No to War with Iraq

Entre padre e hijo estadounidenses....

- Papá, ¿por qué atacamos Iraq?
- Porque tenían armas de destrucción masiva, hijo.
- Pero los inspectores no las encontraron.
- Porque los iraquíes las habían escondido.
- ¿Y por eso los atacamos?
- Si, las invasiones son mejor que las inspecciones.
- Pero después de invadirlos no hemos encontrado ningún arma de destrucción masiva, ¿o si?
- Eso es debido a que los iraquíes las escondieron muy bien. No te preocupes, algo encontraremos, probablemente antes de las elecciones del 2.004.
- ¿Para qué quería Iraq todas esas armas de destrucción masiva?
- Para usarlas en la guerra, tonto.
- No lo entiendo. ¿Si tenían esas armas para usarlas en la guerra, por qué no las usaron cuando les atacamos?
- Probablemente porque no querían que nadie supiese que las tenían, por lo que decidieron morir en decenas de miles antes que defenderse.
- Esto no parece lógico, papá. ¿Por qué tenían que preferir morir en vez de usar las armas para luchar contra nosotros?
- Es otra cultura. No tiene por qué haber ninguna lógica en eso.
- No se qué piensas tú, pero yo creo que no tenían ninguna de esas armas que nuestro gobierno decía.
- Mira, no importa si tenían esas armas o no. De todas maneras teníamos buenas razones para invadirlos.
- ¿Y cuáles eran?
- Incluso si Iraq no tenía armas de destrucción masiva, Saddam Hussein era un dictador cruel, y eso era una buena razón para invadir otro país.
- ¿Por qué?. ¿Qué hace un cruel dictador para que se invada su país?
- Por ejemplo torturaba a su pueblo.
- ¿Mas o menos como hacen en China?
- No vengas ahora comparando China con Iraq. China es un amigo comercial, donde millones de habitantes trabajan con sueldos de esclavo para hacer las compañías de EEUU aún mas ricas.
- O sea, ¿que si un país deja que su pueblo sea explotado por compañías de EEUU es un buen país, incluso si torturan a su propio pueblo?
- ¡Correcto!
- ¿Por qué era torturada la gente en Iraq?
- Mas que nada por crímenes políticos, como criticar el gobierno. La gente que criticaba el gobierno era encerrada en la cárcel y torturada.
- ¿No es lo mismo que ocurre en China?
- Te he dicho que China es diferente.
- ¿Cual es la diferencia entre China e Iraq?
- En Iraq mandaba el partido Baath y en China los comunistas.
- ¿No me has dicho que el comunismo es malo?
- No!, sólo el comunismo cubano es malo.
- ¿De que manera es malo el comunismo cubano?
- Bueno, por ejemplo a los críticos del gobierno los encierran en la cárcel y torturan.
- ¿Como en Iraq?
- Exacto!
- ¿Y como en China?
- Ya te he dicho que China es un amigo. Cuba, no.
-¿Por qué no es Cuba una amigo comercial?
- Mira: en los años 60 nuestro gobierno hizo unas leyes que hacían ilegal el comercio mientras no dejasen de ser comunistas y fuesen capitalistas como nosotros.
- ¿Y si quitásemos esas leyes e hiciésemos comercio con Cuba no los convencería para ser capitalistas?
- ¡No te hagas el gracioso!
- ¡No era mi idea!
- Además tampoco hay libertad de religión en Cuba.
- ¿Cómo el movimiento Falun-Gong en China?
- Te he dicho que no digas tonterías de China. De todas maneras Saddam Hussein tomó el poder en un golpe de estado, lo que lo hace ilegítimo.
- ¿Que es un golpe de estado?
- Cuando un general toma el poder con violencia en vez de elecciones como hacemos en EEUU.
- ¿El líder de Paquistán no llegó al poder en un golpe de estado?
- Te refieres a Pervez Musharraf?, sí, pero Paquistán es nuestro amigo.
- ¿Como puede ser Paquistán nuestro amigo si su líder es ilegítimo?
- Yo no he dicho que Pervez Musharraf sea ilegítimo.
- ¿No acabas de decir que si un general toma el poder en un golpe de estado es ilegítimo?
- Sólo Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf es nuestro amigo porque nos ayudó a invadir Afganistán.
- ¿Por qué invadimos Afganistán?
- Por lo que nos hicieron el 11 de septiembre.
- ¿Que nos hizo Afganistán el 11 de septiembre?
- El 11 de septiembre fueron secuestrados 4 aviones por 19 hombres, 15 de ellos eran de Arabia Saudí. Tres aviones explotaron sobre edificios y mataron a mas de 3.000 personas.
- ¿Y que tiene que ver Afganistán en esto?
- Allí se entrenaron esos hombres malos bajo la dirección de los Talibán.
- ¿Son los Talibán esos musulmanes fanáticos que cortan la cabeza y las manos de la gente?
- Exacto, además oprimían a las mujeres.
- ¿No les dio la administración de Bush 43 millones en mayo del 2.001?
- Si, pero fue una recompensa por su buen trabajo contra la droga.
- ¿Lucha contra la droga?
- Si, los Talibán fueron muy efectivos para evitar que la gente plantase amapolas de opio.
- ¿Y cómo hicieron tan buen trabajo?
- Fácil. A quien pillaban cultivando amapola le cortaban la cabeza y las manos.
- ¿Así que si cortaban cabezas y manos por eso era correcto, pero no por otros motivos?
- Correcto. Además obligaban a las mujeres a llevar velo que tapaba todo el cuerpo.
- ¿No ocurre eso también en Arabia Saudita?
- No, en Arabia Saudita es ropa tradicional que tapa todo el cuerpo.
- ¿Cual es la diferencia? A mi me parece lo mismo con otro nombre.
- No compares Afganistán con Arabia Saudita. Los saudíes son nuestros amigos.
- Me pareció que dijiste que 15 de los 19 secuestradores eran de Arabia Saudita.
- Sí. pero se entrenaron en Afganistán.
- ¿Quien los entrenaba?
- Un hombre malo, llamado Osama Bin Laden.
- ¿Era de Afganistán?
- Oh, no. Era de Arabia Saudita, pero malo, muy malo.
- Creo recordar que un tiempo era nuestro amigo.
- Sólo cuando nos ayudó con los Muyahedines contra los soviéticos en los 80.
- ¿Los soviéticos?, no eran esos del imperio comunista que nombraba Ronald Reagan?
- Ya no son soviéticos. La URSS colapsó en 1.990, ahora son capitalistas y les llamamos rusos.
- ¿Los soviéticos?, digo, ¿los rusos? ¿son ahora nuestros amigos?
- No directamente. Fueron nuestros amigos al dejar de ser soviéticos, pero no nos ayudaron en la invasión de Iraq y estamos enfadados con ellos. También estamos enfadados con los franceses y alemanes.
- Los franceses y alemanes también son malos?
- Bueno, no malos, pero nos enfadamos con ellos y rebautizamos las patatas francesas y las tostadas francesas en patatas y tostadas "Freedom".
- ¿Rebautizamos siempre la comida de los países que no hacen como queremos?
- Sólo a los amigos, a los enemigos los invadimos.
- ¿Pero no era Iraq amigo nuestro en los 80?
- Sí, entonces.
- Era Saddam líder entonces?
- Si, pero luchaba contra Irán, lo que lo hacia en ese momento nuestro amigo.
- ¿Por qué eso lo hacia nuestro amigo?
- Porque Irán era nuestro enemigo.
- ¿No fué Saddam el que gaseó a los kurdos?
- Si, pero como luchaba contra Irán, miramos hacia otro lado para mostrarle que era nuestro amigo.
- Entonces, ¿si alguien lucha contra un enemigo nuestro se convierte en nuestro amigo?
- Mas o menos!
- ¿Y si lucha contra algún amigo se convierte automáticamente en enemigo nuestro?
- A veces ocurre eso. De todas maneras, si empresas estadounidenses venden armas a los dos bandos, ganan mas dinero, así que mejor.
- ¿Por qué?
- Porque la guerra es buena para la economía, lo que quiere decir que la guerra es buena para los EEUU. Además Dios está de parte de los EEUU, así que los que se oponen a la guerra son pecadores, comunistas anti EEUU. ¿Comprendes ahora por qué atacamos Iraq?
- Creo que sí. Atacamos porque Dios quiere, verdad?
- ¡Sí!
- Pero cómo supimos que Dios quería que atacásemos Iraq?
- Mira: Dios le habla a George W Bush y le dice qué ha de hacer.
- O sea, que invadimos Iraq porque George W Bush escuchó voces dentro de su cabeza.
- Si!, al fin has comprendido como funciona el mundo. Anda, cierra los ojos, ponte cómodo y duerme. ¡Buenas noches!
- ¡Buenas noches papá

The Insulting Insinuations of the Bush Regime: Mexico Must Stand for Principles Not Interests
by CARLOS FUENTES

Mexico City. Only days ago, Mexico's former foreign minister, Fernando Solana Morales, said, quite rightly, that on international matters principle corresponds with national interest. The simple clarity of Solana's statement should destroy the obtuse (and opportunist) argument that principles and interests follow opposite paths.

Especially in Mexico's relationship with the United States, the opportunists claim, principles should be left aside in favor of our interests: commerce, immigration, combating organized crime. If we want that agenda to succeed, they argue, we should shelve our principles and look after our interests. To do otherwise would bring about reprisals from the U.S.

But they are wrong. The principles of Mexican foreign policy have two sources: the constitution and historical experience. The constitution calls for self- determination, nonintervention and peaceful solutions.

Experience shows that by holding on to those principles, we have always won. The specter of a reprisal by the U.S. against Mexico's political independence is nothing but a ghost that proves to be imaginary when looking at the last 50 years. Mexico should remember that as it weighs its position on the upcoming U.N. Security Council vote on Iraq.

Mexico actively opposed U.S. aggression and intervention in Guatemala in the 1950s; in Cuba and the Dominican Republic in the 1960s; and in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Granada in the 1980s. During the Central American wars, Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda Sr. built, with French minister Claude Cheysson, the Franco-Mexican accord that gave political status to the Salvadoran guerrillas over the objections of the United States. Then-Foreign Minister Bernardo Sepulveda was the engine behind the Contadora Group -- Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela -- that sought solutions for peace. In these last two cases, Mexico's opposition to the U.S. was riskier than a U.N. vote on Saddam Hussein.

In the face of open aggression and intervention by the Reagan administration against Central America, Mexico worked for a peaceful solution that took the initiative away from Washington and placed it in the hands of the Central Americans. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias' Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 is a testament to that. In all those instances when Mexico has shown its independence, Washington signaled its anger but did nothing against Mexico. It didn't do anything because it couldn't. In the name of what?

What the U.S. should fear more that the hypothetical weapons of Hussein is an internal crisis for its southern neighbor.

A revolutionized and unstable Mexico represents the most dangerous scenario for Washington because it presents an undefensible southern flank. The relationship between Mexico and the U.S. is one of mutual interest and advantage. The border between the two countries is the most porous in the world. Every day thousands of people cross it.

Mexican immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy in agriculture, the service sector and in many other jobs. In fact, they give more than they receive. The insulting insinuations of the inexperienced U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza -- hinting of possible reprisals against Mexico on immigration if Mexico does not vote with the U.S. on Iraq -- are absurd. Mexican workers are indispensable in the United States.

From the first day of the Vicente Fox-George Bush relationship, everybody has been in agreement that, given the legal and political obstacles in the United States, an immigration accord would not be accomplished today or tomorrow but could happen in the distant future. Dependence, then, is mutual. So are responsibilities.

The North American Free Trade Agreement brought a tremendous increase in commercial trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Any reprisal on this front would result in the United States cutting off its nose to spite its face. NAFTA generates millions of dollars annually, and in the U.S., the wallet dominates politics.

I don't see a serious case in which the United States can hurt Mexico because of its independent international stance. Let's get rid of this ghost that only scares the cowards and the disingenuous.

Mexico's political independence in the case of Iraq will contribute forcefully to what the world most needs: a counterpoint to U.S. power. The real danger in our time is not the miserable Hussein. It is a unipolar world dominated by Washington. Creating that counterbalance is a political necessity. Future governments, but especially the democratic government of the United States, will end up thanking France, Germany, Chile, Mexico, Russia and China for their efforts to create a counterpoint to the United States.

It is hoped that President Fox will have in his mind Mexico's proud history on international affairs when he decides how Mexico will vote in the Security Council. Now is the time to maintain our principles to defend our interests.

Carlos Fuentes, novelist and critic, is author, most recently, of "The Years With Laura Diaz" .

Ciudad del Vaticano. Agencias

El Vaticano considera que sólo la ONU puede decidir sobre una acción militar contra Irak y que una guerra unilateral sería "un crimen contra la paz" y contra el derecho internacional, aseguró hoy el "ministro de Exteriores" de la Santa Sede, Jean Louis Tauran.

Según Tauran, ninguna regla de derecho internacional autoriza a un Estado o a varios a intervenir unilateralmente contra otro país y que sólo el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU puede establecer si el rearme de una nación constituye una amenaza para la paz mundial y es necesario intervenir.

De todas maneras, precisó, no está dicho que haya que echar mano a la guerra.

El responsable vaticano para las relaciones con los Estados hizo estas afirmaciones en una conferencia pronunciada en un centro sanitario católico de Roma, en la que reiteró la posición de la Santa Sede: no a la guerra, ya que un conflicto es una derrota para toda la humanidad, e Irak debe aceptar la resolución de la ONU.

"La legítima defensa presupone la existencia de una agresión previa. Si no se da ese caso, una agresión unilateral sería un crimen contra la paz y una violación de la Convención de Ginebra",
subrayó Tauran, que insistió que si EEUU y otros países deciden atacar sin la luz verde de la ONU "sería una guerra fuera de la ley".

El arzobispo francés se mostró a favor de que los inspectores de desarme de la ONU prosigan su labor en Irak, convencido de que se puede encontrar una salida pacífica al conflicto.

Tauran, al igual que se han expresado en anteriores ocasiones el Papa y los altos cargos vaticanos, manifestó que Bagdad tiene que acatar las resoluciones de la ONU y no vulnerar la legalidad internacional.

El prelado subrayó también que una guerra sólo causará más daños a una población exhausta tras doce años de embargos y radicalizará a las poblaciones de los países árabes, que en solidaridad con Irak podrían asumir posiciones extremistas. "Una guerra traerá consecuencias desproporcionadas", aseguró Tauran.

Millones de personas en todo el mundo se movilizan contra la guerra en Irak
Madrid. ABC

Millones de personas se han manifestado ya en todo el mundo contra la guerra en Irak. Las concentraciones se han sucedido a lo largo de todo el día en todas las latitudes. De las que primero se ha tenido noticia son, por diferencia horaria, las celebradas en Asia y las que han tenido lugar por la mañana en algunas capitales europeas y en muchas ciudades españolas. Ofrecemos un resumen de las más significativas.

