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]
>authorize? It authorized the use of force only to >obtain the withdrawal from Kuwait. It certainly never >authorized the incursion into, much less the >occupation of, Iraq and the total subjection of that >nation to the dictates of the UN acting out policies >originating in the U.S. government. No one has >authorized the U.S. to have even one soldier in Iraq. >This is aggression in the classic sense. U.S. forces It is worth noting, perhaps, that immediately after the section referring to the various other resolutions, 687 (where the cease fire is covered) says this: """""""""""""" S/RES/687 (1991) 8 April 1991 ... Welcoming the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence andterritorial integrity and the return of its legitimate Government, Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991), """"""""""""""""""" This is seems to explicitely deny any right of the US or UK to continue hostilities in Iraq, including the "no-fly zones". That aside, there remains the problem of not only compensation, but the obligation of providing for the well being of the Iraqi people in the aftermath of this war. I think it is also worth noting that on various occasions the US has said it had no reponsibility for that because there was/is still sporadic resistance -- meaning they are an attacking force and not an occupying force. We see the no-fly zones; we heard the assertion that the US was authorized by the UN to attack; we saw the forged evidence in Powell's UN presentation; and now we have an interpretation of an occupiers responsibility that must have been forged by the likes of Tweedle Dum and Dee. One might imagine, I suppose, that the invincible US military had overlooked or was incapable of anticipating and planning for the immediate aftermath of the attack -- although that may require more imagination than I can muster this morning. Or, one might suspect that the destruction of the Iraqi society was well within US plans, encompassing the hope of cowing and convincing the Iraqis that any sort of order imposed was preferable to none at all, thus making even the likes of Garner, Chalabi, and Dyncorp seem relatively acceptable. (Was the power station in Baghdad hit by accident (despite protestations that it was not targetted), and the pipeline providing the gas to fuel it as well?) The question of the US being responsible, then, seems to take on another dimension, more akin to that of Israel "wanting" a peaceful resolution in Palestine. One might argue that the refusal of Turkey to allow troops moving in from the North might have been a hitch in US plans, but was there such a need to attack before they could be moved that the aftermath had to be be ignored? Would it have made a significant difference? Was that also completely unanticipated in the plans? Even putting that question aside we have the reports of Rumsfeld repeatedly refusing requests from the military for more troops. We hear that security is so poor that aid groups can't get in, but has the US forgotten about MASH units and field hospitals to the extent that wounded civilians lie in the streets for days? Would it have imperiled the war to place a few guards at the museum and library? (Or were they of such minor importance compared to protecting the oil wells?) Perhaps breakfast will serve as an antidote to my cynicism??? >Isn't it our moral duty to struggle to bring justice >to an injust world where outlaw states (US/UK) can >violate international law without being punished?? Of course, but what magnitude of struggle is needed to be effective if the US purposefully resists. We must look to what the US government does, not what it says. Do any of us truly still believe that this about WMD and bringing democracy to Iraq. Or Syria? Or Iran? Or the others on the neo-cons' list? If a struggle is to ensue it is important to know where the actual theater is, and the true intentions of the aggressor. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.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