Well Ousman, the majority of Americans as well as the rest of the World is
waiting for the evidence to justify attacking Iraq. The other members of the
Security council are also waiting and it is pretty much agreed that if the
evidence can be provided, then the U.S will be justified to attack Iraq and
will be assisted by their allies. Scott Ritter, the chief  U.N inspector of
the last inspection team in Iraq, and an American citizen says that there are
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

As of now, the general concensus is that the inspectors need time to do their
job, and if the intention here is to contain the existence of weapons of mass
distruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, would the U.S not be much more
credible if they went along with the inspection under the U.N resolution
which they sought and which Bush said he will abide by?

The general idea here is that no one is defending Saddam Hussein if indeed he
is found to have weapons of mass destruction, but that the reason for the
attack is the possesion of these weapons, so it is  pretty much elementary
that the evidence has to be found and presented for all to see, otherwise,
what is the justification and the defense?Otherwise, credibility is lost and
the reasons for the attack become something else by a "nation with
conscinnce", does it not?

I think the issue here is also whether one country can ignore the U.N and
just do as they please, and whether the rest of the World is then prepared to
accept the same aggression from any other nation that is prepared to attack
them without proven reasons, and without the consent and collaboration of the
international community.
If this happens, why would we need the U.N and we certainly would not need
any proven justification to rain bombs on any nation one chooses to.

We are certainly free to defend anything we want, including unjustified
aggression for whatever reasons we may have, but we have to be careful what
we defend and make sure that we would hold the same sentiments if we were at
the receiving end and also that we would be able to accept living in a World
where there are no internationally binding checks and balances, and which
situation would have been created by offering support to the agenda of those
who feel that they can only call upon the World community when it serves
their purpose and ignore them when it does not.That is a dangeraous precedent
that the World cannot afford, espcially the poor African countries you talked
about.

Jabou Joh

In a message dated 1/26/03 4:34:57 AM Central Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Jabou,
> The issue of killing innocent civilians - I don't think there is anyone who
> wants to see that happen (except for Saddam). This point is the best
> argument against the position of these "human shields". If Saddam is
> willing
> to put innocent citizens in harm's way through his actions, then this is
> another reason why that guy should be removed. Why prevent war, which will
> keep in power and therefore make it possible for him to continue doing
> that?
> He has subjected his citizens to the calamities of two major wars so why
> won't he do it again? Of course, if there were a way to remove him without
> war, almost everyone would be for it. But the reality is that dictators
> like
> Saddam will never peacefully yield power. I pity the Iraqi who suggests
> exile for Saddam.
> One can make a case that this Bush administration may be trigger-happy but
> the fact is that the American military is not going to just "drop bombs".
> One can question the motive for this war for all one wants but this is a
> government with conscience - which is more than I can say for Iraq. In
> fact,
> the presence of so-called human shield proves the point because if they
> don't believe that this government has a conscience, then what's the point
> of their action.
> You wrote:
> "I think it is a noble thing they are doing because any action to stop war
> is a good one since war is not a good thing and one would ppreciate that
> notion if the bombs were coming to fall on them and their's."
>
> War is evil but sometimes necessary. History is replete with situations
> were
> war was necessary: the removal of Idi Amin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. What
> these
> people fail to get is that they may be "saving" a few civilians today but
> only to let Saddam have a meal of them through some terrible actions in the
> near future. If Saddam is not removed by force, sanctions (imposed by the
> UN) will continue and the terrible effects of these sanctions will have a
> more long-lasting effects on those helpless civilians than a short military
> campaign. So these "peace activists" are objectively helping only Saddam
> because their actions, if not in intent but in effect, ensure his continued
> rule.
> There are other tyrants and dictators in the world but that's not a
> credible
> argument against the removal of Saddam. His removal means there is one less
> tyrant free to oppress his people.
>
> Ousman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~