Home | Community | Message Board



Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
    #1401329 - 03/22/03 07:40 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

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 "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.-- We now know that the war will cost over 100 billion conservatively

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.

WAS 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. Somewhere between 12K- 19K have died so far due to these illnesses and over 100K have reported symptoms (Veterans for Peace forumn, CNN- March 22, 2003)

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)


Power to the Peaceful!


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleangryshroom
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,262
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1401364 - 03/22/03 07:55 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

There is a lot of information there for me to read at 11PM while im a little drunk, but, the information I read I really agreed with..

Thanks for the post...

PEACE!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 1 year, 2 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: angryshroom]
    #1401456 - 03/22/03 08:28 PM (13 years, 8 months ago)

yes exept he has provoked, he is aruably insane so he needs no motivation, there are countries in the region that support publicly and I'll bet others are the private supporters, removal is much easier and cheaper that containment, the only effort Iraq is making is to decieve and confuse, the UN means nothing if it will not enforce its resolutions, planes flying into sky scrapers was a fantasy senerio before 9/11, Iraqs statements to the UN are full of evasions and misrepresentations, occupying forces have not authority to reallocate existing contracts....................


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 3 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1401908 - 03/23/03 03:04 AM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

the UN means nothing if it will not enforce its resolutions





Firstly 1441 doesnt authorise war just ask John Negroponte. Secondly, why are Israel allowed to be in contravention of UN resolutions for over 30 years? Surely they should be dealt with first?

None of the pro war - pro bush types can give an answer to that question, so dont worry when you cant either.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1401977 - 03/23/03 04:11 AM (13 years, 8 months ago)

Nice post Psilo.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineWaldarbeiter
can you eat it?

Registered: 03/07/02
Posts: 189
Loc: woods of lower bavaria
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #1402000 - 03/23/03 04:45 AM (13 years, 8 months ago)

>the UN means nothing if it will not enforce its resolutions
the UN also mean nothing when the US do war without majority in the UN.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,014
Last seen: 9 months, 13 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #19021156 - 10/23/13 09:09 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Love bump. :datass:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 5 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Yogi1]
    #19021224 - 10/23/13 09:17 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

You bumped a ten year old thread?

Reason number 1 is a total lie

"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."

Invading Kuwait was reason enough for him to be removed


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,014
Last seen: 9 months, 13 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19021294 - 10/23/13 09:26 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Long before 9/11. Very long. Provocations don't get half decade and decade delays as excuses to attack.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 5 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Yogi1]
    #19021347 - 10/23/13 09:32 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

He never complied with the terms of the cease fire.  You either enforce contracts or you don't have them.  He agreed to the terms and didn't comply.  I would have taken him out a lot earlier but Bill Clinton was a cunt although even he bombed Iraq a time or two just for show.  Nonetheless the statement that Saddam did nothing is beyond stupid


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,014
Last seen: 9 months, 13 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19021386 - 10/23/13 09:37 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

No one said he did nothing :lol:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 5 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Yogi1]
    #19021396 - 10/23/13 09:38 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Saddam Hussein has done nothing to provoke an invasion




He did plenty.  You can argue that it wasn't enough but he certainly didn't do nothing.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,014
Last seen: 9 months, 13 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19021431 - 10/23/13 09:44 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Saddam Hussein has done nothing to provoke an invasion




He did plenty.  You can argue that it wasn't enough but he certainly didn't do nothing.




"Love bump :datass:"


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRzhoz
Just a guy
Male


Registered: 09/21/13
Posts: 72
Last seen: 4 days, 13 hours
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Yogi1]
    #19021496 - 10/23/13 09:52 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

The United States created a Jewish republic In the heart of ARAB country so we would always have interest in "security" ( oil, copper, drugs, strategic positioning, intercontinental influence, reason to build military instillations, transportation, U.N. influence, and scapegoats)

The list could go on but I'd need to start citing evidence.

I've been to the Middle East. That place is one huge fire fight waiting to happen. It was inevitable


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 5 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Rzhoz]
    #19021509 - 10/23/13 09:54 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rzhoz said:
The United States created a Jewish republic In the heart of ARAB country so we would always have interest in "security" ( oil, copper, drugs, strategic positioning, intercontinental influence, reason to build military instillations, transportation, U.N. influence, and scapegoats)

The list could go on but I'd need to start citing evidence.

I've been to the Middle East. That place is one huge fire fight waiting to happen. It was inevitable




The United States had very little to do with the creation of Israel.  It was administered by the Brits and Kuwait/Iraq had nothing to do with Israel either.  And it isn't Arab country any more than it is Jewish country.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRzhoz
Just a guy
Male


Registered: 09/21/13
Posts: 72
Last seen: 4 days, 13 hours
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19021531 - 10/23/13 09:57 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Ahhhh!!! I know it's not Arab country. Isreal is a ploy to foster foreign influences

Watch zeitgeist my friend

Mind=blown


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,014
Last seen: 9 months, 13 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Rzhoz]
    #19021564 - 10/23/13 10:02 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rzhoz said:
Ahhhh!!! I know it's not Arab country. Isreal is a ploy to foster foreign influences

Watch zeitgeist my friend

Mind=blown




Zeitgeist equals retarded. In did however create isreal, and it be scary.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 5 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Yogi1]
    #19021596 - 10/23/13 10:06 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Yogi1 said:
Quote:

Rzhoz said:
Ahhhh!!! I know it's not Arab country. Isreal is a ploy to foster foreign influences

Watch zeitgeist my friend

Mind=blown




In did however create isreal, and it be scary.



What?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYogi1
Squatchin

Registered: 04/01/13
Posts: 1,014
Last seen: 9 months, 13 days
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19021599 - 10/23/13 10:07 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

Un


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRzhoz
Just a guy
Male


Registered: 09/21/13
Posts: 72
Last seen: 4 days, 13 hours
Re: Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war [Re: Yogi1]
    #19021610 - 10/23/13 10:09 PM (3 years, 1 month ago)

I served in the afghan campaign and share your conflict of interest here.

The Middle East will always be volitale can we Atleast agree on that?

And very well spoken without being a dick.

I respect that


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Potential War with IRAN - YAY or NAY?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
AlphaFalfa 7,634 219 03/04/11 11:08 AM
by TheThinker
* Insurgent Groups Responsible for War Crimes. lonestar2004 350 0 10/25/05 01:32 PM
by lonestar2004
* The Drug-War and Gun Control xDuckYouSuckerx 355 0 05/28/06 02:28 PM
by xDuckYouSuckerx
* international arms trade Vvellum 1,025 15 04/03/05 06:59 PM
by Great_Satan
* War simulation zeronio 598 9 09/17/02 09:53 AM
by Xlea321
* US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents
( 1 2 all )
FrenchSocialist 2,259 23 06/15/07 02:22 PM
by MushmanTheManic
* Preemptive nuclear strike?
cb9fl
444 2 09/12/05 11:10 PM
by cb9fl
* old article on Bush's pre-war intelligence phi1618 1,149 17 11/18/05 06:54 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
5,371 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.195 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 16 queries.