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] About "48 Hours or Else" Speech--Hassan Zeini

Hello Hassan,

Thank you for your kind response and the useful references. I  share your
view that the Bush adaptation of UNSCR 678 and 687 is at best willful,
resting as it does, on the false premise of an implied  mandate for force
where there is none.  I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a
great devotee of the death penalty like Mr. Bush to imagine that a punitive
measure might perhaps have a redemptive rather than an obliterating

To a certain extent, the president's usurpation of intent which you and I
equally  deplore   gets facilitated by the often deliberately vague text
wording aimed at obscuring what is actually expected of Iraq.  I understand
that this is in line with the inhumane US policy of  making damn sure that
Iraq remains suspended in a state of perpetual penitence, regardless of any
remedial measures it takes.

This, more than anything, testifies to the stranglehold the US has had on
Security Council proceedings, and to the hindrance it keeps making itself to
be to the implementation and verification processes, as well as to the
efforts of the Sanctions Committee.  Thus far the US managed to successfully
neutralize, through sabotage, indefinite blocking of end schedules, and ever
intimidating hisses of its veto power, any hope on the Iraqi's side to one
day extricate themselves from the longest, most unjust war reparations
ordeal in modern times.

The very use of the word compliance in such a no-win context is more than
just a cruel hoax.  Even modest objectivity will lead one to the conclusion
that the labyrinthine rehabilitation plan concocted by the US has, and
always did have, as its true end the ultimate destabilization of the
political order in Iraq.  As I said in the previous post to which you have
kindly responded, the United States never envisioned a  practical  objective
short of  regime change, all rhetoric notwithstanding. This said, I return
to my earlier reflections.

With what I wrote I did not aspire to an assessment of any resolutions
contents or purport.  My thoughts were just reacting to the speech itself.
I think you would agree that the presidential spin is hardly worth taking
through a comparative analysis.  The caliber of the speech could not be
stepped up enough to make that work. Even his
proxy references to UNSCR 678 and 687 were contrived, as you have shown.

I only jotted down thoughts that came to me in the course of visiting the
weird mindset that had produced the president's psycho babble.  The only
possible value to this exercise of mine might lie in showing that, even
taking his assertions at face value, factual distortions  and all, they
still do not hold water.  The most generous concessions would prove
insufficient for endowing the piece with a semblance of logic.

Thus, finding its sadly amorphous state beyond redemption, I  projected just
structure for me to be able to address something like an argument, rather
than a few loosely strung together propaganda slogans. What you read in my
post was the result of this game.  For me the really sad thing is that we
are dealing with a supposed world leader, whose mind seems incapable of
transcending the three or four uninspiring slogans that seek to masquerade
as concepts, for as long as I can remember.  It is embarrassing to watch him
mechanicallly grind out mantras with complete abandon.

Please accept my apologies for giving the impression that I found anything
factual  in what Mr. Bush said.  I assure you that this would have been an
epiphany.  I should have been more clear instead of assuming that the
perimeters of my reflections would be understood as being defined by the
quotation marks around Mr. Bush's statements.  For me it was not an overly
satisfying experience.  Although I think I did manage to breathe enough life
into his "speech" to be able to interact with it, I realized all the more
how doubtful it is that Mr. Bush would actually be able to appreciate having
his fallacies attended to.  I honestly think that the leader of the free
world is bereft of any capacity for course direction.  Thank you, Hassan, it
was fun chatting with you.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hassan Zeini" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [casi] Thoughts About Huge Holes in "48 Hours or Else" speech

> John,
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
> I have some comments.
> >True, as stated in "678 and 687 -- both still in
> >effect -- the United States and our allies are
> >authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons
> >of mass destruction. This is not a question of
> >authority, it is a question of will."
> >I have to apologize here for our president. He has
> >been known to lack precision in the comprehension
> >and use of words. What he is missing are the
> >operative words "in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass
> >destruction." Neither of the two resolutions says
> >that the "United States and its allies are
> >authorized to use force" in LOOKING FOR weapons of
> >mass destruction in Iraq. They only authorize the
> >use of force in RIDDING Iraq OF weapons of mass
> >destruction.
> I am afraid this is not true. Resolution 678 had
> nothing to do with any WMDs or of ridding Iraq of
> them. It did not even explicitly authorize the use of
> force against Iraq to force it out of Kuwait. All
> possible means was "interpreted" by the US and its
> allies to mean the use of force, without following the
> formal procedure for that action in accordance with
> the Charter. That interpretation remains
> questionable..
> Even if we accept this twisted "interpretation" of
> Resolution 678, then the authorization for the use of
> force ended with Resolution 687 because the objective
> of getting Iraq out of Kuwait was achieved. New
> conditions were imposed on Iraq for lifting sanctions
> forcing it to rid itself (and the whole Middle East)
> of WMDs. This had nothing to do with Kuwait or with
> Resolution 678. Thus, it seems to me incorrect to
> state that Resolution 687 is still in effect (meaning
> the use of force).
> Let us not forget that the daily bombings and the
> no-fly zones are violations of the Charter and the US
> and UK are "in material breach".. Their actions even
> violate Resolution 688 on which they and their puppets
> and apologists base the establishment of the no-fly
> zones. That resolution was NOT based on Chapter VII of
> the Charter and thus the automatic use of force is not
> included in it..
> But the US and UK have acted as they wished, with a
> weak and immoral world watching. When it suits them,
> they refer to the Charter of the UN. When it doesn't
> suit them, they go their way.
> Washing one's hands of the conflict between the
> powerful and the powerless means to side with the
> powerful, not to be neutral.
> -Paulo Freire, educator
> (1921-1997)
> HZ
> __________________________________________________

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]