Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Ruben Arvizu

  • A Very Costly I Told You So

    All was in vain. The rhetoric and deceptions by the officials supporting our self-anointed “War President” prevailed, and America launched an attack on a country that was not an enemy or a real threat to the US.

    I wrote several articles denouncing the tricks and lies supporting the war—from the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from the then National Security Council Advisor Condolezza Rice and, of course, from Vice President Dick Cheney—who were all hovering like hawks over the war drums being beaten by President Bush.

    We, who were in opposition, risked our reputation, friends and even our means of living. It was easier to follow the big river of chorus praising the “march for democracy.” We were branded weird, unpatriotic, even traitors.

    In one of my articles titled “Lying to Provoke a War, Not a New Issue in Washington,” published on the NAPF website on June 9, 2003 and reproduced on many other websites, I finished my comments with the following lines:

    “The Iraq war is not over yet. American soldiers continue dying nearly every week in the occupied Arab nation. Thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died. So much for the ‘sparing the innocent’ stated by President Bush. The business of oil and the big contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq conceded to the inner club of companies linked to top officials of this administration cover the air with a smell of suspicion.

    The possibility of an investigation by the Senate to determine if the American people and the world were deceived in what George W. Bush pompously called ‘the first war of the 21st century’ could lead to an impeachment and political disgrace.”

    Three years later the situation has changed. The majority of the US public condemns the actions of Mr. Bush and his failed and devious policies. When I wrote that article, two months earlier President Bush had declared “Major combat has ended.” In those days no more than 70 US fatalities were added to the count since the beginning of the war. Now, more than 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been seriously injured by bombings, “friendly fire” mistakes, etc.

    Making things worse, George Bush is now ordering more troops to Iraq without a real plan to solve the big mess he has created in that volatile part of the world.

    If this situation were not so tragic and absurd, we could say this is just a chapter of the Human Comedy written by Honore de Balzac in 1842.

    Let’s hope that a better nation, better informed and with true morals demands justice and holds responsible those that have been lying and deceiving not just the US but the whole world.

     

    Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and International President of Freedom From War.

  • Katrina, a Parallel to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    War does not determine who is right – only who is left – Bertrand Russell

    Among the different ways to describe the terrible destruction posed by Hurricane Katrina, several officials from Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as some anchormen from the media, have been making comparisons between this natural disaster and the one unleashed by man.

    The devastation, death and misery caused by a category 4 hurricane is undeniable. The extent of the damage is measured by hundreds of miles. The economic costs will be staggering. The loss of human life is always regrettable and in this case the numbers could climb into the thousands.

    The real figures will not be known for sometime. Undoubtedly, it will surpass the deaths during the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. But even considering a figure of 6 to 10 thousand, and that will hopefully be the maximum loss of life in this tragedy, there is no comparison with the immediate obliteration of more than 70,000 people in Hiroshima and some 40,000 in Nagasaki, with tens of thousands more to die in the aftermath.

    The powerful tsunami that devastated parts of Indonesia and the adjacent nations last December killed approximately the same number of people lost in the two Japanese cities.

    Let us not forget that the enormous power of a nuclear device demands a detonator equivalent to the energy generated by the atomic bombs used in 1945. If we are so speechless and numbed by the destruction caused by Katrina, what can we expect if our nightmares of a nuclear holocaust materialized?

    We are witnessing the serious consequences caused by the hurricane, among them the possible death of a very special city, New Orleans. Chaos and lawlessness escalates in the “Big Easy.” Countless people are tired, hungry and desperate. Shooting at helicopters trying to rescue survivors has even occurred. The law of the jungle descends upon one of the most beloved American cities.

    The fantasy world of Hollywood portrays disasters, space invasions and even nuclear wars. After the scenes of devastation, at the end, the sun shines again and a beautiful rainbow streams across the horizon. Life continues as usual.

    This false idea of security is harbored by the government that has plans for the “survival and continuation of government” after a nuclear war or terrorist attack. If the situation in Louisiana and Mississippi were to get dangerously out of hand, what would be the reality of a world AFTER a nuclear holocaust?

