HomeMy WebLinkAbout18-Council Office
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Councilwoman Susan Longville
Subject: Resolution Opposing A Pre-emptive
U.S. Military Attack on Iraq
,
,
i
l..
Dept. Council Office
I
,
\.i.
Date: January 27,2003
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
Recommended Motion:
To adopt resolution
cJ~
0../
Contact Person:
Councilwoman Longville
Phone:
5222
Supporting Data Attached:
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descri Dtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
~mD3
Agenda Item No. -1f
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
At the 1/21/03 meeting of the Mayor and Common Council,
Councilmember Longville provided the Mayor and Council with
information on more than 42 City Councils across the United States that
have passed patriotic resolutions opposing a unilateral pre-emptive strike
on Iraq by the United States. Cities as different as Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Oakland, Des Moines, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, and Boulder have
passed similar resolutions. Councilmember Longville also indicated she
would introduce a similar resolution at the next meeting of the Mayor and
Common Council
This request for Council action urges the City Council of San Bernardino
to vote on a patriotic resolution opposing a unilateral pre-emptive strike
against Iraq at this time. The attached resolution is similar to the
measures passed by other City Councils and is being taken up by a
number of other cities at this time.
Increasing numbers of civic and religious leaders, educators, business
leaders, veterans, senior citizens, and other individuals from all sectors
across the country have joined in urging caution to President Bush's call
for an immediate war with Iraq. Numerous polls taken in recent weeks
have indicated that two out of three people in the nation oppose a
unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iraq at this time. City Council resolutions
also address how taxpayers, city and state budgets, and critical social
services will be impacted by the costs of a war with Iraq.
Residents of San Bernardino who are opposed to a unilateral pre-emptive
strike against Iraq at this time for reasons expressed within the resolution
have asked for this opportunity to bring these concerns before us.
Whatever the outcome, the request is made with the utmost respect for
the strong difference of opinions on war with Iraq that may exist in our
community.
None of us should vilify one another over divergent positions on this war
that appears quite likely to occur. This City Council has repeatedly
debated other heartfelt issues without personal hostility towards one
another. Now, more than ever, let us remember that all Americans are
patriotic - whether or not they support this war.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO OPPOSING A PRE-EMPTIVE U.S. MILITARY A TT ACK ON IRAQ
WHEREAS, the issues between Iraq and the world eommunity have not proven to be
irresoluble by traditional diplomatic efforts; and
WHEREAS, while Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who should be removed from power,
both for thc good of the Iraqi people and for the security of Iraq's neighboring countries, it is
not at all clear that a unilateral U.S. Military action would result in the installation of a free and
democratic Iraqi government; and
WHEREAS, U.S. military actions would risk the deaths of thousands ofIraqi civilians
without guaranteeing the safety and security of U.S. citizens; and
WHEREAS, a pre-emptive and unilateral U.S. military attack would violate
international law and our commitments under the United Nations Charter and further isolate the
U.S. from the rest of the world; and
WHEREAS, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a military action against Iraq
will cost our nation between $9 and $13 billion a month, likely resulting in further cuts in
federally ti.ll1ded projects and programs that benefit our City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, a U.S. Icd war in Iraq would compromise our current action 111
Afghanistan, and require years of nation-building activities in Iraq; and
WHEREAS, the Bush Administration has failed to articulate a clear strategic objective
or outcome of a military attack against Iraq, and such an attack fails to enjoy the support of
many of our important allies; and
WHEREAS, we give our unconditional support to U.S. military personnel serving at
home and abroad in their tireless battle against global terrorism, and should our military forces
be sent to Iraq, we give our unyielding support to our young men and women serving in our
nation's military, even if we oppose the policy that sent them there.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Members of the Common
Council of the City of San Bernardino hereby oppose a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iraq
unless it is demonstrated that Iraq poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of
the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we support a continuation of U.N. weapons
inspectors in Iraq, enhanced by sufficient police support to guarantee unfettered access to all
targeted sites; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge the U.S. to work through the U.N.
Security Council and reat1irm our nation's commitment to the rule of law in all international
relationships; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
California Congressional Delegation and the President of the United States.
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
1
2
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO OPPOSING A PRE-EMPTIVE U.S. MILITARY ATTACK ON IRAQ.
31
4! I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
5' and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
6:
_ day of
,2003, by the following vote, to wit:
71 Council Members:
81
9
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
ESTRADA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LONGVILLE
MC GINNIS
DERRY
SUAREZ
ANDERSON
MC CAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
day of
,2003
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
,
App~lls to
Fond legal content:
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
'}1-# ~--
By: /)rA< ~ ~ /7:~
J I
'jle(
Mayor and members ofthe Council, my name is Oscar Gonzalez. I am a resident ofthe
second ward and live at 635 E. Evans St. I have lived at this address since 1963. While I
have disagreed with Councilwoman Susan Lien Longville on some issues or positions she
has taken in the past, I admire the hard work she does and her commitment and dedication
to the residents of the second ward. I am here therefore, in support of her resolution.
I want to be clear however, that I unconditionally support our men and women serving in
the military defending our liberty and freedom in parts of the world where these freedoms
are discouraged or prohibited by countries engaged in dictatorship, human suppression,
violence and death.
I also supported and still do, the war against the a1-Qaida, the terrorists that attacked our
country and killed thousands of innocent lives. I am concerned however, that the president
has not kept the promise he made to the American people after our country was attacked
on Sept. 11, when he repeatedly said he would find and get rid ofOsama Bin Laden,
"dead or alive." Do you remember that? To date, he has provided no tangible evidence or
proof that he accomplished this task and wants to engage in another war.
I don't understand his change in strategy from getting Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive"
to going after Saddam Hussein, perhaps even without the support of the National Security
Council.
I am concerned that this unexplained change in strategy will distract from other
fundamental issues facing our country. Our economy is in chaos and I don't understand
how the president plans to pay the enormous cost of a war that will impact the national
budget not only in economic terms but more importantly, in the potential loss oflife to our
men and women in the military and other innocent lives.
I am concerned that if in fact, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, how is a
war waged against him going to stop this evil and dangerous dictator from retaliating and
using those weapons against us?
I have to wonder how a costly pre-emptive military attack against Iraq is going to further
impact our economy in terms of all its needs: providing services to the poor, the homeless,
the seniors, individuals without health insurance, and so on and so on. The war will have
a catastrophic effect on the limited resources already straining the coffers of the national,
state and local budgets.
The president has been consumed and focus on nothing but "WAR" since Sept 11, first
against Osama Bin Laden and now against Saddam Hussein. Who is going to be next?
Where and when is it going to stop? Why not continue to work through the efforts ofthe
United Nations Security Council and see how many nations can and will support the
president's effort not merely by idle and empty promises but also with manpower to
supplement our military forces. I don't believe that a family vendetta is good justification
for war or that it serves the best interest of our country.
I encourage you to s~pport the res~lution and vote for i!s Ii. ,assage. I /----
Thank you for your ttme and attentton. Entr e Into Record at . 2_J3 /a.]
O C Go aI drmvOevCms Mtg:
scar. nz ez
February 3, 2003 c...~<,.j..w-rJ-vvt~) ~rl...v
litem /?
~ h, C~~.
City Clerk/CDe Secy
City of San Bernardino
Preventive War by bminick@bobminick.com
I would be the first to admit that I do not have access to top secret official intelligence
reports on "threats" to the security of the United States(US).
Hence, I must give some credence to those who may be in a position to know more about
such matters. At least, I must try to do this until these folks begin to show that they do not know
all that much more than I know, or begin to react to the "threat" in irrational ways, or begin to do
things I believe are even more dangerous to this nation than the terrorist threat.
We have known all along that how we react--here and abroad--to the awful events of9/11
is ever bit as important as the events--or moreso!
9/11 brought the "terrorist threat" home to us--it is real enough. In that case I apparently
was as well informed as was those who daily read official intelligence reports. I have to assume
that if there were those in "intelligence" who saw this coming they would have acted to prevent
it. Those in a position to know about these things are the very same people who are in a position
to act! They seemed as surprised as was I when it happened.
Official intelligence gathering may not be all that superior to the information one can get
from reading, say the New York Times. I once was an aid to a congressman who moved
mountains to get on the Intelligence Committee. He soon became disillusioned when he learned
that he could not talk publicly about what he "learned" there. More often than not the "secrets"
he was apprised of there were three day old stories that anyone could have read, seen, or heard
in the media. But, since "intelligence" had briefed him on the subject his lips were sealed. He
quit "intelligence" so he would be free to comment on world affairs!
The truth is, it would not have taken a bin Laden, to have brought off this horrendous
event. Twenty Timothy McVieghs couId easily have brought it about. One deranged pilot could
bring about even greater destruction any day. The most expensive of preventive efforts can
never assure that a 9/11 will not occur again. All that is needed is a willingness to die.
The fact is that the events of 9/11 were so brutally and cunningly simple that they were
below the radar screen of the most sophisticated apparatus we had--or maybe could have--to
prevent terror. The overall reaction of the administration, to date, indicates that they may not
have learned the most basic lesson of 9/11. Bombing the pootest people on earth--a people who
could not have turned over bin Laden if they wanted to--may not force people to love us.