Madrid
La masiva afluencia de madrileños a la manifestación convocada en rechazo a una posible guerra contra Irak impidió inicio de la marcha por la imposibilidad de formar las tres cabeceras previstas. Los madrileños han abarrotado todas las calles del recorrido y otras adyacentes y las cabeceras no pudieron formarse debido a la aglomeración. La marcha estaba prevista que partiera de los aledaños de la glorieta de Atocha bajo una primera pancarta portada por los representantes del mundo de la cultura y el espectáculo con el lema "No a la guerra", pero la concentración ha sido tan nutrida que lo que habría sido una marcha se ha quedado en eso, en masiva concentración.

Londres
Unas 500. 000 personas se reunieron hoy en Londres, la capital de Gran Bretaña, para protestar en contra de la amenaza de una guerra en Irak, en una manifestación convocada bajo el lema de "No en mi nombre". Los manifestantes partieron desde dos puntos distintos del centro de Londres, se juntaron en Piccadilly Circus y prosiguieron la marcha hasta Hyde Park. "No a la guerra y "No en mi nombre" eran los lemas que corearon los manifestantes. El alcalde de Londres, que convocó la manifestación, Ken Livingston, dijo: "Creo que en este asunto sencillamente se trata de que las empresas estadounidenses se queden con el control del petróleo iraquí. Creo que es absolutamente detestable que estemos dispuestos a atacar Irak sólo para hacer más ricos a los amigos de Bush". El político izquierdista comentó además que ahora el futuro político del primer ministro, el laborista Tony Blair, está en peligro.

París
Miles de personas se congregaron a primera hora de la tarde en el centro de París para comenzar a manifestarsecontra una guerra en Irak, en esta jornada mundial del "no" a los planes militares de Estados Unidos. Alentadas por el tanto que "el bando de la paz" se apuntó ayer en la ONU con el informe de los inspectores de desarme, las más de 80 organizaciones que han convocado las manifestaciones en unas 60 ciudades galas esperaban reunir en París a unas 100.000 personas aunque las primeras cifras apuntan a que han sido muchas más, alñgunas fuentes señalan que se trata de la mayor concentración pacifista de la historia. «No a la guerra contra Irak. Justicia, paz, democracia en Oriente Medio", rezaba la pancarta de cabeza de la marcha, que arrancó pasadas las 13.00 GMT en la plaza de Denfert-ochereau y quedebe concluir en la de la Bastilla cinco horas después. Al frente del desfile había pacifistas estadounidenses y ex combatientes franceses de la guerra del Golfo de 1991, que liberó a Kuwait de la ocupación iraquí

Roma
Llegados de todo los puntos de Italia, los oponentes a una guerra contra Irak se congregaron este sábado en Roma para realizar una marcha en la cual deben participar entre 300. 000 y un millón de personas, en una de las más importantes manifestaciones organizadas en Europa. Algunas personas partieron de sus casas al amanecer y realizaron un viaje en uno de los 26 trenes especiales puestos a disposición para el acontecimiento, mientras que otros llegaron en autobuses hasta la capital italiana. La afluencia fue tan grande al final de la mañana que el comité organizador decidió adelantar el horario previsto de la partida de la marcha, que según indicó espera alcanzar "más de un millón de personas". Por su parte, la policía aguarda una afluencia de "al menos 300.000 personas". Los primeros grupos partieron lentamente antes del mediodía de la plaza Ostiense, cerca de las ruinas del Circo Máximo y de las termas de Caracalla, para dirigirse bajo un magnífico sol hacia la plaza San Juan de Latran, la más grande de la capital, ubicada al norte de la ciudad. La marcha tiene un carácter festivo y todas las generaciones están presentes en la misma.

Berlín
Alrededor de 100.000 personas se han reunido en Berlín para manifestarse bajo mos lemas ´No a la guerra contra Irak´ y , Ninguna guerra contra el pueblo iraquíí. Desde las 12: 00 horas tiene lugar una manifestacion con dos puntosde partida paralelos: uno en el este de Berlin, Alexanderplatz; y otro en el oeste, Breitscheidplatz. Ambas tienenen recorridos marcados por las principales calles de Berlin hasta llegar a la Puerta de Brandenburgo. Entre las principales personalidades que asisten a la manifestacion destaca em presidente de la Republica Federal Alemana, Johannes Rau. Hasta la capital al%mana han llegado autobuses procedentes de Hamburgo, Munich, Dresden, Francfort, Leipzig y otras muchas ciudades del país. Para facilitar la asistencia de mos estudiantes, se hanfletado algunos autobuses cuyo billete solo costaba 1 euro. Desde las 11:30 de esta mañana, en mos lugares señalados como lugar de encuentro para mos manifestantes y punto de partida, comenzaron las actuaciones de músicos e intervenciones de distintos personajes de la política y miembros de movimientos pacifistas y organizaciones juveniles.

