Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News
| About Us | Contact Us | Calendar | Publish | RSS |
|---|
|
Features • latest news • best of news • syndication • commentary Feature Categories IMC Network:
Original Citieswww.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/ÃŽle-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotechSurviving Citieswww.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv |
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments Greetings from Afghanistanby RLTW Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 11:02 AMA US military officer writes from Afghanistan Greetings from Afghanistan. My apologies to you for taking so long to provide you with an update.
Like all of you, we were saddened by the terrible news of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident and death of its crew. We broadcast that tragic news to every operations center within the Afghan theater and each operations center came to a complete standstill out of disbelief and horror. I've witnessed the grief of service members around me during this time of tragedy and it has been significant. And of course we remember the crew and their surviving family members in our prayers. You may have seen on TV or read in the papers that we too, had a similar tragedy this past Thursday night (30 Jan 03). In the worst loss of life for the US military in almost a year, four special operations crewmen were killed when their helicopter crashed just a few miles east of Bagram. Three died immediately and the fourth died during transport back to the hospital here at Bagram. Friday night we conducted a memorial service for them as a prelude to sending them back to the U.S. to family and funeral. The memorial ceremony was simple but quite moving. From the minefields surrounding the airfield we could hear a pack of coyotes as if fighting over a downed goat or sheep. There was total darkness except for the light of the stars, the moonlight reflecting off the snow-covered mountains, and the cargo lights radiating from the rear of the C-17 parked on the taxiway ready to take them home. In that cold darkness I was privileged to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other Rangers - two files facing each other and forming an honor guard from the tent hanger to the rear of the aircraft. The extreme cold and high winds demanded the eyes to tear - creating a disguise for the tears being shed for the four heroes killed the night before. Shivering almost uncontrollably, we watched quietly as the four flag-draped coffins were slowly trouped through the honor guard. The sacrifice for those of us who stood in the ranks was simply enduring the wind and cold - the four great Americans we were there to honor paid the ultimate sacrifice - they gave their lives. "Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." (James 4:14) Bagram Air Base sits in a bowl approximately a mile high and surrounded by mountains that range from nine to fourteen thousand feet in elevation. The snow-capped mountains are absolutely beautiful and make for breathtaking sunrises and sunsets. However, these dramatic mountain ranges also present some weather challenges that are unique. Several nights ago we had a Special Forces soldier fall into a dried up well in a remote village. The medics on site were sure he had broken ribs, a broken leg, and very possibly a broken back. Huge snowflakes and snow fog created poor weather conditions (just a few hundred yards visibility) and consequently our meddevac helicopters were unable to launch to retrieve him. We had to wait until the following morning when the weather cleared in order to get him back to Bagram and the medical care he needed and deserved. He has since been evacuated to Germany and more permanent medical care. Troop morale remains high in spite of the environment and separation from friends and family. With temperatures well below freezing we still take the often-cold showers - though very quick. The porta-lets, having been strapped to the ground to prevent high winds from blowing them over (you can imagine what experience that would be - if in one when it blew over), still offer that crisp attention-getting-cold-seat early on those same cold mornings. You have to be imaginative in finding the small blessings...my sleep tent is up-wind from the porta-lets! We've now enclosed all our waters blivets (large canvas/rubber non-potable water reservoirs for showers) and potable water trailers with tents to prevent freezing. The recent - and huge - morale booster has been...omelets for breakfast. For the past 9 months we've been eating powdered eggs (in all honesty I quit eating them months ago). Our dining facility brought in a new grill and dedicated it to ham and cheese omelets (at least in the mornings). If you don't notice the eggs are some form of yellow liquid poured from a 5-gallon bucket they are quite tasty. And of course the highlight for the month of January - Outback Steakhouse sent over 15 employees and about 7,000 steaks and served the troops an Outback steak, baked potato, and battered and deep-fried onions. [I would ask you...next time you visit an Outback Steakhouse...please express our thanks for their contribution to the armed forces deployed to Afghanistan.] Also, as an added morale builder, we've allowed the local merchants to come onto Bagram and conduct an occasional bazaar - giving the troops opportunity to purchase local Afghan crafts/merchandise and to stimulate the local economy. Unfortunately, when we are pestered with rocket attacks we're forced to waive off the bazaar for force protection reasons. Lately, the rocket attacks have cancelled the bazaars. January has been a busy month - thus the reason you haven't heard from me in quite a while. We began the month with a group of bad guys crossing the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan and conducting sniper attacks - resulting in a member of the 82nd Airborne Division being killed. They fled back into Pakistan before we could kill or capture them. (Unfortunately, we are not permitted to conduct cross-border combat operations into Pakistan.) In another incident, an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) or RCIED (Remote-Controlled Improvised Explosive Device) tied to a bicycle went off as a U.S. convoy passed by - two of our soldiers were injured. And unguided, but potentially lethal, rockets have been fired at U.S. bases and remote firebases almost daily during the month of January. In Kabul (the capital), we've had bad guys throw a grenade inside a U.S. military vehicle (Hummer)...some shrapnel wounds but thanks to modern military body armor, both occupants survived the attack. Also in Kabul, ISAF forces (our International Security and Assistance Forces) found explosives in the restroom of a girl's school - foiling a possible terrorist attack. (One of the things forbidden during the rule of the Taliban was for girls or women to attend any form of school/educational institution.) Also this month, a man threw two grenades at foreigners waiting outside the ISAF compound - killing one Afghan interpreter and wounding two French aid workers. The attacker died after a third grenade exploded on his body - a suicide attack. The terrorist in this attack was an Afghan with one wooden leg, was carrying religious items (Islamic), and had deep cigarette burns over most of his body. The conclusion was that this man had been tortured and pressured to carry out the attack. The bad guys seemed to have stepped up operations this month. They've resorted to placing IEDs or RCIEDs so as to destroy/detonate fuel trucks (we've had 2 fuel trucks to explode). They're using females - wearing burqas (a burqa is a covering from head-to-toe) to hide ordnance or munitions on their person (big religious no-no for U.S. or coalition male soldier to body search Afghan females - must be done by female soldiers). They're even using ball bearings in their "improvised explosives" (in one weapons cache we found 180 pounds of ball bearings). Also, the bad guys are smuggling rockets and munitions over the rugged mountain border from Pakistan to Afghanistan via donkeys and horses. And then just a week ago (Jan. 28), our forces fought a fierce battle through the night against a large group of rebel fighters in the mountainous region of southeastern Afghanistan. Probably one of the heavier fighting events in several months, we engaged as many as 80 Taliban/Al-Qaeda who were lodged in caves and mountain hideouts near the border. Lots of enemy fighters were killed yet there were no coalition casualties. When the dust settled and daylight came we searched through the cave complex looking for bad guys and weapons caches. In that one area we discovered 160 caves, hideouts and weapons caches. In one cache alone we found more than 1,000 mortar bombs, 93 rocket-propelled grenades, more than 300 pounds of high explosives, 100 122-millimeter rockets, and 100 antitank and antipersonnel mines. The cache also included hundreds of heavy machine-gun rounds. In the past few weeks two U.S. soldiers were severely injured after stepping on land mines. One was injured while clearing mines here at Bagram Air Base. He is in stable condition after surgeons amputated his right foot. And then one of our paratroopers was wounded in eastern Afghanistan when he stepped on a mine while on patrol (injury was not life-threatening). Land mines are forever a problem for military forces and for the civilian populace. It is now estimated that there are between 10-30 million mines remaining in Afghanistan. The sad thing is mines not only kill or maim civilians (most of which are children) but they also cripple economic life for years - inhibiting the tilling of fields that should contain crops, access to pasture, and the collection of firewood. One of the more nasty mines left here by the Russians is what the mujahidin called the "jumping mine." When activated, a projectile shoots up from underground. The mine is designed to go off just as you pass over it and it explodes at waist level. Kind of gory but it is designed to blow off the genitals, cripple, and pepper the guts with shrapnel. However, an even greater menace is the "butterfly" mine. During the Russian occupation, Soviet helicopters would fly over and litter the ground with butterfly mines. There was a light brown version for desert terrain and gray ones for riverbeds. They were approximately 8 inches long and, since they were made of plastic and blended in with the terrain, they were difficult to detect with minesweeping equipment. Afghan children have often mistaken the butterfly mines for toys. Over the years a lot of children have lost limbs or eyes due to this mine. And since the butterfly mine has no self-destruct mechanism, it will be mutilating Afghans for a long time to come. Earlier this week we had three Afghan children (from the same family) brought to our hospital with injuries caused by an explosion. They had been injured when one of the children brought unexploded ordnance back home and it exploded while one was playing with it (yes, all three had surgery for shrapnel or lost a limb). I've mentioned before about the international de-mining organization, "Angel Halo." Angel Halo has been here in Afghanistan conducting de-mining operations for 6 years and has only de-mined approximately 1 million mines during that period. At that rate, it would take at least 80 years to rid Afghanistan of all the mines. Since Operation Enduring Freedom began, the U.S. has suffered 26 combat deaths and 137 wounded (considered low by military historians; one is too many by my criteria). Although we expected the Taliban/Al-Qaeda to rest and re-group during the winter months, they've been determined to harass and embarrass U.S. and Coalition forces. On the eve of a war with Iraq, the battle against Al-Qaeda is far from over. Since both Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters have found sanctuary in Pakistan - and many other Middle Eastern and African countries - they've enjoyed opportunity to re-group and plan both harassing attacks across the border into Afghanistan and to conduct terrorist attacks deep within Afghanistan. American combat units, meanwhile, are harassed almost daily by haphazard rocket fire and hit-and-run attacks. Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters particularly enjoy freedom of movement in the lawless tribal highlands of Pakistan, aided by sympathizers in Afghanistan's rugged eastern border regions. Pakistani border forces appear unwilling or unable to control the Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters who have sought refuge in the tribal areas in the border region. Like U.S. troops in Vietnam, American forces here find it difficult to distinguish ordinary villagers from enemy op eratives. Reminiscent of the war in Viet Nam, many of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban blended into the populace following the U.S. bombing in Afghanistan and so it is impossible to be certain who are the enemy and who are not. On Iraq... It seems we are destined to remove Saddam by force. Think we've all been watching the President take a beating in the media because of his determination to rid the world of Saddam from power. Too many have said the President has failed to demonstrate sufficient "credible proof" to warrant committing to war. I'm reminded of the movie, "A Few Good Men," in which Jack Nicholson declares, "You can't handle the truth." Maybe it's better the average citizen is isolated from all the gory scenarios that could happen (should we fail to remove Saddam) less we end up with a society panicked and paranoid. It's frustrating knowing the President is well justified but cannot tell the public all he knows - for that would surely compromise intelligence collection methods and very possibly put lives at stake. Obviously there is concern here in Afghanistan - for it is expected that, after a U.S. attack on Iraq, the Taliban/Al-Qaeda will intensify their attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces here. The regional Muslim extremists have declared a holy war - or "jihad" - against the U.S. and vow they will "fight against the Americans until they leave Afghanistan or we (holy warriors) die." Notes have been found in the streets of some towns - handwritten, photocopied letters, and signed by members of the mujahidin (Islamic "holy warriors") warning of the planned increase in attacks and soliciting support. Also, they've offered rewards - 500,000 rupees (about $9,000) - to anyone who kills an American (or collaborator). The call for a holy war creates some real fanatics who are ready to sacrifice their lives to become a martyr. Anyone who is not Muslim (military or civilian) is at risk of becoming a target. The U.S. is doubling the number of military civil affairs personnel deployed into Afghanistan and they are busy helping to build schools and clinics, dig wells and provide humanitarian aid. Most Afghan people are illiterate and live in mud huts. Following twenty-three years of war, Afghanistan has become one of the world's poorest countries. However, there is one industry that is thriving in Afghanistan - opium. Opium production has risen twenty fold over the past few years. It is approaching the peak production rate it was famous for under the rule of the Taliban regime. The Afghan environment is perfect for growing opium poppies - which are processed into heroin. Due to a 6-year drought in Afghanistan - which apparently creates the best conditions for growing poppies - Afghanistan is believed to produce the largest crop in the world. The Afghan drug trade exists because of terrorist organizations and is a huge source of money for their arms and supplies. There have been some efforts to eradicate opium poppy crops but the Afghan government still lacks the trained police (in sufficient quantities) to control the production of opium. The authorities estimate that 3,700 tons of opium produced during 2002 represents a cash crop of about $1.2 billion. The problem of convincing farmers to grow food crops - vice opium producing poppies - is money. Also, there is pressure (rather, enforcement) on the local farmers by the Taliban/Al-Qaeda to grow opium. The winter has really been tough on a lot of Afgan civilians - particularly the refugees returning from Pakistan, Iran, and other Central Asian countries. Some of the media here reported on families in Bamiyan (small village in central Afghanistan rich in history - where the 1,500-year-old Buddha statues once stood - and were destroyed when the Taliban left) that are living in caves. Most are one-room caves carved out of sheer rock - smoky and black from fires used to cook or stay warm. Bare of furniture and dirt floors - yet an improvement over the refugee camps they were staying in when they fled during the rule of the Taliban. The Taliban leveled most of their buildings and homes during their 5 or 6 year rule. Still no electricity, and water comes from the river. However, people have started piecing their lives back together - house-by-house, acquiring sheep or goats one animal at a time. Even in winter and very low temperatures, you see small bazaars, shops, and small schools busy with activity. Many of the new road construction projects, recently dug wells, and distribution of blankets and food by military, U.N. aid workers, and other non-government agencies has brought new hope to a lot of these people. Some of our soldiers have helped rebuild many of the destroyed homes. Good feeling...and a good thing...these projects. About 10 days ago (24 Jan), a 12-year-old child was brought to our hospital by some local nationals. Supposedly the child had been involved in an auto accident. Bloody, and in an effort to get him medical attention quickly, the child was not searched. Once they started removing clothing, they found what appeared to be unexploded ordnance under his armpit. The entire hospital was evacuated and EOD (Emergency Ordnance Detachment) was called. EOD (and the doctors) removed what turned out to be a large piece of shrapnel from a mine. Apparently the child had stepped on a mine and the large piece of shrapnel lodged under his arm. The boy seems to be doing okay. We normally have a pretty large group of media (journalists/photographers) camped out at our major military compounds. Occasionally, they will ask to go out on a mission (on a non-interference basis of course). A week or so ago we had a rather large journalist (he weighed 250 pounds plus) who wanted to accompany one of our 82nd Airborne Division elements on a mission. I won't mention the news agency he represents - except to say that he represents one of the top 5 in the U.S. After conducting a 6 kilometer (3.7 miles) cross-country foot movement, he had to be meddevac'd back to Bagram - due to a heart attack (believed). He survived the adventure but I think we've successfully encouraged him to go back home and get some exercise at a more subtler pace. Another mental picture I would leave with you. Except for service members longing for the company of loved ones and family, New Year's Eve was just another normal night of operations in Afghanistan. However, not to be outdone by the famous New York "Time Square New Year's Ball Drop," the soldiers here attached chemical lights to a ball - raised the lighted ball to the top of a crane (fully extended) and then lowered the ball as the seconds counted down to New Years. Except for that little bit of excitement - a few rocket attacks and exchange of gunfire - New Year's was a little anti-climatic. Finally, many of our troops were able to watch the Super Bowl. One of the capabilities my staff provides for the warriors in Afghanistan is a "media server." Although designed to process video and audio data files - i.e. satellite imagery, unmanned aerial vehicle video streams, etc. - we have the ability to pump satellite TV signals to the individual computer workstation. So we brought in an AFN (American Forces Network) satellite signal to our media server and then broadcast it to all the computer workstations and operations centers all over the theater. So the troops that were not stuck out on some remote firebase or on patrol was able to watch the game. I will close with comment regarding an article written by Sports Columnist Bryan Burwell and published in a San Diego, California newspaper on the eve of the Super Bowl. (One of you so graciously forwarded this article to me.) To summarize the article - Bryan was visiting Dick's Last Resort sports bar-restaurant the Tuesday evening prior to the Super Bowl. All in attendance were already getting warmed up and rowdy - except for one table that was noticeably different from all the others. Six young men - all much too serious for the pre-game events going on around them, occupied that table. The skin-close haircuts gave them away - they were all Marines (all members of Marine Aviation Land Support Squad 39). They were boarding a ship the following day for - you guessed it - the Middle East and most likely a war with Iraq. So that social event, if you could call it that, was their Super Bowl party. Last night out on the town before shipping out. All were wrestling with the sobering uncertainty of the rest of their lives. All going to war and none of them sure if they would ever come back. One commented that he wasn't much of a big sports fan anymore. When asked why, the Marine replied, "Well, here's my problem with pro sports today," he said. "I don't care whether it's football, basketball or baseball. Guys are complaining about making $6 million instead of $7 million, and what is their job? Playing a damned game. You know what I made last year? I made $14,000. They pay me $14,000, and you know what my job description is? I'm paid to take a bullet." The comment seemed to put the frivolity of sports into its proper perspective for Bryan Burwell. The next morning, Bryan was looking out his hotel balcony window and could see a Navy battleship easing across the San Diego Bay. As he watched he could see sailors standing on the deck of the ship as it departed. It wasn't so much the small pay the Marines are paid to "take a bullet" - to give their life for their country, but it was what the Marine said about the other Marines around that table. The Marine (from Southern Illinois) had pointed to the Marine sitting to the left of him and said, "You know, I don't even know this guy, can you believe that? We just met a few hours ago when we came into Dick's. Oh, I've seen him on the base, but I've never met him before tonight. But here's what's so special about that man, and why I love that man. He's my brother - Semper Fi. I know a guy back home, and he is my best friend. I'm 28 years old and we've known each other all our lives. But today, that friend is more of a stranger to me than that Marine sitting over there, which I've never met before tonight. That's why they call it a "Band of Brothers." The Marine to his left lifted his glass toward the Marine from Southern Illinois and nodded his head. That's right," he said. "That's my brother over there, and I'm gonna take a bullet for him if I have to." He said it with a calm and jolting certainty and there was a moving, but chilling, pride in his words. All around them in the sports bar, people had been drinking, shouting, laughing, and wearing expensive Super Bowl logo caps and jackets. The toasts offered around the Marine table was far more sobering and deserving than all the others that night. Afterwards, the Marines slipped out quietly and prepared for their departure. Bryan was very much overwhelmed with the feeling that, "suddenly, the Super Bowl didn't seem so important anymore." In your prayers, please remember all those service members who've deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom...and all those who've deployed in support of the war in Iraq. Thank you for all your prayers. You are all great patriots and you are appreciated. God Bless you...and God Bless America. RLTW
Report this post as:
Greetings from Americaby citizen Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 2:05 PMPlease come home immediately...
As the British used to sing, "Bring the boys back home..."
Report this post as:
Support Our Troops - Bring them home!by metwo Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 2:11 PMDon't let the military waste any more of your time. What else is going on over there.
From what we here, Afghanistan is still in a rut. The Taliban may be gone, but apparently we've just replaced them with the warlords who still oppress women. So what's the point? Come home because you're more valuable here than over there fighting for oil. With compassion...
Report this post as:
To All Military Personnel:by Point Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 4:01 PMerror
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful OrdersAn Advisory to US Troopsby LAWRENCE MOSQUEDA DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW As the United States government under George Bush gets closer to attacking the people of Iraq, there are several things that the men and women of the U.S. armed forces need to know and bear in mind as they are given orders from the Bush administration. This information is provided for the use of the members of the armed forces, their families, friends and supporters, and all who are concerned about the current direction of U.S. policy toward Iraq. The military oath taken at the time of induction reads: "I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God" The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ. During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis") Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy" of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991) Over the past year there have been literally thousands of articles written about the impact of the coming war with Iraq. Many are based on politics and the wisdom of engaging in an international war against a country that has not attacked the U.S. and the legality of engaging in what Bush and Rumsfield call "preemptive war." World opinion at the highest levels, and among the general population, is that a U.S. first strike on Iraq would be wrong, both politically and morally. There is also considerable evidence that Bush's plans are fundamentally illegal, from both an international and domestic perspective. If the war is indeed illegal, members of the armed forces have a legal and moral obligation to resist illegal orders, according to their oath of induction. The evidence from an international perspective is overwhelming. The United States Constitution makes treaties that are signed by the government equivalent to the "law of the land" itself, Article VI, para. 2. Among the international laws and treaties that a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq may violate are: · The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1899, which was reaffirmed by the U.S. at the 1946 Nuremberg International Military Tribunals; · Resolution on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, adopted UN General Assembly, Dec 12, 1980; · Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; December 9, 1948, Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General Assembly; · Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War; · Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151, Oct. 5, 1978; · The Charter of the United Nations; · The Nuremberg Principles, which define as a crime against peace, "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing." (For many of these treaties and others, see the Yale Avalon project at www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm. Also see a letter to Canadian soldiers sent by Hamilton Action for Social Change at http://www.hwcn.org/link/hasc/letter_cf.html) As Hamilton Action for Social Change has noted "Under the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. We are all bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert K. Jackson declared in 1948: [T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state." At the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was further declared "[A]nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes." The outcry about the coming war with Iraq is also overwhelming from legal experts who have studied this in great detail. By November of 2002, 315 law professors had signed a statement entitled "A US War Against Iraq Will Violate US and International Law and Set a Dangerous Precedent for Violence That Will Endanger the American People." Other legal organizations such as the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Western States Legal Foundation have written more extensive reports, such as that by Andrew Lichterman and John Burroughs on "War is Not the Path to Peace; The United States, Iraq, and the Need for Stronger International Legal Standards to Prevent War." As the report indicates "Aggressive war is one of the most serious transgressions of international law." In fact, at the Nuremberg trials, the issue was not just individual or collective acts of atrocities or brutal actions but the starting of an aggressive war itself. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson stated, "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy." (August 12, 1945, Department of State Bulletin. ) In another report written by the same authors and also by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, and Jules Lobel, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh entitled "The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq," the authors note that: "Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack: and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exists. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful." The authors were specifically referring to Article 51 of the UN Charter on the right to self-defense. Nothing that Iraq has done would call that provision into effect. The report also states that: "There is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the concept of self-defense, as advocated in the Bush Administration's September, 2002 "National Security Strategy" to authorize "preemptive"--really preventive--strikes against states based on potential threats arising from possession or development of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion would destabilize the present system of UN Charter restraints on the use of force. Further, there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that Iraq is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist. The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Thus the rationales being given to the world, the American public, and the armed forces are illegal on their face. (For a copy of this report see www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm) It is important to note that none of the authors cited thus far or to be cited have any support for Saddam Hussein or the Government of Iraq whatsoever. They and others who do not support an illegal war in Iraq believe that government of Saddam Hussein is corrupt, vile, and contemptible. So is the leadership and governments of many of our "allies," such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan-governments that the United States may very well attack within the next decade. It is important to remember that Saddam Hussein was an important "ally" during the 1980s and that many of the weapons that may be faced by our armed forces will bear a "Made in the USA" label. The issue here is not the "evil' of Saddam Hussein, nor the international community doing nothing, but an illegal march to war by the Bush administration. Even former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a very conservative Republican from Texas, has warned that an "unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law and undermine world support for President Bush's goal of ousting Saddam Hussein." Armey explicitly states "If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, without proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation states who might do so. I don't believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation." (Chicago Tribune, August 9, 2002, available at Other articles demonstrating the illegality of this war can be found at here. In addition to the violations of international laws, which have been incorporated into U.S. law, the impending attack on Iraq is a direct violation of national law as Bush claims that he has the authority to decide whether the U.S. will go to war or not. The U.S. Constitution is very explicit on this point. Only the Congress has the authority to declare war, Article 1, section 8, Par. 11. Congress does not have the right to give that power away, or to delegate that power to the president or anyone else. The President as the "Commander in Chief" (Article 2, section 2, Par. 1) can command the armed forces in times of peace and war, but he does not have the authority to declare the war or determine if that war is to occur, especially if he is engaged in illegal conduct in violation of the Constitution itself or his oath of office. The Constitution spells out very clearly the responsibility of the President and his oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Article 2, section 2, Par. 8). The President also has the primary duty to make sure "that the laws be faithfully executed," (Article 2, section 3). The vaguely worded resolution passed by the Congress in October was both illegal and an act of cowardice, as noted by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Byrd's remarks were made on the floor of the Senate on October 3, 2002. In part he said: "The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head." The full texts of his remarks are well worth reading, not only on the illegality of the war but also the illegality of Congress in abandoning its duty under the Constitution. MORAL CODES AND LAWS The United States is a secular country with a great variety of religions, which are adhered to by the majority of the people. Political leaders who claim to speak in the name of God are rightfully looked upon with suspicion, whether they are foreign leaders or the president of the United States. This is especially true when the issues are those of war and peace. Nevertheless, the U.S. often blends the border on issues of Church and State, including in public oaths, such as the oath which is taken at the time of induction. This author will not claim to know the will of God, but it is valuable to examine what the religious leaders of the country are saying about this war. Virtually every major religion in the United States has come out against the Bush plans for war. Again this is not because of any support for Saddam Hussein, but rather the Bush plans do not meet any criteria for the concept of "just war." One would expect this from the religions that are respected and pacifist, but it also true from those who have supported past U.S. wars, and even have Chaplains in the service. Below is a sample of the analysis of U.S. religious leaders: Catholic We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war and help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that conforms with traditional moral limits on the use of military force. US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Letter to President Bush, Sept. 13, 2002. Episcopalian The question for us now must be: what is our role in the community of nations? I believe we have the capacity within us to help lead our world into the way of justness and peace. The freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States oblige us to attend not only to our own welfare, but to the well-being of the world around us. A superpower, especially one that declares itself to be "under God," must exercise the role of super servant. Our nation has an opportunity to reflect the values and ideals that we espouse by focusing upon issues of poverty, disease and despair, not only within our own nation but throughout the global community of which we are a part. The Presiding Bishop's statement on military action against Iraq, September 6, 2002. Jewish International cooperation is far, far better than unilateral action, and the U.S. must explore all reasonable means of attaining such support. Non-military action is always preferable to military action, and the U.S. must fully explore all options to resolve the situation through such means. If the effort to obtain international cooperation and support through the United Nations fails, the U.S. must work with other nations to obtain cooperation in any military action. Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Executive Committee Decision on Unilateral Action by the U.S. Against Iraq. Lutheran While we are fully aware of the potential threat posed by the government of Iraq and its leader, I believe it is wrong for the United States to seek to over-throw the regime of Saddam Hussein with military action. Morally, I oppose it because I know a war with Iraq will have great consequences for the people of Iraq, who have already suffered through years of war and economic sanctions. Further, I believe it is detrimental to U.S. interests to take unilateral military action when there is strong international support for weapons inspections, and when most other governments oppose military action. I also believe that U.S. military action at this time will further destabilize the region. I call upon members of our congregations to be fervent in prayer, engaged in conversation with one another and with our leaders. In the final analysis, we must stand unequivocally for peace. ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson's Statement on Iraq Situation, August 30, 2002. Methodist United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack. Secretary Jim Winkler of The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, August 30, 2002. Presbyterian We urge Presbyterians to oppose a precipitate U.S. attack on Iraq and the Bush administration's new doctrine of pre-emptive military action. We call upon President George W. Bush and other leaders to: Refrain from language that seems to label certain individuals and nations as "evil" and others as "good"; Oppose ethnic and religious stereotyping, Guard against a unilateralism, rooted in our unique position of political, economic and military power, that perpetuates the perception that "might makes right"; Allow United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq, without undue pressure or threats of pre-emptive, unilateral action; and End the economic sanctions against Iraq, which have been ineffectual but have done untold damage to the Iraqi people. The General Assembly Council and the staff leadership team of the Presbyterian Church (USA), September 28, 2002. United Church of Christ With heavy hearts we hear once again the drumbeat of war against Iraq. As leaders committed to God's reign of justice and peace in the world and to the just conduct of our nation, we firmly oppose this advance to war. While Iraq's weapons potential is uncertain, the death that would be inflicted on all sides in a war is certain. Striking against Iraq now will not serve to prevent terrorism or defend our nation's interests. We fear that war would only provoke greater regional instability and lead to the mass destruction it is intended to prevent. UCC leaders, September 13, 2002. Ecumenical As Christians, we are concerned by the likely human costs of war with Iraq, particularly for civilians. We are unconvinced that the gain for humanity would be proportionate to the loss. Neither are we convinced that it has been publicly demonstrated that all reasonable alternative means of containing Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction have been exhausted. We call upon our governments to pursue these diplomatic means in active cooperation with the United Nations and to stop the apparent rush to war. World Council of Churches, August 30, 2002. For a fuller elaboration of these and other comments from religious leaders, such as by the Mennonites, Quakers (Society of Friends), Unitarian Universalist, and other ecumenical groups see www.ecapc.org. Other religious and moral objections to Bush's plans have been articulated. In September of 2002, 100 Christian Ethicists from major seminaries, divinity schools, and traditionally conservative religious schools challenged the claim that preemptive war on Iraq would be morally justified in a simply worded statement, "As Christian ethicists, we share a common moral presumption against a pre-emptive war on Iraq by the United States." (See the Chronicle of Higher Education, September 23, 2002,) Religious resistance to Bush's war plans can also be found in the overwhelming vote of 228-14 by the U.S. Catholic Bishops against the war and in the unprecedented show of unity by Chicago's top Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders in the first public statement on any national issue of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago in opposing Bush's war. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 1, 2002) It is noteworthy that the Pope John Paul II has come out very strongly against this war in unambiguous terms, "No to war!" The Pope said during his annual address to scores of diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican, an exhortation that referred in part to Iraq, a country he mentioned twice. "War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity." (NY Times, January 14, 2003). The Pope, a seasoned diplomat, was not just making a moral statement about peace; he referred to the legal codes discussed earlier in this article, "War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations. As the Charter of the United Nations organization and international law itself reminds us, war cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations." (See Irish Examiner, 1/13/2003) It is also important to restate that the head of Bush's own church has come out against this war. Jim Winkler, the general secretary of the Board of Church and Society for the United Methodist Church has come out very strongly against this war. President Bush has refused to meet with Winkler. "The Methodist Church, he (Winkler) says, is not pacifist, but 'rejects war as a usual means of national policy'. Methodist scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies 'war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries pleaded for our assistance, nor does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States'." (See Observer/UK, October 20, 2002) Individual will have to make their own decisions about the "morality" of the war but the consensus decision that has been developing among religious leaders is that this war does not constitute a "just war" by virtually anyone's standards. The concept of "sin" is also a personal decision but again those who study these issues from the Pope to theologians to pastors to other religious leaders do not and cannot give their approval to the illegal actions that the Bush administration are going to impose on the world in general, and people of Iraq and the men and women of the U.S. armed forces in particular. REASONS FOR THE WAR AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS The reasons for war are not supposed to be the purview of soldiers in the field. They are just supposed to follow orders. But when a war is so blatantly illegal soldiers need to have some background to make an informed decision about how to conduct themselves. In a short space it is not possible to delineate the full reasons, but it is not about the dangers of Saddam Hussein. As indicated above, there are no credible anti-war or peace advocates that advocate any positive statements about Saddam Hussein or the Government of Iraq. The world, however, in general, does not believe that the Bush administration has any solution to the situation. In fact many believe that Bush, himself, is a significant part of the problem. Many people have pointed out that this war is about the oil. It is, but it is much more than that. The United States does not need the oil to survive but the people in the Bush administration want to expand the hegemony that the United States government has had since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is not a critique of U.S. foreign policy, per se, but a recognition of reality. This is essentially what Bush has been saying in his public speeches at West Point, etc., and is very explicitly saying in his "National Security Strategy (NSS), which he published in September of 2002. The NSS is the political articulation of what the main actors of the Bush administration published in September 2000, before the elections, before they took power, and before the fateful day of September 11, 2001. That project was called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", A Report of The Project For the New American Century. These documents are essentially the blueprints for hegemony and for a word that has come back into vogue- Empire. These documents are publicly available, but not often read. All Americans and all members of the armed forces should read them. Many of the people quoted in this article have no doubt read them and understand the policies basic illegalities, and thus the conclusion that the war itself is domestically, internationally and morally indefensible. There are many critiques of the impact of these policies-which articulate the reasons not to go to war. Some of the better ones can be found at Global Policy ; Foreign Policy in Focus or the Education for Peace in Iraq Center. There are also several other valuable research sites. There are also many U.S. veteran groups that have seen the horrors of war up close and do not want to have another generation of young Americans suffer not only the war, but also the post traumatic stresses that emerge after war, when they discover they have been lied to, have participated in aggression, and then are abandoned by their government after the wars. This war is particularly amenable to such, since there is so much dissention, based on solid information that this war is not only unnecessary but also illegal, and may be without a foreseeable end. Charles Sheehan Miles, is a Gulf War veteran and former President of the National Gulf War Resource Center (http://www.ngwrc.org). He also help to found the extraordinarily useful "Veterans for Common Sense" (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/) which has a great deal of information about the current situation. On January 16, 2003, he wrote: "This war does nothing to protect American lives, but it will do everything to destroy the lives of many thousands of Iraqis and Americans. This war will not protect us from weapons of mass destruction, but it will make it more likely Iraq will try to use them. This war will not liberate the Iraqi people, but it will do everything to ensure they receive a new master, one ruled by corporate profits and oil to fuel more American consumption. This war isn't worth the life of one American soldier." (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14952) The idea that those who oppose the Bush plans for war are against the troops is a fundamental lie. Support for the troops is not done by sending them off to a war which is fundamentally unnecessary-support is keeping them home. Support for the troops is not done by lying to them about the purpose and goals of the war and allowing those who will benefit and profit a free ride on the backs of the troops. Support for the troops is not done by making them complicit in an illegal and immoral war-it is done by exposing the lies and giving the troops an opportunity not to be complicit in war crimes. A group of veterans of many different wars and eras has issued a statement that has been distributed to active duty soldiers making some of the points made in this article. Signers includes many well-known veterans such as Vietnam veteran and author Ron Kovic (Born on the 4th of July), author and film producer Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine), and American historian Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States) and several hundred other veterans. The statement "Call to Conscience from Veterans to Active Duty Troops and Reservist" reads in part: "Many of us believed serving in the military was our duty, and our job was to defend this country. Our experiences in the military caused us to question much of what we were taught. Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active duty and reservists, to follow your conscience and do the right thing. In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra -- the Highway of Death -- where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches, burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the battlefields radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental drugs, burning chemical weapons depots and oil fires combined to create a toxic cocktail affecting both the Iraqi people and Gulf War veterans today. One in four Gulf War veterans is disabled. If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people that hate you to your core? You should think about what your "mission" really is. You are being sent to invade and occupy a people who, like you and me, are only trying to live their lives and raise their kids. They pose no threat to the United States even though they have a brutal dictator as their leader. Who is the U.S. to tell the Iraqi people how to run their country when many in the U.S. don't even believe their own President was legally elected? There is no honor in murder. This war is murder by another name. When, in an unjust war, an errant bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is not "collateral damage," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies of dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant, it is not "destroying enemy infrastructure," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a father dies of a heart attack because a bomb disrupted the phone lines so he could not call an ambulance, it is not "neutralizing command and control facilities," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand poor farmer conscripts die in a trench defending a town they have lived in their whole lives, it is not victory, it is murder. If the people of the world are ever to be free, there must come a time when being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being the soldier of a nation. Now is that time. When orders come to ship out, your response will profoundly impact the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and here at home. Your response will help set the course of our future. You will have choices all along the way. Your commanders want you to obey. We urge you to think. We urge you to make your choices based on your conscience. If you choose to resist, we will support you and stand with you because we have come to understand that our REAL duty is to the people of the world and to our common future." (To see the full statement and view all the signatures see www.calltoconscience.net.) The choices that those in the military and their supporters face are hard ones. Let us begin with some undisputed options. Members of the armed forces are sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are also sworn to obey all LAWFUL orders and have an affirmative duty to DISOBEY all UNLAWFUL orders. The unelected president will not tell his troops or his commanders that he is issuing unlawful orders. Few, if any, of the top commanders will tell their troops that they are issuing unlawful orders. Those on the front lines, those who fly the planes, those who target Cruise missiles and other weapons of mass destruction need to make decisions. According to International Law, Domestic Law, the Constitution, and various Moral Codes it is not enough to say or believe that one is just "doing their job" or just "following orders." Decisions have to be made. One should check out the sources of information presented in this article, to see if International Law still applies to America, to see if the Constitution still applies, to see if the Pope and other national and international members of the clergy are right in their moral objections to this war, to see if the legal arguments are valid against the war or for the war. One should investigate if they are being lied to by their unelected commander in chief. Members of the armed forces have a sworn and sacred duty to uphold the law and the Constitution. According to the laws, international, domestic, and moral, the interpretation of whether orders are legal are not only the responsibility of "superior officers," but is needed each level of command, and by those who execute those commands. Please note that the information presented here is not meant to encourage one to break the law, but rather to follow international, domestic, and moral laws. The information here is not intended to encourage one to break one's oath but rather to be true to one's duty and conscience and make an informed decision. If the decision is made that the orders to begin or continue the war are illegal, then each bomb dropped will be a war crime, each bomb loaded will be a war crime, each support effort will be aiding and abetting a crime. Each death, especially that of a civilian, will be a war crime (not collateral damage). If the war itself is a crime than all efforts that aid in that effort are criminal. Given that over 50% of the people of Iraq are children under the age of 16, this will be a war against children and a crime against humanity. The decision to obey one's oath and not follow illegal orders is no doubt a difficult one, and one that will probably result in punishment from those who issue the illegal orders. One should not take this issue lightly, just as one should not take the decision to follow an illegal order lightly. There will no doubt be consequences for those who follow their conscience. It is the duty of all who recognize the illegality of the war to support all resisters. For examples on how hundreds of thousands of GIs resisted the illegal war in Vietnam (by the U.S. Governments own admission in the Pentagon Papers) read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," Chapter 18. For a personal account of a brave officer's resistance in Vietnam and later, see "Witness to War" by Charles Clement. I am aware that many active duty personnel and reservist already have grave doubts and reservations about the conduct of this war, just as do significant numbers of veterans and the general public and citizenry. Those who have severe doubts about the legality of what they are "ordered" to do should talk to their comrades in arms, their spiritual advisor (if they have one), and should contact one of the groups listed below and weigh their options. There may well be some safety in numbers. Albert Einstein, the genius physicist, once stated that if 2% of the military refused to fight or participate, the wars could not continue. Time is short. Or if you are reading this after the hostilities have commenced, it is time to stop the madness and war crimes. At the end of this article there is contact information for organizations that have historically assisted active duty personnel, reservist, or veterans of conscience who desire specific legal, political, or moral guidance in time of war. If possible, these would be good organizations to contact. As the veterans "Call to Conscience" statement notes "if you have questions or doubts about your role in the military (for any reason) or in this war, help is available. Contact one of the organizations listed below. They can discuss your situation and concerns, give you information on your legal rights, and help you sort out your possible choices." These organizations are listed for your information and are not responsible for the contents of this article. Also listed below are sources of information that may be useful about the current situation, in addition to the sources listed in the article. Lawrence Mosqueda, Ph.D. teaches at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. He can be reached at mosqueda@evergreen.edu SUGGESTED RESOURCES: BOOKS on foreign policy Noam Chomsky, especially Deterring Democracy, 9/11, Rouge States Phyllis Bennis, Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis Gilbert Achcar, The Clash of Barbarisms: September 11 and the Making of the New World Disorder William Blum, Killing Hope Dilip Hiro, Iraq, In the Eye of the Storm WEB SITES Alternative News and analysis, www.commondreams.org Alternative Analysis, Middle East Analysis, English Reports from Iraq, ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE HELPED GIs IN THE
PAST American Friends Service Committee-National 1501 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 241-7000 Fax: (215) 241-7275 afscinfo@afsc.org www.afsc.org American Friends Service Committee--New England Region 2161 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-661-6130 afscnero@afsc.org Center on Conscience & War (NISBCO) Military Law Task Force of the National
Lawyers Guild National Lawyers Guild, National Office Northcoast WRL / Humboldt Committee for Conscientious Objectors (NCWRL-HCCO) 1040 H Street Arcata, CA 95521 707-826-0165 HCCO-Help@sbcglobal.net Quaker House of Fayetteville, NC Seattle Draft and Military Counseling War Resisters League 339 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10012 212-228-0450 or 800-975-9688 wrl@warresisters.org http://www.warresisters.org/ Veterans Call to Conscience Veterans for Common Sense National Contacts http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/contacts.asp Citizen Soldier Fellowship of Reconciliation Catholic Peace Fellowship Peace Education Office of Mennonite
Central Committee MCC US
Report this post as:
This is Excelentby Yourmama Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 4:21 PMMay we save some of our kids the grief they will face
for the deranged motives coming from Capital Hill and wall street. Support our Troops! God save them. Feed the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, they are dying! Food doesn't come through, the poppies are covering the hills again and we hear nothing! This is outrageous. What have we become? You hate mongers who call feeling people "america haters" are lying wretches not fit to live with decent folk who care about and for each other. Yes, even the young, poor, sick, and old among us. If YOU ALL DIED no one would care. Gather what you may in this plane because the great door awaits us all. How will you go through?
Report this post as:
The objective is not liberation.by Diogenes Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 5:19 PMWhatever this war is about it is not about "Liberation".
It has been interesting to watch the evilution of the rationale for the Bush Junta's Foreign Policy of "kill them all and let god sort them out". First it was a "War on Terrah" (Terra is more like it). What soon followed was an attack to conquer Pipelinestan and make the world safe for the Oil and Gas pipelines that Unocal wanted to build. We then Installed the former Unocal Negotiater with the Taliban, Hamid Kharzi as the Puppet President - except he can't leave Kabul with less than a Battallion for guard duty. Then the improbable rationale allowing it to morph into a War on Iraq (Of course it is purely incidental that they have as much as 30% or the World's known Oil Reserves and Israel wants them taken out as a potential adversery - as per the plan drawn up for Netanyahoo by Perle and Wolfoshitz). When no link could be shown between Hussein and any Terroist organization it became Weapons of Mass Destruction® and forcing Saddam to allow the Weapons Inspectors back in and then when he doublecrossed Bush and actually let them back in - without restrictions it became eliminating the Stockpiles that Saddam did not have and which the Weapons Inspectors have pretty well confirmed. With that disproven it morphing yet again into A war to liberate the long suffering people of Iraq from Saddam's evil rule - by killing a couple of hundred thousand innocents and calling it a MORAL Victory for "Democracy". The reality is that whatever the real motivation is for this War we do know one thing for sure: It is none of the publicly stated rationales so far. But they'll keep trying anyway. As for the shills selling death and destruction: Bite Me!
Report this post as:
Oh, Spare Meby Diogenes Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 5:34 PMWhat a tired old Canard. Which Logically works out to:
If you are opposed to killing a couple hundred thousand people who are NOT Saddam Hussein then you support Saddam Hussein. What unadulterated drivel.
Report this post as:
Why?by fresca Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 10:25 PMIn all seriuosness Dio? Why are you really so concerned about any Iraqis dying? I find it incredibly hard to believe your sincere. Thousands and thousands of people are enslaved, tortured and murdered everyday, a huge portion of them in Arab countries and while I won't use the illogical argument of "since others are dying elsewhere, we shouldn't care about Iraq", I do find it very telling that I've never seen post number one from you or any of your buddies concerning ANY other heinous act of aggression or oppression. What gives? I don't think you give a fuck about the Iraqis. In fact, I think you'd just as soon see them evaporated if it would get rid of Bush. If you all would just grow a pair and be honest about why your aginst this war I'd have respect for you, but this phony humanitarianism is getting tired.
Report this post as:
In Some peoples lifeby Sheepdog Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003 at 10:46 PMMaybe...
There comes a time when the ugly horror and pain ( replicated throughout the world in countless ways) becomes apparent then abhorrent. One looks for causes and cures not distractions or indifference if one wishes to be human.
Report this post as:
Some Daysby Diogenes Monday, Mar. 03, 2003 at 7:24 AMThere are some days that I wonder about the future of our poor little War torn mudball.
Always it seems we have the apologists for death and destruction. In their sick and twisted world human life has no value, the misery of others brings forth no sympathy or desire to reach out a helping hand. Are there times when one must fight? Certainly, but the rational being contemplates such a need with the grim desire to end it as quickly as possible and not as an end in itself. Even Hitler had his defenders. So too, Bush. There have always been those who would prostitute their soul for 8 pieces of Silver. However, we do not have to accept or believe their justifications turning evil to good. Lies are still lies. And I am heartened by the knowledge that the vast majority of people do mean well to their fellow man. It is sad that evil has it's apologists and that they have effect way beyond their small numbers. However, the counter is to never abandon one's resolve that there are ways to handle the problems between men and nations other than mass murder. Do not forget that we are having a positive impact against the evil that they would do. You can see it in ther plummeting support for the EVIL Bush Junta and in the desperation of their slavering proponents. You can see it in the numbers of people waking up to realize that they are being sold a bill of goods that would destroy their Bill of Righs. Word of mouth is always the most effective advertising for or against something. Make your voice heard.
Report this post as:
And then there are good and sweet things....by Diogenes Monday, Mar. 03, 2003 at 10:50 AMI wouldn't want to end on such a bleak note, so I would like to also mention that, with the help of some cheap wine and a healthy scoop of butter, I was finally able to lodge my entire dong into my sweet little dog, Pe-Pe, last night. He may now be dead now, but from the howl (*Ginsberg reference) of joy he let out, I think he died quite happy.
Report this post as:
|
