[Peace-discuss] Petition to stop US aid to Israel.

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

This ( 5. Program title Something like "Is the War on Terrorism Making Us
>More
>Secure?"  Everyone should   think about this. )  is an important topic. 
>There is no war and never has been a war.  There is not repeat not any 
declared war.   The
>threats have not changed at all for years. As to security? That is an elusive
>concept. Security from what is a very important question.  Once more I think
>that it is very very important to read and understand all of the directives
>and purposes behind the efforts to create threats or actually publicly
>perceived threats. As I have explained before, the efforts to focus our
>attention on  threats or minimal threats is to permit or enable political
>justification for military, economic, and social actions. If you really look
>at who has conducted so called "terrorist acts" you will find they are of
>domestic origin and very few and far between.  The real threat does not 
justify the creation of an entire new department "Home Land Security" nor all 
of the money being spent. The problems can be resolved by simply doing one's 
job under long time existing laws which do not infringe on civil rights. In 
reality, those 15 real "terrorist threat" groups, who have, do, and will 
cause problems are ignored in this so-called war.  
>  That discussion and analysis is part of  each course that I / we teach for
>local, state, and federal law enforcement.  Many of us in the field are
>trying to put common sense back into the equation but with limited success. 
>In England Tam Dalyell, a very good friend, is working the British parliament
>issues. On this side, Scott Ritter and many others are working too. The new
>Time Magazine  story discuses how plans were in place long before (9/11). 
that goesback to the Feb 12, 1998 congressional discussion.
>
>
>
>***
>Poll: Half of Britons Oppose Action
>By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>Filed at 9:05 p.m. ET
>LONDON (AP) -- More than half of Britons say they do not want their military
>involved if the United States goes to war with Iraq, according to a poll
>released Friday.
>While politicians and pundits debated Britain's potential role in any U.S.
>effort to achieve a regime change in Baghdad, Channel 4 News broadcast an NOP
>poll in which 52 opposed British military involvement, 34 percent were in
>favor, and 14 percent were undecided.
>The pollsters interviewed 1001 people Aug. 2-4. The margin of error was plus
>or minus 3 percent.
>The Ministry of Defense on Monday confirmed reports that the Royal Navy's
>flagship aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, will be deployed to the
>Mediterranean next month, raising media speculation it and the destroyer
>accompanying it could be used in an attack on Iraq.
>But the ministry said the Ark Royal would be taking part in NATO exercises,
>and said it was not part of any planned Gulf operation.
>On Sunday, Labor legislator Tam Dalyell wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair,
>suggesting he had a ``moral obligation'' to recall Parliament from its summer
>recess in early September to discuss a possible action against Iraq.
>Dalyell has said many British legislators believe such an attack would
>require a U.N. mandate and that it could alienate British allies such as
>Jordan and lead to big fluctuations in oil prices.
>Dalyell's letter followed a warning from Edwin Bramall, Britain's former
>chief of defense, that the country risked being dragged into a ``very, very
>messy and long-lasting Middle East war'' if it went along with an attack on
>Saddam.
>On Monday, Labor legislator David Winnick, a member of the Home Affairs
>select committee, said he believed such a war was inevitable because it was
>unlikely Saddam would ever allow U.N. inspectors to resume searching for his
>weapons of mass destruction.
>He agreed, however, that Parliament should be recalled if Blair does decide
>to launch military action against Iraq.
>Members of the U.S. Congress also have said that Bush should make the case to
>them before sending U.S. forces to Iraq.
>The British and U.S. governments have discussed the possibility of such an
>attack, saying Saddam has revived his nuclear, chemical and biological
>warfare programs since forcing the 1998 withdrawal of the U.N. weapons
>inspectors.
>Bush on Monday rejected an Iraqi offer to let members of Congress tour
>suspected biological, chemical and nuclear weapons sites with arms experts of
>their choice. The White House suggested the invitation was a delaying tactic.
>Bush has said he is committed to Saddam's ouster and accused Iraq of
>stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and seeking nuclear weapons.
>***
>
>