On route to war

Nancy Milio, 10/1/02, News and Observer

The president asked Congress to sponsor "regime change" to topple an Iraqi government almost no one likes, by "all means" including force, even without U.N. Security Council authorization, contrary to international law. The debate in Congress is mostly among those who are already convinced that war is justifiable and effective.

Who is demanding answers for the rest of us who believe this choice for war is a disastrous course?

Why have so few asked whether ?pre-emptive war? is legal, whether we, the United States, want to or should authorize illegal acts?

Does "all means" include nuclear weapons? This administration has stated that it will not be bound by our former ?no first use? doctrine.

Who is asking about what place the United States will have in the world if it "persuades" other nations to approve pre-emptive war through its muscular domination of the United Nations, further weakening, it, though we were once its proud author?

What of fomenting Arab/Muslim rage and terrorist attacks?

What of Israel?s vulnerability, and the risk it could retaliate with nuclear weapons?

What of oil supplies and the economic impact on the United States, not to mention poor nations? economies?

What of U.S. troops, their families and those who are already hurting from threats to jobs, lack of health insurance, affordable child care, housing, and poor schools and environments?

The only time that articulate advocate for war, Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld, was left speechless during a recent congressional hearing was when one senator asked what alternatives to war he had explored.