Warning, contains dissenting opinion!

  1. Iraq War Quiz
    By Stephen Shalom
    March 26, 2003
    1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be
    brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust
    war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?
    a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25
    billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.
    b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid
    programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel.
    c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop
    publicizing health benefits available to veterans.
    d. All of the above.

    2. The anti-war movement believes that patriotism means urging our country
    to do what is right. How do Bush administration officials define patriotism?
    a. Patriotism means emulating Dick Cheney, who serves as Vice-President
    while receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from Halliburton, the
    multi-billion dollar company which is already lining up for major contracts
    in post-war Iraq.
    b. Patriotism means emulating Richard Perle, the warhawk who serves as
    head of the Defense Intelligence Board while at the same time meeting with
    Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi on behalf of Trireme, a company of which
    he is a managing partner, involved in security and military technologies,
    and while agreeing to work as a paid lobbyist for Global Crossing, a
    telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract.
    c. Patriotism means emulating George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul
    Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Lewis
    Libby, and others who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam War while
    avoiding serving in it and who now are sending others to kill and be killed
    in Iraq.
    d. All of the above.

    3. The Bush administration has accused Saddam Hussein of lying regarding
    his weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following might be considered
    less than truthful?
    a. Constant claims by the Bush administration that there was documentary
    evidence linking Iraq to attempted uranium purchases in Niger, despite the
    fact that the documents were forgeries and CIA analysts doubted their
    authenticity.
    b. A British intelligence report on Iraq's security services that was in
    fact plagiarized, with selected modifications, from a student article.
    c. The frequent citation of the incriminating testimony of Iraqi
    defector Hussein Kamel, while suppressing that part of the testimony in
    which Kamel stated that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed
    following the 1991 Gulf War.
    d. All of the above.

    4. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stormed out of a press
    conference when the assembled reporters broke into laughter after he
    declared that the U.S. would never try to bribe members of the UN. What
    should Fleisher have said to defend himself?
    a. It wasn't just bribery; we also ordered the bugging of the home and
    office phones and emails of the UN ambassadors of Security Council member
    states that were undecided on war.
    b. Oh, come on! We've been doing this for years. In 1990 when Yemen
    voted against authorizing war with Iraq, the U.S. ambassador declared "That
    will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
    c. Why do you think the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act makes one of
    the conditions for an African country to receive preferential access to U.S.
    markets that it "not engage in activities that undermine United States
    national security or foreign policy interests"?
    d. All of the above.
    5. George Bush has declared that "we have no fight with the Iraqi people."
    What could he have cited as supporting evidence?
    a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that strengthened
    Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of
    Iraqi civilians.
    b. The fact that "coalition" forces have indicated that they will use
    cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups that "The
    use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come."
    c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S. pledged not
    to forget about when the war was over, and for which the current Bush
    administration foreign aid budget request included not one cent in aid.
    d. All of the above.

    6. The Bush administration has touted the many nations that are part of
    the "coalition of the willing." Which of the following statements about this
    coalition is true?
    a. In most of the coalition countries polls show that a majority, often
    an overwhelming majority, of the people oppose the war.
    b. More than ten of the members of the coalition of the willing are
    actually a coalition of the unwilling - unwilling to reveal their names.
    c. Coalition members - most of whose contributions to the war are
    negligible or even zero - constitute less than a quarter of the countries in
    the UN and contain less than 20% of the world's population.
    d. All of the above.

    7. The war on Iraq is said to be part of the "war on terrorism." Which of
    the following is true?
    a. A senior American counterintelligence official said: "An American
    invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and
    other groups....And it is a very effective tool."
    b. An American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become "a battle
    cry, in a way," for Al Qaeda recruiters.
    c. France's leading counter-terrorism judge said: "Bin Laden's strategy
    has always been to demonstrate to the Islamic community that the West, and
    especially the U.S., is starting a global war against Muslims. An attack on
    Iraq might confirm this vision for many Muslims. I am very worried about the
    next wave of recruits."
    d. All of the above.

    8. The Bush administration says it is waging war to stop the spread of
    weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following is true?
    a. The United States has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
    Treaty, viewed worldwide as the litmus test for seriousness about nuclear
    disarmament.
    b. The United States has insisted on a reservation to the Chemical
    Weapons Convention allowing the U.S. President the right to refuse an
    inspection of U.S. facilities on national security grounds, and blocked
    efforts to improve compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons
    Convention.
    c. Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence
    Agency, testified on Feb. 11, 2003, "The long-term trends with respect to
    WMD and missile proliferation are bleak. States seek these capabilities for
    regional purposes, or to provide a hedge to deter or offset U.S. military
    superiority."
    d. All of the above.

    9. The Bush administration says it wants to bring democracy to Iraq and
    the Middle East. Which of the following is true?
    a. If there were democracy in Saudi Arabia today, backing for the U.S.
    war effort would be the first thing to go, given the country's "increasingly
    anti-American population deeply opposed to the war."
    b. The United States subverted some of the few democratic governments in
    the Middle East (Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953), and has backed undemocratic
    regimes in the region ever since.
    c. The United States supported the crushing of anti-Saddam Hussein
    revolts in Iraq in 1991.
    d. All of the above.
    10. Colin Powell cited as evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link an audiotape
    from bin Laden in which he called Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party regime
    "infidels." Which of the following is more compelling evidence?
    a. An FBI official told the New York Times: "We've been looking at this
    hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's
    there."
    b. According to a classified British intelligence report seen by BBC
    News, "There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda
    network."
    c. According to Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al Qaeda: Global
    Network of Terror, "Since U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in October 2001,
    I have examined several tens of thousands of documents recovered from Al
    Qaeda and Taliban sources. In addition to listening to 240 tapes taken from
    Al Qaeda's central registry, I debriefed several Al Qaeda and Taliban
    detainees. I could find no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
    d. All of the above.

    Answers and Sources
    1. d (a) Cong. Lane Evans, "Veterans Programs Slashed by House
    Republicans," Press Release, 3/13/03,
    http://www.veterans.house.gov/democr...-03budget.htm. (b)
    Brian Faler, "Educators Angry Over Proposed Cut in Aid; Many Children in
    Military Families Would Feel Impact," Washington Post, 3/19/03, p. A29. (c)
    See Veterans' for Common Sense, letter to George W. Bush, 3/20/03
    http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/print.asp?id=563; Melissa B. Robinson,
    "Hospitals Face Budget Crunch," Associated Press, 7/31/02; Jason Tait,
    "Veterans angered by marketing ban," Eagle-Tribune (Lawrence, MA), 8/2/02,
    http://www.eagletribune.com/news/sto...802/FP_003.htm
    2. d (a) Warren Vieth and Elizabeth Douglass, " Ousting Hussein could open
    the door for U.S. and British firms. French, Russian and Chinese rivals
    would lose their edge," Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03, p. I:1; Robert Bryce and
    Julian Borger, "Halliburton: Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor,
    Bush deputy gets Dollars 1m from firm with Iraq oil deal," Guardian
    (London), 3/12/03, p. 5 (which notes that Halliburton "would not say how
    much the payments are; the obligatory disclosure statement filled by all top
    government officials says only that they are in the range of" $100,000 and
    $1 million. (b) Seymour M. Hersh, "Lunch with the Chairman," New Yorker,
    3/16/03; Stephen Labaton, "Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global
    Crossing," NYT, 3/21/03, p. C1. Perle is to be paid $725,000 for his
    lobbying effort, including $600,000 if his lobbying is successful. (c) New
    Hampshire Gazette, "The Chickenhawks,"
    http://nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html.
    3. d (a) See the evidence collected in Cong. Henry Waxman's letter to
    George W. Bush, 3/17/03,
    http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/adm...ch_17_let.htm. (b) See Glen
    Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/britishdossier.html. (c) See
    Glen Rangwala's report, http://traprockpeace.org/kamel.html.
    4. d (a) Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy, and Peter Beaumont, The Observer
    (London), 3/2/03. (b) Quoted in Phyllis Bennis, Calling the Shots: How
    Washington Dominates Today's UN, New York: Olive Branch, 1996, p. 33. (c)
    Sarah Anderson, Phyllis Bennis, and John Cavanagh, Coalition of the Willing
    or Coalition of the Coerced?: How The Bush Administration Influences Allies
    in Its War on Iraq, Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 2/26/03,
    p. 4.
    5. d (a) For background, see Anthony Arnove, ed., Iraq Under Siege: The
    Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, Cambridge: South End Press, updated ed.
    2003. (b) Paul Waugh, "Labour MPs Attack Hoon After He Reveals That British
    Forces Will Use Cluster Bombs," Independent, 3/21/03, p. 4; Human Rights
    Watch, Press Release, 3/18/03: "Persian Gulf: U.S. Cluster Bomb Duds A
    Threat; Warning Against Use of Cluster Bombs in Iraq." (c) Zvi Bar'el,
    "Flaws in the Afghan Model," Ha'aretz, 3/14/03,
    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/ob....jhtml?itemNo=
    272884.
    6. d (a) See, for example, the revealing comment of Secretary of State
    Powell: "We need to knock down this idea that nobody is on our side. So many
    nations recognize this danger [of Iraq's weapons]. And they do it in the
    face of public opposition." Quoted in Steven R. Weisman With Felicity
    Barringer, "Urgent Diplomacy Fails To Gain U.S. 9 Votes In The U.N." NYT,
    3/10/03, p. A1) (b) U.S. Dept. of State, Daily Press Briefing, Richard
    Boucher, Washington, DC, 3/18/03. (c) Country list: White House, Statement
    of Support from Coalition, 3/25/03,
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030325-8.html;
    population calculated from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001,
    Washington, DC: 2001, table 1327. Total includes USA. The White House list
    includes countries whose leaders have done no more than state their support
    for the United States, and the listing changes from day to day, with some
    countries being added and some removed.
    7. d (a) Don Van Natta Jr. and Desmond Butler, "Anger On Iraq Seen As New
    Qaeda Recruiting Tool," NYT, 3/16/03, p. I:1. (b) Van Natta and Butler, NYT,
    3/16/03. (c) Van Natta and Butler, NYT, 3/16/03.
    8. d (a) Colum Lynch, "U.S. Boycotts Nuclear Test Ban Meeting; Some
    Delegates at U.N. Session Upset at Latest Snub of Pact Bush Won't Back,"
    Washington Post, 11/12/02, p. A6. (b) Amy E. Smithson, "U.S. Implementation
    of the CWC," in Jonathan B. Tucker, The Chemical Weapons Convention:
    Implementation Challenges and Solutions, Monterey Institute, April 2001, pp.
    23-29, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/tuckcwc.htm; Jonathan Tucker, "The
    Fifth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention,"
    Feb. 2002, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_7b.html. (c) Testimony before
    the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, excerpted at
    http://traprockpeace.org/usefulquotesoniraq.html.
    9. d (a) Craig S. Smith, "Saudi Arabia Seems Calm But, Many Say, Is
    Seething," NYT, 3/24/03, p. B13. In fact, "Though the Saudi government
    officially denies it, the bombing campaign is being directed from Saudi
    Arabia - something that few Saudis realize." (b) On Syria, see Douglas
    Little, ACold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945
    1958,@ Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55 57. On Iran,
    see Mark J. Gasiorowski, "The 1953 Coup D'Etat in Iran," International
    Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 19, Aug. 1987, pp. 261-86. (c) Andrew
    Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam
    Hussein, New York: HarperPerennial. 1999, chap. 1.
    10. d (re audiotape, see David Johnston, "Top U.S. Officials Press Case
    Linking Iraq To Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/12/03, p. A1; Mohamad Bazzi, "U.S. says
    bin Laden tape urging Iraqis to attack appears real," Newsday, 2/12/03, p.
    A5. (a) James Risen and David Johnston, "Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi
    Ties to Al Qaeda," NYT, 2/2/03, p. I:13. (b) "Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi
    al-Qaeda Link," BBC News, 2/5/03. (c) Rohan Gunaratna, "Iraq and Al Qaeda:
    No Evidence of Alliance," International Herald Tribune, 2/19/03.

    Interpreting Your Score
    9-10 Correct: Excellent. Contact United for Peace and Justice,
    http://www.unitedforpeace.org/, and work to fight the war and the system
    that produced it.
    •  
  2. 75 Comments

  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    Written March 3, 2002 by KIWI nurses:

    Nurses Oppose an Invasion of Iraq

    The New Zealand Nurses Organisation joins scores of other national nursing organisations including the Californian Nurses Organisation, the Australian Nurses Federation (Vic Branch) and the Irish Nurses Organisation, as well as New Zealand trade unions and international confederations of trade unions in opposing an invasion of Iraq.

    The consequences of war on Iraq will be a catastrophic humanitarian disaster. The real causalities of war are children, women, and elderly people. An invasion of Iraq will lead to massive displacement of people, disruption to basic essential services - water, electricity, transport, communication - and malnutrition, illnesses, injuries and deaths.

    Iraqi's civilian population is particularly vulnerable. Sixteen million people - half of them children are dependent on government food rations.

    The Gulf War and the ensuing sanctions have crippled Iraq's health system causing death rates of children under five to double over the past decade with 70 per cent of deaths caused by easily avoidable bowel diseases and respiratory infections.

    NZNO notes the results of the recent research with children by a team of international investigators, which concludes that Iraqi children are already suffering "significant psychological harm" from the threat of war. The report from the international investigators warns that children already weakened and vulnerable because of sanctions are at grave risk of starvation, disease, and psychological trauma.

    NZNO condemns all acts of terrorism and supports efforts to promote disarmament and the elimination of all nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons that inflict large scale human, social and environmental and economic destruction.

    The NZNO supports the resolution by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions that calls on:

    Iraq to surrender all its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and their delivery systems and allow UN inspectors access to locations inside Iraq to search for an destroy such weapons. In the event that Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the UN resolution the issues must be referred to the UN for deliberation

    All countries to ensure that deliberations and decisions of the United Nations in relation to any matter (including war in Iraq) are free from threats of unilateral action or other undue social political and economic pressure from any country.

    NZNO supports that every effort is made to:

    * Ensure availability of enough time and resources for effective UN inspections;
    * Increase diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi regime to destroy weapons of mass destruction;
    * Ensure the wellbeing of civilians including stopping the blockade;
    * Provide protection of ethnic minorities in Iraq; and
    * Provide for a long-term peaceful resolution of the current situation.

    NZNO calls on other health organisations, and professional and industrial health organisations to speak out publically about the impact of a war on the people of Iraq and to participate in activities against the war.

    3 March 2003
  4. by   Gomer
    EXCELLENT!, Spacenurse...thank you
  5. by   eddy
    Bravo!
  6. by   Glad2behere
    Ok, dissent all you want. Doesn't change a thing. I really don't care what the Middle East thinks...that was learned on 9-11. The UN is an ineffective googleedook, if you have faith in it you're just dreaming...all its members are doing nothing but jockeying for position. Glad I live in a country that is a step ahead of the wannabees.
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Glad2behere
    [B] I really don't care what the Middle East thinks

    No comment.
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Apr 2, '03
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    [B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Glad2behere
    [B] I really don't care what the Middle East thinks

    http://www.nzno.org.nz/

    Guess what?
    New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and California NURSES are not the middle east.
  9. by   Brownms46
    Excelllent posts spacenurse...WELL DONE!!! I wish I could find that applause smiley..!!!
  10. by   Glad2behere
    OK, you gotta watch out for those specific geographic nurses, I hear they are all real earthshakers and movers. They and their grandma and grandpa and great auntie aren't gonna change anything. Bring 'em on.
  11. by   Brownms46
    http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...lo_resign3.htm

    Another US Diplomat Resigns in Protest
    March 19, 2003

    The following is the text of Mary Wright's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wright is the third state department official to resign in protest of the US war on Iraq and other aspects of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

    U.S. Embassy
    Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
    March 19, 2003

    Secretary of State Colin Powell
    US Department of State
    Washington, DC 20521

    Dear Secretary Powell:
    When I last saw you in Kabul in January, 2002 you arrived to officially open the US Embassy that I had helped reestablish in December, 2001 as the first political officer. At that time I could not have imagined that I would be writing a year later to resign from the Foreign Service because of US policies. All my adult life I have been in service to the United States. I have been a diplomat for fifteen years and the Deputy Chief of Mission in our Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan (briefly) and Mongolia. I have also had assignments in Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada and Nicaragua. I received the State Department's Award for Heroism as Charge d'Affaires during the evacuation of Sierra Leone in 1997. I was 26 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and participated in civil reconstruction projects after military operations in Grenada, Panama and Somalia. I attained the rank of Colonel during my military service.

    This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration's policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

    I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so.

    * I disagree with the Administration's policies on Iraq.

    I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

    There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community's demand that Saddam's regime destroy weapons of mass destruction.

    However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we have created deep chasms in the international community and in important international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in much of the world.

    Countries of the world supported America's action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then, America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as we did ten years ago.

    I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.

    I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a "preemptive attack" against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to "preemptively attack" America and American citizens.

    The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/ Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic "holy soil" of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens.

    Although I strongly believe the time in not yet right for military action in Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without destruction of the Iraqi peoples' homes and livelihood. I strongly urge the Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and this is not yet the time for military action.

    * I disagree with the Administration's lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the Administration's long-needed "Roadmap for Peace" will have the human resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward
    peace.


    * I disagree with the Administration's lack of policy on North Korea

    Additionally, I cannot support the Administration's position on North Korea. With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration's lack of substantive discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is dangerous for us to continue to neglect.

    * I disagree with the Administration's policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America.

    Further, I cannot support the Administration's unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration's secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens.

    Resignation

    I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration's policies.

    Mr. Secretary, to end on a personal note, under your leadership, we have made great progress in improving the organization and administration of the Foreign Service and the Department of State. I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts to that end. I hate to leave the Foreign Service, and I wish you and our colleagues well.

    Very Respectfully,


    Mary A. Wright, FO-01
    Deputy Chief of Mission
    US Embassy
    Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
  12. by   Brownms46
    Just War -- Or A Just War?
    By Jimmy Carter, published in the New York Times, March 9, 2003

    Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

    As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

    For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

    The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options -- previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations -- were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

    The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

    Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

    The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

    The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

    What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions -- with war as a final option -- will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
    http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/...er_justwar.htm

    --Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
  13. by   Brownms46
    http://www.theeagle.com/aandmnews/102802cronkite.htm

    Journalist Cronkite warns against potential war

    By CHRISTOPHER FERRELL
    Eagle Staff Writer



    Eagle photo/Dave McDermand

    Walter Cronkite, whose career as a journalist spanned six decades, speaks at Rudder Auditorium on Sunday afternoon.

    Walter Cronkite, the veteran newsman who covered almost every major world event that took place during his six-decade career, on Sunday warned that if the United States takes action against Iraq without support from the United Nations it could set the stage for World War III.

    "The threat from the White House is to go in anyway," Cronkite said. "Our only ally would probably be Great Britain. That is not good enough. I see the possibility if we do that of really setting forth World War III."

    Cronkite spoke at Texas A&M University's Rudder Auditorium on Sunday afternoon as part of the Wiley Lecture Series. Donnis Baggett, editor and publisher of The Bryan-College Station Eagle, interviewed Cronkite, asking him about his views on issues including America's war on terrorism, the U.S. economy and the perception of the media's liberal bias.

    Cronkite said he believes the best way to handle the situation with Iraq would be through a two-stage resolution adopted by the United Nations. It should first call for weapons inspections and then an invasion if inspectors are not allowed or they meet interference. Such a strategy could help the United States gain other allies, especially Russia and France, he said.

    "The legitimacy of our actions would be endorsed through the United Nations," Cronkite said.

    If the United States goes in without worldwide support, however, other countries in the region such as Iran and Pakistan could retaliate against the U.S., Cronkite said. He said the threat of nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan could be increased if a conflict arises.

    Cronkite, who began anchoring the CBS Evening News in 1962, said the country is at a very critical point in its history. The only other decade that compares, he said, is the 1960s, which saw the beginning of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement come to the forefront and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers.

    "That was a tough 10 years," he said. "But this period, with the threat of war with Iraq on tap, economic difficulties and terrorism are something we must be terribly concerned about."

    Cronkite said he fears Americans are learning less and less about what their government is doing, and worse, they do not seem to care.

    He cited recent presidential elections that have seen less than half of registered voters go to the polls. The result has been leaders who are chosen by about a quarter of the electorate.

    "That means we don't have a democracy," he said. "We've got an oligarchy here, not a democracy. Our democracy is in some danger if we don't concentrate on educating the populace."

    Educating Americans should rest with the media, he said. But more often than not, nightly newscasts and the networks' magazine-style shows focus more on entertainment than hard news. Cronkite said this approach is the result of directives from the companies that own the networks to make things more "interesting."

    He said the ability to get the news, especially during times of war, also is becoming more difficult.

    Since the Vietnam War, Cronkite said, the media has not been allowed to take its cameras, pencils and notepads into the field with the soldiers to give an accurate account of what is happening.

    During World War II, reporters were in fox holes, and during the Vietnam War they were on the battlefields.

    In many cases during WWII, the reports would have to go through intelligence officers all the way up the ladder to London, where top military censors decided if the information could be released. If security reasons prevented its release, the news was held until the threat passed. But information was not kept from the American public.

    Cronkite said Americans may have thought they got the full story during Operation Desert Storm, but the media was denied much of the type of access it had been granted in the past.

    "[In past conflicts], you wrote it to be the history," he said. "We have no history now of the Persian Gulf War. We have only what the military reporters wrote and that's what their bosses told them. That's not good enough."

    Cronkite admitted that in some cases, such as the recent congressional report that outlined the country's homeland security weaknesses, he wonders whether or not reporting all the facts is in the country's best interest.

    "It seems to me that as citizens, we should get this info so we can shout to Washington, 'Let's get this game going,'" he said. "But at the same time, there's a terrorist cell sitting there saying, 'That's how we do it.'"

    But for a country's citizens to be truly free and the government to be held accountable, he said people must have a free press that gathers all the facts.

    He said an example of the alternative would be a situation like what he witnessed after WWII, after the Nazi concentration camps were freed. The people who lived in nearby towns cried at the sights of the persecuted Jews and told reporters they had no idea of what was going on behind the walls of the camps.

    Many were probably telling the truth, he said, but that did not make them any less responsible.

    "They applauded as Hitler closed down the independent newspaper and television stations and only gave them his propaganda," Cronkite said. "When they did not rise up and say, 'Give us a free press,' they became just as guilty."
  14. by   OzNurse69
    Originally posted by Glad2behere
    OK, you gotta watch out for those specific geographic nurses, I hear they are all real earthshakers and movers. They and their grandma and grandpa and great auntie aren't gonna change anything. Bring 'em on.
    Oh, and you and your grandma and grandpa and great auntie ARE??? Oops, that's right, I forgot......Ennis, Texas is the centre of the known universe isn't it?

    WHERE THE F#@% is that, anyway??

close