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]
Responding to John Hemming. >I am opposed to the US invading and taking over Iraq.> My earlier question still standing Are you objecting to this on principle or are you objecting to it because the British think that Iraq, and the Gulf States should be, like it has been, in the British sphere of influence? What do you say about the British cooperation/ contribution to the US "invading and taking over Iraq"? I am sure you agree with me that UK and US governments are planning to ATTACK Iraq on the other hand the Iraqi government is planning how to save the country and it people from being annihilated and taken over by the US. One is the aggressor and the other is the victim. I don't think it is fair to equate the two sides. >Now is the time to tell the UK government that if they are concerned about the impact on the Iraqi people (which they claim)< NOW! after 12 years of sanctions!, more than one million sanctions attributed death! what happened to wake their conscious up? or is it a new lie to fool the British people to support the war? >I have been arguing with the UK government that if they do attack then they should avoid street battles in Baghdad< Why not argue with the UK government not to attack in the first place? I am sure that your concern about street battles in Baghdad is motivated by your concern for the safety of the British troops involved in the attack rather than the Iraqi civilians and military personals that are going to die before the British troops come any where near Baghdad. By the way by that time all the services would have been bombed and that the city of Baghdad would subjected the harshest bombing since WWII with untold number of death. Your operation desert haven is as devastating to Iraq as the UK US impending war but more sinister. The two governments will bribe tribal chefs, with loads of money, to rise against the government. This, paid for, rebellions will lead chaos, which will provide the necessary cover for the UK and US governments to interfere in Iraq to protect their vital interest and stop "the bastards" from killing each other. Gus what they will provide the cover for occupying Iraq. Your occupation of will have "humanitarian" mission "to stop the killing" which you instigated in the first place. The US UK will look like the Knight in a shining armour. Your hand will be clean, your image will be clean, and probably, you think, your conscious will be clean. No sir I don't buy that! Bomb us to heaven. Our religion teaches us that those who defend their families will go to heaven not hell. Finally If I have you as a friend Who needs enemy. Ghazwan Al-mukhtar Baghdad, Iraq ----- Original Message ----- From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [casi] Iraq - what next? Responding to Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar. I am not a member of the UK government, nor am I a member of the Labour Party. Millions of people have demonstrated their opposition to war with Iraq. I am opposed to the US invading and taking over Iraq. However, whether there will be a war or not is not a matter I can influence. That in many ways is up to George W. Bush and Saddam Hussain although people such as Tony Blair have some influence. At the moment both the UK and US governments as well as the Iraqi government are planning what might happen in the event of any military action. As soon as the military action starts their plans will come into action. Now is the time to tell the UK government that if they are concerned about the impact on the Iraqi people (which they claim) then they should avoid attacking infrastructure and: >Killing thousands and thousands more because of lack of clean water, electricity, sewage system, >transportation, telephones, hospitals, and .. and refined oil product because UK,& US will destroy all these facilities, like they did in 1991 It may still be the case that no military action will be taken. However, I believe it is worth looking at what might happen from a humanitarian aspect. It may not make you any happier living in Baghdad as you do to find that I have been arguing with the UK government that if they do attack then they should avoid street battles in Baghdad. If and when military action starts, however, it will then be too late to influence the way in which it progresses. I have no voice in shaping the future of Iraq nor should I. However, if it is possible to influence the course of any military action to minimise casualties do you think it is worth trying or just let things take their course? _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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