Lisboa
Unas 80.000 personas se manifestaron hoy en el centro de Lisboa para protestar contra una eventual guerra en Irak, en el principal acto en Portugal de la Jornada Mundial por la paz, según datos facilitados por la organización. El ex presidente de la República y actual eurodiputado socialista Mario Soares encabezó la marcha acompañado, entre otros, de unos niños que portaban una gran pancarta que decía "Juntos podemos impedir la guerra". En la marcha lisboeta estaban los líderes del Partido Comunista de Portugal, Carlos Carvalhas, y el del Bloco de Esquerda, Fernando Lousa, que optaron por ir a la manifestación en vez de entrevistarse con el primer ministro, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, en la ronda de audiencias preparatorias para el Consejo Europeo extraordinario. El secretario general del Partido Socialista (PS), Eduardo Ferro Rodrigues, dijo hoy, tras reunirse con Barroso, que el gobierno luso debe "abandonar la posición de seguir a la administración Bush y debe luchar por la paz y por que prime el derecho internacional" en la crisis de Irak. Ferro dejó claro que su partido se opondrá a una intervención militar en Irak que no cuente con el apoyo del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas.

Amsterdam
Más de 25.000 personas se manifestaron a primera hora de esta tarde en el centro de Amsterdam para protestar contra una eventual guerra en Irak, según las cifras facilitadas por la Policía neerlandesa. ´No a la sangre a cambio de petróleo´, ´Desarmemos a Irak sin guerra´ y ´No a la guerra en mi nombre´ fueron algunos de los eslóganes más utilizados por los miles de manifestantes. Respondiendo a la convocatoria de 200 asociaciones, partidos políticos y organizaciones religiosas reunidas en el colectivo ´Detened la guerra´, los manifestantes se congregaron a las 13: 00 horas en la Plaza de Dam, en pleno centro de la capital neerlandesa.

Praga
Cientos de manifestantes se sumaron en Praga a las protestas convocadas en centenares de ciudades de todo el mundo para intentar frenar una eventual guerra contra Irak. La protesta más numerosa se está desarrollando en la Plaza de Wenceslao y ha sido organizada por el Partido Comunista de Bohemia y Moravia (KSCM), congregando en su mayoría a personas mayores y de edad media. En su discurso, el líder comunista Miroslav Grebenicek rechazó el recurso a la guerra como instrumento para obtener la paz. Otra convocatoria pacifista tuvo lugar en la Plaza de Jan Palach, esta vez liderada por el grupo "Iniciativa Contra la Guerra", a la que se unió un reducido número de ciudadanos norteamericanos e iraquíes residentes en el país eslavo.

Dear MoveOn member,
For the next two weeks we're supporting volunteers in an intense local campaign to get out the word about opposition to war. The decision by France, Germany, and Russia to put their feet down in favor of tough inspections has become a giant embarrassment for the hawks in the Bush administration. And public support for unilateral war continues to be weak, even under the assault of an enormous marketing campaign by the White House. We need to keep up the pressure.

We're highlighting two key efforts today: anti-war placards and billboards.

(1) BILLBOARDS. Check out the simulated billboard below. We want to place it in LA, Detroit, and San Francisco. If we can raise $75,000 by Thursday, we'll hit these cities plus place these signs on 25% of the busses in Washington D.C. for the next month and on trucks that will travel throughout the Capitol. We'll make sure Donald Rumsfeld gets a chance to see that it's not just our nation's allies that oppose this war.

Can you chip in? Go to our secure donation page to make it a reality.

We really need your contributions in the next 48 hours. Just a reminder: only give funds through our secure, online donation pages at MoveOn.org.

(2) PLACARD SIGN. Get the same image as on the billboard above, on a placard sign you can print on your own printer. Download this placard sign today and put it in the window in your living room or car. Then post copies where appropriate in your community. Just go to:

http://moveon.org/inspectionswork/

Please let us know how many copies you've posted at:

http://moveon.org/posters.html

In the next two weeks, we'll be highlighting five ways for you to get out the word: some fun, some easy, some challenging -- all powerful. Over thirteen thousand individuals have volunteered more than a day of time to this effort. We'll be reaching millions. Please stay tuned.

Here are the key elements of this volunteer campaign:

(1) A Million Signs -- ACTIVE NOW
(2) Billboards and Buses -- ACTIVE NOW
(3) Talking to Our Neighbors -- STAY TUNED
(4) Ads in 100+ Newspapers -- STAY TUNED
(5) A Really Cool Coalition Effort -- TO BE ANNOUNCED FEB 18TH

This grassroots PR campaign is totally unprecedented. All across the country, we're coming together to make our steady voice heard over the media's war frenzy. Never before have so many people spoken in a coordinated effort such as this one.

Twice a week for the rest of February, we will be updating you on the progress of each of these efforts. In each email, we'll be giving our entire 700,000+ U.S. membership a chance to get involved.

Thanks for everything,

Sincerely,
--The MoveOn Team
Carrie, Eli, Joan, Peter, Wes, Zack
February 11, 2003

P.S. We're running another NY Times ad tomorrow in collaboration with True Majority and Working Assets. See it in the Times or view here (this is a 231K PDF file):

http://www.moveon.org/inspections/nytimes021203.pdf

Like many of the men and women I served with, I do not believe that President Bush or Secretary of State Powell, in his presentation at the United Nations on Wednesday, has made the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. Without proving imminent threat, the administration has failed outright to justify its rush to war. Many senior military leaders, including Generals Norman Schwarzkopf, Anthony Zinni and Wesley Clark, have all questioned the wisdom of another war with Iraq.

Thousands of veterans of all U.S. wars have stepped forward, marched in demonstrations and raised their voices to say that the nation they defended should not be attacking other nations. There is no sense of just cause in the U.S. armed forces today. Most recently we veterans have been joined in our message by families with loved ones in the military.

Tens of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis could die in a long, drawn-out war in Iraq.

We need your help to spread our message that veterans oppose this war. We can win without war.

How can you help? Join Veterans for Common Sense. Whether you are a veteran, or you have a family member in the military, or you simply support our message, you can join us in calling for a common sense approach to Iraq. We need your support.

To find out more, please visit: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/

Already we have reached across the country through successful press conferences, innumerable appearances on television and radio programs, and op-eds, letters to the editor and interviews published in local, regional and national newspapers. Already we have visited innumerable congressional offices, winning impressive support across the politicalspectrum.

Add your voice to the growing chorus of voices speaking common sense against the rush to war.

For more information, and to find out the latest news about a possible war in Iraq, visit our web site: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org

Together we can win without war,

Charles Sheehan-Miles
Veterans for Common Sense

Different Man, Different Moment
By ADLAI E. STEVENSON III

CHICAGO — Pundits and officials in Washington have dubbed Secretary of State Colin Powell's attempt to make a case for war against Iraq in the United Nations Security Council an "Adlai Stevenson moment."

I couldn't disagree more. My father was Adlai Stevenson, who in 1962, as President Kennedy's representative to the United Nations, presented the Security Council with incontrovertible proof that the Soviet Union, a nuclear superpower, was installing missiles in Cuba and threatening to upset the world's "balance of terror."

That "moment" had an obvious purpose: containing the Soviet Union and maintaining peace. It worked, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. This moment has a different purpose: war. The Bush administration clearly rejects the idea of containing Iraq through committed monitoring by the United Nations, even though this course is the better option.

With so much comparison between Secretary Powell and my father, I've been trying to think back to the days leading up to my father's famous moment. While his appearance became the stuff of historical legend, he rarely talked about it with his family. One weekend, he merely announced that he had to go to Washington because something important had come up. (President Kennedy, we learned later, was giving him his marching orders.) There was no visible worry or excitement. Maybe he was saving up for his moment.

After all, his entire adult life had been defined by seeing to it that the Soviet threat was contained — preventing it from erupting into war. My father, President Kennedy and others remembered the lessons learned from the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke and his wife in 1914. Serbian nationalists behind the killings expected a reaction. But they did not expect to bring down the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Politically motivated terrorists are fanatics, not fools. Yet the empire delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, bringing on World War I and its own demise.

My father visited the military cemeteries in Europe as a young man. France lost a quarter of its men between the ages of 18 and 30 during World War I. He remembered Woodrow Wilson's efforts to create a world order that preserved the peace, and the hopes destroyed by the old guard in the Senate, which defeated that League of Nations.

Veterans of World War II, men like my father and Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, went on to pick up where Wilson had failed. The old guard was defeated. The United Nations was established. A new world order contained the Soviet Union, controlled the strategic arms race and preserved peace. America was a real superpower then, its embassies the outposts of hope and security.

Clearly, we live in a different world now. But would going to war truly make it a safer one? A contained Saddam Hussein would remain a pariah in the Middle East. A Saddam Hussein under attack would win sympathy on behalf of his long-suffering people and perhaps the support of terrorists inflamed by the mighty reach of the United States. A war could also set back Iraq's oil production and destabilize other oil-producing states. The economic consequences of war and reconstruction are incalculable; the federal budget is already plunging into deficit from surplus at the fastest rate in history, without even provision for war.

Why, then, the enthusiasm for war? Even top officials at the Central Intelligence Agency have acknowledged that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are only a threat if Iraq is attacked. And Iraq's government, after all, is the same Baathist regime aided by the Reagan administration when Baghdad used chemical weapons in its bloody war against Iran. If anything, Iraq was stronger and more dangerous then. (I first became acquainted with this regime in 1976 when its minions tore toenails from the feet of my driver, a Kurd, in Baghdad — apparently for having been insufficiently forthcoming during a periodic interrogation).

Many curious explanations are circulating for suddenly making this infamous regime a unilateral casus belli of the United States while North Korea — which may take advantage of the administration's preoccupation with Iraq to develop more nuclear weapons — is an object of relative indifference. Maybe the most plausible is Iraq's purported link to terrorism.

In 1978, I led the first in-depth Congressional study into the growing threat of terrorism and how to combat it. Such a threat reaches far back into history, beyond the label of terrorism. In 1962, President Kennedy read Barbara Tuchman's book "The Guns of August," a history of the unintended chain of consequences that led to the devastation of World War I. He wanted to avoid similar missteps.

