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]

[casi] RE: CASI-discuss digest, Vol 1 #303 - 11 msgs



Dear List,

I have looked through Hemming's website and I find his project to be a
colonialist enterprise.

The origins of the project are vague and there is sparse information and no
names on the website.

The website states:  "Considerable work is being done on planning alternatives
for Iraq to protect non-combatants. Much of that cannot be made public until
it has reached final conclusions as it could mislead people."

Apart from that, this unknown organisation is formulating constitutional
proposals for a future Iraq.  At best, this is a sick joke.  I do not believe
this has anything to do with humanitarian concerns, and I urge people to
ignore it and not to be sidestepped from opposition to war.

Kamil Mahdi



>From: john.hemming@jhc.co.uk
>Date:  Mon, 23 Dec 2002 16:20:54 PM GMT Standard Time
>To: casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk
>cc:
>Subject: [casi] Iraq - what next?
>
>For a number of months we have had the view that some form of military acti=
>on from the US in Iraq is inevitable.  The assumption which we made in Sept=
>ember appears as this year draws to a close to be more and more accurate (a=
>lthough only hindsight has 20:20 vision).
>
>In the last fortnight we have held meeting with various members of the vary=
>ing Iraqi opposition groups, the UK Ministry of Defence and attended the op=
>position conference at the Edgware Metropole.
>
>We are arguing the following case:
>
>a)  It is important to minimise casualties and think of the Iraqi people ra=
>ther than just the oil
>b) It is a bad idea to have an invasion which results in Iraq ending up bei=
>ng controlled by the US government.  This would be bad both for Iraq and th=
>e rest of  the world (with the knock on effects).
>
>It is, however, the case that unless there is a clear strategy that involve=
>s US support for an uprising by the Iraqi people that the US understand can=
> work that they are likely to go for what they see as the easy option of in=
>vading.
>>We are, therefore, trying to put such a strategy together.
>
>We will be having further meetings with various people (mainly Iraqis) over=
> the Christmas holiday period.
>
>If anyone feels they can add to this process please email me as above.
>
>We think we have successfully made the point that an invasion of Baghdad wi=
>th the consequent street fighting in  a city that is the home to 20% (plus)=
> of the Iraqis in Iraq would be something to be avoided.
>
>We are arguing the case with the Military in the UK that in the event of a =
>decision for some action to be taken to remove Saddam Hussain from power th=
>e opposition should be given support for an uprising before any invasion de=
>cision.
>
>Other issues are on the website at www.operationdeserthaven.org
>
>We are looking at the issue of using UN resolution 949 to create safe haven=
>s in the South of the country particularly in the sacred cities.  One diffi=
>culty is how to resolve the issues around Kirkuk in the North.
>

Dr Kamil Mahdi
University of Exeter


_______________________________________________
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 casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]