Church Leaders warn against Iraq attack
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: Church Leaders warn against Iraq attack
topic by
John Calvin
8/7/2002 (16:55)
 reply top
Church leaders in anti-war warning
By Benedict Brogan, Political Correspondent and Toby Helm in Berlin
(Filed: 07/08/2002)


Church leaders, backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury elect, lent support to the campaign against war on Iraq yesterday by warning Tony Blair that military action against Saddam Hussein would be 'immoral and illegal'.

As MPs stepped up their demands for a recall of Parliament, bishops and other religious leaders endorsed a 'Christian Declaration' signed by nearly 3,000 people that was delivered to 10 Downing Street.

The document, prepared by the Pax Christi anti-war group, condemned efforts to link action against Iraq with the 'war on terrorism'.

'We deplore any military action that regards the deaths of innocent men, women and children as a price worth paying in fighting terrorists, since this is to fight terror with terror,' the document declared. Its organisers said they would deliver updated lists of signatories to Downing Street as more names were added.

The protest came as tensions between Britain and Germany over Iraq broke into the open, with Chancellor Schröder's deputy publicly attacking Mr Blair for supporting Washington's hawkish line.

Michael Müller, deputy leader of the Social Democrats, told the Rheinische Post that the Chancellor was very disturbed by his British counterpart's pro-American stance which, he feared, could provoke a split within the EU.

The paper said Mr Müller was relaying the Chancellor's 'great concern'. The remarks followed statements by Mr Schröder and fellow Social Democrats in recent days, in which they have opposed German participation in military action against Baghdad, even if it was backed by a new resolution of the United Nations.

Previously, Mr Schröder's government, which approved sending troops to Afghanistan, had hinted that it might be prepared to support military intervention in Iraq if a new UN mandate was agreed.

EU diplomats fear that Mr Schröder's remarks might tempt other European nations that privately oppose a new war with Iraq to say so.

Mr Schröder's tougher anti-American rhetoric, and his willingness to criticise Mr Blair, has been attacked by opponents as a pitch for votes ahead of the general election.

Yesterday's 'Christian Declaration' condemned the sanctions applied against Iraq and said a 'pre-emptive war' was banned under the terms of the UN Charter.

It called on America and Britain to accept the Iraqi offer of allowing UN weapons inspectors back into the country - which was rejected by Washington and London - and for Western arsenals to be opened to inspection as well.

It concluded: 'An attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal. Eradicating the dangers posed by malevolent dictators and terrorists can be achieved only by tackling the root causes of the disputes themselves.' Dr Rowan Williams signed the document, but before he was confirmed as the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate.

Another signatory, the Anglican Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev John Perry, said the action being contemplated by the US with British support did not meet Christian criteria.

Ahmad Fawzi, the UN representative in London, said Saddam's offers to allow weapons inspectors back in Iraq should be examined.

news.telegrap.co.uk
reply by
Go to...
8/7/2002 (17:03)
 reply top
http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk
reply by
gomesy43
8/7/2002 (21:20)
 reply top
These so-called religious people who are opposing the idea of an attack on Iraq are obviously oblivious to reality and to Iraq's true intentions behind their offer to allow UN inspectors in. It's a little thing called stalling for time. Iraq has made false promises many times in the past and has not followed through. People need to quit trying to find the good in Saddam and quit trying to believe that he is turning over a new leaf. This is the same man that gassed and dropped chemical weapons on his own people. People need to quit fantasizing about a peace filled utopia in a world where people like Saddam Hussein live and rule countries. The longer an attack on Iraq can be stalled by the fluffy minded peaceful thinkers, the more time Saddam has to create the weapons of mass destruction he needs to destroy the free. He won't necessarily use the weapons himself, but he will distribute them out to his Al qaeda buddies.
reply by
Lynette
8/8/2002 (11:01)
 reply top
Agreed. Saddam is up to no good. Christ I feel sorry for the ordinary Iraqi citizen over there. The last lot of foreign journalists that interviewed ordinary Iraqi's said that the people were so frightened they nearly peeied their pants when they saw what were clearly Saddam's secret police hovering in the background while the camera's were rolling. They were so 'eager' to sing Saddam's praises they nearly fell over themselves in the process. You can see it in the people's eyes, they are afraid. It is mandatory to LUV Saddam- If you want your family to keep breathin` that is......

IF WE MUST BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF THAT BASTARD IT MUST BE FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS AND STUPID KING GEORGE HAD BETTER START TALKING TURKEY WITH THE REST OF THE ARAB WORLD IF HE WANTS THEIR FULL ON CO-OPERATION. FUNNY HOW KING ABDULLAH TOLD BUSHY THAT THE PALESTINIAN THINGY MUST BE THE FIRST PRIORITY BEFORE ANT ATTACK ON SADDAM,HUH? THAT TELLS ME THAT THE ARAB WORLD IS TELLING BUSHY THAT IF HE WANTS THEIR CO-OPERATION IN GETTING SADDAM.........THEY WANT SOMETHING IN RETURN.....AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT IS, DON'T WE CHILDREN? AND THAT IS FOR THE MIGHTY USA TO PLAY THE EVEN HANDED NEGOTIATOR IN REGARDS TO THAT 1/2 ACRE ZIONIST SANDHILL OR ELSE YOU CAN KISS MIDDLEAST CO-OPERATION TA TA.....>:O[
reply by
just facts
8/8/2002 (21:31)
 reply top
Since Iraq holds the world's 2nd largest proven reserves of oil after Saudi Arabia, there emerges a possible scenario of an ' Iraq first, then Saudi Arabia next ' strategy. If the US and Britain could install an agreeable leader in Iraq, thus ensuring adequate oil-supplies, a subsequent move could then be made into Saudi Arabia. The events of recent days almost make this scenario plausible. Of course, nobody in this administration would ever admit such a thing. But considering the neocons presently running our foreign policy vis-a-vis the Middle East, this script might be less far-fetched than it sounds.
reply by
TheAZCowBoy
8/10/2002 (13:22)
 reply top
Re: LYNETTE, Hey Momma, remember, you're either with us or against us--Comprendez Mendez?

LYNETTE: 'Agreed, Saddam is up to no good. Christ I feel sorry for the ordinary Iraqi citizen over there.

TAC: Personally I felt the same way after the US massacred 3,000,000 innocent civilian's in Vietnam and another alleged 280,000+ in the 'illegal' bombing of Laos and Cambodia.

So where was your voice of dissent then LYNETTE?

Oh, you were playing hop scotch on some Aborigine's old stomping grounds, huh?

Note: The death of over 750,000 Iraqis attributable to the US embargo of medicine, medical and hospital equipment and the over 300,00 Iraqi children currently suffering from various forms of lymphobic, liver, pancreatic and brain cancer because of the US' use of depleted uranium munitions against Iraq during the Gulf war is something you ( and the other hypocrites ) should give your attention to and reserve your comments for.

~TheAZCowBoy~