If you oppose the war on Iraq, make your voice heard...

Sign the emergency petition to the U.N.

Dear friend,

I'm hoping you can join me on an emergency petition from
citizens around the world to the U.N. Security Council. The
petition's going to be delivered to the 15 member states of
the Security Council on THURSDAY, MARCH 6.

If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormously
important and powerful message -- people from all over the
world joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. But
we really need everyone who agrees to sign up today. You can
do so easily and quickly at:

http://www.moveon.org/emergency/

The stakes couldn't really be much higher. A war with Iraq
could kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and inflame
the Middle East. According to current plans, it would require
an American occupation of the country for years to come. And
it could escalate in ways that are horrifying to imagine.

We can stop this tragedy from unfolding. But we need to speak
together, and we need to do so now. Let's show the Security
Council what world citizens think.

Thank you.

Do you really think that this is going to do anything? Or are you really naive enough to think that a list of names is going to stop Bush from doing what he has his mind set on. The marching didn't stop anything. Did it?

Oh, so let's get an online petition! Online petitions have way more credibility than MILLIONS OF PEOPLE MARCHING THROUGH CAPITAL CITIES OF THE WORLD AGAINST WAR. If marching didn't have the power to change the tide and online petition certainly will!

COMENEYAYHAW!

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

It's the gesture that counts, in the end!

Whether or not the war is averted, at least you can say that you did something to try and prevent what will surely unfold to be a total disaster.

Who knows if it will make any difference in Bush's mind. At the very least, it will put pressure on Bush and the U.N. by making him aware of the fact that the consensus of world opinion stands against him!

Incidentally, over 500,000 people from over 20 countries worldwide have already signed the petition. The date for submitting the petition has been extended, so there is still time, if you want, to add your name to it!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the UN does not even read these petitions so signing them are a waste of time except for the fact some people seem to feel better if they do… anyone who wants to voice their opinion should spend their time writing personal letters to their own representatives…

__________________

Or marching. Apparently that works.

I disagree. It's the result that counts, more often than not.


See, that's the attitude that irks me. I can take the view that says "I dunno what's gonna happen, but I don't think it's a good idea." But "surely unfold to be a total disaster"? Must be nice to have the situation so figured out.


"Pressure on Bush"? It'll put about as much pressure on Dubya as the local wave pool will on Red October.

He's well aware of what the various peoples of the world think of his policies. He is, after all, The President of the United States. I think he, ya' know, reads the newspaper and stuff.

I think this about covers it......

"Of course the people dont want war...that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering

__________________
******"The Majority Is Always Wrong" Steve Mcqueen in Enemy Of The People******

Or... we could get rid of a ruthless dictator who has been deceiving the United Nations for the past 12 years by not holding up his end of a deal that he agreed to. He's got chemical, biological, and wants nuclear weapons.

The problem with the left in America is that you guys really aren't anti-war. Hell, if Clinton had proposed this, you would have been all for it. What you really are is anti-Bush. And while I'm not taking away your opinion to be anti-Bush, at least admit that's what you really are.

Hussein has killed his own people. He has poisoned thousands of Kurds. And he is playing the entire world for fools. It's about time somebody did something about it.

__________________
<--junger-->

"Chances are, if your parents didn't have any kids, then you won't either."

Caitlyn: How do you know the UN never reads the petitions? Anyway, even if they don't read the petitions, at least they become aware of the fact that so many thousands (if not millions) of people don't want this war.

Silver Bullet: Sure, the marches make a big impact. I'm all for the anti-war demonstrations. When a million or so people crowded the capital and peacefully voiced protest against war in Iraq, it made a huge impact worldwide! It sure made a massive impact on me!

Yoda: Your words seem rather cynical, for a Jedi master!

Deckard: Right on, bro! You hit the nail on the head!

Jungerpants: I agree that Saddam is a brutal dictator who ought to be dealt with. However: a) Is war necessary? Are there not diplomatic and other measures that could be taken short of going to war? Shouldn't war be a last resort? b) If the US takes on Saddam Hussein without provocation, is it proclaiming itself as the police force of the world? Is this a new era of imperialism on the part of the US? All imperialists begin with the claim that they are intervening on a sovereign nation to police it. After Iraq, what next? There are any number of petty despots all over the world. Is the US going to take them all on? Why Iraq, apart from the fact that Bush seems to have a personal vendetta against Hussein? There hasn't even been a convincing case made for a connection between Hussein and Bin Laden! And consider this fact: Osama bin Laden is, very probably, currently hiding out in Pakistan. Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 9/11 masterminds, was recently captured in Pakistan--which is another brutal Islamic dictatorship currently (and in the past) sponsoring Al Quaeda militancy and terrorism against India in the Kashmir province. Yet, the US has close diplomatic ties with its despotic regime--a country that harbors Al Quaeda terrorists, including Bin Laden (very probably) even today! On the other hand, Iraq has no connection with 9/11! Why is Bush declaring war with Iraq while buddying up with Pakistan--a nation currently harboring Al Quaeda terrorists? Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical? It seems to me that Bush's campaign against Iraq is motivated by: a) A personal vendetta for Saddam Hussein; b) Oil money; c) A desire to distract the public from domestic problems, e.g. the economy; d) A desire to capitalize on the anti-Arab sentiment prevalent in the US following 9/11; e) Arms money. If you can't see through Bush's game, you really need to look more closely at what he is up to. He claims to be acting in the interest of domestic security. If domestic security is his concern, he should be devoting his resources to cracking terrorist cells worldwide and addressing the North Korea situation. By targeting Iraq, Bush is obviously acting out of personal political interests, with NO REGARD for national security!!! Think about that!

Basically, Bush is rationalizing an armed incursion into Iraq, claiming that he is acting in the interests of national security. If national security REALLY WAS his concern, ask yourself--would he be wasting his time fighting Iraq? Would he be wasting all those resources, all that time, over Iraq? Wouldn't he be tackling terrorist cells worldwide? Wouldn't he be addressing the North Korea situation? Wouldn't he be taking a tougher stance against Pakistan? Wouldn't he be trying to do something about the economy? All these scenarios pose a much greater IMMINENT THREAT to US national security. By going after Iraq while ignoring all these MUCH BIGGER THREATS TO US NATIONAL SECURITY, Bush is clearly demonstrating that US national security is the last thing on his mind! He is clearly acting out of personal political and commercial interests!

Too bad that you have about as much say on whether or not we go to war as my kettle does.

The United States has always had imperialist tendencies, but I think the Iraq issue is separate from that. We could run down the list of dictators & right-wing regimes the U.S. has installed, or we can look at this as a good step to righting the wrongs she's commited. You say 'without provocation', but think about that: Hussein (much like America) has spit in the face of the U.N. for years. He oppresses the civilian population of his country & it took the threat of force for him to even allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. The bottom line is that Hussein is a threat, not just to the U.S. but to surrounding countries and his own people. It's a very basic thing really. If he's left in power, he poses a threat. If he's removed, everyone is better off.

All your reasons could be right. But what you're basically saying is that since Bush's intentions are shady, Iraq shouldn't be attacked & Saddam Hussein should stay in power. Sorry, but I don't see it that way. We can worry about what the President is planning after the Iraq threat is removed. The problem with the left is that we're (yes, I do usually align myself with the left) more concerned with subverting what the right wants, rather than what's important. What it comes down to is that Clinton was a terrible president in the area of foreign policy, something the left has denied for the past 4 years, whereas with Bush we at least know where we stand. You talk about waging war for personal interests? I don't hear you talking about Clinton's nonstop mid-90s bombings.

Also, do you think it's possible that a reason Sheikh Mohammed was caught is because of that cooperation with Pakistan? I'm not one to support diplomacy with evil regimes, but a major terrorist was caught, right?

All this ax-grinding is covering up a major point that needs to be made: Nobody knows what Saddam Hussein will do. If history is any indication, whatever it is won't be good. Iraq (along with Israel and Turkey) have slighted the U.N. for years, & Hussein's removal is just one step toward fixing things, not just in the middle east, but in the world.

