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] Compensations & Red Herrings.

>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!

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]