Rob's reply to Amelia

Amelia,

First of all it is never boring when you write so please keep doing so. Secondly I must apologise, you are quite right about the shabbiness of the petition. My blind zealousness hastily overlooked what the normally sceptical Rob would have picked up straight away. I no doubt think their heart was in the right place, however I agree about the inappropriate "US wants war" statement.

I have exactly the same view as yourself about the approach to this situation. I have been careful not to confuse my feelings about the US Adminstration's motivation and Sadam's regime. I would support the UN signing the dotted line on a military solution as a last resort, because something must be done. Although I am aware that this issue will not go away until the Arab nations wade in and sort out Iraq rather than the West's goodwill/imperialist blueprint for fixing these kind of problems.

One thing I am glad about, having been a soldier myself, is that the issue is being addressed & debated now while it lies with the politicians instead of raising a hubub when the soliders are sent in. I think soldiers on both sides need support and respect, from oneanother on the battlefield and from the rest of us, because they are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in.

Anyway must go, keep safe and keep in touch.

Cheers
Rob, George and Jemima



Apologies this is a random picture that has nothing to do with the seriousness of the Iraqi issue, but I just about wet myself when I saw it.

Amelia first reply to Rob's original letter

Dear George and Rob,

Good to hear from you guys! And thanks for the info about the protest in London on Feb 15. I'm in Hanoi so I probably won't be demonstrating in the streets, but I've been having lots of opportunities to discuss the issue with tourists and locals (mostly tourists) while travelling around Asia.

I just wanted to write a note about the petition you sent. I have received this petition, or a similar one, a couple of times before. I didn't sign it because I think it's poorly done and not even a real petition. It's just something to make people feel like they're doing something by spending 5 minutes on the internet. Anyone who really wanted to make a difference would do a little better job formulating their petition - or go to a demonstration.

Basically, when I read the text I was supsicious because the letter is vague and the tone is sensationalistic (global catastrophe, etc.), but mainly because it says that the UN has proposed a petition. The UN is not the kind of organization that starts petitions or collects signatures - usually this is done by ngo's or other pubic interest groups. Even the address in the email that they say to forward the signature list to, www.unicwash.org, says that they have nothing to do with this petition! You can see what they say about it at: http://www.unicwash.org/unic%20was%20response%20to%20petition.htm.

And finally (just to be even more pedantic), I think statements like "The United States wants war" are blatant provocations, since most US citizens are against it. Something like "The US administration is pushing for war" would be more accurate.

I think the most important issue is whether or not the US will follow the will of the UN, or just do what it wants. I am opposed to unilateral military action and I think the US should support the decisions of the Security Council and work with the other members to implement whatever the UN proposes. Then if it doesn't work, the UN will be under pressure to reform itself, which would be a good thing.

I think if the UN decides against war and the US goes ahead anyway, the UN should initiate sanctions against the US. This would be incredibly difficult to organize of course.

Anyway, sorry if this is boring to you.

Take care and be well, Amelia

Rob,

Interesting that you mention your opinions are in a state of constant modification. I find I'm in the same boat.

I read a very good little book over the weekend called War On Iraq (or, perhaps, War In Iraq). On the cover the author is shown as Scott Ritter, ex Arms Inspector from UNSCOM (actually it's by William Rivers Pitt, who interviewed Ritter). It's tiny, maybe 50 pages. It's prominently displayed in virtually every bookshop I have visited of late.

Ritter's argument is that the Iraqis did have all sorts of weapons of mass destruction but the production facilities were totally destroyed by the inspectors. If any bio or chemical agents were left they would have decayed and be useless by now. And he doubts they could have rebuilt the production facilities since the inspectors left. He was particularly convincing to me (a sceptic) when talking about nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. As he says, long-range missiles need to be tested and there's no way they could do that in secret. And enrichment facilities making weapons-grade plutonium would release gamma radiation that could be detected. When UNSCOM was in Iraq they found none.

Basically, Ritter is saying that the Iraqis are lying, cheating toe-rags but they probably don't have any weapons of mass destruction or any way to make them. Let the inspectors have enough time to check.

That does make sense to me. However, I think that the threat of over-whelming force has to be used to force Iraq's compliance with the inspectors. Like I said before, I think Saddam is an expert at exploiting the weaknesses of his enemies and opponents and if he thought that the UN/Allies weren't really serious about using force then he'd be back to playing games. I don't see anything wrong with waiting for the inspectors to finish but if they do find the smoking gun, then the UN has to take some sort of decisive action.

