Back in September, two women began circulating an e-mail note sharing their idea for a massive "Gathering of Women" on the Israel-Palestine border, to try to cool the violence in what so many call the Holy Land.

The very useful source of information on the realities of current conflicts (which oddly often involve the US!), Znet, has recently carried reports from German and British sources listing US corporations that allegedly supplied Iraq with nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile technology, prior to 1991.

Has anybody seen these things mentioned in the "mainstream" US media??

by Jim Wallis 
Published 12/9/02, The Boston Globe
[12-14-02]

Recent news stories indicate that the White House and new Republican-controlled Congress intend to put the president's faith-based initiative high on the agenda for 2003. But the president is not acknowledging another faith- based initiative - the strong majority of Christian leaders opposing a war against Iraq. It took a long time for most of the American churches to come out against the war in Vietnam. This time, the church protest of war is significant, both in its breadth and its early clarity.

Please join me in signing an online petition asking President Bush to let the weapons inspections work, rather than rushing to war.

Inspections in Iraq have started. Most of us breathed a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, it's become clear that the ultra-hawks in the Bush administration -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle -- will not take yes for an answer. While the rest of the world thinks Iraq has backed down, these men are beginning a massive public relations blitz for war.

With the possibility of a peaceful resolution to this crisis at hand, we cannot allow a few men to push the world to war. Send a message to President Bush to let the inspections work at:

http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/

MoveOn.org will compile our messages and present them to the administration, including Secretary of State Powell, and to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The good news is that the ultra-hawks face some serious opposition. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other members of the Bush Administration are willing to give diplomacy a chance, and the State Department's interpretation of the U.N. resolution is a lot more reasonable than the White House's interpretation.

Unless wiser heads prevail, this is what we should expect: (1) starting December 8th, members of the Bush Administration will claim that Iraq is in material breach of the U.N. resolution, citing supposed omissions in the coming multi-hundred page report, based on undisclosed intelligence; (2) soon thereafter some "hot" incident, like anti-aircraft fire on U.S. patrols in the no-fly zone, will be used to solidify public support for war, and finally (3) the bombing campaign will begin.

This could all begin before Christmas -- another wonderful gift to the world from the Bush administration.

President Bush has agreed that war should be the very last resort. Let's hold him and his Administration to those words:

http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/

The progressive lobbying group MoveOn has sent a note to its e-list, encouraging people to sign a statement calling on the Administration to allow time for the UN inspectors in Iraq to do their work. It looks now, says the group, as if "the ultra-hawks in the Bush administration -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle -- will not take yes for an answer. While the rest of the world thinks Iraq has backed down, these men are beginning a massive public relations blitz for war."

Your WebWeaver recently drew on classical just-war theory as a way of helping a church group talk about their thoughts for and against (mostly against) the threatened war against Iraq.

Preemptive strikes don't seem to fit the criteria very well, though some folks in Washington seem to think they do just fine. (But then, with a little effort you can "justify" 'most any war.)

The Christian Science Monitor has recently published an article by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, surveying some of the rethinking being done by ethicists.

Susan Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary, says "The issue [with Iraq] is how can you justify preemptive strikes, and just-war theory speaks to that. But terrorism makes just-war theory mute. Just-war theory assumes a nation-state, but war is changing. Who actually are you fighting?"

One comment: Just war theory has been around at least since the 4^th century and Augustine, and in some way since the times of the Greek philosophers. Nation-states came much later, so this way of evaluating wars must have had some relevance to pre-nation-state conflicts.

"If George Bush spent more time and money on mobilising Weapons of Mass Salvation (WMS) in addition to combating Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), we might actually get somewhere in making this planet a safer and more hospitable home," Sachs argues.

WSM include "the arsenal of life-saving vaccines, medicines and health interventions, emergency food aid and farming technologies that could avert literally millions of deaths each year in the wars against epidemic disease, drought and famine."

President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill understood the marriage between destruction and salvation, Sachs notes. "Their war aims were not only to defeat fascism, but to create a world of shared prosperity." He reminds us that Franklin Roosevelt talked not only about Freedom from Fear but also Freedom from Want.

And recently, the rich countries (including the U.S.) at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable development promised to put real resources behind cutting poverty, disease, and environmental degradation. However, Sachs points out, "When is the last time anybody heard Vice-President Dick Cheney even feign a word of concern for the world's poor?"

10 Reasons to Oppose the War with Iraq
[11-4-02]

Thanks to the American Friends' Service Committee

You'll also find lots of other good material about the war on Iraq, and other issues, on their site!

1. War with Iraq won't make us safer.
A unilateral attack by the United States will inflame anti-U.S. sentiment and may stimulate more attacks by extremists.

2. There is no imminent threat.
There is no hard evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Iraq has little means to deliver chemical and biological weapons to threaten countries in the Middle East, let alone the U.S.

3. A preemptive attack violates the U.N. charter.
The U.N. Charter forbids member countries from attacking another country except in self defense. If the U.S. puts itself above international law it will further encourage other nations to do the same.

4. Our allies don't support us in this war.
U.S. allies in the Middle East oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our European allies have urged the U.S. to work through the U.N. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to U.S. and global security.

5. Thousands of innocent people may die.
Pentagon estimates say that an invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of 10,000 innocent civilians.

6. Young American men and women will fight and die.
U.S. military action and possible occupation is likely to produce far more casualties than the previous Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan. Many combatants will suffer physical and psychological repercussions for years after the war ends.

7. Funding for education, environment and health care is already being cut in order to pay for the "war on terror."
Estimates put the cost of a war with Iraq at $60-$100 billion with ongoing billions for occupation and rebuilding Iraq.

8. Things may not be better after a war.
We have no guarantee that a new regime in Iraq will make life any better for the Iraqi people or be any friendlier to the U.S. than the current one. The Taliban were once our allies in Afghanistan. Will the new regime in Iraq become our enemy after a few years?

9. There are other options.
The U.S. can work through the U.N. using mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means.

10. The American people have deep misgivings about this war.
Many people know deep down that this war makes no sense. They are starting to speak up and make themselves heard. You can add your voice to activities in your community.

Jay Bookman, who is on the editorial staff of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, recent wrote an opinion article entitled: "Bush's Real Goal in Iraq." Published on Sunday, September 29^th, 2002, it looks at the current U.S. push for a war on Iraq, in light of the recently published government document on National Security Strategy.

This war, says Bookman, "is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions. ... [Rather, it ]is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the 'American imperialists' that our enemies always claimed we were."

Len Bjorkman of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship has forwarded this note from ANSWER, the group that organized the major rallies last Saturday.

The October 26 demonstrations launched another major step in mass action against the war -- the grassroots People's Anti-War Referendum and a mass national 2-day mobilization on the weekend of January 18-19 in Washington, DC, timed to coincide with the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the 12th anniversary of the start of the 1991 Gulf War.

"VOTE NO TO WAR" includes a brief statement of reasons for opposing the vote for war, and then this "referendum" statement:

The U.S. Congress did not represent me when it voted to authorize George W. Bush to carry out an illegal war against Iraq.

Thousands will die needlessly unless the people stop this war drive. I join with millions of people who believe that the $200 billion planned for war against Iraq should be spent instead to fund jobs, education, housing, health care, child care, assistance to the elderly and to meet people's needs.

The Rev. Tom Davis preached on "Salt and Light" for his congregation's observance of Worldwide Communion Sunday on October 6, 2002. Being "salty Christians" whose lives as well as their words witness to God's love for the world, he said, involves public as well as personal witness. So looking at our nation's current situation and moves toward a new war, he concluded:

Let our country, the most powerful nation in the world, set a better example of lawfulness, of respect for the earth, and concern for the poor. Let America be truly a team player. Jesus called his disciples to be the salt of the earth, and lights to illumine the darkness. As followers of Jesus, let us take care to obey him not only in our private lives, but in our lives as citizens too. Let us hold our country accountable to its "better angels," as Abraham Lincoln once put it, so that once again we might have good reason to be proud Americans.