Star Wars types of responses offer little defense against the garden-variety type of
terrorism seen at Oklahoma City or on 9/11. Nor does increased spending for conventional
warfare increase our security significantly. Both may make us less secure! They give us a false
sense of safety. Do you feel safer now that we have ditched "Star Wars" treaties?
Money spent to scare would-be martyrs seems rather pointless. How do you scare
someone who wants to die anyway? --'
Making war on nation states who may harbor people who don't like us and may get
around to doing us harm; will likely keep us bombing away for the remainder of this young
century, or longer. It will likely create more terrorists-:not fewer. Bombing people to their knees
to rout out terrorist we may not find may prove counter-productive in the long haul. .
. Worse yet, using 9/II.to push through PFr,~~:ms. tr~it.\~8r1l'Jlfing to our prot~ction but J..b If) 3
stnps us of our own freedom IS extremely threat~hmg'II~~M1ll:the more "",,,n" theants
to our freedom may be the highly partisan right wing programs and appointments, having
nothing at all to do with "the war," made possibhp, in the name of "United We Sf"";!!" Un,," ;'"U
heard John Ashcroft speak lately? r~ ' Ja Item J...t/
~lf h (l~ Il~
City Clerk/COC Secy
I City of Sail Bernardino
4F.. /y
Money spent on alerting the public, something relatively inexpensive and potentially
unobtrusive, makes much more sense! Given the events of 9/1 1, Oklahoma City, and the anthrax
scare, we are not that hard to convince that we are vulnerable to terrorist. That we are equally
vulnerable to the questionable whims of political leaders, made popular by the war, is not as
easily understood. "War time" presidents get pretty much what they want! Their agenda is not
always in the best interest of freedom! That may be particularly true of this president!
Now, the administration is talking about "preventive war" against nation states--three in
particular--lraqi, Iran, and North Korea. There is no reason to think that we would stop there.
Surely, no one believes that if we bomb these nations into the Stone Age that we will rid the
world of terrorist who hates us. It is Stone Age mentality that breeds terrorist. There are 60 or
more such nations that are said to harbor terrorist--including the United States.
We are rattling sabers at those nations who have or may soon have weapons of mass
destruction, that could either be used by them, or have their weapons fall into the hands of
terrorist(Why China was not mentioned is a mystery.). That includes over twenty nations--again
including the US. It seems a bit much to go to war against nations that do exactly the same thing
we do. Pick up any "land mine" anywhere in the world it is more likely to be stamped "made in
the US" than any other place on earth. So too with weapons of mass destruction!
We are encouraged by our great "success" in Afghanistan. Success means near zero US
combat casualties. Success means tolerable collateral damage--of course, we are the judges of
what is tolerable. ("The first causality in any war is the truth! ")
We have not taken bin Laden! Would this put an end to terrorism if we do?
Tvpical of how our "Preventive Wars" mav be fou!!ht is a recent incident in
Af!!anistan--not an isolated one at all as it turns out. An unmanned drone plane !!uided bv
the CIA spotted some men !!ettin!! out of a car in Af!!anistan. One of the men was over six
feet tall--bin Laden is over six feet tall--he was dressed in white--bin Laden sometimes
wears white. The CIA. from some remote safe heaven, launched a missile from the drone
that killed all the men. It was a matter of shoot first and ask Questions later. It was not a
matter of. "it is either them or us." In this case us was not even human. Forensic scientist
reportedlv are simn!! what's left of these men in white to. determine who thev reallv were.
Whv was it necessary to kill those people in this manner? Surely this arbitary and deadly
approach is morally Questionable. One has to wonder where the CIA !!ot the authority to
carry out such a mission. Apparently. this is both the lo!!ic and the strate!!V to be followed
in future preventive wars--fact is it mav pretty well be the policv that has been followed in
this "war. It __
It has been said that, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" That
may be as true of military might as it is of political, religious, or financial monopolies.
It is no small thing to go from a stated foreign policy forbidding the assassination of
another head of state to a policy of taking out heads of state the President thinks untrustworthy.
This is a major shift in foreign policy! It is taking place with little or no meaningful debate.
There is a very real sense in which this new policy makes us the announced terrorist of
the world! With no formal declaration of war, our elected officials have given President Bush
Carte Blanca power to topple governments where he chooses. Common sense, the Constitution,
history, militarj tactics, morality, and President Bush's own religious faith strongly suggest we
are going down the wrong path. Bob Minick, 115 W. Randall, Rialto, CA92376
909-874-2122 (If printed please include email above.)
2