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] Article submitted to ``Eclipse'' the anti-war review

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

 know it's not about oil, but I'm going to attempt to predict the future for everyone...

1.  USA will begin war before 2/15.

2.  After invasion, USA will NOT set up a democracy before ALL oil is gone.

3.  After invasion, despite promises, American and British citizens will not see lower oil prices.

4.  No WMD will be found in Iraq.

5.  Immediately after invasion, US companies will go to work QUICK repairing oil infrastructure and 
production facilities.  So quick, it will almost seem as if these contracts were drawn up a long 
time before the war.

6.  There will NOT be a smallpox attack in America or Britain.

7.  Leading Iraqi figures involved in govt. during US occupation will have obvious oil ties.

8.  Other than a few in the oil circles, Iraqi citizens will not see any of the oil money once it 
begins pumping.

9.  MANY prisoners taken during war and susequent occupation.  Surprisingly, Guantanmo will be 
already up to the task.

10.  Soon after DC declares war over, there will be a new terror link getting a lot of press.  This 
will deal with Iran and/or Saudi Arabia.  Probably Iran, Saudi Arabia has Mecca, so that will 
require a little diplomacy.

11.  For national security reasons, evidence of terror involvement by country chosen in #10, will 
not be shown to the public.  This will be consistent with evidence alleging Bin Laden's 9/11 
connection which allowed US to invade Afghanistan.  Also consistent with the evidence of Saddam's 
WMD, which has not been presented.

12.  The next phase of GW's plan will coincide with his re-election bid.

If I am 100% completely wrong, that would make me VERY happy.

 H Sutter <> wrote:
The discussions over war and motives seem to have
drowned out all concerns over the silent war of sanctions.
So I thought Fay Dowker's article would be a welcome
reminder to everyone on CASI: "No War, No Sanctions".

Not quite everyone.

Abtehale Al-Hussaini writes:
> The sanctions that have led to the death of Iraqi people
> are because of Saddam. Saddam brought the senctions on to the
> Iraqi people to further oppress them.

Dear Abtehale,

You seem to echo the sentiments of Hassan Hadad's recent
post. Same style too. Friend of yours? Or are you he?

In any case, I don't really see your point. Given the focus
of this list, the CASI archives have exhaustive information
on the subject. Some members are medical doctors. Many go
regularly to Iraq, either as individuals or groups, to
alleviate some of the pain. They bring essential drugs,
they try to bring a little comfort, and, above all, they
try to show solidarity with human suffering.

And this solidarity, I would have thought, is shared by
all CASI members. If you joined the list in order to agitate
against Saddam Hussein, you are doing a grave disservice
to CASI. Perhaps you should form your own Campaign Against
Saddam Hussein, and let CASI members focus on the suffering
of the Iraqi people - and how to avert the impending war
that would bring new suffering.

But this is merely my emotional response to your post.

> the "death of Iraqi people"

As the article reminds you, this is not only about physical
death. It is about suffering, deprivation, isolation, and
economic ruin. It is about despair and psychological trauma.
It is about the physical and social destruction of a whole

The sanction regime that achieved this was imposed by the
USA for political gain - and under the auspices of the
UN Security Council. Washington's goal was "regime change".
The hope was that a deprived, demoralized population would
rise against their leader to bring this about - a civil war.

> Saddam brought the senctions on to the Iraqi people to
> further oppress them.

You seem to be saying that Saddam Hussein welcomes the
sanctions - and uses them as a tool of oppression. Fair
enough. But perhaps you didn't consider your argument in
the cold light of reason.

For one thing, if the sanctions did indeed benefit
Mr. Hussein for such nefarious purpose, the US should be
urgently demanding that the sanctions be dropped - seeing
that they are the great "liberators" of mankind. In reality
the US has been bribing, cajoling, and threatening members
of the Security Council to keep the sanctions going for
12 years. By contrast, the Iraqi government has been
demanding (in vain) that the sanctions be lifted.

More to the point: You seem to forget that the Iraqi
government is affected by the sanctions also: severe
curtailment of sovereignty, economy in ruins, galloping
inflation, devaluated currency - you name it. And worst of
all, no access to their own money: the proceeds of all oil
sales to into an escrow account in New York - managed by
the UN. In fact, Iraq's export/import activities are run
in New York. The US, via the UN, effectively controls Iraq.
The US determines at what (low) price Iraqi oil is sold.
And the US determines what Iraq may or may not buy.

So logically, your suggestion that Mr. Hussein "brought on"
the sanctions simply doesn't make sense.

True, it is often said that someone is cutting off his nose
to spite his face. But not to the point of self-destruction.

Lastly, sanctions (embargoes) are imposed to punish a
perceived enemy or to advance the interests of the
instigator. And no sane person would argue that sanctions
ever benefit the target nation - for any reason.

The aim of sanctions is to limit or prevent exports and
thus deprive a country of foreign exchange. Without any
foreign exchange, the economy will come to a standstill,
bringing about massive unemployment and inflation. This
is what has been happening in Iraq. And as a result, the
population suffers great hardship.

The US has routinely used this "silent, deadly remedy"
to "bring a nation to its knee", in Woodrow Wilson's
words. Target nations were Vietnam, Iran, Cuba... and
of course Iraq.

