[Fis] 3 questions ? ? ?

65 years ago 19 March 1938. Mexico officially protested against the
invasion of Austria by the German (Nazi) army. The President of
M�xico L�zaro C�rdenas gave to Mexican Ambassador Isidro Fabela the
instructions for presenting the protest to the League of Nations
(Geneva, Switzerland).

M�xico was the only country that officially protested in the League
of Nations when the Nazi troops marched into Austria. It was
announced as the Anschlu� (union of two countries), but for L�zaro
Cardenas was an international aggression because Austrian government
had not agreed in advance. Though Austrian people were not bombed
neither indiscriminately killed, it was the first action towards the
Second World War (1939-1945) which caused the death of millions of
people and culminated with the massive extermination of innocent
people when the new US president Harry Truman authorized the use of
the new developed atomic bomb on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and
Nagasaki (August 9, 1945)

In 1938 governments used to make bilateral agreements with other
countries for cooperation among them or against other countries; or
simply to make warfare in accordance with their appreciations, which
were justified only in the view of the aggressor(s). In the following
years first Pacts for no Aggression for delaying the intended
invasion and later the constitution of the Grand Alliance (Britain,
the USSR and the United States) were the international means employed
for defeating the aggressors and defending the countries and people
arbitrarily invaded.

Since October 1945 the presence and efforts of UNO have not been
enough for changing the sanguinary course that characterizes until
today the magnificence of our homosphere, though in several cases it
played a significant role in dealing with cease-fire actions of
warfare between countries and among factions and the withdrawal of
armies from territories invaded.

In 2003 the UNO's purposes and means became useless for impeding the
preemptive war organized by some governments of developed - highly
civilized - countries against innocent people.

This war show clearly how the high society of some powerful countries
are still planning and acting to use violent procedures in order to
continue taking unilaterally the terrestrial resources located
anywhere and to annihilate massively the common people

What is scandalous and also frightening for the perspective of
humankind is the degradation of human values not only in those brains
that organized this war but also in those corrupted minds of
governments that accepted to be accomplices, ignoring that this is an
abhorrent war because

It is IMMORAL: to ignore absolutely the need of dealing first with
problems of poverty, injustice, unemployment, shelter and disease
that are growing all over the world giving priority instead to push
ahead the war industry and to control oil resources of Iraq in order
to overcome the recession of American economy, which has been
produced by fallacious and wrong policies of American government and
corporations.

It is also IMMORAL even from a MILITARY point of view: to seek the
involvement of United Nations Organization to ensure the disarmament
of Irak before attacking Iraq's people. It is perhaps the first case
when it is successfully required - through UNO - the enemy to lay
down their weapons before a battle.

It is UNREASONABLE: to kill indiscriminately people of Iraq in order
to assure a quick victory without recognizing that it will increase
feelings of revenge that will affect innocent American people
everywhere;

to cause the destruction of Iraq infrastructure by means of expensive
weapons in order to rebuilt this infrastructure afterwards;

to assume and claim that Iraq possess an arsenal of weapons for
massive annihilation while ignoring that other countries, comprise
the same USA, have really a huge arsenal each one.

It is ILLEGAL: to disregard the Resolution 1441, which does not
authorize war against Iraq;

to put aside the reports presented by UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix
of increased cooperation and disarmament by Iraq;

to proceed to war in case another proposal of USA and UK is rejected
by the Security Council either because it had not enough votes or it
is vetoed, as it will be a violation of the United Nations Charter
and Article VI(2) of the United States Constitution;

to exercise the rule of military force for and a quick defeat by
means of massive annihilation over the presence of international law.

It is INHUMANE: to act on the name of one God that appears as being
interested in using the USA army and weapons for killing people that
use to pray another God. It is even argued that the American God is
already organizing the announced Apocalypse;

to announce that USA government will provide the necessary help to
those Muslims who might manage to survive after being liberated no
matter whether they could be traumatized, maimed, burnt, blinded,
incurably affected by toxics, suffering from the radioactive effects
of depleted uraniums shells that will empower some of them to pass
genetic abhorrent defects on to their children

It is ANTIDEMOCRATIC: to ignore Arab cultural values in order to
introduce the American democracy no matter the protests of American
citizens against the war had been dismissed;

to ignore the voices in protest to war expressed in huge
manifestations all over the world;

to argue that those governments that are against the war should be
considered as enemies of USA.

It is publicly PERVERTED: to tell the members of the Security Council
that in case they might not support the War against Irak their
countries risk of being denied in the future further aid (financial,
monetary or material) from USA because quite probably it won't be
approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate. In this way
it is cynically recognized de facto that the American aid is a bribe.

UNO was constituted with ideas that emerged during the sanguinary
confrontation of the Alliance constituted by Britain, the USSR and
the United States against the German-Italian-Japanese Axis while
recognizing the need to replace the ill-fated League of Nations.

Would and could UNO be reinforced now as the organization engaged in
improving and updating the international legislation that is needed
for assuring the humanitarian globalization of human concerns whose
cultural diversity is indispensable for helping human entities and
individuals to behave humanely and play a responsible role on our
unique Earth (the only planet available for human life) ?

How could humankind survive in the near future if their
representatives in UNO, were unable to impede this war against
innocent people ?

How could common people encourage at least seven U.N. Ambassadors for invoking
  the Resolution "Uniting for Peace" #377 in order to call URGENTLY
the General Assembly of UNO?

The General Assembly of UNO must find out immediately:

* how to condemn those countries who participate in this war;

* how to stop the war that has already started;

* how to stop completely the scientific and technological production
of massive weapons in the highly civilized countries.

In case the General Assembly considered necessary to replace the
ill-fated UNO by a more reliable organization it will be another
clear evidence that humankind is condemned to disappear pretty soon.
Received on Mon Mar 24 11:23:38 2003