After living in South America, and learning a bit about its recent history, I have to say I'm more cynical than you about governments' motives. I now believe that virtually no major player ever does anything for the "right" reasons. They're all still swinging from the trees. For example, I suspect France's motives for opposing military action have more to do with protecting its commercial interests than altruism. Last night's Bremner Bird and Fortune (pretty variable comedy but quite good about Iraq) gave a long list of the materiel and equipment the French had supplied to Iraq. And in the book, Scott Ritter mentions that some of the weapon-making facilities they destroyed used German equipment.

In my other email I mentioned it would only be a "good" war if the outcome was favourable for the innocent Iraqis. Scott Ritter made a very interesting point about that. He said there's no chance that America will allow Iraq to become a democracy if it overthrows Saddam.

Shi'ite Muslims make up 60% of the Iraqi population but America wouldn't want them in charge, as they would ally themselves with Shi'ite Iran (country number 2 in the Axis of Evil - whoops). The next biggest ethnic group in Iraq are the Kurds, with 23% of the population. Can't have them running the show either, America's good friends the Turks wouldn't stand for it. If you think the Turks have no influence in the US, you should have seen the documentary last week about the Armenian Genocide. When the US Congress was going to officially & overwhelmingly recognise the Turkish action of 1915 as genocide, the word came down from Pres. Bush to cancel the vote, in the interests of national security. Funnily enough, Turkey has just recently allowed US planes to be based in Turkey, after stalling for months about it.

Anyway, according to Scott Ritter, end result would be that the US would only allow another Sunni ruler of Iraq. Since the Sunnis only make up 17% of the population, the only way they could rule would be by a dictatorship, as now.

Talking of Saddam applying scorched earth tactics to Iraq if he was defeated, that's exactly what my Iraqi work-mate fears. He said that Saddam has announced he will leave nothing but sand in Baghdad for the Americans. My work-mate also said there are rumours Saddam has several missiles aimed at a dam up river of Baghdad. If he has to pull out, the rumour goes, he'll blow the dam and drown Baghdad.

Cheers,
Si

Simon,

Appreciated reading your thoughts and understand that George has penned you her views already, although I haven't seen them. First of all I must apologise for the shabby petition that was on the bottom of the email. I don't think I would have normally allowed that one through, less signed it.

I was careful not to confuse my feelings on the US agenda for Iraq with what I think of Sadam. Without reservation I think that Sadam is a nasty piece of work. I read in the Independent last week an article supporting the impending war on Iraq, although not backing the US Administration's motivation. For me personally, I thought we in the first world stopped 'swinging from trees' long enough ago that doing the "right thing" for the wrong reasons was not an acceptable face of diplomacy. Quite simply it is Neanderthal. It is our own actions that determine good from bad and not a reliance on the actions of others to lower the bar.

Whilst the US invading Iraq may coincidentally stop Sadam's maltreatment of the Iraqi people, we must remember that this is not the reason that the US is taking a stance. The fact that they have let Sadam behave like this for years unchecked is obvious when you consider that they got involved in 1991 only because of Iraq invading Kuwait, a sovereign nation , who just happened to have a lot of oil. Before that they were even funding Sadam and his regime! This time around we see them raising their hackles not for the sake of stopping crimes against humanity but for the removal of 'weapons of mass destruction', entirely because it part of the US Homeland Defence strategy.

I also believe that the fate of the Iraqi people is being further jeopardised by the threat of imminent invasion. As a headline of the Guardian said on Saturday [of course I would never buy the Guardian, someone was reading it on the train!] the choice for Iraq's citizen soldiers is be killed by the US or be killed by Sadam, as the country mobilises to defend itself and Sadam. Whilst the status quo was terrible before all this kicked off, it is worse now than it would be if the West had done (a) nothing; or (b) something sensible like what France and Germany is proposing. The West has spared no end of column inches to suggest that Sadam may use these weapons against the invading force and that the soldiers are taking measures against such a scenario (vaccinations and NBC suits). What is overlooked is that Sadam would use these means as a measure of last resort within his own borders and would employ it as part of a scorched earth plan, like he used in Kuwait. The 'rub' is that the US administration far from taking partial responsibility for the potential gassing of millions of Iraqis, knows it can capitalise on the press it will generate to further its own cause. Beyond that the US adminstration has ruled in the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict. That is obscene and the irony that a world leader with the smallest majority in the world (a knats breath away from being a dictator by definition) is threatening to unleash the biggest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, in the cause of ridding the world of dictators with such stockpiles, has not been lost on me.

One thing I won't drone on about here is my feeling that the whole concept of a western design for peace in the Middle East is fundamentally flawed. History has borne this out and I ideologically remain hopeful of the League of Arab Nations sorting out its own rather than a botched attempt by the West. This is one of the prime reasons why I believe the UN has a mandate where the US and its Western Allies do not.

Of course I am not opposed to a military solution for dealing with Sadam and believe now is a good time to do so (although 1991 would have been better). My feelings remain that a military solution should be a last resort and I am in no way convinced (and neither is the UN Security Council) that we have exhausted all effective means of dealing with the situation. Should the French/German solution win the day then I think your Iraqi colleague may be bitterly disappointed to see the US Administration's interest wane when the weapons of mass destruction have gone but the regime of imprisonment and torture remains.

And finally, bear in mind that if the US administration is allowed to unilaterally invade a sovereign nation such as Iraq this time, it will all be small chips when they go after their public enemy number two, North Korea.

I, like yourself, have found the whole issue a difficult one and have had my opinion modified constantly. I am glad however that the issue is being discussed while it rests with the politicians rather than when it is left to the soldiers to carry out. I think soldiers on both sides need support and respect, from oneanother on the battlefield and from the rest of us, because they are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. If/When it all kicks off I will be directing my anger at the politicians and not the military. I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in, either way, whilst they still can make a difference.

You're welcome to join us on Saturday and I always enjoy your views.

Cheers

Rob

Simon.Elms@ wrote:

Seems to me that whether it's a "good" war or not depends on the outcome, particularly for the inhabitants of the country on the receiving end. I would say that on balance Afghanistan turned out to be a good war, by that criteria. Yup, the Yanks no doubt killed lots of innocent civilians, and a few Allied combatants as well, but it seems to me that in general the population of Afghanistan is better off now than it was under the Taliban.

Note I don't say it's a "just" war. I suspect that a lot of the Americans' motivation has to do with oil. Having said that, though, I'm also aware that good results can come about from selfish actions. For example, the Marshall Plan after WWII had a lot to do with building up Western Europe so it could be a sturdy bastion against the communists. But the end result was still that the shattered countries of Western Europe were rebuilt using American money.

Sadam does strike me as having a very similar personality to Hitler, or to Milosevic. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile. He's been dicking the UN around for 13 years now, and it seems from the inspectors' reports he's continuing to do so. At what point do you say enough is enough, or do you just say to hell with it, it's too much effort? The thing I think about repeatedly in these days, is whether WWII would have been averted if France and Britain hadn't been so gutless over Czechoslovakia. If they had mobilised in 1938 would it have stopped Hitler? And would it have been better to have reined in Hitler that way, or was it better to fight WWII in the end, killing 19 million people in the process, but totally wiping out the Nazis instead of just curbing them?

It's easy to see in hindsight that something should have been done about Sadam during the Gulf War. In ten years time will they be saying the same thing about 2003?

To be honest, I'm really interested to hear why people oppose the war. Obviously the majority of Brits do but I'd like to hear their reasons. The only one that makes sense to me would be that a war might be devastating for the innocent Iraqi civilians. If this is the reason, why was it different in Afghanistan? And if people had the same fears about Afghanistan before the war there, were their fears bourn out in reality? I'm looking to be convinced that not going to war is better than going to war. I'm really after some convincing arguments but I haven't heard them so far.

The problem is that I work with a guy who's an Iraqi refugee from Baghdad, who still has family there. Somehow most folks arguments carry little weight when compared to those of someone who's got a very personal stake in the outcome.

Love,
Si

From: Rob Gourdie [mailto:rob_gourdie@yahoo.com]
Sent: 07 February 2003 17:04
To: Everyone
Subject: Stop the War, Rally London Saturday 15 Feb


Hi everyone.

Well the new job is working well and we are trying to sort ourselves to move down to Brighton as soon as we can. Hopefully that will be before WAR breaks out, so we can sell our London friends floor space in our lounge at extortionate prices whenever they feel the need to evacuate the capital. Only joking about the extortionate price (I'm sure we can work out a pre-pay instalment plan...) but the state of the world these days *sheesh!*.

We thought our introduction of Jemima to politics one day, would be a compulsory mind-numbing visit to Westminister, but alas no. Saturday 15 February young and old (and Jemima) will be demonstrating in London for their continued existence in the Land of the Good. Yes someone must have shifted the border one night and we now seem to be living in the Land of Not Very Good At All.

I hope you form your own decision about this and don't fall back to watch the war unfold on TV, when it is currently being decided in your own streets and newspapers. If you feel the urge please make your opinion known by joining the peaceful demonstration on Saturday 15 Feb, starting at 12.30 from Embankment and Gower Street, finishing in Hyde Park.

Also you can forward the bottom of this email onto whoever you like. For those not in the UK, please feel free to sit in your home at the time of the march and wave banners and blow whistles! [additional dressing up as policemen and brandishing handcuffs only allowed between consenting adults]

Rob

======================================================================================
This is where the funny business stops (and the serious parody takes off!)
======================================================================================