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]
[...] >In Iraq this week, L. Paul Bremer III, the top American >administrator in the occupation, said that over the next >four years, the amount of money needed from outside for >Iraq would be "staggering." Many experts say it could >amount to tens of billions of dollars. [...] >Mr. Rumsfeld, according to administration officials, >vehemently opposes any dilution of military authority >over Iraq by involving the United Nations, [...] My thoughts (at least for today): Then let the US stagger. The more it costs the US, the greater the chances of the bums being booted out of office, and investigations leading to putting the criminals on trial. As near as I can figure, that's the strategy of blowing up the oil pipes. What is worrysome to me are the attacks on the water pipe and the prison compound. It's possible the prison attack was an error (?) -- or from a rival group of those incarcerated? Yet these attacks would seem to be hurtful to the Iraqi people. While it might stir up resentment, would the anger fall on the US? (Or is this the CIA or some such trying one of their insane stunts to demoralize the Iraqi people -- or trying to reduce the population -- or increasing "divide and conquer" chaos to interfere with organized resistance and justify strong-arm tactics?) Who can gain from the attacks on water and prisoners? But considering the chaos, why would any non-US company want to get involved now? Do any believe that the US can bring about enough stability for contracts to be honored or profitable? Why would any other nation want to get involved when disaster is so likely to be the result -- and be in a position to take the blame? When someone throws a wildcat in the air, it is unwise to try to catch it. The humane and the smart policy for the other nations to pursue is to provide what humanitarian aid they can, and let the US/UK (and it seems even the UK may be in a process of withdrawal, trying not to be noticed) foot the bill, and take the heat. This would in fact, be a good time for the Arab and Muslim nations (under the auspices of the Arab league?) to send humanitarian aid (water, medicine, money, small generators). Could the US afford to block it? But then what of the resulting Arab solidarity? No, the US would be forced to try to "look good" by increasing the wealth they commit to Iraq and fulfill their obligations to the people. (Matching funds.) As Annie Oakley sang in the musical "You can't get a man with a gun!" ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ 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