>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] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~