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] Bombing dual-use targets

There clearly are problems with the operation of International Humanitarian Law in the case of a 
one-sided conflict as that which I expect to occur in Iraq.

I feel that there is a need to go beyond IHL for two reasons.

Firstly, a humanitarian reason.

Secondly, because otherwise the levels of global conflict will increase.

The reason why I set up is that I believe that there will be a war.  I am 
not sure that Saddam can hold onto power if he loses face so much that he fulfils the conditions 
set by the UN.  Hence he will try to drag out the process, but at some stage there will be a clear 
break.  At that point many global powers will come onside with the US.  Russia has been bought off. 
 The French look like they have their pound (or kilo) of flesh sorted out.  The Saudis may be clear 
today that they are not going to back any action, but they have already reversed  position a couple 
of times.

Hence it is clear (IMHO) that there will be a war.  The question is the how that war is progressed. 
 We are working on proposals for the minimisation of civilian casualties.  It is complex running a 
"contingency" campaign.  However, there will not be time to sort everything out once war is finally 
is an article I have written which goes into a little more detail on the issue about the 
limitations of International Humanitarian Law.

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]