Re: time for environmentalists to become political - oppose war against Iraq

["John Wilcox" <jbwilcox@interserv.com>]

Hey, military action by definition damages the environment. But avoiding
senseless slaughter of humans to suit anyones political or personal agenda
is what really counts.  What do you think Sadam has been planning to do or
has already done with his poison gas, biotoxins and nuclear capability? Does
he seem to be a rational, sensible man to you? Has diplomacy without the
genuine threat of reprisal worked so far with him?

Sadam has used such weapons indiscriminately against soldiers and civilians
before with tragic consequences. We could all be within the range of his
weapons, even if we are not Iraq's neighbors. Diplomacy is fine, but if it
fails, I would rather see the environment in Iraq get dirtier than be
hostage to Sadam's nerve gas, botulinium toxins and neuclear weapons, or
watch him use these weapons for genocide elsewhere. Small amounts of
depleted uranium in the desert seems alot less of an environmental disaster
than radioactive fallout or clouds of chemical or biological agents in
population centers.

You may talk about Sadam as a past ally, and urge people to cut him a lot of
slack, but please do not sell your dogma as the environmentally friendly
approach. If you want to start a letter writing campaign, why not urge
everyone to write to Sadam, or other influential Iraqis and ask them why
they dirtied the environment before and after the war?  Why not urge them to
comply with the terms Iraq agreed to at the end of the Gulf war?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Campbell <jon@cqs.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dioxin-l@essential.org>
Date: Saturday, February 07, 1998 2:06 PM
Subject: time for environmentalists to become political - oppose war against
Iraq


>Hi, folks,
>
>      I know people in the environmental arena are usually not involved in
>politics or issues of "national security" . But not it is time for us to
>recognize that the environmental is enmeshed with the political when it
>comes to war.
>
>     The Gulf War of 1991 caused massive environmental devastation on an
>unprecedented scale. The combination of oil fires, blazing factories,
sewage
>and electrical plant destruction, use of uranium shells, and use of
chemical
>agents (not weapons, per se, but pesticides) has caused damage to land,
air,
>ecosystems, and people that has not really even been addressed.
>
>      And now it would seem that the Pres is considering another massive
>attack, supposedly over chemical and/or biological weaponry. I have not
seen
>any data on whether the kinds of weapons that are allegedly targeted for
>destruction would cause any kind of ecological/environmental/health harm if
>they are burned or blown up. I have not seen any ecological impact
statement
>at all. All I have seen is word to the effect of "Saddam Hussein has
>biological or chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein is a madman. Therefore we
>must attack Iraq." [I might add: there are a lot of "madmen" who control
>whole countries. However, all but four of them are U.S.-aligned or have
>favored nation status.]
>
>       The Mideast environment has not yet recovered from the last
>devastation. It is time we spoke up to promote diplomacy, environmental
>cleanup, and removal of the ecvonomic embargo, which makes it impossible
for
>Iraq to address the environmental devastation done in the last war.
>
>        Send your cards and letters today to the Pres. Talk about it with
>your friends. If the US does attack Iraq, watch what kind of facilities are
>destroyed, and provide people around you with knowledge about the real,
>long-term environmental costs of any kind of warfare waged today.
>
>        Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think Hussein is a good guy.
>But remember he was a US ally until 1990 or so, and he's had biological and
>chemical weapons since the 1970s.
>
>Thanks
>Jon