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 Mr. Yasir Al-Wakeel and others 1- While hundreds of thousands were demonstrating in London, Rome, Paris, Washington, Cairo, Damascus, Bahrain... protesting the Israeli massacres of Palestinian civilians I found the timing very awkward that < some 1,200 people marched through central London demanding the overthrow of....... Iraqi President Saddam Hussein>. One would hope that those "1200" should have joined the other hundreds of thousands in demanding the end of Israeli occupation. 2- Comparing the hundreds of thousands with the "1200" might indicate how little support the organizers have despite the large number of Iraqi and Arabs living in London. 3- I personally have no reservation on the "1200" demonstration. They can demonstrate as much as they want, in the end the UK and US will do what they want irrespective I object to the timing. 4- The "1200" demonstration <coincided> with the Israeli call to oust chairman Yasser Arafat [ a fact] . I have selected the word < coincided> very carefully. You are free to understand it as meaning "linked" 5- I strongly believe that what is happening in Palestine now is America 's response to the Arab governments' refusal to join America's war on Iraq. The US vice president visit to the area was a disaster. This is the first time Arabs say NO to America including Kuwait. Super America will not forgive the Arabs. 6- The original posting says that <any military action against the dictator must not harm the people of Iraq> The statement talks about "military action" meaning shooting, bombing, artillery fire, Aircraft bombing, guided missiles.. In short KILLING people. On the other hand it says < must not harm the people of Iraq>. How can these two contradictory goals be achieved. Do you bomb the uninhabited desert? Do you ask the 4 millions in Baghdad to leave the city so it can be bombed and not < harm the people of Iraq>. What if we all moved to Baquba so they can bomb Baghdad and Saddam Husain comes with us to Baquba. Do you still bomb Baghdad or change the target to Baquba? One has to talk sensibly "military action" means killing people, innocent people, children, old people, women and it may not, repeat may not, result in regime change. If that is what the "1200" demonstrates want then they should say so and cut the crap about < not harm the people of Iraq> 7- Those of us who lived through the 8 years of Iraq Iran war, 1991 gulf war and the subsequent air attacks on Iraq know very well what war means. The 22 millions living in Iraq now have suffered tremendously over the last 20 years and should not be subjected to further suffering under any pretext. I think any one who advocates bombing Iraq should come here to Iraq to live under the "fire"!! 8- Your posting touched on several other important points. Sorry Yasir I will have to address them in a separate message later. Wishing you all the best, Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar Baghdad, Iraq ----- Original Message ----- From: "Y.B. Al-Wakeel" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:58 AM Subject: : Fw: [casi] Iraq stops oil exports for 30 days (fwd) > > Dear Dirk and others, > I rarely if ever post on this discussion list, but now i feel i have > to. I wholeheartedly agree that America's foreign policy has been and > remains a brutal one. Similarly, as a member of this list, i can not agree > >more strongly that sanctions imposed by the UN security council have had > >a devastating effect on the whole Iraqi nation. Both the moral and > >legal implications of such a policy that imposes such enormous economic > >costs on the civilian population of Iraq have been ignored by the > >international community. > The problem with responses like yours and that of Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar > is that they automatically equate opposition to Saddam as being compliant > with the US, and even more insultingly, Israel. > As a Britain of Iraqi origin, many of my relatives remain in Iraq > and have suffered under sanctions. They too have suffered under Saddam. > >Every year for as long as i can remember the Iraqi community in Britain has > >taken the anniversary of the murder of the Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Muhammad > >Baqir Al-Sadr as a day to voice its anger against the Iraqi regime. Our > cries have not been instigated by America and have not been concerned with > oil-politics but have rather been for the Iraqi people. > Saddam Hussain had been flagrantly violating human rights long > before he > started to threaten the global economy. To date, torture is an > everyday reality, whilst extrajudicial and arbitrary executions are the norm. > The 1997 report of the UN Commission on Human Rights effectively > >highlights the failure of the Iraqi regime to conform to its obligations imposed by > international humanitarian law, whilst the 1997 Amnesty international > report of the same year reports over sixteen thousand unsolved > 'disappearances'. > One wonders whether Iraqi citizens have not suffered enough with a > ruthless, despotic regime, merely to be faced with the rest of the world's > hostility. > These human rights violations, have not suddenly occured in a vacuum > and NOR have our protests against them. Anti-Americanism should not lead > to such blind accusations. As for; > > > > > > "some 1,200 people marched through central London demanding the > > > overthrow > > > > > of....... Iraqi President Saddam Hussein." > > > > > Is this a new CIA-tactic to convince the British population that > >they > > > > > should join forces with the USA and invade Iraq > > Is this the only possibility? U seem to be suggesting a false > dichotomy: if u march against Saddam your with the US, if not your against the US. > We know full well the CIA's role in getting the ba'ath party to > >power, > and > more significantly the American role in quelling the 1991 Iraqi > popular uprising. My own view is that the Iraqi regime, which has played a > significant role in the massacarinmg of its own civilians, sanctions > as well as US hegemony should be opposed. To neglect the Iraqi regime from > thisequation is to be in addition to ignorant, both anti-american and > anti-Iraqi civilians, and > to equate opposition to Saddam as being a puppy for America or Israel is > profoundly insulting. > > Yasir Al-Wakeel > Cambridge Universtiy _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk