To receive weekly CCPJ Email updates, click the box below:
Archive of past mailings
Don't Attack Iran!
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2008-07-09 10:11.
CCPJ Committees | Iran
A committee of CCPJ is planning events for late July aimed at opposing a U.S. attack on Iran, part of a national effort. These events will likely include a presence at the July 18th Fridays After Five at the Downtown Mall, which will include huge puppets on stilts, posters, stickers, and tables with petitions on clipboards. The 18th is a national day of similar events. We may also be promoting a forum with speakers on July 21st. And a separate committee is working to reserve busses so that we can all demonstrate in Washington, D.C., and/or Virginia Beach on August 2nd, a national day of action. We then hope to present a resolution to the Charlottesville City Council on August 4th, and it is in support of that resolution that we will begin collecting signatures on July 18th. A draft of the resolution is pasted below for your comments and suggestions.
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN
WHEREAS, The President and members of his administration have alleged that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States, U.S. troops in the Middle East and U.S. allies, and
WHEREAS, these allegations are similar to the lead-up to the Iraq War and U.S. occupation, with the selective use of information and unsubstantiated accusations about Iran's nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of a case to the American people for aggression against Iran, and
WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented to document that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack; and
WHEREAS, we support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be misconstrued as support for the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it should be understood that a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran could well prove counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy there; and
WHEREAS, a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the consensus view all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran's involvement in Iraq "is not likely to be a major driver of violence" there, and
WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten even greater destabilization in the Middle East, and
WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world; and
WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to inflame hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere, inspire terrorism, and lessen the security of Americans, and
WHEREAS, the Iraq war and occupation has already cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, the maiming and wounding of over 38,000 American soldiers, the death and maiming of over one million Iraqi civilians, and
WHEREAS, the Iraq War and occupation has cost Charlottesville taxpayers more than $61 million before adding the costs of interest payments, care for veterans, or the increased price of oil, thus depriving us of much-need funds for services and infrastructure, and
WHEREAS, except at our peril, we cannot ignore the history of U.S. government mis-information used to inspire U.S. aggression in Vietnam and again in Iraq, as embodied in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and more recently in the false claims of weapons of mass destruction, and
WHEREAS, any conflict with Iran is likely to incur far greater costs and divert more precious national resources away from critical human needs, now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, hereby urges the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on nuclear issues and ending the violence in Iraq, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, urges Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that suitable copies of the resolution be forwarded to President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Senator John Warner, Senator James Webb, and Congressman Virgil Goode.
Some thoughts
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2008-07-09 16:08.
Aiding a nation against a foreign invasion is not grounds for war. The US aided France against Germany and still brags about it.
WMD possession is not grounds for war. The US has more of them than anyone.
The motivation for attacking Iran was laid out in 2000 by the PNAC, and as early as 1992 in defense planning guidance -- written for then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney by then-Pentagon staffers I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz, and ambassador-nominee to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad.
If the motivation for attacking Iran was aid to Iraqi resisters, the U.S. would be attacking Saudi Arabia too.
There is no evidence that Iran has nukes. NIE in 2005 said 2015 was the earliest Iran could have them.
There is no evidence that the government of Iran is involved in aiding Iraqis, a fact that Peter Pace and the CIA agree with.
The evidence that anyone in Iran is aiding Iraqis is weak. The intelligence community has refused to take part. The military is making these claims. The Iran Directorate is no more reliable (or legal) than was the Office of Special Plans. Those presenting the case are refusing to use their names or to allow any cameras in the room.
The idea that Iraqis cannot produce roadside bombs of the type described by the U.S. military is absurd. And what makes it laughable is that four years ago, the White House was telling us that Iraqis could produce long-range missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, nukes, and chemical and biological weapons.
The people pitching this Iran story are the same ones who lied to us about Iraq. And they've been lying to us about Iran in recent months, including claiming that Iran kicked out IAEA inspectors, which the IAEA denied; claiming North Korea was helping Iran with nukes, which N Korea denied and evidence refuted; and blaming incidents in Iraq on Iranian-trained fighters – claims that the facts have conflicted with.
In 1976 President Ford offered Iran the nuclear technology it is now trying to develop in the face of US opposition. In 2003, Iran proposed negotiations with the United States with everything on the table, including its nuclear technology. Bush refused.
Bush's threats and provocations are boosting support in Iran for a militaristic leader.
Threats by that leader do not justify war.
If you want to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, talk to Iran, work with Iran, and keep the inspectors in. Inspections worked with Iraq.
Attacking Iran would be a catastrophe for Iranians, Israelis, Americans, and others. A war could escalate dramatically.
War is a decision for Congress, not for an American monarch.
I am not suggesting attacking Iran
Submitted by javaguy on Wed, 2008-07-09 18:11.
but to completely take away the threat would be extremely dangerous. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man he has said the following about Israel: "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." and about the holocaust: "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets."... BBC News. The man is dangerous and the international community i.e. the UN cannot be relied on to deal with him.
You are now relying on the intelligence community which got WMDs in Iraq wrong yet you want to believe what they say now because it fits your agenda. I also disagree that WMDs are not a reason for war. Do you think for one minute Ahmadinejad would not supply these types of weapons to terrorist? If so I wish I could live in your world.
I am not advocating war, there has been to much already, but we need to be vigilant. This means keeping our eyes open to the possibility of a nuclear Iran who I believe would not hesitate to use such a weapon. Ahmadinejad wants to hurry the arrival of the Twelfth Iman.
Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice
Appeasement Worked So Well For Neville Chamberlain
Neville Chamberlain on Appeasement (1939)
Britain and France pursued a policy of appeasement in the hope that Hitler would not drag Europe into another world war. Appeasement expressed the widespread British desire to heal the wounds of World War I and to correct what many British officials regarded as the injustices of the Versailles Treaty. Some officials regarded a powerful Germany as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.
On September 27, 1938, when negotiations between Hitler and Chamberlain were strained, the British Prime Minister addressed the British people. Excerpts of this speech and another before the House of Commons are included here.
* * * * *
First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.
If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.
I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .
However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.
For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night. . . .
* * * * *
Since I first went to Berchtesgaden more than 20,0000 letters and telegrams have come to No. 10, Downing Street. Of course, I have been able to look at a tiny fraction of them, but I have seen enough to know that the people who wrote did not feel that they had such a cause for which to fight, if they were asked to go to war in order that the Sudeten Germans might not join the Reich. That is how they are feeling. That is my answer to those who say that we should have told Germany weeks ago that, if her army crossed the border of Czechoslovakia, we should be at war with her. We had no treaty obligations and no legal obligations to Czechoslovakia and if we had said that, we feel that we should have received no support from the people of this country. . . .
When we were convinced, as we became convinced, that nothing any longer would keep the Sudetenland within the Czechoslovakian State, we urged the Czech Government as strongly as we could to agree to the cession of territory, and to agree promptly. The Czech Government, through the wisdom and courage of President Benes, accepted the advice of the French Government and ourselves. It was a hard decision for anyone who loved his country to take, but to accuse us of having by that advice betrayed the Czechoslovakian State is simply preposterous. What we did was to save her from annihilation and give her a chance of new life as a new State, which involves the loss of territory and fortifications, but may perhaps enable her to enjoy in the future and develop a national existence under a neutrality and security comparable to that which we see in Switzerland to-day. Therefore, I think the Government deserve the approval of this House for their conduct of affairs in this recent crisis which has saved Czechoslovakia from destruction and Europe from Armageddon.
Does the experience of the Great War and the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that, if some new war started, that would end war any more than the last one did?
One good thing, at any rate, has come out of this emergency through which we have passed. It has thrown a vivid light upon our preparations for defense, on their strength and on their weakness. I should not think we were doing our duty if we had not already ordered that a prompt and thorough inquiry should be made to cover the whole of our preparations, military and civil, in order to see, in the light of what has happened during these hectic days, what further steps may be necessary to make good our deficiencies in the shortest possible time.
[Source: Neville Chamberlain, In Search of Peace (1939), p. 393; and Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons (London: HMSO, 1938) vol. 339, 12th vol. of session 1937-1938, pp. 361-369, 37