From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Enforcing U.N. sanctions
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:07:46 GMT

In <73828@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:
>jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
>>In article <1jeom3INNko7@tamsun.tamu.edu> enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) writes:

>>> Why do we (the U.S.) enforce U.N. sanctions against Iraq (an islamic  
>>> country) while ignoring sanctions and resolutions against Serbia and  
>>> Israel which are designed to aid people that are predominantly moslem?

>>The implication that we don't help Moslems is wrong:

>>1.  We drove Iraq out of Kuwait, which is a mostly (or entirely)
>>    Moslem country.

>	And *that's* a good example of how we help out Muslim nations?
>Even Admiral Crowe stated that the U.S. amassed its soldiers in the
>Persian Gulf to protect our chief national interest there - which is
>oil, of course.

So?  It still helped Moslems.  The fact that there was another reason
doesn't mean that it didn't help Moslems.

>>2.  We have been trying to enforce a no-fly zone, to prevent
>>    Iraq from killing yet other Moslem groups.

>	In case people have forgotten, there's also a 'no-fly' zone over
>Bosnia-Herzegovina as well.  But it's not being enforced at all, despite
>the multiple violations from Serbian aircraft.  As for the Shiite Muslims

True, but no one thinks this is anything except symbolic.  The Serbians
have no fixed-wing aircraft, just some helicopters, and it isn't going
to help break the siege or end ethnic cleansing to shoot down these copters.

The other reason is that the troops on the ground are worried about
being attacked if we intervene.  Like what got all those Marines killed
in Beiruit -- we intervened on one side, got to seem partisan, and even
though those Marines were peacekeepers, they still got killed.

>being protected by the Southern Iraq 'no-fly' zone, what do we really know
>about them?  The media speaks very little of them (the *entire* basis of
>the 'no-fly' zone there to begin with!), and as far as I can tell, the main
>body that has worried the Iraqi regime are a terrorist group that is wholly
>backed by Iran - right across the border.  I thought U.S. policy was not to
>aid or protect known terrorist groups.  If the U.S. was so worried about
>the fate of minority within a country, then what's the justification for
>ignoring the plight of the Kurds before the Persian Gulf war?  Are we
>*really* (as a country) that concerned with the suffering of Muslim
>minorities?

Not especially, as a country.  But we are protecting them here.

>>As for the two cases you raise:

>>The Bosnia case is simple: what CAN we do there to enforce
>>sanctions?  The current situations in Iraq and Somallia are
>>much simpler.

>	Really?  Considering that no one is enforcing the U.N. resolutions
>in Bosnia, it's not difficult to see what can be done (i.e. enforce them). 
>Iraq is really that simple?  How so?  And as for Somalia, in case you
>haven't noticed, U.S. troops are being fired upon at an increasing rate...
>is there any mystery as to why?

>>As for our support for Israel, well, this is much more complex.
>>But it mostly comes down to what should we do to a country
>>that is our friend and acts very well most of the time.  Yes,
>>Israel has done a few things I've disliked.  But most of the
>>time they have acted in a reasonable and civilized manner, and
>>thus we remain on friendly terms with them.

>	Reasonable and civilized as long as you are not an Arab.

Well, I don't think that the US normally recognizes those standards.
Not when the people opposing Israel go around hijacking Italian cruise
liners or American planes.

>Interesting to note that the U.N. has ordered Israel to re-patriate the
>exiled Palestinians (whom were ejected without due process or even a
>hearing).  I don't see any no-fly zones being imposed over Israel.  Yet
>*one* infraction against the U.N. committed by Hussein is cause enough to
>drop million-dollar bombs on them and slam not-too accurate cruise missiles
>up against Baghdad.

*One* infraction?  Annexing Kuwait is kind of a big one.

Everything since then has been personal between Bush and Saddam.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
Baltimore Orioles 93 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc