In his State of the Union address, President George Bush still did not present enough evidence to launch a war against Iraq. While we still have time, let us step back from the precipice and reflect on the impending war and options to it. The United States is about to declare war on Iraq in the name of curbing terrorism. It will attack a Muslim nation which could change the state of the world for decades. 

 

The war with Iraq should not be entered into lightly. We still have time. The time should be taken to reflect and make a proper decision. There should be good rationale, logic, and reason for committing some 200,000 American troops and more than US $200 billion to a war that is not clear as to its purpose and is not thought-out as to its expected results. In a democracy it is only right that a representative government consult its people and listen to its allies before going to war. For the government that goes to war will be responsible for its actions and the potentially costs it will bring upon its people. See .washingtonpost.com/ .  

Why is an environmental newsletter addressing the issue of war? Because there are serious environmental and resource misuse questions associated with the war? Also the war effort has virtually handcuff the attention of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their Cabinet to the war. Their minds have been diverted from the domestic issues (environment, economy, education, etc.), except for anemic efforts made towards the issues, while their every waking moment is focused on the war. Are concerns are that in addition to the deaths of people and the destruction of cities, the war will diverted limited monies and resources away from education, farming, inner-city social issues, drinking water supplies, etc., It will be an extreme waste of capital and natural resources. And it will do long-term harm to the natural environment and its life-support systems in the Middle East and worldwide (e.g., GHG emissions from burning oil wells).

 

 

 

We believe it is important to continue the fight against terrorism, and to bring those responsible  to justice who attacked, or attempt to attack America. It is very important to bring Usama Bin Laden to justice and to break Al Queda and the Taliban that attacked the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, and other America facilities. It is important to stop terrorism strikes in other nations like Kenya and Bali (Indonesia). Excellent work has been done by the United States government, in cooperation with its European and Middle East allies, to capture terrorists in the planning stages and to prevent a number of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Excellent work has been done to break the Al Queda and Usama bin Laden's hold on Afghanistan, and to bring a new sense of democracy to the country. One of our concerns is that by going to war with Iraq is that it will divert U.S. attention and resources away from the worldwide action to reduce terrorism. Iraq, to date, has been identified as just a small part of the terrorism that threatens the United States. Secondly, a U.S. attack on Iraq will result in a backlash and cause a significant increase in terrorist attacks on the United States. In other words, the U.S. will not decrease, but increase terrorist attacks on America and its facilities worldwide by attacking Iraq. This is one of the reasons that Israel has argued against an attack on Iraq.

 

 

 

If the United States followed its own rationale for identifying "Axis-of-Evil" nations which contribute to the worldwide terrorist threats, war with Iraq would not be the top priority. The U.S. has established certain criteria for identifying terrorist nations in the "axis-of-evil". The criteria for identifying terrorist-support nations includes countries:

 

o      that helped terrorists who attack American facilities including 9/11.
o      that helped fund terrorists and provide them with weapons, false identification
        & transportation.
o      that possess weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear arms and
         chemical and biological weapons, that can be used against America and other countries.
o      that provide terrorists with bases and havens which pose an immediate threat the U.S.

 

Ironically, Iraq barely makes it on the criteria list.  The Bush-Cheney logic for attacking Iraq is therefore flawed. There is either a missing intellect in the decision-making in the Whitehouse. Or the Whitehouse has other reasons for the attack. The following information in the newsletter shows why. See the Associated Press website at http://wire.ap.org/APpackages/axis_flash/ . Also see http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12321 .

 

 

 

Despite the U.S. Government's best efforts, it has not been able to link Iraq the with 9/11 attack on the WTC or the Pentagon. Iraq just wasn't part of the attack. Also, Iraq poses little threat to the U.S., after being severely weakened from the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq's quest to build a nuclear bomb has been detoured a number of times. Regarding Iraq's potential chemical and biological war threat against the United States, it barely exists. There is a much greater threat from countries like Russia with massive stockpiles and North Korea. As yet, the United Nations inspectors have not found chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many were convinced that as soon as the inspectors began to conduct surprise searches in Iraq, that they would find evidence. But not so. This is in spite of the UN inspectors receiving secret information from U.S. intelligence as to where the weapons are. See the Iraq inspection report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_290103.html . Also see 
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/4903265.htm . Also see http://www.dawn.com/2003/01/26/int19.htm .

 

 

 

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

 

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the U.K Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas. The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis – the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

 

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986. The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US. Source, "How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them," by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot, the Sunday Herald (Scotland),   September 8, 2002. See the full story at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm . Also see http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30A.byrd.wmd.htm . And see  http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm .

 

 

 

Ironically, not only Iraq, but Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia fit the U.S. criteria for supporting terrorism and being a part of the U.S.'s so-called "Axis of Evil". Pakistan has the nuclear bomb and the missiles to deliver it. Pakistan has other weapons of mass destruction. Many large areas of Pakistan provide funding and safe havens for the Al Queda and other terrorists - much more so than Iraq. Latest information that tribes in Pakistan may even be harboring Usama bin Laden.  See http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp?cp1=1#1 . 

 

As for Saudi Arabia, 15 of the 19 terrorists that conducted the 9/11 on America were from Saudi Arabia. Certain regions of Saudi Arabia are harboring terrorists. Many oil-rich Saudi's provided funding to terrorist organizations and possibly directly to the 9/11 terrorists themselves. See more on Saudi Arabia at  http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/ .

 

Russia has huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, more than any other nation, except the United States. Russia is unstable and going through a social transition, peppered with crippling corruption, that leaves many of its scientists and military personnel underpaid or unpaid, and thus many of its weapons of mass destruction open for transfer to terrorists on the black market. See more about Russia potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction at http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/ocp10.htm . Also see http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/turbi.pdf .

 

We point out these discrepancies, not because Pakistan, Russia, and Saudi Arabia should be put on the "Axis-of-Evil" list. Not because they should be attacked next by the United States. Rather because they show the flaws in the Bush-Cheney logic for an attack on Iraq. There is just not enough evidence to justify an attack on Iraq, or any nation, for that matter. 

 

 

 

If Iraq is no more threatening than some other countries and it does not pose a huge threat to the United States. If Iraq has no nuclear weapons and little delivery capability for its depleted chemical and biological weapons (not yet found by the UN inspectors). If Iraq did not play nearly the role in supporting terrorists that those in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia did, then why is Bush, Cheney, and their generals selecting Iraq for a full military action? Is it because:

 

o   Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who kills thousands of his own people,
      subjugates his women, and attacks other countries on his borders? No. There are
      at least a dozen other dictators in the world who do the same thing. The U.S. is not
      planning to attack them (e.g., Russia with Chechnya or Rwanda-Burundi, or the Congo).

 

o   Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 and other attacks on the United States and
     deserves to be brought to justice and to be stopped from perpetrating other acts?  No. Had
     he been involved, the United States would have found out and told the world.

 

o   Saddam Hussein poses a threat with weapons of mass destruction to the United States and
     the rest of the world? No.  He has no nuclear weapons. He has no long-range missiles or
     delivery systems to countries outside the Middle East. He is hemmed in, constantly
     monitored, and weakened by the U.S. and U.N. forces who've imposed no-fly zones
     over Iraq following Iraq's capitulation after the Gulf War.

 

No. The logic for war has slipped from the grasp of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The reasons have become a fog.

 

 

 

Why isn't the U.S. government keeping their eye on the ball. Why don't they remain focused on the terrorists who attacked the WTC, the Pentagon, US barracks in Africa, the USS Cole and America? Why has the U.S. government deliberately decided to stop mentioning the name Usama Bin Laden (or UBL, as the bureaucrats call him)? President George Bush refused to mention his name in the latest State of the Union speech. Why, after months of tracking him and his colleagues down, did Bush and Cheney decide to substitute the name Saddam Hussein for Usama Bin Laden? Is it a change in strategy? Is it just government-speak to shift public attention away from the real terrorists, to  Iraq? How can the U.S., a nation that has been attacked by its worst enemy suddenly forget about its worst enemy? There is flawed logic here. For more on Usama bin Laden see the website
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp?cp1=1 . Also see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/ . See the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm . Also see http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp .

 

 

 

The United States has switched its terrorist war strategy three times. First the United States focused on Usama bin Laden and his worldwide network of terrorists. Then the U.S. stopped mentioning Usama and switched its focus to Saddam Hussein. Bush and Cheney announced that Iraq was a terrorist nation that had nuclear capability and weapons of mass destruction that could be used on the United States. Iraq was put at the top of the nations of "Axis-of-Evil". It was as if Iraq itself flew the planes into the World Trade Centre. When those allegations failed to stand up to scrutiny, a third rationale was declared. The U.S. decided to attack Iraq because it did not provide all the information in the 12,000-page report on weapons and because it is not complying with the United Nations agreement for disarmament when Iraq was defeated in the Gulf War. How can a rational people allow its government to go to war when the logic is suspect? Staunch U.S. allies like Germany, France, and Tony Blair's U.K. Labour Party, see through the poor judgement, and have made a firm decision not to support the war against Iraq, unless the weapons inspectors are given more time to find and document weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. See http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/24/3e30e8027c0bf?template=pda . Also see http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012503C.putin.fr.gr.htm .

 

A strong ally like Saudi Arabia in the last Gulf War has pushed the U.S. war command post out of the country, stating that it will not allow the United States to conduct the war against Iraq from its soil. This has caused the U.S. military to have to rebuild its multi-billion command post in the postage-stamp-size country of Qatar. Why is a strong U.S. ally like Turkey resisting an new war in Iraq? With such warning signs, a smart and rational country would step back on reconsider its reasons for going to war. Why has the U.S. Government taken the opposite stance, that it is right and God is on its side, and that France, Russia, and Germany are mistaken for taking such a stance?  

 

 

 

Let's assume that Iraq, in spite of the UN weapons report, does have left-over remnants of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction that were not destroyed after the first Gulf War. Is that enough to go to war over? No. Because these kinds of weapons can be obtained by terrorists from any number of nations including Russia, North Korea, Libya, China, and the United States. Yes - the United States. Where did the biological weapon come from in the last small terrorist postal attack of anthrax come from? The United States. A tragic irony. Also times and the world politics changed since the first Gulf War. This time the Islamic nations are not behind the U.S. in curbing Iraq. Many Islamic nations would consider an attack on Iraq as an indirect attack on the Islamic world by a Christian nation. This is not to be taken lightly. There are serious new complexities in the world that are not being taken into account in the Bush-Cheney thinking. The mistaken understandings and future responses by the Islamic world to the United States will be substantial and difficult. Finally, did not the U.S. learn from the Vietnam War? It is going in to Iraq for two years and will be stuck there for 20 years. The issue it solved will be compounded by the many more issues it creates.

 

 

 

Since George Bush has taken power the United States government budget has gone from a surplus to a deficit. That means that each year it is spending more money than taxes are bringing in. The U.S. is operating on a limited budget and is trying to cut spending. It has placed a severe burden on the states in the U.S., many of which are facing bankruptcy. It will have to pay for the Iraq war from money it will borrow from the banks and from the funds it can suck back from federal departments and the states. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast a larger-than-expected deficit of $199 billion for this fiscal year, the largest deficit since 1994 and a figure more than a third larger than the shortfall projected only five months ago. Just two years after congressional forecasters predicted a $5.6 trillion surplus for this decade, now they do not foresee a return to surpluses until 2007. And the CBO's latest projections would be substantially worsened by new tax cuts and a war with Iraq, neither of which are included in the new numbers. See, http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/013103H.03.04.deficit.htm .

 

Costs for the war are estimated at between $40 billion and $200 billion. In fact the costs already are accelerating in the military build up to the war, that additional federal funds promised to the FBI, Immigration, and the CIA to fight terrorism have not been provided. The question is, is that the best use of U.S. limited resources? The answer is no. The funds would have much better impact and improvement for peace and reduced terrorism, if they were committed to other programs for international aid, U.S. poverty relief, immigration issues, education, state budget relief, and improved relations with Islamic nations. 

 

 

 

If the reasons put forward by the U.S. for attacking Iraq are suspect, then there must be other reasons? We have to ask, what has caused United States to make a decision to mobilize America's men and resources to attack Iraq when the rest of the world is against war?

 

o     Is it because young George Bush wants to avenge his father, George Bush senior,
       when Senior did not finish off Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War? Let's hope
       not. Stupider things have been done. Vengeance and getting even are not the democratic
       and Christian way.

 

o      Is it because the United States needs to secure and protect the massive oil reserves in Iraq
        and neighboring Kuwait? Let's hope not. However, that appears to be the thesis
        underlying the Cheney National Energy Policy, a policy which virtually ignores
        energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy like wind, solar and geothermal, and  
        openly embraces expansion of oil imports into the U.S. Let's hope that the U.S. is 
         not going to war over oil. There are much better ways to solve the United State's 
        growing dependency on foreign oil and gas than to perpetuate a resource war.

 

o        Is it because George Bush was floundering on domestic and international issues
          before 9/11, and was so good in helping the nation through the dark days after
          the terrorist attacks, that his handlers believe that Bush can maintain a high approval
          rating and garner votes for his Republican Party if he continues to be a "War President"?
          George Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed after 9/11. His Republican Party won the
          House of Representatives and the Senate on the "war vote" during the mid-term elections.
          Since Bush became President the economy has plummeted.

 

Since Bush and Cheney's stated rationale for war doesn't make since, we have to assume that a mix of father revenge, oil resource protection, and vote-getting, are their unstated reasons for going to war with Iraq.

 

 

 

As the U.S. should step back from the precipice of war to consider its options, there are two actions which the United States must factor in. First, it must await the United Nations inspections in Iraq to be completed. It is not enough to go to war now after an interim report. Secondly, the United States must have a UN resolution and compliance with a large allied nations forces before making war on Iraq. The fact that thoughtful nations like Germany and France have backed out and Russia is expressing concerns does not help. The fact that U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair is being threatened with mass resignations from his own Labour Party if he personally commits to George Bush to go to war, does not help. The factor that the majority of the large Arab nations that supported George Bush's father in the earlier Gulf War want to have nothing to do with this new war, is foreboding. See http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_112402_iraq.html . Also see http://lists.iww.org/pipermail/iww-news/2002-August/000157.html .

 

 

 

The United States must have run a consequences scenario. What would happen worldwide and in the long-term, if America goes to war with Iraq without the UN inspections being completed and without a critical group of allies? It won't be the same as last time when the multinational forces of the United Nations was beating Saddam Hussein back from attacking Kuwait. The world, even the Arab World, was on side with the U.S. This time Saddam Hussein won't be caught by surprise by the high-tech quickness of the war. He will be ready with his own plan which will create substantial pain and a longer guerilla war with the attackers. It will not be a "good clean little war" as one caller said to the conservative U.S. national talk show radio host Sean Hannity. Because while Saddam Hussein would have a hard time attacking nations with weapons of mass destruction, the few primitive weapons he has left, he will not hesitate to use in defending his own country from attack. He will not hesitate to blow up his own oil wells and refineries. Visit Sean Hannity's website at http://www.hannity.com/ .

 

Will the U.S. be in and out of Iraq within a couple of years, with limited casualties and manageable dollar costs? Unlikely.  It is more likely that the U.S. will be in Iraq for years and will be staving off civil war there, and fighting a guerilla-style mop-up action with desperate Islamists that don't like Christians running their country.

 

The consequences scenario should show what the Canadian intelligence service predicted. The Arab World will be put in an uproar by the U.S. attack on Iraq. The governments of friendly Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey, will be destabilized by the Christian U.S. attack on Iraq. The growing militant demands in their respective Arab nations will be hard to control.

 

Iraq was created by colonial powers that failed to take into account that the arbitrary lines of the nation cut across three distinct groups of peoples: the Sunnites, the Shiites, and the Kurds. When Saddam Hussein is removed from power, there will be a power vacuum in Iraq. It will be filled by power struggles and infighting between the three peoples. The U.S. may have to stay for years to bring peace to the region. Worse, the infighting could boil over into neighboring Turkey (with the Kurds) and into Iran (with the Shiites).

 

 

 

The impending U.S. attack on Iraq is a turning point in modern history. It will draw the Christians and Islamists into a new bloody "Holy War". U.S. leaders ten years from now will ask, "how were we so ignorant as open the door to massive world terrorism the likes of which we've never seen, over an unnecessary war with a nasty dictator in a small country the size of California? The U.S. attack on Iraq will cause many more militant Arabs around the world to strap on bombs and head to America, or to the nearest American facilities. You ain't seen nothin yet, when it comes to terrorism, the Canadian intelligence predicts. A report leaked from CSIS, Canada's intelligence agency predicts attacks on Canada, that would otherwise not have occurred, had the U.S. not attacked Iraq. Currently, the United States and its allies have a pretty good choke hold on terrorism. But the attack on Iraq could draw the genie out of the bottle, from radicals in countries like Indonesia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. We will not be able to repair the damage, or go back to the old ways, when we cross the threshold into Iraq.

 

 

 

It is important to consider as one of the options - no war in Iraq. It should not be ruled out until a thorough review of the evidence, current situation, and the consequences. The decision to send the U.S. to send the troop ships and cruise missiles back home should not be ruled out without discussion. However, it appears that Bush and Cheney committed us to war in Iraq some months ago and are on a full, non-stoppable gear up for war, without much public discussion. Why is the no-war option not being allowed for consideration by Bush-Cheney?

 

Is it because Bush and Cheney don't want to look like chickens and loss face by backing down? Is it because Saddam Hussein will rub it in as America's generals go hang-tail back to their ports? Let's hope not. Making a wrong decision based on false pride would be senseless. . 

 

Is it because the large minority of active hometown U.S. warriors in America want to see a good fight, as they told Sean Hannity on US national talk radio? Will they be pissed off and vote Bush and Cheney out of office? Let's hope not. Wars should not be decided on the basis of local machosism and national vote-getting (or vote saving). 

 

Is it because too much money and too many resources have been committed to turn back now? Yes, tens of billions of dollars have been spent already. Yes, this is the largest mobilization men and material since the Vietnam War. Yes, it will be costly to turn around and go home without firing as much as a shot. But we can turn back now and write-off the losses. Because the cost of war will be many more times this in terms of dollars, the  environment, and people. As they say in the stock market, "can you be smart and cut your losses?" As they say at the poker table, "you gotta know when to fold up." This may be a time to fold up. At least it should be considered.

 

 

 

Greenpeace Canada is opposed to war in principle including a war against Iraq. It states that, "we have campaigned for 30 years against nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We call for the elimination of all such weapons, including those held by Iraq, the United States and other countries. War will not eliminate this threat. We share concerns about the Iraqi government, a country that has used chemical weapons against its own population and Iran. And yet with nearly 30 nations believed to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, war is neither a morally acceptable nor a politically feasible means of eradicating them."

 

Greenpeace Canada is concerned that, "war with Iraq will exacerbate political tensions, bring death to countless innocents, and establish a deadly precedent for the 21st century of using unilateral violence in response to conflict." Adding that, "oil interests are playing a role in motivating US government calls for war and regime change in Iraq as this industry stands to reap huge profits if allowed access to Iraqi oil fields. We are at a juncture in history .The US can either choose to be the agent of big oil companies and the promoter of wasteful, fossil fuel dependant life style. Or the US could take global warming seriously, lessen the dependence on oil and build a safer future on clean energy. Canada must oppose a war on Iraq, and should urge the US to turn away from that path." For more information contact Peter Tabuns, Executive Director, Greenpeace Canada, email  peter.tabuns@yto.greenpeace.org . See their position at http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/feature/nowar/index.html .

 

 

 

Protesters from environmental group Greenpeace sailed into the approaches of a British military port the last week of January 2003, and tried to block the departure of U.K. military supply vessels bound for the Gulf. Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior, had dropped anchor outside Marchwood port in the south coast city of Southampton and was blocking the exit. Greenpeace activists from four accompanying inflatable boats locked themselves to the Rainbow Warrior's anchor chain to stop it being moved. The U.K Ministry of Defense confirmed the presence of the Rainbow Warrior at Marchwood and that only one supply vessel was due to leave Marchwood. The ship was identified as a legitimate citizen protest and not a terrorist threat. Otherwise Greenpeace may have been approached with shot-to-kill force by the British military. Greenpeace said it was trying to stop "the headlong rush to a war which places a higher price on oil than on blood." Source, Reuters News Service at Planet Ark.  See the full story at http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19610/story.htm .
 

---

 

 

The U.S. conservative environmental think tank, the World Resources Institute, based in Washington, D.C., sent a letter to George Bush urging against the war. It stated in its letter that, "amid what appear to be accelerating preparations for a new war, it is worth taking time to reflect on the environmental consequences of the 1991 Gulf War. War is inherently destructive.  Just over a decade ago, facing imminent defeat at the hands of western forces, Saddam Hussein gave the order to unleash an ecological disaster of terrible proportions. As Iraqi forces retreated, they set fire to some 600 oil wells across Kuwait and intentionally spilled another four million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf." WRI, in its EarthTrends documentation has compiled information on the environmental, economic, and social data for Iraq and other Persian Gulf countries from more than 20 sources. Providers range from large international organizations - like United Nations agencies, the World Bank, British Petroleum Statistical Service - to lesser-known sources such as the Blue Plan on Water Resources, the Netherlands Institute for Public Health (RIVM), and Freedom House. For more information contact Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute at email  jlash@wri.org or Adlai Amor, Director of Media Relations, WRI, ph. (202)729-7736; email: aamor@wri.org . Visit the World Resources Institute (WRI) website on Iraq at http://www.wri.org/iraq/index.html and http://earthtrends.wri.org .  See the complete letter from the World Resources Institute at http://jlash.wri.org/letters.cfm?ContentID=564 .

 

 

 

Friends of the Earth International is opposed to a war against Iraq and deplores the loss of human life and the disastrous environmental and social impacts that will result from such a war. Friends of the Earth International supports global treaties, diplomacy, and negotiation to resolve disputes and to promote human rights, environmental protection, and sustainable societies. The proposed first-strike war fundamentally contradicts our approach to foreign policy. A major motivation for the proposed war against Iraq, led by the U.S. and the U.K., is the perceived need to safeguard access to oil in the region. FOE believes that the only solution to the problem of oil dependency by highly industrialised countries like the U.S. will come from an increased reliance on clean and sustainable energy sources. Furthermore, national security would be better served by enabling sustainable livelihoods for people everywhere rather than increasing the nuclear and military industrial complex and provoking armed conflicts. Friends of the Earth International is a federation of 68 non-governmental organisations that make up the world's largest grassroots environmental network campaigning to protect the environment and to create sustainable societies.

 

 

 

The Friends of the Earth International Gulf War Task Force, headed by former Canadian Ambassador James George, documented the tremendous environmental destruction caused by the 1991 Gulf War. over 168 million gallons of oil spilled into the Persian Gulf; 200 miles of Saudi Arabian coastline smothered in oil, ruining all the wetlands and marshes along the shore and killing thousands of birds and aquatic creatures; there were massive uncontrolled fires from some 600 sabotaged oil wells, releasing half a billion tons of carbon dioxide and spreading air pollution as far away as India. There was devastation of desert ecosystems caused by the movement of heavy equipment and the massive lakes of oil, the world's largest oil spill on land. A U.S.-led attack on Iraq this time could kill between 48,000 and 260,000 civilians and combatants in just the first three months of conflict, according to a study by medical and public health experts. Post-war health effects could take an additional 200,000 lives, says the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html .

 

 

 

The health impacts of the Gulf War of 1991 on U.S. troops were massive, with 160,000 of the 573,000 present in the Gulf War now having been certified with service-related medical problems, many due to exposure to chemicals, depleted uranium, biological agents, or nerve gas. The Pentagon has denied for years that there is any "Gulf War Syndrome" affecting soldiers' health, but the new figures reveal the magnitude of the health impact. See the website http://www.preparingforpeace.org/grossrieder_the_human_costs_of_war.html .
Visit the FOE website at http://www.foe.org/new/releases/0103iraq.html .

 

 

 

The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) oppose the U.S. decision to attack Iraq. The report, Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq, was issued by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, and produced by Medact, the organization's United Kingdom affiliate. It is being released today by IPPNW member groups in more than a dozen nations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in the US. It shows that waging war on Iraq would have enormous humanitarian costs, including disaster for the Iraqi population in both the short and long term, and would create enormous harm further afield to combatants and civilians alike. It concludes by summarising alternatives to war. The report is by Medact, an organisation of health professionals that exists to highlight and take action on the health consequences of war, poverty and environmental degradation and other major threats to global health. For more information contact Michael Christ, Executive Director, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), 727 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, Massachusetts, ph. (617) 868-5050, fax (617) 868-2560, email ippnwbos@ippnw.org. Visit the IPPNW website at http://www.ippnw.org/  .  See the full report at http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.pdf .

 

 

 

There have been a number of innovative peace signs hoisted at anti-war rallies across the United States. Many are quite humourous. Below are some of them:

 

Peace Takes Brains
Anything War Can Do, Peace Can Do Better
Another Patriot for Peace
Go Solar, Not Ballistic
War is Expensive, Peace is Priceless.
It's the Oil, Stupid
Read Between the Pipelines
How Many Lives Per Gallon?
Start Drafting SUV Drivers Now
How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Sand?
Who Would Jesus Christ Bomb?
Resistance is Fertile
(UFW sign) Pick Fruit, not Fights
(With pictures of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld)   Asses-of-Evil
Don't Do It, George, Dad Will Still Love You
Power to the Peaceful
The last time we listened to a Bush, we wandered in the desert for 40  years.

 

 

 

The George Bush Administration has been placing ads on television showing that young liberal hip students and businessmen who buy marijuana and cocaine are indirectly financing the drug lords and contributing to drug-related killings. It's true. Using exactly the same logic, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be given funds by the Bush Administration to do similar advertisements showing that excessive fuel consumption is driving up demand for oil from OPEC and Arab nations that are funding terrorists attacking America. Already we've learned that Saudi Arabia provided American oil-dollars indirectly to groups labelled as terrorists. The U.S. Government should do everything it can to reduce the United State's 53% reliance on imported oil. Each dollar reduced in oil purchases reduces the oil-dollars available to terrorists. One of the most patriotic things America can do its to secure and rely on its own energy sources. A strong campaign of laws and taxes could quickly encourage the American people to reduce fuel consumption and reduce the amount of American money being paid to terrorist operations. Now, in a recent patriotic move, some citizens have taken on the task of doing the vehicle-oil advertisements based on the Bush model for money-for-drugs. The SUV fuel over-consumption advertisements could just as easily apply to Canada, which is doing very little to reduce its own fuel consumption.

 

The advertisements are being run by the organization called, Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars (AFEC). It is a nonprofit group dedicated to decreasing America's reliance on foreign oil. AFEC was co-founded by columnist Arianna Huffington, film producer Lawrence Bender, environmental activist Laurie David, and movie and TV agent Ari Emanuel. Their goal is to mount a citizens' ad campaign aimed at getting people to stop driving SUVs and other gas-guzzling vehicles -- and jolting our leaders into taking action. Currently they are producing ads parodying the drugs-equal-terror ads the Bush administration is running. Lawrence Bender, producer of "Pulp Fiction" and "Good Will Hunting," and director Scott Burns, co-creator of the "Got Milk?" ad campaign, agreed to donate their services to make these ads a reality through A Band Apart, Bender's production company. Contact the Detroit Project at email info@thedetroitproject.com . Go to their website at http://www.thedetroitproject.com/ .

 

 

 

Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics issued a declaration yesterday opposing a preventive war against Iraq without wide international support. The statement, four sentences long, argues that an American attack would ultimately hurt the security and standing of the United States, even if it succeeds.

 

The signers, all men, include a number who at one time or another have advised the federal government or played important roles in national security. Among them are Hans A. Bathe, an architect of the atom bomb; Walter Kohn, a former adviser to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Pentagon; Norman F. Ramsey, a Manhattan Project scientist who readied the Hiroshima bomb and later advised NATO; and Charles H. Townes, former research director of the Institute for Defense Analyses at the Pentagon and chairman of a federal panel that studied how to base the MX missile and its nuclear warheads. Source, "41 Nobel Laureates Sign Against a War Without International Support," by William J. Broad, New York Times, 28 January 2003. See the full story at http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/013003G.41.laureates.htm .

 

                xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                                Copyright (c) 2003
                              Canadian Institute for Business and the
                                  Environment, Montreal & Toronto
                                                 All rights reserved.
                xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx