X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:16:04 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: A Reply to J. Fisher's 18 January post on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Date: 18 Jan 1993 16:22:34 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jonathan Fisher<jfisher%NETXWEST.COM@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
> Subject: RE: Reflections on the Iraqi situation ...
>
> >> I think AN alternative would be to get our clients, who are
> >> allegedly so afraid of Saddam's possible aggression, to get off
> >> their duffs and do some of this "violent work" that we are doing.
> >> I think of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (one of the wealthiest of our
> >> "clients"), and Egypt. Why should the US be the leader in dealing
> >> with Saddam Hussein? What are the Russians and Chinese doing?
> >> Nothing.
>
> > This seems like a good place to start.  The Russians and the Chinese
> > were reluctant participants to Desert Storm.  The Russians voted yea,
> > but worked very hard on Saddam to get him to withdraw.  The Chinese
> > abstained, probably primarily because of Bush.  It'll be interesting
> > with Clinton in power. I agree with you that the Saudis, the
> > Kuwaitis, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Turks, the Jordanians, the
> > Lebanese (really the Syrians) should be participating.  If they don't
> > though, do we then do nothing and let Saddam violate cease-fire
> > agreements?
>
> I don't know exactly what violations of the "ceasefire agreements"
> Iraq has committed. Flying planes over their sovereign territory?
Yes.  Remember this?  Iraq _lost_ a war.  He either signed the
cease-fire agreement or the war continued.  He signed an agreement
stating that he wouldn't fly any planes over designated areas.

> How
> long does the UN "mandate" extend over these no-fly zones?
I don't know.  I think it's until he is a good boy!

> Is the UN
> (or US) trying to create three states out of Iraq - a Sh'ia state, an
> Iraqi Kurd state, and "Iraq?"
I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened everyone was happy.
But, if the UN (or the US) actually wanted three countries to come out
of Iraq, it would have been pretty easy to force it.  Especially right
after the gulf war.

> Is that the UN's "job," to create new
> states when they don't like the leader?
No.  But when said leader loses a war, he loses a lot of rights that a
sovereign leader has.  But as I've said, noone is created multiple states
out of Iraq.
> Turning on radar? Not a
> violation of any agreement I can recall.
Really?  I thought that it was.  I thought that locking a weapon system
onto a plane is an offensive action.
> "Raiding" Kuwait? There it
> would appear what has been "agreed to" is quite murky.
I don't think so.  As I've said, Iraq lost the war.  The borders are
created as to the wishes of the victors.  There is nothing murky.
>I guess my
> main objection is that the US has taken it upon themselves to be the
> UN "enforcer," and basically only three powers are doing the
> enforcing.
Yes, that bothers me too.
> Russia is now making objections to the piecemeal attacks,
> and while China is not saying anything, I'm sure the incidents don't
> exactly please them when they opted out of the first resolutions.
Since these two countries weren't pleased with the initial war, I
doubt that they would help enforce a treaty.
> I
> suggest if we told the Turks, Egyptians, Saudis and Kuwaitis that no
> arms, no planes, no aid unless you take a more active role, they
> would almost definitely "participate."
Could be.
> I suggest "bludgeoning" the
> Syrians is nigh unto impossible, the Lebanese are in a shambles and
> not likely to aid or hinder anyone, and the Jordanians are pro-Iraqi.
Yep.
>
> >> If there is "unanimous" agreement in the idea of attacking Iraq,
> >> then all five "permanent" members of the UN Security Council ought
> >> to be part of the "dirty work."
>
> > Agreed.  The English and the French have participated.  The
> > Russians won't. Does that mean that we let violations of the
> > cease-fire agreements persist?
>
> I contend that this business cannot go indefinitely, regardless of
> who leads in Baghdad. The "violations" occur because this is now a
> two year process, and Iraq asks a legitimate question - how long does
> our sovereignty continue to be under other nation's control?
Well, since Iraq has constantly violated the agreements that it signed,
it's not unrealistic to assume that this will go on until Iraq stops
violating said agreements.
> If it
> was the US under a two year "occupation" by foreign powers, we'd be
> killing "blue hats" by now.
There are too many variables to even comment on this.
>
> >> Plus, I do not believe the legitimate question of the Arab League
> >> of "why only Iraq?" and no efforts against the violations of UN
> >> resolutions by Israel and Serbia has been answered.
>
> >uh-oh, now we are enlarging our discussion.
>
> Ah... But, all these cases are related in type, and none can be
> regarded solely while ignoring the others. I agree each is ALSO
> case-specific, but many behaviors are case-similar, as I see them.
>
> >> I believe the crimes of Milosevic and Karadzic are as great or
> >> greater than any activity currently engaged in by the Baghdad
> >> regime (so far as I know, anyway).
>
> > Yes.  And I have been arguing for more US involvement in the Serbian
> > slaughter.  That doesn't invalidate the cease-fire agreement signed
> > by Saddam.
>
> That he signed at the point of a gun, after 100k of his citizenry was
> killed by air and ground attacks by 35 nations against one.
Yes, that's right.  And if he hadn't signed it, the UN forces would
have gone on and destroyed the rest of the Iraqi forces.  If Iraq
hadn't invaded Kuwait, he wouldn't have had to deal with any of it.
But he _LOST_ a war that he started.  He has to pay a penalty.
> No Arab
> alive would consider an agreement extracted under duress by infidels
> as valid.
Is this a racist statement?  The fact that anyone would consider such
an agreement as invalid is ridiculous.
>Agreed, he started it, but some bloody phony reasons were
> given for our involvement.
I could fight this particular argument, (maybe I will), but why?
IT'S IRRELEVANT NOW.  He started a war.  He lost a war.  He signed
a cease-fire agreement.  He has to abide by it.  If he doesn't, he
has to pay the price.
> Why is Kuwait's "sovereignty" (a family
> dictatorship) any more or less important than Bosnia or the
> Palestinians?
Who said it was?  This just happened to be where Bush decided to
engage.

