Part 2

Click here to watch "If we couldn't prevent a war with Iraq, how can we prevent a war with Iran?" 

This 26 minute bonus feature is a collection of interviews recorded in April 2007 that addresses the question on everyone's mind. 

  • featured article

  • Featured article

    Ten Q&A on Anti-War Activism

    by Michael Albert and Stephen Shalom posted October 24, 2002 (but still very relevant)


      (1) What are the reasons to oppose war in Iraq?
      (2) How does our dissent affect government policy?
      (3) How can we possibly get so many people to be against war?
      (4) Should antiwar organizing be single issue or multi-issue?
      (5) What is the relation between war and other left concerns --
    globalization, capitalism, racism, sexism, future vision - and 
    should we make these connections, and if so, how?  
      (6) Should antiwar work be single tactic or multi-tactic?
      (7) Why use any particular tactic? Why reject any particular
    tactic?
      (8) How should we relate to groups doing antiwar work with whom
    we disagree in significant ways ...Should we work with people we 
    have serious differences with, avoid them,or what?
      (9) What is sectarianism? Does avoiding sectarianism require 
    that we stifle all criticism? If not, how do we avoid it?
      (10) Most antiwar people oppose Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, al
    Qaeda,and others like them. If you reject a U.S.military response, 
    what alternative way(s) can weaken or eliminate their power?

One minute with Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi

If you feel that you need more information about "the other side",    click here to watch a debate (18 min).

Position Statement:

• No military attack on Iran – “even if” Iran sent some weapons into Iraq, or some day in the future decided to build a nuclear weapon, that does not justify a military attack.

• We should demand a Congressional “Boland Amendment” for Iran to preempt any funding for any attack on Iran.  None of the current resolutions provide an absolute prohibition, but any of them could emerge as more politically powerful than their actual language requires.

• There must be diplomatic, not military engagement with Iran.  Iran is not a threat to the U.S., so any attack would represent a preventive war, illegal in international law.

• We need to build people-to-people ties between Americans and Iranians, including work with the Iranian community in the United States. We must fight against the demonization that has historically allowed U.S. policy to impose crippling economic sanctions against the people of countries whose governments Washington opposes.

• In the long-term, we should support calls that have come from the Middle East for more than a quarter of a century to create a WMD-free or Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone throughout the Middle East, including an end to Israel’s nuclear arsenal and a prohibition against U.S. nuclear-armed submarines or other nuclear weapons in the area. We should demand that the U.S. implement its own 1991 call for a WMD-free zone, found in Article 14 of UN Security Council resolution 687 that ended the 1991 Gulf War.

(excerpted from UFPJ talking points by Phyllis Bennis)

 

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.