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]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] There follows a letter I have sent to a local newspaper. I assume the UK also would claim to have intelligence of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. Has the UK provided this intelligence to the UN? Cheers, Ken Hanly PS. If anyone knows of other reasons for not providing this intelligence I would be interesting in knowing what they are. Why does the US deny the UN relevant intelligence? In his report on February 14th Hans Blix noted that the US continues to deny the UN evidence it claims to have on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors depend upon intelligence sources to guide them to locations where weapons might be hidden. Countries are obligated to provide intelligence to the UN. The US claims to have incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has such weapons and yet refuses to turn that evidence over to the UN. Recent accounts of plans for the invasion note that special forces will attack depots suspected of containing biological and chemical weapons. If the US really wanted the inspectors to do their job and disarm Iraq why would it not inform the UN now of the location of those depots? The only answer that I have seen is that the US does not want to compromise intelligence that is significant for any mililtary campaign. But why would a military campaign be necessary if the inspectors knew where the weapons of mass destruction were located? They could simply destroy them and no military campaign would be necessary. This then is no answer at all but it gives a clue to the reality of the situation. The US plans a war on Iraq with out without UN approval. This would explain the inconsistency. Unless the inconsistency can be explained otherwise the explanation would seem to best fit the facts. However, there is plenty of direct evidence that this is the correct explanation. By the summer of 2002 plans for a war against Iraq were well underway. The question was not whether to go to war with Iraq but what sort of attack there should be. Of course officials always speak of the plans as being developed in case there is a war. But there are not just plans. There has been an active buildup to the point where everything is ready for an invasion. Operatives are already in northern Iraq and targets in the no-fly zones have been expanded to cover virtually anything that could be used as a defence against invading planes. As long as this buildup was taking place the US could let inspectors do their job since it was too early for a successful attack. Now the forces are ready there will be war UN resolution or not unless there is some drastic change in Iraq that somehow forces the US to reconsider. _______________________________________________ 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