[A-List] US imperialism: Iraq
zaogir at pes.comsats.net.pk
Fri Dec 6 07:04:56 MST 2002
I do not understand why all people in the world, except very few, do not
understand that there is little Iraq has done she can be blamed for, least
of all attacked or even inspected.
Being a sovereign nation Iraq has all the rights to arm herself including
weapons of mass destruction. If holding weapons of chemical, biological or
nuclear nature is any offence then there are hardly a few nations that do
not posses such weapons.
America that accuses Iraq, herself is in possession of all such weapons in
much larger quantities. Will the US allow her installations to be inspected
by others including the whitehouse and ranches in Texas? And the US is a
greater offender and threat to world peace than Iraq.
Israel the major beligerant force in the South West Asia also possesses all
such weapons and is by far the the greatest violator of UN resolutions. In
addition to the US, Israel is the only active imperialist power in the world
today. All what is being implimented in Iraq should before hand apply to
Israel and the US.
"Sabri Oncu" <soncu at pacbell.net> wrote:
> White House Touts 'Solid' Evidence on Iraqi Weapons
> By Barry Schweid
AP Diplomatic Writer Thursday, December 5, 2002; 2:14 PM
> The White House said Thursday it possesses solid evidence that Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction, and rejected Baghdad's denials, saying they
have no credibility.
> President Bush, asked if the United States was headed toward war, said:
"That's a question you should ask to Saddam Hussein."
> White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declined to say what evidence the
administration has on Saddam's weapons, but said the United States will
provide intelligence to United Nations inspectors.
> "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not
assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for
saying it," Fleischer said. "The Iraqi government has proved time and time
again to deceive, to mislead and to lie."
> Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told ABC News that "we don't have
weapons of mass destruction. We don't have chemical, biological or nuclear
weaponry, but we have equipment which was defined as dual use."
> Fleischer responded: "That statement is just as false as
> statements that Iraq made in the late '90s when they said they had no
weapons of mass destruction, when it was found they indeed did. There is no
basis to that."
> Bush addressed the Iraq crisis during a Cabinet Room meeting with the
leaders of Kenya and Ethiopia.
> On the prospects that the United States will go to war to force Saddam,
the Iraqi president, to surrender his weapons of mass destruction, Bush
said: "For the sake of peace, he must disarm. There are inspectors inside
the country now and the inspectors are there not to play a game of hide and
seek. They're there to verify whether or not Mr. Saddam Hussein is going to
> At a Pentagon news conference, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said
Iraq faces a choice of either confessing to having weapons of mass
destruction or continuing to "lie and deceive and deny and string along the
inspectors and prevent them from finding out" what weapons he possesses. A
"nice outcome," he said, would be for Saddam to decide to leave Iraq.
> "He will either deal with the problem of disarming or he will tell the
world community that he is unwilling to," Rumsfeld said. "And the next
choice, as the president has suggested, is with the United Nations and the
members of the Security Council. They have to make a judgment as to whether
or not the resolution that they passed unanimously is being complied with."
> If the Security Council decides Resolution 1441, requiring Iraq to disarm,
is not being complied with, then "they have to face the reality that for the
United Nations to be a relevant institution they simply cannot allow one
more resolution to be ignored by the Iraqi regime." He said that would be a
judgment for the Security Council, not the United States alone.
> Bush administration officials expect tricky and troubling
> deception from Saddam in response to a U.N. Security Council deadline this
weekend for listing any hidden chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and
long-range missile programs.
> The assumption within the administration is that Saddam wants to hold on
to the weapons and hopes to shift the burden of proof to the United States,
a senior U.S. official said Wednesday. What Saddam is most likely to do is
to provide thousands of documents on such peripheral issues as dual-use
equipment and commercial material of potential military application, the
official said on condition of anonymity.
> The schedule set by the Security Council calls for a full weapons
declaration. In Baghdad, a senior Iraqi official said the list would be
turned over to U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors on
Saturday, a day ahead of the deadline.
> If the declaration is patently false, the administration may try to rally
a consensus on the Council to explicitly approve using force against Iraq.
> Iraq protested sharply Wednesday over U.N. weapons inspectors' surprise
intrusion into one of Saddam presidential palaces, accusing the arms experts
of being spies and staging the palace search as a provocation that could
lead to war.
> The harshest criticism came from Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, who
charged - in language reminiscent of clashes with inspectors in the 1990s -
that the new teams of U.N. monitors are gathering intelligence for
Washington and Israel. The White House dismissed Iraq's protest as part of
its pattern of not cooperating with international inspectors.
> If the Iraqi leader denies having weapons of mass destruction, Bush will
be faced with several options. One is to provide U.S. intelligence to the
inspectors to have them disprove Saddam's claim. Another is for the
president to take his case to the Security Council, several other U.S.
> The resolution adopted unanimously by the Council on Nov. 8 requires Bush
to consult. At the same time, the president has made plain he reserves the
option of using force against Iraq if Saddam refuses to disarm.
> Bush said on Wednesday that Saddam "is not somebody who looks like he's
interested in complying."
> "This is not a game any more of, 'Well, I'll say one thing and do
another,'" Bush told reporters at the White House. "We expect him to disarm,
and now it's up to him to do so."
> The administration is confident it would have the support of many
countries in a war with Iraq - and more of them if a second anti-Iraq
resolution is approved, he said.
> Above all else, the United States is seeking permission to use foreign
bases for combat flights and asking for troops to fight alongside Americans,
the official said. Beyond that, there is a need for approval for overflights
and other forms of access.
> No country is prepared to make an ironclad commitment, and none
> has been requested, the official said. But most countries in the Middle
East and Persian Gulf share the U.S. analysis of Saddam, and the Nov. 8
resolution has accelerated their willingness to> take part in contingency
planning, he said.
More information about the A-List