|
Re: Re: Guerre en Iraq
Jean-Marc FLAMENT
Tuesday, 29 April 2003
Hello Frank and other participants to the forum for the WP
My normal way of reasoning is based on facts and my expression is not
usually violent. If I used more aggressive subjects this last time, it is
because it seems impossible to me to keep a tone measured in face of the
spectacle of a murder.
You write: * If you had let side references it to oil, and the comparison of
him 9/11 against some civilians for the action of bombs if is that that one
could bind it. *
How to forget the real reason of the war in Iraq? Do you ignore that the
campaign of George W Bush has been financed by the American oil companies,
that Shell sponsored the reports on the war to the television of Qatar or
United Arab Emirates, that the GI's, after the hold of Baghdad, kept the
watch close to the oil wells while they attended without reacting to the
depredation of the hospitals? And when one learns that the Iraqi oil is
going to serve to repay the United States of their war effort, how can one
reasonably think that this Iraqi oil is going to benefit to the Iraqis? Are
the Iraqi people who decides the enterprises that are going to rebuild their
country? Will be able to require from the American government that this one
pays for the damages caused by their bombardments?
The answer to these questions should convince a man of good faith that it is
well about an occupation war and not a liberation one.
Give me a good reason not to compare the attack of September 11 with the
American bombardments in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Your president qualified
this attempt of a war act.
Is it that, in the two cases, there are not any innocent civil victims? On
time where I am writing to you, Bush, Ben Laden and Saddam Hussein are
always in life but the small Ali, 12 years old, lost his dad, his mom, his
brothers, his sisters and his two arms under the American bombs. And if this
child had "luck" to be saved by the cameras and taken in charge by the
forces of the coalition to be tidy in a Kuwaiti hospital, there are in Iraq
thousands of small Alis that died in awful sufferings or will remain
crippled to life. The half of the Iraqi population is less than 16 years
old. And when one sees in the television the Iraqi children to play today
with bombs that have not yet exploded, one can fear that the list of the
victims is not even finished and this especially as the bombs of
fragmentation used by the US army are comparable to the anti-personal mines,
capable to kill again a long time after. As for the heads of bombs made of
uranium impoverished destinies to pierce the strongest armors, one knows
that they have a radio-activity that will only be reabsorbed in millions of
years.
Honestly, if another country acted in such a way, would not you speak of
crime of war or crime against the humanity? You that are a veteran of
Vietnam, what do you think of the defoliants products used there which are
doing still innocent civil victims?
I only see two objective differences between the attempt of September 11 and
the bombardments in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The first is that these
bombardments are a lot more murderous. The second is that the attempts of
September 11 have not been decided by any population and are only the fact
of individuals whereas the bombardments have been decided by an elected
government and have been guarantied by the population of the United States,
to 80% as you wrote it.
What is the most serious and most dangerous for the humanity according to
you? a crime commit by some individuals or another committed with the assent
of all a people? For my part, I can understand that there is in every
country an outlaw's minority, not a majority of the population to sustain
some crimes.
Looking for some objectivity, I sometimes looked at CNN. One has the
impression that the war looks like a firework in the sky or to a video game
at the time of the terrestrial operations. It is not the reality. The
reality, it is what happens under the bombs and missiles and at the end of
the line of fire. .
You also write: * In the best of cases (Osama) was a boy in the time of the
Russian conflict. And to my understanding he was independent of the support
from USA to Afghanistan *
According to my information, Bin Laden was an agent of the CIA assigned to
recruit some men for terrorist missions against the Russian positions in
Afghanisan and he was subsidized by the United States.
Otherwise, a book has been written on the friendship between the Bush and
the Bin Laden families, who made numerous business together. Proofs of it
would have been produced.
You write again: * The thousands of Osama in hiding places would have exist
yet with the war in Afghanistan and they didn't happen. *
A set of attempts as the one of September 11 required an important
preparation. This kind of attempts don't occur every year, nor even every
ten years in the United States, doesn't it? I think therefore that it is too
early to congratulate you for not to have had an attack thereafter.
You frighten me when you write: * A lot of us here in USA believe that there
won't be any more struggle in Iraq except that on behalf of the supposedly
foreign of Syria. One of the terrorist capitals of the world *
One already sees to draw the results of the propaganda governmental US about
Syria. The Iraqi people won't support the American presence a long time in
Iraq. A mullah Chiite emigrated that the coalition had brought back in Iraq
to tempt to rally the supporters behind the starry banner has been pursued
and killed by the crowd because he was the man of the Americans. One is
going to attend strong internal tensions in Iraq with a struggle for the
power between the Moslem fundamentalists and the laymen of the Baas party.
The Moslem fundamentalists, these are in a way the Taliban who want to
re-establish the Charia, that is to say the Islamic law that obliges the
women to remain veiled of the head to the feet and to remain aside from the
public life. The Baas party, it is Saddam Hussein's party. The Christian
community of Iraq, up to here very protected from the extremisms by the Baas
party, have feared a rise of the religious intolerance a lot. They already
begins to be victim of threats.
I respect your admiration for Thomas Jefferson of which I hardly know his
history but I believe on your words. However, I don't share your judgment on
JFK and Carter. JFK showed the firmness while refusing the installation of
Russian missiles in Cuba and he was right. These missiles would have
threatened USA, what was not the case of the Iraqi missiles, effectively.
While appearing farm, he/it accepted the plan of the pope Jean XXIII
nevertheless to deactivate the conflict. He has probably been murdered
because he wanted to put a term to the war of Vietnam. Otherwise, he was
excellent with regard to the racial segregation in USA. As for Carter, he
shared your opinion according to which to keep some prisoners is less
serious than to kill maybe. It is a respectable opinion and if America felt
humiliated to be held in failure by Iran, the rest of the world admired it
on the opposite for to have given up the use of force for motives of
conscience. Carter embodied the conscience of the humanity. It spoke of
human rights whereas Bush only speaks of war. I find especially serious that
the American people doesn't recognize it like a big President. It means to
my eyes that their values are located under the waist rather than in the
head and in the heart.
You also write: * One made sunk ink a lot on if the United States have need
of to understand why the Arabs are furious. I must not understand why all
person feels that he is in his right to kill someone fort heir own gain *
Do you know that the Security council of the UNO voted since more of twenty
years a resolution obliging Israel to return in their borders of before
1967? What Israel didn't ever conform to this resolution and continued on
the contrary to implant some colonies on the Palestinian territory, for
then, preventively, to knock some houses down and to demolish Palestinian
culture to protect the colonists supposedly? Know yourselves that the
terrorist acts of the Sharon government make five times more of deaths in
the Palestinian population that the attempts suicides of the Palestinian
against the Israeli population. Do you finally know that the failure to
respect by Israel of the resolution of the UNO has been sustained by the
successive American governments what contributes to empty the UNO of its
substance? Do you know that Israel has the atomic bomb and appears from then
on dangerous for the Arabian world? All American actions in Near East are
felt like favorable to Israel. Did the Jews well have right at a country but
it was necessary indeed that one imposes to the Palestinians to make them
place? What would have been the reaction of the American citizens if one had
decided to install Israel in Colorado? I think that one can bring the Arabs
to recognize the rights to the existence of the state of Israel as far as
the one doesn't behave here as in conquered country and that the
international community supports the construction of a prosperous
Palestinian State. While justifying Sharon's politics, one can only cause
the anger of the Arabian and Moslem world.
Finally, with regard to the setting up of a WP in 5 years as indicated, our
divergent opinions don't have anything to see. It is not we that will decide
what the communities of ideas will give out like propositions.
Sincerely
Jean-Marc Flament
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]