Sept. 11




Mail to:
Greg Moses

Nonviolence USA:

A website for scholarship
in the theory and practice of nonviolence
in the USA.

NVUSA Global Hotspot:

Return to Global Index

Resources for nonviolent approaches to global conflicts.

Feb. 15 Demonstrations to Stop the War

Hot Spot! Iraq
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

  • Disarmament is Deception: The New Logic of Perpetual War; Plus!; Secret Rather Mission Revealed: Bush v. Hussein in Survivor Desert Edition
    gmoses (Feb. 27, 2003) NVUSA

    Just hours ago President Bush warned the world that an Iraqi regime decision to destroy its own missiles will not count as evidence of disarmament. The US President claims that he will view such disarmament as deception....

    So I was excited to hear a rumor that Dan Rather's mission to Iraq was not quite what it seemed to be. According to sources that I cannot name, Rather was really in Iraq to negotiate an exclusive contract with Saddam Hussein to join President George W Bush in a special episode of Survivor!...

  • Activists hold 'virtual march' on Washington
    (Feb. 27, 2003) CNN

    By day's end, Win Without War national director Tom Andrews said the number of calls and faxes exceeded 1 million. So many calls were received for the virtual anti-war protest that the Capitol's phone system jammed at one point, impeding calls to Democrat and Republican senate offices. No official estimates of calls could be obtained, but several senators reported increased call volumes.

  • Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
    Joyce Battle (Feb. 25, 2003) National Security Archive

    The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

  • Non-aligned nations lash out
    AFP (Feb. 25, 2003) Herald Sun

    Mr Annan spoke after Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Western powers were using terrorism as a pretext to conquer the world and would target Iran and North Korea next.

    Leaders of the developed countries had become "like a people of the Stone Age where for them, the solution to a problem is by killing people," he told more than 100,000 Malaysians at a peace rally on the sidelines of the conference.

    An impassioned Dr Mahathir slammed rich nations for their "double standards", saying they criticised developing countries on human rights issues but ignored the growing worldwide protest against a war in Iraq.

  • Historic peace movement against U.S. war in Iraq
    Mark Shields (Feb. 24, 2003) CNN

    To argue that the United States will soon have 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf and therefore the nation must go to war or risk losing face (with whom, we are not told) is indefensible. Remind me again: Just who were the presidential cowards who did not bomb the Soviet Union over Berlin or over Korea or over Cuba or over Czechoslovakia? Going to war because somehow you might be embarrassed if you didn't is insanity.

  • A second resolution is not enough
    Tariq Ali (Feb. 21, 2003) Guardian

    If the security council allows the invasion and occupation of Iraq either by a second resolution or by accepting that the first was sufficient to justify war as a last resort, then the UN, too, will die. It is necessary to insist that UN-backed war would be as immoral and unjust as the one being plotted in the Pentagon - because it will be the same war.

  • Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'
    Mark Phillips (Feb. 20, 2003) CBS

    In fact, the U.S. claim that Iraq is developing missiles that could hit its neighbors – or U.S. troops in the region, or even Israel – is just one of the claims coming from Washington that inspectors here are finding increasingly unbelievable. The inspectors have become so frustrated trying to chase down unspecific or ambiguous U.S. leads that they've begun to express that anger privately in no uncertain terms.

  • Human rights in Iraq - what about the people?
    Petition (Feb. 20, 2003) Amnesty International

    The population of Iraq is in imminent danger of a human rights and humanitarian catastrophe. Military action could trigger a disaster for the people of Iraq and surrounding countries.

    Sign our petition, calling on the President of the UN Security Council to consider seriously the civilian population of Iraq.

  • Next Stop: UN Security Council
    Francis Boyle (Feb. 19, 2003) via email

    We must NEVER give up. I remember fighting Reagan/Bush Sr. to prevent their invasion of Nicaragua. We all fought like hell. It looked desperate. 200,000 people had signed the Pledge of Resistance. In response, Reagan instructed Oliver North to draft an Executive Order that would put us all under martial law---i was serving as Counsel to the Pledge at the time. and i also remember being at a cocktail party in Nicaragua where they toasted our imminent incarceration. Kind of strange to drink a toast to your own jailing. but we averted that war. we can do the same here. obviously, Bush Jr is desperate to get that second Security Council Resolution no matter what it says. So we must all concentrate on those SC Member States to vote no or abstain. He will need 9 affirmative votes and no negatives from Russia, China, and France. Despite what Chirac is saying, Mitterrand sold Iraq out the last time. So France could always abstain. The French Foreign Minister just hinted as much yesterday. So assuming that Russia, China and France abstain, Bush still must round up 7 more votes besides himself and his pet poodle Blair. These are the directions in which we must all concentrate our efforts. fab.

  • Once high, Arab hopes for Bush fall
    Philip Smucker (Feb. 19, 2003) CSMonitor

    'But there is a now a perception that Bush does not understand the region at all. You will hear leader after leader now talk of the potential catastrophe that looms because of Bush's policies,' says Zogby.

  • How the UN Can Stop the War: Uniting for Peace via Resolution 377
    Michael Ratner & Jules Lobel (Feb. ?, 2003) Center for Constitutional Rights

    The Uniting for Peace resolution procedure has been used ten times since 1950. Its first use was by the United States. After Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 Britain and France attacked and occupied parts of the canal. Cease-fire resolutions in the Security Council were quickly vetoed by Britain and France. The United States went to the General Assembly calling for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. An emergency session was held under the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution; the U.S. resolution and subsequently an even stronger resolution passed the General Assembly. In the face of these resolutions it took less then a week for Britain and France to withdraw.

    Uniting for Peace was next used by the United States to pressure the Soviet Union to cease its intervention in Hungary in 1956. The Soviet Union had used its veto to prevent the passage of an anti-intervention resolution in the Security Council. Again, an emergency session of the General Assembly was held and the Soviet Union was ordered to stop its intervention in Hungary.

    In the current impasse over Iraq in the Security Council, Uniting for Peace can and should be used. The General Assembly should consider taking action with regard to the threat to the peace posed by U.S. military action against Iraq taken without U.N. authority. It could require that no military action be taken against Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security Council. It could mandate that the inspection regime be permitted to complete its inspections. It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would ignore such a measure. A vote by the majority of countries in the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush to war more difficult.

    Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly. This gives those who oppose unilateral war a real opportunity for activism. People everywhere in the world can lobby their governments to bring on such a resolution. This effort can become a worldwide effort to, as the UN Charter so eloquently states, 'save succeeding generations form the scourge of war.'

  • Central Mexico Joins World Wide Anti War Protests
    Cliff DuRannd (Feb. 16, 2003) via email

    Arthur Silvers, founder of the San Miguel Peace Center, told the crowd that Bush can either choose war, making the U.S. 'a pariah in the world', or let the inspections go forth and then declare victory, taking credit for what they accomplished, and bring the troops home. 'If you do the latter, Mr. President, there would be celebrations and joy around the world,' he said. 'And then,' he added, 'remember to return the civil rights and liberties that have been taken from your citizens.'

  • Marist panel: War is not only option
    Nik Bonopartis (Feb. 14, 2003) Poughkeepsie Journal

    Moses called the U.S. military plans a ''vigilante blitzkrieg'' that is the tool of an American government looking to enforce international law without an international mandate.

  • NVUSA Special: Straight Talk About US Arms Inspections in Iraq
    Scott Ritter (Jan. 31, 2003) NVUSA

    We have an obligation as Americans to insure that we the people of the United States of America exhaust every means possible short of war before going to war. Because war is not a solution, war is nothing but death and destruction. We need to think about that....

    Yes, of course Iraq is a modern industrial state, and yes, of course you can posit any scenario in which Iraq might be able to produce laboratory quantities of material in a small room in a back area. But weapons of mass destruction that threaten nations, that are viable, are not produced in a basement, or in a cave, they are produced in modern industrial facilities. And as long as weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their job, there was no way Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. You will not find a single United Nations document that states that "since 1995 Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction." In fact if you go through the United Nations documentation, what you will see is that the United Nations did a tremendous job of destroying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. There is much unaccounted for of concern. But it's just that-an accounting problem. It doesn't mean that Iraq maintains this capability.

    So therefore, if we are focused on mitigating the potential threat posed by Iraq, we shouldn't be talking about going to war, we should be talking about supporting the continued work of weapons inspectors.

  • France-Germany Hatching a Plan
    Emma Thomasson (Feb. 8, 2003) Reuters via Truthout

    Germany and France are working on a new plan to try to avert war in Iraq that would compel Baghdad to admit thousands of U.N. troops to enforce disarmament and tighter sanctions, a magazine said on Saturday.

  • The One-Minute Case Against War
    Greg Moses (Feb. 7, 2003) NVUSA

    Either you believe Powell's sources or you don't. Either way, the case for blitzkrieg crumbles.

    If you believe the sources are incredible, then the USA has yet to make its case that Iraq is armed and dangerous.

    If you believe the sources are credible, then you are sharing but a glimpse of the comprehensive resources available to USA intelligence. With resources such as these, the USA and its allies are quite capable of further deterring and containing what is already the most contained regime in history.

    So whether you believe Powell's sources or not, the conclusion follows: no blitzkrieg in our name.

  • Polls: Powell’s Speech Effective
    Staff Report (Feb. 7, 2003) NewsMax

    In its key finding, the Post Poll indicated that 61 percent now believe that the administration has made the case for invasion -- up from 54 percent in a poll conducted after the president’s State of the Union address. Furthermore, in this convinced group a majority now support taking action against Iraq within the next few weeks – rather than waiting as some allies have insisted.

  • Powell Presentation: It Was Like Something Out Of Becket
    Robert Fisk (Feb. 6, 2003) via ZNet

    From time to time, the words "Iraq: Failing To Disarm – Denial and Deception" appeared on the giant video screen behind General Powell. Was this a CNN logo, some of us wondered? But no, it was CNN's sister channel, the US Department of State.

  • Britain's Intelligence Dossier on Iraq was Plagiarized from a Grad Student
    Michael C. Ruppert (Feb. 6, 2003) fromthewilderness.com

    Feb. 6, 2003, 2230 hrs, PST, (FTW) - A story is sweeping the world tonight and it says a great deal about those who are forcing the world into a war it does not want. The famed dossier presented by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to his Parliament was plagiarized from two articles and a September 2002 research paper submitted by a graduate student. Worse, the Iraq described by the graduate student is not the Iraq of 2003 but the Iraq of 1991. So glaring was the theft of intellectual property that the official British document even cut and pasted whole verbatim segments of the research paper, including grammatical errors, and presented the findings as the result of intense work by British intelligence services.

    U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell both praised and quoted that same British report in his presentation at the United Nations yesterday.

    It is important that readers see and understand the enormity of this violation of public trust for themselves. The story was first broken by Britain's Channel 4 today and it is appearing in more papers and web sites by the hour. The following links lead directly to the Channel 4 story, to the British "intelligence" report and to the original student paper.

  • THE REAL REASONS FOR THE UPCOMING WAR IN IRAQ: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
    W. Clark (Feb. 3, 2003) rense.com

    Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking - it an an oil CURRENCY war. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the "petro-dollar" and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

    Press Release (Jan. 30, 2003) FORUSA

    War is hell. That hell is not being forced on us. Our policies are making it more likely.

  • STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH: A Deconstruction
    David M. Boje, Ph.D (Jan. 28, 2003) PeaceAware

    I believe it is our responsibility as academics to deconstruct the rhetoric of the war machine. I am a Vietnam veteran. I experienced the results of presidential war rhetoric. I watched the body bags be landed by helicopter on stacked on the airstrip in Saigon. I am not willing to suspend disbelief and watch more bodies accumulate.

    The purpose of my analysis is to demonstrate that there are many available resources with which to deconstruct President Bush’s declaration of war on Iraq. I believe there are excellent alternatives to war. The President’s State of the Union address presents a rationale for the nation’s only apparent option, to drop 800 bombs on Iraqi people in the first two days of the assault that is pre-scripted to follow the February 5th presentation by Colin Powell.

  • Counting the Terror before It's Too Late
    Greg Moses (Jan. 12, 2003) NVUSA

    The civilian population of Baghdad is often cited as a strategic obstacle, but I have not yet seen the reporter who asks how many of those civilians will surely be killed. The American plan of attack will not be lived as a map, but as the most mechanized blitzkrieg in history.

    Time is growing short for American civilians to rethink what we are supporting when we support blitzkrieg in Iraq. Given the technology and terrain of the proposed attack on Iraq, there is no way to escape the one fact that is never reported--thousands of civilians will die in terror.

    There have been times in world history when massive slaughters were perpetrated over time and distance. Civilian populations could cry that nobody seemed to notice or that information about the killings was not widely shared. The specter of media intensive blitzkrieg, however, promises slaughter that will be very rapid, announced months in advance.

    As facts and opinions are processed during the next few weeks, it is morally imperative to say how many civilians we are planning to kill and to ask American civilians if this is really the way they want to pursue their legacy in world history.

  • Area residents plan Iraq trip to hinder the onset of war
    Andrea Barrist Stern (Jan. 9, 2003) Woodstock Times

    Greene, 57, has pledged to join two organizations as part of an American presence in Iraq in the face of an imminent war she considers immoral, in violation of the rules of international diplomacy, and even financially unjustified if a principal motive of the Bush administration, as she and some critics of the war believe, is to gain control of Iraqi oil reserves. "We need to be putting our resources in renewables at home, not into war in Iraq," says the former long-time recycling coordinator for Ulster County, who is also one of the founders of the Hudson Valley Sustainable Communities Network.

  • Call to Conscience From Veterans to Active Duty Troops and Reservists
    (Date?) CalltoConscience

    If the people of the world are ever to be free, there must come a time when being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being the soldier of a nation. Now is that time. When orders come to ship out, your response will profoundly impact the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and here at home. Your response will help set the course of our future. You will have choices all along the way. Your commanders want you to obey. We urge you to think. We urge you to make your choices based on your conscience. If you choose to resist, we will support you and stand with you because we have come to understand that our REAL duty is to the people of the world and to our common future.

Hot Spot! Iraq
Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sept. 11
gMoses Academic Home
American Nonviolence Syllabus
Mail to: Greg Moses