    Humans have perfected the art of killing. By our own inventions we could put an end to human existence and possible all other forms of life.

    Nature will continue banging on us, sometimes badly but it does not threaten to annihilate its own creatures. Unless a big comet hits us and sends us into oblivion as happened with the dinosaurs, the nuclear threat will continue to be the Damocles sword hanging over our heads.

    In the meantime, we could use the enormous resources currently going to preparations for nuclear war to make preparations against natural disasters and to help to repair the destruction caused by Katrina. Perhaps we can give New Orleans a new lease on life together with the other damaged areas.

    Ruben Arvizu is director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • The Tireless Struggle for Peace and Justice of Pope John Paul II

    “To remember Hiroshima is to abhor nuclear war. To remember Hiroshima is to commit oneself to peace.”

    – Pope John Paul II on his visit to Hiroshima at the Peace Memorial Park, Feb. 25, 1981

    Among the millions of people throughout the world mourning the death of Pope John Paul II, the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a special affection for him. His visit in 1981 to the atomic-bombed cities helped make the world aware of the importance of the terrible experience suffered by those cities.

    On the eve of the death of the most traveled pontiff in history, the Mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba issued a statement saying, “We have to make efforts to terminate nuclear weapons with a strong resolve by remembering the message of the pope.”*

    A remarkable man, John Paul II used his incredible ability in languages to communicate as very few world figures have ever done. His personal touch inspired millions of young people in most of the nations of the world, regardless of their religious beliefs or race. They were keen to his message promoting peace and good will for all. And many more followed him in his tireless support of freedom and his staunch opposition to totalitarianism.

    His position against war and pre-emptive strikes made him condemn the coalition attack on Iraq stating “War, like the one now in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity.” John Paul II opposed to the U.S. plan to lead an invasion of Iraq in 2003, calling the policy “illegal and unjust.”

    In his first encyclical “Redemptor Hominis.” or “Redeemer of Man,” he warned that mankind was living in an era of growing fear and weapons of war that raised the specter of “unimaginable self-destruction.”

    In reference to human rights John Paul II said “rights of the human spirit cannot be violated,” and added: “These are the rights of freedom of the human spirit, freedom of human conscience, freedom of belief and freedom of religion.”

    He criticized both “liberal capitalism” and “Marxist collectivism” for distorting economic development. Hostile to Soviet communism, he was nonetheless wary of free-market capitalism, which absent ethics could lead to selfishness, materialism and hedonism.

    John Paul II was a giant standing for human integrity, for every human person from the very beginning of life to its end. And notwithstanding his painful illnesses, the long-suffering pontiff, John Paul II – Karol Wojtyla, gave us perhaps his most powerful teaching: how to die with courage and dignity.

    Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    *The Japan Times, 04/04/05

  • Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-A Blow to Future Generations

    “People protect what they love.” (Jacques-Yves Cousteau) “Every person has the right to inherit an uncontaminated planet on which all forms of life may flourish.” Bill of Rights for Future Generations.

    More than 13 years ago, Captain Jacques Cousteau launched the Bill of Rights for Future Generations. His goal was to increase awareness for the deterioration of the environment on a global scale and the need to protect and preserve our planet for the generations to come.

    This March 17, the U.S. Congress approved the policy to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. This act opens the refuge to oil exploration that could cause irreparable damage to the vast and pristine wilderness tundra.

    Here you have two different points of view with the most contradictory results.

    Cousteau successfully promoted in 1990 a worldwide petition to save Antarctica from mineral and oil drilling exploitation. His documentary Lilliput in Antarctica chronicled the voyage of Captain Cousteau and six children, each representing one of Earth’s continents, taking symbolically possession of the frozen continent on behalf of the future generations.

    Significant progress toward securing the protection of Antarctica was made at the XI Antarctic Treaty Special Consultative Meeting in 1991. The signatories of the Treaty, the 26 nations that claimed to have rights for mining and exploration in the sixth continent, agreed the prohibition of mining for at least 50 years. The new Protocol of Environmental Protection includes the designation of Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science.

