🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2DCD7.511B05C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This should start a good thread i figure.  What does everyone think of =
these 12 reasons
Copied from http://counterpunch.org/mokhiber02212003.html
Let Us Reject Empire
12 Reasons to Oppose War on Iraq
by RUSSELL MOKHIBER and ROBERT WEISSMAN

Millions of people around the world last weekend demonstrated against a =
war on Iraq.

There was no mistaking the message: No war.

But, particularly with the airwaves and op-ed pages dominated by =
war-mongers who mock and mischaracterize the burgeoning peace movement, =
there remains a need to continually reiterate the common-sense reasons =
to oppose a war. Here are a dozen:

1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.

With one of the weakest militaries in the region, Iraq is surely no =
threat to the world's lone superpower. There is no evidence it has or is =
close to having a nuclear capacity. There is no evidence that it has the =
means to launch a chemical and biological attack against the United =
States, if in fact it has such weaponry. There is no evidence of any =
Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.

2. Iraq is deterrable.

Even if it had the means to threaten the United States, Iraq would be =
deterred by the certainty of an overwhelming military response in event =
of any attack on the United States. That Iraq is deterrable is shown by =
its decision not to use chemical or biological weapons (CBW) against the =
United States or Israel in the Gulf War.

3. Iraq's only conceivable threat to the United States is in event of =
war.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting =
terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States," =
wrote CIA Director George Tenet in an October 2002 letter to Congress. =
"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be =
deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting =
terrorist actions."

4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.

A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new =
inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder -- for al-Qaeda or other =
terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of =
terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.

5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a =
war.

Although there is little reason to doubt the U.S. military will triumph =
relatively quickly in event of a war, U.S. soldiers face non-negligible =
risk of casualty. House-to-house fighting in Baghdad would be perilous.

If Bush administration accusations that Saddam maintains a CBW capacity =
are true, and if its claims of intelligence showing Iraqi plans to use =
CBW in event of war are both non-fabricated and accurate, then U.S. =
soldiers are at major risk. Last Sunday, 60 Minutes reported that army =
investigations show between 60 and 90 percent of its CBW protective gear =
malfunction. A Pentagon spokesperson actually suggested that holes in =
gas masks could easily be covered by duct tape.

6. Inspections can work.

To whatever extent Iraq maintains weapons of mass destruction, it is =
clear that the previous inspections process succeeded in destroying the =
overwhelming proportion. Iraqi intransigence notwithstanding, inspectors =
are now making progress. Despite the histrionics of the administration, =
past experience suggests the inspection process can work and finish the =
job.

7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence.

Since Iraq poses no imminent threat to the United States nor any of its =
neighbors, it makes sense to continue to give inspections a chance. War =
can always be resorted to later. But once a war is commenced, the =
opportunity to achieve legitimate objectives without violence are lost. =
In addition to the obvious costs, the use of violence tends to beget =
more violence, spurring a highly unpredictable cycle.

8. The doctrine of preventative war is a threat to international law and =
humanity.

Conceding there is no imminent threat to the United States, the =
administration has sought to justify the war under a doctrine of =
preemptive, or preventative, action. But if it were legitimate to start =
a war because of what another country might do sometime in the future, =
then there would be very little legal or moral constraint on war-making. =
This proposition is dangerous and immoral.

9. Reject empire.

Many of the leading proponents of a war are motivated by desire to =
demonstrate U.S. military might, and commence an era when U.S. military =
power is exercised more routinely to satisfy the whims of elite U.S. =
factions. Many proponents now overtly defend the idea of U.S. =
imperialism, justified on the grounds that the United States -- =
apparently unique among all previous aspirants to imperial authority -- =
is motivated by promotion of democracy and human rights. But all empires =
have proffered such self-serving rationalizations to legitimize narrow =
self-interest. The present case is no different. Imperialism is =
fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

10. Revenge is not a legitimate motive for war.

There seems little doubt that part of the Bush administration motivation =
for war is the desire to "get" Saddam, since he refused to go away after =
the Gulf War and allegedly targeted the president's father. Saddam is an =
awful and brutal dictator, and an assassination attempt, if there was =
one, is a heinous act. But revenge should be no basis for war.

11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.

It overstates the case to say a war with Iraq would be a war for oil. =
There are too many other contributing factors to the rush to war. At the =
same time, it is not credible to claim designs on Iraqi oil are not part =
of calculus. And it is hard to see the United States caring much about =
Iraq if the country did not sit on the world's second largest oil =
reserves. But it is past time for the United States (and the rest of the =
world) to move beyond oil and carbon-based sources of energy. Existing =
efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources, if deployed, could =
dramatically reduce reliance on conventional energy sources; and modest =
investments in renewables could soon move us away from an oil-based =
economy.

12. Iraqi lives are at stake.

Unless a war brings immediate abdication by Saddam, military action is =
sure to cause massive casualties among Iraqi conscripts and especially =
among Iraqi civilians. Solidarity with the Iraqi people -- not their =
brutal government, but the people -- requires opposition to a war almost =
certain to cause them enormous suffering.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime =
Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based =
Multinational Monitor, and co-director of Essential Action. They are =
co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the =
Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999.)

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2DCD7.511B05C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<H1><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>This should start a good thread i =
figure.&nbsp;=20
What does everyone think of these 12 reasons</FONT></H1>
<H1><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Copied from <A=20
href=3D"http://counterpunch.org/mokhiber02212003.html">http://counterpunc=
h.org/mokhiber02212003.html</A></FONT></H1>
<H1><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Let Us Reject Empire</FONT></H1>
<H1><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>12 Reasons to Oppose War on =
Iraq</FONT></H1>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>by RUSSELL MOKHIBER and ROBERT =
WEISSMAN</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Millions of people around the world =
last weekend=20
demonstrated against a war on Iraq.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>There was no mistaking the message: No=20
war.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>But, particularly with the airwaves and =
op-ed pages=20
dominated by war-mongers who mock and mischaracterize the burgeoning =
peace=20
movement, there remains a need to continually reiterate the common-sense =
reasons=20
to oppose a war. Here are a dozen:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>1. Iraq is no threat to the United=20
States.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>With one of the weakest militaries in =
the region,=20
Iraq is surely no threat to the world's lone superpower. There is no =
evidence it=20
has or is close to having a nuclear capacity. There is no evidence that =
it has=20
the means to launch a chemical and biological attack against the United =
States,=20
if in fact it has such weaponry. There is no evidence of any Iraqi =
connection to=20
al-Qaeda.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>2. Iraq is deterrable.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Even if it had the means to threaten =
the United=20
States, Iraq would be deterred by the certainty of an overwhelming =
military=20
response in event of any attack on the United States. That Iraq is =
deterrable is=20
shown by its decision not to use chemical or biological weapons (CBW) =
against=20
the United States or Israel in the Gulf War.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>3. Iraq's only conceivable threat to =
the United=20
States is in event of war.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing =
a line short=20
of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the =
United=20
States," wrote CIA Director George Tenet in an October 2002 letter to =
Congress.=20
"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be =
deterred, he=20
probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist=20
actions."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>4. Other terrorist risks rise in event =
of=20
war.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation =
of Iraq=20
will provide new inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder -- for =
al-Qaeda or=20
other terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of =

terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens =
overseas.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to =
chemical or=20
biological attack in a war.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Although there is little reason to =
doubt the U.S.=20
military will triumph relatively quickly in event of a war, U.S. =
soldiers face=20
non-negligible risk of casualty. House-to-house fighting in Baghdad =
would be=20
perilous.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>If Bush administration accusations that =
Saddam=20
maintains a CBW capacity are true, and if its claims of intelligence =
showing=20
Iraqi plans to use CBW in event of war are both non-fabricated and =
accurate,=20
then U.S. soldiers are at major risk. Last Sunday, 60 Minutes reported =
that army=20
investigations show between 60 and 90 percent of its CBW protective gear =

malfunction. A Pentagon spokesperson actually suggested that holes in =
gas masks=20
could easily be covered by duct tape.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>6. Inspections can work.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>To whatever extent Iraq maintains =
weapons of mass=20
destruction, it is clear that the previous inspections process succeeded =
in=20
destroying the overwhelming proportion. Iraqi intransigence =
notwithstanding,=20
inspectors are now making progress. Despite the histrionics of the=20
administration, past experience suggests the inspection process can work =
and=20
finish the job.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>7. Common sense says: Err on the side =
of=20
non-violence.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Since Iraq poses no imminent threat to =
the United=20
States nor any of its neighbors, it makes sense to continue to give =
inspections=20
a chance. War can always be resorted to later. But once a war is =
commenced, the=20
opportunity to achieve legitimate objectives without violence are lost. =
In=20
addition to the obvious costs, the use of violence tends to beget more =
violence,=20
spurring a highly unpredictable cycle.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>8. The doctrine of preventative war is =
a threat to=20
international law and humanity.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Conceding there is no imminent threat =
to the United=20
States, the administration has sought to justify the war under a =
doctrine of=20
preemptive, or preventative, action. But if it were legitimate to start =
a war=20
because of what another country might do sometime in the future, then =
there=20
would be very little legal or moral constraint on war-making. This =
proposition=20
is dangerous and immoral.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>9. Reject empire.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Many of the leading proponents of a war =
are=20
motivated by desire to demonstrate U.S. military might, and commence an =
era when=20
U.S. military power is exercised more routinely to satisfy the whims of =
elite=20
U.S. factions. Many proponents now overtly defend the idea of U.S. =
imperialism,=20
justified on the grounds that the United States -- apparently unique =
among all=20
previous aspirants to imperial authority -- is motivated by promotion of =

democracy and human rights. But all empires have proffered such =
self-serving=20
rationalizations to legitimize narrow self-interest. The present case is =
no=20
different. Imperialism is fundamentally incompatible with =
democracy.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>10. Revenge is not a legitimate motive =
for=20
war.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>There seems little doubt that part of =
the Bush=20
administration motivation for war is the desire to "get" Saddam, since =
he=20
refused to go away after the Gulf War and allegedly targeted the =
president's=20
father. Saddam is an awful and brutal dictator, and an assassination =
attempt, if=20
there was one, is a heinous act. But revenge should be no basis for=20
war.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>11. There are better solutions to our =
energy=20
problems.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>It overstates the case to say a war =
with Iraq would=20
be a war for oil. There are too many other contributing factors to the =
rush to=20
war. At the same time, it is not credible to claim designs on Iraqi oil =
are not=20
part of calculus. And it is hard to see the United States caring much =
about Iraq=20
if the country did not sit on the world's second largest oil reserves. =
But it is=20
past time for the United States (and the rest of the world) to move =
beyond oil=20
and carbon-based sources of energy. Existing efficiency technologies and =

renewable energy sources, if deployed, could dramatically reduce =
reliance on=20
conventional energy sources; and modest investments in renewables could =
soon=20
move us away from an oil-based economy.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>12. Iraqi lives are at =
stake.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Unless a war brings immediate =
abdication by Saddam,=20
military action is sure to cause massive casualties among Iraqi =
conscripts and=20
especially among Iraqi civilians. Solidarity with the Iraqi people -- =
not their=20
brutal government, but the people -- requires opposition to a war almost =
certain=20
to cause them enormous suffering.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Russell Mokhiber is editor of the =
Washington,=20
D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the=20
Washington, D.C.-based </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/"><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2>Multinational Monito</FONT></A><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>r, =
and=20
co-director of Essential Action. They are co-authors of </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567511589/counterpunchmag=
a"><FONT=20
face=3DVerdana size=3D2>Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits =
and the Attack=20
on Democracy</FONT></A><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2> (Monroe, Maine: =
Common Courage=20
Press, 1999.)</FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2DCD7.511B05C0--