@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 Sender: "David E. Anderson" <•••@••.•••> Subject: re: Iraq and NWO If I'm not mistaken, the sanctions are imposed on the same government which engages in chemical and ecological warfare against its minority population, uses torture as a routine tool of government, and has continued nuclear and CBW research. I think the pot is calling the kettle black, as the saying goes. At the same time I do not mean to absolve the West from responsibility for arming Iraq in the first place as part of geopolitics that backfired. Since removal of the sanctions requires the cooperation of others, I suggest that in the meantime the ruling class do something entirely within its control: use its wealth to feed starving children. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I missed something... Dave @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Dear David, I imagine most folks in the U.S. would agree more or less with your viewpoint on Iraq. It sounds sensible, is morally convenient, and is reinforced repeatedly by the media. But as an analysis of the situation in Iraq, I find it inadequate. Not only did the West arm Iraq, and then try to cover it up, but Sadham was given a high-profile green light (by the Secretary of State) to invade Kuwait. It was a clear case of a pre-meditated setup, a trap. When Turkey responded to a similar green-light recently, and invaded _Kurdish_ areas of Iraq, the U.S. followed through with approving comments about the invasion, and Turkey seems to have escaped censure. Little concern was expressed for the Kurds (who were now labelled "rebel terrorists"). I don't see a moral difference between the two invasions, just because the U.S. winked at one and retaliated for the other. And in both cases, the U.S. shares co-responsibility for the invasions. The so-called Gulf "War" itself was an atrocity of the first order. After having encouraged the invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. then undermined every effort at negotiation, ensuring that the only option finally available would be Desert Storm. The intent of the U.N. resolution was for Iraqi forces to be forced out of Kuwait. Instead the U.S. systematically destroyed the entire infrastructure of Iraq, killing 100,000 civilians in the process, and leaving others to die due to destroyed water and power facilities. The media claimed these raids were "surgical" and necessary to prevent military activity by the Iraqis -- but both claims were lies. The Iraqis never fought back at all, and had no capability to do so, other than a bit of ineffective artillery. Their tanks and planes were useless, and their soldiers spent the war terrorized in their bunkers. One U.S. soldier said it was like a professional football team playing a grade-school team -- it wasn't a war at all. The destruction of Iraq seems to have been the _purpose_ of the whole bloody trap, not a side-effect. The conditions of warfare inside Iraq were among the most barbaric in the annals of history. The intentional targetting of non-military life-support infrastructure was highly effective and had no legal justification whatever. You'd have to go back to Hitler or Stalin at their worst to find surrendering soldiers being buried alive 3,000 at a time, in what the U.S. called an "innovative deployment". Can you imagine the outrage if a single U.S. soldier were buried alive when he tried to surrender? If there were any justice, it would the the U.S. paying reparations to Iraq, not the other way around. As for Iraq and its "weapons of mass destruction" -- I agree this is not a desirable state of affairs. Given the overwhelming force the U.S. can "project" in Iraq, and the U.N. mandate to ferret out the offending weapons, why haven't they been found and destroyed long ago? It just doesn't make any sense. The U.S. seems to be intentionally prolonging the sanctions for whatever political objectives -- rumored to be the ousting of Sadham by an internal coup. This kind of political manipulation -- inviting the original invasion, destroying a society, and then forcing prolonged suffering on a whole population -- is imperialist behavior at its worst. The real issue about "illegal" weapons, is the West's continuing eagerness to proliferate as much weaponry as possible as widely as possible. The whole Third World is armed to the teeth. On the international scene, this encourages conflicts to turn into wars, and internally it leads to increased repression. The West is responsible for creating dangerous instabilities all over the world, and until it reforms its arms sales policies, there is no moral justification for the kind of suffering being forced on the people of Iraq in the name of weapons stability. That's punishing the victim instead of the perp. As regards the fact that Sadham has a dictatorial regime, American outrage is totally hypocritical. The U.S. -- right now today -- is actively supporting and arming _many_ regimes around the world, including Bahrain right nearby, which are little more than fascist dictatorships, and enage in internal military operations against their own people as a routine matter. What right does the U.S. have to impose dictatorships on people? And then afterwards to self-righteously punish the people for the acts of the dictator? That really is too much. As for Iraq feeding its own people, I think you'd need to verify that the food would even be allowed in the country, and that Iraq has the hard currency to pay for it. Given how extensively their assets are frozen, I think this is would be unlikely. Sincerely Yours, Richard @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Share: