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]
Valid points, and I agree Saddam should be removed. However, war as an means to remove Saddam should not be an option. You mean to tell me that in the 21st century, that's the best anyone can come up with? If that's the case maybe there really is no need for the UN. If the UN approves of the idea of regime change (though I thought we were just going to make sure there were no longer WMD), let THEM do it. This should be an international operation, not a US military operation. I know I'm no Tommy Franks, but if you gave me a couple of weeks, I'm sure I could give you 10 better options for removing Saddam than bombing them Afghanistan style. --- Yasser Alaskary <email@example.com> wrote: > Dear 'tupac' and all, > > While your statements about money are true, I would > add that the vast > majority of Iraqis cautiously support a war to > remove Saddam Hussein as his > rule has killed millions of Iraqis, deported many > more and oppressed the > remainder of the population. Oppression is so > entrenched in Saddam's Iraq > that no-one from inside Iraq dares to speak out and > you only get the > government's and it's agents line about what life is > like for ordinary > Iraqis. War will potentially kill thousands, yet > keeping Saddam in power > will kill millions and oppress millions more. I wish > there was another way > other than war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but over > half a million Iraqis > have tried over the past 20-30 years to do this, and > have only achieved > death and for their family and friends torture and > execution. > > If your concern is for the Iraqi people, then > campaign for how this war > should be fought, not against the principle of > removing Saddam. Most > importantly, campaign for what replaces Saddam - > that is a PROPORTIONAL > democracy - before the US attempts to install a > puppet government, not > afterwards. > > Best wishes, > Yasser > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tupac shakur" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: "Hassan Zeini" <email@example.com>; > <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:11 AM > Subject: Re: [casi] The US and coercion.. > > > As much as anyone would like to believe otherwise, > there is only one thing that was holding France and > Russia back from agreeing with the US invasion of > Iraq: money. It had nothing to do with compassion, > or concern for innocent civilians. These countries > both had serious money invested with Saddam and > wanted > a return on investment. Well, it looks like they > got > what they wanted, so let the bombs begin!!! > > > http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/7-11-19102-0-6-36.html > > > Sharing the oil is key to a deal > IAN BRUCE Analysis > THE key to calming French and Russian fears over the > White House's hard-line approach to a UN security > council vote on Iraq later this week, is the > post-Saddam control of the country's vast untapped > reserves of oil. > > Moscow, Paris and to a lesser extent Beijing all > have > vested interests in multi-billion-pound contracts to > develop and maintain fields which contain the > world's > second-largest source of crude after neighbouring > Saudi Arabia. > > Russia's Lukoil has the largest potential stake, > with > a 23-year deal worth £2bn to exploit the West Qurnah > field. France's TotalFinaElf is negotiating to > develop > the Majnoon field and its 30 billion barrels of > black > gold. > > China's state-owned national petroleum corporation > has > a contract to repair and bring back on stream part > of > the Rumailah production area damaged in the 1991 > Gulf > war. > > All three governments suspect that toppling Saddam > and > installing a US-controlled military administration > would lead inevitably to a carve-up of the oil > riches > among American corporations to the exclusion of > their > own firms. > > The importance of Iraq's embarrassment of > underground > riches has now become George W Bush's best > bargaining > chip in the tortuous negotiations over the wording > of > the final UN resolution as a probable prelude to > war. > > James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, favours > dangling the carrot of involvement as an incentive > to > follow the US line. > > He said: "France and Russia have oil companies and > interests in Iraq. They should be told that, if they > are of assistance in moving Iraq towards decent > government, then we'll do the best we can to ensure > that the new administration in Baghdad and US > companies work closely with them. > > "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, or oppose > his > downfall, then it could be difficult to the point of > impossibility to persuade the new, democratic Iraqi > government to work with them." > > Faisal Qaragholi, an oil engineer who directs the > London office of the Iraqi National Congress, the > umbrella opposition group backed by the US, added: > "We > will review all existing contracts. Our oil policies > should be directed by a government elected by the > Iraqi people for their benefit." > > Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy-director of the USA-Canada > institute in Moscow, said last night: "Resolving the > Iraq problem is all about the rivalry surrounding > the > country's oil bonanza. How it is managed is the > key." > > - Nov 7th > > > > --- Hassan Zeini <email@example.com> wrote: > > From > > > http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021104-6245236.htm > > > > Ambassador punished > > > > NEW YORK - The U.N. ambassador of Mauritius, > > Jagdish Koonjul, was > > recalled by his government because he did not > openly > > back Washington's position on > > Iraq in the U.N. Security Council, diplomats said. > > The Mauritian foreign minister, Anil Gayan, > was > > quoted as telling reporters > > that Mr. Koonjul had not followed instructions and > > "gave the impression that > > Mauritius was against the U.S.-drafted resolution > on > > Iraq," the Pan African News > > Agency reported. > > Mr. Koonjul, a favorite of journalists and > many > > diplomats, left for Port > > Louis, the Mauritian capital, on Friday, diplomats > > said. He had not opposed the > > draft U.S. resolution openly, but he did not > endorse > > it publicly either. > > Mauritius began its two-year term on the > > 15-member council in January 2001 > > after a successful U.S. campaign against the > > candidacy of Sudan. President Bush is > > planning a visit there in January. > > > > (END) > > ------------------------------ > > > > Mauritius' U.N. Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul had > said, > > "As long as we do not > > have an agreement on a resolution, we feel that > > there are enough (existing) > > resolutions which will allow the inspectors to > carry > > out their work," he said. > > > > That is why the man was punished... > > > > HZ > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 _______________________________________________ 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