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] targeting of water treatment facilities (BIS)

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

In a message dated 02/02/2003 7:26:57 AM Central Standard Time, 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

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
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]