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]
We should let him starve his kids so that he won't murder them. ! Apart from that, a lot of what Bill says sounds quite convincing. What do people think about this? Apparantly, Saddam Hussein is now getting $19 billion whereas he was getting only $16 billion before the gulf war, from oil. What I think it's important to know is whether this is a lie, a misleading statement, or true. Bill Clinton makes out that the USA is trying to aleviate the suffering and yet some would have it that there is something of a conspiracy to make it worse. I want to know if the USA is deliberately trying to stop Iraq from rebuilding its civilian infrastructure. Bill Clinton would have us think that Saddam has money to spend on food and yet is deliberately not spending it, so that his people can starve, so that the rest of the world will think that they are starving because their country cannot afford to feed them, when really they are starving because it is part of Saddam's strategic plan that they should be starving. Is this really plausible? I think Amy Goodman could have asked rather more challenging questions. She really should have argued that it was possible that Iraq has enough money to feed its people but does not have the infrastructure to distribute it, and that the enforcers of the sanctions are blockading imports of materials and blocking contracts for rebuilding infrastructure of roads, water and electricity. As I see it Bill Clinton won that argument. I also wouldnt mind knowing whether such blockades, justified by the dual use argument are really in place to prevent such dual use, as the authorities would have us believe, or whether it is a deliberate policy to make sure that Iraq does not recover. It's a nice (but not that nice) conspiracy theory but is it really plausible? Anyway, what I really want to know is whether Bill Clinton genuinely believes what he is telling the interviewer or whether he is hiding the fact (?) that he is knowingly and willingly complicit in a rather large scale genocide (if indeed he is). And ditto Madeleine Albright and Peter Hain etc. Do these politicians and others regularly make up answers to keep the media happy when really they are holding a deep dark secret, or do they genuinely believe that their policies are fair? Please don't anyone tell me that what I've written is irrelivent. I think that it is important to try to understand the minds of the people who are committing these crimes (if that's what they are doing) in order to understand what is exactly going on. Peace, Hugh. --On Wednesday, November 8, 2000 11:03 -0500 Ramsey Kysia <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > PRESIDENT CLINTON: And, you know, remember, this is the only guy, > the only world leader today who has used chemical weapons on his own > citizens. And the American people in my judgement should give him all > the money he needs to take care of his kids. But should do everything > we can, and even if we are alone, to try to stop him from being in a > position of murdering his kids again, and murdering other children in the > Middle East. That's what I believe. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email email@example.com Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://www.casi.org.uk