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]
One compromise is to prefix the subject with OT - off topic. I subscribe to several Lists for my work and this is the most common way they deal with minority, nit picking, peripheral, FYI etc topics. Obviously if the number of OT postings becomes excessive or too peripheral then a moderator can step in. On 9 Dec 2003 at 14:17, Mike Lewis wrote: > Members of this > list constantly urge the Occupying Powers to take seriously the > reality of Iraqi deaths by war and sanctions. If we are to be > consistent, and humane, we should treat Iraqi reports of past > atrocities with similar precision and seriousness. We have no access > to information which would allow us to be precise, while past postings > have shown none of the appropriate seriousness. At one level, Tom is simply asking questions, which is what our media should be doing more of. Unfortunately some dark forces seem to be using the mass graves issue as a smokescreen for current injustice, deaths and suffering. We've already seen some claims disproved eg the Iranian soldiers' remains. The rebuttal does not get the same media attention. If I was able to question the UK Government Minister, who a few weeks ago quoted the 300000 figure, I would like to be able to raise doubts about the accuracy of his figures and some of the claims made. I would then contrast his interest and confidence in these figures and challenge him to come up with military and civilian casualty estimates for: 1) Gulf War 1 2) excess deaths from sanctions 3) 'no fly zone' bombing 4) DU 5) unexploded coalition munitions (cluster bombs etc) 6) Desert Fox 7) Gulf War 2 (up to May 1st) 8) excess deaths since May 1st (effects of sanctions, war, destruction of Government etc) Unfortunately the big bogeyman of SH is being used again, however I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Bin Laden and SH are being deliberately left free. If SH were killed tomorrow then the US after initial elation would then be fully confronted by the mess of their making (just like SH after the end of the war with Iran if he hadn't gone into Kuwait). >From a UK point of view I feel that both the anti-war and the anti- sanctions campaigns almost completely failed. [Incidentally, there were some in the antiwar camp who were either pro-sanctions or agnostic. Likewise some antisanctions were either pro-war or agnostic.] At some point it is worth individuals and groups considering why the failure. It is too easy to say that at least we tried. Gulf War 1 - a turning point in getting Congress approval was the incubator story. Many people never heard the truth! Sanctions - any deaths were SH lies and propaganda, all the money spent on building palaces, luxury items, hoarding medicines, deliberately witholding medicines and goods etc Desert Fox - SH not complying with inspections (the stats were never discussed), SH lying when Iraqi Government expressed fears about the inspectors spying Gulf War 2 - SH hiding WMD (the dodgy dossier), SH building WMD (first dodgy dossier), SH trying to attack the West, UK Parliament - Ann Clwyd of Indict wheeled out to help support the case for war post Gulf War 2 - the poor state of hospitals and schools etc due to SH 'neglect', the resistance due to SH trying to get back in power, lack of WMD - SH tried to pretend he had them, looting due to hate for SH Mark Parkinson Bodmin Cornwall _______________________________________________ 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