[Northampton-GP] Interesting sides?

[jackie j jaffe]

>>To see this story with its related links on the
>Guardian Unlimited site, go to <a
>href="http://mail.canada.com/jump/http://www.guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk</a>
>
>War or peace - blood will still be spilled
>David Aaronovitch
>Monday February 10 2003
>The Guardian
>
>
>Miryam writes to ask me if she can't persuade me to
>change my mind on the war. All too easily, I think. My
>reasons for reluctantly supporting military action in
>Iraq aren't even the main ones being given by those
>preparing to go to war. I detest the stupid propaganda
>ploys and schoolkid errors of the pro-war camp, and can
>only roll my eyes at the arrogant and
>counter-productive way in which the Bush administration
>has dealt with the sensibilities of its allies.
>
>But could I change Miryam's mind? Miryam, I guess, will
>be on the march on Saturday, along with several members
>of my own family. It will be a huge, diverse affair,
>with kids in pushchairs and pensioners. Miryam may take
>one of the placards depicting a bomb with a red line
>through it, or a photo of an Iraqi child with big eyes,
>a child like the ones who may die under allied bombs,
>no matter how much the military might want to avoid
>such killings. Even Charles Kennedy will address the
>rally.
>
>Where will I be? Holding my own march of five sceptical
>journalists and academics, all clutching placards of a
>smiley bomb with "On balance, I think this may be the
>only way" written on it.
>
>None of this, though, will make Miryam right and me
>wrong. Because, as she marches and I skulk, both of us
>must accept that were our view to prevail, we would
>have blood on our hands, she as surely as I.
>
>My bloody hands first. Let's say there is a second
>resolution of the UN security council for war and -
>some day in the next month or so - 300 cruise missiles
>and God knows what else besides smack into command
>posts, ministries, Scud sites and Chinese embassies.
>Even in an optimistic scenario many Iraqi soldiers are
>likely to die in the ensuing conflict, as well as
>hundreds of civilians. A UN report, based on World
>Health Organisation estimates, says that there will be
>500,000 people requiring treatment "to a greater or
>lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect
>injuries", including food shortages, power disruption
>and disease (this figure, incidentally, somehow became
>500,000 war-related deaths, when wielded by the
>comedian Mark Thomas in the New Statesman last week).
>
>Then let's add to my gory account any allied
>casualties, the cost of rebuilding the Iraqi
>infrastructure, a possible upsurge in anti-western
>terrorism (though this really is speculative), splits
>in Nato and the EU and - above all - the danger of the
>creation of a highly unilateral Pax Americana. Not
>good.
>
>Right Miryam. Now we'll look at your hands. You are on
>the side of peace and light, so they ought to be
>spotless. But hold them up to the light and you'll see
>that they aren't. The most obvious stain on them comes
>from the continuation of the Saddam regime. I am not
>going to   detain you once again with the reports from
>Amnesty, nor the (from your point of view) disquieting
>amount of evidence that Iraqis would like to see him
>deposed by force if necessary. You must know it by now.
>
>
>And then there is the question of what you think ought
>to be done about the famous weapons. You could take the
>risk that the Iraqis don't really have any, that they
>won't build any and that (as some analysts argue) they
>will never be used because we could always nuke Iraq if
>it dropped anthrax on, say, Israel.
>
>But you might prefer to go along with the French and
>Germans and opt for a continuation of what is known as
>"vigilant containment". This consists of policing the
>no-fly zones (which also entails the occasional bombing
>of Iraqi air defences), extending the flights ban,
>beefing up the inspectors and - should Saddam fail to
>cooperate - continuing the regime of sanctions on Iraq.
>Given that Saddam has never voluntarily cooperated with
>the inspectors, save when under the threat of military
>action, a tough sanctions regime would seem a cert. I
>cannot for the life of   me see what UN peacekeeping
>forces would add to this equation.
>
>Sanctions are blunt weapons. Aware of the effect they
>were having on the Iraqi people, the UN has several
>times refined its sanctions policy. Opponents of
>sanctions argue that, even as changed, they increase
>child mortality through disruption of the country's
>infrastructure and the prohibition of certain "dual
>use" imports. Some talk of half a million extra dead
>children. Whether this can be blamed on Saddam is
>almost irrelevant, since the policy itself is,
>essentially, Saddam plus sanctions.
>
>You don't fancy that? Don't want it on your conscience?
>I don't blame you. The failure of "vigilant
>containment" to help the people of Iraq is just about
>the biggest reason I have for supporting war. Which, of
>course, you can't.
>
>So perhaps you will argue for no war and no sanctions.
>Possibly you will (as some of your fellow campaigners
>do) also call for the end of the no-fly zones. In this
>peace Saddam will stay (and Uday, his eldest son, will
>get ready to take over), the Iraqi government will use
>air power against the Kurds and any other anti-Saddam
>rebels, and the chances are pretty good that the Iraqi
>tyrant will resume chemical and biological weapons
>manufacture, if he ever stopped it.
>
>Would you like to calculate how many people will die,
>if you have your way? There will be the direct victims
>of the Saddam regime, but you have already decided
>(however reluctantly) to live with those. There will be
>the consequences of the overwhelming proof of the
>powerlessness of the UN, and I can't compute that.
>There is the chance that Tony Blair is not so mad when
>he raises the possibility of a future link between
>terrorism and the availability of terror weapons in
>states such as Iraq - we would certainly find out in
>the most interesting way. There will be the chance of a
>pre-emptive strike by Sharon's Israel (we can all
>protest against that, much good that it will do us).
>
>I think, Miryam, that what I'm saying is this. You can
>march, but you can't hide.
>
>Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/northampton-greens-discuss/attachments/20030212/90554c16/attachment.htm