The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear CASI members I am new to this list (which I am enjoying very much), so I hope this is a relevant posting. I have just sent this letter to The Guardian - Mo Mowlam's article 'The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil', to which I refer, can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,786332,00.html -------- Dear Sir I wrote this before reading Mo Mowlam's Comment in today's Guardian (The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil) - it seems even more relevant having done so. An alternative opinion poll on war against Iraq How much are ordinary people aware of the central role of oil resources in the move to change the regime in Iraq? I've drafted a suggested opinion poll below, the results of which would be enlightening if published. Perhaps such a poll has already been carried out secretly to inform the US or UK administration.... - The results might show that people are not willing to go to war over oil - in which case the US and British line stressing the threat of weapons of mass destruction would appear to be justified, if public opinion is to be brought on board. But this line should leave our leaders with troubled consciences and sleepless nights, as it will rebound on them very seriously once they are 'found out' as having misled the public - which will happen once a 'liberated' Iraq was opened up to allow journalists, aid workers, building workers, hospital and education consultants, archeologists, tourists etc etc, to travel around and talk to ordinary Iraqis. - On the other hand, the poll might show that Western people are willing for their leaders to go to war to secure resources for themselves. In which case, why are Bush and Blair not be more honest now for the real reasons for war? But of course they can't be, can they, because to do so would provide further evidence of the West's exploitative attitude towards the world's resources. The suggested poll: 1. How acceptable is it for a Western country to go to war against another country for any of the following reasons: - because that country is ruled by a dictator? - because that country is ruled by a dictator who is hostile to the West? - because that country is ruled by a hostile dictator AND has resources which the West needs (eg. oil, gold or diamonds)? 2. As you may have heard, the US President is arguing that his country should go to war on Iraq, and the UK Prime Minister is supporting him. How acceptable would war on Iraq be to you if you thought it was for any of the following reasons: - to prevent development of weapons of mass destruction which might be used on the West? - to support persecuted people in Iraq, such as the Kurds? - to overthrow Saddam Hussein? - to make sure that Iraq's oil is available to Western countries? 3. Are you aware that Iraq is one of the largest producers of oil in the Middle East? --------- Cathy Aitchison Aitchison Media & Development http://www.twiza.demon.co.uk/amd Mitcham, Surrey _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk