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: [casi] A heartfelt question.

>This is indeed a heartfelt question, and one that was
bound to come up. Thank you for being honest enough to ask it.
Past examples of US post-sanctions regimes changes abroad are
illustrative. Is Afghanistan
better off materially speaking with a change of regime supported
 by the US? What about Yugoslavia? Or even South Africa?
Iraqi sanctions are an extreme case, however, far more draconian
than other sanctions, the worst in modern
history, and there would be protracted fighting.
Supposing there was a regime change, the US would make sure Iraqi
national resources were privatised, including welfare state
structures like public health services, there would be a massive
oil wealth grab a la Caspian Sea region, there is no way
the people would regain their economic status prior Gulf War, so
I would say changes would be minimal in the long run, but I
understand your concern, Philippa

===== Original Message From jensen 2 <> =====
>Dear all
>While I would agree with Yasser Alaskary's  point that it is largely
irrelevant whether the inspectors were expelled or withdrawn I find it a very
handy starting point in debates with people who throw this up as well as
challenging it when said by politicians. Being able to correct  this
appararently minor point can cause questions to be made about other issues. It
illustrates the accuracy of  our own country's media. Having corrected this
point it is  possible to go on and say about the tragic consequences that the
sanctions are having.
>I further agree that we should be only concerned for what is best for the
people of Iraq , and now I find a bit of a problem.
>Before anyone says anything let me make it 100% clear I am not in favour of
any war but  how do we support the Iraqi people and stop them suffering from
the sanctions?
>Of course I want to see the sanctions and therefore the suffering removed ,it
is futile to quibble about inspectors being expelled/withdrawn  but it is
equally futile to expect the sanctions to be lifted when America  has said
>it will not ease the sanctions all the time Saddam is in power.Yes this is
unjust and inhumane but that is the real situation, America will not allow
itself to  be seen as backing down and couldn't give a ***** for worldwide
>We all know we should not be in this position but we cannot rewrite history,
we are where we are and trying to find a practical and realistic way out is
the problem.
>The thing that is hurting and killing the people are the sanctions imposed on
them by the West in an attempt to get rid of Saddam, so it can be argued that
if the west goes in and kicks him out the Iraqi people will have the sanctions
lifted and their suffering will be ended. So on that basis should we be
supporting  the proposed military action? However there is (as always) another
side to this , despite the rhetoric that the action will be carefully targeted
to only hit the republican guard it is bound to cause civilian loss of life as
well , almost certainly will exascerbate tensions in the region, and be seen
as an act of American aggresion.
>We all know that if Saddam is removed there will be a puppet put in his place
>but the suffering of the Iraqi people will be removed.
>Please do not slam into me , this is a genuine concern and I would welcome
anyone's constructive comments.
>I deplore war and I deplore the sanctions.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Yasser Alaskary <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:24 PM
>Subject: [casi] anti-sanctions or just anti-government?
>Hi all,
>I've become somewhat alarmed by recent comments made on this group. the
>reason any of us is campaigning and working for the end of sanctions is for
>the iraqi people, or at least that should be the reason. by the same logic,
>we should not be trying to defend the iraqi regime in any way. those who say
>"its none of our business" and we should only deal with what our country
>imposes on iraq, thats like saying "who gives a crap about what happens to
>the iraqi people, as long as we're not responsible". it is extremely
>hypocritical, and anyway the US and UK have helped keep saddam in power so
>many times (not least in '91) that it does become our responsibility. this
>isn't some game were our objective is soley to object against whatever
>america and the government do, our work should stem for our sincere,
>heartfelt concern for the starved and oppressed iraqi people - and this
>concern should have no boundaries.
>picking on the little detail of whether saddam hussein ejected the
>inspectors or whether they left themselves is irrelevant to the fact that
>the bombing and sanctions only hurt the iraqi people, killing hundreds of
>thousands. the people of iraq should not be tied to the inspectors - that is
>were the point should be made, not about some media injustices are done
>against the brutal iraqi regime. by making such a point we are endorsing the
>belief that the issue of inspections and sanctions should be interlinked.
>come on people, focus on the objective.
>yasser alaskary
>president, imperial college iraqi society
>See how the rest of the world sees today's news  at
>News of  world events and international politics  from the world's newspapers
>Express yourself with a super cool email address from
>Hundreds of choices. It's free!
>Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>To unsubscribe, visit
>To contact the list manager, email
>All postings are archived on CASI's website:

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]