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]

[casi] Compensations & Red Herrings.

Dear Hassan, Elga & List,

Does prune juice help for information/constipation? If so, I'd need gallons
of it, to cure after-effects of some six pages, from Elga & Hassan. As the
confused, yet noble, Prince Hamlet said, "Words, words,

Sorry, Hassan, but it's rather silly to say the United Nations excludes
violence, and you know it. The UN consists of a number of member-States,
all having armies (possibly with one or two exceptions). Furthermore, some
of those States have so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction", e.g. India,
China, USA & Israel. "All neccessary means" certainly does include using
military force, hopefully, as a last (not first!) resort.

Absolutely, peace & justice figure highly amongst UN ideals, and rightly so.
It's in the legacy of Eleanor Roosevelt, (no legal expert) & others,who
created the Universal Declararation of Human Rights. As I said, to Hassan's
unbounded amazement, the UN isn't a pacifist organisation. Despite it's very
high ideals, it's members are not Gandhians, not believers in total
non-violence. Many of the member-States are known abusers of human rights,
and commit crimes against humanity, one doesn't have to look hard to find
examples (e.g. Russia & Chechneya, China & Tibet or Israel & the Occupied
Territories). The United Nations, as all human organisations & societies, is
imperfect - which doesnt preclude it from having a purpose, to unite the
nations, & the peoples, of the world. One can argue about whether various UN
policies have been right or wrong, including Kuwait.

You don't need to convince me of non-intervention for Iraq, by USA/UK.
For years, with others, I was out on the streets, campaigning against
sanctions/bombings, when most people regarded war with Iraq as a footnote in
history. The war, in my view, is not recent, it has, simply, & on a massive
scale, escalated. The war, with the two allies, has been going on since
1900. When you mention legal expert's views, I should treat that with utmost
caution - they don't all think uniformly. And some are less scrupulous than
others. You may disagree with some lawyers or politicians, & that is your

Should Iraq pay compensations? No, I don't think so, just as I wouldn't have
expected occupied European nations, such as Denmark, to pay compensation to
Nazi-Germany in WWII. After all, this war against Iraq has been illegal,
immoral & in contravention of international norms. The bomber pilot, in his
missions of destruction, over Baghdad etc., may have little concern for who
is going to clean up, afterwards, and who is going to foot the bill. But you
are quite right, we do have a moral duty to bring justice to an unjust world
- providing we do so with just intentions and with just means.

Greetings,  Bert.

P.S. My reply to Elga will follow, separately, later on.

Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out

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]