Bismarck
Monthly Meeting
Minute
On Iraq Attack
Bismarck,
North Dakota Friends Gathering, September 29, 2002
The
Bismarck Monthly Meeting, after study, discussion, reflection
and prayer, expresses our opposition to an attack by the United
States on the people of Iraq.
War
is not the answer to these difficult issues in the Middle East.
Alternative policies to war with Iraq include:
Rebuilding:
Establish a policy of rebuilding Palestine, including homes,
water and sewer systems.
Transparency:
Support weapon inspection regimes for all potential nuclear
powers, including the United States, as an example to others,
as well as Iraq, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and Egypt.
Forum:
Provide a permanent regional discussion forum
under the auspices of the United States or the United Nations.
We
are troubled and perplexed by the initiative of the executive
branch of the United States government to launch an attack on
the nation of Iraq. Numerous questions have not been answered
including the following:
Precedent: Is this a precedent for presidents
to go to war without a declaration of war as required by the
Constitution by interpreting indirect sanction for the action
from past statements of Congress?
Constitution:
Why does the Congress acquiesce in presidential assertions of
authority to launch a unilateral preemptive military attack
on Iraq contrary to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution?
Moral
Position: What is the future moral position of
the U.S. if we start a pattern of preemptively striking countries
and people we do not like?
World
Opinion: Why is there little consideration in the
U.S. for world opinion, which substantially condemns this course
of action?
U.N.
Charter: Why does the Congress acquiesce in presidential
assertions of authority under older United Nations Security
Council resolutions to launch a unilateral preemptive military
attack on Iraq?
U.N.
Discredit: Why does the United States seek to discredit
the United Nations by its example to encourage other countries
to ignore the decisions and services of the United Nations?
Alternatives:
Why does the President avoid full effort to exhaust other avenues
to remove the threat of use of weapons of great destruction?
Occupation:
In light of the long-term commitment in Afghanistan and the
state of the economy, is it in the U.S. interest, and can we
afford to commit the resources, to occupy the Middle East for
a long period?
Threat:
Is there any credible evidence that Iraq is a threat to the
U.S.?
Regional
Consequences: We are concerned that an American
attack on Iraq will escalate violence throughout the Mideast,
especially against Israel. Why does the U.S. government not
visibly consider this potential for regional war and chaos?
Weapons
Use: There is no public evidence that Iraq has
any ability to attack the United States with biological or nuclear
weapons. However, if the Iraqi government is backed into a corner,
with perceptions of little further to lose, will the government
be willing to use whatever weapons it has?
Terrorism:
Is the U.S. squandering international concern and cooperation
in addressing world terrorism by diverting attention and resources
to concerns about Iraq, which has no demonstrated link to terrorism?
Empire:
Will the world understand this unilateral initiative as part
of a policy of establishing an American Empire, despite the
failed experience with such a policy in the 19th century?
We
urge our congressional representatives to consider these questions
and urge the President of the United States to reject the course
of any attack on Iraq and to use cooperative means to reduce
the threat of use of weapons of great destruction.
OTHER
QUAKER STATEMENTS & LETTERS
Reviewed:
09/06/2005
More
on Iraq
|
