
Visit CitiesForPeace.org.
http://www.citiesforpeace.org
58. Catholic bishops and every mainline Protestant denomination in
the US have stated their opposition to Bush's invasion, as have many
US veterans. Visit the website of the Veterans Call to Conscience
Campaign at CalltoConscience.net. http://www.calltoconscience.net
59. Every street protest, every phone call to the White House or
members of Congress, every letter to the editor frustrates the desire
of the Bush Administration and the corporate-controlled media to show
that there's anything close to national consensus behind war. Visit
UnitedForPeace.org. http://www.unitedforpeace.org
60. "Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and
desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some
of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the
development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a
sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent
entity until the United States and other members of the UN Security
Council determine that its presence is no longer needed.... The cost
of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war,
Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be
certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there
would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States
could
regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international
terrorism. " (Jimmy Carter, www.cartercenter.org, January 31, 2003)
back to antiwar page
|