Letter

Dear Canadians:

Let us have a glimpse of our society and way of life two generations down the road. What will happen about 40 years from now? You might think our ways of life would improve, our values getting more human and compassionate, and human rights more protected to more people on the planet. No! That wont happen except in our dreams. The opposite is starting to happen. Look at our Canadian peace-keeping mission in the world being changed to a war-like mission. What has just happened? The military and its industry have re-established themselves as the most powerful force and as a solution to all problems. In less than one generation from now, we are going to need the military at home, right here in Canada. That's right! Terrorism in Canada! Our own home brand of terrorists will surface. Our grand-children will become terrorists. Osama Bin Laden is actually a prophet in his own ways, not a terrorist. He objected to the invasion by Russia during the Cold War. America was quite please to get his help in those days. Actually he was being help by the Americans to get rid of the Russians. It is a question of who help who. He also objected to be invaded by Americans, to our ways of life, our consumer driven society, a 'waste land' found in the West.

Let us see how things will have changed drastically in about 40 years.

Soon the production of oil and gas will decline rapidly. The Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)

has analyzed the total production of oil and gas in the world and found the peak had already been attained and production should decline steadily over the coming 40 years. Humanity will have completely consumed the oil and gas reserves in the world between 50 and 100 years from now. This explain why there is so much rush for those resources by countries such America in Iraq, and India, Russia, China and Europe in Iran. Actually they are all over the Middle East but everyone seems to have chosen a specific territory to invade or exploit: America in Iraq, the others in Iran. What we have here are all the ingredients needed for World War III. Let me invade this nation says America, and I will invade the other ones say Russia and China. They will be there until all the oil and gas reserves have been suck up from the ground. If one of them is not happy then we will have a war. They have all agreed that Iraquis and Iranians are casualities of war.

So what is the Canadian military doing in Afghanistan in a war-like mission?

In its own way, our military is telling President Bush we are supporting the American effort of wanting a democratic Middle East. At least this is the lie to the American people. President Bush, the Commander in Chief of the United States of America has been telling so many lies to the American people that no one knows who is telling the truth. Even our military does not know. So our military follows the big guys with more muscles and more guns, the mother of the biggest guns, the USA.

So now why would we need to have our military back home?

In two generations from now most civilizations on the planet will be facing terrible problems: the end of the oil and gas production, the end of our consumer driven society as no oil and gas means no plastic base products, which also implies no jobs and chaos everywhere in the wolrd. We will literally be invaded by Americans. Poverty and diseases will be widespread. The environment will be completely out of control. Global warming will cause tremendous environmental and climate change problems. Nothing we could ever imagine will happen. Gangs in Canada will be controlling cities much like warlords in Afghanistan. Not even the military could stop them from committing crimes. Government will be corrupted. Somewhat like the situation we see in Iraq today but 100 times worst. And the world will never get any better. I will show here that our so called 'modern civilizations' will collapse. Our own civilization is base on oil and gas, and on the products we get from the oil and gas, mainly plastics, and not on principles and values.

So why do we need our military back home?

We need our military back home because we need to prepare for what is coming in about 40 years. Our own grand-children will become terrorists. Osama Bin Laden, the prophet, was a civilian at first who could see the arm of an invasion, and he fought back. Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' are mostly young civilians who are ready to fight back by becoming suicide bombers. I believe their are other ways to fight back, at least for us here in Canada. We must find our own brand of solutions. We have time to prepare for what is coming sooner or later in a few generations. We need politicians that can see at least two generations ahead of us. We need to start now, today. Bring back our military from Afghanistan. Let us plan ahead together. Let us build our own Global Community of North America.

Let us use our tax dollars in education, research for alternative energy solutions. Workable technologies are available today but left on shelves. Let us use them to make up for the lack of oil and gas. If nothing else works enough, let us build nuclear power plants. Several of them! Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) is certaily a good start but needs to be upgraded to handle large crowds in need of help right here in Canada, in North America,

and elsewhere in the world if we can.

People from all over the world will be burning all their trees to just heat their homes. Forests will disappear completely from the Earth surface. No more Oxygen can be produced without our green forests so eventually we will be lacking Oxygen in the air we breathe. Most life on the planet will be affected by the lack of Oxygen. Our species will certainly disappear. Why is this happening? Why are we in the Middle East and Afghanistan fighting for the leftover oil and gas, which we will burn one way or the other, and which will also burn the Oxygen of the air in the process. And you know what comes next! Having World War III in fighting for the oil and gas will only cut our survival as a species by a decade or two.

I dont want Canada to have anything to do with the Americans stand in the Middle East and have to side with them in a World War. I want Canada out of NATO now.

But now we have made ourselves a target by those who dont want Americans to be in the Middle East. We thought about the Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' as suicide bombers and truly hated Americans. The Al Qua'ida 'terrorits' want Americans out of the region. The reality is that Osama Bin Laden fought along with the American in Afghanistan to force the Russians out of the region. The question is what were Americans doing over there in the first place? Why would Americans be on the other of the world to fight the Russians? After the Cold War, Americans left Afghanistan in a terrible state. Destruction every where. They left the people of Afghanistan living with a nightmare. No wonder civilians objected to be treated as 'non-human beings' by Americans. They wanted Americans out of their country. Suicide bombers are actually civilians who cannot see any other way to fight back. We call them 'terrorists' here in the West. The word 'terrorists' was invented by President Bush and the American Congress.

In the name of a preventive strike on Iraq, the US government fabricated a web of lies. We were told that the war on Iraq was waged because there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there were linkages between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qua'ida. We were told that the US authorities were deeply concerned for Iraqi people and their suffering under Saddam Hussein and they longed for their freedom and democracy. If all this were true, then why have no weapons of mass destruction been found? Bush has been lying to the American people concerning the reason for invading Iraq. He is still lying today to the entire world. Now his excuse is to change the entire Middle East nations into a democracy. He will see that friendly government officials are elected. The reality is that 'friendly' means that Americans have easy access to the oil and gas reserves until they use it all. At such a time they will leave Iraq.

Instead of caring for the Iraqi people, Americans have killed, starved, maimed, tortured thousands of Iraqi people, destroying their infrastructure, including their water and health facilities. In the name of democracy they have created a corporate tyranny which has essentially stolen Iraq out from under the Iraqi people. They have committed war crimes against Iraqi people in prisons and have made freedom of movement and speech almost impossible. This was done by the US government, by Americans. The people of the US are responsible and must hold their government accountable.

Suicide bombers may as well be Canadian civilians defending Canada on Canadian soil against Americans invading Canada. "Terrorists' can actually be anyone in any place on the planet. They may even be Canadians not wanting WW III. WW III is going on right now in the Middle East region, at least its beginning.

Let us see why the oil and gas reserves of the Middle East are so important.
Read the following reports:

Protection of the global life-support systems

Climate change prelude

Climate change: responsibility and accountability of cities

What more can we do with oil and gas? You can do plastics.

Plastic, an all-around product the cause of wars and of a global environmental and social nightmare. People are concerned about the future because the basic raw materials for plastic are petroleum and/or natural gas. What is in plastics that we are not told about?

Plastic is an all-around product.

Plastic can be flexible or rigid; transparent or opaque. It can look like leather, wood, or silk. It can be made into toys or heart valves. Plastics today play an important part in cutting-edge technologies such as the space program, bullet-proof vests and prosthetic limbs, as well as in everyday products such as beverage containers, medical devices and automobiles. Altogether there are more than 10,000 different kinds of plastics.

The basic raw materials for plastic are oil and/or natural gas.

These fossil fuels are sometimes combined with other elements, such as oxygen or chlorine, to make different types of plastic. Plastic wrap helps keep meat fresh while protecting it from the poking and prodding fingers of your fellow shoppers. Plastic bottles mean you can actually lift an economy-size bottle of juice. And should you accidentally drop that bottle, it is shatter-resistant. In each case, plastics help make your life easier, healthier and safer.

Plastics help make portable phones and computers that really are portable. They help major appliances - like refrigerators or dishwashers - resist corrosion, last longer and operate more efficiently. Plastic car fenders and body panels resist dings, so you can cruise the grocery store parking lot with confidence.

Modern packaging -- such as heat-sealed plastic pouches and wraps -- helps keep food fresh and free of contamination. That means the resources that went into producing that food aren't wasted. It's the same thing once you get the food home: plastic wraps and resealable containers keep your leftovers protected.

Doing more with less helps conserve resources in another way. It helps save energy. In fact, plastics can play a significant role in energy conservation. Just look at the decision you're asked to make at the grocery store check-out: "Paper or plastic?"

