Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

military families speak out

un | 21.09.2003 11:32 | Anti-militarism

here are messages for all those posters who are pro-occupation of Iraq, from the soldiers and there families who are fighting your dirty, illegal, and unjust war.
You keep tring to justify our leaders actions, but there is no justification, it must be stopped, OUR LEADERS MUST BE STOPPED!

I'm a veteran from the first Gulf War. I retired from the US Army in 1994. My sister's son is an Army SP4 serving somewhere near Baghdad. I am absolutely opposed to this occupation. I believe George Bush lied to us to get us to go along with this war. I also believe the continuing occupation is only necessary so that Bush can pay back the corporate sponsors who put him in office. I think this is very close to class warfare, too. The rich and powerful no longer have to worry about their children dying in some far-off land. The all-volunteer concept has sucked in young people from lower and middle-income families who want to make a better life for themselves. So the young men and women George Bush sends to die are far removed from him and his circle of elite friends. It's not a personal loss, which should cause us all to wonder just what "acceptable loss" means to him and his administration.
Robert S. Smith
SFC, US Army (retired)

My only child, my son, Justin, is a sergeant in the Massachusetts National Guard, and stationed in Samarra, Iraq, since early April. I carry an 8 by10 picture of him on the rear right window of my car with a sign that reads, "Bush lied. The War is not over. Support our troops. Bring my son home!" Very few people speak to me about about Justin's picture. Most people look at it, avert their eyes and pass by, carefully avoiding eye contact if I happen to be in the car.
Susan E. Schuman

In a democracy, the government serves the people. In America, the people serve the government.
Harold Taggart

I watched your press conference today, crying uncontrollably at the words of the families whose children are still in Iraq. I amstill weeping as I'm typing this letter. I am so confused, so scared, so devastated at what is happening today. Words or actions could not express my intense, burning anger when I see President Bush vacationing yet again at his Texas ranch - all the while the soldiers he loves to exploit are dying and suffering.
Melissa, with parents David (Vietnam veteran) and Shelley (daughter of WWII veteran),
and grandmother Ruth (wife of WWII veteran)

My son is in Iraq, and we want to thank you for your efforts. Zac is a son, husband, and father who is much beloved, and he is very opposed to this war. We are outraged at the lies and manipulation of this administration. Nothing is as it appears
Donna Williamson

Statement On the Second Anniversary of 9/11
Two years ago today our loved ones were tragically murdered in an act of terror that shook the United States and the world. In the time since their deaths, as we continue our personal paths of grieving, we are comforted by the thoughtful and compassionate response of people all over the world who have offered sympathy and support to the victims of these terrible attacks. But much about the US government’s approach to responding to our loved ones’ deaths stands in stark contrast to the common sense words and comforting actions of ordinary people. On this two-year anniversary, we stop to reflect on the dangerous course of current policies and to call for a new approach to 9/11 that is focused on bringing about true security and justice.



Hide the following 14 comments

No one wanted this war, but war was inevitable!

21.09.2003 12:45

No one wanted this war. George Bush didn't and Tony Blair didn't. The only reason this war happened was Saddam Hussein's refusal to co-operate with the UN resolutions that were signed at the end of the first Gulf War which instructed Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction and to provide evidence of this to UN inpsectors. But for 12 years Saddam consistantly lied, decieved and tricked the UN. Eventually Saddam was given an ultimatum to comply with the UN resolutions, go into exile or face invasion. Saddam stubbenly refused this last chance offer so war was the only option.

No one had anything to gain by this war. The only reason it happened was because not doing anything about Saddam would have been far more dangerous. The problem of Saddam simply had to be tackled given his dangerous record such as his declaration of war against Iran in 1980 which lasted 8 years and cost a million lives, his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 in which Kuwait was ransacked and thousands of Kuwaitis tortured and killed.



21.09.2003 13:08

Israel has broken far more resolutions than Iraq EVER did, why don`t we invade Israel? because no where in the UN resolutions does it call for military action to be used. Only Bush and Blair, AGAINST UN recomendation, called for the invasion of Iraq.

Please do not use UN in your feeble excuses, Blair and Bush are all alone. As you are too.


But Saddam was a major threat to world peace!

21.09.2003 13:22

Saddam was a major threat to world peace though. He had fought a war against Iraq from 1980 to 1988 in which a million people had died. He had invaded Kuwait in which thousands of Kuwaiti civilians had been killed and many more arrested and tortured. Saddam had also stockpiled vast quantities of chemical, and biological weapons. And was intent on aquiring nuclear weapons. Iraq was simply to dangerous to ignore something had to be done about it. Saddam's Iraq was also a hell hole where torture, execution and terror were part of everyday life the Iraqi people had to be liberated from such extreme tyranny!

Israel is a lot different from Iraq for a start it is a democracy and every war Israel has ever fought has been in self defence! The UN resolutions which Israel has broken have been advisory and non binding! Israel is also considered by the UN not to be a threat to international peace. Iraq on the other hand certainly was a threat to world peace and certainly was dangerous and unstable led by an insane dictator.


Spin on it

21.09.2003 13:26

Rockwell aka Alistair Campbell... not even Hans Blix believes that bullshit.

You are in a minority of one.

And if you support this war so much, why are you not on the frontline?



21.09.2003 17:01

Would you not be better to post your pearls of recycled wisdom somewhere where people wouldnt just laugh at your rehashed daily Telegraph editorials? springs to mind


Here are the full facts on the Iraq case then.

24.09.2003 15:16

At the end of the first Gulf War instead of invading Iraq the allies backed by the UN who had given full support for armed force to remove Iraq from Kuwait decided on a ceasefire agreement. This ceasefire agreement was that Iraq was to destroy all chemical and biologival weapons and long range missiles within two months. Evidence of the destruction of these weapons was to presented to UN inpectors. It was the responsibility of Iraq to hand over those weapons or provide evidence of those weapons destruction not for UN inpectors to search for them and destroy them themselves.

Iraq though did not co-operate from the start. It tried to hide the weapons from UN inpsectors and intimidated and harrassed inspectors in their work. The two month deadline set by the UN was ignored and Iraq was given every chance possible to comply with the UN and the ceasefire conditions. Eventually Iraq kicked out the inspectors on charges of spying in December 1998. The allied response to this was operation Desert Fox in which bombing missions were made to try to destroy any remaining weapons of mass destruction held by Iraq.

Remember it was the responsibility of Iraq to provide evidence of destruction of all of its WMD and banned long range missiles to UN inpectors therefore when UN inspectors returned to Iraq and were not provided with this evidence by Iraq, the allies were well within their rights to invade Iraq for breach of ceasefire conditions. They didn't even need another UN resolution to do this which they would have got if France hadn't used its veto.


Poor Rocky

24.09.2003 15:37

Just three little facts:

1)Iraq did not "kick out" the inspectors, they were withdrawn so that air strikes could go in

2) There were no weapons, it was a lie from start to finish.

3) not only France, but the rest of the Un security council (except the UK) opposed the war.

Still apart from having all the facts wrong your post is just great!


You still there, Agent Rockwell?

24.09.2003 15:52

Once more we see Rocky's slavish acceptance of the "official" version of events, at the expense of truth, morality and of course Rockwell's own conscience.

"Iraq was given every chance possible to comply with the UN and the ceasefire conditions."

Well, no, actually. The US in part icular kept changing the goalposts and making more demands as soon as others were met.

"Eventually Iraq kicked out the inspectors on charges of spying in December 1998."

Again, no.

The inspectors were forced to leave by...the US! Who used its forthcoming bombing campaign (Desert Fox) as a pretext to claim that the inspectors would not be safe during the (illegal) attack.

"The allied response to this was operation Desert Fox in which bombing missions were made to try to destroy any remaining weapons of mass destruction held by Iraq."

Er, right. Great idea. A few bombing raids in the desert will somehow destroy these fiendishly concealed weapons, eh?

Tell you something. What Desert Fox was good for was - yep - killing Iraqi civilians.

"The allies were well within their rights to invade Iraq for breach of ceasefire conditions."

Er, no they were'nt. The UN secretary-general specifically stated that unilateral action would be illegal under international law, making Bush and Blair war criminals.

"They didn't even need another UN resolution to do this which they would have got if France hadn't used its veto."

Given that only the US, Britain, Spain and Australia supported this pointless and bloody fucking war, I don't see how its all France's "fault."

Finally, there is of course the inconvenient TRUTH that of course Iraq doesn't, and didn't at the time, have any WMDs anyway, thus making the above refutation academic.

What it does have is the world's second largest oil reserves, and on Monday a minister in Iraq's sock puppet administration admitted that it would not rule out the ownership of Iraq's oil assets by foreign firms. Nice.

Only this week John Pilger showed the world US television footage of both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell stating categorically that Iraq posed no threat to anyone and had no weapons, just two months before 9/11.

Strange, eh?

PS - It's no wonder that the government dossiers on Iraq were so pathetic and inaccurate, with people like Rockwell working for the "intelligence" community!


Rockwell is a Nazi

24.09.2003 16:02

Check the anti-BNP report (few down), Rockwell is BNP!


No you are totally wrong!

24.09.2003 16:03

1) Iraq did kick out the UN inspectors in December 1998 on charges of spying! That was why the allies conducted operation desert fox in January 1999!

2) Iraq definitly did have weapons of mass destruction at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. The ceasefire agreement said that Iraq was to destroy these weapons and provide evidence of their destruction to UN weapons inspectors within TWO MONTHS of the end of the Gulf War in April 1991!

3) The allies gave Iraq, chance after chance to comply with the ceasefire agreement. And every chance Iraq had it refused to comply.

4) Under the ceasefire agreement it was up to Iraq to account for all banned weapons and to either show UN weapons inspectors evidence of their destruction. It was not for the UN inpectors to prove Iraq had banned weapons. The UN inpectors were only there to confirm the destruction of these weapons. Iraq was responsible for proving it had destroyed the banned weapons to the UN inpectors not the other way around.

5) The UN agreed that Iraq was in breach of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. Therefore legally it didn't need another UN resolution to invade Iraq, but America and Britain were prepared to go to the UN because they wanted believed so strongly in the authority of the UN.

6) In the case of Iraq military action was the very last resort every other alternative had been tried and failed. Negotiation, sanctions, giving Iraq more time to comply, everything!


sorry rockwell...

24.09.2003 16:40

... it's always more complicated than the official version.

Aussie investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.

A television report by Pilger aired on British screens overnight said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.

But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.

"I think it's very serious for Howard. Howard has followed the Americans and to a lesser degree Blair almost word for word," Pilger told AAP before his program was screened on ITV tonight.

"All Howard does is say `well it's not true' and never explains himself.

"I just don't believe you can be seen to be party to such a big lie, such a big deception and endure that politically.

"It simply can't be shrugged off and that's Howard's response.

"Blair has shrugged it off but Blair is deeply damaged. It's far from over here, there's a lot that is going to happen and much of it could wash onto Howard.

"And it's unravelling in America and Bush could lose the election next year.

"I've not seen political leaders survive when they've been complicit in such an open deception for so long."

Howard last week dismissed an accusation from Opposition Leader Simon Crean that he hid a warning from British intelligence that war against Iraq would heighten the terrorist threat to Australia.

In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.

McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass destruction "was 95 per cent charade."

Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.

Pilger claimed war was set in train on September 17, 2001 when Bush signed a paper directing the Pentagon to explore the military options for an attack on Iraq.

(c) AAP 2003.,4057,7350504%5E2,00.html

this thing here


24.09.2003 17:33

...there's also the fact that "Adolf" Rockwell didn't actually disprove any of the points, he just repeated his threadbare pro-war arguments.

Master race? Masturbator more like!

Cockwell is a numpty

No the war was not based on lies!

25.09.2003 09:37

The war was not based on lies at all. Iraq was in breach of the 1991 ceasefire greement which stated that it was to destroy all chemical, biological and long range missiles and to provide evidence of their destruction to UN weapons inspectors. Iraq was initially given two months to do this but was given more chances.

After Iraq kicked out the UN inspectors in December 1998 there were still a large number of chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for! If Iraq had destroyed these weapons then it could have done so in full view of UN wweapons inspectors or else provide full details of those weapons destruction to UN inspectors.

The allies knew that it was too dangerous to give Iraq the benefit of the doubt over these weapons so insisted that Iraq account for them. Iraq refused so war was the result. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found is irrelevent. Iraq was obliged by the 1991 ceasefire agreement to account for all its weapons of mass destruction and banned long range missiles. It was up to Iraq to prove that all its banned weapons had been destroyed not for the allies to prove Iraq still had them.

Aswell as that Iraq was one of most brutal regimes in the world which had no respect for human life for example that regime terrorised the Kurds, the Shia Muslims and the Marsh Arabs, set fire to dozens of oil wells at the end of the Gulf War and poured crude oil into the Persian Gulf. Aswell as draining the land of the Marsh Arabs creating an ecological disaster. Thousands of people were also discovered in mass graves in the desert of Iraq. It was 100 per cent right to rid Iraq of this brutal tyrannical regime!


not based on lies?

25.09.2003 16:12

lie - n. - 1. a false statment or action known by the speaker to be false with intent to decieve 2. anything that gives or meant to give a false impression.

Using the definition above, of the 4 examples provided below, which represent a lie? Place the number of the example/s you have chosen on the line marked "Answer" below.

1. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - C. Rice, National Security Advisor, USA.

2. "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing." - T. Blair, Prime Minister, UK.

3. "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." C. Powell, Secretary of State, USA.

4. "The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now." - T. Blair, Prime Minister, UK.

Answer - ___________

this thing here

Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
All Regions
South Coast
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
All Topics
Animal Liberation
Climate Chaos
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Public sector cuts
Social Struggles
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network

satellite tv


estrecho / madiaq
la plana
northern england
nottingham imc
united kingdom

Latin America
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
puerto rico


South Asia

United States
hudson mohawk
kansas city
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
tampa bay
united states
western mass

West Asia


fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs