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 & Brian The problem here seems to be Brian's refusal of any differing opinion and his rejection of the idea that the Bush administration has plans for the domination of the whole area called the Middle East. His complaint is based on the lack of citations and references in the analysis made by Nels.I want to address this issue for the last time. According to the US Today of 22 September: "The draft resolution Bush sent to lawmakers Thursday says, "The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force" against Iraq and to "restore international peace and security in the region." Likely changes: The reference to restoring security "in the region" probably will be altered. Some lawmakers believe that the phrase would allow Bush and future presidents to use military force against Iran, Syria and other countries in the Middle East. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said on CNN's Late Edition that White House officials are amenable to such a change. The language could be narrowed to make it clear that Congress supports only imminent military action against Iraq, rather than a mandate that could be invoked for years. Lawmakers want to limit Bush's ability to use the resolution to justify future attacks. Bush aides say he'll consider such a change." If that is the view of the lawmakers in the US, then it should not be a surprise if anyone else in the world thought in the same way. I am posting in a separate message an article from the Middle East Report written in 2000, on the people who advise Bush. It should answer more of the issues Brian continues to raise. I would like to use the same logic used by Brian in his argument. Brian says:"..I'm disputing the automatic assumption that because individuals like Perle, Ledeen, Krauthammer, etc. write articles, op-eds and reports and have administration "connections", their word is automatically administration policy." Fair enough. But that is the same "logic" that the US has used against Iraq, and it is pressuring the world to accept it, and Brian seems to agree. This "logic" was summarized by Rumsfeld that "the absence of evidence in not evidence of absence"!! Even though the US has not proved until now that Iraq has WMDs, it has concluded that Iraq does have WMDs, and Brian seems to agree… And because we don't know what Iraq has done since 1998, we conclude that it has developed WMDs. No benefit of the doubt?? In fact this has been the problem with sanctions against Iraq since 1991. Iraq is required to prove that it has no WMDs, and not that UNSCOM should prove that Iraq has. Brian seems to accept that "logic". Why doesn't Brian then prove to us that the US does NOT intend to dominate the whole area? What proof is there that the US is NOT planning to do so? After all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence…. I also find Brian's defense of ideas like "promoting democracy" and "promoting market economies" (euphemisms for domination) very strange. Brian seems to accept the principle that the US should impose its own "values" and doctrines on the world. What happened to the principles of self-determination and the right of nations to decide for themselves? Is Might Right? Is the US alone allowed to resort to "Anticipatory self-defense" (another euphemism for aggression), or should other countries have the same right? After all, if the US believes that Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs is a threat to its national security, should Russia or China, for example, have the right to consider Britain's possessions of such weapons a threat to their own national security and resort to "Anticipatory self-defense"? After all, Britain also kills its own people in Northern Ireland, doesn't it? Should Iraq, or Syria or Egypt have the same right when it comes to Israel, or is that "sacred territory" that should not be even mentioned ?? Whatever Brian thinks of Saddam is his opinion and his right too. But to think that the solution to sanctions is "military force on the part of the United States as a legitimate means of enforcing Iraqi disarmament" is morally questionable... There is no legitimacy for aggression or attacking a sovereign state thousands of kilometers away. This is illegal and immoral. If the US wants to limit the spread of WMDs, it should start itself by ratifying the international agreements related to them. Virtue starts at home, it is said... Why should Iraq alone be disarmed? We have gone through this discussion before, and the same issues come up over and over again. What gives the US the right to decide who does what in the world? The country which was built on the genocide of 60 million of the native inhabitants; the country which was built on slavery and exploitation and which until the 1960s had laws for segregation; the country which twice used nuclear bombs against civilians; the country which used DU against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugolsavia and God knows where else; the country which conducted Chemical and nuclear tests on its own people; that country has no legal or moral right to dictate to the world what to do, nor does it have the moral right to judge who is right and who is wrong... If Nels didn't intentionally want to equate GWBJr (and a number of other Presidents in the history of the US) with Alexander, Caligula, Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, then I intentionally want to. People who live in glass houses can not afford to throw stones at others. Decent Americans know that.... Hassan _________________________________________________________ Looking to be employed? We have an ocean of employers and employees waiting to be matched. Go to Maktoob Jobs NOW. 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