Not only do plastic bags require less total energy to produce than paper bags, they conserve fuel in shipping. It takes five trucks to carry the same number of paper bags as fits in one truckload of plastic bags.

Plastics also help to conserve energy in your home. Vinyl siding and windows help cut energy consumption and lower your heating and cooling bills. People of many cities have access to a plastics recycling program. The two common forms of collection are: curbside collection - where consumers place designated plastics in a special bin to be picked up by a public or private hauling company and drop-off centers - where consumers take their recyclables to a centrally located facility. Most curbside programs collect more than one type of plastic resin. Once collected, the plastics are delivered to a material recovery facility or handler for sorting into single resin streams to increase product value. The sorted plastics are then baled to reduce shipping costs to reclaimers.

Reclamation is the next step where the plastics are chopped into flakes, washed to remove contaminants and sold to end users to manufacture new products such as containers, clothing, carpet, plastic lumber, etc.

Source reduction is gaining more attention as an important resource conservation and solid waste management option. Source reduction, often called "waste prevention" is defined as "activities to reduce the amount of material in products and packaging before that material enters the municipal solid waste management system."

Source reduction activities reduce the consumption of resources at the point of generation. In general, source reduction activities include:

*     Redesigning products or packages so as to reduce the quantity of the materials used, by substituting lighter materials for heavier ones or lengthening the life of products to postpone disposal.
*     Using packaging that reduces the amount of damage or spoilage to the product.
*     Reducing amounts of products or packages used through modification of current practices by processors and consumers.
*     Reusing products or packages already manufactured.
*     Managing non-product organic wastes (food wastes, yard trimmings) through backyard composting or other on-site alternatives to disposal.

People are concerned about the future because the basic raw materials for plastic are petroleum and/or natural gas, and production of these resources is already peaking and declining. It is estimated that 50 years down the road the world will be out of oil and gas and so what will we use to make plastics.

The concern about "running out of oil" arises from misunderstanding the significance of a petroleum industry measure called the Reserves/Production ratio (R/P). This monitors the production and exploration interactions. The R/P is based on the concept of "proved" reserves of fossil fuels. Proved reserves are those quantities of fossil fuels that geological and engineering information indicate with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. The Reserves/Production ratio is the proved reserves quantity divided by the production in the last year, and the result will be the length of time that those remaining proved reserves would last if production were to continue at the current level. It is important to note the economic and technology component of the definitions, as the price of oil increases ( or new technology becomes available ), marginal fields become "proved reserves". Note that investment in exploration is also linked to the R/P ratio, and the world crude oil R/P ratio typically moves between 20-40 years, however specific national incentives to discover oil can extend that range upward.

Crude oil	Proved reserves	R/P ratio
Middle East	89.4 billion tonnes	93.4 years
USA	3.8	9.8
USA - 1995 USGS data	10.9	33.0
Total world	137.3	43.0

Coal	Proven reserves	R/P ratio
USA	240.56 billion tonnes	247 years
Total world	1,043.864	235 years

Natural gas	Proven reserves	R/P ratio
USA	4.6 trillion cubic meters	8.6 years
USA - 1995 USGS data	9.1	17.0
Total world	141.0	66.4

Crude oil is a limited resource. It is estimated that there is a total of 2390 billion barels of crude oil on Earth. Estimates of undiscovered reserves range from 275 to 1469 billion barels.

About 77% of crude oil has already been discovered, and 30% of it has been used so far. From 1859-1968, 200 billion barels of oil have been used, and since then oil production has stabilized to 30 billion barels per year. It is estimated that oil reserves will become scarce by 2050s. Most of oil is concentrated in the Near East - around 41%. North America, Russia, and Antartic are also rich in crude oil.

As part of a scenario without oil and gas or not much of those resources for our use the world will have to sustain itself and do things in a more natural or austere way. Such as, no plastic hoses replaceable for watering gardens. If this were not a serious enough challenge, it turns out that plastics are full of poisons that kill living things including people. Think of it as a permanent, toxic oil spill. The dangers of plastics have been ignored and suppressed for decades, but the recent news on the extent that plastics are killing sea animals and birds will finally raise the human health issue through the environmental focus.

About 125 billion kilograms of raw plastic pellets are produced annually worldwide and turned into a tremendous variety of products, from cars and computers to packaging and pens (see our short list of plastic products ). People think of oil mainly as the strategic fuel for their cars, and some Americans justify a foreign policy that kills for oil. If they knew how dependent they were on massive amounts of plastic from oil and natural gas for other basic modern products, the war cry could be louder.

Plastics, cheap energy, clean drinking water and almost all other key resources are about to become sharply limited within the next two generations. This limitation is brought about by the world's growing population rapidly depleting resources.

Did you know that you should not have plastics in contact with your food and water at all? And with your skin – what do you do about touching plastic hoses in your garden that spew plastic-tainted water on your food plants? If you thought plastics were safe for your own self anyway, it turns out you were wrong.

What is in plastics that we are not told about?

Lead, cadmium, mercury, dioxins, PCBs and other cancer causing petrochemicals. You might want to consider never again walking barefoot on your PVC-floor kitchen or bathroom.

The Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) has added diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) – a compound used to make plastics flexible – to the list of known reproductive toxicants. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) typically contains up to 40 percent DEHP. The chemical, which leaches out of PVC products such as blood-storage bags and intravenous tubing, can disrupt the normal development of mail reproductive organs in animals. Manufacturers should label affected products to be sold in the world as containing a reproductive poison.

There has been a plastics-industry conspiracy to keep the health consequences quiet. The PVC industry has known about the carcinogenicity of VCM (a component of polyvinyl chloride) since about 1970.

Plastics debris and minute plastic particles floating in huge expanses of the Pacific Ocean are six times as prevalent weight-wise than the plankton there. Birds and fish eat plastics constantly, and starve to death. Even worse, the extremely high concentration of toxic chemicals adhering to the plastics eaten by the animals goes into their fat cells. As the poisons go up the food chain and accumulate, this in one reason we can no longer safely eat tuna. However research is still needed on how much of a food-fish's toxicity derives from plastic as opposed to general pollution and non-plastic sources. Poisoned sea animals are all over the world, due to the easy migration of chemicals through the air and bodies of water. This is why Eskimos often have dangerously high levels of PCBs in their breast milk.

About 100,000 whales, seals, turtles and other marine animals are killed by plastic bags each year worldwide Plastic from petroleum does not biodegrade. It breaks down, especially with UV radiation, into finer and finer particles. This makes plastic and the lingering toxicants easier to ingest. Some plastic particles, such as the "nurdles" pictured above that are used as raw material for making plastics, are confused by sea creatures and birds to be eggs or other prey.

A fourth of the planet's surface area has become an accumulator of floating plastic debris. What can be done with this new class of products made specifically to defeat natural recycling?

But land animals have problems with plastic as well. Aside from the human animal, many species are threatened by trash as well as development of wild land into human industrial communities and suburbs.

The stomach contents of dead birds contain plastic objects, so we can assume that land birds are also dying from plastic ingestion.

The many kinds of plastics and their additives such as heavy metals and DEHP (the plasticizer to be warning-labeled in the world) make recycling problematic. Additionally, plastic does not recycle well due to the properties of its fibers, and if more than a small amount of recycled plastic is put into new production of plastics, the result is an inferior and unprofitable product. It is a fraud upon the public that the "chasing arrows" on plastic containers imply recyclability and recycled content. The types of plastics and varieties of containers that can actually be recycled are few. What's more, the plastics industry including soft-drink corporations have been let off from collecting or recycling their poisonous garbage. Apart from some lower-grade materials, such as park benches, carpets and some garments made from recycled plastic, utilization of recycled plastics is mostly a myth.

Collecting plastic packaging at curbside fosters the belief that, like aluminum and glass, the recovered material is converted into new packaging.

Collecting plastic packaging at curbside fosters the belief that, like aluminum and glass, the recovered material is converted into new packaging. In fact, most recovered plastic packaging is not made into packaging again but into new secondary products such as textiles, parking lot bumpers, or plastic lumber – all unrecyclable products. This does not reduce the use of virgin materials in plastic packaging.

Curbside collection does not reduce the amount of plastic landfilled. If establishing collection makes plastic packages seem more environmentally friendly, people may feel comfortable buying more. Curbside plastic collection programs, intended to reduce municipal plastic waste, might backfire if total use rises faster than collection. Since only a fraction of certain types of plastic could realistically be captured by a curbside program, the net impact of initiating curbside collection could be an increase in the amount of plastic landfilled. Furthermore, since most plastic reprocessing leads to secondary products that are not themselves recycled, this material is only temporarily diverted from landfills.

The Global Community promotes a 40 cent payment for each plastic bag used at retail, which will go into environmental clean up and education against plastics from petroleum. This would make a dent in the problem, but you'll want to see more done, and fast, the more you find out about plastics.

What to do? Just say no to plastics.

How many of those plastic containers do we really reuse, anyway? And now that we know plastic is unsafe, we need to fight for a consensus that plastics have had their day, at least in allowing further spread. The demise of petroleum supply that some analysts anticipate shortly will have to be the form of action to permanently cap the plastics plague. Meanwhile, or in anticipation of the collapse ahead of petroleum civilization, doing more than trying to reject plastics means changing our lifestyle toward simpler, less materialistic living.

Every time we use a new plastic bag they go and get more petroleum from the Middle East and bring it over in tankers. We are extracting and destroying the Earth to use a plastic bag for 10 minutes. What could be more important, when an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion bags are used annually worldwide?

Just to consider one product, bicycles: they are a sustainable alternative to cars, so we cannot ignore the plastics component of bikes. Tires for bikes (and cars) were once made out of the rubber plant, and that has to recommence. Rubber (from the tree) is not a plastic, although plasticizers are put into plastics for pliability. Petroleum has become indispensable to almost every aspect of modern society's operation. The trend is the other direction, as more and more parts for bicycles (and cars) are made of plastic.

As the petroleum-driven economy's machinery churns along and eats up the Earth and the biosphere, people who bother to think about plastics assume that nonpetroleum sources are around the corner. However, a focus on recycling plastics misses the greater reality in front of our noses which is the health issue, as we have seen.

Plastics made from plants

Plastics made from plants, unlike petroleum-plastics, offer biodegradability which helps to relieve the problem of solid-waste disposal, but degradation gives off greenhouse gases, thereby compromising air quality. Plant-based plastics using fermentation are technologically simpler to produce than plastics grown in corn, potatoe, eggplant or other vegetables but they compete with other needs for agricultural land. However, beyond the threat to the environment and our health posed by genetically modified organism, the corporations – by engaging in agricultural strip mining for making biomass for plastics or alcohol fuels – would further degrade land that is already losing topsoil at a rate hundreds of times faster than nature normally would allow.

Recent research, however, has raised doubts about the utility of these approaches. For one, biodegradability has a hidden cost: the biological breakdown of plastics releases carbon dioxide and methane, heat-trapping greenhouse gases that international efforts currently aim to reduce. What is more, fossil fuels would still be needed to power the process that extracts the plastic from the plants, an energy requirement that we discovered is much greater than anyone had thought. After calculating all the energy and raw materials required for each step of growing plastic, it was discovered that this approach would consume even more fossil resources than most petrochemical manufacturing routes. Production of plastic from plants will inevitably emit more greenhouse gases than do many of its petrochemical counterparts. However, it appears that both emissions and the depletion of fossil resources would be abated by continuing to make plastics from oil while substituting renewable biomass as the fuel.

However, how many million acres need to be planted to yield quantities of vegetable plastic for the global economy? We need to question the alleged socioeconomic needs of petroleum substitutes, and ask how many millions of people are supposed to use these materials for how many decades. But the bigger question is, don't people need to eat the potatoes and eggplant we can grow? The land needs to be used for other essential purposes, rather than growing plastic parts for unnecessary motor vehicles or kitchen equipment, for example. Monocrops are against species diversity. However, regardless of what people may wish as policy to satisfy their material wants, the energy to produce massive quantities of biomass for non-food purposes will not be available without abundant, cheap petroleum resources.

The real alternative to oil, lead and plastics is no car, because even "clean cars" are monumentally polluting, contrary to green propaganda.

An effective approach to fighting plastics means reducing petroleum consumption across the board. We need to do so anyway, as the world peak in global oil extraction is happening about now. Natural gas is getting tighter in supply as well. There will not be a set of alternatives ready to substitute for astronomically high oil and gas prices, because of lack of planning in corrupt, materialist societies. Maximum energy conservation of nonrenewable resources is essential. For example, bike carts need to be a major industry. Highway building must stop immediately. People must do without cars, refrigerators, computers, etc. It's either drastic reductions or complete collapse of the petroleum-driven economy, along with more poisons into the environment and our bodies. The choice is ours. So, for starters our reusable shopping bags (that we stash in bike saddle-bags!) are going to get more use. We cannot wait for reforms when the pace of modern life makes us miss opportunities to survive. The 40 cent deposit on plastic bags will do wonders, but must be in the spirit of a revolution for conservation.

Opening our minds to a new way of living will make it easier to free ourselves from the twin unfounded assumptions that we will always need and have plastics, and that they can be safe "enough."

So now we know that what we do with oil and gas is killing us and all life on the planet. And therefore, it is of our best interests not to be seeking the oil and gas of the Middle East, much less going to war over those resources. We certainly should not approve of the American economic and military invasion of the Middle East.

Can anyone imagine our world without plastic products?

Actually I do? So do a lot of non-industrialized nations. Have you ever flown over North Korea at night? Almost no light above cities! Why? No electricity! That makes them environmentally friendly and non-polluters. What about plastics!? To have no electricity implies no consumer products made of plastics. No fridges! No freezers, which also means that they do not destroy the Ozone layer around the planet, a global life-support system to all life. Fridges and freezers use refrigerants which eventually are released to the atmosphere and destroy the Ozone layer. We could go on listing the implications of no light at night. Yet the people of North Korea live happy lives. Well! That was until Americans got into the picture.

Other than America, who else wants the oil and gas of the Middle East?

India, Russia, Europe Union nations, and China! They want the oil and gas of the Middle East very badly. How else could they become the biggest growing economies of the world? Without the oil and gas they have no energy and no plastic base products. That means they cannot manufacture anything. Nothing! More than half of the world population out of a job. Starving and dying! No medicinal products because you need a plastic container to hold them. Hospitals have no plastic tubes to feed you with whatever fluids your body needs. All civilizations on the planet would come to a halt without the oil and gas. Yet it is the oil and gas that is creating global warming and forcing the climate to change around the globe. This of course shows that our own civilization is base on oil and gas, and on the base products we can get from the oil and gas, manly plastics. Our civilization is, therefore, not based on principles and values as it would fall completely without oil and gas.

As far as India, Russia, Europe, and China are concerned, there is an absolute need to obtain the oil and gas of the Middle East to survive. No other ways! So now that we have understood the problem so far, what are Americans truly doing in the Middle East? Are they in the Middle East because of their dislike of Saddam Hussain? Not likely! Saddam Hussain was never important, just an excuse for the invasion. But then they never had a reason to invade Vietnam. So what is different today? The Al Qua'ida 'terrorists' threatening their way of life? We know the 'terrorist' and suicide bombers are often civilians who have got so disgusted of being invaded, their homes destroyed, and their relatives killed, that the only way to fight back was by being suicide bombers. They are soldiers in their own way defending their country from the invaders and thieves who just want to steal their resources.

So obviously Americans are in the Middle East to steal the oil and gas. Their thinking is simple: better us having the oil and gas then them, 'them' being the Iragis, or any Muslims or Arabs for that matters. But the people from the Middle East are not so stupid. They know India, Russia, European nations and China are willing to pay for their resources. So now what situation do we have here? We have Americans who want to steal the oil and gas and treat the people of the Middle East like dirt, "non human beings', and we have the people from India, Russia, European nations and China willing to pay the price and to agree that the people from the Middle East have human rights. They are 'persons'

just like we are.

What we have here are the ingredients needed for World War III.

Simple as that! Nothing less!

Now our Government has changed Canada stands in the world from a peace-keeping mission to that of a war-type action as we are seeing in Afghanistan. First of all, being and showing that we are 'the very good friends of the US' was not a good thing to do. I am a Canadian, and I am not a very good friend of the Americans. I totally disagree with the invasion of the Middle East. And I dont want Canada to be thrown into a situation that has all the ingredients of WW III at the end of the tunnel. We dont actually need to steal the oil and gas. Being with the Americans will imply we are just as much thieves and invaders as they are. Not a good scenario!

What is Canada doing in Afghanistan?

Up until now Canada was on a peace-keeping mission but this was changed to a war-like stand. It looks like we want to show Americans we can be as they are: big guys with big guns, and ready to kill. Why? What are we really doing in Afghanistan? Why are we in Afghanistan when right here in Canada we need all the help we can get? We sure dont need to steal the oil and gas. Even if we had no oil and gas reserves, no resources, I would not agree of stealing anything. So why are we, Canadians, in Afghanistan? Afghans want all foreigners out of Afghanistan so what will it take to understand what they are telling us?

The current war and occupation of Iraq were undertaken in disregard of the most fundamental principles of Global Law

and with obvious contempt for truth, posterity, and the morality which should guide all human actions. The result has been the occupation and colonization of Iraq and the destruction of its economy and increased violence and insecurity for the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population. The world cannot sit by passively and watch the continued deterioration of the future of our planet.

President Bush has been elected for a second term as President of the worst polluters on the planet, and of a predator nation. During his campaign he has used religion, his religion, and its membership or supporters, to elect him. Ever since 9/11 the Global Community has fought his policies at home and abroad, and how his daily lies and brain-washing exercises which have changed the American people to follow his lead. The use of the military has been abused to the detriment of human and Earth rights.

Military intervention in the affairs of other nations is wrong.

There are other ways, there are peaceful ways, ways that are not based on profit-making and the gain of power for itself. The Global Community and its membership are conscientious objectors, "nonresistants". That word comes from Jesus, opposing the use of violence:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

We, Global Citizens,

therefore affirm the following conclusions and recommendations:

1.     That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq;

2.     That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended;

3.     That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under Global Law; the Earth Court of Justice will prosecute the offenders;

4.     That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation; the amount to be paid should be no less than 8 trillion US dollars coming from the governments involved, and not from the resources of Iraq;

5.     That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement;

6.     That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately;

7.     That our military be coming back home as this is the place it is needed most to prepare for Canada's future;

8.     That Canada's military be used for peace-keeping mission and not war-like stand;

9.     That our military be used for the protection of the global-life support systems.

10.     That tax money not be used on the military, instead, tax money be used to prepare for the future: research and development on new ways to replace oil and gas, and plastics; alternative energy technologies be used now; the development of new technologies and conservation strategies is essential both to reduce pollution and to make the most of North America's resource strengths.

11.     That our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol be made a real commitment, with real tangible, meaningful actions. Status quo is not an option! It was never an option. Those who dont do anything about the global warming of the planet are criminals. Those who dont help protecting the global life-support systems are criminals of the worst kind, they are 'terrorists' threatening all life on the planet.

There are several reasons for objecting to war: religious, moral and political. People have different degrees of refusal to go to war. Absolute pacifists such as Global Citizens will not cooperate with any preparation for war as decided by the war industry, let alone war itself. Others will accept some kinds of service so long as they are not forced to fight. And others are willing to fight in "just wars." The idea of the "just war" began with St. Augustine. Late in the fourth century he argued that the good Christian, barred from doing violence on his own behalf, could take arms in a war that was just. Several theologians now say that the standards for a just war are:

a)     War must be the last resort and used only after other means have failed.
b)     War must be declared to redress rights actually violated or for defense against unjust demands backed by the threat of force. It must not be fought simply to satisfy national pride or to further economic or territorial gain.
c)     The war must be openly and legally declared by a legal government.
d)     There must be a reasonable chance of winning.
e)     The means used must be in proportion to the ends sought.
f)     Soldiers must distinguish between armies and civilians and not killed civilians in purpose.
g)     The winner must not required the utter humiliation of the loser.

It can be debated whether any war has ever satisfied all these reasonable conditions. There were always Christians who rejected violence. They believed Christ's way was the pursuit of peace. During the Crusades, from the eleventh to fourteenth centuries, Christians fought to recover the Holy Land from Islam, and the Church plunged into extreme violence and cruelty. Even then there were some who had the courage to criticize the theory and practice of their time. They were like the early Christians in denouncing war. Only now they were not rebelling against a heathen empire but against the wordly Church. In their opposition they formed sects, separate from the official Church. Their pacifist convictions found their source in a return to the Bible. These awakened Christians went back to the fundamental ideas of Christianity, to the New Testament, and took the Sermon on the Mount as their ideal.

Keep in touch!

Germain Dufour

Project Officer and Adviser to the GGNA
President
Global Community Earth Government (GCEG) http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GlobalConstitution/

Global Community Earth Government recommendations to humanity http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/gceg/

globalcommunity@telus.net

GlobalConstitution@telus.net