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]
>Another possibility The US itself in an effort to justify >it's invasion of Iraq by assosiating 'Iraq' and >'terrorism' in the minds on the American people. > >Alun Harford It's possible, and there could also be the motive of discouraging efforts to get the UN to take a more active part in Iraq. It could be the work of a small extreme faction within the US. Still, this is just more speculation -- a possibility to keep in mind while trying to make sense of it all. What is needed is some solid investigation, and openness as to results -- just the sort of thing Bush avoids. But who else is there in Iraq who could investigate? This is one other reason to get the world community involved in Iraq -- to keep everyone honest. But again a reason for Bush to oppose that: to avoid accountability. I saw a post late last night on IAC discussion referring to an article blaming the CIA for the UN blast. We can bet there are any number of others who have such suspicions -- and many of those will be in Iraq, willing to believe it, and to seek revenge. That's a big problem with secrecy: when truth and openness is repressed even the very worst case possibilities become more believable, resulting in more polarization and conflict. Similarly, as the US grabs more power in Iraq, more responsibility is assigned to them regardless is what happens is beyond US control. The UN might have decided they wanted minimal security to set it apart from the US seige mentality of Bremer, and be closer to the people, but the US is taking heat for that lack of security. Questions include how that truck got through when so many Iraqis are stopped at check points, and how so much high explosive was available when the US is mounting such effort to be the only party with arms. I saw an article about how kids are recovering copper from discarded ammunition to make a few thousand Dinars, and another story about the US stopping copper ingots from going across the border, I suppose to try to discourage stripping power lines. But when stopping the flow cuts into the kids' money, which supports families, then the US takes the responsibility for the hunger too. How much responsibility does the US have for the UN blast even if it wasn't a CIA operation (which it well could have been, of course)? The answer is quite a bit, because the US has TAKEN responsibility for all that happens in Iraq. They are as guilty of sins of ommission as well as commission. We saw Bush trying to avoid responsibility for the uranium reference in his speech, but it didn't wash -- and neither will trying to avoid responsibility for the UN blast and dealing with the resulting situation. It's YOUR war, King George (and your bag of worms)! ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ 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