The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] 4 articles condemning the war

[ Converted text/html to text/plain ]

Salut fellow activists. Below are 4 interesting articles. My appologies if one
or more of them have already been posted.

Salwa de Vree,

Leiden, The Netherlands

North Korean Danger Far Outweighs Iraqi One: Albright

Tuesday, January 14 2003 @ 08:06 AM GMT

"Albright went even further when she lashed out at Bush’s hotchpotch foreign
policy, describing him as a confused man .."

PARIS - Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright criticized U.S.
President George W. Bush’s concentration on Iraq and his desire to unseat
Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, a French paper Monday, January 13.
Former U.S. Secretary of State
Madeline Albright
In an interview with the French Le Figaro daily, Albright said North Korea is
far dangerous than Iraq, pointing out that it [North Korea] threatened to
create seismic waves in Asia on the contrary to the Iraqi position in the
Middle East.
The U.S.A, on the one hand, is rest assured that North Korea is led by a
dictator, a nuclear juggernaut and has a one million-strong army, while it, on
the other, has no information about the weapons possessed by the Iraqi
president, she added.
It is true that Bush wants to see a “regime change” in Iraq. But why does he
insist on doing as such when Pyongyang poses real threats? Albright wondered.
The former Clinton’s Secretary of State said that Saddam could be contained
and the North Korean danger far outweighed the Iraqi one, asserting that North
Korea’s possession of nuclear arms and medium-range missiles was a case in
The daily quoted Albright as saying that the U.S. did everything in its power
to avert a military build-up in Asia by assigning U.S. troops to South Korea
and providing Japan with armed protection. The U.S., in addition, paid due
attention to China and was keen on not letting it become the Asian cop;
therefore, the U.S. should keep up its foothold in the Asian region by
watching North Korea closely, Albright added.
“Confused Man”
Albright went even further when she lashed out at Bush’s hotchpotch foreign
policy, describing him as a confused man.
Bush said his prime goal was to root out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network
and now he made a surprising policy shift by making Iraq first, al-Qaeda
second and North Korea third and I think he has no solutions to crises,
Albright said.
Washington and Pyongyang at loggerheads
On the current tensions between Washington and Pyongyang, Albright told Le
Figaro that Washington had advanced, by leaps and bounds, in its protracted
talks with North Korea; however, negotiations were brought to a halt when she
left office, but she kept Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush’s National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice posted on the outcome of her talks with
North Korean officials.
The Bush administration, in effect, did not translate its attention to the
North Korean problem into concrete steps. But if the incumbent U.S.
administration committed a blunder by not building on the efforts exerted by
the former administration vis-à-vis the North Korean crisis, the North Korean
President Kim Jong Il was also blamed for deciding to go on with his
underground nuclear program, Albright said.
Albright underlined that if Bush had made use of the outgrowth of Clinton’s
U.S.-North Korean negotiations, the situation would have been much different.
She defended the North Korean president by saying that he was a flexible sort
of a person, who admitted that his country had been an economic basket case
and hoped to change the current situation for the welfare of his country.
Albright further said that Kim Jong Il is not a reclusive president, asserting
that he was watching CNN and had many PCs.
-[IslamOnline & News Agencies (] Published at the Palestine


Too Big Not to Use

"Are thousands of Iraqis going to die because the US military was just too
darned big not to use? This may sound strange, but it is the best explanation
that I have heard .."
By Chris Meyer

- "Whats the point of having this superb military youre always talking about,
if we cant use it?" - Madeleine Albright

On National Public Radio this morning an intelligent and reasonable sounding
young conservative pundit explained that the United States military is just
too big not to use, and everyone in the world understands this.

Too big not to use? Are thousands of Iraqis going to die because the US
military was just too darned big not to use? This may sound strange, but it is
the best explanation for the upcoming war against Iraq that I have heard.

The US weapons industry is a commercial business just like any other US
corporation. By definition, this means that they must continue to grow and
gain market share, or they will go out of business. Furthermore, many
producers of commercial products are becoming increasingly dependent on
winning a piece of the burgeoning US defense budget. Boeing, for example,
builds commercial aircraft, but it also makes smart bombs and other military
aviation hardware to stay afloat. Boeings commercial aircraft market is
currently in a slump and workers are being laid off in Seattle. If the US
government doesnt use up its current inventory of weapons on Iraq and place
fresh orders with Boeing soon, heads will roll.

There is also the issue of use it or lose it. The US currently has the largest
and most advanced fighting force in the world. This requires many things. The
military personal must have live fire training in order to keep sharp. New
weapons must be properly field tested and developed to stay ahead of
competitors. A sufficient flow of military inventory must be sustained to keep
the weapons manufacturers in business.

Finally, new weapons markets must be developed, and US suppliers must
continually feed existing markets. Otherwise competing countries will pick up
the slack, and the US will loose its monopoly on military expertise.

This is why the US military is truly too big not to be used and must be
constantly engaged somewhere in the world. This means the other nations of the
world get to draw straws to see who is going to be the next punching bag for
the US war machine. This certainly ought to make the other nations sit up and
take notice. It reminds me of what most Americans must imagine Saddam Husseins
cabinet meetings are like. It certainly reminds one of Al Qaida: US military
bases (terrorist cells) are all over the world! Where will it strike next? If
it is not stopped, its military forces will surely strike somewhere soon
because its national interests demand it!

The last country to draw the short straw was Iraq back in 1989, when the
Soviet Union ceased to provide US military with a reason to exist. Iraq was
the logical choice and has remained the primary target ever since, with a
surprise one year respite from Afghanistan. The US knew that Iraq had an
easily demonized leader in Saddam Hussein, because the US helped get Hussein
into power and supported him for years. The US also knew Hussein had weapons
of mass destruction, because the US sold them to him.

Furthermore, Iraq is sitting on top of over 100 billion barrels of oil. That
is about two trillion dollars worth of black gold, the favorite commodity of
the corporations that dominate the US government.

This brings the following digressions to mind.

Digression one: how do you properly field test weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) when the world has outlawed them even for military purposes? Find a
ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein, get him involved in wars in which he
will need to use WMD, and supply him with WMD. Then let the press, the UN and
Amnesty International collect the data on the effectiveness of the WMD, all
the while being careful to display an appropriate level of outrage that WMD
were used. Make sure a smooth professional like Donald Rumsfeld handles the
whole affair. Corollary to the main thesis: WMD are just too profitable not to
be properly field-tested.

Digression two: All this makes one think of Israel as well. If any country has
a military that is too big not to use, it is Israel. A population of 6 million
has acquired one of the largest military machines in the world, complete with
hundreds of nuclear warheads. If Israel ever finishes off the Palestinians,
who will be next? One cannot just leave an expensive fighting machine like the
Israel Defense Force lying idle! It would decay and loose its massive overkill
vis-أ -vis its neighbors.

So what are peace-loving people to do in the midst of this downwardly
spiraling military madness?

On January 18th, 2003, there will be a peace rally in Washington, D.C. to
protest the coming war in Iraq. Participants will rally at the capital and
then march to the navy shipyards and demand to inspect the US weapons of mass
destruction. Organizers at International A.N.S.W.E.R (
are expecting tens of thousands. Im hoping for hundreds of thousands - a
million would be nice. Ill be there, how about you, gentle reader?

Organizations like Voices in the Wilderness ( are forming
peace groups of US and European citizens to send to Iraq to stop the war.
Organizers are hoping to be able to place up to 100,000 Europeans and
Americans in Baghdad with cameras and cell phones to impede US aggression. The
idea is simple and probably the most effective plan to date. Bush may not care
about Iraqis, but will he have the guts to bomb American citizens on live

Now is the time for Americans to stare down the barrels of their own weapons,
while it is still primarily Americans at the trigger. If the US weapons
industry continues to grow unchecked, production will exceed the ability of
the US government and her allies to consume. The only way for the weapons
industry to survive will be to expand its market into the enormous third world
that has been oppressed and victimized by US corporations and governmental
policies for decades. The US will then sow the seeds of its own destruction,
and global human misery will only continue to increase as unbridled weapons
proliferation spreads across the earth.,14239,360516,00.html[3]


January 11, 2003, 08:57 AM

ATHENS - The current head of the EU Presidency, Greece, and the European
Commission on Friday stressed that Europe will definitely avoid a war in Iraq.
[4] enlarge image[5]   (image)[6]

"We cannot prejudge that there will be a war in Iraq or not, but we dont want
a war," Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis told a press conference in Athens
on Friday afternoon.

Simitis said he is in contact with other members of the UNSC and other EU
member states on the issue of Iraq. "War is not inevitable. We will do
everything to avoid the crisis," stressed the President of the EU Commission
Romano Prodi.

The two leaders were speaking to the press soon after Greece officially took
over the six-month rotating EU Presidency. Simitis said he is in contact with
EU leaders to adopt common position on Iraq.

He, however, added that a decision will be taken to safeguard peace after the
UN weapons inspectors have presented their report on Iraqs weapons later this

The current EU President noted that the Greek Presidency will have seven
priorities, enlargement, immigration, the convention on the future of Europe,
to develop EUs foreign policy in the Balkans, the Middle East, the
Mediterranean region and finally to pursue the Lisbon Process.

"Our Presidency will be full of challenges, noted Simitis.

Prodi said that the EU has developed contingency plans for humanitarian aid in
case war breaks out in Iraq.

Prodi said that the current Greek Presidency and the next Italian Presidency
offer "unique and excellent opportunities" for a cohesive U policy in the
Middle East and in the Mediterranean region.,14183,360525,00.html[7]


Pope Slams War Prospects As "Defeat for Humanity"

Tuesday, January 14 2003 @ 08:13 AM GMT

"The Pope referred to Iraq as the 'land of Prophets' whose people were
'already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo' .."

VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II Monday, January 13, renewed his opposition to
the potential military action against Iraq, saying that all diplomatic means
to break the deadlock should be exhausted before war be declared the "very
last option".
The Pope referred to Iraq
as the 'land of Prophets'
"War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling
differences between nations," the Pope said in a reference to Iraq in his
annual New Year address to diplomats accredited to the Holy See.
"War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common
good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict
conditions," he said, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
The 82-year-old pontiff called (on the U.S.) to consider the humanitarian
consequences should a third Gulf war be erupted, as the war was "always a
defeat for humanity."
He said those behind any war in Iraq would have to consider "the consequences
for the civilian population both during and after the military operations."
The head of the Roman Catholic Church also spoke of the global troubles
affecting the Middle East, South America, and Africa in a wide-ranging address
in French, the traditional language of diplomacy.
"I have personally been struck by the feeling of fear which often dwells in
the hearts of our contemporaries," he told the ambassadors to the Vatican.
He referred to Iraq, threatened by a U.S.-led war which many commentators
expect could break out in the coming weeks, as a "land of Prophets" whose
people were "already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo."
Neither could military victories be the solution to the "constant
degeneration" of the crisis in the Middle East, he added.
"War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity," he said.
"International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between states, the noble
exercise of diplomacy: these are the methods worthy of individuals and nations
in resolving their differences."
Rich & Poor Countries
The Pope also used Monday's address to shed a light on the inequality on the
world scene between what he called rich and poor countries..
"Selfishness is also the indifference of prosperous nations towards nations
left out in the cold," he said, highlighting the problem of water shortages,
which the United Nations will give particular prominence to this year.
"All peoples are entitled to receive a fair share of the goods of this world
and of the know-how of the more advanced countries."
Relations Strained
The Pope's repeated denunciation of the U.S. growing war threats to Iraq seems
to be moving on a one line that shows an utter abhorrence to military
aggression against any country without justified causes.
But the stance is understood to be religiously motivated in this small
The Church teaches that for a war to be "just", the use of military force
should meet rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.
It also says that all other means must first be exhausted, and that the type
of force used must be proportionate to the wrong it tries to rectify.
The Vatican clearly does not consider that America's planned offensive to
topple Saddam Hussein meets the conditions of a "just war" laid down by the
Roman Catholic Church, opined a BBC analyst.
The pontiff appears to be signaling the start of a new diplomatic rift with
the US - a repeat of the one which broke out over the Gulf War in 1991,
analysts say.
During the Gulf War, relations between the Vatican and the U.S. were strained
because the Pope refused to state unequivocally that the conflict was a "just"
However, the Pope also appeared keen to strike a note of optimism in this, the
25th New Year address of his pontificate.
"Everything can change. It depends on each of us. Everyone can develop within
himself his potential for faith, for honesty, for respect of others and for
commitment to the service of others," he said.[8]


 * --

Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at[9]
Meet Singles[10]

  4. javascript:popupImage(646);
  5. javascript:popupImage(646);

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]