"Organized power can be opposed only by organized power. Much as I regret this, there is no other way." -- Albert Einstein
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
War seems to be a heritage left over from the jungle and savanna. Like terror, it does not belong in a civilized world. Before you start, here is a link for your perusal: http://drumsi.com/drumsofwar/
The immediate event before us is whether war on Iraq was properly justified. Hussein was a genocidal tyrant and had to go for that reason alone. But Congress and the world were not ready to take out Hussein for such a simple reason, given the numerous other despots in power elsewhere. The UN is not yet ready to address the question of genocide. Genocide has never before been an issue to the US government. Hussein's despotism was not among the primary justifications Mr. Bush used for going into Iraq.
Was Iraq an organized state plotting war or collaborating with al Qa'ida?
Five years after the occupation began, there is still no evidence that Iraq was doing either. Nor is there any evidence that Huseein and bin Laden were in cahoots. These questions are fundamental in their import. Publisher.
Five years after the occupation began, there is still no evidence that Iraq was doing either. Nor is there any evidence that Huseein and bin Laden were in cahoots. These questions are fundamental in their import. Publisher.
In February 2003, Ramsey Clark wrote a letter to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and to all members of the Security Council. It follows:
Dear Secretary General Annan:
Only Firm Opposition To War Can Serve And Save The United Nations.
The peoples and nations of the world are looking to the United Nations to prevent the United States from waging a war of aggression against Iraq. This is the purpose for which the United Nations was created. To fail to firmly oppose military action against Iraq as a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law will propel the United Nations toward irrelevancy, or worse, apologist for an aggressor Superpower. The great majority of the people and the nations of the United Nations oppose aggression against Iraq. By saying "no" to the scourge of war, the United Nations may save the United States from its own misguided leadership. It will at least save the moral stature of the United Nations. If the United Nations yields its authority to United States aggression, it may never achieve independence to pursue its founding purpose, a world free of war and the domination of violent forces. Better to oppose U.S. aggression and struggle to preserve the principles and major participation of peoples and nations in its cause than yield to the coercive will of the Bush Administration. The balance of world political, social and moral power has shifted against further United States aggression. Through the courage now to say no to war, the United Nations will prevail.
Iraq Has Been The Victim Of U.S. Aggression For 12 Years.
Far from being a threat to the United States, or any other people, Iraq has been a victim of US aggression for 12 years. Between January 16, 1991 and March 1, 1991 the US acknowledges it dropped 88,500 tons of bombs the equivalent of 7 1/2 Hiroshima bombs, on a defenseless Iraq. The US targeted and destroyed essential parts of the civilian life support system; water storage, pipe lines, pumping stations, filtration plants; food production, processing, storage and marketing; medical facilities services and supplies; transportation; communications; housing; schools; mosques, churches and synagogues. Asked his assessment of Iraqi casualties in the US assault in 1991 General Colin Powell then the highest ranking officer in the US Armed Forces responded "It's really not a number I'm very interested in." Patrick Tyler, New York Times, March 23, 1991, p. A1 The US placed its casualties during its assault at 157. More than 1/3 were from friendly fire, the remainder from mechanical failures and accidents. Iraqi casualties were estimated repeatedly at 100,000 by General Norman Schwartzkopf during March 1991. The Wall Street Journal reported that General Schwartzkopf provided the Congress with a report estimating 100,000 Iraqi soldiers dead on March 20, 1991. The Defense Intelligence Agency on May 25, 1991 formally estimated 100,000 Iraqi casualties. The London Times reported allied intelligence estimated as many as 200,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. The Nouvelle Observateur reported French intelligence placed the Iraqi military death toll at 200,000. A former US Secretary of the Navy estimated 200,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. Tens of thousands of civilians died during the 42 days of constant bombing. These were 110,000 US aerial sorties, averaging one every 30 seconds. Civilians were killed directly by the bombs and from accidents, lack of medicines to treat injuries and bad water resulting from the bombing. There was no public water system working within 24 hours of the first attacks. Thousands died from drinking contaminated water, often directly from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. 9,000 civilian homes were destroyed. Most hospitals were damaged. More deadly than that bombing, twelve years of sanctions have inflicted death on over 1,500,000 people in Iraq, the majority children under 5 years old. You must remember the enormity of this genocide as you consider whether to agree to another major US military assault on Iraq. US plans for intense bombardment of Iraq followed by land invasion discussed daily in the media would take thousands of Iraqi lives, however successfully executed. Violence that could radiate out from such a criminal assault may have catastrophic effect far more deadly and long lasting than the sanctions on Iraq.
The Only Rational Explanation For President Bush's Obsession With Attacking Iraq Is Oil And Related Geopolitical Power.
No rational analysis can support war against Iraq from fear it now has, or might later develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not use such weapons when it was mercilessly bombed in 1991 though the US falsely insists it used weapons of mass destruction "against its own people" during the Iran-Iraq war. See Stephen C. Pellstierre, N.Y. Times Op. Ed,, January 31, 2003, "Iraq was not to blame for the Halabja massacre." Iraq has not used weapons of mass destruction while enduring 12 years of sanctions. UN Inspectors have searched Iraq over most of the past twelve years and found nothing. The UN Inspectors have reduced the risk that Iraq might develop, use, or provide others with weapons of mass destruction far below the risk of the more than forty nations known to possess, or considered to be seeking, such weapons. President Bush has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. Any realistic hope for the elimination and future prevention of weapons of mass destruction must began with nations known to possess them. The certainty of violence in a war against Iraq and probability of prolonged and proliferating violence from it, far exceed any risk that Iraq might develop and use weapons of mass destruction, or commit acts of aggression.
An Attack On Iraq Will Cause Terrorism, Not Prevent It. The only rational explanation for a war on Iraq is an intention by the US to control and exploit its oil, use oil sales to pay for the cost of the war and occupation, benefit US oil companies and petroleum engineering firms with awards of contracts, control the price of oil to enrich the US and enlarge US geopolitical power in the region.
Secretary Of State Powell's Presentation To The Security Council On February 5, 2003 Was A Rhetorical Exercise Without Credibility.
"We're been looking at this for a year and we just don't think it's there." New York Times article on CIA and FBI summary of US intelligence data of Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, February 3, 2003 p. A13. President Bush and other high US political officials have long stated they believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Their "belief" is not based on intelligence data. It is a falsehood designed to overcome resistance to the war they intend to wage. Secretary Powell's charts, photos and electronic intercepts of conversations require authentication. They are repetitious of old tactics like the US claim North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked US Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in 1964. Only later the US admitted there were "no boats" there. Or the US claim in early August 1990 that 250,000 Iraqi troops were poised to invade on Saudi Arabia's border, disproved by commercial satellite photos that showed no troops were there. UN investigators have worked in Iraq for years. Their knowledge of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq exceeds the knowledge of Secretary Powell. Their investigations impede any development of, or plan to use such weapons. Secretary Powell's rhetoric encourages the acquisition of such weapons by small countries as essential to sovereignty, self defense and survival. The investigative agencies of the United States government relied upon to determine whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or has any links to Al Queda, do not believe such weapons, or efforts to develop them, exist. And if everything Secretary Powell feared and professed to find was true, an attack on Iraq would still be unlawful. International law does not permit a war of aggression for non violent acts in the absence of an imminent threat of violence.
In Their Determination To Attack Iraq And Control Its Oil Resources US Officials Will Say, And Too Often Do, Anything.
"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested [by the US] in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." President George W. Bush, State of the Union message, February 4, 2003, broadcast and published worldwide. President Bush was speaking of summary executions, or preemptive murder in the language of a grade B Hollywood movie on organized crime. His doctrine of "preemptive" or "first strike" war makes war prevention impossible and international law meaningless. His doctrine has increased violence, or the threat of violence in occupied Palestine, between India and Pakistan, on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere. It promises the reign of violence and lawlessness. The United Nations and each of its nations must say "No" to war.
Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
Only Firm Opposition To War Can Serve And Save The United Nations.
The peoples and nations of the world are looking to the United Nations to prevent the United States from waging a war of aggression against Iraq. This is the purpose for which the United Nations was created. To fail to firmly oppose military action against Iraq as a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law will propel the United Nations toward irrelevancy, or worse, apologist for an aggressor Superpower. The great majority of the people and the nations of the United Nations oppose aggression against Iraq. By saying "no" to the scourge of war, the United Nations may save the United States from its own misguided leadership. It will at least save the moral stature of the United Nations. If the United Nations yields its authority to United States aggression, it may never achieve independence to pursue its founding purpose, a world free of war and the domination of violent forces. Better to oppose U.S. aggression and struggle to preserve the principles and major participation of peoples and nations in its cause than yield to the coercive will of the Bush Administration. The balance of world political, social and moral power has shifted against further United States aggression. Through the courage now to say no to war, the United Nations will prevail.
Iraq Has Been The Victim Of U.S. Aggression For 12 Years.
Far from being a threat to the United States, or any other people, Iraq has been a victim of US aggression for 12 years. Between January 16, 1991 and March 1, 1991 the US acknowledges it dropped 88,500 tons of bombs the equivalent of 7 1/2 Hiroshima bombs, on a defenseless Iraq. The US targeted and destroyed essential parts of the civilian life support system; water storage, pipe lines, pumping stations, filtration plants; food production, processing, storage and marketing; medical facilities services and supplies; transportation; communications; housing; schools; mosques, churches and synagogues. Asked his assessment of Iraqi casualties in the US assault in 1991 General Colin Powell then the highest ranking officer in the US Armed Forces responded "It's really not a number I'm very interested in." Patrick Tyler, New York Times, March 23, 1991, p. A1 The US placed its casualties during its assault at 157. More than 1/3 were from friendly fire, the remainder from mechanical failures and accidents. Iraqi casualties were estimated repeatedly at 100,000 by General Norman Schwartzkopf during March 1991. The Wall Street Journal reported that General Schwartzkopf provided the Congress with a report estimating 100,000 Iraqi soldiers dead on March 20, 1991. The Defense Intelligence Agency on May 25, 1991 formally estimated 100,000 Iraqi casualties. The London Times reported allied intelligence estimated as many as 200,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. The Nouvelle Observateur reported French intelligence placed the Iraqi military death toll at 200,000. A former US Secretary of the Navy estimated 200,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. Tens of thousands of civilians died during the 42 days of constant bombing. These were 110,000 US aerial sorties, averaging one every 30 seconds. Civilians were killed directly by the bombs and from accidents, lack of medicines to treat injuries and bad water resulting from the bombing. There was no public water system working within 24 hours of the first attacks. Thousands died from drinking contaminated water, often directly from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. 9,000 civilian homes were destroyed. Most hospitals were damaged. More deadly than that bombing, twelve years of sanctions have inflicted death on over 1,500,000 people in Iraq, the majority children under 5 years old. You must remember the enormity of this genocide as you consider whether to agree to another major US military assault on Iraq. US plans for intense bombardment of Iraq followed by land invasion discussed daily in the media would take thousands of Iraqi lives, however successfully executed. Violence that could radiate out from such a criminal assault may have catastrophic effect far more deadly and long lasting than the sanctions on Iraq.
The Only Rational Explanation For President Bush's Obsession With Attacking Iraq Is Oil And Related Geopolitical Power.
No rational analysis can support war against Iraq from fear it now has, or might later develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not use such weapons when it was mercilessly bombed in 1991 though the US falsely insists it used weapons of mass destruction "against its own people" during the Iran-Iraq war. See Stephen C. Pellstierre, N.Y. Times Op. Ed,, January 31, 2003, "Iraq was not to blame for the Halabja massacre." Iraq has not used weapons of mass destruction while enduring 12 years of sanctions. UN Inspectors have searched Iraq over most of the past twelve years and found nothing. The UN Inspectors have reduced the risk that Iraq might develop, use, or provide others with weapons of mass destruction far below the risk of the more than forty nations known to possess, or considered to be seeking, such weapons. President Bush has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. Any realistic hope for the elimination and future prevention of weapons of mass destruction must began with nations known to possess them. The certainty of violence in a war against Iraq and probability of prolonged and proliferating violence from it, far exceed any risk that Iraq might develop and use weapons of mass destruction, or commit acts of aggression.
An Attack On Iraq Will Cause Terrorism, Not Prevent It. The only rational explanation for a war on Iraq is an intention by the US to control and exploit its oil, use oil sales to pay for the cost of the war and occupation, benefit US oil companies and petroleum engineering firms with awards of contracts, control the price of oil to enrich the US and enlarge US geopolitical power in the region.
Secretary Of State Powell's Presentation To The Security Council On February 5, 2003 Was A Rhetorical Exercise Without Credibility.
"We're been looking at this for a year and we just don't think it's there." New York Times article on CIA and FBI summary of US intelligence data of Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, February 3, 2003 p. A13. President Bush and other high US political officials have long stated they believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Their "belief" is not based on intelligence data. It is a falsehood designed to overcome resistance to the war they intend to wage. Secretary Powell's charts, photos and electronic intercepts of conversations require authentication. They are repetitious of old tactics like the US claim North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked US Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in 1964. Only later the US admitted there were "no boats" there. Or the US claim in early August 1990 that 250,000 Iraqi troops were poised to invade on Saudi Arabia's border, disproved by commercial satellite photos that showed no troops were there. UN investigators have worked in Iraq for years. Their knowledge of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq exceeds the knowledge of Secretary Powell. Their investigations impede any development of, or plan to use such weapons. Secretary Powell's rhetoric encourages the acquisition of such weapons by small countries as essential to sovereignty, self defense and survival. The investigative agencies of the United States government relied upon to determine whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or has any links to Al Queda, do not believe such weapons, or efforts to develop them, exist. And if everything Secretary Powell feared and professed to find was true, an attack on Iraq would still be unlawful. International law does not permit a war of aggression for non violent acts in the absence of an imminent threat of violence.
In Their Determination To Attack Iraq And Control Its Oil Resources US Officials Will Say, And Too Often Do, Anything.
"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested [by the US] in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." President George W. Bush, State of the Union message, February 4, 2003, broadcast and published worldwide. President Bush was speaking of summary executions, or preemptive murder in the language of a grade B Hollywood movie on organized crime. His doctrine of "preemptive" or "first strike" war makes war prevention impossible and international law meaningless. His doctrine has increased violence, or the threat of violence in occupied Palestine, between India and Pakistan, on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere. It promises the reign of violence and lawlessness. The United Nations and each of its nations must say "No" to war.
Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
Perspectives on War
"The tricky part of empire isn't amassing it,
but making it hum." -- Irshad Manji - author, TV personality,
entrepreneur, Muslim
"The lesson of Vietnam is that once you make the initial mistake, little you do afterward is right." -- Richard Cohen - Washington Post
"There is no worse mistake in public leadership
than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away." -- Winston Churchill
MACHINE TRANSLATE: This or any other page: Download Babylon
Posted by RoadToPeace on Wednesday, August 17, 2005.
Rate this article: 
| 
(current rating: 142)
Who we are
Comments
To be able to post comments, please register on the site.