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: Delinking military sanctions:



Dear colleagues,
                           Delinking military from economic sanctions is an objective distinction 
as is that of Iraqi government(aggressor) versus Iraqi people(victim).A snippet of an example is 
that of the bombing by the former of the latter,the Kurdish town of Helebje,with chemical weapons 
on this very day,March16th in 1988,when the aggressor was the blue eyed boy of the powers that 
be.And the rest is ,as they say,history.
I respectfully refer you to a graphic version of delinking in my flow chart and explanatory text to 
this forum on 1st March 2000.
Regards,
              Muhamad 


>>> "Doug Stokes" <dstokes14@hotmail.com> 03/15 10:40 am >>>
I read an article the other day from here: 
http://www.iacenter.org/delink.htm.

It seems to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy in the anti sanctions 
movement of delinking generalised economic sanctions against Iraq from 
military sanctions. Here's a snippet:

"Blaming the victim

>From Dec. 20, 1998--after four days of heavy bombing raids--until the end of 
September 1999, the U.S. and its British allies flew 12,157 combat sorties 
against Iraq. They dropped 10,000 tons of explosives during that period.

The movement here must ask itself--does Iraq have the right to defend itself 
against such attacks? Does it have the right to lock its radar on hostile 
planes flying over its territory? Does it have the right to fire back?

If the movement supports "military sanctions" against Iraq, then we are 
taking the side of the aggressor against the victims. This approach implies 
that Iraq is somehow more "evil" than other states and concedes that 
Washington has some justice on its side. Iraq has not bombed the U.S. or 
Britain or anyone else. We must not fall in the trap of blaming the 
victims."

I would be interested to hear any views on this.

Doug.




>From: Mark Tribe <mlt21@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
>To: "Hamre, Drew" <drew.hamre@rainier.com>
>CC: 'Iraq-CASI - Discussion' <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
>Subject: A third way?
>Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:36:56 +0000 (GMT)
>
>Dear All,
>
>I would appreciate any replies to my following train of thought.
>
>
>The US and UK governments want sanctions in place to prevent Saddam
>Hussein building up any form of military threat. All the funds from oil
>sales are kept under UN control and tight monitoring of all imports takes
>place to meet this end.
>

>Would the following steps relieve this suffering and yet still prevent
>military imports;
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk 
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
http://welcome.to/casi

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:
http://welcome.to/casi


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]