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] Blix orders Destruction of Iraq missiles


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
"..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

The use of language in some sentences seems to
indicate that the writer believes that Iraq SHOULD
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

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

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…


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

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]