Iraq, Now Iran? There is Another Option: Peace

There was an article in the World & Comment section of the Monday, November 5, 2007, Toronto Star, about how the U.S. administration is ratcheting up its rhetoric about Iran, as if there was no other choice in the world available to the U.S., but to lay siege to yet another country (which keeps arms manufacturers happy and the oil corporations happy, but not the families of those soldiers and civilians who are killed and wounded.

Why are Americans and the Democratic contenders standing behind yet another war, after the last and still current disaster - the war in Iraq. Another war, more human rights abuses - just what the U.S. needs. (See Amnesty International's Country Report on the U.S.: http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of-America.)

The Iraq war and all the other hundreds of military installations around the world are bankrupting the country. The gap between rich and poor is widening. The environmental legislation has been pushed back 30 years and nothing is being done about climate change and the Kyoto agreement. Corporations at home and abroad are doing whatever they like, because of massive campaign donations to each American party, and their lawyers and lobbyists and PR army are doing the rest. It is a great time to be a millionaire and billionaire and not very good to be a poor working stiff whose children are not covered for medical care.

Is Iran supposed to take the country's mind off the hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqi's, many of them refugees?

Is it supposed to take everyone's mind off the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the several thousand deaths of American soldiers?

Why is everyone supporting the very administration that lied about having evidence to support the reason behind the Iraqi war. They knew very well before the war that there were no weapons of mass destruction. And yet they still sent American soldiers to die there in the thousands and other soldiers to kill thousands of civilians and displace tens of thousands more.

So how does it make sense to leave troops fighting there and starting a new war somewhere else?

Are the sanctions against the Iranian people going to take our minds off the terrible sanctions against the Iraqi people, which caused countless civilian deaths, most of whom were young children?

There is no requirement for the U.S. (except empire building, oil, supporting arms and rebuilding corporations)to feel it must intervene everywhere, making enemies of selective Middle East countries. Wasn't Osama a Saudi? And the U.S. protected the extended Bin Laden family in the U.S. in the days after September 11th, and sent the entire family out of the U.S. on an American military plane? The Saudi Royal princes are dictatorships and Saudi Arabia has a horrible record of human rights abuses - look up their Amnesty International country report. The U.S. is fast friends with the Saudis; therefore supporting an extremely repressive regime. http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Middle-East-and-North-Africa/Saudi-Arabia

Who died and made George W. king of the world? Or for that matter, who died and made previous presidents kings of the world? There is no need for an aggressive successor, someone else who can only see the way to peace through waging war. See the Amnesty International's report on the human rights abuses and the United States. There is no moral authority behind a country with such a human rights record.

What does the world need? Peace. Ethical and moral leaders who will deal with problems involving people and the environment - the most pressing problems the world faces. Developed countries need to provide at least the amount of foreign aid they have committed to but not paid, for poverty, AIDS, malaria, and the Millenium goals.
Developed countries need to show leadership where climate change is concerned not only at home, but in assisting developing nations to deal with the challenges of adapation and mitigation.

The world does not need any more wars right now. Instead of showing up for wars, how about withdrawing soldiers from all the military installations worldwide, and helping the United Nations deal with food collection and distribution to take care of the starving, getting drugs to those suffering from malaria and HIV/AIDs, and building or providing training for others to build infrastructure for clean drinking water, latrines, schools and providing small loans so the extreme poor can work their way out of poverty.

See Jeffrey D. Sach's book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Jeff Sachs is an American-born economist and internationally renowned for his work as economic advisor to governments around the world. He was a Special Advisor ton the Millenium Development Goals to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 2002 to 2006 and is a Special Advisor to the current Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon. He is a professor and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also known for his work with international agencies on problems of poverty reduction, debt cancellation and disease control, especially HIV/AIDS, in the developing world.

It is not naive to turn from war to doing what is right in the world. It is the only thing to do. Thousands are dying every day from starvation and diseases that are easily curable. We don't need to arm soldiers to kill anybody else.

I hope, as most Americans in polls, want peace, that they will not be drawn in to yet another war. You cannot get peace and security by going to war (as Afghanistan and Iraq should demonstrate clearly).

As Gandhi said: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." Now, where is the American leader with enough independence, courage, conviction and true moral authority to choose peace for Americans and the rest of the world?