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 ] Re: "several remarks from ex-UK Ambassador to Washington, Chris Meyer, on BBC2 on Saturday night to the effect that he clearly understood that the Bush inner circle determined on regime change in Iraq immediately after September 11th 2001." 9/11 provided the justification, the plans were drawn up years ago. In the U.S., regime change has been on the agenda in Washington since the 1st Bush War on Iraq, and was openly stated repeated by then Secy of State Albright and all her successors....usually clothed as justification for maintaining and/or tightening the genocidal sanctions against the Iraqi population. The Bush II War was not born on 9/11. Pentagon war hawks, "Think Tank" warriors, U.S.'s Israel supporters, even Israeli Journalists, have written and spoken about neutralizing Iraq for over a decade. Saddam was a threat because he promoted "Arab Nationalism;" had nationalized Iraq's oil industry; supported Palestinian National Rights/Freedom from brutal Israeli Occupation/ and Statehood; threatened after Israel's air attack and destruction of Iraq's nuclear facility that Iraq 'would attack Israel "IF" ( a word that is always left out of the statement when it is quoted by Iraq's Western enemies) if Israel attacked Iraq again'....a warning prompted by Israel's repeated public and published threats to wage unprovoked lethal attacks on Iraq (and Iran) while boasting that its acquisition of long range bombers from the US had provided the IAF with non-stop bombing capability against both nations. (recall also that Israel has threatened "To BURN" Lebanon and boasted that it can completely destroy Syria in 24 hours.) In the US/Israeli lexicon, "Arabs" do NOT have the right of self-defense whether they are Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians or Jordanians, it appears.) The destruction of Iraq as we knew it was inevitable. Domination of the Middle East has been on the US/Israeli agenda since WWII, with US military and economic power as the driving force. nels ---------------------------------------------- MarkGalloway wrote: > Re Hassan Zeini's posting: > > There were few computers available in Iraq until 2000. Even then, many of > the documents I received from Iraqi ministries or State importing > organisations in relation to OFF shipments up to the beginning of this year > were frequently in hand-writing on the poorest quality paper, often without > even a printed Ministry notepaper heading. There is no surprise here. > > Has anyone seen an original Arabic copy? > > I note, for example, that the newly claimed Al Qa'ida link had origins in > Sudan (today's Times). That is easily traceable. > > Even if it were verifiable and verified, does it mean anything? Many > organisations, companies, ministries, whatever, have individuals or groups > who may work on ideas or proposals, meet others, reach decisions and write > memos or recommendations. It is what comes as a result of those memos which > carries importance. You will surely find in the FCO some memos supporting > the removal or reduction of sanctions. I know there are UK diplomats who > personally did not support war and who have no doubt put their views in > writing, if only to file them away as personal opinion. Should the world > turn upside down and we strike lucky and find such a memo in future in a > bombed out ministry in London, will we declare such a memo as evidence of > actual government policy or decision making? > > Without wishing to turn this message into a ramble, interesting also were > several remarks from ex-UK Ambassador to Washington, Chris Meyer, on BBC2 > on Saturday night to the effect that he clearly understood that the Bush > inner circle determined on regime change in Iraq immediately after > September 11th 2001. Until then, it had been on the personal agenda of a > number of the hawks, but became policy. If that is the case, why were there > so many memos and dossiers on support for terrorism, weapons of mass > destruction, rights of pre-emptive strike etc? Are we to assume that the > British government, trapped by Straw's paradox of the need for credible > threat of military force, chose to be blind to the actuality of that > threat? > > Mark Galloway > _______________________________________________ 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