From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 19:51:30 MST
On 5 Feb 2002 at 16:05, L' Ermit wrote:
> [Bodie 1] The sanctions imposed on Iraq allow for less than $100 per person
> per year, and thats(sic) if the money is devided(sic) equally, as we know
> it's not, with the lion(sic) share going to build Sadams(sic) castles, so
> the actual figure is probably far less than half that.
>
> [Richard Ridge 1] Of course, the problem with that argument is that it holds
> the US responsible for the fact that Saddam is not distributing those funds
> equally - and suggests that if sanctions were withdrawn then the presence of
> a dictatorial regime would be of no consequence. Which is the entire
> problem with this debate; namely, that it is essentially circular. One side
> correctly observes that the sanctions have not proved themselves to be
> effective and correctly notes that they have caused enormous misery for the
> population of Iraq. The other side correctly replies that this argument
> essentially absolves Saddam Hussein from any responsibility (and thereby
> comfortably justifies dictatorship and oppression) since he has been using
> said funds to renew his arsenal and could well have developed far greater
> capabilities had the sanctions been lifted. Whether or not current revenue
> is adequate for Iraq (probably not) this does not make the United States
> responsible for the policy of the Iraqi regime on construction and military
> expenditure.
>
> [Hermit 1] Actually, the money is for external, not internal payments and is
> never "distributed" as money, so it can't be "distributed unfairly" or even
> spent "incorrectly". This idea betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the
> "Oil for Food" program and the swallowing of the idea that Saddam has
> "diverted funds" - which would imply that he is responsible for this
> process. This is just plain wrong. Refer
> [url]http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/[/url]. Citing resolution 986, "To finance
> the export to Iraq, in accordance with the procedures of the Committee
> established by resolution 661 (1990), of medicine, health supplies,
> foodstuffs, and materials and supplies for essential civilian needs, as
> referred to in paragraph 20 of resolution 687 (1991)..." and the
> distribution is certified by the "United Nations Inter-Agency Humanitarian
> Programme." Thus the distribution policy is determined by the UN Security
> Council, not by Iraq.
>
But all Iraq has to do, and what they are doing, is to sell such items to neighboring
countries and spend the cash on military pursuits. Plus they smuggle oil.
>
> [Hermit 1] What is desperately needed is the delivery of appropriate
> chemicals and equipment to get the water purification and sewage processing
> infrastructure working again (and as they are partially reliant on PEM
> technology, getting at least enough of the power infrastructure working to
> operate the pumps and processing equipment. The reasoning behind the denial
> of access is pure "slippery slope" taking to extremes. While there is a
> "possibility" that some of the needed supplies or equipment could be
> diverted to "dual-use" the probability is close to non-existent. Chemical
> weapons are not particularly effective at the best of times, and without a
> means to deliver them in vast quantities, any damage they do would be
> symbolic. Denying access to water purification and sewage treatment is
> causing vast number of deaths - no "slippery slope" about it, and impossible
> to transfer the responsibility to a third party - not even to such a
> convenient "evil" scapegoat as Saddam.
>
Actually, chlorine is a manufacturing component of several chemical agents, and I'm
quite sure that the Kurdish village that we received the pictures from (especially
heartrending was the dead Kurdish mother cradling her dead newborn child) would
heartily disagree, if the villagers were still alive (instead of actually, not symbolically,
dead), that such weapons are ineffective and merely 'symbolic'.
>
> [Richard Ridge 1] Given that (as far as I can tell) there seems little
> prospect of the sanctions impinging sufficiently on the Iraqi regime to lead
> to its downfall before years more misery lie in store for the population, it
> would seem to me that there are only two options.
>
> [Hermit 1] Perhaps you meant "3 options"? I'd suggest that there are more.
>
> [Richard Ridge 1] 1). Lift the sanctions. The US has done deals with morally
> repugnant regimes before; I have little doubt that they are perfectly
> capable of doing so again.
>
But this morally repugnant regime is actively pursuing the means to kill Americans
and to conquer its neighbors. That's a bit different, security-wise, than turning a blind
eye towards a regime that only seeks to subjugate its own people, although, that, too,
is ethically disturbing.
>
> [Hermit 1] According to the UN Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme the
> sanctions imposed by the Security council has killed far more people (over 1
> million to date) than anything done by Saddam Hussein and the moral
> responsibility is ours, not theirs.
>
I disagree, for the reasons that both Richard and I have amply provided. This is
something that Saddam does to his own people becuase 1) it frees more money to
pursue WMD's and military upgrades and 2) the resultant deaths can be blamed on
the US, and the naïve, superficial and credulous will be taken in by such claims,
especially when they dovetail with their own economic interests.
