I found this post to be the only reason to smile today. The reality of today's events have left people riveted and appalled, then again some in jubilation as they praise the actions and will of a man that will lead their nation to victory for peace. Hmm.. I must have missed that news insert where Iraq declared war on the United States. I guess one can somehow miss such significant bits of information as one carries on with daily life. Oh, there was no war declared on America courtesy of Saddam Hussein? Intriguing... so why in Heaven's name is he deliberately instructing men to kill? What will a judge say to a criminal who is up for murder...
"But your honour, he had what I wanted.. so I killed him".
"But that is against the law, that is inconceivable!!"
"But hey, Bush did it, why can't I?"

The sad realities of this unlawful war reaches far beyond the borders of Iraq, this war is creating further hate and bias in countries where the racial divides have always been tenuous but tolerable for the most part recently. The unity between Muslims do not need geographical borders of distinction, and when you're dealing with fundamentalists you are creating offshoot wars instantly. You're killing Muslim people; therefore there will be a direct attack wherever possible. Does Bush consider this? Does he even care about this? Cape Town is a huge American and British tourist destination, and we also have a huge number of Muslim inhabitants, of those there certainly are fundamentalists/extremists who have already in the past attacked civilians in their aim to retaliate against America. This war will instigate these type of reactions the world over. People are not only likely to die in Iraq, but anywhere in the world where Muslims feel justified to declare Jihad. Bush has brought this upon himself and the whole world. He would have waged war regardless of total disarmament. He merely wished to pave the way for being in more control weapons' wise.

What is the Nuclear Weapons status of America? Has it laid down its biological weapons? Where does the East get their plans for such mass destruction weaponry from? The West.

The facade under which this war was waged makes it even more sickening and frightening, greed is such a killer of conscience and true humanitarianism.

These actions are not in the name of Human Rights, for not too far from here there is a man, fascist and tyrannical enough to warrant international intervention, albeit not through brutal war, but intervention nonetheless. Yet what does Bush have to gain? Certainly no oil reserves, so why should he bother?!

Hamas Threats to Attack Western Targets if US Attacks Iraq
Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) threatened on Friday that Moslems would target western interests all over the world if the United States carried out attack on Iraq.

Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) threatened on Friday that Moslems would target western interests all over the world if the United States carried out attack on Iraq.

The threats were made as hundreds of Hamas supporters rallied at Jabalya Refugee camp in northern Gaza Strip in support for Iraq, waving Iraqi and Palestinian flags as well as posters of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Hamas spiritual leader and founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin attended the rally together with other Hamas leaders and delivered an opened written letter that includes such threats.

"The strike on Iraq would be the continuation of the Crusaders' aggression and war, therefore Muslims will have to threaten and strike Western interests, and hit them everywhere," Yassin said in the letter.

He added that the westerns referring to the Americans "are fighting us, and we have to fight them. They threaten our interests, we have to threaten their interests."

Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic group that opposes the resumption of the peace process with Israel, was responsible for dozens of suicide bombing attacks carried out into Israel that killed dozens of people.

In a previous rally to support Iraq, Hamas leaders called upon the Iraqi people to recruit 10,000 Iraqi suicide bombers and blew themselves up as soon as the US Army enters the Iraqi cities.

Following the suicide bombing attacks carried out by the group into Israel, the US considered the group as "a terrorist organization." But Hamas said its attacks were only against the Israelis who occupy the Palestinian territories.

It is the first time that Hamas movement which called the US as the enemy, makes such threats to strike on western interests if the United States launches a possible attack on Iraq.

The quadriplegic leader of Hamas also called upon Arabs and Muslims to boycott US products and "close their doors" against the United States and its allies and not to offer them assistance in the war against Iraq.


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...8_111312.shtml

March 14, 2003

Is There an Alternative to War With Iraq?

The drumbeat of war is getting louder by the day. The arguments both in favor and against the war have by this time become rather familiar and repetitive. Lost in the cacophony of shrill voices coming from the White House is the idea of disarming Saddam Hussein without waging a war.


That Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator is given. The list of human rights abuses in Iraq is documented beyond the shadow of the slightest doubt. Amnesty International, a respected and credible organization has documented gross human rights violations; arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, judicial and extra-judicial executions, disappearances and forced expulsions based on ethnicity. These cannot be justified or tolerated under any circumstance.


But neither can be a war that is supposed to liberate Iraq and rid the country of the weapons of mass destruction that to this date have not been found. The reasons for waging a war are hollow and the presented evidence flimsy. If we were to go after every dictator and despot, and we must realize that a wide swath of this world is ruled by dictators and despots and somehow we have found their oppressor rule to be acceptable. Does not China, North Korea, Cuba and many countries in Africa qualify for the dubious distinction? If we lower the threshold then we would be fighting wars on every continent. Recent face off with North Korea is a good example. Instead in the past we have chosen, for good measure, to engage these countries in a dialogue that has been fruitful and rewarding.


President Bush considers Iraq an evil (as in the axis of evil that also includes Iran and North Korea) and appears to have convinced himself that military action against Iraq is based on sound moral ground. Though his spiritual gurus, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and the likes, motivated by their xenophobic religious philosophy might agree with him but a majority of religious leaders including the Catholic Church are against any such action. The recent meeting of Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, a practicing Catholic, with Pope John Paul underscores the Church’s opposition. The unprecedented joint declaration of the archbishops of Anglican and Catholic churches in England against the war is further proof that there is no moral basis for Mr. Bush’s war against Iraq. George Bush and his neo-conservatives may consider it their Christian destiny to attack Iraq but no one is buying that line including millions of people who took to the streets all across the world to protest against the war. Call it a preemptive peace strike for it is the first time that such a massive global protest has been made even before the first shots were fired. The real reason for war is not what kind of person Saddam Hussein is but the vast oil reserves that he controls.


The divide in Europe is interesting. Russia, Germany and France do not want war and the people in those countries agree with their leaders. In Italy, Spain and Great Britain the leaders have already saddled up to join Mr. Bush but an overwhelming majority of their citizens are against the war and implicitly against their leaders. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing a revolt within his own party because of his unflinching support of President Bush. When the question of war was put before the parliament last week110 members of his own party, that is more than one fourth of Labor seats in the parliament, voted against the resolution. Mr. Blair has been called Mr. Bush’s lap dog and an ambassador of the US to Great Britain. This unkind characterization underscores the wars are expensive enterprises. It is estimated that a short and decisive war would cost the US at least 100 billion dollars. A protracted one would cost up to 2 trillion dollars. Add to that the cost of occupation and reconstruction and the bill may run into trillions of dollars. With the economy still in doldrums how can the US afford this kind of expenditure? Mr. Allan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, said this in so many words while testifying before the Congress.


Are there any alternatives to war? Just about everyone except the leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy and a corralled group of Eastern European leaders (the new Europe of Mr. Donald Rumsfeld) believe there is. Let the UN inspectors continue their mandate for as long as it takes to disarm the country of weapons of mass destruction or to ensure there are none. Keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein to fulfill his commitments to the world community. In the meantime let us make concerted efforts to get rid of him through whatever means we have. CIA could dust off some of its old tricks it had used in the past to knock off Salvador Allende of Chile, Patrick Lumumba of Congo and Ziaul Haq of Pakistan, to name a few.

http://www.pakistanlink.com/sah.html

Analysis: Its not just France against war
By Claude Salhani
From the International Desk
Published 3/19/2003 1:12 PM
View printer-friendly version


LONDON, March 19 (UPI) -- While France bore the brunt of the recent trans-Atlantic diplomatic dispute over Iraq, it should be noted that President Jacques Chirac's opposition to war is widely mirrored across much of Europe.

Even here, in the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has proved throughout these difficult months of intense behind-the-scenes diplomatic haggling to be President George W. Bush's best friend and ally, public opinion is far from supportive of the U.S.-led war effort.

Blair, many analysts believe, might be gambling his political career, betting on a quick, clean war. Britain's prime minister is hoping the conflict in the Middle East will meet with rapid success in its efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and identify, and neutralize, his weapons of mass destruction.

For the moment, Blair is riding strong, having won what one British newspaper called a "historic vote for war." The anti-war motion was defeated in the Commons on Tuesday 396-217, giving the prime minister a majority of 179, despite the biggest Labor Party rebellion since he became prime minister.

The government's motion for military action to disarm Iraq, "using all necessary means" was approved 412-149. In a passionate speech, Blair told Parliament he would resign if the members voted against military action, forcing him to withdraw British troops lined up to battle Saddam and his military forces.

But already Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary and leader of the House of Commons, has resigned from the government. And on Tuesday, two more ministers -- John Denham and Lord Hunt -- resigned. However, Clare Short, the international development secretary, who had earlier threatened to quit, changed her mind, saying it would be "cowardly" to do so now.

Cook announced his resignation in an impassioned statement to Parliament on Monday. Cook, who for the first time in his 20-year political life addressed the House from the Back Benches, stated that while "France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days, it is not France alone that wants inspections.

"Germany wants more time for inspection; Russia wants more time for inspections," said Cook.

"We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac," added the British politician.

While, indeed, Chirac did seem to be spearheading the anti-war, anti-Bush campaign, it is important to note that Russia, Germany, Belgium and other nations remain just as opposed to U.S. unilateralism and to Bush's urge to act outside the framework of the United Nations.

In fact, although their governments support Bush's initiative, the majority of Britons, Italians and Spaniards are just as opposed to going to war without a second U.N. resolution. As, too, are the United States' immediate neighbors and largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

So why is America's ire and frustration at France's refusal to accept the war option so vociferous?

It could be explained primarily because France -- one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- repeatedly threatened to use its veto power, thus blocking any resolution that would automatically authorize use of force.

While Russia and China -- also veto-wielding permanent Security Council members -- also opposed recourse to war, unlike Chirac their leaders were careful not to mention the possibility of using their right to veto. Putin, for example, simply said he was opposed to any new resolutions. France, on the other hand, showed no such reserve.

Chirac, and his energetic foreign minister Dominique de Villepin, who actively campaigned to insure the support of African countries currently sitting on the Security Council, kept reiterating that there was "no justification for use of force."

"Opposition to war," said Chirac in a televised address that closely followed Bush's ultimatum to Saddam on Monday, "was showed by a majority of countries."

Part of this can be explained by the fact that France firmly sees a bigger role in international politics for Europe, which it sees itself, along with Germany, leading. Additionally, most Europeans have a stronger desire to find a peaceful solution to the crisis, even if it means being more flexible with Saddam, and according him more time.

"Ironically," said Cook, "it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can contemplate its invasion."

And second, Chirac believes himself to be the political heir -- and spiritual son -- of Gen. Charles de Gaulle. As such, he believes he should stand up to American unilateralist policy in the good old Gaulist tradition.

This diplomatic squabble between France and the United States is nothing more than the continuation of a dispute started by de Gaulle with Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II, when de Gaulle was in exile in London and Ike commanded the Allies.

There is little doubt here that in his more quiet moments, Chirac must be asking himself what would the good general do in a similar situation.

It is also worth noting that some time after the war, once the dust of this dispute settles, historians will most certainly point out the importance of France's "mediating" role in this crisis.

"Chirac's and France's position vis-à-vis this debate is proof that this crisis is not a clash of civilizations," said one high-ranking French official to United Press International. "France's, as well as Germany's position, shows that at least this is not a dispute between east and west."

In the final analysis, France will side with the coalition.

And as Bush's 48-hour ultimatum winds down, and with Saddam still firmly in Baghdad, and showing no signs of abdicating, hostilities will soon replace diplomacy.

In the words of Cook's departing comments to Parliament: "To end in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse."

I have to say that the Peace protests around the world, including my country, have been encouraging. To at least know there are some beings that have truly evolved, to realize that one does need to learn through history and mistakes, I mean after all that is the whole purpose of having the ability to reflect and evaluate past actions. What has war ever achieved? Except to make shitloads of money. This war, and any other, is economical, period.
I stand in amazement at the youth that choose to oppose war by possibly sacrificing their lives. A whole group of South African students left for Baghdad to become "human shields" in their effort to protest this abominable war against innocent people. And by that I mean the casualties of WAR.

Oh... a bit of interesting info:


"Iraq is potentially one of the richest Arab and developing countries, with big deposits of oil, phosphates and other minerals, a well established farming sector with excellent irrigation and a strong industrial base. It has the biggest domestic market in the Persian Gulf region."

These protests in Europe and North America are more of a rally for socialism rather than an "anti-war" movement.

These peaceniks were not protesting their fellow traveller Bill Clinton when he was launching cruise missles around the world. Nope, they are not protesting war. They are just protesting George Bush, the Republican party, and capitalism.

What they do not realize is that they are still infidels to the muslim world and that their appeasement policies will not save them from Jihad.

Cruise missles are a far cry from war. A VERY far cry.

Screw your conservative idiocy and stubborness; look at the big picture for once. Don't you have enough pride in our nation that you consider this childish and immature behavior below us? Or is that how 'patriotic' you are? That you'll support a president who subverted the democratic process to get in power? That you'll support a conflict that goes against everything that the United States stands for, a conflict that will bring about more American loss of life?

And yet, you have the gall to call the anti-war movement anti-American? How dare you. How DARE you. God forbid that someone should exercise their guarnteed right to speak out against this atrocity. Do you condone our nation acting like a school yard bully? You must, else you would not support this war. The ignorance I've seen from you on this subject is astounding.

Isn't the death toll high enough? Or won't you be satisfied until everyone is dead but the NRA?

You can't be so simpleminded that you truely believe all of this. I'm insulted that you apparrently think so little of our nation.

The launching of cruise missles is WAR.

Wow, Sixgun, I'm AMAZED! You were able to respond to one tiny and irrelevent part of my post. Nevermind the rest of it!

...Which shows you all the more for the two-face that you are.

It's the part that really matters,

the rest of your rant is just pure BS, especially when I got you on the falsehood of saying Bill Clinton's launching of missles was not war.

BTW,

This is not a "peace" movement. It is a marxist, anti-American movement.

Alot of these "activists" are going overseas to make common cause with America's enemies the same way that Ezra Pound went to Rome and made broadcasts against America and Britain's war efforts in WWII.

Screw your conservative idiocy and stubborness; look at the big picture for once. Don't you have enough pride in our nation that you consider this childish and immature behavior below us? Or is that how 'patriotic' you are? That you'll support a president who subverted the democratic process to get in power? That you'll support a conflict that goes against everything that the United States stands for, a conflict that will bring about more American loss of life?

And yet, you have the gall to call the anti-war movement anti-American? How dare you. How DARE you. God forbid that someone should exercise their guarnteed right to speak out against this atrocity. Do you condone our nation acting like a school yard bully? You must, else you would not support this war. The ignorance I've seen from you on this subject is astounding.

Isn't the death toll high enough? Or won't you be satisfied until everyone is dead but the NRA?

You can't be so simpleminded that you truely believe all of this. I'm insulted that you apparrently think so little of our nation.

You can call that BS. I know its only because its true.

If cruise missles count as a war, does throwing a rock at someone constitute a fight? It certainly wasn't a falsehood on my part. Look at the scale of the conflict. Were troops on the ground? No. Did we have vast international support? Yes. Were we responding to Iraqi mistreatment of UN Weapons Inspectors? We certainly were. Was war ever declared? No.

The rest of my post stands true. I submit that YOU are the anti-American for allowing the country to stoop to the level of a rogue aggressor nation.

How many times had we attacked them before the cruise missles were launched? We started this war and we as well as the weapons inspectors knew that they had SCADS, that didn't come from no where. Since we attacked them they have every right to fight back.

And you know what? I know that you'll only respond to the part about the cruise missles. Because you know that I'm entirely correct. The country has become a rogue aggressor nation and you supported it every step of the way. You're anti-American.

I am looking at the big picture,

You TFL have been duped by the marxist organizations and PLO front groups that have organized and financed this so called "peace movement". I have posted URL's to their websites where one could look it up.

Again, these "activists" have more in common with Ezra Pound as they oppose the US war effort due to sympathy with America's enemies.

launching of cruise missiles is war. Throwing rocks will start a fight. If you don't believe me, go throw a rock at someone and watch what happens.
Mass support? Why then and not now? Its because the Euro-Socialists do not like Bush. It's also that the French, German, and Russian governments have profitable business dealings with Saddam's Iraq. France did build that nuclear reactor in Iraq for them to build nukes. I think the French government is very afraid over what documents that we may find in Iraqi archives.

Against the law? The UN would not back up its own resolutions. Also, USA should not let other countries make decisions about our national security.
More than that, the USA is a soveriegn nation and we do not live under some global government. This is the real reason why the Socialists are angry at Bush. We did not sign away our national soveriegnty to their dreams of world government.

The Left is burning US flags and is waving UN flags. That says it all right there about the anti-American movement.

I'm not even going to respond to your idiotic attempt to bait me into bitching about you calling everyone commies again.

That, however...

Hey! No shit! Really! Who started firing last night?

You missed the point girl,

I was referring to the many cruise missles launched by Bill Clinton over the eight years he was in office.

Where were the protestors then?