[OPIRG-EVENTS] CORRECTION: Saturday NOWAR/PAIX march - Protest the war on Iraq!

[nowar_paix@flora.org]

Correction: This notice is for the upcoming Saturday, Oct. 12th. Near the end 
of the notice it refers to Oct. 5th, but it was actually suppose to be the 
12th.

Forwarded From: nowar_paix@flora.org

> 
> Please distribute to COAT and other lists
> 
> The next Saturday NOWAR/PAIX march will again focus on the campaign to
> fight against the war on Iraq – an expansion of the so-called war on
> terror and an escalation of the decade long war on the Iraqi people.
> 
> The US government wants war with Iraq to force a regime change, an
> illegal action under the UN Charter.  Although Iraq agreed to the return
> of weapon inspectors, the U.S. has managed to delay this by insisting on
> a new resolution in the U.N. Security Counsel.  The fine print of this
> resolution sets conditions that no country could accept (see article,
> "Nato used the same old trick" by Robert Fisk below).  Our Canadian
> government is supporting this ploy and will likely participate in the
> U.S. war if it is "legitimized" in the U.N.
>  
> Join us this Saturday as we march, hand out literature and collect
> signatures on postcards opposing Canada's support of an attack on Iraq
> even if the US manages to maneuver a new UN resolution guaranteeing a
> war – a maneuver that Canada is one of the few countries supporting that
> the moment.
> 
> The march starts at noon at the corner of York and Sussex, on Saturday
> Oct. 5th. It will then travel through the market and finally to
> Parliament Hill. 
> 
> Please bring your signs, noise makers and outrage!!!!
> 
> --------------
> NATO Used The Same Old Trick
> by Robert Fisk; The Independent; October 04, 2002 
> 
> 
> It's the same old trap. Nato used exactly the same trick to ensure that
> it could have a war with Slobodan Milosevic. Now the Americans are
> demanding the same of Saddam Hussein – buried well down in their list of
> demands, of course. Tell your enemy that you're going to need his roads
> and airspace – with your troops on the highways – and you destroy his
> sovereignty. That's what Nato demanded of Serbia in 1999. That's what
> the new UN resolution touted by Messrs Bush and Blair demands of Saddam
> Hussein. It's a declaration of war.
> 
> It worked in 1999. The Serbs accepted most of Nato's Interim Agreement
> for Peace and Self-government in Kosovo, but not Appendix 8, which
> insisted that "Nato personnel shall enjoy ... free and unimpeded passage
> and unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
> 
>         It was a demand that Mr Milosevic could never accept. US troops
> driving through Serbia would have meant, in these circumstances, the end
> of Yugoslav sovereignty.
> 
>         But now we have the draft UN resolution which Presidents Bush
> and Blair insist the UN must pass. Arms inspection teams, it says,
> "shall have the right to declare for the purposes of this resolution ...
> ground and air-transit corridors which shall be enforced by UN security
> forces or by members of the UN [Security] Council".
> 
>         In other words, Washington can order forces of the US (a
> Security Council member) to "enforce" these "corridors" through Iraq –
> on the ground – when it wants. US troops would thus be in Iraq. It would
> be invasion without war; the end of Saddam, "regime change", the whole
> shebang.
> 
>         No Iraqi government – even a Baghdad administration without the
> odious Saddam – could ever accept such a demand. Nor could Serbia have
> accepted such a demand from Nato, even without the odious Slobodan.
> Which is why the Serbs and Nato went to war.
> 
>         So here it is again, the same old "we've-got-be-able-to-drive
> through-your-land" mentality which forced the Serbs into war and which
> is clearly intended to produce the same from Saddam.
> 
>         America wants a war and here's the proof: if the United States
> truly wished to avoid war, it could demand "unfettered access" for
> inspectors without this sovereignty-busting paragraph, using it as a
> second resolution only if the presidential palaces of the Emperor Saddam
> remained off-limits.
> 
>         Saddam can open his country to the inspectors; he can open even
> his presidential palaces. But if he doesn't accept the use of "Security
> Council" forces – in other words, US troops – on Iraqi roads, we can go
> to war. There's also that other paragraph: that "any permanent member of
> the Security Council may request to be represented on any inspection
> team." In other words, the Americans can demand that their intelligence
> men can return to become UN inspectors, to pass on their information to
> the Israelis (which they did before) and to the US military, which used
> them as forward air controllers for their aircraft once the inspectors
> were withdrawn.
> 
>         All in all, then, a deal which President Saddam – yes, Saddam
> the wicked, Saddam the torturer, Saddam the lover of gas warfare – could
> never, ever accept.
> 
>         He's not meant to accept this. Which is why the Anglo-American
> draft for the UN is intended to give us war, rather than peace and
> security from weapons of mass destruction.
> 



-- 



-
This is the OPIRG-events@ox.org list. Announcement only please.
To unsubscribe, send email to opirg-events-request@ox.org, and put
"unsubscribe" in the body.
Archive at: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/lists/html/opirg-events/