U.S. Groups Protest Iraq War Plans

Dil he Pakistani, i support the death of an individual if it saves the lives of many others, what is better for the overall majority. 500,000 children have died, and the US is not solely to blame. Saddam could have easily complied with the UN resolutions and got the sanctions lifted. The people barely have food and have no way surviving a 20th century levels. Everybody is to blame for this, including Saddam.

Saddam killed Muslims, for that I dont want him to be around to kill more of them. Is that gross? So be it. Add icky and yuck as well if you feel like it. But would you rather have him live so that he could kill more muslims?

It is true the US is pushing for the fight, however if it means that the Iraqi people wont have to starve to death or deal with inhumane sanctions, i am all for the war. It the common good what is important, even if it costs the life a vile dictator.

What you think is what youve been brainwashed to think... there are always two sides to every story. I suggest you read the thread about 1.7 million children dying in Iraq as a direct result of US supported sanctions, 1 million Iraqi children on the verge of starvation courtesy of Bush's support of the sanctions, also perhaps read the thread about thousands of children dying as a direct result of radiation from DU shells, which were utilized by the US Army during operation Desert Storm. You should also visit the IRAQ FOLDER and see articles from ex-UN workers, Aid Organisations, freelance journalists etc..

Today the Stockmarkets are tumbling, there is mass corporate corruption with key members of the Bush Administration accused of direct involovement, the US jobless rates are increasing, the economy has stagnated and Mr.Bush is gradually losing his support base amongst the American Public.. Many political analysts believe the real reasons behind the Bush doctrine to attack Iraq is to divert the medias attention away from domestic affairs.

Dil he Pakistani, I have stated that the US is to blame. I do realise that, but it takes two to tango. The US is as much as to blame as is Saddam Hussien. Both are responsible and as dealing with the US is impossible at this stage, I personally feel that there is a need to take away one of the other causes for suffering of the Iraqi people and that is Saddam Hussein.

The analyst in part are correct in their assessment. He is trying to divert attention from domestic issues, but he wants this war no matter what. President Bush will do anything to have his little war and sadly we cant do anything about it. But if it gets rid of Saddam and frees the Iraqi people then yes, i support the war.

Now Dil he Pakistani could you please comment on the question I posed to you? But would you rather have Saddam live so that he could kill more muslims?

More opposition, but this time from “over 500 staff, students and alumni from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.” Is Blair listening to those who elected him?

Doctors warn Blair over Iraq attack, BBC, 24 January 2003

Doctors have warned Tony Blair of the human cost of launching a war against Iraq. In an open letter in two leading medical journals, over 500 staff, students and alumni from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine urged the prime minister to find a peaceful solution.

They warned the conflict could lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being killed.

They also suggested a war could have a devastating impact on the lives of millions of people, sparking famine, epidemics and a new refugee crisis.

The letter cites evidence from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations and Medact, a British charity of health professionals.

It quotes a recent Unicef report which suggests that over three million people will suffer malnutrition if war goes ahead.

It also refers to a WHO report indicating that there could be between 100,000 direct and 400,000 indirect casualties.

In addition, the letter quotes from a report by Medact which estimated that “total possible deaths on all sides during conflict and in the following three months will range from 48,000 to over 260,000”.

The letter states: "Health professionals worldwide care for the casualties of war. We accept this responsibility.

“However, it is also our responsibility to argue for prevention of violence and peaceful resolution of conflict.” The group added that the impact of a war on Iraq would have international repercussions. “We believe that a war would have disastrous short, medium, and long-term social and public health consequences - not just for Iraq, but internationally.”

They added: “We oppose the use of military intervention in Iraq.” The school is considering sending a similar letter to US President George W Bush.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
What you think is what youve been brainwashed to think... there are always two sides to every story. I suggest you read the thread about 1.7 million children dying in Iraq as a direct result of US supported sanctions, 1 million Iraqi children on the verge of starvation courtesy of

[/QUOTE]

Dil,who else supports these sanctions,or are you only interested in lambasting the US?
I may be listening to the wrong news channel here,cause i thought they were UN sanctions.

Nadia,as you know very well,the same organisations are always anti-war and they always come out with these statements.It wont change a thing,Saddam is going to lose power.

BraveHeart, Sorry but no it's not "UN sanctions". Never once has the General Assembly voted for/against the sanctions. They were imposed and remain sustained by the UN Security Council (which of course i am tempted to substitute "US" for, but not wanting to raise your blood pressure, i won't).

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that over 500 individuals from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have written and signed an anti-war letter, and published it in the Lancet as well as the British Medical Journal. We regularly get even Oxfam speaking out now, but it's the first time (to my knowledge) that a British medical institution has taken this significant a step.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**BraveHeart
*, Sorry but no it's not "UN sanctions". Never once has the General Assembly voted for/against the sanctions. They were imposed and remain sustained by the UN Security Council (which of course i am tempted to substitute "US" for, but not wanting to raise your blood pressure, i won't).

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that over 500 individuals from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have written and signed an anti-war letter, and published it in the Lancet as well as the British Medical Journal. We regularly get even Oxfam speaking out now, but it's the first time (to my knowledge) that a British medical institution has taken this significant a step.
[/QUOTE]

So its the security council,which is a UN body,to me that means they are UN sanctions none the less.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
So its the security council,which is a UN body,to me that means they are UN sanctions none the less.
[/QUOTE]

No, BraveHeart.

Try getting a vote for/against the sanctions in the UN General Assembly (which represents ALL the members of the United Nations). You'll never get it passed. The Security Council is a wholly separate organ, it's only got five permanent members. These are Security Council sanctions, not the UN.

Braveheart, this is about standing up for Humanity, for the preservation of the UN and international law, for the rights of millions of people who are living a life of hell in the most horrid of conditions, brought about by the effects of the last war and the draconian sanctions. UN officials have reported up to 1 million Iraqi children are on the verge of starvation again courtesy of the Bush Administrations sanctions policy. :disgust:. Despite all of this suffering, the war mongers want to wage another devastating war against Iraq.

Nadia:
On the one hand you suggest that the UN sanctions passed unanimously by the UN Security Council are really US sanctions because the Security Council was just a stooge for the US. In fact, if I recall, you believe the sanctions are illegal.

On the other hand, you cite approvingly the difference of opinion being expressed by Security Council Members to the US inclination to declare Iraq in material breach and go to war now.

On the third hand, you seem to support fully UN Security Council Resolutions dealing with the Palestinian/Israeli issue (or, at least your interpretation of those Resolutions).

Do you find nothing shamefully inconsistent in these positions?

If the UN Security Council ultimately does unanimously find Iraq in material breach and approves military action against Iraq, will you support that? Or will you return to your stooge position?

MyVoice,
What i find "shamefully inconsistent" is the claims made by particular govts. that pride themselves on valuing human rights and justice, while simultaneously pursuing a genocidal policy against an innocent group of civilians.

>>On the one hand you suggest that the UN sanctions **passed unanimously* by the UN Security Council are really US sanctions because the Security Council was just a stooge for the US.<<*
Personally speaking, that's a matter of opinion - if you believe that arm-twisting and applying economic and diplomatic pressures on other countries constitutes "unanimous" approval, then alright but IMHO i do not perceive it that way (yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions).

>>On the other hand, you cite approvingly the difference of opinion being expressed by Security Council Members to the US inclination to declare Iraq in material breach and go to war now.<<
Expressing diverging opinions is one thing; actually being able to vote in favour (or against) particular Resolutions is quite another.

>>On the third hand, you seem to support fully UN Security Council Resolutions dealing with the Palestinian/Israeli issue (or, at least your interpretation of those Resolutions). If the UN Security Council ultimately does unanimously find Iraq in material breach and approves military action against Iraq, will you support that? Or will you return to your stooge position?<<
MyVoice, maybe you perceive nothing hypocritical in allowing a country to occupy another people's land for 35 years, while simultaneously enforcing a genocidal policy against one country's civilians for a one-time invasion - but sorry, i do not subscribe to that argument at all.

Large anti-war rally held in Wisconsin](http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=1110528) KFVS 04 Feb 03

Madison, Wisconsin-AP – Thousands of anti-war protesters have rallied in Wisconsin’s capital. One Vietnam veteran calls a war without the support of U-S allies or the U-N, a “bad precedent.” He says “it’s all about oil.”

Another protester says it’s time to stand up “as a people and say that war is not the answer.” The event included a march from the University of Wisconsin campus to the state Capitol. Organizers put attendance at about eight-thousand. Police say they think it was at least five-thousand.

A woman who marched with her husband and two young daughters says, “Our country is always dropping bombs on people to solve its problems.” She says America should lead by example.

Well it is not the US at the focus of this article. Cross the Atlantic, and there are some wonderful individuals organizing this upcoming protest on 15 February. Reading the article in its entirety affords a snapshot of preparations taking place in the Midlands, Scotland, Yorkshire, London, and other places.

‘I’ve never known anything like it. Everyone’s saying they will march’]('I've never known anything like it. Everyone's saying they will march' | UK news | The Guardian)
The Guardian, 8 February 2003

A week today more than half a million people are expected to converge on the centre of London in a huge demonstration of opposition to war in Iraq. Organisers are predicting it will dwarf last September’s Countryside Alliance march. Guardian reporters spent an evening with anti-war campaigners to produce a vivid snapshot of grassroots opposition to the war across Britain.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing ~ Edmund Burke

1 million could join grassroots protest, John Vidal and Jamie Wilson
The Guardian, 12 February 2003

Sorry for repeat posting. Rather good article.

"…a group of nuns in Hackney have formed an anti-war group, and have taken boxes of badges and leaflets, which should surely form the plot for a remake of The Sound of Music. A schoolboy in Muswell Hill has persuaded the local chip shop to give out a leaflet for the march with every bag of chips. An 80-year-old woman in Hampshire rang the Stop the War office to say she was sorry she couldn’t get to the march as her limbs were a bit dodgy, but instead she was willing to make her protest by lying down in the middle of the M3. What a magnificent catchphrase: “I’m prepared to lay down on the motorway – but that’s it.”

…] Robert Del Naja of the pop group Massive Attack said last week: “Before the last Stop the War demo, I felt uneasy about telling my friends I was going on it. This time my attitude is, if they’re not on it I shan’t speak to the ***kers for two years.”

We will not be moved, Mark Steel
The Independent, 12 February 2003

Nadia, its great to see so many ordinary people stand up against this futile war. :k: On Saturday Millions of people will be marching in every major city in the world.

Millions Expected for Global Iraq Peace Protests](http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20030212_398.html) ABC News 12 Feb 03

LONDON (Reuters) - Millions of people are expected to march for peace in Iraq Saturday in what organizers say could be the world’s biggest anti-war protest. From Antarctica to Reykjavik, demonstrations against the looming war in Iraq are planned in more than 350 town and cities by people from all walks of life and all ethnic groups.

London is expecting at least 500,000 marchers in what the organizers say will be a major blow to hawkish Prime Minister Tony Blair – President Bush’s strongest supporter in his campaign to force Iraqi disarmament. “We expect Saturday’s demonstration to be the biggest ever in British political history,” Andrew Murray, head of the British Stop The War coalition, said Wednesday. “The British population do not consent to this war.”

Organizers in Rome are expecting more than 500,000 people to march through the city as the anti-war demonstration brings together trade unionists, center-left political parties, anti-globalization groups and ordinary citizens. In Russia a series of demonstrations are planned on Saturday, as they are across the United States and Australia. Organizers of a peace march in San Francisco say they expect more than 100,000 to converge on the city Sunday.

In South Africa, where President Thabo Mbeki and former president Nelson Mandela have both spoken out strongly against any Iraq war, a series of demonstrations are planned. Even in traditionally neutral Switzerland a series of protests are planned under the slogan “No to war in Iraq – No blood for oil!” In Dublin, anti-war demonstration organizers expect upwards of 20,000 people to take part in a march through the city.

WORLD PEACE MOVEMENT
But the event in London, which organizers pledge will be peaceful despite fears it could be disrupted by anti-Israeli demonstrators, will be pivotal in the world peace movement. Jeremy Corbyn, prominent maverick in Blair’s ruling Labor Party, said the key speaker at the rally would be American anti-war campaigner Jesse Jackson. “He is coming specially because opinion polls show that if Britain backs out of the war the American public will also stop supporting it,” he told a news conference.

Blair, who has unflinchingly supported Bush since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, has seen his popularity plunge in successive opinion polls. As London and Washington have poured troops and armor into the Gulf, insisting that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was concealing weapons of mass destruction, they have been suffered a series of blunders over dubious intelligence reports.

Iraq insists it has no banned arms. Britain’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has already filed legal papers threatening to take Blair and Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon to the International Criminal Court in the Hague for crimes against humanity if the war goes ahead.

The Washington/London war axis is also facing mounting resistance from fellow United Nations Security Council permanent members Russia, France and China who argue there is no proof of the weapons allegations. They also want more time for U.N. weapons inspectors whose chief Hans Blix is due to give a new progress report to the U.N. on February 14 – the traditionally romantic Valentine’s Day.

10 million.. SubhanAllah.

10 million join world protest rallies - From Africa to Antarctica, people prepare to march for peace, John Vidal
The Guardian, 13 February 2003

Up to 10 million people on five continents are expected to demonstrate against the probable war in Iraq on Saturday, in some of the largest peace marches ever known.

Yesterday, up to 400 cities in 60 countries, from Antarctica to Pacific islands, confirmed that peace rallies, vigils and marches would take place. Of all major countries, only China is absent from the growing list which includes more than 300 cities in Europe and north America, 50 in Asia and Latin America, 10 in Africa and 20 in Australia and Oceania.

Many countries will witness the largest demonstrations against war they have ever seen.

The majority will be small but 500,000 people are expected in London and Barcelona, and more than 100,000 in Rome, Paris, Berlin and other European capitals. In the US, organisers were yesterday anticipating 200,000 marching in New York if permission is given. A further 100,000 are expected to march in 140 other American cities.

90 U.S. cities have passed anti-war resolutions](Clarifying the Complex | Homepage | Thomson Reuters) Reuters

By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Some 90 U.S. city councils have passed resolutions opposing military actions against Iraq, with many arguing that such a war would devastate their economies, organizers of the campaign said on Thursday. Representatives of many of these cities, which include Chicago and Philadelphia among others, gathered in Washington to deliver their resolutions to the White House.

“War will be financed by deficit spending and drastic cuts in domestic spending. The sons and daughters of American cities will be recruited to fight and even die in that war,” Chicago alderman Joe Moore said. The city representatives told a news conference that resources in their jurisdictions were already severely stretched and the country could not afford a war.

“In my city, our homeless shelters are jammed. In fact we are turning people away nightly,” said Detroit councilwoman Maryann Mahaffey. The campaign to pass city resolutions is organized by the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think-tank and political action group. Its organizer, Karen Dolan, said anti-war resolutions were pending in 100 more towns and cities.

Anti-war activists are organizing major rallies in New York and San Francisco this weekend which are expected to draw hundreds of thousands of people. Several hundred thousand attended a rally in Washington DC two weeks ago. Although the threat of war has spawned a large and vociferous peace movement, polls show support for a war has grown in the past week, since Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations what he said was evidence that the Iraqi military was conspiring to conceal weapons of mass destruction from U.N. arms inspectors.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll this week found 63 percent expressing support for a war with 34 percent opposed. If the war was not authorized by the U.N. Security Council, support fell to 39 percent, with 57 percent opposed without a new U.N. vote to give a green light.

CITIES LARGE AND SMALL
Cities that have passed anti-war resolutions include major urban centers like Baltimore and Atlanta, as well as university towns like Austin, Texas, Ann Arbor, Michigan and Berkeley, California, well known as liberal enclaves.

They are concentrated on the East and West coasts and in the upper Midwest, mainly in states that did not support President George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Some cities have also rejected anti-war resolutions, arguing that city councils have no business meddling in foreign policy. A resolution failed by 6 to 1 this week in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Minneapolis and Portland, Oregon also refused to go along with resolutions.

Chicago’s Moore said the resolution in his city passed by 46 to 1. “Few decisions will have a more profound effect on the quality of life in our cities than the decision to go to war,” he said. Councilman Don Cooney of Kalamazoo, Michigan, said 2,000 families in his town were displaying anti-war yard signs.

Serena Cruz, commissioner of Multnomah County, Oregon said: "A preemptive war on Iraq will not make us any safer. Anything that undermines the United Nations makes the world a more dangerous place. We have not yet seen compelling reasons for entering this war but we see compelling needs every day in our cities that go unmet."

‘The government has lied to me so many times on reasons to go to war," Lepo said, citing official explanations for the invasions of Grenada and Panama in the 1980s, and the initiation of the Vietnam War in the mid-1960s. "Each reason the (Bush) administration has given has been a lie.’

San Francisco protesters join anti-war chorus](http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6132062p-7087637c.html) The Sacramento Bee
February 17, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO – A day after millions of people in the United States and around the world protested a possible war against Iraq, tens of thousands more marched and rallied here in hopes of prodding the Bush Administration away from hostilities. The demonstration, in numbers and tone, mirrored a similar event nearly a month ago. Police released an estimate of 150,000, but organizers later in the afternoon set the attendance between 250,000 and 300,000. As with last month’s protest, participants jammed Market Street, the city’s main downtown thoroughfare, from the Embarcadero to the plaza that fronts City Hall two miles away.

Many held signs that pressed the point – in ways that were humorous, provocative or angry – that war on Iraq would be wrong – and signaled unhappiness with President Bush. Debra Akins, a San Leandro woman whose son is in Kuwait with his Marine Corps unit, was one of them.

**“There shouldn’t be a war,” she said, holding a blowup picture of her 20-year-old son, Omari Taylor, in uniform. “Bush has none of his relatives at the front line at all. He doesn’t care about mothers and sons.”**Her co-worker, Linda Fortino, said she would not march if she thought there was no chance of averting war. But she voiced frustration that the worldwide rallies had no apparent impact on the Bush administration’s plans.

“I don’t see how they can ignore what’s happening around the world,” said Fortino, 48, of San Francisco. “With Vietnam, it took a long time and a lot of protests” before the war ended. Nearby, other protestors walked with signs that read “Go solar, not ballistic,” “Thank you, France” and “How many lives per gallon?” Another sign on the back of a wheelchair said, “Build ramps, not bombs.”

At the afternoon rally in Civic Center Plaza, a string of political and entertainment celebrities denounced Bush’s plans, including singers Joan Baez and Bonnie Raitt, United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta, actor Danny Glover, author Alice Walker, San Francisco Supervisor and mayoral aspirant Tom Ammiano, and state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton.** “If we go to war, there will be a ruination that we have never seen before – environmental, economic, human,” Raitt said before launching into two pro-peace songs.**

The crowd applauded most for U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, the lone member of Congress to oppose a 2001 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan.“We need to let President Bush understand that he woke us up,” Lee said. “No to military action. Yes to disarmament and inspections. That’s how we will achieve peace and security in the world.”

An anti-war member of the British House of Commons also spoke, a day after an estimated 750,000 protesters demonstrated in London. Not far from the stage, a small band of counter-protesters expressed support for Bush’s policy by holding up signs that read: “Liberate Iraq” and “Bomb Saddam, Free Iraq.”

“It’s our patriotic duty to demonstrate for freedom and America,” said David Chu, 37, of Santa Rosa. "Are the Afghan people better off now or before the Taliban? That’s the question."In Denver, about 300 people waving American flags and holding signs proclaiming “War is bad, evil is worse,” also gathered Sunday to support the use of force against Iraq.

Several San Francisco peace marchers said they had heard nothing from the Bush administration that convinced them war was necessary. “I keep waiting for proof and I keep getting promised proof,” said Bret Battistelli, 44, a carpenter from Sebastapol, in Sonoma County. “But I don’t see anything hard.”

John Lepo, a 53-year-old state employee, traveled to San Francisco from Alhambra after participating in the Los Angeles rally Saturday. “The government has lied to me so many times on reasons to go to war,” Lepo said, citing official explanations for the invasions of Grenada and Panama in the 1980s, and the initiation of the Vietnam War in the mid-1960s. “Each reason the (Bush) administration has given has been a lie.”

A statement from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was read to the crowd. She said she still believes that U.N. inspections of Iraq can work and remains opposed to a war without U.N. approval. Jane Morrison, chairwoman of the San Francisco Democratic Party, which three months ago passed a resolution opposing a war in Iraq, said she has submitted a resolution to the state Democratic Party for consideration at its conference next month.

The weekend’s anti-war rallies in San Francisco and in New York, Los Angeles, Sacramento and other U.S. cities, were organized by a coalition of groups led by International ANSWER, the Vanguard Foundation and United for Peace and Justice. Dozens of other groups lent their assistance.

Organizers agreed to hold the San Francisco rally on Sunday because of the city’s huge Chinese New Year’s celebration Saturday.Late in the afternoon, a splinter group of protesters pelted police with objects on Market Street and at Union Square, and there were reports of vandalism. Officers in riot gear closed some store entrances and made about 20 arrests.