From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Iraq and chemical weapons Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Ordinarily I would just bring this up on a talk page, but this issue cuts across several articles, and I might need a ruling from Jimbo.
How do we discuss the issue of "whether or not Iraq has chemical weapons"? Officially, of course, they deny having any. And it's a crucial yes-no matter because their alleged possession is the chief rationale behind the US-led war in Iraq.
If Iraq doesn't chemical weapons, it looks like the US
military campaign is: * not morally justified * a violation of international law
...which may have ramifications about whether Iraq is bound to treat POWs according to the Geneva Convention or can "legally" torture, execute or rape them.
If Iraq does have chemical weapons, the US campaign seems: * at least partially justified * probably NOT a violation of international law ...although the last 2 points are in themselves controversial.
The question is, how do we handle this when writing articles about the war?
Ed Poor
--------
Hi Ed,
I believe your questions are very important.
But, allow me to react to one of your comment, that might bring some light to you about how to handle the articles.
If Iraq does have chemical weapons, the US campaign seems: * at least partially justified * probably NOT a violation of international law ...
You are right when you say these last 2 points are in themselves controversial.
It seems to me that you say it could be considered a justification to war to find chemical weapons in Irak.
Let me first report what many french people said today (just for information) :
US soldiers finding chemical weapons is necessarily a joke, a forged "proof" to justify their invasion, just as american representative tried to forge "proofs" for the UN to make the war acceptable. It is very unlikely that US soldiers tumble on chemical weapons just as easily, when so many inspectors found nothing in months. Saddam will not use illegal weapons - even if he has some - for it would give some justifications to american people for the invasion. But american people will find any way, to justify the war, if they don't find the proofs, they will make them, or will accuse other nations to have given weapons to Irak.
What most french people think is that giving proofs of Irak having illegal weapons - whether these proofs are believable or not - will not be a good justification.
The general belief here is that this war is *illegal*, because it didnot have the UN aggreement, as it had for the Gulf War. Most consider international laws here should apply *above* national laws, hence the illegality. Finding proofs AFTER the invasion, will not succeed to transform an illegal war in a legal...for the illegality was about "beginning" the war with international agreement in the first place. Not about finding proofs AFTER.
If american soldiers find chemical weapons, I think some people would consider fair to state "the US campaign was at least partially justified". Other will not find this a justification at all - in particular all those who believe the situation could have been handled another way.
Stating "finding chemical weapons made the US campaign probably NOT a violation of international law", though this point is controversial to some" would not really be NPOV. That "probably" is misplaced. "Probably" is an oriented view point. It might give all view points, but it might not give a proper representation of worldwide views. It make appear the ones thinking it was not a violation are the majority, when those who think the opposite are the minority. And, this, I fear, is not necessarily true and fair.
Many people will go on believing it was illegal, even if they end up believing it was "maybe the best choice".
And please, do avoid making the assumption that this "probably" is justified by what you read in english on the internet. I don't think that what one can read on average in english on the internet is a full representation of worldwide opinions. We might be missing all reports in arabic. Unfortunately.
Yours
Athypique
___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
The UN inspectors were closely followed by Iraqi handlers. The American trooops have none, and also have the cooperation of the locals, which the inspectors did not, because the locals were afraid of Hussein's backlash. Zoe A thypique thypique@yahoo.fr wrote: Let me first report what many french people said today (just for information) :
US soldiers finding chemical weapons is necessarily a joke, a forged "proof" to justify their invasion, just as american representative tried to forge "proofs" for the UN to make the war acceptable. It is very unlikely that US soldiers tumble on chemical weapons just as easily, when so many inspectors found nothing in months.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
The UN inspectors were closely followed by Iraqi handlers. The American trooops have none, and also have the cooperation of the locals, which the inspectors did not, because the locals were afraid of Hussein's backlash. Zoe A thypique thypique@yahoo.fr wrote: Let me first report what many french people said today (just for information) :
US soldiers finding chemical weapons is necessarily a joke, a forged "proof" to justify their invasion, just as american representative tried to forge "proofs" for the UN to make the war acceptable. It is very unlikely that US soldiers tumble on chemical weapons just as easily, when so many inspectors found nothing in months.
I'll agree with Zoe on that one. The other thing is that we might then get renowned Iraqi scientists to say: "Yes we had a banned weapons porgram, yes we reserched and produced chemical and biological waepons, and yes, we were told by saddam that if we even breathed a word about it, our entire family would be tortured and killed." If the French say that this is fabricated too, then maybe they will not be welcome by the comman man in Iraq.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
<US, Iraq, France discussion snipped>
This discussion does not belong on the mailing list.
The Cunctator wrote:
<US, Iraq, France discussion snipped>
This discussion does not belong on the mailing list.
Seconded. Please, everyone, let's *not* discuss politics on the list. We're a bunch of opinionated, intelligent people who love to write. We manage to get our work down with a modicum of peace and love. I know of no more sure way to get flame wars going about other things than to discuss politics on the list, particularly in these tense times.
Our mission here is humanitarian and global and unrelated to transitory world events.
--Jimbo
Zoe wrote:
The UN inspectors were closely followed by Iraqi handlers. The American trooops have none, and also have the cooperation of the locals, which the inspectors did not, because the locals were afraid of Hussein's backlash.
Zoe
This was not the case of the inspectors who went in because of resolution 1441. The co-operation of the locals has been significantly less than expected, notably in the Shia south where there has typically been an anti-Saddam tradition. The capture of Umm-Qasr has been more difficult than expected, and troops have not gone into Basra at all. For many Iraqis the issue has become less a matter of preserving Saddam's regime than of protecting the integrity of the country.
Ec