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:


FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from