[Peace-discuss] Fw: Thank you for your support

[Margaret E. Kosal]

At 02:37 1/30/2003 -0600, Jim Buell wrote:
>I'd like to toss out a couple suggestions for the tough dialoguing ahead. 
>For one, Mark Leff remarked yesterday during his teach-in talk that beyond 
>even protesting the horrors of the looming Iraq bloodbath, our movement 
>needs to focus on the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war as a global 
>catastrophe in the making.

I will 2nd this!  Focus on specifics!
For instance, not just pre-emptive war but move to (1) pre-emptive use of 
nuclear weapons, (2) use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, (3) 
elevation of chemical & biological weapons (BW & CW agents) to the same 
statute with the use of nuclear weapons, (4) introduction of "Robust Earth 
Nuclear Penetrators", which are also known as "bunker busters" and are 
small nuclear bombs.  No gravity-bomb or missile-propelled bomb can 
penetrate far enough underground to contain nuclear fallout.

The (1), (2) & (4) were explicitly documented in the Dec 1999 Nuclear 
Posture Review & in the Dec 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of 
Mass Destruction (along with the 3rd point): the US "... reserves the right 
to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our 
options - to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, 
and our friends, and allies."  .... "In addition to our conventional and 
nuclear response and defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture 
against WMD threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, survellance, 
interdiction , and domestic law enforcement
capabilities."

Namaste,
Margaret

>  The clearer we can make it that our opposition doesn't stem from any 
> love of Saddam Hussein or disrespect for this country or individuals 
> serving in the military, but from our conviction as to the utter 
> wrongness of engaging in unprovoked carnage aimed at remaking the whole 
> world in the corporate-boardroom image, the better ordinary Joes will be 
> able to appreciate where we're coming from and the harder it will be for 
> foes to marginalize us. Second, the particular pro-war faction that's 
> mobilizing locally seems to be coming out of the American Legion and VFW 
> halls;  military veterans who are opposed to the war would therefore seem 
> to be especially important voices to have raised in this debate. I'm 
> thinking for instance of the fine article in last Sunday's News-Gazette 
> on Doug Rokke - I really didn't expect to see anything that positive from 
> an N-G columnist like Tom Kacich. Anti-war activists with military 
> experience would, I think, be especially important to hear from at next 
> Monday's council meeting.
>
>peace,
>Jim