SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mannie who wrote (14814)3/18/2003 8:23:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Chirac: Iraq War Unjustified, Much at Stake

Tue March 18, 2003 07:52 AM ET

By Tom Heneghan

PARIS (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac invoked international law, world stability and the future of the Middle East on Tuesday as he denounced the U.S. war ultimatum to Iraq as an unjustified act against a phantom threat.

Chirac, championing a multipolar global order against Washington's unilateral approach, said in his first reaction to President Bush's ultimatum that a large majority of world opinion opposed the pending war in Iraq.

The strongest anti-war voice in the West, Chirac said the U.S. ultimatum would compromise future efforts to deal with crises linked to arms of mass destruction -- an apparent reference to North Korea's nuclear program.

"Whether it concerns the necessary disarmament of Iraq or the desirable change of the regime in this country, there is no justification for a unilateral decision to resort to force," Chirac said in a short address before television cameras.

"No matter how events evolve now, this ultimatum challenges our view of international relations. It puts the future of a people, the future of a region and world stability at stake."

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, another leader in the "non-nyet-nein" anti-war front France formed with Russia and Germany, also declared on Tuesday he saw no justification for war and no reason to end arms inspections meant to disarm Iraq.

"My question was and is: does the degree of threat stemming from the Iraqi dictator justify a war that will bring certain death to thousands of innocent men, women and children? My answer was and is: no," he said on German television.

FRANCE MARCHES TO DIFFERENT DRUMMER

Throughout the Iraq crisis, France has consistently argued it opposed Washington's war plans not out of anti-Americanism but from a conviction that the United Nations was the only body authorized to order an attack on a sovereign country.

"France has acted in the name of the primacy of law and by virtue of its concept of relations among peoples and among nations," Chirac said to explain why France has marched to a different drummer during the showdown over a pro-war resolution.

Now that its veto threat has blocked a Security Council vote and forced the United States and Britain to wage war without a U.N. mandate, France can be expected to stress the central role it sees for U.N. humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts in an Iraq controlled by the U.S. military, diplomats said.

"Iraq today does not represent an immediate threat that justifies an immediate war," Chirac said.

"This is a serious decision, while Iraq's disarmament is underway and the inspections have shown that they were a credible alternative for disarming this country."

In an apparent reference to North Korea, which has expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors and reactivated atomic facilities that could reprocess plutonium for bombs, Chirac added:

"This is also a decision that compromises in the future the methods of peaceful resolution of crises linked to the proliferation of arms of mass destruction."

Chirac appealed for respect for international law and called on other countries "to preserve the unity of the Security Council by staying in the framework set by resolution 1441."

He ended with the words: "Throwing off the legitimacy of the United Nations, preferring force over the law, means taking on a heavy responsibility."

Earlier on Tuesday, Chirac's office issued a first reaction to Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein which gave the Iraqi president 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.

"This unilateral decision is contrary to the wishes of the Security Council and of the international community, who wish to pursue the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with (U.N.) resolution 1441," the Elysee presidential palace said.

reuters.com



To: Mannie who wrote (14814)3/18/2003 10:28:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
I just discovered that Oprah is now having a good discussion with the Middle East experts Tom Friedman and professor Fawaz A. Gerges from Sarah Lawrence College...fyi...

Michael Moore is coming up next and may comment on 'a silent American Foreign Policy'...I don't normally watch Oprah but was just channel surfing and it caught my attention...I'm going to keep it on as I respond to morning emails.

Some folks are asking tough questions.

-s2



To: Mannie who wrote (14814)3/20/2003 5:31:32 PM
From: RealMuLan  Respond to of 89467
 
Yeah, I like him too. Sharp, smart guy. 'Bowling for Columbine' is very good. I love it.



To: Mannie who wrote (14814)3/20/2003 5:59:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
I support our troops in harms way 100% BUT check this out...

A few in military refuse to fight 'wrong war' Activists call stance brave; critics say it's cowardly

By Deborah Sharp
USA TODAY
3/20/03
usatoday.com

MIAMI -- When Travis Clark joined the U.S. military at age 19, it seemed like a good way to travel and pay for college. It was 1996, the country was at peace, and Clark signed on for an eight-year hitch.

Now, with a year left on his contract, the Marine reservist from Plantation, Fla., says he won't go if his unit is called to serve in a war against Iraq. He is adding his voice to a small chorus of like-minded military personnel who say they will not fight for a cause they do not support.

''This war is the wrong war,'' says Clark, 25. ''I can't put myself into the position of going into another country and forcing them to defend themselves against me.''

Unlike during the Vietnam War era, when hundreds of thousands of men dodged the draft or sought the status of conscientious objector, today's military is composed solely of volunteers. About 2.7 million men and women serve in active-duty and reserve forces.

It's uncertain how many say their conscience won't allow them to fight in Iraq. Last year, 29 people were discharged from the military as conscientious objectors.

But peace groups say a hotline that counsels members of the military against war logged more than 3,500 calls in January, double its usual monthly average.

''I don't think there is anything cowardly about standing up and saying, 'I won't be a part of this,' '' says Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War in Washington, D.C.

Critics say a person who volunteers for the military and discovers an aversion to war on the brink of invading Iraq is being disingenuous at best and cowardly at worst.

''Anyone in the military who has signed up to protect our country and now doesn't want to do so is doing a grave disservice to this country and to their fellow soldiers,'' says Jason Crawford, founder of Patriots for the Defense of America, an Internet-based group that supports attacking Iraq.

The government does recognize that views can change over the course of military service. Those who can prove a religious, ethical or moral opposition to all wars may apply for a discharge or transfer to a non-combat job as a conscientious objector. But the criteria for such cases are difficult. For example, the Air Force's policy governing application and approval runs to 20 pages. Those who don't receive such status but refuse to fight can face court-martial and penalties from dishonorable discharge to prison.

Pro- and anti-war sentiment divided the USA during the Vietnam War. From 1965 to 1973, 2.15 million people served in Vietnam. About 170,000 people earned status as conscientious objectors. Many thousands of others burned their draft cards. At least 40,000 fled the country, and others served time in prison. In 1977, President Carter granted amnesty to many war resisters.

Opposition to a war in Iraq is a trickle compared with the Vietnam War era.

Peace activists from the '60s are among those advising current military members how to follow their conscience and avoid war.

''I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein. He's a blight on his people. But this war makes no sense,'' says Michael Simmons, 57, of the American Friends Service Committee, part of the Quaker religion.

Simmons was imprisoned in 1969 for 2 years for refusing to be drafted to fight in Vietnam. He says most servicemembers now wrestling with the possibility of killing Iraqis had joined the military for travel, self-improvement and other benefits promised by recruiters.

''I see these young kids who are going to be suffering from this for years to come -- if they're lucky enough to come out alive. And that's not even to mention the effect on the Iraqi people,'' says Simmons, whose older brother, Reginald, served in Vietnam. ''It pains my heart.''

Few hotline callers are willing to speak out about avoiding a war in Iraq. But Clark has some company in his public stance for peace:

* Michael Sudbury, 27, a former Army Reserve staff sergeant, called a news conference last month in Salt Lake City to say he wouldn't go when his unit deployed to a war in Iraq. Sudbury's military discharge, delayed because of the pending conflict, came through a day before his planned announcement.

* Travis Burnham, 24, an Army photojournalist at Fort Drum in Upstate New York, applied in January for conscientious objector status. The Army is considering his application. The process, which includes a psychiatric interview, can take up to six months.

Burnham's older brother, Taylor, is an Army combat engineer in Kuwait. Their mother keeps a yellow ribbon on her door for Taylor and a protest sign on her wall for Travis.

Dave Wiggins, 40, a physician and father of two who lives in High Point, N.C., has also counseled military personnel on avoiding war. A graduate of West Point who served as an Army captain and flight surgeon, he wound up with a dishonorable discharge and a $25,000 fine after he refused to take part in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. After his conscientious objector application was denied, Wiggins staged a hunger strike, endured death threats and finally stripped off his uniform and stopped military traffic heading to the front lines.

''It had become obvious to me that the military was more a political tool than white knights in shining armor going off to save democracy,'' Wiggins says.

His father told him he had brought such shame to the family that he didn't feel right hanging the American flag outside their home.

About 500 servicemembers filed for conscientious objector status during the Persian Gulf War, according to the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. Peace groups say as many as three times that number refused to fight, and many served prison sentences up to 18 months.

There have been conscientious objectors as long as there have been wars. In the Civil War, 4,000 soldiers whose religious beliefs prohibited killing for any reason served in unarmed positions. During World War II, 42,000 conscientious objectors refused to fight. Many went to prison, but 25,000 served in non-combat jobs, and 12,000 were placed in work camps. They volunteered to help in mental institutions and to serve in experiments on contracting pneumonia and the flu.

Some in today's all-volunteer force question those who enlisted but now don't want to go.

Says Navy Lt. Cmdr. Pauline Storum: ''When you sign up and raise your right hand to serve your country, you don't really get the option of rolling over one morning and saying, 'I'm not going to go to work today,' ''