NVUSA Home

Bibliography

Sept. 11

Webliography

gMoses
Academic
Home


American
Nonviolence
Syllabus


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.

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

  • Joint Statement in Response to Threat of War with Iraq From the General and Executive Secretaries of Five Quaker Organizations
    (Sept. 24, 2002)
    If ever there were a time for Friends to take action based upon our historic peace testimony, that time is now. We call upon Friends to witness and work to prevent this war, to reverse this new military doctrine, to call upon our governments to implement multilateral, diplomatic responses to the threats posed by the government of Iraq, and to continue developing positive, nonviolent approaches to resolving international conflicts. We know that there are millions of people of good will with whom we can join in this work.

  • Three Retired Four-Star Generals Discourage War with Iraq
    UnderReported.Com (Sept. 24, 2002) NYTimes
    The three [four-star American generals] [in their testimony before the Senate committee], some of whom warned that a war with Iraq could detract from the campaign against terrorism, said the Bush administration must work harder to exhaust diplomatic options before resorting to unilateral military action to oust President Saddam Hussein and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction Iraq may have.

    [...] General Clark warned that attacking Iraq could divert military resources and political commitment to the global effort against Al Qaeda and possibly "supercharge" recruiting for the terrorist network.

  • German Justice Minister Compares Bush to Hitler
    Steve Holland (Sept. 19, 2002) Reuters
    The regional Schwaebisches Tagblatt newspaper quoted German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, as saying "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used."

  • HCON 473 IH: Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the importance of the United States working through the United Nations to assure Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions and advance peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.
    Rep. Barbara Lee (Sept. 19, 2002) D-CA
    Whereas war with Iraq would place the lives of tens of thousands of people at risk, including members of the United States armed forces, Iraqi civilian non-combatants, and civilian populations in neighboring countries;

    Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may undermine cooperative international efforts to reduce international terrorism and to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001;

    Whereas unilateral United States military action against Iraq may also undermine United States diplomatic relations with countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world and with many other allies;

    Whereas a preemptive unilateral United States first strike could both set a dangerous international precedent and significantly weaken the United Nations as an institution; and

    Whereas the short-term and long-term costs of unilateral United States military action against Iraq and subsequent occupation may be significant in terms of United States casualties, the cost to the United States treasury, and harm to United States diplomatic relations with other countries: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the United States should work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.

  • Poll: No Rush To War
    (Sept. 24, 2002) CBS
    Americans want the U.S. to wait and build an international coalition, and follow the recommendations of the United Nations, even though they are not sure the U.N. can make a difference. They want the Congress to ask even more questions about military actions - and most now say it's okay to criticize the president's military decisions. And, contrary to the Administration's arguments, many feel that a new war with Iraq would not lessen the threat of terrorism against the U.S. - if anything, it might increase that threat....

    There are partisan differences. A majority of Democrats thinks members of Congress are not questioning Bush's Iraq policy strongly enough, while as many Republicans say Congress is asking too many questions as say it isn't asking enough.

  • Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation
    Action Alert (Sept. 24, 2002) FAIR
    Suddenly, facts that their own correspondents confirmed three years ago in interviews with top U.S. officials are being recycled as mere allegations coming from Saddam Hussein's regime.

    The UNSCOM team, explained the New York Times' Barbara Crossette in an August 3 story, was replaced "after Mr. Hussein accused the old commission of being an American spy operation and refused to deal with it." She gave no hint that Saddam's "accusation" was reported as fact by her Times colleague, Tim Weiner, in a front-page story three years earlier.

  • Prime Minister's Iraq statement to Parliament
    Hon. Tony Blair (Sept. 24, 2002) Number10
    Introducing the Joint Intelligence Committee dossier on Iraq's WMD programme, Mr Blair said that the intelligence picture they paint is extensive, detailed and authoritative....

    "It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

  • Bush Rebuffs Moves by Germany to Mend Relations
    Steven Erlanger (Sept. 24, 2002) NYTimes
    Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who won narrow re-election on Sunday in part by opposing an American war in Iraq, tried today to patch up relations with Washington, but President Bush broke with protocol and refrained from making the customary congratulatory telephone call to the German leader....

