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]
On 1 Feb 2003 at 11:03, email@example.com wrote: > In this debate Clare Short said (amongst other things) > > Clare Short: I agree that Saddam Hussein is a terrible tyrant. There > is evidence of gross torture and I have heard deeply chilling > stories from asylum seekers in my constituency. The humanitarian > situation across the country is terrible, and we should think of the > humanitarian consequences of any possible military action, which is > the value of the debate. We should also consider taking military > action if it is necessary to minimise suffering and to maximise the > speed with which Iraq is reconstituted so that it gets up and going > and its economy is improved. If this is accurate then Clare Short joins the Foreign Office, Hoon and Blair in choosing to ignore the terrible sanctions which she and her government are supporting and then trying to blame everything on SH. If we are ever able to bring to trial UK politicians and officials for crimes against humanity then she is also in the frame. > The key to this is the moving on in the argument. Viz "We should > also consider taking military action .. so that .. its economy is > improved." Barefaced cheek - it's the US/UK who have ruined the Iraqi economy! > Longstanding readers of this list know that my argument is that if > cities in the south rebel the UN/US forces should be willing to > protect them from Ba'th heavy artillery (using air support) and at > the same time they should be prepared to keep the peace by accepting > the surrender of people associated with the regime and protecting > their lives (although not any property stolen by the regime), > probably by moving them from where they are. You seem to be believing the US/UK propaganda/spin! If you look carefully you'll see that they don't believe it themselves. These people saw their bridges, schools, shops, water, electricity, food, sewage treatment etc attacked by the US/UK. They have died in their hundreds of thousands due to the US/UK sanctions. Their children suffer and have very poor opportunities in life. They were attacked by DU which the US/UK have prevented WHO investigating. When some of them fought to get independence the US helped the Iraqi Government. Will the US offer reparations? Will they clear up the DU? Will they allow the south to cede from the rest of Iraq? > On the other hand we have the "Shock and Awe" proposals from the US > military involving 300-400 cruise missiles a day raining on Iraq > taking out power and water. This info is only released for propaganda purposes - make the war look easy for domestic consumption. It does however show up the cruelty of the US that it will again target the civilian infrastructure. This against military opponents who were feeble in the last Gulf War and even worse now. > There is something positive in Ann Clwyd's support for Indicting > Saddam Hussain and his cronies. That also has been proposed in the > European Parliament (I don't know yet whether it passed.) My > belief is that a combination of Indict's proposals and air support > for the opposition would result in a gradual transfer of power in > Iraq to the Iraqi people. Positive??!! The US accepting the ICJ would be a positive step. Trying SH has been something to bring up whenever a peaceful settlement has been on the cards in order to help scupper it. Remember how it, disarmament, reparations etc were brought up to avoid a peaceful pullout from Kuwait? As far as civilians in Iraq are concerned, the US/UK have been responsible for far more deaths and misery that SH in all his time in power. I'd like to see our politicians and officials tried for crimes against humanity. "... air support for the opposition..." again you're believing the spin: SH is the problem, all Iraqis hate SH, he's responsible for all the deaths in Iraq, disable his forces and the opposition will take over, the Iraqi people are waiting for the US/UK to invade etc. Once again, if you look carefully, you will see that the US does not believe this. Paradoxically, you could have a situation where the US has a puppet regime in Bagdhad and a long running civil war breaks out with the Shiites seeking a separate state. > There is at least a start in people are considering the humanitarian > aspects that occur in a country that has been hit by a combination > of probably the worst regime the world has seen, economic sanctions > and the aftermath of the gulf war. Again the spin - Goebbels would have been proud! No way is it the worst regime the world has seen!! Many years ago I was involved in the campaign to stop our government supporting SH whilst repression and human rights abuses were happening. When the Kurds were gassed the government tried to pretend otherwise and continued to support SH. The US were providing WMD material and military support. The US/UK were breaking sanctions on Iraq at the time. Was anyone prosecuted as a result of the Scott Inquiry? Iraq was notable in the region for having built an impressive state welfare system especially in health care and education. Distribution of wealth was also better than in most of the other regimes. The current disastrous humanitarian situation (I would call it genocide at about 5% of the population killed) is entirely as a result of US/UK policy. > What is sad is that there is no condenmation from anyone in the UK > government of the "Shock and Awe" strategy. I understand they > believe any action will be quite quick and then they would be able > to reinstate the power and water. I do not think this is a correct > assumption and furthermore they should plan for the consequences of > their actions otherwise. I would think that taking out water and > power would have to be a contravention of IHL. Last time, the US/UK decided to destroy Iraq - the excuse was Kuwait. This time, they obviously intend to take it over and install a puppet regime so any damage will be temporary and limited. The danger is that if they know that they'll control the government, they won't need to be too careful because they will control access by journalists to anything undesirable . > I would recommend that people read the whole of the hansard debate. > I hope that we can get the issues of what possible actions are taken > into the public debate. It is clear from Clare Short's statement > that she is unlikely to resign from the UK Cabinet in the event of a > war. > > It is, to be far, a new argument to me, however, that a country > should be attacked to improve its economy. I am no longer surprised at the excuses politicians come up with when it comes to evil foreign policy. Mark Parkinson Bodmin Cornwall Mark Parkinson Bodmin Cornwall _______________________________________________ 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