Iraq & US threat to peace and security

[pynchondroid]

Stop the War works fine for me, -- in Iraq
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2361745.stm),
in Colombia
(http://www.narconews.com/article.php3?ArticleID=19),
elsewhere . 

And let's put pressure on Bush and his war-profits
cronies NOT to create any more Saddam Husseins or
supply them with weapons of mass destruction or help
them use those weapons against their own people, as
Reagan and Bush the First and Rumsfeld and Cheney did
in the period leading up to the ongoing US Gulf War.
 

http://www.sojo.net/action/index.cfm/action/speak_out.html

Disarm Iraq Without War 

A Statement from Religious Leaders in the United
States and United Kingdom 

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4) 

As the calls for military action against Iraq continue
from our two governments, despite the new opening for
U.N weapons inspections, we are compelled by the
prophetic vision of peace to speak a word of caution
to our governments and our people. We represent a
diversity of Christian communities - from the just war
traditions to the pacifist tradition. As leaders of
these communities in the United States and the United
Kingdom, it is our considered judgment that a
preemptive war against Iraq, particularly in the
current situation would not be justified. Yet we
believe Iraq must be disarmed of weapons of mass
destruction; and that alternative courses to war
should be diligently pursued. 

Let there be no mistake: We regard Saddam Hussein and
his regime in Iraq as a real threat [...] We believe
the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal
repression, to end its threats to peace, to abandon
its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction,
and to respect the legitimate role of the United
Nations in ensuring that it does so. [...]

We therefore urge our governments, especially
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, to pursue
alternative means to disarm Iraq of its most
destructive weapons. Diplomatic cooperation with the
United Nations in renewing rigorously effective and
thoroughly comprehensive weapons inspections, linked
to the gradual lifting of sanctions, could achieve the
disarmament of Iraq without the risks and costs of
military attack. 

[...] it is not clear that the threat of Saddam
Hussein cannot be contained in other, less costly
ways. An attack on Iraq could set a precedent for
preemptive war, further destabilize the Middle East,
and fuel more terrorism. We, therefore, do not believe
that war with Iraq can be justified under the
principle of a "just war," but would be illegal,
unwise, and immoral. 

Illegal 

Whether we oppose all war, or reluctantly accept it
only as a last resort, in this case the U.S.
government has not presented an adequate justification
for war. Iraq has not attacked or directly threatened
the United States, nor is it clear that its weapons of
mass destruction pose an immediate and urgent threat
to neighboring countries or the world. It has not been
credibly implicated in the attacks of September 11.
Under international law, including the U.N. Charter,
the only circumstance under which individual states
may invoke the authority to go to war is in
self-defense following an armed attack. [...] 

Unwise 

[...] Many nations, including our European allies and
most of the Arab world, strongly oppose such a war. To
initiate a major war in an area of the world already
in great turmoil could destabilize governments and
increase political extremism throughout the Middle
East and beyond. It would add fuel to the fires of
violence that are already consuming the region. It
would exacerbate anti-American hatred and produce new
recruits for terror attacks against the United States
and Israel. A unilateral war would also undermine the
continued political cooperation needed for the
international campaign to isolate terrorist networks.
The U.S. could very well win a battle against Iraq and
lose the cam-paign against terrorism. The potentially
dangerous and highly chaotic aftermath of a war with
Iraq would require years of occupation, investment,
and a high level of international cooperation--none of
which have yet to be adequately planned or even
considered. And the Iraqi people themselves have an
important role in creating non-violent resistance
within their own country with international support. 

Immoral 

We are particularly concerned by the potential human
costs of war. If the military strategy in-cludes
massive air attacks and urban warfare in the streets
of Baghdad, tens of thousands of in-nocent civilians
could lose their lives. This alone makes such a
military attack mor-ally unacceptable. In addition,
the people of Iraq continue to suffer severely from
the effects of the Gulf War, the resulting decade of
sanctions, and the neglect and oppression of a brutal
dicta-tor. Rather than inflicting further suffering on
them through a costly war, we should assist in
re-building their country and alleviating their
suffering. We also recognize that in any conflict, the
casualties among attacking forces could be very high.
This potential suffering in our own socie-ties should
also lead to prudent caution. 

We reaffirm our religious hope for a world in which
"nation shall not lift up sword against nation." We
pray that our governments will be guided by moral
principles, political wisdom, and legal standards, and
will step back from their calls for war. [...] 




> 
> > That's word play. 
> and
> > Prevent the War. Inspect Iraq.
> 
> 
> Indeed it is. How about "Delay the War. Inspect
> Iraq."


How about: War is not the answer.


http://www.sojo.net/magazine/index.cfm/action/sojourners/issue/soj0209/article/020910.html
With Weapons of the Will
How to topple Saddam Hussein—nonviolently.

"[...] Unfortunately, when this suggestion is made
publicly, hard-nosed policymakers and most
commentators dismiss the idea out of hand, saying that
nonviolence won't work against a tyrant as
pathological as Saddam. That is because they don't
know how to distinguish between what has popularly
been regarded as "nonviolence" and the strategic
nonviolent action that has hammered authoritarian
regimes to the point of defenestrating dictators and
liberating people from many forms of subjugation.

The reality is that history-making nonviolent
resistance is not usually undertaken as an act of
moral display; it does not typically begin by putting
flowers in gun barrels and it does not end when
protesters disperse to go home. It involves the use of
a panoply of forceful sanctions—strikes, boycotts,
civil disobedience, disrupting the functions of
government, even nonviolent sabotage—in accordance
with a strategy for undermining an oppressor's pillars
of support. It is not about making a point, it's about
taking power. [...]  
AT THE MOMENT a nonviolent movement begins, most
observers think that success is impossible, because
most people can only see the costs of resisting
instead of the costs that resisters can impose on
those who maintain the existing system. The oppressive
rulers who have been brought down by nonviolent
movements—whether they were generals in Latin America,
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, or Slobodan
Milosevic in Serbia—did not tolerate a degree of
dissent or refrain from murdering all opponents
because they were softer adversaries than Stalin would
have been or Saddam is now. These were all dictatorial
regimes, meaning that openness was tolerated only as
necessary to maintain the facade of internal or
external legitimacy, or because suppressing it would
have been too costly. And the Raj in India was not the
exception that proves the rule, unless you think that
the massacre at Amritsar or the killings at Dharasana
were merely unfortunate lapses in English manners. 

[...] Regimes have been overthrown that had no
compunction about brutalizing their opponents and
denying them the right to speak their minds. How? By
first demonstrating that opposition is possible,
peeling away the regime's residual public and outside
support, quashing its legitimacy, driving up the costs
of maintaining control, and overextending its
repressive apparatus. Strategic nonviolent action is
not about being nice to your oppressor, much less
having to rely on his niceness. It's about dissolving
the foundations of his power and forcing him out. It
is possible in Iraq.

Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall are co-authors of A
Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict,
the companion book to the PBS documentary of the same
name, of which DuVall was executive producer. Ackerman
is chair of the board of overseers of the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and
DuVall is director of the International Center on
Nonviolent Conflict. " 










__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/