From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: U.S. "TO PROVOKE IRAQ" on MONDAY
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:33:02 GMT

-
In article <1992Aug18.001550.2191@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca
(Ken Mcvay) writes:

|>In article <1992Aug17.214143.10331@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin
|>Collins) writes:

|>>The Iraqi people are likely to rally behind Hussein if Iraq is attacked.
|>
|>Right - the Kurds and Shiites will rally 'round Saddam. Sure they will. When
|>pigs fly.

Not all Shiites and Kurds are separatists. Shiite revolutions are not exactly
popular in the region, Iran was never very successful in getting Shiite support
from the sourth in the Iran/Iraq war. Don't make the mistake of projecting the
standards of your own fragmented society onto another. Beleive it or not but
Iraq was at the start of Hussein's rule one of the most unified and liberal in
the region. Women can drive cars, it is not a theocratic state. Compare it then
to what went on and goes on in Iran, Saudi or Kewait and it's a paradise.

Saddam was able to start the Iran/Iraq war and survive after it failed because
Iran was belicose and expansionist. The question was not whether war would start
but when. Quite easy for Saddam to convince peoplle that the war was the
Iranian's fault. Saddam would not have survived the Kewait fiasco if he had been
forced to withdraw, Bush gave him the dignity of defeat in battle. The
conclusion of the Iraqui's is thus that they can crush Kewait at any time and
all they need to do is to wait for "the great satan" to be smitten by some
smitter or other. Saddam having half his country blown up an surviving just goes
to show what a "great leader" he must be.


|>>Surely most Americans will see this as stupid brutality rather than a
|>>brilliant manoeuver. 
|>
|>I'd see it, from Canada, as one more indication that the UN intends to
|>enforce compliance, and I'd applaud. I would completely support any move to
|>stop fixed-wing flights in the south, as has been discussed on today's news,
|>and I don't believe for a single moment that the Shiites would support
|>Saddam when the Yanks began shooting down whatever's left of his "air
|>force" in order to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.

You are projecting your own cultural assumptions onto another country. Saddam
stays in power only because people think that his replacement could be worse.


|>>Why would they do it? (I don't even see this as a method of teaching
|>>lessons in obedience...the child will gain more than the parent, surely.)
|>
|>Perhaps it would be done because Iraq consistantly refuses full compliance
|>with UNR 687 and 688 (the only two I am familiar with)... or do you believe
|>that United Nations resolutions are meaningless and should not be enforced?

Before you start getting so high and mighty about the sacrosanct nature of
international law examine Bush's own record. The US is still refusing to accept
the decision of the world court over Nicaragua. The US is not likely to be
condemend in the UN security council for the sole reason that it has a veto,
there are no UN security council resolutions condeming the USSR, guess why? The
decisions of a body so transparently rigged to favour the powerful nations as
the UN is do not automaticaly carry moral authority. South Africa took fourty
years to comply with the resolution on Namibia.

Given the newstoday it seems that Harel was only 24 hours out. Bush is in big
trouble so he wants to start a war to distract attention from domestic issues.
Sounds familiar? Hell yes, thats why Saddam invaded Iran and Kewait in the first
place.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.activism