Регистрация | Забравена парола
Запомни моята идентификация
Европа по-сговорчива за удар по Саддам
Добави мнение   Мнения:4 1
14 Сеп 2002 08:07
Мнения: 13,673
A koga US shte izpulnjat rezolujziite na OON?
14 Сеп 2002 08:08
Мнения: 13,673

The Times Of India
September 12, 2002


Say No To Bush


Here's a simple quiz to mark the anniversary of 9/11.
(a) Who is threatening to use aeroplanes to attack
civilians and civilian installations like water
treatment plants and power stations? (b) Who is
refusing to rule out using nuclear weapons in his
'holy war'? (c) Who is using television for a
messianic propaganda campaign justifying this plan-ned
terrorism? (d) Who is saying his fatwas count for more
than international law? The correct answer to all
these questions is not Osama bin Laden but George W
Bush and the US administration.

One year after terrorists killed more than 3,000
innocent people in New York and Washington, the world
is waiting nervously not for another murderous strike
by Al-Qaida but for the bombs the US plans to drop on
the equally innocent people of Iraq.

Regardless of the scripted dissension within, the Bush
administration's drive to open the Iraqi front in what
is wrongly called the 'War on Terrorism' has crossed
the point of no return. Massive US-UK air attacks have
already taken place at al-Nukhaib, al-Baghdadi and the
'H-3' air defences in western Iraq. The war is already

And if you don't believe the nukes threat, consider
the August 27 interview given by the ranking US
official on 'arms control', John Bolton, to Fuji-TV.
Question: Is it possible that nuclear weapons will be
used against Iraq? Bolton: Since there's no decision
on the use of military force, there's no decision on
exactly how it would be carried out.'' Washington says
the 'crisis' has been provoked by Saddam Hussein's
failure to allow UN inspectors to certify Iraq has rid
itself of all proscribed weapons. 'News' is leaked to
scare the world into believing Iraq has nuclear arms.
At the same time, Mr Bush openly talks about 'regime
change' as if it were the God-given right of the US to
decide how the Iraqi people are to be governed.

Even on the weapons issue, the dishonesty of the US
stand is self-evident. UN Security Council (UNSC)
resolution 687 mandates Iraqi disarmament, and for
more than six years the UN Special Commission (Unscom)
and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
visited suspected weapons sites in Iraq to ensure
compliance. On April 13, 1998, the IAEA certified that
Iraq had compiled a ''full, final and complete''
account of its previous nuclear projects and that
there was no evidence of any prohibited activity. In
December 1998, Unscom volun-tarily pulled out of Iraq
on the eve of the US attack codenamed 'Operation
Desert Fox'. In its last month of inspections,
according to Unscom head Richard Butler, the
commission carried out as many as 427 inspections and
reported Iraqi non-cooperation in only five of these.
The truth is the US has never been interested in an
objective, UN-run disarmament programme for Iraq.
Washington deliberately pushed the limits of Iraqi
tolerance by using Unscom inspections for espionage.
Rolf Ekeus, a former head of Unscom, told Swedish
Radio in July 2002 that at times, intrusive
inspections were deliberately used by the US to create
a crisis that could possibly form the basis for
military action. Scott Ritter — a US marine who was
part of Unscom and later admitted the CIA used him to
spy against Iraq — has written that Iraq no longer has
chemical and biological weapons programmes. ''In all
of their inspections, the (Unscom) monitors could find
no meaningful evidence of Iraqi circumvention of its
commitment not to reconstitute its biological weapons
program'', he wrote in Arms Control Today in June

Eleven years after Iraq was evicted from Kuwait, the
country is subject to the tightest regime of economic
sanctions ever imposed on any country. Despite the
so-called 'smart sanctions' introduced by UNSC
resolution 1409 in May this year, Iraq's capacity to
provide clean drinking water, electricity and
sanitation is hampered by US objections to machinery
imports. If food imports and the public distribution
system are disrupted by a full-scale US attack, there
will be a massive food shortage in Iraq.

Every UN resolution mandating Iraqi compliance with
disarmament also explicitly states that Iraq's
sovereignty has to be respected. The US flouted these
resolutions to establish illegal 'no-fly zones' over
Iraqi airspace and has bombed the country hundreds of
times in the past dec-ade. In March this year, Iraq
submitted a list of 19 questions to UN
secretary-general Kofi Annan. Among these were (i) Can
the UN guarantee the elimination of the two no-fly
zones? (ii) How do you explain the stance of a
permanent member of the Security Council which openly
calls for the invasion of Iraq? Baghdad has yet to
receive an answer.

The world has a right to demand that Iraq comply with
its disarmament obligations but it must not legitimise
US contempt for international law. Iraq has said it
will allow UN weapons inspectors back provided they do
not indulge in espionage and work according to a
time-bound plan, and also provided there is
synchronicity between the degree of Iraqi compliance
and the phased elimination of sanctions. This is a
reasonable proposal. The US, for its own domestic
economic and political reasons, wants to press-gang
the world into war. The UN must not allow its mandate
of ensuring peace and security to be subverted by
Washington. Under no circumstances must it be pushed
into providing a 'multilateral' cover for US

14 Сеп 2002 09:03
Мнения: 13,673
Baghdad Braces for War:
An Interview with Scott Taylor
by Christopher Deliso in Skopje
September 14, 2002
Find this article at:

Last week, Canadian war reporter Scott Taylor went halfway across the globe, to get the inside story on what is happening inside Iraq. He can testify not only to the mood in the capital among high-ranking diplomats, but also the 11th hour negotiations that might avert a war- if they can somehow subvert the stated desires of White House hawks for a full-scale invasion.

I caught up with Scott yesterday, just after his arrival in Skopje, where he will be cover this weekend's elections.

The Mood in Baghdad

CD: How is the mood in the capital? Are the Iraqis preparing for war?

ST: There was a strange sense of complacency apparent when I first arrived (on the 5th). The Iraqis did not seem to really believe that the US will really attack. Iraq is so cut off, and they're so believing in their own propaganda, that they had no idea.

There are so few international players in Iraq, it seems like everyone is meeting with Tariq Aziz or some (other high official). The climate is totally controlled. No one has any leeway. Of course, there are very few business delegations, as foreign investment is suspended. And the foreign press corps numbered only about 15 people- BBC, NBC, London Evening Standard, ABC (Australia), some Spanish journalists, myself, and a few others, mostly Arabic.

CD: Did you have any trouble arranging meetings?

ST: I have been there five times, and in the past I have had much easier access. Even the Iraqi officials are being monitored more closely by their own secret services.

One day, I was going for a jog, near some official building, when uniformed soldiers came up and pointed me back to the hotel at gunpoint. These guys were not the normal conscripts- they were the famous, highly trained Republican Guards.

The Inside Word on Recent US Military Activity

CD: What can you tell us about the recent large-scale air attacks by the US on Iraq?

ST: The big one- a 100 plane raid on Friday the 6th- was in Rutba, a military town, close to the Jordanian border. It is strictly a military area.

People don't know, but American troops are also conducting troop movements in Jordan, together with the Jordanian army. The Jordanian leaders are telling their people that this is a normal, annual desert exercise. But this might be a means for them (the US) to deploy special forces and reconnaissance. This exercise has been going on for the last month, with several thousand troops.

Jordan has said they will not allow any US attack. But even the people there don't know what to expect. It certainly won't be the main point of attack, but it could be used by small groups of US special forces.

CD: Anything more recently?

ST: There was an American testing of the Iraqi air defense on Saturday the 7th. It was probably with drones, because there were no explosions. They were preparing for war by feeling out Iraqi defense capabilities. And I took a 25 minute DVD tape of it, from 10:30-11:00 PM on Saturday.

A Sudden Realization: War is Imminent

CD: So, what's the latest?

ST: The attitude (of complacency) changed this Monday. Tariq Aziz came back then from the summit meeting in Johannesburg. The Foreign Minister also returned from abroad at the same time. At an Iraqi cabinet meeting on Monday, everything changed. They realized from these trips that world opinion was hardening. They came back with a different perspective, and realized that the sands of time were running out.

CD: So, did you see evidence of a military buildup?

ST: The Iraqi leadership admits that they can't fight the Americans. There is no bravado at the top end. The people in the streets will all tell you that they will eat the Americans if they have to, but the top generals all know it is futile.

