The 9-11 of course did not come from heaven or hell, it came as a result of
the endless US wars of empire, on literally dozens of nations.  In the
future, some time, the extension of empire must be renounced--many feel it
may be big enough.
At 11:55 AM 2/17/02 -0800, you wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,651192,00.html
>
>America's new war
>
>We should not back this Iraq attack
>
>Leader
>Saturday February 16, 2002
>The Guardian
>
>Still outraged by the enormity of the September 11 attacks, an implacable
>and headstrong United States now sees a war against Iraq as the next step
>in its war against terrorism. A decision to topple Saddam Hussein appears
>to have been taken by President Bush in late January, around the time that
>he told Americans in his State of the Union speech that he would not "wait
>on events" in his battle with the "axis of evil" comprising Iran, Iraq and
>North Korea. Whether Tony Blair was consulted over this secret decision,
>or whether he cautioned against it if he was consulted, are points that
>are not yet clear. What is clear, however, is that a war against Iraq
>cannot be justified as part of the war against terrorism as it has been
>portrayed by Mr Blair and his ministers since September 11.
>
>Let us just remind ourselves what kind of war Mr Blair signed us up for.
>As depicted by the prime minister, especially in his Brighton speech, it
>was to be a war conducted on the basis of evidence of involvement in the
>attack on America. It was to be proportionate. It was to be targeted. It
>would not involve overreaction. It would seek to avoid civilian
>casualties. It would be the action of a coalition. It was to embody what
>Mr Blair, at Brighton, called "the moral power of a world acting as a
>community". Military action would only come if there was no prospect of a
>diplomatic solution. And even if it did come, military action would have
>to be buttressed by humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. It did not work
>out exactly as Mr Blair imagined it, of course. Such things never do. But
>it was not impossible, in the end, to recognise the war in Afghanistan in
>this context.
>
>This is a world away from the war that Mr Bush now proposes to wage
>against Iraq. There is absolutely no firm evidence linking Iraq to
>September 11. Saddam Hussein, indeed, has kept his head down since the
>attack on New York. But the Iraqi leader's low profile is not deterring Mr
>Bush. Nor is anything else. Not the possibility of using diplomacy to get
>weapons inspectors back into Iraq for the first time in three years; this
>White House "will not take yes for an answer", a source told our
>Washington correspondent. Not the threat of Iraqi civilian casualties. Not
>the humanitarian crisis that would ensue. Not the effect on the wider Arab
>world. Not the legacy for the Middle East if President Saddam tries to do
>in 2002 what he did in 1991 and fires his missiles at Israel.
>
>For all of those reasons, and more, any attack by Mr Bush on Iraq would
>mark the end of the post-September 11 consensus. That Saddam's regime is a
>vast problem - to put it mildly - for his own people, for the region, and
>for the international community, is not in dispute. "Regime change", as
>Colin Powell puts it, could not be more welcome. But, as President Putin
>also said this week, such problems cannot be solved by one country alone.
>A fullscale attack of the kind now being contemplated - involving 200,000
>US troops and air attacks from Turkey, Bahrain and Diego Garcia in a
>combined overt and covert campaign coordinated with proxy forces - could
>not avoid being a classic piece of American unilateralism. It would
>represent the triumph of the conservative US Republican agenda (and the
>Bush family agenda) over the international agenda. It would taint the
>legitimate sense of solidarity which so many feel for America since it was
>attacked. And it would be a massive mistake for the Blair government, in
>terms of its own domestic constituency, and in terms of Britain's position
>in the Arab world and in Europe, to be cast once again as Mr Bush's lone
>bag-carrier.