The Bush administration would benefit by the same lesson. Sept. 11 was not all that different from Sarajevo at the turn of the century. The 19 men armed with box cutters did not expect to bring down all of America. Only America can do that. They expected a reaction. The one they should get is to be treated as criminals, hunted down and brought to justice. Bringing war only confirms complaints that the United States is waging a war against Islam. It can also give terrorists the reaction they seek.

Whether made by Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein, today's threats require a multidimensional response, including efforts to address the widening gap between the haves and the have nots, the horrible conditions in which most people around the world struggle to survive. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a good place to begin. The United States loses credibility when perceived as supporting terror in one part of the Mideast, while professing to fight it elsewhere.

I like to think that if my father were in Secretary Powell's shoes, he would have presented proof of an aggressive deployment of weapons of mass destruction and evidence that Iraq was closer to obtaining nuclear arms — a claim the administration made not so long ago. The Bush administration would have supported the United Nations, its inspectors and international containment of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Members of the Security Council and other nations would not have to be cajoled into going along. The international community, for which this administration still presumes to speak, would support the United States, as it did in October, 1962, when America waged peace.

Adlai E. Stevenson III is a former United States senator from Illinois.

Move On Signature Campaign

Please join me in signing an online petition asking President Bush to let the weapons inspections work, rather than rushing to war. If we don't act now, we could be at war by the end of the month.
Inspections in Iraq have started. Most of us breathed a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, it's become clear that the ultra-hawks in the Bush administration -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle -- will not take yes for an answer. While the rest of the world thinks Iraq has backed down, these men are pursuing a massive public relations blitz for war.
With the possibility of a peaceful resolution to this crisis at hand, we cannot allow a few men to push the world to war. Send a message to President Bush and Congress to let the inspections work at:
http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/
MoveOn.org will compile our messages and present them to the administration, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and to members of Congress.
The good news is that the ultra-hawks face some serious opposition. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other members of the Bush Administration are willing to give diplomacy a chance, and the State Department's interpretation of the U.N. resolution is a lot more reasonable than the White House's interpretation.
President Bush has agreed that war should be the very last resort. Let's hold him and his Administration to those words:
http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/
Please join me and sign on today. We must support policy makers who will oppose these few extremists in the Bush White House who have been looking for an excuse for war from the very beginning.

Statement on Iraq
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, D.C.
November 13, 2002

As we Catholic Bishops meet here in Washington, our nation, Iraq and the world face grave choices about war and peace, about pursuing justice and security. These are not only military and political choices, but also moral ones because they involve matters of life and death. Traditional Christian teaching offers ethical principles and moral criteria that should guide these critical choices.

Two months ago, Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote President George Bush to welcome efforts to focus the world's attention on Iraq's refusal to comply with several United Nations resolutions over the past eleven years, and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. This letter, which was authorized by the U.S. Bishops' Administrative Committee, raised serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. As a body, we make our own the questions and concerns raised in Bishop Gregory's letter, taking into account developments since then, especially the unanimous action of the U.N. Security Council on November 8th.

We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of the Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership must cease its internal repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and destroy all such existing weapons. We welcome the fact that the United States has worked to gain new action by the UN Security Council to ensure that Iraq meets its obligation to disarm. We join others in urging Iraq to comply fully with this latest Security Council resolution. We fervently pray that all involved will act to ensure that this UN action will not simply be a prelude to war but a way to avoid it.

While we cannot predict what will happen in the coming weeks, we wish to reiterate questions of ends and means that may still have to be addressed. We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear. Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.*

Just cause. The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain." (#2309) We are deeply concerned about recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional limits on just cause to include preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Consistent with the proscriptions contained in international law, a distinction should be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government's existence.

Legitimate authority. In our judgment, decisions concerning possible war in Iraq require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our nation, and some form of international sanction. That is why the action by Congress and the UN Security Council are important. As the Holy See has indicated, if recourse to force were deemed necessary, this should take place within the framework of the United Nations after considering the consequences for Iraqi civilians, and regional and global stability. (Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, 9/10/02).

Probability of success and proportionality. The use of force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" (Catechism, #2309). We recognize that not taking military action could have its own negative consequences. We are concerned, however, that war against Iraq could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. The use of force might provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent, could impose terrible new burdens on an already long-suffering civilian population, and could lead to wider conflict and instability in the region. War against Iraq could also detract from the responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and could undermine broader efforts to stop terrorism.

Norms governing the conduct of war. The justice of a cause does not lessen the moral responsibility to comply with the norms of civilian immunity and proportionality. While we recognize improved capability and serious efforts to avoid directly targeting civilians in war, the use of military force in Iraq could bring incalculable costs for a civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo. In assessing whether "collateral damage" is proportionate, the lives of Iraqi men, women and children should be valued as we would the lives of members of our own family and citizens of our own country.

Our assessment of these questions leads us to urge that our nation and the world continue to pursue actively alternatives to war in the Middle East. It is vital that our nation persist in the very frustrating and difficult challenges of maintaining broad international support for constructive, effective and legitimate ways to contain and deter aggressive Iraqi actions and threats. We support effective enforcement of the military embargo and maintenance of political sanctions. We reiterate our call for much more carefully-focused economic sanctions which do not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians. Addressing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be matched by broader and stronger non-proliferation measures. Such efforts, grounded in the principle of mutual restraint, should include, among other things, greater support for programs to safeguard and eliminate weapons of mass destruction in all nations, stricter controls on the export of missiles and weapons technology, improved enforcement of the biological and chemical weapons conventions, and fulfillment of U.S. commitments to pursue good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

There are no easy answers. Ultimately, our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national security, but we hope that our moral concerns and questions will be considered seriously by our leaders and all citizens. We invite others, particularly Catholic lay people -- who have the principal responsibility to transform the social order in light of the Gospel -- to continue to discern how best to live out their vocation to be "witnesses and agents of peace and justice" (Catechism, #2442). As Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Mt. 5).

We pray for all those most likely to be affected by this potential conflict, especially the suffering people of Iraq and the men and women who serve in our armed forces. We support those who risk their lives in the service of our nation. We also support those who seek to exercise their right to conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection, as we have stated in the past.

We pray for President Bush and other world leaders that they will find the will and the ways to step back from the brink of war with Iraq and work for a peace that is just and enduring. We urge them to work with others to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that recognizes legitimate self defense and conforms to traditional moral limits on the use of military force.

____________________

*"Just war teaching has evolved…as an effort to prevent war; only if war cannot be rationally avoided, does the teaching then seek to restrict and reduce its horrors. It does this by establishing a set of rigorous conditions which must be met if the decision to go to war is to be morally permissible. Such a decision, especially today, requires extraordinarily strong reasons for overriding the presumption in favor of peace and against war. This is one significant reason why valid just-war teaching makes provision for conscientious dissent." The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response (1983), #83.
December 12, 2002 Copyright © by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

US Conference of Catholic Bishops

The Use of Force Against Iraq

ACTION REQUESTED: Call President Bush (202-456-1414) today and urge him to continue to work with other nations and the United Nations to address Iraq's threats. Call your Members of Congress (Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121) and ask them to convey the same message to the President.

THE ISSUE: President Bush sought a resolution from Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions, defend national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region. On October 10, 2002, the Senate and the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to grant the President the power to go to war with Iraq. Seventy-seven of 100 Senators and 296 of 435 House members authorized the President to "use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

The efforts of many of you who responded to our action alert urging Congress to step back from the brink of war resulted in a higher than expected number of Members who voted against the resolution, among them over twenty Senators, several House Republicans, as well as a majority of House Democrats.

The resolution that Congress adopted does not grant the President the blanket authority to use force against Iraq as he initially had sought. It strongly encourages the President to exhaust all diplomatic measures before going to war with Iraq, including securing a new UN Security Council resolution to force Iraq to comply with previous Security Council resolutions. It does not grant authority to restore peace throughout the region as a whole. The resolution requires the President to report to Congress every 60 days if he does take military action.

Indications are that the Administration will use the week of October 28, 2002 to make one final effort to secure support from the Security Council of the United Nations. Therefore, it is very important to urge continued US diplomatic efforts to work with the United Nations for support.

USCCB POSITION: Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), sent a letter to President Bush on September 13, stating that a "preemptive, unilateral use of force [to overthrow the government of Iraq] is difficult to justify at this time."

Bishop Gregory's letter to President Bush argues that:

• It is difficult to justify the use military force against Iraq;
• Unilateral action against Iraq without broad domestic and international consensus may lack legitimate authority;
• The probability of success of US military action against Iraq as well as the proportionality of such action are open to question; and that
• The impact of such military action on the already suffering Iraqi civilian population could have incalculable effects.

Bishop Gregory's letter urges the President to "step back from the brink of war" and offers specific actions that could be taken to compel the Iraqi government to comply with its international obligations as alternatives to war. These actions include

Continued diplomatic efforts aimed at resuming rigorous meaningful inspections;

Effective enforcement of the military embargo and other legitimate ways to contain and deter aggressive Iraqi actions;

Maintenance of political sanctions and much more carefully-focused economic sanctions which do not threaten the lives of innocent Iraqis;

Non-military support for Iraqis who offer democratic alternatives

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Ask the President to work with other nations and the United Nations to address Iraq's threats by pursuing effective alternatives to war, such as those outlined by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ask your Members of Congress to convey the same message to the President.

For further information contact:
Gerard Powers, USCCB, 202-541-3160 (Phone); 202-541-3339 (Fax); gpowers@usccb.org (Email)
Kathy Brown, Catholic Relief Services, 1-800-235-2772 x 7232 (Phone);
kbrown@catholicrelief.org (Email)
Tina Rodousakis, Catholic Relief Services, 1-800-235-2772 x 7462 (Phone); trodousa@catholicrelief.org (Email)

Dear MoveOn member,

70 years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his inaugural address. It contained a phrase which has reverberated ever since: for our nation, Roosevelt said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Times have changed. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council. Scripted to play well on the evening news -- the presentation was more for the benefit of the American public than for the Security Council -- Powell made a
forceful argument that Iraq is being deceitful about its weapons of mass destruction. He had pictures. He had a vial of white powder. He had diagrams showing links between various terrorist cells.