>
> It is my considered opinion that the
> sanctions will never cause his overthrow, and that recent actions taken to
> pursue other heads of state after they have left office will ensure that he
> will never willingly relinquish power without some quite exceptional
> guarantees of immunity. Then too, not only has the US dealt with - and is
> dealing with "morally repugnant regimes", it might well be argued that our
> actions in respect of Iraq and the Kurds have made us a "morally repugnant
> regime". Moral issues should not enter into the affairs of nations as morals
> are essentially locally defined and are not recognized in International law.
>
Then let's morally unrepugnantize ourselves, by assisting the Kurds and Shiites in
ridding the skin of Gaia of this crepuscular bastard, and remaining engaged in order
to help guide and assist a post-Saddam Iraq towards a free, fair and responsible
society. If the Kurdish and Shiite minorities were treated in an egalitarian fashion inn
Iraq, they would not itch so much for secession and self-rule there.
>
> [Richard Ridge 1] Or 2) depose the Iraqi regime by a military invasion and
> then create a structural repair programme to ensure that the population have
> access to purified water.
>
And a lot more.
>
> [Hermit 1] Requiring some other nation or nations to put their soldiers at
> risk and undoubtedly causing the deaths of more civilians.
>
And how many of our civilians will be lost because of trepidatious hesitation? You
made some of the same arguments concerning Afghanistan (remember the Rudyard
Kipling poem you quoted concerning Afghanistan's plains, and your dire predictions
that we'd end up like britain and the USSR?), and were soundly proven wrong; others
made them prior to the Gulf War with iraq and were proven soundly wrong as well. If
anything, toppling Saddam would be easier than toppling the Taliban.
>
> At the end of the
> day there is no structure to form a legitimate government and any government
> formed would need to have its integrity guaranteed by some other party - for
> which no mechanism exists in current International law, making it almost
> certain that the law of unexpected consequences would intervene (e.g. Iran
> would almost certainly invade, and at this point the country would probably
> switch to Sharia due to the loss in literacy - caused by our actions).
> Certainly the history of interventions in the past quarter century has not
> been a happy one.
>
So far, Afghanistan is proceesing exactly as intended, with the exception that we
don't have everyone we want in custody - yet. I sincerely believe that the dancing in
the streets that was observed in Afghanistan would be repeated in Iraq, once its
citizens were freed from the oppressive yoke of that two-bit satrap despot. As long as
the international community does it right; i.e. remains envolved and engaged in the
rehabilitation of Iraq, I do not see them backsliding into fanaticism, any more than I
see iran invading with the coalition troops we would place on the ground in Iraq to
assist Kurdish and Shiite forces (they certainly didn't dare to do so in Afghanistan,
and there is not much love lost between Iran and their neighbors on EITHER side).
>
> [Richard Ridge 1] Option 3), carry on prevaricating for another decade by
> virtue of being insufficiently decisive to choose either of the previous two
> options (and thereby perpetuating this debate), seems somewhat less than
> acceptable.
>
> [Hermit 1] Agreed. There are perhaps other options available however, if the
> International community were able to resolve its own problems*. Not the
> least of which is working on how to restore a country which we have
> deliberately destabilized and "sent back to the stone age", when we know
> that progress, industrialization and a strong middle class go hand in hand;
> and that stone-age cultures result in stone-age brutality.
>
Nope, just take him out and Marshall Plan the place. I believe that such action could
earn us the same gratitude with which we are graced from Japan and Western
europe, and which even now is growing in Afghanistan.
>
> This almost
> certainly means working with Saddam Hussein and in the long term, almost
> certainly having to provide him and his near associates with guarantees of
> immunity. Personally, I would advocate that this route be explored. Of
> course, having demonized Saddam Hussein for over a decade, this might seem a
> little less than likely. I find it difficult to conceive of either of the
> two Bs having the imagination, or their citizens providing much in the way
> of support. Strange in a way, since we have had the benefits of Niccolo
> Machiavelli's thinking on Princes and Powers for over 500 years (but I doubt
> that he is Blair's favorite author, and we know that Bush is not much of a
> reader).
>
Our history has shown us that if you deal with the devil you risk getting singed. I say
that we de-demonize Iraq by excising the demons in charge there.
>
> Regards
>
> Hermit
>
> [Hermit 1] I suspect that while an international body with appropriate
> technological and financial capability, together with effective teeth, could
> transform the world in under 40 years, I don't see the vision or the
> political will to form such a body coming from existing politicians or their
> UTic populations.
>
When a nation has decided that you are THEM and singlemindedly endeavors to
terrorize your citizens and assassinate your leaders, simply maintaining a pollyannish
pair of rose-colored glasses on one's foreign relations nose will not deter the
horrendous spectacles almost surely to follow.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT