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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LA Times calls for an end to economic sanctions!

"...Iraq apparently is still capable of producing unconventional weapons..."

Just occurred to me; it's probably occurred to many of you previously.  When
were the first "unconventional" weapons designed and produced?  This brings
a whole new meaning to the by now popular description of Iraq being bombed
and sanctioned back to the stone age.  If Iraq is to be incapable of
producing a chlorine gas weapon, then it is to be de-industrialized back to
conditions resembling those of decades ago.  Infant and child mortality,
rates of school attendence, etc. are now comparable to 1950's and 60's

Andrew Loucks
The Global Movement to End the War
against Iraq -
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Three passions,simple but overwhelmingly
strong, have governed my life; the longing for love,
 the search for knowledge,and an unbearable pity
 for the sufferings of mankind.
                 -  Bertrand Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: Hamre, Drew <>
To: 'Iraq-CASI - Discussion' <>
Date: September 15, 1999 3:16 PM
Subject: LA Times calls for an end to economic sanctions!

>At long last, one of the big-three U.S. newspapers has called for an end to
>economic sanctions against Iraq.  The following editorial ran in the LA
>Times on September 3.  And while we might wish for a stronger statement of
>humanitarian concern, what follows is a significant turnaround from the
>Times' earlier positions[1].  Letters of support may be sent to
> ).
>Now if only the Washington Post and New York Times would follow ...
>Drew Hamre
>Golden Valley, MN USA
>The Los Angeles Times
>Friday, September 3, 1999
>Home Edition
>Section: Metro
>Page: B-6
>Iraq Inspections a Must
>U.S. should face its policy failure and work out a plan to revive
>international monitoring.
>Three goals have defined U.S. policy on Iraq since the end of the Persian
>Gulf War in 1991: to contain it militarily, to deny it weapons of mass
>destruction and to encourage the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Only the
>of these has been achieved.
>Despite the damage to Iraqi society by economic sanctions, despite the
>destruction of more Scud missiles, chemical and biological warheads and
>secret weapons facilities than were destroyed in the Gulf War, Iraq
>apparently is still capable of producing unconventional weapons and
>Hussein's grip on power has not slackened. It's time to consider a new
>The no-fly zones patrolled by U.S. and British aircraft over northern and
>southern Iraq and the almost daily attacks since last December on Iraq's
>defense sites have held Hussein's aggressive instincts in check. But in the
>face of increasing Iraqi obstruction, UNSCOM, the U.N. arms monitoring
>program, ceased functioning nine months ago. Meanwhile, economic sanctions
>have taken a fearful toll, not on Hussein and his cosseted military and
>police forces but on the Iraqi people. Hundreds of thousands of deaths,
>especially of children, have been blamed on a lack of imported food and
>medicine that has been only partly relieved by letting Iraq resume some oil
>sales. Hussein has been unmoved by this suffering but has sought with some
>success to manipulate the compassion of others. International support for
>Washington's determination to hold to a tough sanctions policy has steadily
>The U.N. Security Council will soon try to decide whether UNSCOM can be
>revived and an effective arms monitoring program restored in Iraq. Whatever
>might be agreed--and substantial differences separate the Russian, Chinese
>and French positions from those of the United States and Britain--the final
>word will rest with Saddam Hussein.
>To try to win his agreement, the United States should offer to alter its
>policy of the last eight years. If Iraq agrees to readmit U.N. inspectors
>and allow on-the-ground monitoring that might again put its covert weapons
>programs at risk of detection and destruction, Washington would support a
>sweeping suspension of sanctions, allowing unlimited sales of Iraqi oil and
>the resumption of most imports except military equipment and dual-use
>There's a clear political risk to this approach. Some would denounce it as
>appeasement of Hussein, who, if he accepted the deal, could be depended on
>to boast that his defiance of Washington carried the day. Some Iraqis would
>be impressed. So would many others in the Arab world, where official as
>as popular sympathy for Iraq has been growing.
>The offset is that Iraq's programs to build weapons of mass
>greatest threat to regional security--would again be opened up to
>international monitoring. For the United States, the painful fact to be
>faced is that sanctions haven't achieved what it sought. While Iraq for now
>is contained, the absence of U.N. arms inspectors raises concerns about its
>future military potential. It's time to try a different tack by offering to
>trade sanctions for intrusive weapons inspections. Washington should show
>flexibility and leave the burden of rejection to Saddam Hussein.
>Copyright (c) 1999 Times Mirror Company
>[1] The following bit of history is from FAIR - a U.S. press watch
>organization - at]
>"... At one point (8/18/95), the L.A. Times forthrightly acknowledged the
>suffering as the whole point. A primary reason "for keeping the pressure of
>sanctions on is that increasingly desperate conditions in Iraq seem
>inexorably to be sapping the regime's staying power," they applauded. Two
>years later, with conditions still more "desperate," the paper remained
>unmoved: "The fate of the criminally misled people prompts pity," they
>stated (11/21/97). "The fate of all those who are potential victims of
>Hussein's terror weapons-Americans included-must take precedence...."
>This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>To be removed/added, email, NOT
>the whole list. Please do not sent emails with attached files to the list
>*** Archived at ***

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email, NOT
the whole list. Please do not sent emails with attached files to the list
*** Archived at ***

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]