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]
Friends, I have followed the different discussions and opinions on this list and others with a mixture of amazement and disappointment. It seems to me that there is a general tendency towards drifting away from the central points and into secondary issues, and in this way many have fallen victim to the US/Zionist plan. Some spend time talking about how many children would die in the coming US aggression, while others talk about the necessity for Iraq to pre-empt any US plans by accepting anything Blix and his ridiculous organization demands… What have we missed and how have we erred?? I think out main problem lies in the following: 1. We have accepted UNSCOM's allegations that Iraq still has WMDs 2. We accept the UN's imposed sanctions against Iraq until Iraq is "completely disarmed" 3. We accept that Iraq (alone) should fully implement ALL UNSC resolutions It is hypocritical (if not outright immoral) to accept the above points. I will take the latest post from Colin Rowat as an indicative example. Colin writes: "As they [As-sumoud missiles II] all conform, as far as we know, to the same design, and as that design can exceed the limit, the missiles violate SCR 687." Thus SCR 687 is to be implemented fully. How about the legality of SCR 687? What is the basis for limiting Iraq's missiles to 150 km? Legally, the UN Charter does not include any provisions that gives the SC the right to adopt such resolutions which violate the rights of sovereign states. Morally, there is no ground for such a resolution. Practically, the 150 km limit enables Iraq to use its missiles against Kuwait, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi, but not against Israel… Is that the objective of SCR 687?? Colin also writes: "SCR 687 does not allow the Iraqi government to develop missiles that exceed 150km if unguided or without warheads. The limit is not conditional." It seems that Colin believes that SC resolutions are to be implemented to the letter. How about the fact that the same SC Resolutions confirmed Iraq's integrity and sovereignty? How does that fit with the no-fly zones and the Turkish incursions, or with UNSCOM's violations of its mandate by spying on Iraq, or with the SC itself violating SCR 687 by not taking any steps towards disarming other states in the area, especially Israel?? Perhaps the limit is not conditional, but so are SC Resolutions. Where do we draw the line? And I find statements such as the following quite strange, as if Colin is defending UNMOVIC and its actions: "..I would imagine that, if the Al-Samoud II can be modified to bring its range under 150km, it is likely that it can easily be reconfigured for a range above 150km." The use of language in some sentences seems to indicate that the writer believes that Iraq SHOULD IMPLEMENT SC RESOLUTIONS TO THE LETTER, while other UN members can do what the want. Otherwise, what does the following mean? "The question of whether and which Security Council resolutions should be upheld is a much deeper one. If one argues that adherence to them is optional, then one legitimises the same argument by advocates of other positions." That is a contradictory statement, because it is EXACTLY the US which believes that adherence is optional. And it is naive to speak of any "legal argument for war without a new Security Council resolution", when the US, supported by Britain of course, has openly said it will go to war with or WITHOUT a new SR Resolution. What legal arguments are we talking about? Again the writer defends the "questionable" SCR 687 by talking about missiles as being "clearly illegal under the terms of Blix's mandate". Is Blix's mandate international law now? Who needs the US if anti-sanctions people think this way?? Perhaps Colin thinks he understands the situation in Washington, but it is my opinion that he still doesn't recognize that decisions on Middle East issues are not made by Bush or Powell, but by such Zionists as Perle, Wolfowitz and the rest of the Zionists in the administration. I wouldn't go as far as some who would say that decisions on the Middle East are made in Tel Aviv, but I am very close to believing in this.. It is self deceiving to believe that there is no consensus on Iraq in the US, or that many policy makers are keenly aware that the world largely stands against them at present. The US has never cared for world opinion. What matters is the US, and the rest can go to hell. If Britain would oppose war now, the US would turn against it and boycott its products. Let's not have any illusions about that. To state that Blix "can assure that world that Iraq is disarming" presupposes that Iraq is still armed. As far as we know, Blix and his group have not been able to find any WMDs in Iraq. On what do we base our assumption that Iraq has to be disarmed, if we can not prove it is armed? Why should Iraq be forced to give up its right to self defense and ownership of WMDs, by countries that own such weapons? Why should Iraq be accused of violating SC Resolutions by countries that refuse to abide by the same resolutions? I think we should go back to our main objectives: sanctions are wrong and illegal, and continuing them under any pretext or excuse is a violation of human rights agreements and even the UN Charter. Besides that, any other talk of SC Resolutions, mandate and illegal actions by Iraq become tools to help the US/Zionist policy of Genocide. Lift the sanctions immediately... Let Iraqis live like you do… HZ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ 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