women and peace |
|||
|
|
|
||
| WILPF
calls for peaceful resolution of the Iran "crisis"
From a statement issued June 6th from the (oldest) women's peace organization.
(click on link for full text)
The
first link presented is to a long article with a wealth of information
and links on the situation. The author proposes pressure
by US citizens for a "Nuclear Responsibility Act" ...
See: ..."The Bush administration will present the nuking of Iran as a "grave decision," the "gravest decision" a president ever had to make, reached after much "agonizing," necessary to save American, Israeli, Iraqi, and Iranian lives. In order to appreciate the magnitude of the crime, we must understand that this is not so; it is a premeditated act, and the elements to make it happen were carefully and methodically assembled over many years... The premeditated nature of the crime will become widely apparent to the whole world after it happens, with catastrophic consequences for the U.S.' role in the world. The rest of the world rightly regards nuclear weapons as qualitatively different from all other weapons because of their enormous destructive power and their potential to destroy humanity. The rest of the world understands that there is no sharp line dividing small nuclear weapons from large ones, nor between nuclear weapons targeting underground facilities and those targeting armies or cities; that an escalating nuclear war can lead to the death of every man, woman, and child on the planet; and that there is no reason in the world why the U.S. should have a monopoly on nuclear weapons... Unfortunately, no matter how much publicity and public opposition arise, the administration can still go ahead with its plans. To prevent it from doing so, here is a concrete proposal to present to your congressional representatives: the Nuclear Responsibility Act, an emergency bill in Congress dealing with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. This can be initiated in the Senate, the House of Representatives, or both... What should
be prevented at the very least is the ability of the president to
use a nuclear weapon preemptively. The discussion about whether
it is reasonable to respond with nuclear weapons to major actual
attacks with other "WMD" (e.g., chemical weapons) is important
and long overdue but should perhaps be left for another day. What
is urgent is that the president not be allowed to use nuclear weapons
against a non-nuclear country like Iran on the argument that "intelligence"
(which
can later be proven to be false) shows that an enemy attack with
non-nuclear WMD is "imminent." ... Another voice:
Iran: The Next War
..."Iran
offers no "nuclear threat." There is not the slightest evidence
that it has the centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium to weapons-grade
material. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly
said his inspectors have found nothing to support American and Israeli
claims. Iran has done nothing illegal; it has demonstrated no territorial
ambitions nor has it engaged in the occupation of a foreign country
– unlike the United States, Britain and Israel. It has complied with
its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty to allow inspectors
to "go anywhere and see anything" – unlike the US and Israel.
The latter has refused to recognize the NPT, and has between 200 and
500 thermonuclear weapons targeted at Iran and other Middle Eastern
states..." Nuclear War
against Iran Michel Chossudovsky, Editor Global Research E-Monograph and Reports Series, No. 3, February 2005 http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/iran_target.htm Michel Chossudovsky
is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre
for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically
acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca is writings have been translated into
more than 20 languages. US
war with Iran has already begun |
|||