I suggest you read The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack, it offers an excellent case for war without any propaganda.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Personally, instead of hearing the voice of hundreds of people from around the world who have never spent one night in Iraq much less actually know what is going on there, I would like to hear the voice of the Iraqi people without fear of punishment for their opinion…

Silver Bullet: Your words belie your apathy with regard to world events. Maybe I don't have a direct say on whether or not the US goes to war--but I do have the right to express my opinion with regard to the war. And my opinion is this--it stinks! Bush stinks! He strikes me as being a dishonest opportunist with no regard for the real concerns of his own country! That's my opinion, and I have the right to express it!

Steve: I really don't see what business the US has in pursuing war against Hussein! There is no proven connection between him and 9/11! Besides, the US has many more pressing concerns it should be worrying about rather than going to war against Iraq! This war strikes me as being not only totally without provocation but, in addition, a major error in judgment on the part of the administration. The cost of this war could break an already fragile US economy and, in addition, provoke a whole new tide of terrorism against the US!

Regarding Pakistan--any 'cooperation' on their part is two-faced, because they are harboring and sponsoring the very terrorists that they claim to be aiding in the capture of, if that is what they are doing.

You can't go to war based on speculation. Sure, nobody knows what Saddam might do in the future--but is that enough of a justification for war? Especially when the US is faced with any number of other much more imminent threats to its security? Does it make sense to ignore these other imminent threats and pursue a purely speculative threat?

Caitlyn: Whatever the stated UN policy might be regarding petitions, I still think that a petition makes an impact. The UN may not read the petition, but, like a demonstration, a petition is a way for ordinary citizens to express themselves on issues concerning them and to put pressure on statesmen who otherwise seem to think that they live and operate in a world completely detached from the concerns of everyday people. I endorse any such activity taken on by the average citizenry if it means putting pressure on the bureaucrats and politicians in the UN. Regarding your second point--before the US worries about instituting democracy in Iraq, shouldn't it be worried about preserving democracy at home??? I mean look at what's going on here--the economy is in a terrible state, terrorism is on the rise, North Korea is arming itself--with all these other threats to democracy, shouldn't the US be more concerned about preserving democracy domestically before going to war abroad to fight for democracy? What might happen is that the US will probably topple Saddam, leading to total anarchy in that country, with any number of militia groups rising to power--kind of like Lebabon or Bosnia. Without Saddam's dictatorial control over the nation, carnage and mayhem, not democracy, will flourish. Furthermore, the cost of war will probably prove to be such a burden to the fragile US economy, that it will most likely break under the strain and result in a major economic depression. Is all this worth it, in the end? Bush's attitude is not only hard-headed, it is totally unrealistic and completely insane! His stubborn pursuit for war with Iraq strikes me as an act of desperation on his part. He has so many problems to deal with that, it seems to me, his only escape is this war--it is the only way for him to save face in the prospect of a major political debacle for him. But even that, it seems to me, is backfiring badly.

Why am I opposed to the US war against Iraq, you might ask. Well, I, personally, oppose this war because I believe in freedom and democracy and because Bush's stance with respect to the Iraq war strikes me as totally hypocritical.

Bush claims to be acting in the interest of US national security, yet his actions are jeopardizing US security more than anything else. He is ignoring any number of immediate threats to US security while pursuing a far-fetched, speculative threat which has yet to be properly proven and established.

Bush claims to be acting in defense of freedom and democracy, yet his administration is pursuing policies that undermine domestic freedom and democracy more than anything else, esp. the civil liberties of minorities and the privacy rights of citizens. To say nothing of the fact that his actions are seriously jeopardizing US democracy in that he is ignoring the real threats to democracy at home--a fragile economy, terrorism, N. Korea, etc., while pursuing a non-existent threat in Iraq. Furthermore, his administration is actively cooperating with tyrannical military regimes abroad, such as the one in Pakistan, which is actively harboring and sponsoring Al Quaeda terrorsists within its borders.

So, in short, this whole war is absurd. Bush is pursuing his agenda to such ridiculous extremes that he is seriously threatening US national security and global stability.

Okay, so, Steve, you admit that the US has "imperialistic tendencies". Now if that is the case, how can it claim to be acting in defense of freedom and democracy? Can imperialism be coexistent with freedom and democracy? Are they the same thing? The Iraq issue has little, if anything, to do with freedom and democracy, or with righting past wrongs. It has everything to do with politics and commerce and, perhaps, even imperialism of a sort.

Django:
Sorry, I don't have quite the time to read all of the other posts in this thread, so if you've already argued a point that I bring up, my apologies. But let's get on.

First off: It is very apparent that you are anti-Bush. So please, for the record, state that you are anti-Bush. While I'm not condemning people being anti-Bush, I lose a lot of respect for your argument because you show a "personal" vendetta against him. You don't have to like him, but let's try and argue without the facts and not your opinion about our president.

This statement sounds very similar to what a lot of people said about Hitler during before the US got involved in WW2. And yes, there are plenty of measures that can be taken, and we have tried and are still trying. UN inspectors tried to check up on Hussein in the 90s, but he kicked them out. We sent them in again, but he wants to know exactly where they are going and when. The US has played by the rules with the UN Security Council since last fall.

For the past 12 years, Hussein has not held up to his end of Resolution 1441. We need him to do it. He's not, what other choice do we have? Wait another 12 years? By then, he'll have nuclear weapons and will use them. Now's the time to go in there and flush him out. War is always the last option. And, unfortunately, it's time is now.

Let me ask you a simple question: Do you know of any country that is stronger than the United States? I doubt it, because there isn't one. People come to us for help because we can help. We are the most powerful nation in the world. In order to maintain national and international security, Hussein has got to go. When we liberate Iraq, the people will thank us. Just like the people of Panama did after we liberated them from Manuel Noriega.

Saddam Hussein agreed to a deal. He is not holding up his end of the bargain. He is still producing, hiding, and using illegal weapons. This has nothing to do with UBL. This has to do with Saddam Hussein.

You're completely ignoring what Steve is getting at, which is simple: it doesn't matter who screwed up unless you're more concerned with playing the blame game than fixing the problem.

It hasn't occurred to you that maybe there are non-violent solutions to other problems? Iraq has shown itself unreasonable and unwilling to comply. North Korea, on the other hand, rather resembles the Soviet Union. We appealed to their civil rights record in negotiations and "won" the cold war without firing so much as a shot. It's quite plausible that the aim is to take a diplomatic approach in regards to North Korea.

Apparently, if Bush is going to target Iraq, he suddenly must apply that decision to all other countries we have problems with? Balderdash. Each situation is unique. Some can be reasoned with, and some, perhaps, cannot. Some are powerful enough that it'd be wiser to compromise than risk that level of warfare. Frankly, I don't see where this "all or nothing" mentality comes from.

That said, you say this is a greater "IMMINENT" threat, and you may be right; but it's the President's job to decide whether risking a small imminent threat now is better than dealing with a large imminent threat later.

Okay, Yoda, you made a number of very interesting points. However, I don't have the time to go through all that you said right now. I will address each of your points in detail later, when I do find the time (and believe me, you'll be sorry I did!)

A couple of things, though: yes, I am anti-Bush, but only against his policies, nothing personal. I don't dislike Bush as a person. I do, however, completely disagree with his policies, on Iraq, on the economy and on a number of other issues.

Secondly, I disagree with your comparison between Saddam Hussein and Hitler. This is a completely invalid comparison. Agreed that Hussein, like Hitler, is a brutal madman. However, that's where the resemblance pretty much ends. Hussein is not out to conquer Europe and the world, like Hitler. Hussein is just a petty despot, one of many brutal tyrants in the Islamic world. A comparison between Hussein and Stalin is likewise invalid--Stalin controlled Soviet Russia, an imperialist super-power in its day. Hussein only controls a relatively small mid-Eastern nation. Aside from the oil reserves, he has not much else in terms of infrastructure.