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]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] In a message dated 02/02/2003 7:26:57 AM Central Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > I would like to add to this discussion that if you bomb intentionally the > whole electricity network, a civil target, knowing that the consequence will > be the collapse of water treatment facilities, one can conclude that the > collapse of the water treatment facilities has also been a deliberate > I have often wondered. We are told that 90% of the casualties of modern warfare are civilian. With the sanctions factored into the Iraqi equation that is probably a low estimate. Knowing that when you bomb a major civilian center, Baghdad, casualties (human and infrastructure) which were "unintentional" will occur. Can they really be called unintentional? I have often wondered. "WE" bombed Iraq into a pre-industrial state. Was not the mandate of the UN to remove the Iraqi troops from Kuwait? How do we therefore justify hitting Iraq? I have often wondered. In one of the excellent posts on this topic of water it was said that DOD folks are able to tease out the nuances of the laws in such a fashion as to justify their actions. With this in mind do we need new laws? In this age of over interpretation of the "letter" of the law, looking for the "loophole," have we not trampled upon the spirit of the law? Do we need laws which are "DU" proof, which say what they mean in direct language where the SPIRIT, the intent of the law is spelled out in direct fashion? I have read some on the notion of "intentionally vague" laws, agreements, treaties, etc., in order to facilitate agreements, as in the case of Israel-Palestine. Clearly these sorts of efforts, though noble, are misguided and ineffectual. I have often wondered. We continue to place people in positions of power who are willing to destroy in order to favor their interests, protect their "spot." As long as the structure of the machine is such as it is, we are perhaps simply spinning our wheels. Many of you on this list have worked tirelessly to remove the barbaric sanctions imposed on our brothers and sisters in Iraq, and the results have been the perpetuation of the disaster for more than a decade. If the system, the government, is broken is the remedy somewhere else? We need laws whose spirit is clear, we need governance which is just and peaceful, we need a world where violence is not the last resort, but not even on the table. As long as easy solutions, war, are available, we seem to take them. Revolution calling. (peaceful) Roger Stroope Treat others not as you wish to, but as they wish to be... Austin College, Sherman Texas _______________________________________________ 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