WAR IN IRAQ

Political opinion is influenced by relatively small numbers of determined people. Do you know, for example, that many newspapers and radio programmes receive as few as thirty letters a day for their correspondence columns? Local papers and radio stations are especially easy to reach. Likewise, it does not take too many letters to make an M.P. sit up and take notice. There are also some other key people who are not much in the public eye but who wield a great deal of influence with their masters - the general secretaries, treasurers and chairs of the political parties. No doubt you can think of others. If, like us, you are against this war with or rather the war on Iraq, then please write to a few such people. Their addresses are easy to find. For example, House of Commons, London SW1 will find any M.P. (YOU CAN EVEN EMAIL MOST OF THEM!) Please also forward this information and your feelings to as many friends as you can. Below are some of the arguments against this war on Iraq. Feel free to use any you like, preferably by putting them into your own words. If you are in favour of the war, we respect your views (Metta certainly holds no brief for Saddam Hussein) but we shall have to agree to differ. This is no time for keeping quiet! WHY WE SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ OR NORTH KOREA We have all been brought up to believe that if two opposing nations have weapons of mass destruction, they won't go to war with each other, for fear of the consequences. Policies based on this belief appear to have worked. Now we are asked to believe the exact opposite, that if Iraq or North Korea acquire such weapons, war must follow. What it really means, of course, is that the USA or the UK would no longer be able to go to war against them with impunity. Clearly, they (I no longer count myself as part of the alien forces which have taken over my country) want to get in there while they still can. Why? Greed for other people's resources and the need for an external enemy to encourage their voters to keep them in office - motives of imperialists and bullies throughout history.
The USA and the UK have vastly greater fire power, much of which can be delivered by remote control, thus minimising their losses whilst maximising those of the so called enemy. It is claimed that this can be done so accurately that civilians are not affected. However, we already have the evidence of what actually happens when such weapons are used: 1. Certainly, much of the damage is inflicted on buildings and installations. However, the idea that destroying power stations, water supplies or pharmaceutical factories does not affect innocent civilians is one which would make Dr Goebbels blush. 2. The weapons have often missed their targets and wreaked havoc in civilian areas, too. Some of the misses were because the weapons didn't always work as intended and some were due to human error, or even malice. None of these factors can be eliminated. 3. Catastrophic and indiscriminate long-term poisoning of all parties (including the attacking troops) by chemicals released as a "side-effect" of the munitions. 4. Similar effects on buildings, farmland and the whole environment would result. The experience of recent history shows that regimes such as those in Iraq or North Korea eventually collapse of their own accord. This may be because resources are simply too limited to sustain them, or because the populations see the attractions of other ways of life. Even the mighty China is changing. Therefore, the more the West encourages contact and communication with such countries, and behaves generously towards their ordinary citizens, the greater the chances of this happening. Better spend the war chest on free medical supplies, sporting and cultural exchanges, tourism, open communications (and I don't mean The Voice of America). Of course, we cannot guarantee that they will choose our way of life, but that's democracy for you!
The opinion of many, if not most, of those with intimate knowledge of the Middle East is that an attack on Iraq would bring about the collapse of other governments in the region, and their replacement by extremists. Those holding this view include senior military commanders, diplomats and spies - some of whom held top positions during the Gulf War and none of whom could be called ill-informed, naive, subversive or crazy. It was the USA and the UK (among others) which supplied Saddam Hussein with the means to make chemical, biological and other weapons, when they thought that he would advance their interests. They can hardly now complain if he has such weapons. Even when he used them against his own people, they did NOT complain at the time, but only later, when their friend had become their enemy. They must share the blame with Saddam for what happened to the Kurds and other minorities in Iraq. Of course, there are numerous similar cases in countries throughout the world, with dictators and known psychopaths armed by the very people who now want to invade Iraq and North Korea. There is more. We are told that action in Iraq is justified because they are breaking a UN resolution. Does that mean that America and the UK will also be going to war with other countries that break such resolutions - such as Israel, in its long-standing illegal occupation of parts of Palestine? And why is America the only country to refuse to sign the international treaty banning chemical and biological weapons - and to refuse to allow international inspections on its own soil - not to mention pulling out of the anti ballistic missile treaty? Also, given Iraq's past is it not obvious to him and his "team" that should Iraq attack ANY country his power in Iraq would cease in a very short time! Iraq knows that if it attacked the west or any country in alliance with the west it would be stopped. Pre-emptive attack is not the answer and highlights the double standards of the US/UK governments. Beyond the immediate rights and wrongs of the impending war lies the fundamental issue of who governs this country. Is it to be the government of the USA; the purveyors of the insidious Newspeak with which we are daily bombarded; the unelected and almost unaccountable directors of international arms and petroleum companies; or the British people, through their elected representatives? At the moment, it is clearly not the latter. It should be - the others were not on the ballot paper. Now it seems that they are determined to take us to war without either declaring it or allowing a vote in parliament. It is also perhaps important to remember that what happened on Sep 11 in the US has nothing to do with Iraq. We have recently seen an increase in political speeches telling us that we should be more moral, or more ethical. At the same time, our leaders' behaviour is ever less so. This should not surprise us, since politics is now largely a branch of the marketing industry, and "leadership" little more than public relations. In the matter of the impending war, their doubletalk is up there with that of Mr Milosovic - whereas his "ethnic cleansing" meant genocide, their "liberation" means being taken over by Mr Bush and his crooked friends.* However, we are not consumers of government policies or actions - we are the owners of the outfit and, if we don't like them, we can sack the staff. * (Quite apart from Enron et al, almost all the top figures in the U.S. administration have big interests in the international oil industry, whereas Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world - Strange, that...) Much rhetoric surrounds the war and most people can see beyond it, it is not about supporting the good or the bad, it is about the value of human life. The people of the world should not be the servants of politicians and dictators, rather they are the servants of the people. Posted Jan 2003 PLEASE CONTACT ANYONE YOU FEEL MIGHT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON THOSE IN POWER OR EVEN CONTACT THOSE WHO ARE IN POWER! WRITE TO YOUR MP - AT House of Commons London SW1 YOU CAN FIND OUT YOUR MP's NAME HERE (YOU CAN EVEN EMAIL MOST OF THEM!) An alphabetical list of all MP's can be found here See also United Nations Statement/Briefing You can also post your comments on this page or your thoughts to the Discussion Forum at Metta The current death toll:650,000+ Iraqi civilians (so called collateral) and around 3600 US/UK military personnel and appointed non Iraqi "civilian" staff/workers. These figures no not include those individuals who have had limbs blown off, been blinded, disfigured and "otherwise" damaged by the US/UK attack and occupation of Iraq. The 3600 figure does it include those US/UK injured. As they are "technically" still alive. But one estimate puts the total figure on both sides at around 1.5 million seriously injured.

WAR IN IRAQ When the power of love overcomes the love of power there will be peace in the world.

WAR IN IRAQ
When the power of love overcomes the love of power there will be peace in the world.