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]
>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). I am not a complete pacifist, and freely admit is out of ignorance. I would have used one of Star Trek's transporters to deposit Saddam in the middle of desert island (along with a few other world leaders), but I don't know to build one. Lacking that, I would have used all-powerful negotiating skills, but again, I am ignorant. This is the same problem we all have: we don't know how to always avoid violence. Yet, the UN generally has the right intentions in avoiding violence; the US and others do not. Sadly, because of the strength of the barbarians among us, the world can not even use all the knowledge of peaceful practice we do have, and many foolish policies are in place which we, the world, know are foolish. We do not know how to prevent all crime, but we surely know how to fix situations which breed crime, for example. The goal to pursue is to close the gap between what knowledge the world does have, and what it pays attention to in formulating policies and actions. For that, the UN can, and often does, plays a major role: it *tries* to be peaceful. >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. More than that, putting all blame on Iraq ignores the role that the US, UK, and other nations have had over the years in supporting Saddam and disrupting the democratic and peaceful aspirations of the Iraqi people. A long standing argument I have in terms of the individual responsibility of criminals is that while we like to think that free will is a human characteristic, I maintain it is rather a potential of people, which must be attained. People forced to live in dehumanizing conditions, as in inner city ghettos, are more likely to become criminals; children who are abused will be more disfunctional; people who live in an ocean of propaganda cannot make free and informed choices. Some people will overcome such adversity, (just as some will be "bad" despite the best of condions, for reasons we don't understand) but it is unfair to hold the abused to common standards. If those in power allow or impose such evil conditions on people -- or nations, then they must bear responsibility for the results, and recognize that the people themselves have a limited liability. One cannot daily beat a dog and then rightly blame the dog if it is vicious. That's not simply a moral stand -- it's the practical reality. ________________________________________________________________ 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