Make peace, not war

That phrase used to be popular in the 1960s when tens of thousands of Americans took to the streets in many large U.S. cities to protest the Vietnam war.

The message conveyed in the phrase remains relevant today as President George W. Bush is actively promoting a plan for a U.S.- led coalition attack on Iraq to change the regime of President Saddam Hussein, whom he called in his speech a "homicidal dictator addicted to weapons of mass destruction".

While similar demonstrations were staged earlier this week by Americans across the nation protesting their president's plan on Iraq, the international community has responded cautiously to Bush's call to unseat Saddam from power if the latter fails to disarm.

In fact, many countries, not only Arab and Muslim nations, but also U.S. allies in the Western world, have publicly opposed Washington's plan to attack Iraq, which says it is now willing to abide by the UN resolution regarding weapons inspection.

Use of military force against Baghdad is justified if, and only if, it is carried under a UN Security Council resolution. Without it, any attack against a sovereign nation is a grave mistake and the attacker will be condemned by the world community, just as Iraq was condemned when it invaded its neighbor, oil-rich Kuwait, in August 1990. As a result of the invasion Iraq and millions of Iraqi people suffered greatly following the imposition of UN trade and economic sanctions on the Baghdad government.

Considering the growing opposition from the world community, including Americans, we believe that the Bush administration will prudently reconsider its plan on an Iraq war. While we share the anguish and sorrow of the peace-loving American people in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and support the U.S. in its fight against terrorism, we do not want to see the Washington government, without approval from the UN Security Council, unilaterally attack a sovereign country like Iraq.

If war with Iraq does break out, there will be a lot of casualties among innocent Iraqi people who have long suffered as a result of the UN embargo. Many Iraqis, it is believed, disagree with or even oppose the incumbent Baghdad regime.

For Americans, war with Iraq means quantities of treasure, and most likely, losses of lives on the battlefield, no matter how advanced and sophisticated the U.S. war machine may be. The war in Afghanistan, while ousting the Taliban regime and its al-Qaeda supporters, is still fresh in our memory.

Even if Washington succeeds in toppling Saddam, the U.S. will face not only growing anti-American sentiment, but also a much harder task in assuring the world that Saddam's replacement can bring a more democratic government to the Iraqi people. All this, obviously, will absorb and hamper Washington's energy and effort in fighting terrorism.

Most important, the Bush administration has not been able to convince the majority of the American people that Iraq is a real threat to the U.S.

This was clearly expressed by Joseph Cirincione, the director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington when he said, "Americans do refuse to live in fear, as the President (Bush) said, but fear of Iraq is not high on the list of American concerns, frankly."

Hence, why not make peace instead of planning to launch a war?