>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: 'Human Shields' head for Iraq/Ousman
>Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:29:33 EST
>
>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
>


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

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

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]

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