[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #236 - 14 msgs

[A thypique]

 From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Iraq and chemical weapons
 Reply-To: wikien-l at 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