    [Meanwhile, Joschka Fisher, the leader of Germany's Green Party, which helped secure the Chancellor's re-election] said Germany strongly backed full compliance with weapons inspections in Iraq, "unlimited and unrestricted."

    And if Saddam Hussein does not comply? Mr. Fischer stopped and said, "Is that the debate in Washington?"

    With his question, which he did not explain further, Mr. Fischer touched on one of Europe's main concern with the Bush administration's position on Iraq: that the White House wants a war to oust Saddam Hussein, not inspections. Mr. Schroeder criticized this approach during the campaign as "a terrible mistake" and a "change of aims."...

  • Iraq and the War on Terrorism
    Al Gore (Sept. 23, 2002) Truthout
    By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network -- much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine -- of preemption.

  • A Statement of Conscience
    Full Page Ad (Sept. 19, 2002) NYTimes
    We who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together to rise to this challenge. We applaud and support the questioning and protest now going on, even as we recognize the need for much, much more to actually stop this juggernaut. We draw inspiration from the Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare “there IS a limit” and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

    We also draw on the many examples of resistance and conscience from the past of the United States: from those who fought slavery with rebellions and the underground railroad, to those who defied the Vietnam war by refusing orders, resisting the draft, and standing in solidarity with resisters.

    Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.

  • Selling the War on Iraq
    Susan Thompson (Sept. 18, 2002) MoveOn
    The US campaign to launch a major attack on Saddam Hussein has been based on a few common justifications. These include:
    • Saddam is a terrorist.
    • Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
    • Saddam poses a threat to his neighbors.
    • Saddam is in breach of several UN resolutions.
    But each of these common arguments can be persuasively rebutted, and this article does just that. As its author notes, "It is when the warrior class reaches this intemperate, logic-shredding point in its discourse that those opposed to the war know they can win." In other words, marketing can be overcome with facts, and those facts are provided here.

  • The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
    George W. Bush (Sept. 17, 2002) The White House
    We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends.We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.

  • War's Begun: EXCLUSIVE: British jets hit vital Iraqi HQ
    Tom Newton-Dunn (Sept. 17, 2002) Mirror
    British and American warplanes have bombed Iraq's most important air intelligence headquarters.

    The dramatic escalation is seen as the first stage of war with Iraq.

  • Inspectors ready to go back to Iraq
    (Sept. 17, 2002) CNN
    U.N. weapons inspectors say they're ready to go back into Iraq immediately -- now that Baghdad says it will allow them to return "without condition."

  • Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
    Neil Mackay (Sept. 15, 2002) Sunday Herald
    A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

    The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

    The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'...

  • Questions that Won't be Asked about Iraq
    Rep. Ron Paul [R-Tx] (Sept. 11, 2002) AntiWar.Com
    1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

    2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate – which just confirms that there is no real threat?....

  • Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace
    Nelson Mandela (Sept. 10, 2002) Newsweek
    If I am asked, by credible organizations, to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United Nations to mediate. We must understand the seriousness of this situation. The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision [to attack Iraq]. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America. If you look at those factors, you’ll see that an individual like myself, a man who has lost power and influence, can never be a suitable mediator.

  • Congress Now Promises to Hold Weeks of Hearings About Iraq
    David Firestone & David E. Sanger (Sept. 6, 2002) NYTimes
    "I'm more concerned about getting this done right than getting it done quickly," said Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic majority leader, a day after President Bush agreed to seek congressional approval before any invasion. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican minority leader, also made it clear that he did not favor forcing a quick vote, although on Wednesday Congressional and administration leaders had predicted that the debate could be concluded by early October.

  • A Broad Opposition to a Hasty Attack
    Talking Points (Sept., 2002) MoveOn.Org
    Everyone from Henry Kissinger to Colin Powell has advised against a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. When Americans understand the likely costs of this war, they oppose it. As a national group of concerned citizens, the MoveOn Iraq campaign brings together ex veterans and peace activists, Democrats and Republicans, and citizens from every state in the country to stop the war juggernaut. Reporters can speak to a number of our PR Liaisons, Coordinators, and Spokespeople to get a sense of the diversity of our movement.

  • With Weapons of the Will: How to topple Saddam Hussein—-nonviolently.
    Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall (Sept.-Oct., 2002) Sojourners
    But if instead a campaign against Saddam began with civilian-based incidents of disruption that were dispersed around the country and that did not offer convenient targets to shoot at, any attempt to crack down would have to depend on the outermost, least reliable members of Saddam's repressive apparatus. If the resistance made it clear to police and soldiers that they were not viewed as the enemy, and even if resisters were at first only a nuisance—mosquitoes that could not all be swatted—the realization that Saddam was being opposed openly would begin almost immediately to lessen the fear of engaging in further, more systematic acts of resistance. As opposition became more serious or visible, this would offer to dissenting elements within the regime a place to which to defect, once events reached a crescendo.

  • USA Today Repeats Myths on Iraq Inspectors
    Action Alert (Aug. 12, 2002) FAIR
    But Iraq did not "expel" the UNSCOM weapons inspectors; in fact, they were withdrawn by Richard Butler, the head of the inspections team. The Washington Post, like numerous other media outlets, reported it accurately at the time (12/17/98): "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."

  • The Logic of Empire
    George Monbiot (Aug. 6, 2002) Guardian
    The United States also possesses a vast military-industrial complex, which is in constant need of conflict in order to justify its staggeringly expensive existence. Perhaps more importantly than any of these factors, the hawks who control the White House perceive that perpetual war results in the perpetual demand for their services. And there is scarcely a better formula for perpetual war, with both terrorists and other Arab nations, than the invasion of Iraq. The hawks know that they will win, whoever loses.

  • The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet
    Jeremy Scahill (Aug. 2, 2002) CommonDreams
    Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982....

  • The Eagle Has Crash Landed
    Immanuel Wallterstein (Jul-Aug, 2002) Foreign Policy
    The United States faces two possibilities during the next 10 years: It can follow the hawks’ path, with negative consequences for all but especially for itself. Or it can realize that the negatives are too great. Simon Tisdall of the Guardian recently argued that even disregarding international public opinion, “the U.S. is not able to fight a successful Iraqi war by itself without incurring immense damage, not least in terms of its economic interests and its energy supply. Mr. Bush is reduced to talking tough and looking ineffectual.” And if the United States still invades Iraq and is then forced to withdraw, it will look even more ineffectual.

  • Byrd Challenges Bush's Ideas on War West Virginia Senator Warns of Another Vietnam
    Paul J. Nyden (June 29, 2002) West Virginia Gazette via Truthout
    "We must consider and debate whether we should use military force against Saddam Hussein. And, barring the most exceptional of circumstances, Congress must vote to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq prior to the outbreak of hostilities."

    Byrd concluded, "I am determined to do everything in my power to prevent this country from becoming involved in another Vietnam nightmare. This determination begins with Congress being fully and sufficiently informed on the undertakings of our government, especially if it involves a commitment to military action."

  • Background for a Peace Pledge
    (Undated) Campaign of Conscience
    The Bush Administration is considering pursuing military action against as many as 40 countries suspected of harboring terrorists. Iraq remains a prime target. In the past 11 years the US has led a devastating economic and air assault on that country in an effort to weaken Saddam Hussein. This war has - according to UN estimates - killed over a million people (including an estimated average of 150 children a day). The US rationalizes escalation of the war against Iraq as part of a general war on terrorism although no links to the Sept. 11 attack have been disclosed, nor are they likely. And outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, told incoming President George Bush in January, 2001: "Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors."

  • DECLARATION 2002: COMPANIONS CHALLENGING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ
    (June, 2002) Voices in the Wilderness
    On June 17th, Bert Sacks, accompanied by representatives of Voices in the Wilderness, the American Friends Service Committee, and other individuals and groups campaigning to end economic sanctions against Iraq, will hold a Press Conference in Washington, DC. Bert will explain why he cannot ask for a government license -- why he will not pay the fine -- and why, instead, he and the Voices in the Wilderness campaign will immediately begin raising a sum of $10,000 to purchase and deliver desperately needed medicines to pediatric wards and clinics in Iraq.

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

Top
NVUSA Home
Bibliography
Sept. 11
Webliography
gMoses Academic Home
American Nonviolence Syllabus
Mail to: Greg Moses