STANISLAUS CONNECTIONS
Working For Peace, Justice, and A Sustainable Environment
November, 2002
A Modesto Peace/Life Center Publication
Peace
The
War Vote
Votes by area
senators and congressional representatives on the resolution authorizing the use
of military force against Iraq.
Against
Sen. Barbara
Boxer (D)
Anna Eschoo
(D-Atherton)
Gary Condit
(D-Ceres)
Sam Farr
(D-Carmel)
Mike Honda
(D-San Jose)
Barbara Lee
(D-Oakland)
Zoe Lofgren
(D-San Jose)
Robert Matsui
(D-Sacramento)
George Miller
(D-Martinez)
Nancy Pelosi
(D-San Francisco)
Pete Stark (D-Fremont)
Mike Thompson
(D-St. Helena)
Lynn Woolsey
(D-Petaluma)
In
Favor
Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D)
John Doolittle
(R-Rocklin)
Tom Lantos
(D-San Mateo)
Doug Ose
(R-Sacramento)
Richard Pombo
(R-Tracy)
George
Radanovich (R-Mariposa)
Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo)
The Senate: 77 (favor) to 23
The House: 296 (favor) to 133.
Data submitted by Ken Schroeder
![]()
Joint
Statement in Response to Threat of War with Iraq From
the General and Executive Secretaries of Five Quaker Organizations Ninth Month,
24, 2002
“I told them that I lived
in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of all wars...I
told them I was come into the covenant of peace which was before wars and strife
were...”
— George Fox, Founder of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers),
1651.
The United States
government stands on the verge of launching a major war against Iraq. At the
same time, U.S. political leaders are promulgating a doctrine that asserts the
United States’ right to launch unilateral, preemptive military strikes on any
nation or group to counter a perceived threat. The peace and security of all
peoples are threatened by these developments.
If ever there were a time
for Friends to take action based upon our historic peace testimony, that time is
now. We call upon Friends to witness and work to prevent this war, to reverse
this new military doctrine, to call upon our governments to implement
multilateral, diplomatic responses to the threats posed by the government of
Iraq, and to continue developing positive, nonviolent approaches to resolving
international conflicts. We know that there are millions of people of good will
with whom we can join in this work.
We find many compelling
reasons for all people of faith and reason to oppose this war and this dangerous
new military policy. Among them are:
A war with Iraq is
likely to cause tremendous loss of human lives, vast destruction, and
terrible human suffering.
The aftermath of a war
with Iraq is likely to include years of chaos and suffering in Iraq,
instability and violence in the Middle East and South Asia, hatred of the
United States for generations to come, and an increase in acts of terrorism
against countries deemed responsible for the war.
Such a war, and the
policy that underlies it, would legitimize preemptive military strikes by
nations that feel threatened by others. Such a terrible precedent would
undermine international law and the U.N. Charter and could lead to a
tremendous increase in wars and violence in the future.
We know from history that
acts of violence only breed further violence.
We also know that the
terrifying spiral of violence and hatred can be interrupted by acts of creative
nonviolence, conflict resolution and courageous love. The real path to global
security lies in a stronger global civil society based on increasing trust and
respect, the rule of international law, and the removal of the roots of violence
and war.
There is no way to peace.
Peace is the way.
Call and Answer
Tell me why it is we don't lift our voices these days
And cry over what is happening. Have you noticed
The plans are made for Iraq and the ice cap is melting.
I say to myself: "Go on, cry. What's the sense
Of being an adult and having no voice? Cry out!
See who will answer! This is Call and Answer!"
Some masters say our life lasts only seven days.
Where are we in the week? Is it Thursday yet?
Hurry, cry now! Soon Sunday night will come.
We will have to call especially loud to reach
Our angels, who are hard of hearing; they are hiding
In the jugs of silence filled during our wars.
If we don't lift our voices, we allow others--who are
Ourselves--to rob the house. Every day we steal from
Ourselves knowledge gained over a thousand years.
Robert, how come you've listened to the great criers
And now you are a sparrow quiet in the little bushes!
It's Saturday night, and you still haven't cried.
- Robert Bly
OPINION:
The Opportunity Cost of War
By
LEE RYAN MILLER, Ph.D.
The 1991 Gulf War cost the
United States and its allies about $61 billion dollars. This staggering figure
only includes the direct costs of war, such as weapons, transportation, fuel,
etc. That war had more limited objectives than the conflict that President Bush
currently proposes. In 1991, the goal was only to eject Iraqi forces from
Kuwait, not take over all of Iraq. Analysts estimate that the war currently
under consideration may cost as much as $100 billion.
There are other ways our
government could spend $100 billion. Imagine the improvements we could make in
health-care or education with a $100 billion dollar increase in spending. $100
billion is more than twice the combined annual budgets of the Department of
Education and the Department of Health and Human Services.
One could argue that such
comparisons are unfair. After all, the President claims that we may need to go
to war against Iraq in order to protect national security. He claims that Iraq
is dangerous because of its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
If we take the President at
his word, then there are an awful lot of other countries against which we should
be considering war. We should include Iran and North Korea, two countries
already singled out by the President for trying to develop weapons of mass
destruction. We also could add India, Pakistan, Israel, China, Russia, Britain,
and France to the list, since these countries already have succeeded in
developing such weapons.
But the President also
expressed concern about Iraq’s potential to destabilize the Middle East, a
region crucial to our national security because it is where the majority of the
world’s oil reserves are located. The United States economy is dependent on
massive oil imports, and anything that threatens the supply of oil threatens our
economy and, therefore, our national security.
Just over a decade ago,
half a million American soldiers fought a war to protect our access to Middle
Eastern oil, and now we are on the brink of another war for the same purpose.
Perhaps we should consider a different approach to safeguarding the nation’s
energy supply.
$100 billion dollars would
go a long way toward eliminating the need for oil imports, were we to invest it
in renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. For example, that would
be enough money to equip some 40 million US houses with 2-kilowatt rooftop solar
panels which, together, could generate electricity equivalent to nearly thirty
conventional power plants.
We could generate even more
electricity, were the government to invest in solar power in the country’s
sunniest regions, and spend the rest on wind power generation in the nation’s
windiest regions. Were the US government to invest that $100 billion dollars in
this fashion, plus tighten up vehicle fuel efficiency standards, and provide
incentives for consumers to choose hybrid and electric vehicles over
conventional gas-guzzlers, we would no longer need to import any oil at all from
the Middle East. In fact, we probably would not need to import any oil at all.
We might even find ourselves able to export surplus electricity to Canada and
Mexico.
10 questions Americans are asking from Yes! Magazine
Why not attack Iraq? from Sojourners Magazine
Tikkun's Resolution on the Middle East Conflict from Tikkun
Iraq and the New Great Game from AlterNet
Stop development of 'Usable' Nukes from California Peace Action
![]()
Christians
being recruited for peacekeeping in Middle East
The Ecumenical
Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) is recruiting Christians
worldwide for peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East. The World Council of
Churches (WCC), a fellowship of 342 Christian churches in 120 countries sponsors
EAPPI.
EAPPI is looking for
volunteers to travel to Israel and Palestine to monitor human rights violations
and protect Palestinian and Israeli advocates of peace.
The Rev. Mark B. Brown,
assistant director for international issues, Lutheran Office for Governmental
Affairs (LOGA), Washington D.C., said the purpose of the program is to support
those who are struggling to end the occupation peacefully.
“We hope the presence of
international monitors will reduce the violence and encourage everyone to be on
their best behavior,” said Brown. “Sometimes a spotlight and people writing
reports help create a level of confidence for those who want to see nonviolent
change.”
EAPPI is neither
pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli, but rather “pro-peace and pro-justice,”
said Catherine Gordon, associate for international issues, Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.).
The first group to go
consisted of 25 Christians from Canada, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the United
States. Their training began with a five-day course starting Aug. 13 in
Washington, D.C., and continued when they arrived in the Middle East a week
later. EAPPI plans to send a new team every three months.
Participants must be at
least 25 years old and stay in the Middle East for at least three months to one
year. Participants should raise enough money for their food, housing, airfare
and transportation, plus a donation to WCC to help pay for program
administration.
![]()