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 Anai I totally agree with your analysis. I too believe that the US/UK will attack Iraq with or without a SC resolution. Bush did not only place difficult demands, he placed impossible ones. He will now insist that Iraq frees the "alleged" Kuwaiti prisoners. Iraq has denied having those prisoners, and sought solution through the ICRC. The ICRC does not recognize POWs, only MIA. But the tripartite committee that was supposed to meet and discuss the issues (Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi) mysteriously expanded to include the US, UK and France, states that have no prisoners or people missing in action. Now Bush wants the 605 MIA from different nationalities to be a cause for attacking Iraq. However, he does not refer to the 1145 Iraqis MIA in Kuwait, some of whom were residents in Kuwait imprisoned after the end of the military actions. Bush has now also added a US pilot whose plane was shot down, and whom the US has also considered MIA. The man mysteriously rose from the dead and is now a prisoner… That also would be a cause for attacking Iraq. He will now attack Iraq on the grounds that he wants to protect the minorities; a new condition that he added outside UN resolutions. Of course the Shi' minority in Bahrain or the Kurdish minority in Turkey are not to be protected... Bush will now attack Iraq because it does not have democratic elections. And since Saudi and Egypt and Bahrain and Jordan and the rest of the countries in the area have democratic elections, Iraq must be corrected... Who knows, maybe the next condition would be that they start shaving their mustaches or stop circumsizing their boys, or perhaps end the system of free education and free health care... Or start eating ham... In the book of Bush et al, anything goes... Of course the most ridiculous and impossible task throughout all these years has been the demand that Iraq prove IT DOES NOT have WMDs. How can anyone prove what doesn't exist! During Ekeus's time and then Butler's, the same sentence was repeated: We are not convinced that Iraq does not have WMDs. This even defies the normal legal procedure of having the burden of proof on the prosecutor, not the defendant.. Now the defendant has to prove he is not guilty, and his alleged guilt is based on the prosecutor not being convinced he is not guilty…. (Doesn't that sound like Rumsfeld?) These are not demands aimed at ridding Iraq of its WMDs as some might think. These are attempts to find justifications to attack Iraq. I am one of those Arabs who do not think that the UK follows the US. I believe that the UK plays an important role from behind the scene. In 1990, it was Mrs. Thatcher who was the driving force behind Bush Sr. She was the one who insisted on using force against Iraq. She was the one who said that even if Iraq's weapons were destroyed, sanctions should not be lifted because Iraq has 7000 scientists who can start the programs again. And it was the UK behind the safe-havens in the north and south of Iraq. We assume that because the US is the greatest power, it is followed by the UK. But the fact remains that London is the main base of Zionism, not Washington…. HZ _________________________________________________ Maktoob introduces free Internet, Call now 077- 0303 from Cairo or 0908-0303 from outside Cairo _______________________________________________ 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 email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk