Talking Points for Meeting with Congressional Representatives Regarding Iran

Prepared by the VFP Iran Working Group.

Iran has not historically been an aggressive state in modern times, having invaded and occupied no other state for over 250 years.

Numerous retired U.S. military general staff have publicly stated that Iran poses no threat to the United States.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), allows regular inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency, has formally renounced nuclear weapons, and agreed in March 2012 to six-party talks and permission for IAEA inspectors to visit its key military research site.
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful energy production.
According to the principle of self-determination established by Article 55 of the UN Charter, no nation has the right to engage in covert or overt aggression, or interference with the internal affairs of other nations, including Iran, whose policies and conduct are in compliance with international law.
The government of Israel — a state with an undeclared and formidable nuclear arsenal that has refused to sign the NPT or allow IAEA inspections despite a formal IAEA request in September 2009 — has no right to dictate nuclear conditions to any other state.
As American citizens who have seen U.S.-supported police states abroad in violation of Article 55(c) of the UN Charter, we regrets and apologize for the suffering caused to the Iranian people by covert U.S. operations in 1953 that deposed Iran’s democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeq, and subsequently installed Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi who subjected the Iranian people to 25 years under a brutal police state.
As American citizens who have witnessed interference by the U.S. government in other states in violation of UN Charter Articles 1(2) and 2(4) that establish “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” we are strongly opposed to the unjust, illegal and unnecessary trade and banking sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States. These sanctions have already caused a great amount of suffering for the Iranian people.

Article VI of the United States Constitution defines our treaty obligations, which include the United Nations Charter, as “the Supreme Law of the Land,” thereby establishing the above-cited UN Charter violations as Constitutional violations as well.
As American veterans who have seen the horrors of military violence inflicted by our country and its allies in violation of UN Charter Articles 2(3) and 2(4), which require member states “to settle international disputes by peaceful means” and “refrain from the threat or use of force,” we are alarmed at U.S. and Israeli efforts to intimidate the Iranian people with threats of military attack.
From these positions grounded in the UN Charter and United States Constitution, we oppose the U.S. government economic sanctions against Iran, U.S. government threats of military attack upon Iran, and any U.S. government support of Israel in preparing or launching such an attack.

We are urging you, as a member of U.S. Congress, to actively oppose the sanctions and threat of war by against Iran by U.S. and Israeli governments.

Action: Contact Congress via FCNL.

The Impossible Mission

The recent incident of an alleged US soldier murdering 16 Afghan civilians and the burning of some of their corpses, including those of children, in addition to instances of Quran burning and Marines urinating on corpses of insurgents solidified my view that the US troops on the ground will not be able to “win over the hearts and minds” of the Afghan civilians.I think that the vast majority of US troops at all levels of command make a sincere conscientious effort to follow this mission; nevertheless, the latest array of incidents clearly suggests the systemic problem in achieving this goal. Since the success of the military mission is contingent upon the currently adopted strategy of winning the hearts and minds of Afghan civilians, my last hopes of the US military’s ability to stabilize the country and to reduce the civilians’ support for the Taliban, have evaporated.

Our troops are viewed by the local Afghans as an occupying force that brought the war and destruction to their land and the latest incidents only strengthens these views. Moreover, Afghan villagers are afraid of cooperating with foreign troops, for they know that the foreigners will eventually leave and the Taliban will punish those who cooperated. Back in 2009 Major General Michael T. Flynn, the top U.S. intelligence officer in Afghanistan, stated that the Afghan insurgency can sustain itself indefinitely. Just recently Lt. Col. Daniel Davis revealed from his experience on the ground “the absence of success on virtually every level”, and that our leaders are not telling us the truth about what is going on in Afghanistan. Many in Congress are currently revising their views on Afghanistan and I was encouraged to receive a letter from Congresswoman Susan Davis (CA-53) stating her commitment to ending the combat operations and swift withdrawal of our troops.

Our senior leadership is long overdue for a full range of negotiations with opposition forces in order to integrate them into the Afghan power structure under the guarantee that they will not seek attack on American land, which the Taliban was willing to give back in 2009 in exchange for a deadline of troop withdrawal. To those who find it unacceptable I would like to remind them that, the Taliban never intended to commit the acts of terror in the US regardless of their hosting the al-Qaeda training camps prior to 2001. At that time the Taliban did not want to harm the US, but they are devoted to fight us for as long as we are occupying their land. Ultimately, we cannot fully protect ourselves from those who hate us, but we can learn to make fewer enemies by allowing other nations their self-determination.

Think About This…Why Are So Many Veterans Against This War?

1. We do not want more of our troops to be exposed to the Depleted Uranium that our government uses on its bombs and ammo. Of the nearly 700,000 veterans who served in Desert Shield & Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA health care, & more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims. President Bush insulted our sick and dying vets when he slashed $275 million from the health care budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

2. Donald Rumsfeld recently insulted our vets stating that those who fought and died for this country – sent to wars by Hawks like him – were pretty much a waste of time. *

3. We are about to set a new precedent in our nation. By engaging in a first strike policy against a country that is not attacking us and does not threaten our Constitution, we are about to become an aggressor country. This is precisely what we fought against in WWII when we went to WAR against the Fascism of Hitler. This first strike precedent has been soundly rejected in the Nuremberg Judgment for which we put Nazis leaders to death.

4. War does not bring peace or security. History has shown us that war always leaves the places that it is waged unstable and chaotic. Germany after World War I, Yugoslavia after the Civil War, and Afghanistan after both the Soviet and the American invasions are good examples of this effect. Modern warfare not only destroys the infrastructure of civilization, but the majority of the casualties are ordinary, “civilian” people. After war, even with outside aid, it takes decades for the physical, psychological, and social wounds to heal. It is during this unstable time that people become desperate enough to follow and believe in terrorist movements. Bombing Iraq back to the stone age again is only going to give motivation and power to terrorists across the world, and create more anti-US terrorists in the years to come. There will always be extremists and terrorists like Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh. But there don’t always have to be people to follow them. Bin Laden was successful in recruiting and convincing potential terrorists in part because he could point to US aggressions in the first Gulf War, and across the world (Iran, Libya, Colombia, Panama) and say “These maniacs have to be stopped!” But what if he and other terrorist leaders didn’t have anything to point at? What if our country weren’t universally disliked by the common people? President Bush said that terrorists “Hate us because of our freedom”. That’s a lie. We’re hated because we hack and kill and run our well-armed men and women around the globe without a care about who we’re hacking, killing or running over. Finally, even if we ‘won’ the war in Iraq and put in a new government, there’s no guarantee that we’d be any safer. After all, we built up the military in Afghanistan, and put Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq. What makes us think we’ll do any better this time?

5. War is not supported by the international community. It should be a very strong statement that only one other country, Great Britain, is willing to stand beside us in this proposed war. The reasons are clear: Iraq hasn’t shown itself to be a threat, and there are no good reasons to wage war. This is why the UN, and 99% of the nations on earth don’t support war with Iraq. But instead of the UN’s non-support causing us to re-think our actions, our Government has continued on, headstrong, without a care about what the rest of the world thinks. Pres. Bush even went so far as to tell the U.N. that it would become “irrelevant” if it didn’t agree with our war push. A strange moment in history: the governing body that was designed to prevent war, told that it would be irrelevant unless it supports an unfounded war. And the U.N. is a good place to look when trying to get a historical perspective on our actions. Thinking back, there was another time in history when a country wanted to invade another country, against the better judgment and will of the international community. But then, as now, the community backed down, and appeased the aggressor. Hitler’s Germany took over Poland, and the terror of World War II was beginning. Iraq has not show any aggression towards other countries since the Gulf War, and we’ve invaded several sovereign countries.. Based on their actions, which country do you think has aspirations to take over the world?

6. War. Kills. Innocent. Human. Beings.Take a second an put yourself in Iraq during the war. Not in the place of a soldier or Saddam Hussein, but in the place of a mother or father, with children, living in Baghdad. There are airplanes dropping bombs around you day and night. You haven’t slept more than a few hours in weeks. Your family is terrified — if they’re all still alive, and no one knows when or where the next attack will happen. It’s not too difficult to relate to people in that circumstance. Think about how you felt after September 11th. About how unsure you were of when or where or if there’d be another terrorist strike. And understand that that feeling is exactly what we’re putting the Iraqi people through. The only difference is, they won’t have just one huge explosion that kills innocent people — they’ll feel this way every day for the entire war — and we’ll be the reason it’s happening. According to estimates by UNICEF and the World Health Organization, more than 400,000 children under the age of 5 have died from the first gulf war and the sanctions we’ve placed on Iraq since the first Gulf War. Now we’re talking about declaring war on these people again, so we can kill thousands more. Is this the legacy you want from your America?


Ten Reasons Why Many Gulf War Veterans Oppose Re-Invading Iraq

By Anonymous, AlterNet – September 9, 2002

With all the war fever about re-invading Iraq, the press and politicians are ignoring the opinion of the veterans of our last war in the Gulf. But we veterans were there, and we have unique and critical first-hand knowledge of the course and consequences of warfare in Iraq. Our opinions should be solicited and heard before troops deploy for battle, not after they have returned wounded, ill or in body bags.

Another invasion of Iraq in 2002 will be very different from the invasion of 1991. The war’s mission has changed in the intervening years, from removing Iraq from Kuwait to removing the entire Iraqi government and military establishment from power. Because the goal of the U.S. military has changed, the Iraqi army may retreat to the cities, where they may face better odds than in the desert.

During the open desert tank battles of ’91, U.S. tanks out-classed and out-fought obsolete Iraqi tanks, and U.S. infantry captured tens of thousands of poorly supplied Iraqi soldiers operating without command and control from Baghdad. But in the urban warfare scenario of 2002, pitched infantry skirmishes and ambushes in cities may present a more level battlefield for Iraqi troops fighting in their hometowns. The Iraqi military can be expected to fight for each block within each city with the most ruthless means available. When faced with the impending overrun of their nation, the Iraqi military didn’t hesitate to use chemical weapons against Iran.

Because of these significant differences, here are 10 reasons why, as a Gulf War combat veteran, I oppose a second Gulf War as a costly and preventable mistake.

1. U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents — if Iraq is capable of using them. The gas masks, detection alarms and protection suits don’t work, according to internal Department of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General Accounting Office. This leaves U.S. troops highly vulnerable to chemical and biological attack. U.S. chemical and biological warfare agent casualties in 2002 could be significantly higher than in 1991. Only a few months ago, the Pentagon sent out a press release stating 140,000 U.S. soldiers were exposed to low-levels chemical agents near Khamisiyah, Iraq during the Gulf War.

While these soldiers appeared to return home healthy, many tens of thousands face long-term disabling medical problems that are difficult to treat.

2. Scientific evidence shows that even low-level chemical exposures are dangerous. According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report (Gulf War and Health, September 2000), low-levels of chemical warfare agents cause long-term medical problems. This conclusion is based on research resulting from the sarin attack in Japan in 1995.

3. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to the product label insert made by BioPort in Michigan, the sole producer, the experimental anthrax vaccine has caused several deaths. The National Academy of Sciences this year concluded there are some risks to the hotly debated vaccine.

4. The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic. Scientific research funded by the military and released two years ago links exposure to depleted uranium (DU) ammunition with cancer in rats. Solid depleted uranium bullets, ranging in size from 25mm to 120mm, are used by U.S. tanks, helicopters and planes to attack enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Gulf War battlefield is already littered with more than 300 tons of radioactive dust and shrapnel from the 1991 Gulf War. Another war will only increase the radioactive and toxic contamination among U.S. soldiers. As of today, U.S. troops are not fully trained about the hazards of depleted uranium contamination, even though Congress enacted a law in 1998 requiring extensive training, especially for medical personnel.

5. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory pills given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to testimony before Congress (Rand Corporation, 1999), the experimental pyridostigmine bromide (PB) anti-chemical warfare agent pills “can’t be ruled out” as linked to Gulf War illness. During the war, soldiers were told to take one pill every eight hours. After the chemical alarms sounded, some soldiers, out of legitimate fear for their lives, took more than the prescribed amount. To date, the long-term consequences of PB pills remain largely unknown.

6. The Iraqi civilian opposition was abandoned by U.S. troops in the first Gulf War. After U.S. troops had liberated Kuwait and conquered southern Iraq at the end of February 1991, former President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi opposition, mainly civilians, to rise up against the Iraqi dictatorship in March 1991. However, former President Bush left the rebels twisting in the wind to be ruthlessly killed by the Iraqi army’s Republican Guard flying helicopters allowed by the cease-fire arranged by U.S. military and political leaders. U.S. troops in southern Iraq in March 1991 were ordered not to interfere. How can U.S. troops or Iraqi rebels be confident this won’t happen again? Long oppressed by the Iraqi military, what will the civilian population do if Iraq is liberated? The American public won’t support a long-term occupation and high casualties.

7. Many post-cease-fire military actions of the first Gulf War were deplorable. In March 1991, the Iraqi army was in a full route inside Iraq. Against orders, former General Barry McCaffrey slaughtered thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after the cease-fire (documented in the article, “Overwhelming Force,” by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, 2000). Many U.S. soldiers returned home with serious objections about the course and consequences of such actions, including the horrific carnage of the “highway of death,” littered with hundreds of destroyed cars, tanks and human remains (see “Prayer at Rumayla” by Gulf War veteran Charles Sheehan-Miles, Xlibris, 2001). Will there be another massacre of Iraqi soldiers? Will Iraqi troops slaughter U.S. soldiers in retaliation, killing U.S. prisoners or retreating U.S. soldiers? And will the press be allowed onto the battlefield to record what really happens?

8. No one has been held accountable for arming Iraq with chemical and biological weapons from 1980 to 1990. A recent news article reported that top aides for former presidents Reagan and Bush armed Iraq with these weapons during Iraq’s war against Iran between 1980 and 1988 (“Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002). Some of these former George H.W. Bush aides now work for President George W. Bush. These advisors did nothing to stop the sale of the chemical agents to Iraq, did nothing to stop the use of the agents by Iraq, and did nothing to tell the world about Iraq’s crimes, even when the world learned Iraq used poison gas against civilians. These top political aides have remained silent for more than 14 years, and many refused to comment on the recent news reports.

9. U.S. allies in Europe oppose invading Iraq. They have refused to supply soldiers, funding or logistical support. Some of the serious U.S. battlefield casualties from 1991 were sent to U.S. military hospitals in Germany. Where will our casualties be flown to for emergency care if Germany follows through on its policy to remain neutral and not allow the use of German airspace? This contrasts sharply with the more than 30 nations allied with the U.S. during Desert Storm in 1991. Today, the U.S. has no Arab allies. In 1991, the U.S. forgave billions in outstanding loans owed by Egypt to buy its support. Now Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations oppose a second invasion of Iraq. If something goes wrong, where will U.S. troops retreat if Saudi Arabia won’t allow U.S. troops within its borders? We must avoid another Gallipoli.

10. The Department of Veterans Affairs will not be able to care for additional casualties because VA can’t even take care of current VA patients. Most veterans now wait six months to see a VA doctor, and most veterans wait more than six months to receive a decision on a VA disability claim. Many of those waiting in line are Gulf War veterans, many with unusual illnesses. According to VA, of the nearly 700,000 veterans who served in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, more than 300,000 have sought VA healthcare, and more than 200,000 have filed VA disability claims. Two weeks ago, President Bush slashed $275 million from the healthcare budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Although the Iraqi government is a corrupt dictatorship that must eventually be removed, current proposals to remove the government by deploying hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops are deeply flawed. A premature attack against Iraq, especially when the public opposes it, would be a horrible mistake. Since 1990, more than 400 U.S. soldiers have died in the Gulf War theater of operations. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, also died. A second invasion of Iraq for one man is not worth one more life; let’s use common sense and avert a second Gulf War.

The author is a Gulf War combat veteran.

A Voice of Reason in This Season of Fear

by Glen Motil (Marine Corps Gulf War Veteran for Peace and Social Justice)

Allow me to attempt a voice of reason in this season of fear. The following is an article by Bush’s National Security Adviser, Dr. Condi Rice, and probably sheds light on the argument that Bush will make to the American people next week to justify his oil war. There is a lot of information I was not aware of– such as examples of nations that voluntarily disarmed. A tactic anti-war advocates can use to counter this argument is to inquire as to what was done differently in those other countries that wasn’t done in Iraq (or what was done to Iraq, that wasn’t done to the other countries– like devastating war, purposeful deceit and manipulation, and genocial sanctions).

I picked out the paragraph below as an example of the Bush administration’s consistent attempt to cause war-hysteria at every turn over so-called “weapons of mass destruction (WMD).” It is my belief, and this has been confirmed in talks by former Marine officer, Gulf War veteran and UN weapon’s inspector Scott Ritter, that most of the items the U.S. includes in its list of WMDs are terrible, and the world should be rid of them, but they are hardly reliant or, excuse me for the cynical term, “cost-effective.” Ritter points out that there is no doubt that nuclear and radio-active weapons are unquestionably WMDs, but there is no indication that Iraq has these. The U.S. on the other hand, has many of these and has used them in every conflict (Iraq, Serbia, and Afghanistan) since the end of the Cold War, in the form of cancer causing radioactive depleted uranium shells, and of course is the only nation to have used the nuclear bomb to target and kill an innocent civilian urban population. Ritter also makes the case that a battalion full of U.S. Marines with M-16s machine guns at the ready is a far less expensive and effective WMD than any chemical or biological agent. The brutal economic sanctions on the people of Iraq have been a far more effective weapon of mass destruction than any bombing campaign or amphibious assault, Ritter reminds us.

So let’s take a close look at Dr. Rice’s rhetorical skill and craft:

“Last week’s finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq’s declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin – a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles.”

Notice that, depending on the text here alone, the warheads found were empty and did not even contain sarin. Sarin, as terrible as it is, may only cause a minimal amount of fatalities (12 in the case of the Tokyo subway, and this in a relatively controlled environment, i.e. a metal box, not the open air) and when used in a missile, that missile would nearly have to fall on the victim’s lap. So even if they found the actual sarin, which even Rice admits as being “in the past,” this is hardly a weapon of “mass destruction,” and it would hardly be worth the cost of keeping such a weapon around, let alone implementing it. Once again, for the price of a cartridge of rounds, the DC Sniper did more damage than sarin gas can ever do. Several hundred to possibly thousands more people die from lack of affordable health care in the U.S. than would ever fall victim to a anthrax attack. This, however, gets little media attention so people must suffer silently.

In the next sentence, Dr. Rice performs a classic “slip and slide” of logic. She introduces the possibility of a larger missile that Iraq used to have that may be able to carry VX nerve agent and can possibly kill a million people in one hit. Well, this may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the canisters found, and NO sarin was found, let alone VX. Classic fear mongering, classic strawman targeting, and NOT a basis for war. Vaccinations? Small Pox? It’s a bugaboo, a chimera. Speculation is not grounds for a single American soldier to drop a single drop of blood. Speculation is a very poor excuse for displacing millions, killing hundreds of thousands and thumbing our noses at the rule of law. Any war justification would require at bare minimum that Iraq not only has these deadly weapons, but has a clear intent to use them against the United States directly, without provocation, in the very near future, and then only after ALL diplomatic options have broken down. This is a tough (perhaps impossible) burden of proof, but the use of violence demands such a burden. As Noam Chomsky reminds us, those who do not want war need no justification for their stance, it is those who desire war who must make their case.

The rest of Dr. Rice’s article alludes to potential general concerns but does not point out any specific real threat. She makes the not so difficult case that the Iraqi government lies. So what? All governments lie. Secretive, brutal dictatorships especially lie. Stalinist Russia lied time and again, but that did not make the argument for the first strike of a world war. No, we had summits, we had treaties with the Soviets, and the Soviet Union finally imploded under the weight of its own internal contradictions. North Korea just admitted to its lies. We know diplomacy will work there. Most people are aware that United States government lies to its own people (Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.). So you prove that Saddam Hussein lies to maintain his grip on power. It doesn’t make it right, and this is not an arguement of defense or justification, but which government doesn’t lie?

For a person of Dr. Rice’s intelligence to make the shady argument and misuse of logic as was pointed out above is tantamount to a lie itself. Until our own government ceases to do the same, we have no moral authority to demand that others do. If Iraqi lies have a direct harmful effect on the health and well-being of the people of our nation, than we must prove this before an International Court. But the same goes for other nations who accuse the U.S. of lies.

So when a scholar of impeccable talent and intellectual skill such as Dr. Rice makes such a case, what are we to make of her motives? Why does she want to scare Americans into supporting this war, a war against a relatively defenseless nation that she must know, is absolutely avoidable, and unnecessary?

Voices from the Bush administration have made it clear this week that they don’t seek a way to avoid war. After nearly one million citizens and workers demonstrated on U.S. soil against the war this past weekend, nearly all major religions having denounced Bush’s plans, and several ally governments having publically announced their opposition, Bush still intends to have his war.

One of those unnamed, unaccountable “high government officials” was quoted in an LA Times article Wednesday saying that if there is any possibility that the U.N. Security Council would vote against military action, then the U.S. would not even bother going to the Security Council as, in some minds, it would make the U.S. look worse if its actions were not endorsed officially, than if it did not even seek such an endorsement. Now that both Germany and France seem to be taking that stand, the U.S. will probably bypass the U.N. completely, making this action a unilateral, “preemptive” war and a direct violation of the U.N. Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and consequently, Article Six of the United States Constitution. The Bush team will have placed the United States beyond the pale of civil nations, and we will find ourselves literally at odds with the world at a time when we need friends more than ever. The U.S. military will find itself in the pricarious position of defending a policy last proclaimed by Nazi Germany. This policy was rightly denounced at the Nuremberg trials.

Make no mistake, this is what they plan to do. They spelled it out in the “Bush Doctrine” released in September (*see below), which changes U.S. policy from one of inter dependence towards integration and mutual cooperation to one of world domination. This is not rhetoric, it is a fact. See the document for yourself.

So, what to do about Saddam Hussein? If we are serious about our eagerness to see the Iraqi people liberated (i.e. experiencing democratic reforms), than we know what to do. The only true liberation is self-determination, and this must be recognized first and foremost.

We should do the same thing that we should do for all people living under tyranny: stop supporting terrorism and militarism and start supporting nonviolent democratic resistance movements and elements within those nations. Fund clean air, clean water, nutrition, shelter and health care initiatives in those nations. Support the International Criminal Court and prosecute all war criminals. All easier said than done, but far easier to control than the unpredictable effects of a war, and the basis is on helping people, not killing them. The first step in this effort in regards to Iraq is the lifting of economic sanctions and the military occupation of Iraqi air-space by British and U.S. forces(the so-called “no-fly zones”), the removal of U.S. troops from the Middle-East and withdrawal of support for Israel until they end the occupation and cease “planting” settlements in Palestinian territories.

This is a start.

I urge everyone to consider just what this war will mean. Remember the shock, the terror, anger and the loss of innocent human life of 9/11? Remember the generation-long quaqmire and horror of Vietnam? Well, imagine twenty 9/11s and three Vietnams happening to the U.S. within a 40 day period. This is what Bush is trying to justify doing to another people. And this is a people who already lost over one half million children over a period of ten years from a U.N. weapon of mass descruction.

I think here is the way for us to get behind the ball and not merely dodge what comes at us. We have to get to the heart of the Bush administration’s deception. The world has come around and now the majority of American citizens are slowly coming to the realization that we are not alone and we do not choose to live in fear, emotionally and spiritually enslaved to the men of violence and greed. I long for the disarmament of the world and the liberation of Americans from their addiction to war. Until then,


Glen Motil
Poet & Essayist
Marine Corps Gulf War Veteran for Peace and Social Justice

(*) The “Bush Doctrine” was officially set as policy in this document: The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002

Especially of concern:

“V. Preventing Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction.” This section sets the policy and makes the case for preventative war: something rightly and roundly condemned at the Nuremberg trials when the Nazis tried to use it as a defense.

“IX. Transform America’s National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century.” This section explicitly states that the U.S. will not allow any other nation to equal its own military might (i.e. implied policy of U.S. military global domination), against the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and consequently the U.S. Constitution. But worse than this, all empires are despised, and empires eventually suffer a terrible fall. Is this what we want to be?

The doctrine makes its case as if it was a response to the terrorist atrocities of 9/11. In actuality, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell have been developing and trying to sell this doctrine since the end of the Cold War. Rice and Rumsfeld chipped in to make what was once considered an absurdity into our new reality. This document along with the USA PATRIOT act and the new Department of “Homeland” Security will have a deleterious effect on each and every one of us who truly love democracy, human rights and freedom.

Lots of Great Links from here:

Listen to Democracy Now!