> Iraq has claimed Kuwait for eighty years or so,
bzzzt.  Wrong.  Iraq has only claimed Iraq recently.  In fact, it was
when oil was discovered that Iraq has started to claim Kuwait. In fact
if you go back and look at the history, before oil was discovered
Kuwait wanted to be part of Iraq and was turned down!
> and for
> three years, Hussein fussed at how Kuwait and the Saudis were jacking
> with his economy by not sticking to OPEC production quotas - some of
> his ire at Kuwait might JUST be justified.
Do you really think so?  The fact is Kuwait and Saudi Arabia forgave
BILLIONS of dollars in loans that he had used to fund his war with
Iran.  Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did indeed agree to increase the cost
of oil.
> Is the US' job to prop up
> one set of Arab states against another, and by destablizing Iraq,
> allow the fundamentalist Iranians to gain significant ground in the
> area?
No. But it is the US' job to back up a cease-fire agreement.

> I haven't noticed the US (or any other Security Council power)
> pushing for the creation of a Sh'ia state in south Iraq, or for an
> "independent" Kurdistan in the north (or from the other four nations
> with many Kurds - Iran, Russia, Turkey and Syria).
Nope.

>
> > I hold no love for Saddam Hussein, and I agree his recent actions
> > have been provocatory, but I would suggest the expelling of 415
> > Palestinians into a no-man's land where now no one will deal with
> > them is a war crime,
>
> >I do not fully agree with the expelling.  I do feel that Israel has
> >received a great deal of unfair critism of it.  To take the Israelis
> >side for awhile, the Palestinians are the Hamas.  They are a violent
> >terrorist organization that have killed Israelis for the reason that
> >there were Israelis.  Before the expulsion, several Israelis were
> >killed.  The Hamas believe that Israel can not exist and that they
> >(the Hamas) have to do all that they can to destroy her.  For that
> >reason, they are against the peace talks and have been doing all that
> >they can do to ruin them.  Further, at this point, the Hamas are in
> >Lebanon, (really Syria).  Why isn't Lebanon (Syria) getting heat for
> >not allowing the Red Cross in?  Why is it just Israel that gets
> >world-wide abuse?  Why when Syrian President Hassad bulldozed his 3rd
> >largest city killing tens of thousands did not the world rise up in
> >disgust?  Why were there no UN resolutions?  Why are the no UN
> >resolutions against Syrian "involvement" in Lebanon...since '75?
> >Syria has taken over Lebanon and not a word is spoken, why is that?
> >Egypt _kills_ thousands of Hamas and the world is silent.  Why?  No
> >VMS, I don't put the expulsion of the Hamas in the same war crimes
> >category.
>
> Well, I still think Syria is a "terrorist state," and the US
> "alliance" with them during the Six Week's War borders on criminality
> for some of the very reasons you cite. I do not agree with Hamas'
> goals, but then I believe the Israeli stance towards the Palestinians
> has created a lot of the tension. If Israel would agree to a
> Palestinian state, they'd diffuse a lot of Arab tension, though they
> WOULD have to be more vigilant.
But, if Israel allowed an palestinian state to be created, which by the
way, would split their little country in two (take note of the fact that
if the palestinians are given the west bank in one piece, the width of
Israel at it's smallest point would be less than 10 miles) how would
they be able to slow down terrorist behaviour?
> Lebanon's behavior is no better than
> Israel's, but Israel expelled these people from homes THEY allowed
> the Hamas to have.
OK. But as I've said in another post, these people _are_ in Lebanon
now.  It is their responsibility. We can argue about the legality of
the Israeli expulsion but it is a moot discussion.

> Assad is a butcher, no better than Saddam Hussein,
> and the UN's lack of response is criminal.
I agree. And I hope that there is a difference in treating him with
the change in the administration.

> The US more so because we
> refuse to act against these states for fear that they will attack our
> chief client Israel in retaliation, but we'll attack Hussein 'cause
> "everybody hates him."
Do you think that that is the reason?  I don't. I have confidence that
Israel can defend herself.  I think that it's because that we (the US)
are so used to appeasing petty dictators, that we can't see when one
of them can't be appeased.
> As I said before, we joined in on the
> Egyptian/Saudi/Kuwaiti/Emirates side of this, ignored Iran, bought
> off Assad, ignored Lebanon, punished Jordan by sanction, co-opted the
> Turks and all of the above states, and were derisive about Libya in
> the first round. Now, we are hooked in, and some of our "allies" are
> having second thoughts about "destabilizing" Iraq. War crimes are war
> crimes - what you describe, what I've described are the same. There
> are NO "innocents" in the Middle East.
I agree.
>
>
> >> and the barbarities in Bosnia are a savage indictment of
> >> provocatory behavior by Serbia, and Serbs in Bosnia. What has Iraq
> >> done that's more evil than either of these crimes?
>
> >Gassing thousands of his citizens is a good start.  Although it
> >doesn't really compete with what the Serbians have done, it's a good
> >start.
>
> Then Assad, Fahd, Quaddafi, Rafsanjani, the Emir of Kuwait and
> perhaps Mubarak (at the least) deserve the same treatment, for each
> has killed quite a few of their own citizenry. The Serbs are killing
> citizens of a duly recognized sovereign state that is NOT theirs,
> even though they've taken 70% of it, and appear they'll get a third
> minimum if the Vance/Owens plan is agreed to.
I agree.  Of course, if the Serbians agree to this plan, I don't see
what Clinton can do to stop it.
>
> >> I'm not even particularly pro-Arab, but I believe there is justice
> >> in the Arab position that VERY selective behavior is going on in
> >> attacking Iraq while ignoring these other behaviors.
>
> >I don't.  If Saddam obeyed the treaty that he signed, there would be
> >imports. He would be allowed to export oil.
>
> How kind of us! It still does not exempt Israel and Serbia from being
> ignored by the UN, or being treated differently than Iraq, if
> "justice" were to be truly served.
Saddam invaded a nation.  After brutalizing it's population and stealing
it positions, it lost a war.  Iraq is thusly paying a price.  We can't
do the same to Serbia because of the terrain. We could have bombed Serbia
and made it stop but Bush was being "prudent".  Israel is not being
ignored by the UN.  There have been UN resolutions against Israel.
>
> >> I suspect I do not answer the question of "what should we do?"
> >> vis-a-vis Iraq, save obliquely, but I am a little weary, and not sure
> >> what else I could offer to this weighty matter.
>
> >It definitely is a difficult question.  But unless alternatives can
> >be offered, then critizing our current policy is, I feel, useless.  I
> >listened to a freshman congressperson interviewed this morning.  She
> >was vehemently against our current involvement in Iraq.  But when
> >asked what should be done, she was silent.
>
> I have offered SOME ideas as to what could be done, but here again,
> I'll try once more.
>
> 1) Have a "mixed force" of Arabs, Americans, and Europeans deal with
> Iraq, as necessary.
I think that this is a good idea.  So what if Arabs don't join? Do we
stop enforcing the cease-fire agreement?
>
> 2) Deal with Syria, Iran, Egypt and Israel (or any other Middle East
> state) as "strictly" as we are with Iraq.
hmmmm.  No.  Iraq is in a special class because of the invasion. But
subsequent violations of international law should be penalized.

>
> 3) The US, the French, Russia, the British and the Chinese cease
> selling ANY arms to ANY power in the region, bar none, exceptions for
> none.
I agree except for Israel.  Israel is a common enemy to all the countries
in the middle east.  If Israel can't buy arms, then she can't defend
herself.
>
> 4) Cut off aid to Israel if they cannot work out an agreement with
> the Palestinians, encourage Israel and the various factions of the
> Palestinians to "fight or agree," (and be a guarantor that no one
> else will interfere) bomb Damascus if Assad won't stop his illegal
> occupation of Lebanon (if the US is to keep up the policeman role),
> refuse to aid the Saudis in ANY way if they won't lead for themselves
> instead of having the US act as their "mercenaries," cut Egypt,
> Tunisia, Morocco, et all away from UN membership and/or protections
> unless thy treat their minorities more equitably.
OK except for Israel.  After their most recent election, Israel has
been making some serious concessions.  The Palestinians haven't
reciprocated, so why should Israel be penalized.
Why should we bomb Assad? (to quote you). Why don't we get other
countries in the middle-east to bomb him?
>
> 5) If Saddam Hussein is such a bad guy, kill him, and let the chips
> fall where they do. But, be prepared to go after every other killer
> of his own citizenry, or leaders who direct the killing of other
> nastion's citizens (like Milosevic).
We can't kill Saddam?  He hides from us. :-)  But you are correct,
we can't go after everyone.  But I've never favored going after Saddam.
>
> There are five specific ideas, I expect you'll object to most,
> especially #3, since the US arms industry provides US jobs, and
> heaven forbid we should stop selling guns to the Arabs or the
> Israelis if it costs jobs! But, let it not be said that I just
> objected to US policy, I offered you some clear cut, if slightly
> improbable, means of dealing with the Middle East, and Iraq.
I don't care about selling of arms.  But I am interested in Israel's
survival.  I also am not sure that if these ideas are ever acted upon,
it would solve anything!
>
> >> VMS
>
> > Jonathan
>
> VMS, in reply.
>

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU