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 List, In Iraq we fed up with these discussions on regime change. I want to say that I fed up with the discussions on regime change that are going on through the list. I do not want to say that (Israel) does not comply with SC council resolutions for more than 50 years, but even SC does not mark that! So, why do they mark only Iraq? Here in Iraq we do not like Bush and after 9-11 every body had discovered that American democracy is very fragile, yet, we do not try to topple Bush regime. Those who agree with Bush, why do not ask them selves: WHY ONLY IRAQ MUST BE PUNISHED? We are sick from the whole world that pretends to be more HUMAN with us in Iraq! What a black joke. Those who are with a new war against Iraq, especially the (Iraqis) outside Iraq, can they imagine that American smart missiles will destroy our very simple life again, will kill us again and will destroy our infrastructure again? WHY? Is there any reasonable cause? Can any body give me one reason? I do not want to hear or read that there are many politician prisoners in Iraqi jails, whereas there are thousands of prisoners in American jails who have not any guilt but they Moslem and Arab Americans? Why does every body bless American violations of laws and human rights? Again, I am assuring that I defend no body but our lives, my sonís and mine. Since weeks, I am asking my self, if I can bear to see my apartment, the bridges, the primary schools, mosques, churches and etc.. destroyed again. Yesterday, one of those Americans friends who are visiting Iraq told me that there is a possibility to accused him as treason because he opposes Bush and visits Iraq. So, why does American Administration behave with Iraqi opposition as if they are heroes? We are, in Iraq, the real heroes. We who are living under the severest BLOCKADE in the history and still can have our dreams. May you find another subject to discuss? Nermin Al-Mufti, Baghdad, Iraq ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hassan Zeini" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: RE: [casi] Campaign Against Sanctions? > > Dear List and Sama, > > I find the logic in this message and in similar ones difficult to understand. > > While everyone expresses worry about Iraqis, the issues is in the end > summarized into "removing Saddam". As if Iraq is only Saddam, not 26 million > people. As if sanctions are not killing people. > > Regime change is at the heart of discussion. It is an illegal act which no law > or agreement in the world accepts. For someone who accepts to change a regime in > one place, it must also mean agreeing to change the regime in other places. Would > Sama agree to a regime change in Iran, for example, or Syria or Egypt or Saudi or > Kuwait? Shi'a muslims are oppressed in Easetern Saudi Arabia and in Hijaz... The > list is long. So where does the line stop?? > > I thought the whole discsussion in the world has been about Iraq's > non-compliance with SC resolutions. Only the US talked of regime change, a thing > which all states in the world rejected. The only people who supported it are part > of the opposition groups. > > What is being suggested here is that the US should violate international law > andthe sovereignty of a state, without a mandate from the people, and go by force > to change a regime (no matter what we think of that regime). The US did that in > Iran in the 1950s and in Chile in the 1970s and in numerous other places in the > world. And we know what that brought and meant to the people. What is to stop > Russia or China later on from the changing the same regime that the US installs in > Iraq? Would that then be accepted by Sama? > > Tha following sentence struck me as expressive of what Sama meant: "if the > secret police ('amn) and the Republican Guard are symbollically bombed - thus > removing the fear by which Saddam holds power - then this would be the best > scenario for the US and for Iraqis because: a) it will be the quickest way to get > rid of Saddam and thus better for the US, and b) it will cause the least amount of > Iraqi civilian casualties.". > > Since when has what is best for the US been what is best for the Iraqis? Are > we here looking for what is best for the US? I thought our concern was the people > of Iraq not the US!!! > > The conclusion that :"Opposing a war on Saddam, calls - at least in the short > term - for the current situation to remain: Saddam oppressiong and slaughtering > Iraqis, sanctions starving the people" is mistaken. Opposing the war also means > opposing sanctions, because sanctions are a weapon in war used to force Iraq to > comply with US demands. To suggest that the alternative to unseating Saddam would > be to continue sanctions suggests that the writer approves of contiunuing > sanctions as long as Saddam is in power. That is what the US has always said... > Sama also says:"our interests (the removal of saddam and the lifting of > sanctions) can only result from the same interests of the US policy to remove > Saddam.." Since when has US policy coincided with "liberation movements" anywhere > in the world? And what are the US interests in removing Saddam? And who but the US > has advocated linking the lifting of sanctions to the removal of Saddam? What kind > of Iraqi would support maintaining sanctions? > > And I find it naive to believe that the US would change the regime and then > let those "democrats" in the opposition take over without a price. When one > watches those in the opposition debating on TV between themselves, one wonders if > Saddam would eventually be better than those people. While in opposition and in > exile, receieving salaries from the CIA and MI5, those people are already fighting > with each other and accusing each other of treason. If while in the opposition > they don't allow others to differ with them, what would they do when they are in > power?? And when one knows that most of those "neo-deocrats" come from within the > same regime, one would wonder what lies ahead for Iraq should those really take > over.. > > I agree that we should campaign for democracy in Iraq, but not on the > "proportional" lines suggested; we would have a government based on sectarian and > ethnic divisions, where the lines are already drawn and where democracy is > suspended. How can we achieve democracy if we already know that the selections > would be on sectarian lines? Haven't we learned from the Lebanese example, where > the same "proportional" division caused a civil war in the end? Do we want people > to move into opposition on secctarian basis, simply because Iraq's majority are > Shi'i?? This sounds to me very dangerous.. > And it is also naive to think that the US would bend to public pressure and that > any election would be democratic under US control, so that the US would find it > difficult to install a puppet government. I suppose Sama is suggesting that if the > US doesn't respect the people's decision, those people would kick it out or > demonsrate against it? The elected democratic government of Chile was overthrown > and thousands killed without as much as an apology from the US... Who cared for > the will of the people? > > Let us remember that Ricciardone told the opposition that even if Saddam is > overthrown, sanctions will remain in place .... Thatcher said in 1992 that even if > Iraq complies with all SC resolutions, sanctions should not be lifted... And > Bolton recently said that Iraq would not be allowed to develop its arms industry > even after Saddam is overthrown. > > The perfect scenario would be for the world to intervene and prevent the US > from forcing its will on sovereign states and nations. The perfect scenario would > be for the sanctions to be lifted and for the genocide to end and for the > blackmail of the Iraqis and Arabs to cease.... Short of that, the Iraqis will die, > under Saddam or under Baqir al-Hakim... > > HZ > > _________________________________________________________ > Find out the latest breaking Business news on Maktoob News. > http://www.maktoob.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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 firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk