[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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 

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/