|
The war is over. Now these questions must be answered
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?The real question might be, "Were there ever any"? Not a single confirmed finding has been made of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, or nuclear, the supposed existence of which was the formal, casus belli and, as the heart of UN resolution 1441, the sole legal justification for the war. Uhm, ehh, they are in Syria, yes ehhh, sounds reasonable ehh, doesn't it? Yes George, very convincing! Colin Powell presented questionable material to the UN Security Council in February. Spy satellite images of a "weapons site" before and after a UN inspectors' visit were taken weeks apart. And the US now admits that intelligence material "proving" Iraq acquired fissile material from Africa was forged by a Western intelligence agency, possibly MI6 or Mossad. The obvious question is: if President Saddam had such weapons, why didn't he use them? Because we have the MOAB! Yes George, that must be the reason. Where is Saddam? There are many rumours, including that he has fled to Belarus and that he is living in an elaborate system of tunnels beneath his Baghdad palaces. We know such tunnels existed â the Iraqis boasted of them â and Saddam Hussein would not imprison himself in a palace with no means of escape. Amid all the stories of Saddam "doubles", it should be remembered that many Iraqi men look like him â they cultivated his moustache. There is no solid evidence that a double has ever appeared. His televised trip around the city 12 days ago was the real thing, two witnesses said. They recognised his left-cheek carbuncle. Well he shaved his mustache (Al Sahaf is using it now), our soldiers have no pictures of Saddam without mustache! He was not killed in the bombing of the Mansur area of Baghdad. Fourteen bodies were recovered, all civilians. No no no, that where Fedayeen disguised as civilians! Do iraqis feel liberated? Yes of course, those who don't are Is Chalabi just a crooked US stooge? The CIA, with the State Department, his prime foe, recently leaked an internal report which concluded that Mr Chalabi had little support, even in his own Shia community. In Iraq, the document insisted, he is regarded as a carpetbagger rather than a saviour. But his supporters at the Pentagon and at the Vice- President's office see him in a different light. For admirers such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, he is a convinced democrat and moderniser. They give very little heed to the allegations of financial impropriety. No no no, but we'll make sure he is voted democratic way with 99% of the votes. Is North Korea next on the american hitlist? "Do they have oil?" No George! "OK, we don't think N.Korea posseses a great danger yet, first Iran!" Did the allies stick to the Geneva conventions? The Geneva Conventions specifically refer to pillage and the rights of "protected persons". The ban on "pillage" even occurs in the 1907 Hague Convention. "Protected" persons include those in the presence of warring parties â so bombing civilians at the restaurant in Mansur is a clear breach of the Conventions. The US admitted it knew Mansur was a residential area and that an attack would not be a "risk-free venture". But it bombed anyway. Geneva what? Are the rebuilding contracts going to White House cronies? The financial prize is huge: a programme that might involve up to $100bn (£60bn) of work, from repairing and modernising the country's oil industry to overhauling its infrastructure and setting up decent schools, hospitals and a public administration. It is proving very contentious. The US seems to be operating on the principle of "to the victor the spoils". The first reconstruction contracts are being awarded by the USAid development agency, which answers to the State Department, as an emergency measure. US firms have a head start and even British companies are being squeezed out. Ehh, sorry Tony excuse me I have bussiness to do. Was the war legal? Depends on who you ask. The American view is that Iraq was in breach of so many UN resolutions that military action was overdue and, if the UN was not prepared to authorise it, Washington was free to act. As legal as it can get, isn't it right Tony. Don't worry we'll ship a few C17 with chemicals and dump them in the dessert, let Saddam prove he isn't the owner. Posted by: Murat 2003-04-16 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=13128 |