In 1962 the US imposed total sanctions against Cuba as
punishment for the nationalisation of US-owned businesses
and to strangle communism. In 1996 the sanctions got tougher.
Despite all hardship, Cuba still manages to generate foreign
exchange. And its sovereignty is intact.

Compared to the hardship experienced in Iraq, the situation
in Cuba seems positively wholesome. As the US State Department
points out, the sanctions against Iraq are the harshest ever
imposed on any nation.

You must know, Abtehale, that Iraq depends on imports for
70 percent of its foodstuff. When the sanctions were imposed
in 1990, Iraq was completely cut off from all trading. No
imports and no exports (and foreign exchange). The Iraqi
government had to ration food to prevent a famine.

Shortly afterwards the country was bombed to smithereens,
destroying most of the infrastructure.

With the Oil-for-Food Program Iraqi sovereignty was further
curtailed. Iraq was now "allowed" to generate foreign
exchange for foodstuff and other essentials, but the UN
(US) took control of the money. The Iraqi government is
not granted any cash to meet the running expenses any
government must occur: for schools, hospitals, universities;
maintaining roads, bridges; paying staff.

And the Iraqi people continued to suffer under the sanctions.

The US was prepared to let them suffer in perpetuity or
until a "regime change" was achieved. And the whole world
looked on - and kept babbling about Saddam Hussein to
ease its collective conscience.

Genocide - the intentional destruction of a people:

In his report to the Commission on Human Rights
(Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights) of June 2000, the Belgian international law expert
Marc Bossuyt describes the sanction regime against Iraq
as the intentional destruction of a people. He writes,

"The sanctions regime against Iraq has as its clear
purpose the deliberate infliction on the Iraqi people
of conditions of life (lack of adequate food, medicines
etc.) calculated to bring about its physical destruction
in whole or in part.
The states imposing the sanctions could raise questions
under the genocide Convention."

To speed up this process of destruction, the US deliberately
destroyed Iraq's water supply, including water treatment
facilities, in the Gulf war 1991 (by bombing).

Not satisfied with having destroyed the water supply, the
US planned to make the lack of potable water a permanent
feature. This plan is outlined in a classified document
entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" (Jan 22/91).
The planners calculated that Iraq had only a 2-month supply
of "membranes or chemicals" for water treatment. Import of
these items, the document noted, would be disallowed by the
existing sanctions. (An implicit admission that the sanctions
were to be continued.)

The document (distributed to all US allies) noted "Iraqi

"Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or
individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies
from sanctions for humanitarian reasons. It probably also
is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic
countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi
alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

Should Iraq's pleas fall on deaf ears, the consequences would
be dire, notes the document:

"Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage
of pure drinking water for much of the population. This
could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of
disease and to certain pure-water-dependent industries
becoming incapacitated, including petro chemicals,
fertilizers, petroleum refining, electronics,
pharmaceuticals, food processing, textiles, concrete
construction, and thermal powerplants."

As the title of the document implies, Iraq's water supply is
inherently _vulnerable_. So the US planners were able to
calculate ahead what type of epidemic diseases could occur:

"Iraq's rivers also contain biological materials,
pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water
is purified with chlorine epidemics of such diseases as
cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.)"

is available at:

This gentle plan was 100 percent successful: besides cancer
of all kinds, waterborne diseases are the main killers of
Iraqis. According to Unicef, the main victims are children
under five.

But for the advancement of US foreign policy, this is a
small price to pay. How the parents of the dead and suffering
children feel is irrelevant to the "indispensable nation".
The coiner of this phrase, Madeleine Albright, said as
much when asked on TV: "It's a hard choice", she conceded,
"but'we think the price is worth it.

John Pilger made a documentary on Albright's endorsement
of genocide: "Paying the price: killing the children of Iraq."

Dr. Thomas Nagy, a WWII child refugee, has spent a lot
of work on these "Water Treatment" documents. The US plan
'let them drink polluted water and contract diseases'
reminds him of German concentration camps. He argues that
the intentional destruction of Iraq's water treatment
facilities amounts to "a plan for achieving extermination
without the need of constructing extermination camps."

> Hence once Saddam is gone there is no possibility of
> sanctions because the source of destruction who is Saddam
> would have gone.

Abtehale, you seem to condone the sanctions in the sense
of Madeleine Albright: "the price is worth" it. Sad, but
you are entitled to your opinion.

But I am wondering: Have you ever talked to 12-year old
who has lost out on education because she has to help
support the family? Have you ever looked into the eyes of
a mother who has just lost her 4th child to leukaemia? Have
you ever asked how a father feels when he has to watch his
emaciated toddler die in agony because of lack of medication?
Have you spoken to Iraqi parents who had to give their
children into an orphanage because they lack the means to
care for them?

Elga Sutter

--------------Original Message--------------
Re: [casi] Article submitted to ``Eclipse'' the anti-war review

From: "Abtehale Al-Hussaini"
Subject: Re: [casi] Article submitted to ``Eclipse'' the anti-war
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:11:08 -0500

Dear all
The sanctions that have led to the death of Iraqi people are because of
Saddam. Saddam brought the senctions on to the Iraqi people to further
oppress them. Hence once Saddam is gone there is no possibility of
sanctions because the source of destruction who is Saddam would have

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:

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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]