Thinking
Americans say NO to War!
by
Josh Frank
Dissident Voice
February 27, 2003
Think
how many times over the past month you heard someone from the Bush party rail
Iraq for their misinterpretation of UN Resolution 1441. The argument is the same, with a typical
Dubya stab like, “1441 demanded full and immediate disarmament, not hints of
progress or minor concessions.'' Okay Bush actually did say that, and he may be
right, but if war is the remedy for broken UN Resolutions, we better initiate
the draft.
The media won’t tell you
about the Resolutions our allies have broken.
It’s just better to stick to why we hate our enemies. For example, you think you’d ever hear Rummy
blast Israel for breaking UN Resolution 1435, which calls for the end of
military activities in and around Ramallah-- including the destruction of
security and civilian infrastructure?
Or for Resolution 353 calling on Turkey to respect the sovereignty,
independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus, and for their withdrawal of
foreign troops from that area?
In all, our allies Turkey
and Israel are breaking over 50 UN Resolutions. The US focus on Saddam should
raise questions among any thinking person. What are Bush’s real intentions in
Iraq? Are his true motives to enforce
international law? Is it to disarm
Saddam because he has broken UN Resolution 1441? What do you think?
Using the guise of
international security and the policy power of the United States, Bush has
garnered support for his pre-emptive attack on Iraq. Most say it will start going down in mid-March, after we are in
Baghdad, shooting away. Over 700
missiles are already aimed at the city, and they are soon to be fired. Why then are we not shooting missiles or
dropping bombs on Israel for breaking UN Resolution 1402, which demands that
they withdraw their military from all Palestinian cities?
So what if this isn’t about
breaking resolutions? What if this is about Saddam’s human rights record? That’s touchy for the Bush squad. Especially when his daddy was VP under
Reagan, who in the late 80s supplied Saddam with the gas he used on the
Kurds. Also tough when our ally
Turkey’s human rights violations against Cyprus have been chastised by the
European Commission of Human Rights, and the UN. But team Dubya won’t go there, they need Turkey’s help when the
attack on Baghdad kicks off.
Saddam is a nasty
dictator. But the case has not yet been
made for an attack on Iraq. Bush’s
arguments for war are catchy, but toothless, only meriting skepticism.
Saddam doesn’t have nukes.
The UN says Saddam is complying with most of their demands. Our intelligence tells us if Saddam does
have biological weapons, he will be more apt to use them against Iraqi
civilians and our soldiers. The CIA
also tells us terrorist activity in the US is more likely to increase if we
start hurling our missiles all over Iraq, putting even more Americans at risk.
Bush hasn’t made his
case. Opposing the upcoming attack is
the only thing a thinking person can do.
Josh Frank is
a writer living in Portland, Oregon. He can be reached at: frank_joshua@hotmail.com