Hi Michael.  I take it (since you've posted this quote) that you agree 
with the article.  On that assumption, let's proceed.

MG> As we go to press, the War on Terrorism has morphed into an impending war
MG> against Iraq. (War may have erupted by the time you read these words.)
MG> President Bush has repeatedly condemned Saddam Hussein as evil
(surely he is no
MG> angel, but that is true of many world leaders). Bush has further demanded the
MG> disarming of Iraq and the replacement of its government with a puppet regime.
MG> We object to this war on moral grounds.

This would seem to imply that Saddam is much like any other world 
leader.  How many death row inmates in the U.S. are put to death through the 
experimentation of biochemical weapons, such that they bleed out of 
their eyes?  No, I guess Saddam is a good old boy who is being wrongly 
accused.  Or something.

MG> What especially bothers us is the crescendo of wardrum-beats advocating,
MG> however incoherently, a preemptive first strike. This marks a radical reversal
MG> in American foreign policy. Never before has the U.S. struck first in the
MG> absence of an immediate threat. One might conceivably justify preemptive war,
MG> but only when there is imminent danger of attack by a threatening adversary.
MG> Iraq currently does not fit into this category. Defeated in the Gulf War of
MG> 1991, its population impoverished, its economy in shambles, constantly
MG> bombarded by American and British aircraft, Iraq hardly poses a threat to the
MG> safety of the United States.

Do you recall the speeches that Bush gave immediately post 9/11?  This 
"first strike" mentality originated then and there.  As I recall most 
Americans and quite a few Canadians applauded at the notion that the U.S. 
was going to take the war on terrorism to the doorstep of the enemy.  
They would never again wait for someone else to show up to do a similiar 
type of action.  People opine that there's no "smoking gun".  It would 
seem that for there to be a smoking gun, one must first have fired it.   

MG> We thoroughly approve of the administration's earlier decision (under the
MG> influence at that time of Colin Powell, who has since become more
hawkish) that
MG> UN inspectors return to Iraq and that retaliatory measures be taken only if
MG> explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council. We do not see the need for
MG> war, for we believe that the best method of resolving international conflicts
MG> is by the negotiation of differences. We thus agree with efforts to
disarm Iraq
MG> peacefully.

And I agree with that.  ONLY if Saddam complies and shows where he has 
hidden his massive storage of WMD.  So far, he hasn't, and he has shown 
to have been duplicitous in his handling of the inspectors.  France 
believes that an increase in the number of inspectors would resolve that.  
How utterly stupid!  As if miles and miles of desert can be adequately 
covered such that weapons would have no room for movement.  Maybe if one 
were to bring in 100,000 inspectors, then *maybe* it could be done.

MG> Obviously, current U.S. policies threaten to undermine the entire fabric of
MG> collective security so carefully developed by the world community after the
MG> Second World War. As a result of our policies, will the United Nations be
MG> rendered impotent like the League of Nations, unable to resolve international
MG> conflicts? If so, this could have tragic implications for the future of
MG> humankind.

I agree with this statement.  I also think the U.S. is the wrong party 
to point the finger at, in this game of words.  Ultimately, it becomes a 
matter of trust.  The U.S. has no credibility with certain countries, 
and nothing it can say or do will change that.  Thus, their motives are 
continually suspect.  There is so much knee-jerking going on, it's a 
wonder anyone can walk out of there.  Yes, the U.N. will die, figuratively 
speaking, much like the League of Nations.

MG> Mr. Bush expresses his reasons for war in high-flown rhetoric about defending
MG> ourselves from the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein.
MG> Interestingly, his speeches are drafted by Evangelical speechwriters (such as
MG> Michael Gerson), and they express a dismaying level of religious imagery. They
MG> convert the Presidency into a bully pulpit for God, which simultaneously masks
MG> underlying imperialist economic ambitions while it suggests divine
sanction for
MG> American policy. We wonder whether the real motive in all this is
oil, for Iraq
MG> has the second-largest oil reserves in the world; and we suspect that the
MG> underlying goal of the United States and Britain is to replace the Iraqi oil
MG> contracts bestowed upon France and Russia with new ones benefiting themselves.

You see?  It's all about oil.  America apparently has always been about 
money and oil, and nothing it has done has been altruistic.  The wars 
it has fought has not been about peace, or safety.  And if anyone 
believes that, I have a bridge in Toronto that I'd like to sell.

Doesn't ANYONE remember 9/11?  Does no one retain the rage of those 
actions?  Will anyone believe the danger of Saddam and his buddies?  I 
mean, *before* that bright flash on the horizon?


MG> " the Religious Right has virtually captured the Bush
administration"

MG> "We object to this war on moral grounds"

MG> "a preemptive first strike" "marks a radical reversal
in American foreign
ú  [ Continued In Next Message... ]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5