The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear All Thanks to Alan for injecting some sense into all this. Saddam is a bad man with weopons of such a nature that they do pose a threat to nations nextdoor and ones who have taken a stand against him in the past. The US and UK benefit from cheap oil far more than from a beligerent nation and increased oil prices. On the other hand, Clinton is a bad man too and ethical necessity alone has not not taken us into any war that I can think of. The question is: will the airstrikes reduce the liklihood that Saddam will use his weopons or act as a deterent against future (unfriendly) dictators acquiring such weopons? Here I'm not sure: we don't know where these weopons are and chemicals are easy to hide. So what do we airstrike? It might be that we can be sure of destroying enough plants to remove the threat - if so, good. If not, as a tentative solution (e-mail to Bill + Tony), why not leave Saddam alone and threaten to nuke him if he uses any of his NBC weopons? Nicholas Soames said that he thought we would if Saddam did, so to speak, anyway. Unfortunately, wars make good TV so we'll get one. Clinton needs the distraction and Blair needs the Sun. yours Tim Viles On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Alan Bates (Nemo) wrote: > Dear Everyone > > I feel that I must play Devils Advocate here as far as this issue is > concerned. The fact is that in my opinion the sanctions against Iraq > should be lifted, but there may be a case for a direct military campaign > in the next few weeks. > > I am usually opposed to war, but I feel that it is wrong to slam the USA > for taking a legitimate and responsible line. I feel that the scope of > sdanctions is too wide, but there is clearly a cse for maintaining some > sanctions. By the same token, there is surely a case for military action. > > It is perfectly clear that there is a degree of hypocrisy about the US's > stance (after all, there was no such enthusiasm for getting embroiled in > Bosnia) but I would ask people what the alternative is to sanctions or > military action. If we do not want either, then how are we to force > Saddam to comply with United Nations resolutions? > > Iraq may possess weapons of mass destruction capable of causing vast > suffering to the people of Israel and other countries in the area. It is > not right that they should be allowed to hold on to these weapons in > defiance of the UN. Now the UN is 50 years old, it is often seen as > toothless. If there is to be no action against Iraq then yet another UN > resolution will have been successfully defied by a cruel dictator and the > credibility of the UN will be damaged. The stance currently taken by > Russia and Egypt is ridiculous. To rule out military action is to remove > the threat which is the only thing likely to procure a peaceful > settlement: Saddam has shown that he will push the international community > as far as he can without definitive defeat. If, as CASI supporters, we > are saying that the sanctions are wrong because they are not hurting > Saddam but are hurting the people of Iraq, then surely the best way to end > sanctions and to bring about an acceptable solution for the safety of the > Middle East would be to hit targets militarily which are closest to > Hussein such as ptresidential palaces, barracks of the palace guard, etc. > > I know this view is somewhat controversial and it is one which I am very > uncomfortable with myself. But as I feel that it is right to enoforce UN > resolutions necessary for protecting the Middle East stability, I can see > no other way than the tough stance being taken by Madeline Albright. If > anyone has any other ideas for solving the present crisis then I would be > veryu interested to hear. > > Best wishes > Alan > > ************************** > ALAN BATES > Christ's College > St. Andrew's Street > Cambridge > CB2 3BU > Tel: 01223 767443 > Mobile: 0966 167594 > College Fax: 01223 334967 > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the > whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To be removed/added, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html