vfp@igc.org

www.veteransforpeace.org

NEWS RELEASE – NEWS RELEASE – NEWS RELEASE

Vets To Top US Military Commanders: 

REMEMBER NUREMBERG

Veterans For Peace has sent an open letter to fifteen generals and admirals in the top ranks of the US Military advising them of their possible liabilities, under international law, to criminal prosecution for being part of a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Veterans For Peace, headquartered in St. Louis, MO, is an organization of men and women who have served in peacetime and in most of the wars of the last century, with 92 chapters nationwide.

OPEN LETTER TO THE NATION’S TOP MILITARY COMMANDERS

General Richard B. Myers, Chairman, USAF;

General Peter Pace, Vice Chairman, USMC

Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations

General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant USMC

General John P. Jumper, Chief of Staff, USAF

General Erick Shineski, Chief of Staff, USA

_________________________________________

United States Unified Combatant Commanders:

General James L. Jones, USMC, US European Command,

Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, USN, US Pacific Command,

Admiral E.P. Giambastiani, USN, US Joint Forces Command,

General James T. Hill. USA, U Southern Command,

General Tommy R. Franks, USA, US Central Command,

General Ralph E. Eberhart, USAF, US Northern Command,

General Charles R. Holland, USAF, US Special Operations Command,

General John W. Handy, USAF, US Transportation Command,

Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr., USN, US Strategic Command,

February 13, 2003

Dear Gentlemen,

Veterans For Peace is an organization whose members have served with honor in the armed forces of the United States of America. Among our members we count decorated veterans of WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. Many served during two, and in several instances, three of these wars. Two of our members are recipients of the Medal of Honor, dozens received Silver and Bronze Stars for valor in combat, and hundreds were awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in action. One of our members was a POW for over seven years in the Hanoi Hilton.

We learned the horrors of war through our military experience and we want the killing stopped. We believe it is not just enough to be against war, we must also work against war and that is the purpose of our organization.

We, like you, know the world is a dangerous place and that our military forces are necessary for our defense. We realize that you too have seen and do not want war. War must only be the option of last resort.

We believe the war against Iraq that the US government is planning and preparing for is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and customary international law. The judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg noted, "Resort to war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal."

The principle of renunciation of the use or threat of force is now one of the fundamental principles of international law and, as such, is stated with the utmost clarity in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which imposes definite obligations on states participating in international affairs. States are bound in their international relations to renounce "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN".

The US seeks to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq on the basis of self-defense. Article 51of the UN Charter permits the use of force by a state to repel an armed attack or a substantial and immediate threat to the national security of the state until the Security Council exercises jurisdiction. A threat which permits the use of force must be an immediate, specific threat to US national security and not a general threat to the Gulf region or a possible future threat. The legality of pre-emptive self-defense has been rejected on the basis that use of force to deter future use of force constitutes punitive rather than defensive action. If the US fails to gain Security Council approval for war, the US is bound by Article 51 and may not lawfully, unilaterally take military action.

It is clear that the planned massive attack on Iraq is not based upon self-defense. Iraq has not attacked the US nor does Iraq constitute an immediate and specific threat to US national security. We are not apologists for Saddam Hussein but we believe there are ways to deal with his regime without the resort to a war of aggression. Other countries and many Americans have suggested reasonable and safe alternatives.

We members of VFP remember well our military service. We swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We were informed of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the conviction and punishment of soldiers for following illegal orders. We were taught that we must not follow an illegal order. US military leadership must not only know and teach the obligations of international law but must respect and follow them.

You are in high military positions and you have awesome responsibilities under our Constitution and international law. We believe you are honorable men. We respectfully urge that you do the right thing in this terribly difficult situation. Clearly your duty is to not engage in the political leaderships' illegal war. Many veterans will support you if you refuse to participate in an illegal war and we believe that you can successfully use your high positions to warn the American people and you will be supported.

If you fail your sworn duty to the Constitution and international law by engaging in an illegal war against Iraq, we fear the US will become a rogue nation that will believe in and act on the principle that might is right to the great dishonor of all our professed values and to the great discredit of all who served in the armed services of the US so that their children and future generations could live in peace and freedom.

With great urgency,



David Cline

National President

Veterans For Peace

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

© 2003 Veterans for Peace                                                   Posted February 14, 2003

Opposition to an unjust War of Conquest and needless slaughter is an honorable position.

It's the unspoken rule of power that laws are only for others to follow. Success in the military is exactly the same as it is in business and politics - only the most ruthless pirates get to the top. While it's commendable to attempt this appeal to the "human" side of these generals, it should be remembered that to attribute conscience or other human virtues to such clockwork automatons is almost a form of anthropomorphism - and equally futile. Even assuming for a moment that one of these military leaders felt conscience-bound to disobey orders, it's for damn certain that no one would ever hear of it. He'd be immediately relieved and "killed" in a plane crash or something. Even Smedley Butler didn't speak out until he was safely retired and it no longer mattered, but I'm sure there are secret orders somewhere not to allow any more like him.

However, I think you can find rumblings of Honor and resistance even in the high Brass.

Jeremy Boorda was almost certainly Whacked for being on the inside of a group of Officers who took their Oathes to the Country seriously. There have been other's who have "had accidents" or "committed suicide".

The first General in charge of the forces used to take out the othe old business partner of George Herbert Hoover Bush, Manuel Noriega, refused to engage in this uncontitutional action, thereby destroying his career, he was replaced by a compliant suck-up to lead the assault.

The same applies to Gulf Massacre I - Shwazkopf was the replacement that was willing to violate his Oath to do what King George wanted.

However, and again, the military power structure has been made increasingly hostile to men wishing to move from the Enlisted Ranks into the Officer Corps. Many programs have been eliminated and such people are usually relegated to specialty designations as opposed to being an unrestricted "Line" Officer. Meaning they are not generally elegible for Command positions. I suspect it is because, like Smedley Butler, they are too independent minded - having been in the ranks gives you a different perspective. With few exceptions all of the men whom I regarded as the most competent Officers were ex-enlisted. Some had gone through in-service commissioning programs and some had gotten out and come back in as Officers after finishing College. The key point being is that they already know how the service really operates, unlike greenhorn kids fresh out of school. They are therefore more likely to think for themselves rather than react as they were indoctrinated to in "Officer Training" i.e., brainwashing and programming.

This independence of thought makes them dangerous to would be dictators like Bush.

An interesting article that details some of this and other things can be found at:

http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm

Earth to Isolationists: This is not a war of conquest. This is a conclusion to the Gulf War. The Cease Fire has been violated repeatedly by Iraq, and is now void. Now, where has your point gone?

Well worth reading.

Devil in the details and all.

Thanks Dog. I'm glad you licked it.

As for Simpleton's usual disengenuous crap.

What Ceasefire?

The U.S. And U.K. have conducted almost non-stop bombing since the "end" of Gulf Massacre I.

Get real.

So then you concede that the Gulf War is not over. Huzzah! Now where was your point about wars of conquest again?

A war implies 2 sides of approximately equal potential.

This has never been the case.

The bombing is in contravention of the Geneva Conventions and was not authorized by the U.N. Ceasefire.

IT IS War Crimes committed by U.S. Forces for the benefit of the Bush Crime Family.

This is why the Bush Junta has opposed signing onto the International Criminal Court as they would be liable for charges of Crimes against Humanity.

I bet you are so proud.

With every passing line your paranoid delusions come into clearer focus for us all to see. Are you typing by chance in an institution run by the State? Are your minders nearby?

Where is it written that a war is a contest between equals? And what the hell does that have to do with the discussion? And any bombing done in the no-fly zones is in direct response to Iraqi behavior on the ground - and is targeted at AAA and AAA support sites. Not too much of a Geneva Convention violation bombing SAM sites that have pinged you with active radar.

First I've heard of Geneva Convention violations. Nice try. Though, I suppose you are the foremost expert on the Convention, along with the nation's preeminent Constitutional scholar.

Keep on yapping, Space Cadet. It's getting funnier all the time.

If some bastard came by and started bombing my backyard.

And you'd have a HARM missile up your Iraqi backside in a New York Minute.

But Sheepdog, you're putting the cart before the horse. The planes drop the bombs 'cause the gunners on the ground target (or shoot at) the planes. The gunners are ordered to do this to show that they don't acknowledge the existance of no-fly zones.

Of course they won't fly aircraft in them, those suckers cost too much. So they let some ADA grunts get vaporized every now and again. I wonder if they draw straws?

Not that I am in favor of our guys getting shot down, but the "No-Fly Zones were an invention of Bush I and are not part of the U.N. Cease Fire at the end of Gulf Massacre I. The alleged justification for them at the time was to protect the Shia's in the South and the Kurds in the North. Which Bush I subsequently abandoned and allowed to be slaughtered after implying the U.S. would support their rising up against Saddam. It was a shameful betrayal.

But returning to the main subject the No - Fly Zones are an illegal invasion of Iraqi airspace and they have every legal right to defend their airspace. They don't have the firepower to do it in the face of U.S. aggression but that is the reality of the matter whether you like it or not.

As well the tonnage of ordnance dropped has been such as to obliterate the civilian infrastructure in those areas - particularly in southern Iraq. This has resulted in thousands of deaths from poor water and sanitation because those systems were destroyed by the illegal bombing.

I'd set up remote radar beacons for

decoys and fire a stinger as they came in to

scratch them.

But hell, all I've got is a rifle.

But do you have Ham and Motherfuckers?

They're all over this board.

>A war implies 2 sides of approximately equal potential.

What planet you from, beener??

Given that, I suppose if one side is undermanned, they might want to send an ambassador to find out what it might take to make peace, and then do it. So, what happens when the undermanned side doesn't like the peace offering? Is the stronger side supposed to say "Oh well, we can't fight them, it wouldn't REALLY be a war. Let's go home."

The real NTP's hang out here, don't they?

If you have a Mechanized Brigade taking on an infantry Platoon that is not a Battle it is a Massacre.

If you have the largest, best armed, best supplied, military force on on the Planet and you take on a Third World Country whose Air Force is out of date and only 30% functional, has very little in the way of Armor, and has been stripped of it's heavy weapons, and can field a poorly armed infantry force less than a third of yours that is a Massacre NOT a War.

"If you have a Mechanized Brigade taking on an infantry Platoon that is not a Battle it is a Massacre.

If you have the largest, best armed, best supplied, military force on on the Planet and you take on a Third World Country whose Air Force is out of date and only 30% functional, has very little in the way of Armor, and has been stripped of it's heavy weapons, and can field a poorly armed infantry force less than a third of yours that is a Massacre NOT a War."

So what's your point? Should we wait until Iraq evolves or should we tell them to feel free to use all their chemical and biological weapons (which Blix et.al. finds more of every week) so that this can be a "fair" war. Get your crazy-talkin' leftist head out of your ass. The whole point in war is to have such an overwhelming show of force that the word "war" starts to not apply. Your "point" saws of the limb it sits on.

To call an invasion of Iraq a War is simply a misnomer.

When your plan is to "soften" an already soft target by MASSIVE bombardment, and I think 800 Cruise Missles qualifies as MASSIVE. Followed by a few hundred MORE plane loads of more bombs, remember the U.S. has NEVER stopped bombing Iraq, and then ground invasion with OVERWHELMING force, is that really a War? Or is it a MASSARCRE?

By textbook definition I guess you could call it a war.

However, a Massacre is still a Massacre. And a MASSACRE IS NOT A WAR.

You're a dumbass!!

Two or more opposing forces fighting against each other is a war. Period. If one side has 1000 men and the other side has 100,000, it's still a fucking war. It'll likely turn into a massace, but it's still a war.

Now they're trying to redefine the word "war". Well, we're not going to let you get away w/ it.

You are welcome to try and mislabel it anyway you want, but "you can't make a Silk Purse out of Sow's ear".

A MASSACRE is still a MASSARCRE.

>A MASSACRE is still a MASSARCRE.

Exactly.

And a war is still a war.

Just because one side has superior strength and massacres the other side doesn't make it a massacre per se. If an army of 1,000 takes on an army of 100,000, couldn't you in some terms rightly say that what the army of 1,000 did was suicide? Soldiers entering battle know they may die. I don't believe people who are massarcred march into it willingly, unless they're nutso or something.

So, the Iraqis not laying down their arms and surrendering, is that a war, or is it suicide? Cause it's not a massacre. No one willingly walks into a massacre. Of course, Saddam is nutso. Chances are the Iraqis will do what they did in 1991 and surrender to the first CNN reporter they see.

"When your plan is to "soften" an already soft target by MASSIVE bombardment, and I think 800 Cruise Missles qualifies as MASSIVE. Followed by a few hundred MORE plane loads of more bombs, remember the U.S. has NEVER stopped bombing Iraq, and then ground invasion with OVERWHELMING force, is that really a War? Or is it a MASSARCRE? "

It's a war. A very successful war. And you know that. Now I realize you hate Bush and anything even remotely conservative and are therefore against any action at all, but assuming you were a bit more openminded, how would you suggest we fight any war in the future considering that NO possible opponent can even remotely match our strength? Should we limit our strength in order to make future wars more "fair". Would it make war more palatable for you if you thought we stood more of a chance of losing? You continue to make the same concious logical mistake which is that since this war will be ugly and lead to death that it is therefore unneccessary. That's like telling someone that since slaughtering a cow is ugly and leads to death that they should refrain from hunger.

Please admit that your sole motivation is a deep hatred of Bush and all things conservative and spare me the "concern for the poor Iraqis" drivel combined with the "I used to be conservative but I've seen the error of my ways" crap.

Although to be honest I have used it in conversation.

I supported Bush for the Presidency because I despise Algore. Now I despise Bush because I believe he has been a truly awful President and is monumentally dishonest.

I am not a pacifist. By no stretch of the imagination. I just believe that there is not sufficient justification for killing a couple hundred thousand people.

To date no one has produced evidence that warrrants an immediate attack. Iraq poses no immediate threat. They have NOTHING which can reach the U.S. and have not shown any desire to attack the U.S.. This War has been sold by PsyOps and PR and I am not buying. Show me convincing proof that Iraq represents an immediate threat to the U.S. and I will reconsider my position. However I have seen NOTHING to rationally buttress Bush's case.

Every piece of "evidence" the Bush Junta has presented has been discredited and yet everytime it is discredited they come up with a new rationale for the attack. What is clear is that the Bush Junta wants this war in a bad way. What is not entirely clear is why? Is it the Oil? Is it Geopolitical advantage? Is it because Israel wants it to bolster their position and they have the blackmail information to get their way? Is it all three? Is it some other reason which has not been revealed? Data insufficient. The one thing I do know is they have not been honest.

And I am a Libertarian and a strict Constitutionalist not a conservative "me too" Republicrat.

"To date no one has produced evidence that warrrants an immediate attack. Iraq poses no immediate threat. They have NOTHING which can reach the U.S. and have not shown any desire to attack the U.S.. This War has been sold by PsyOps and PR and I am not buying. Show me convincing proof that Iraq represents an immediate threat to the U.S. and I will reconsider my position. However I have seen NOTHING to rationally buttress Bush's case. "

No one, least of all myself, has ever said this war was over fear of a DIRECT threat from Iraq. To anyone claiming this, I would say, "get your head outa your ass" However, I do believe that Sadam poses a threat in that he could easily and covertly, greatly enable a group like al queda to carry out a more massive attack on us. I wouldn't have supported this action pre 9-11. But it's a different world now. I honestly don't care what Bush et. al's reason's are for going. As long as it happens I'm happy. 9-11 convinced me that we no longer have the luxury or the mandate to wait for empirical proof of an assault. That sort of proof ALWAYS comes too late. As far as the causualties of war. Honestly, "better them then us". I know that sounds awful but I'd be lying if I said otherwise. I suspect that the amount of Iraqi casualties will be on par with the number that will be incurred at the hands of Sadam in the next few years if he's left unchecked. No war on our part, does not equal no suffering for the Iraqis. It's all very simple to me. I don't want to build a life only to have it attacked by terrorists who quite probably will be aided in obtaining resources from Sadam. Why on earth would he not aid them? Show ME one piece of credible evidence that supports this.

Bush can make his argument any way he likes. I believe some of it and some I think is nonsense. Whatever. I think anyone who wants any sort of governmental power at any level has a core character defect. Serious control issues. If in return for a little more safety from terrorists the US gets better global positioning, more oil or what have you, so be it. But Sadam HAS to go and you and I both know that all the inspections in the world aren't going to make that happen. The inspectors wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for even the mere THREAT of war.

You admit Iraq poses no threat to the U.S.

Your reason for attacking seems to translate to some day maybe he might support somebody who might do us harm. (And I don’t think I am exaggerating your stated position all that much.) (i’m sure thankful I took Symbolic Logic.)

You state that because of an attack staged by persons unknown (If you accept the official conspiracy theory they were by and large Saudi’s) that in of itself constitutes grounds to attack Iraq. Say what???? However, I say unknown, and I mean unknown. To date just like the rationale for the war their has never been any definitive proof presented which would prove that the attack was carried out by Crazy Muslim Religious Fanatics (who went drinking and whoring the night before the attack; both big no-no’s in Islam - chop off your head or flogging in the public square no-no’s.). None of the names presented by the FBI appear on either of UALs or AAs passenger lists - yet the names were assembled within 48 hours (Orrin Hatch jumped the gun and let slip the night of 911 that Osama was the fall guy) - cognitive dissonance - I don’t care how good of a detective you are there is more here than meets the eye. Further 8 of the men named by the FBI have since been proven to be alive and nowhere near NYC on 911. The identities of the hijackers is unknown. The discordant anomalies surrounding 911 are many and troubling.

“As far as the casualties of war. Honestly, "better them then us”: A very charming Straw Man - there is no evidence to show that the Iraqi government wants to attack either indirectly or covertly. This is not a justification for mass murder. Your likelihood of being killed in road accident the next time you go to the Grocery Store is higher than the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack. Again the fears generated are all PsyOps designed to make people fearful. This is all out of the Psychology of Mass Control - Tavistock Institute Stuff (MI6). Once you realize and accept that; the fear is insignificant. It certainly is not enough to make me want to go kill a couple hundred thousand women and children to avenge 3000 deaths caused by someone else. Identify a correct target - not a wrong target. The long and the short of it is that the danger of terrorist attack is greatly exaggerated. C.I.A. reported that they thought the risk of terrorist attack would GO UP if we attacked Iraq. Your rationale fails the sniff test.

“Bush can make his argument any way he likes. I believe some of it and some I think is nonsense.”

So far every rationale he and his team have presented has been shredded to ribbons.

“The inspectors wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for even the mere THREAT of war. “

They would not have left the first time except that they were withdrawn prior to Bubba’s “Desert Fox” Cruise Missile attack.

Actually I said Iraq poses no DIRECT threat to the US, as in a direct attack. They certainly pose a very real and possible threat in regards to their abetting terrorists. Most of our enemies in history were not a direct threat to attck our soil. There are, as I'm sure you realize, other reasons for going to war.

You say all of Bush's rationales ahve been shredded to ribbons. That's just not true. You may not agree with them but they are valid.

If you honestly believe that Sadam would or will let the inspectors work with full cooperation if only left alone with no threats held over him, then I don't know what to say to you anymore. That argument reduces this whole discussion to absurdity.

Certainly the threat of nice friendly beheading has concentrated Saddam's desire to cooperate - I will not argue the point. He is after all a thug. However, as he is a common thug and not an ideologue he is not likely to spread terrorism - when you think of Saddam think of the Mob - "nothing personal just business". As a common garden variety thug he just wants to stay in power. And for that very reason he is not likely to do anything to cause the sword to fall. If he does he's done for.

As long as the threat of CERTAIN retribution exists Saddam is likely to remain a "pussycat" - as far as we're concerned. That does not mean I would not like to see him taken out - I would - but not at the cost of the lives of a couple of hundred thousand people who have done us no harm.

Dum Vivam Vivamus. Eat, drink, live.