Opposing an Unjust War

The question I have been asking myself and everyone should be asking is, "why would our government continue to pursue a policy of aggression against Iraq using lies, unsubstantiated facts and erroneous arguments to justify war?" The president and his aides seem content to ignore a substantial proportion of the public that opposes this war on moral grounds. It is also comfortable to ignore the majority of Americans who would like to see the United States exhaust diplomacy at the UN and enter war as part of an international coalition-and only as a last resort. Let us analyze these reasons used by the Bush Administration to justify such a war.

The 1st reason for war on Iraq is the supposed ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the implication being that the Iraqi state somehow supported al-Qaeda or at least knew about the planned attacks on the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001. A story emerged shortly after 9-11 of a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, Mohammed Atta (who also flew one of the hijacked planes), meeting with an individual from the Iraqi secret intelligence service in Prague in April 2001.

The Bush Administration quickly used these allegations to justify the self-defense clause under Article 51 of the United Nations charter to justify the legality of the ensuing war against Iraq. This justification for war was soon put under close scrutiny after French, British, and even Czech intelligence agencies could not independently verify this supposed meeting promoted so heavily by the Bush Administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Indeed, even the president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, was forced to publicly admit that his country was wrong about the supposed meeting after it became clear that evidence could not be produced. [Full Article]

War on Terror or War of Terror?

It is likely that when most Americans hear the Bush Administration rant about preserving national security and decreasing the terrorist threat, they actually expect the President to make some effort to fight terrorism. However, in the Orwellian framework of U.S. political discourse, unprovoked American aggression and unwarranted violence are not seen as paths towards increased terrorist attacks on American soil (even when the Bush Administration claims the exact opposite). Sound a little confusing? It should. But this is exactly what many Americans have come to expect from such an inconsistent and dishonest administration.

The Bush Administration has even recently released warnings that terrorist attacks on America may be looming overhead as a result of the push for war. According to a story printed in the New York Times, the Bush Administration has admitted that terrorist groups have vowed to carry out strikes in the United States in the event of an American war against Iraq. The Homeland Security Department Secretary, Tom Ridge, stated, "I think we can anticipate more threats, because of a potential invasion - I mean, it's fairly predictable. The New York Times further elaborated upon the Administration, claiming that terror groups hoped to time a major attack to the beginning of an American military campaign against Iraq. The reality of the Administration's claims has left Americans (at least those who critically follow the news) with a legitimate question: why should Americans support a war on Iraq, when even the Bush Administration admits that as a result, Americans will be less safe?

The Bush Administration's main reasons for war are being dismantled under the supervision of Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix. It would be rather na•ve, after all, to assume that Iraq has the power to attack the U.S. when U.N. inspectors are busy destroying what little is left of Saddam's weapons. [Full Article]

Against War with Iraq: An Anti-War Primer

Reviewed by Anthony DiMaggio

The American Center For Constitutional Rights, in conjunction with Seven Stories Press, has released the latest in a series of short anti-war pamphlets, entitled, Against War With Iraq. The book presents a combination of arguments against war, composed from the views of authors Michael Ratner, Jennie Green, and Barbara Olshansky. The book should be commended in that it presents a well-balanced range of opinions for and against war with Iraq, while still utilizing evidence and basic logic in arriving at an anti-war position.

Against War With Iraq begins by stating the most lucid reasons for a U.S. war (hint-those that are never presented in the corporate media). According to the authors: "The U.S. push towards war with Iraq stems from longer-term political and economic goals: in particular, control of the state with the second largest oil reserves in the world and the domination of the Middle East, which possesses the world's largest supply of oil." Even larger than control of oil though, the authors emphasize that this new war is a continuation of a doctrine that has been vehemently enforced by the U.S. for the last 100 years, namely the goal of creating and preserving the "role of the United States as the dominating superpower in a unipolar world where no single enemy can militarily challenge it."

Following the reasons presented for war with Iraq, Ratner, Green, and Olshansky elaborate upon the major reasons to oppose such an unjust war. First, the authors argue that such a war is flagrantly illegal under the United Nations Charter, (which the U.S. has ratified) stating, Pre-emptive strikes would violate the terms of the Charter authors emphasize that the intent of Resolution 678 was not "to create a state of permanent war in an entire region," as the Bush Administration has interpreted the Resolution. [Full Article]

The Giver By Lois Lowry

I have to confess that I don't like most science fiction. I also have a hard time enjoying many fantasies although the fantasies that have been able to break through my initial resistance are among my favorite books. It's only that I like Lois Lowry's work so much that I kept reading her book, The Giver, even after I discovered that it was both science fiction and fantasy. I was drawn to it by the cover of the book, which is most intriguing. To find out that Lois designed it herself impressed me.

In the story itself we find a society that seems ideal; everyone has a job for which he or she is suited emotionally, physically and mentally. The elderly are lovingly cared for as are the newest members of this place. Every family has a mother, father, and two children, one of each sex. There is much laughter and obvious joy. There is no rudeness, no crime and no disease.

We see it all through the eyes of Jonas, a young boy about to receive his life's assignment along with others of his age group. To his astonishment he is given the most respected job of all. He is to be trained to become the "Receiver of Memory." In the Utopian society Lowry creates for us, people don't want to be burdened with memories. However, they also don't want to make decisions or changes which in the past, have led to disaster, and wars so they have assigned one person to keep all the memories from history, both their own and that of all old societies. [Full Article]