[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by Lilly from ? ( on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 4:20PM :

In Reply to: This guy is cool! posted by Lilly from ? ( on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 4:19PM :

Finally, the Immorality

In a magnificent and courageous statement, 2500 British church leaders, including Rowan Williams, Archbishop-elect of Canterbury, wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair, declaring that an invasion of Iraq would be “deplorable,” and against UN conventions and Christian principles. Calling for Mr. Blair to support a peaceful and legally justified solution to the problem of Iraq, the statement added: “We deplore any military action that regards the deaths of innocent men, women and children as a price worth paying in fighting terrorists, since this is to fight terror with terror.”[118]

When former President Jimmy Carter received the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel Committee chairman Gunnar Berge said the judges’ choice of the former US president “can and must be interpreted as a criticism of the position of the administration currently sitting in the US towards Iraq.”[119]

In early September, Sant’Egidio, a lay Catholic movement famed for conflict resolution and promotion of human rights, called its annual interfaith meeting. Among the over 400 attendees, condemnation for the US “war on terror” was intense and virtually universal. Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Ramzi Garmo of Tehran, Iran asked, “If Sept. 11 had happened anywhere else, would it have had the same impact?” Garmo asked. “Take Iraq as an example. Hundreds of thousands have died because one very powerful nation wants the embargo to continue. What is the difference between Iraqi children and the victims in New York? Is American blood worth more than blood in other countries?” His question drew “strong applause.”[120]

Experience has shown that, unfortunately, we cannot, with the possible exception of the Presbyterian Church, expect such a strong stance from the Christian leadership of the US. In fact, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, apostolic nuncio of the Holy See to the United Nations, has criticized American Catholic leaders’ response to the crisis: “Instead of ‘Holy God We Bless [sic] Thy Name,’ many were singing ‘God Bless America,’” Martin said. “We can’t allow other things to slip into our message.”[121]

What to do?

Despite claims of “working through the UN” US armed forces are being built up massively in the Gulf area.[122] This activity imparts a psychological, economic and military momentum to invasion that is difficult to resist.[123] As for myself, it is difficult to believe that anything will deter the present administration from an invasion of Iraq.

Nevertheless, conscience – and for some of us, our faith commitment – requires that we seek to oppose the invasion. We should begin by prayer and fasting, and by what Gandhi and other nonviolent theorists called “self-purification.” Then, several courses of action are open to those opposing the Administration’s ongoing war against Iraq.

Knowing that the legislature has capitulated in the struggle against invasion, within the system, one course left to us is to petition the White House with phone calls, faxes, letters and demonstrations. (Senator Byrd recommended these actions to his supporters, in the above-mentioned speech.).

A second course is suggested by Geov Parrish. The massive numbers of protestors across the country have to form themselves into a political force with the capability of changing policy. This would require long-term planning by the broad spectrum of organizers.[124]
Finally, we might consider the problem that the US government has become less and less truthful and less and less representative of the people. Legislative offices reported receiving faxes, emails and phone calls that ran five and ten and even twenty to one against the resolution eventually adopted by Congress (see n.2). Recent polls show the US populace is opposed to an invasion without support from the UN or allies.[125] Even more, many citizens are concerned with the irregularities of the last presidential election, when the Supreme Court effectively appointed the President. They are concerned with the possible abrogation of the Constitution, specifically in the recent passing of warmaking powers from the Congress to the President and increasingly, in the operation of a mercenary army not under the control of Congress.[126]

Up until now, the peace movement has been working with the overall nonviolent analysis of Martin Luther King. But if this charge – that the government is increasingly less truthful and representative – proves upon careful investigation and deep communal reflection to be well-founded, then I submit that the peace movement must change its paradigm. We must adopt the nonviolent analysis of Mohandas K. Gandhi, relying more on boycotts, strikes, noncooperation and direct nonviolent confrontation to oppose a power that has disqualified itself from legitimate governance.

Peace groups have much information and many different venues for demonstrations and actions to challenge our policy toward Iraq. My group, headed by 3-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Kathy Kelly, is Voices in the Wilderness: (1460 West Carmen Avenue, Chicago, IL 60640; 773-784-8065 Also helpful are the Fellowship of Reconciliation (521 N. Broadway, Nyack, NY 10960; 845-358-4601, Pax Christi (532 W. 8th Street Erie, PA 16502; 814-453-4955,, and the American Friends Service Committee (1501 Cherry St. Philadelphia, PA 19102; phone: 215/241-7170, The National Network to
End The War Against Iraq ( is a coalition of most groups opposed to the ongoing war against Iraq. There you can find and sign a “pledge of resistance,” promising to undertake direct nonviolent action when the US invades Iraq.
The most hopeful and encouraging actions are undertaken by “Peaceful Tomorrows,” an association of those who have lost family members in the 9/11 attacks. Contact David Potorti, Co-Director/ Eastern U.S. Coordinator; 919-466-9355; PO Box 4035, Cary, North Carolina 27519-4035.

Voices and Christian Peacemaker Teams send delegations to Iraq, to express solidarity with the Iraqi people, and to bring home the truth that is hidden by our government and media. At present, Voices has an “Iraq Peace Team” in Iraq, seeking to interpose themselves between the Iraqis and any invasionary forces (

And all these organizations – especially Voices – would appreciate donations for the ongoing struggle for justice for the people of Iraq and for the people of the US.

In Conclusion

Whatever our actions are, I believe that we must always struggle against fear – especially the fear of death – which the US administration is constantly promoting, and which leads to acts of immorality and cowardice. I believe that now is the time to employ whatever spiritual strategies we have developed to overcome fear and act out of compassion and justice. If we do this, I believe there is hope for the people of Iraq, and for us.



[1] I use this phrasing advisedly. The push to attack Iraq has for the first time explicitly abrogated the Constitution: “Congress shall have the power … to declare war” (Article I., Sec. 8, Cl. 11). In his brief speech to the Senate, Senator Robert Byrd expressed the same concern. The text of the Joint Resolution can be found at:

[2] Byrd, op. cit.,. reported receiving nearly 20,000 phone calls and 50,000 emails supporting his position. Other legislators reported similar outpouring ofresistance. In many states – and here in New York City [] – protestors “sat-in” in legislator’s offices to protest the decision to grant the President power to make war. Organizers also anticipate 10s of thousands of protestors on October 26, 2002 in Washington, DC, and in many other cities across the nation.

[3] Jim Abrams, “House Approves Iraq Resolution,” The Washington Post, October 10, 2002. The House vote was 293-133. The Senate vote was 77-23. Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the U.S. military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. The president would be required to report to Congress, no later than 48 hours after using force, his determination that diplomacy or other peaceful means would not ensure U.S. national security against Iraq or allow enforcement of U.N. resolutions and that using force is consistent with anti-terrorism efforts. The resolution also states that it would give specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution. The president also would be required to report to Congress every 60 days on actions relevant to the resolution.

[4] The complete speech may be found at

[5] Detailed critiques of the President’s speech can be found at “Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq.” Institute for Public Accuracy, Robert Scheer, “Truth on Iraq Seeps Through,” Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2002,,0,5814986.column, Robert Jensen, “Bush's Leaps of Illogic Don't Answer People's Questions About War ,”, Robert Fisk, “What the US President Wants Us to Forget,” The Independent, October 9, 2002,, Anthony Arnove, “Bush Peddles War,” ZNet Commentary, October 9, 2002,, Simon Tisdall, “America’s Great Misleader,” The Guardian, October 8, 2002,,7792,806965,00.html

[6] A revealing and disturbing report of this pressure can be found in Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, “Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War,” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 8, 2002.

[7] See for example, Julian Borger, “White House ‘Exaggerating Iraqi Threat,’: Bush’s Televised Address Attacked by US Intelligence,” The Guardian, October 9, 2002.,3604,807194,00.html

[8] A 1964 uncritically accepted, yet false report by the Lyndon Johnson administration of an attack on U.S. ship, to justify a massive increase of military attacks on Vietnam. See Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon, “30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR], July 27, 1994.

[9] The entire speech is available at

[10] For the official UN text of this offer, see: Specifically, after negotiations with Iraq, Hans Blix, head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] Iraq agreed that:
Åú UNMOVIC and the IAEA "may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews.” More importantly, “It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location (emphasis added) for interviews.” This allows people to be interviewed outside Iraq, and away from possible retaliatory threats from Iraq.
Åú Inspectors will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites deemed sensitive in the past, including eight presidential palaces.
Åú UN officials have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any site.
Åú “Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of ... inspectors.”
Åú Iraqi authorities will provide free escorts, transport, assistance with moving equipment, and a full-time telephone hotline staffed by an English speaker, along with security for inspectors and their equipment.
Åú Iraq will guarantee the safety of all air operations outside the no-fly zones and “will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations” within the zones
Åú Inspectors will be guaranteed visas on the basis of a UN certificate and neither they nor their baggage will be searched
See: “Iraq made concession to UN over interviews, Blix letter shows,” Yahoo News, October 9, 2002.

[11] For a brief and biting summary of the US coercion of the UNSC vote, see John Pilger, “Diplomacy?” in The New Statesman, September 19, 2002.

[12] See the quote from Senator Lugar, below.

[13] “Like his father during the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, President George W. Bush is using the lure of money and political respect to persuade a reluctant Russia not to stand in the way of a U.S.-led war with Iraq..” Michael Dobbs and Susan b. Glasser [The Washington Post], “Bush Agrees to Honor Russian Deals in Iraq,” The Moscow Times November 22, 2002. On Russia’s NTV on Thursday, November 21, 2002, President Bush stated that if there is a regime change in Iraq, “we fully realize that Russia has economic interests in Iraq, as do other countries. Of course, these interests will be taken into account,” For this quote and a fuller discussion of Russia’s economic “requirements” for Iraq, see Carol Giacomo, “US Moves to Allay Russia Economic Concerns on Iraq,” Reuters, Saturday, November 23, 2002.

[14] In August, the US added the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (opposed to Chinese rule) to its list of proscribed terrorist groups. For a list of other “deals” expected to be made, see Tom Raum, “Bush Administration's Iraq Campaign Includes Behind-Scenes Bartering ,” AP September 21, 2002.

[15] The full text of Resolution 1441 is available on the U.N. web site,

[16] Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks, “U.S. Asks Allies for Iraq War Support,” The Washington Post, November 20, 2002

[17] Kim Sengupta, ‘Iraqis ‘staggered’ by exhaustive list of demands from UN inspectors: Mattress and slipper factories among sites Blix weapons team insists on examining,” The Independent, November 20, 2002,

[18] Kim Sengupta, “Iraqis to Flood UN with Data to Slow Inspectors’ Work,” The Independent November 21, 2002

[19] Dharam Shourie, “Iraqi Declaration May Embarrass UN Member Nations,” Rediff News, December 10, 2002

[20] Press Trust of India, “5 Nations To Get Copies Of Iraqi Declaration,” The Hindustan Times December 9, 2002,0005.htm

[21] Steven R. Weisman, “U.N. Devises Quick Test for Iraq,” The Tampa Tribune, November 20, 2002

[22] For this analysis, see Robert Fisk, “Nato Used The Same Old Trick When It Made Milosevic An Offer He Could Only Refuse,” The Independent, October 4,2002.

[23] See George Monbiot, “Inspection as Invasion,” The Guardian, October 8, 2002.,5673,806610,00.html

[24] “Why UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 8, 2002?,” Editorial, The Free Arab Voice
[25] Tim Reid, “Founder of Sex Network Picked as UN Inspector,” The London Times, November 29, 2002,,1-3-496334,00.html

[26] Caroline Overington, “Three Big Powers Tell US It's Wrong on Iraq,” Sydney Morning Herald, September 30, 2002. It is not surprising that this fact has not found its way into many US mainstream newspapers. See also William M. Reilly, “UN Council Unanimous ON US Iraq Resolution,” UPI, The Washington Times, November 8, 2002

[27] Paul Gilfeather, “War, Whatever. Bush Aide: Inspections or Not, We’ll Attack Iraq,” The Mirror November 29, 2002

[28] Phyllis Bennis presents an excellent point by point refutation of the proposed measure presently before the House and Senate, as well as a point by point analysis of the flaws of Bush’s UN address. See

[29] Patrick E. Tyler, “Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p.1

[30] "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994. See also, Matt Kelley, “U.S. Supplied Germs to Iraq in '80s,” AP September 30. These reports were re-read into the Senate record during the Hyde hearings in September, 2002, which can be read at:

[31] Tyler, p. 1

[32] George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993), pg. 238. Cf. also, Noam Chomsky "What We Say Goes": The Middle East in the New World Order, A Post-War Teach-in April 4, 1991, published in Z Magazine, May 1991 , Vol. 1, No. 5;

[33] The same, as testified to by Former Reagan official and National Security Council staffer Howard Teicher in his affidavit on “Iraqgate.” See the most recent reports of his visit to and support of Hussein in Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas, “How Saddam Happened,” Newsweek, September 23, 2002.

[34] As reported by Robert Fisk, “Saddam Hussein: The last great tyrant,” The Independent, December 30, 2000.

[35] For more on the US past and present stances, see Robert Fisk, “America's case for war is built on blindness, hypocrisy and lies: George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are wilfully ignoring the realities of the Middle East. The result can only be catastrophic,” The Independent, Sunday, September 15, 2002.

[36] G. Simon Harak, S. J., Hypertexting the Gulf War," Cross Currents, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Winter, 1991-92), 506-520.

[37] Leon Eisenberg, M.D, “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters -- Human Costs of Economic Sanctions,”
New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336(17).Apr 24, 1997.pp 1248-1250

[38] Thomas Nagy, “The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply,”

[39] Barton Gellman, “Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets,” The Washington Post, June 23, 1991, Sunday, p. A.1.

[40] There is a growing body of literature on depleted uranium [DU] that requires attention. For a thorough introduction, see

[41] The definitive work on this strategy so far is Joy Gordon, “Cool War: Economic Sanctions as a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” Harper’s Magazine, November, 2002, 43-48.

[42] See “Annex to the letter dated 3 May 2002 from the Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council: Goods review list.”

[43] UNICEF report - Child and Maternal Mortality Survey, August 1999 (summary:

[44] Scott Ritter, “Don't blame Saddam for this one: There is no evidence to suggest Iraq is behind the anthrax attack,” The Guardian October 19, 2001.,3858,4280517,00.html

[45] Despite a concerted effort to link Iraq with “9/11,” no evidence has been found. Even when the CIA went through all the paper and computers captured during the attack on Afghanistan, there was no record anywhere of any contact between the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden, and Iraq.

[46] John McWethy, “The Unfriendly Skies: Armed, Unmanned Predators Patrol Iraq ‘No-Fly Zone.’” ABC News, October 23, 2002.

[47] See “No Fly Zones: The Legal Position,” BBC News, February 19, 2001., and Jacob G. Hornberger, “The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones,” The Future of Freedom Foundation, November 21, 2002.
Note that UN Secretary General states that Iraq’s firing on British and US planes in the so-called “no-fly zones” do not constitute a breach even of the severe UNSCR 1441. He also assures the US that the other 14 members of the UNSC do not see it as a violation either. Ewen MacAskill and Lucy Ward, “Annan clashes with US over no-fly violations,” The Guardian, November 20, 2002.,3604,843616,00.htm

[48] Edward Cody, “Under Iraqi Skies, A Canvas Of Death; Tour Of Villages Reveals Human Cost Of U.S.-Led Sorties In 'No-Fly' Zones,” The Washington Post, June 16, 2000 ; p. A01

[49] See John Pilger, “Britain and America’s pilots are blowing the cover on our so-called ‘humanitarian’ no-fly zone,” The New Statesman, March 19, 2001.

[50] The US is considering augmenting these troops with its own. Daniel Williams, “Turkey Negotiates Role in War:
Talks with U.S. Could Put More Troops in Northern Iraq,” The Washington Post, October 22, 2002, p. A22.

[51] Robert Burns, “In a switch, U.S. pilots attack targets that are more damaging to Iraq's air
defenses,” AP September 16, 2002.

[52] Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” May 21, 2002.

[53] James Ridgeway and Camelia Fard, “With Friends Like These,” The Village Voice, December 5-11, 2001.

[54] Joseph Brewda, “Lord Avebury: Human Rights for the Raj,” Executive Intelligence Review, October 13, 1995.

[55] Amin Kazak, Ph.D., “Kurds and Human Rights in Iraq and Turkey,” Fourth World Bulletin, February 13, 1993.

[56] “U.S. Welcomes News of Abu Nidal’s Death,” CNN August 20, 2002.

[57] Available at

[58] Kevin Dowling, “Top US Expert Brands Blair as ‘Liar’ over Iraq,” Globe-Intel September 10, 2002.

[59] Ibid. “The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds. The Iraqis did fire mustard gas into Halabja, after the Iranians had attacked and occupied the town, but despite its fearsome reputation mustard gas is an incapacitating agent, rather than an efficient killer. Slightly more than two per cent of those exposed to mustard gas attack can be expected to die.”

[60] Ibid.

[61] See for example, The Wisdom Fund, “Clinton Manufactured Iraq Crisis, Violated Constitution,” Dec. 22, 1998, with references to The Washington Post reports, quotes from Ritter in The Washington Times, reports from The MacLaughlin Group, etc.; In Carola Hoyos, Nick George and Roula Khalaf “Weapons Inspections Were 'Manipulated,'” The Financial Times, July 29, 2002, Rolf Ekeus revealed that the US used the inspectors for espionage; it had also “pressed the inspection leadership to carry out inspections which were controversial from the Iraqis' view, and thereby created a blockage that could be used as the justification for a direct military action.”

[62] In an interview on NPR on February 13, 1998, Zalinskas said, “UNSCOM has destroyed all the chemical facilities, the chemical weapons facilities, and also all known chemical weapons. ... In the biological area, UNSCOM has destroyed the dedicated biological weapons facility at al-Hakam, plus other ones at other institutes. And as far as we know, they have no biological weapons stored up.”

[63] For a professional evaluation of the effectiveness of the inspections, see Rolf Ekeus, “Yes, Let's Go Into Iraq – With an Army of Inspectors,” Washington Post, September 14, 2002, B1

[64] For a complete report on these satellites and their capacities over Iraq, see Craig Covault, “Secret NRO Recons Eye Iraqi Threats,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, September 16, 2002.

[65] Robert Burns, “U.S. Said to Decline Iraq Lab Moves,” AP Wire, Aug. 20, 2002.

[66] January 31, 2002, Reuters, “Iraq Co-Operated with Nuclear Inspection – IAEA”

[67] Joseph Curl, “Agency Disavows Report On Iraq Arms,” Washington Times, September 27, 2002.

[68] See also “Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR] September 24, 2002.

[69] See my short article at

[70] Julia Preston with Todd S. Purdum, “Bush's Push on Iraq at U.N.: Headway, Then New Barriers,” New York Times, September 21, 2002.

[71] Top US foreign policy aide, quoted in Time Magazine, May 13, 2002, p. 38.

[72] The CIA shares this same assessment. See Tabassum Zakaria, “CIA Says Iraq Unlikely to Strike US Unless Provoked,” Reuters, October 9, 2002.

[73] For a similar analysis to the previous two paragraphs see, Debora MacKenzie, “Iraq invasion could ‘worsen terrorist threat,’” The New Scientist, September 18, p. 7.

[74] But see, for example, David Corn, editor of The Nation, “Bush at the UN: The Charade before the Crusade,” The Nation, September 10, 2002.

[75] Paul J. Nyden, “Bush's war plans are a cover-up, Byrd says,” The Charleston Gazette, September 21, 2002, p. 1 The entire speech presents many excellent questions that server to derail the plunge toward war. Also see Alexander Cockburn, “The Dogs of War, The Bears of Wall Street,” Counterpunch, September 25, 2002.

[76] Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia and Roland Watson, “West Sees Glittering Prizes Ahead in Giant Oilfields,” The Times {London], July 11, 2002,,,3-352935,00.html also at: For a cogent analysis of the “Cheney Report” (, The US’s growing dependence on foreign oil and the implications for the “war on terrorism,” see Michael Klare, “Oil Moves the War Machine,” The Progressive, June, 2002. Recommended also is his Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 2002).

[77] Theodoulou and Watson, op. cit. Those who have struggled against NAFTA and other “globalization” strategies, understand what “free flow” of goods means.

[78] S. Hrg. 107-658, Hearings To Examine Threats, Responses, And Regional Considerations Surrounding Iraq, Hearings before the Committee On Foreign Relations United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, July 31st and August 2nd, 2002, pp. 227-28

[79] “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue: U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool,” The Washington Post, Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01. For possible future US use of Iraqi oil, see Bill Powell, “Iraq: We Win. Then What?” Fortune Magazine, November 25, 2002.

[80] See Jason Burke, “Surrender or die, Allies warn Saddam's soldiers,” The Observer, Sunday, November 17, 2002.,12239,841824,00.html Note the dehumanization in the remark of one unnamed source: “If it's wearing a uniform and isn't surrendering it will be killed.”

[81] Will Dunham, “Saddam defiant as Bush presses for Iraq to disarm,” Reuters, Oct. 9, 2002. See also n. 71 below.

[82] Figure quoted by Lieutenant General (Retired) Robert G. Gard, Jr., Military Advisor, Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (VVAF) during Q & A at the “Veterans for Common Sense” Press Briefing October 24, 2002, 9:30 A.M. – 10:30 A.M. The National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW In the Edward R. Murrow Room.

[83] A report from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War [IPPNW] estimates the Iraqi casualties to be between 48,000 and 261,000 directly caused during the conflict and the following three months. “Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq,” November, 2002.

[84] For this effect of an invasion, see the statement against the invasion by major relief organizations, Save the Children UK, CARE International UK, Christian Aid, CAFOD, Tearfund, Help Age International, Islamic Relief and 4Rs., as well as the IPPNW report above, which estimates an additional 200,000 deaths from the subsequent collapse of the civilian infrastructure.

[85] These include: if Iraq attacks any of its neighbors; if Israel is attacked; if U.S. forces are attacked with chemical or biological weapons; if the United States military encounters targets impervious to conventional weapons; and in the event of “surprising military developments.” See excerpts from the text at The IPPNW reports estimates that if civil war breaks out and/or nuclear weapons are employed, the death rate in Iraq would range between 375,000 and 3,900.000.

[86] See Samia Nakhoul, “Parents of Dying Children Vent Fury at Bush,” Reuters, October 23, 2002. This is a very revelatory article, whose findings are verified by many who have visited Iraq.

[87] Tom Newton Dunn, “Top General: We Will Suffer 37,000 Casualties,” The Mirror, September 24, 2002. A disturbing poll by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies shows a “decreasing casualty aversion” among the American public, and reports that the American public would be willing to accept some 30.000 deaths of its soldiers “to prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.”

[88] Of nearly 700,000 troops, the US suffered 147 KIA and 457 WIA in the 1991 attacks on Iraq – many by “friendly fire.” For the present state of Iraqi resistance, see the “surprisingly candid” interview, an Iraqi officer revealed to foreign journalists: “The tanks and armored vehicles were relics from the 1980-88 war with Iran and desperately needed spare parts, and the men lacked morale and equipment, including boots in some cases.” Philip Sherwell, London Daily Telegraph, “Iraq begins war efforts,” Washington Times, September 23, 2002. Note also the observation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “Note also Donald Rumsfeld, “Looking at what was overwhelming force a decade or two decades ago, today you can have overwhelming force, conceivably, with lesser numbers because the lethality is equal to or greater than before.” Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, “Rumsfeld Orders War Plans Redone for Faster Action,” The New York Times, October 13, 2002.

[89] See David Hackworth, “The Hidden Casualties of Gulf War I,” Defense Watch, September 18, 2002., and Saul Bloom, John M. Miller, Philippa Winkler, eds., Hidden Casualties: Environmental, Health, and Political Consequences of the Persian Gulf War (North Atlantic Books, 1994).

[90] “Mandela: US Threat to World Peace,” NewsMax Wires, September 11, 2002.

[91] Alan Travis and Michael White, “War on Iraq: the mood shifts: New ICM poll shows opposition to conflict diminishing rapidly,” September 17, 2002,11538,793571,00.html

[92] Oonagh Blackman, “Iraq War Is Illegal: Own lawyers will warn off Blair on Iraq,” The Mirror, August 20, 2002.

[93] Nigel Morris, “Blair to plead for cabinet unity as Short breaks ranks on Iraq strikes,” The Independent, September 23, 2002.


[95] “In the Mori poll for ITV news, 70 per cent of those questioned opposed Britain joining any military action against Iraq without United Nations approval,” George Jones, Andrew Sparrow and Rachel Sylvester, “Iraq dossier ‘has failed to convince the public,’” The Telegraph, September 26, 2002.

[96] UNSC 1435 demanding an end to the siege of Ramallah. The US alone abstained. For other UNSC Resolutions on Iraq and US vetoes of enforcement, see;

[97] Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major U.S. ally in the Middle East, said in Cairo that “if you strike at the Iraqi people because of one or two individuals and leave the Palestinian issue (unsolved), not a single (Arab) ruler will be able to curb the (rising) popular sentiments.” Robert Burns, “Rumsfeld: Allied Support Not Vital,” AP, Aug 28, 2002.

[98] “Daniel Brumberg, a Georgetown University government professor … told the House of Representatives subcommittee on national security, veterans affairs and international relations that a U.S.-led attack on Iraq would ‘trigger violent protests throughout the Arab world’ forcing Arab governments to become more autocratic and to choke off what few democratic institutions they have.” Alan Elsner, “Congress Told Iraq Attack Will Trigger Arab Rage,” Reuters, October 8, 2002.

[99] “U.S. senators: Iraq strike could lead to 'Arab-Israeli' war,” Reuters September 22, 2002.

[100] Hassan Hafidh, “Iraq says inspection offer robs U.S. of reason to wage war,” Reuters, September 17, 2002

[101] Arabic News, “AL Stresses Opposition to Iraq Sanctions,” Sept. 9, 1999.

[102] Wires, “Arab Summit Embraces Iraq, Snaps at U.S.,” March 29, 2002.

[103] For the underreported personal and governmental attacks on Arab citizens, see and for example, Sarwat Viquar, :Living In Fear; Detention And Deportation,” ZNet Commentary, September 17, 2002

[104] “Arab Trade With U.S. Drops By 26 Percent,” MENL, September 9, 2002.

[105] For a fuller discussion, see Miriam Pemberton September 13, 2002 Testimony before Congress, “The Economic Costs of a War with Iraq,” reprinted in Foreign Policy in Focus, September, 2002.

[106] BBC News, “US Ready To ‘Go It Alone,’” February 2, 2002,; Naveed Raja, “Rumsfeld: US will Go It Alone on Iraq,” The Mirror, August 28, 2002,

[107] Howard LaFranchi, “Iraq war to carry a high tab: It may run as high as $100 billion, although some analysts see an economic upside,” Christian Science Monitor, August 19, 2002.

[108] Scott Wapner, “Can the US Afford a War with Iraq? Dissecting the Numbers,” MSNBC, October 21, 2002.

[109] Charles Sheehan-Miles, “Low-balling the Cost of War: CBO Assumes No Casualties,” October 7, 2002.

[110] “Oiling the Wheels of War: Iraq Campaign May Spark Global Recession,” Editorial in The Guardian September 16, 2002.

[111] See, for example, William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (Common Courage Press, 2000). Note also the make-up of the present US-based Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, headed by a former vice president of Lockheed Martin, a major weapons manufacturer.

[112] Dr Glen Rangwala, “Unveiled: the thugs Bush wants in place of Saddam,” The Sunday Herald, September 22, 2002. There are excellent – and horrifying – thumbnail sketches of the possible successors, described collectively as “Convicted embezzlers, accused war criminals and CIA stooges to a man.”

[113] Richard Beeston, “War crimes arrest blow to Iraqi opposition,” The [London] Times, November 20, 2002.,,3-486536,00.html

[114] Akiva Eldar, “They’re Jumping in Head First,” Ha’Aretz, September 30, 2002.

[115] James Rubin, “Planning Now for a Postwar Iraq?” New York Times, August 23, 2002.

[116] Wapner, op. cit.

[117] For an excellent analysis of this Act, see David Cole, “Trading Liberty for Security after September 11,” Foreign Policy in Focus Report, September, 2002. And for a critique of the Homland Security Act, see William Safire, “You Are a Suspect,” The New York Times, November 14, 2002

[118] Peace Statement on 'Morality and Legality' of Iraq War. A copy can be read at: See also, the ringing condemnation of the invasion by Leonard I. Beerman, James Lawson, Maher Hathout and George F. Regas, “Men of God, Warriors for Peace, Enemies of War,” Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2002.

[119] “Iraq Says UN Weapons Inspectors Can Return Next Week,” Rense, Oct. 12, 2002.

[120] John L. Allen Jr., “Criticism of war on terror dominates interfaith meeting ,” National Catholic Reporter, September 13, 2002,

[121] ibid. In an official statement, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote to President Bush on September 13, 2002. He called the preemptive, unilateral use of force “difficult to justify.” Compare this to the statements cited in note 69.

[122] Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, “American Arsenal in the Mideast Is Being Built Up to Confront Saddam Hussein,” New York Times, August 19, 2002. See also, Kedar Sharma, “U.S. Looks to Qatar for Iraq Strike Staging Ground,” Reuters, October 9, 2002.

[123] See Marc Ericson, “Iraq: In All but Name, the War’s On,” Asia Times, August 17, 2002.

[124] “New Blood: Can a moment of anti-war anger become an effective new political movement?” In These Times, October 13, 2002. is an excellent and insightful article.

[125] Harris Poll, October 9, 2002.; See also, “Public Support for Iraq Attack Steady – Poll,” Reuters, October 12, 2002.

[126] See Leslie Wayne, “America’s Secret For-Profit Army,” The New York Times, October 13, 2002. It is arguable that the maintenance of this army violates Article I, Sec 8, Cls 15-16 of the US Constitution.

-- Lilly
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-Mail: ( default )
Optional Link ( default )
Optional Image Link ( default )

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from