    President Bush supported and promoted the exploration of ANWR calling the drillings “environmentally sensitive” and “good for business”. Mr. Bush sees these actions as a solution that will help the U.S. not to depend on foreign countries for oil. Not to spoil the party, but let’s do some simple mathematics.

    The government has estimated that between 6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the frozen tundra. Our gas-guzzling nation consumes 7 billion barrels a year, therefore, if the estimates of the government are accurate, the “solution” would only be good for not even 3 years. The enormous cost of spoiling the wilderness and endangering wildlife will be irreparable.

    These events bring to mind memories of a trip I made in 1993 to Punta Arenas, Chile, as the Representative of the Cousteau Society for Latin America. This is the southern most city of the American continent, sprawling in front of the chilly waters of the Strait of Magellan. My visit was part of a continental tour to collect signatures for the Bill of Rights for Future Generations campaign. Latin America contributed alone with nearly 5 million signatures and Punta Arenas was one of my last stops.

    By that year the residents of Punta Arenas had been exposed to high levels of UV radiation due to the hole in the ozone layer, which typically hovers over Antarctica and stretches across to the Chilean city. It is well known that too much UV radiation can cause skin cancer as well as destroy the phytoplankton, the beginning of the food chain. Human-made chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in aerosol sprays and refrigerants cause most ozone depletion. This is a high price paid by the brave inhabitants of Punta Arenas for a problem caused by the industrialized world.

    A ceremony for the delivery of signatures for Bill of Rights for Future Generations was organized in the city’s stadium by local authorities, NGO’s and schools. After the screening of several videos produced locally showing the menace faced by humans, fauna and flora due to the extreme UV radiation, a young girl on crutches and suffering with cancer of the spine came to the podium and read a little poem.

    Her voice was clear and firm and – as the representative of Jacques Cousteau, she directed to me the questions that troubled her mind and that were revealed in her poem:

    What right do you have, human adult To tell me: there used to be, but there is no more There used to be birds, lakes, rivers, and flowers That I’m neither going to know nor my brothers What right do you have in your greedy struggle for money and power Not to offer me life, …. But death!

    I was incapable to answer her that day – she died 6 months later, and I’m unable to answer the same question that our children of the 21st century are asking us now.

    *Ruben Arvizu is the Director for Latin America of NAPF and former Representative for Latin America of the Cousteau Society.

    Captain Jacques Cousteau received in 1989 the NAPF’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

  • The Domino Effect: Preemptive Wars on the Rise

    When the Bush administration initiated the invasion of Iraq arguing that preemptive war was a justifiable action, the Pandora’s Box was opened. Russia has just announced that its armed forces will conduct preemptive strikes against terrorist bases in “any region of the world.” How will the UN or NATO or any government dispute the argument of the right that Russia or any other nations would have to defend its security after the actions of the United States?

    Russia has not demonstrated accuracy or capability in dealing with previous terrorist attacks in its country. For example, there was a terrible massacre in the Moscow Theater on October 23, 2002. 129 hostages perished mostly due to the use of narcotic gas that the Russian Special Forces used to subdue the Chechen attackers. This shows incompetence in trying to solve such critical situations. Many mistakes were committed during the siege of the school in Beslan, in North Osetia bordering Chechnya . At the same time, what is happening in Iraq – anarchy, terror and chaos – demonstrates that the Bush administration is incapable of re-establishing peace and order in the afflicted Arab nation. The casualties of American soldiers continue to mount as well as innocent Iraqi citizens.

    How will the world accept any preemptive attack when this action depends on the information from “intelligence” sources like that which was collected by the American and British intelligence prior to the war in Iraq ? The flaws, mistakes and misinformation are not in the open.

    If Putin’s administration is not just trying to intimidate the Chechen separatists by launching preemptive attacks with the excuse of defending Russia , then very soon we could expect similar events from any nation with military power to try to vindicate past or present feuds with the terrible results that such actions will cause. More than one can play this game.

    *Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Sergio Vieira de Mello: A Man of Peace

    In these dark times of violence and despair, of wars and genocide, the death of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Brazilian diplomat, special representative to the UN in Iraq, is an enormous loss in the struggle for peace.

    His distinguished career as an experienced and respected diplomat expanded over three decades and his achievements were important in the cause for justice and goodness.

    I had the opportunity to meet him during my work with the Cousteau Society. I remember his comments regarding Captain Jacques Cousteau, “He is truly the Quixote of Ecology”. We discussed the urgency to make people understand the need to protect the environment for future generations. Mr. Mello’s remarked, “the ones we need to convince are the decision makers and that is the difficult part”.

    In his own right de Mello was also a Quixote fighting for what is just and putting his life on the line in some of the most dangerous trouble spots in the world.

    He was an ardent defender of the role of the United Nations in the Iraq crisis. He relied on his previous experience as negotiator and diplomat in Lebanon, Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor looking for the delicate balance between the UN’s presence in Iraq and the occupying forces.

    A couple of days ago a brave journalist was killed in Baghdad “by mistake” by U.S. forces. Ironically, those same forces couldn’t stop a huge truck loaded with explosives from reaching the UN building.

    Violence and anarchy run rampant in the occupied Arab nation and more American soldiers are killed or wounded nearly every day. More resources and more troops will be used to stabilized Iraq. But a war started by the U.S. showing its disdain for the UN and the Security Council will not easily reach the peace for which Mr. Mello and other brave UN officials have died this August 19th.
    Ruben Arvizu is the Director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Presently he is working to establish the Mexican chapter of NAPF.

  • Machiavelli, Bush and Blair

    “The end justifies the means… two wrongs do make a right.”

    Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) “The Prince”

    Hearing the press conference on July 17th of President George W.Bush and British Primer Minister Tony Blair it is not difficult to realize that the rhetoric of modern politicians is not that far from Machiavelli’s teachings.

    Mr. Bush dodged the question about whether he was taking personal responsibility for the wrong statement about Iraq looking for uranium in Africa. His reply,
    ” I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations. I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein, because the intelligence — not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country — made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace”

    In other words, he defended his own actions as commander -in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, while avoiding a response to the direct question. It is not difficult to “hear”in his answer the advice of the great philosopher of the Renaissance in his famous treatise, The Prince: ” navigate successfully the waves of deception and prudence to gain the support of the masses”

    A few hours before, the embattled Prime Minister, addressing the U.S. Congress, had said “If we’re wrong, the Iraqi war was justified even if the banned weapons (the most important excuse for the war) are not found in Iraq.” A different scenario portrayed by the two leaders. Mr. Blair saying “If we’re wrong” and Mr. Bush stating. “I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program… And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There’s no doubt in my mind”

    The fact that Saddam’s regime was despotic, cruel and criminal has never been argued by anyone. The trouble here is the MEANS used by the U.S. and British governments to justify a pre-emptive war because he represented a direct threat to the U.S. fundamentally based on “intelligence reports.”

    The REAL reasons behind all this cover-up becomes darker day by day? This affair is becoming more like a snowball growing bigger by the hour. As I write this article another part of this “puzzle” seems to be developing. In England, Dr. David Kelly, a scientist involved in the now infamous British dossier with the argument that Saddam was looking for uranium in Africa has been missing since Thursday and a body found 5 miles from his home seems to match Dr. Kelly’s. He was named as the source for the story claming that the office of Prime Minister Blair had “sexed up” a dossier about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

    If this news should be true speculations will rise to a dangerous level. This situation could become bigger than Watergate on both sides of the Atlantic. The following weeks will be without a doubt full of “surprises”. Meanwhile, more American soldiers are dying in Iraq.
    * Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Yes, We Need To Talk More About It!

    Bill of Rights: Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    President Bush has dismissed already any other discussion regarding the “mistake” by the CIA for its misinformation on Saddam’s uranium mishap cited in his State of the Union.

    Several of his top aides herded to Sunday television shows stating: “End of story,”, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (ABC’s “This Week 7/13/03) and “The notion that the president of the United States took the country to war because he was concerned with one sentence about whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium in Africa is clearly ludicrous,” national Security adviser Condolezza Rice (CBS’s “Face the Nation” 7/13/03.)

    But simply a presidential order or the insistence of some officials of the Bush administration cannot erase this issue. The consequences of misleading a nation to go to war could be very serious. Therefore, if nothing is there to hide then nothing is there to fear of an investigation and open dialogue with the American people.

    Foolish errors are the cause of failures in the procedures that preceded the Iraq war. We must demand that action be taken to correct matters. It is a very simplistic excuse to blame the sole actions of the CIA. The mea culpa of CIA’s director George Tenet sounds too convenient, too easy. Suspicion grows with the quick “dismissal” of the whole affair. And it is not only the false accusations of Iraq’s seeking uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons, it is the failure to find the major excuse for this war: the weapons of mass destruction.

    The fundaments of the United States are based on a pure democracy and the respect of its people. We must be well informed because that way we will be able to act with assurance and courage according to that knowledge.

    Let’s not fear to raise questions and to demand explanations, let’s not forget the way the American revolutionaries acted in 1776, let’s not forget the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid of being branded as disloyal. If the U.S. as a nation bows its head and accepts without questioning these scandalous acts then the U.S. will become a nation of sheep, pitiful and weak not deserving the heritage of so many generations that have sacrificed their lives on behalf of their fellow man.

    Let’s create a climate in which will flourish again the total trust of government and institutions. The flaws in the Bush administration are not the best cradles for that trust.
    * Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Bloody Lottery in Iraq

    The families of American soldiers in Iraq have a high chance to win a lottery; this one is not money or a nice gift but blood and loss of lives.

    Taking into consideration that there are about 148, 000 US servicemen and women in Iraq the odds that someone gets killed or wounded are much higher that the best expectations to win the state lottery. In other words, since May 1st when President Bush declared “that major combat had ended” more than 70 military families in the US have been “awarded” this news.

    The escalation of violence continues in the occupied Arab nation and there are no real signs that the situation will change for the better.

    With more information surfacing every day about the credibility of evidence from the Bush administration for the real causes for war, an investigation from the Congress is more likely to happen.

    Top officials of the Bush administration are now making statements that are exposing the deceit to have a pretext for the urgency of this war.

    The BBC comments: “In the United States, a recently retired State Department intelligence official said on Wednesday the Bush administration gave an inaccurate picture of Iraq’s military threat before the war and that intelligence reports showed Baghdad posed no imminent threat. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said the United States did not go to war with Iraq because of dramatic new evidence of banned weapons, but because it saw existing information in a new light after the September 11 attacks. Weeks earlier, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz said the U.S. decision to stress the weapons’ threat as a reason for war was taken for “bureaucratic” reasons. “(“Bush under fire over Iraq claims”, 7/9/03)

    Congressman Dick Gephardt stated “President Bush’s factual lapse in his State of the Union address cannot be simply dismissed as an intelligence failure.”

    Is it really that bad the Intelligence services of the U.S. and the United Kingdom? It is possible to believe the unbelievable miscommunication and contradictions between powerful agencies such as the Secret Service, the CIA and the Pentagon? If that’s so then it is totally scary the thought of a nuclear war based on such “intelligence”.

    The American people and the world in general demand and deserve a thorough investigation to clear once and for all the political atmosphere that day by day becomes more rotten.

    Meanwhile, the wheel of misfortune continues turning in Iraq and new families will be informed of the loss of their loved ones.
    * Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Lying to Provoke a War, Not a New Issue in Washington

    “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons.” President George W. Bush.

    -Rose Garden Sept. 26, 2002

    “Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make…If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means — sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military — and we will prevail. ”

    -President George W. Bush State of the Union, January 2003

    “The cup of forbearance has been exhausted. After reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil.”

    -President James Polk, Declaration of War with Mexico, May 11, 1846

    Deceit and treachery is nothing new in politics. The actual confrontation of facts of the real causes for the Iraqi war reminds me of Abraham Lincoln’s attacks on President Polk and his party over the origins of the war with Mexico. Specifically, the young congressman from Illinois demanded among other points “That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House – Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819 until the Mexican revolution.”

    Years later, Stephen A. Douglas reminded him of them in the Senatorial campaign in 1858, saying Lincoln had distinguished himself by “taking the side of the common enemy against his own country.”

    The maneuvers of the Polk administration to have a casus belli with his neighbors from the South were numerous and ingenious even so the CIA or other “Intelligence” agencies were not yet formed.

    Many voices of great stature were raised in 1846 opposing these tactics. Former President John Quincy Adams denounced the policy long pursued towards Mexico and dared to vote against the Mexican war. A few weeks before his death Mr. Adams voted for a resolution withdrawing the American troops from Mexico and relinquishing all claims for the expenses of the war. For that, the press and government officials accused him of “treason ” and “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” We can compare here the cases of some personalities in our time like Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks who dared to express their opposition to the aggressive policies of Mr. Bush and for that reason have been harassed and even threatened to lose their livelihood.

    Many more, like Adams, believed that the United States had stung Mexico into defense of her rightful possessions. Ulysses S. Grant, the victorious General of the Civil War and twice president of the U.S., was a second Lieutenant in the “army of observation” of Zachary Taylor. Grant thought the armed march to Mexico was “unholy.” In his “Personal Memoirs” he stated “and to this day I regard the Mexican war as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.” Grant also regrets for having “lacked moral courage enough to resign.” I wonder if Secretary Colin Powell has ever read Grant’s memoirs.

    Henry Thoreau made his own protest against the war by refusing to pay his state poll tax. He passed a brief time in jail and after his aunt paid the tax he wrote in his cabin on Walden Pond “Essay on Civil Disobedience,” one of the best-known pieces of American literature.

    In his State of the Union Address in January 2003, President Bush solemnly declared, “We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means — sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.”

    President Polk stated something similar, assuring the people of Mexico they had nothing to fear from the American invading forces because they were there to “protect them and help them to get rid of their bad government.” No mention, of course, of his lust for Mexican territory.

    In 1847 the American forces commanded by General Winfield Scott bombarded and destroyed the port of Veracruz. During that battle a young Captain, Robert E. Lee, another future personality of the Civil War, wrote in one of his letters ” The fire was terrific and the shells thrown from our battery were constant and regular discharges, so beautiful in their flight and so destructive in their fall. It was awful! My heart bled for the inhabitants. The soldiers I did not care so much for, but it was terrible to think of the women and children.” (A Biography of Robert Lee by General Fitzhugh Lee, 1989) So much for the “protection and help” from President Polk.

    In 1848, a great abolitionist, William Jay wrote one of the most critical books regarding that unjust conflict. In “Review of the Mexican War” Jay asserts, “We have been taught to ring our bells, and illuminate our windows and let off fireworks as manifestation of our joy, when we have heard of great ruin and devastation, and misery, and death, inflicted by our troops upon a people who never injured us, who never fired a shot on our soil, and who were utterly incapable of acting on the offensive against us”

    The Mexican war has been the most beneficial to the United States. The annexation of Texas was secured and what now are New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, Colorado and part of Wyoming became the golden West.

    On Veterans Day this productive war is not mentioned at all, ignoring the thousands of Americans who perished following the Manifest Destiny doctrine, perhaps because it was a simple war of conquest.

    The Iraq war is not over yet. American soldiers continue dying nearly every week in the occupied Arab nation. Thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died. So much for the “sparing the innocent” stated by President Bush. The business of oil and the big contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq conceded to the inner club of companies linked to top officials of this administration cover the air with a smell of suspicion.

    The possibility of an investigation by the Senate to determine if the American people and the world were deceived in what George W. Bush pompously called “the first war of the 21st century” could lead to an impeachment and political disgrace.

    In the end, from 1846 to 2003, nothing much has changed.