11th Hour Diplomacy

CD: What is the probability that Bush and the hawks in his cabinet will win out, and he will soon have a full-scale war?

ST: The British and French have just cut a deal. Blair met with Chirac in the last four days. They are going to draft some sort of "Framework Agreement." It looks like what they're going to put forward, by the 20th of September, is a proposal for a resolution, giving a maximum three week deadline for Iraq to comply with a new weapons inspection program.

The States kind of blew it. By pushing this thing about changing the regime, they lost support. Now they're really trying to push it on the weapons inspection deal. Everyone is trying to find a way to make that the deal.

CD: But the French? They are always opposed to the US on this issue.

ST: The French are going to go against Iraq- and this will be a shock to the Iraqis. They think that the French are on their side. Probably the top end of the hierarchy knows, but the rest of the officials aren't being told anything.

The Security Council has five members, and now the Russians have been bought. The whole reason they signed up $40 billion in contracts in Iraq, was so that they could say to the US, "for any invasion, we want $40 billion in trade guaranteed afterward." The Iraqis never believe that Russia would go against them, after such an investment. And the Chinese never want to stand alone. So there will be a UN mandate, I predict.

CD: How will this work?

In Baghdad, I met with Toby Dodge of London's Royal Institute of International Affairs. He is one of the world's leading Iraq experts. I knew Toby from before. Although he has a quasi-role as a journalist, writing op-ed pieces, Toby was there to try to bridge a deal. He appeared to be there on his own, not as an "official" representative of the UK government.

Toby was advising the Iraqis just how urgent it was that they submit to the weapons inspection program that the US is now demanding. He had a 90 minute meeting with Tariq Aziz on the night of 11 September. They are trying to put together a deal whereby, to try and save face, an "honest broker" could oversee the weapons inspectors. The two countries they are looking at are South Africa and Canada. This proposal was brought to them by Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspections.

Canada: the 'Honest Broker?'

CD: But why Canada?

ST: Now they have in place a possible diplomatic solution- bringing in weapons inspectors, under independent overseers. I know from a source among the highest Iraqi officials that the Iraqi foreign minister is going to meet with the Canadian foreign minister, Bill Graham, within two days in New York. Canada is probably going to take a leading role.

CD: But how will this play out?

ST: Chretien met with Bush on Monday. Before that meeting, on Sunday, Deputy Minister John Manley made statements that in any war, the American would be going in without Canadian support. But after Chretien's meeting, he announced he was prepared to "listen" to Bush.

Canada has been ambivalent on the idea of war… but this ambivalence is enough for the Iraqis to be hopeful in Canada's role.

Part of it as well is that Manley a few weeks ago was one of the most strident hawks, stating that Saddam possessed chemical weapons and intended to use them. He did a complete 180. He did it to provide Bush a loophole to get out of a war- to save face.

Weapons Inspection as Espionage

CD: But in terms of an "independent overseer," is Iraq even in a position to dictate conditions?

ST: If you know the facts, the truth is on the side of Iraq. However, because of America's might and their war fever… if Iraq allows weapons inspectors back in, knowing of the past transgressions, then they have to have some guarantee- at least a pretense of a guarantee- before their public can accept it.

And they do know about the past transgressions. Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspections, briefed the Iraqi National Assembly last Sunday. He admitted, first of all, that when he pulled out in 1998, Iraq was 95% weapons free, and the other 5% were technical material that posed no tangible threat.

He also said, for the first time, that they were actually spying on the Iraqis while there. He made it point blank: his teams were used to pinpoint locations which were subsequently bombed in the 1998 strikes against Iraq, which were aimed more at "leadership" targets (i.e., assassinating Saddam) than weapons destruction.

A Risk of Casualties from a Ground War?

CD: What will happen if the US tries for a land invasion of Iraq?

ST: I've seen no evidence that the Iraqis are serious about their claim to fight in the streets of Baghdad, if there is a land invasion. But I think that if the Iraqis resist, it will create a humanitarian crisis like we've never seen.

CD: How is that?

ST: Baghdad is over 10 million people. If the non-combatants fled the city- and at least 6 million of that population would be woman, children and the elderly- there would be a refugee disaster… you know, this is not an area like Europe, where people can easily rush in humanitarian aid. It would be ten times worse than the Kosovo refugee crisis- and with 10 times less the infrastructure.

CD: But do you think the Americans really care about "collateral damage?"

ST: You can't hide 6 million refugees. Imagine the American ground forces come in, and are met by ragged, fleeing civilians? What would they do, fight them? America is also going in with zero percent Arab support… if they found 6 million civilians on the road to Baghdad, how would they enter it? The world would go nuts.

Their belief is that the people will rise up. But they (the US) are not even dropping leaflets like before. All the stuff that Bush is taking to the UN, about validating a regime change, is based on the idea that Saddam once attacked his neighbors. But don't forget, he attacked Iran with the blessings of the Americans. And the Iraqis thought, wrongly, that they had the green light on Kuwait… they thought it was being seen as an internal problem of Iraq, and that they had the US permission to go in. Obviously, they made a big mistake.

And the Iraqis are still hopelessly out of touch with how the rest of the world perceives them.

'The Americans Need a War'

CD: How do you explain the US' rationale for war? Could they cut a deal so that Saddam would remain in power, or are they serious about removing him this time?

ST: The Americans need a war. Otherwise they will realize they didn't win anything in Afghanistan. How do you wage a war on terrorism? Where do you attack, and when is it over? The truth is, you can never beat terrorism for good- it is an intangible enemy.

But now, in Saddam, the Americans have a tangible enemy, and they're confident it will be as bloodless and quick as the previous Gulf War.

CD: So this all has to do with Saddam as a personality? Victory will be achieved when he is deposed?

ST: Bush recently stated that he will change the regime. Basically, this war will be about one thing: pitting his presidency against that of Saddam Hussein. Don't forget, despite the Gulf War, all the sanctions, and the constant minor air raids, Saddam is still in power and will not be deposed from within. He outlasted Bush's father, and Clinton too.

CD: But wasn't the same rationale used in the case of bin Laden? There hasn't been any victory as far as he's concerned.

ST: Yes, but don't forget, bin Laden doesn't run a country. With Saddam he is tangible… and locatable.

The Main Problem: Finding Saddam

CD: Yet there was a story recently quoting a Yugoslav engineer, who had worked on building Saddam's bunkers in years past. The engineer claimed that the elaborate and rock-solid bunker system was impregnable. Your thoughts?

ST: Look, it's not about bunker-busting, it's about finding him. The US has daisy cutters and bunker-busters and even, I suppose, they could go nuclear.

But the problem is that the US has no intelligence in Iraq- nobody. And even in the period when the weapons inspectors were there, and the US had at least some intel, it still failed. They shotgunned a hundred places, and still couldn't find Saddam.

Al Qaeda and the Kurds

CD: Will the Kurdish provinces be inclined to rise up and overthrow Saddam, in your opinion?

ST: The Kurdish provinces in the north have been liberated since the Gulf War. They would not be easily persuaded to invade. They got what they wanted.

But ironically, these areas are where the evidence keeps emerging of an al Qaeda presence. The Kurdish territories are controlled by the UN, but this is where they are making the chemical weapons!

Interestingly enough, Bush himself called off the air attack about three weeks on these provinces. Without Iraqi control, it has become a lawless territory, run by warlords. The Turkish delegation in Baghdad is pissed off, because this instability causes problems among the Syrian, and especially Turkish Kurds.

About Scott Taylor

Canadian war reporter Scott Taylor is a well-known military expert and former soldier, most renowned for his work in Kosovo and Macedonia. He runs Canada's foremost military magazine, Esprit de Corps. Scott's work has been featured several times on Antiwar.com. His most recent book, Diary of an Uncivil War, is a provocative first-hand recounting of the Macedonian conflict of 2001.

Find this article at:
15 Сеп 2002 17:42
Мнения: 13,673

ГЬОБЕЛС КАТО Е НАПИСАЛ - Shto li mi se struva , che cheta Goebels?
Pisnalo mu ot tapi amerikanzi-Sun Sep 15 12:12:13 2002- Shto li mi se struva , che cheta Goebels?

Сега е моментът да действаме
Опасността е непосредствена. Саддам Хюсеин трябва да бъде отстранен.

Джордж Шулц*

В. “Вашингтон пост”

Ще се чудим ли по хамлетовски непрестанно кога и как да действаме? Управлението на Саддам Хюсеин в Ирак представлява тежък проблем не само за Съединените щати, но и за цялата международна общност. Обширният дебат, който в момента се води в медиите, в американския Конгрес и между нашите приятели и съюзници е необходим. Но освен това е необходимо да завършим този дебат и да получим яснота, която да служи за основа на нашите действия.
Светът сега навлиза в третото десетилетие на създадени от Саддам Хюсеин кризи и опасности за международния мир и сигурност. През 1980 г. той започна осемгодишна война срещу Иран. Бяха използвани химически оръжия и най-малко един и половина милиона души бяха убити или тежко ранени. През 1990 г. той нападна Кувейт с цел прекратяване на съществуването на суверенна държава. Докато беше прогонван от Кувейт, той нарочно нанесе огромни екологични вреди. Той е използвал химически оръжия срещу кюрдското население в атаки, които могат да се квалифицират като геноцид, и е изпращал войски в Кюрдистан с цел масово унищожаване на населението. Той непрекъснато трупа оръжия за масово унищожение и продължава работата върху тяхното усъвършенстване. Той е превърнал Ирак в държава, която насърчава, подкрепя и извършва терористични действия. Никой друг диктатор днес не може да се сравни с него, що се отнася до предизвикване на войни, репресии, използване на оръжия за масово унищожение и продължаващото презрително нарушаване на международното право, определено от единодушните действия на Съвета за сигурност на ООН.
На фона на тази обстановка продължаващият в момента дебат не взема предвид фактите, демонстриращи продължителните усилия на Организацията на обединените нации да възпре Саддам Хюсеин и да разреши предприемането на действия срещу него. В момента има налице здрава основа за незабавни военни действия срещу неговия режим и за предприемане на международни стъпки за възстановяването на Ирак, след като Саддам бъде отстранен.
Една забележителна поредица от резолюции на Съвета за сигурност на ООН от 1990 г. до 1991 г. даде разрешение за война срещу Хюсеин с цел прогонването на неговите войски от Кувейт. Това беше основата за операция "Пустинна буря", която доведе до победа във войната в Персийския залив. С тази военна победа, Съветът за сигурност обяви прекратяването на "офанзивните" операции, като нарочно не промени първоначалното разрешение за използване на сила. Тогава Резолюция 687 на Съвета за сигурност изложи серия от изисквания към Ирак с цел възстановяването на мира и сигурността в региона. Това измести акцента срещу Хюсеин от освобождаването на Кувейт към въпроса за елиминирането с помощта на международна инспекция на неговите оръжия за масово унищожение. С други думи, заплахата за региона и света от страна на силно въоръжен Ирак бе официално призната и обявена за неприемлива.
В първите години след операция "Пустинна буря" инспектори на ООН разкриха, че иракски заводи са произвели оръжия за масово унищожение. Те демонтираха съоръжения за обогатяване на уран и други ядрени оръжия и унищожиха завод за химически оръжия и стотици бойни ракетни глави със съдържание на отровен газ.
Пълната гама от разумни правни, дипломатически и други алтернативи вече е изчерпана. Всички възможни форми на натиск вече бяха използвани: санкции, ембарго, масирано струпване на военни формирования с цел да бъде накаран да се подчини, ограничени военни операции под формата на въздушен и ракетен обстрел, насърчаване на вътрешната опозиция, положителен стимул чрез програмата "Петрол за мир" и всякакъв вид дипломация – едностранна, многостранна, частна, публична, директна и чрез посредник. Нито едно от тези неща не даде резултат. Всякакви други стъпки само ще осигурят на Саддам повече време и ще увеличат заплахата.
Самозащитата е основателна причина за нанасяне на първи удар. Доказателствата говорят ясно, че Хюсеин продължава да трупа оръжия за масово унищожение. Освен това той демонстрира желание да ги използва както срещу вътрешни, така и срещу външни цели. До момента рисковете, породени от бездействието, съвсем ясно надвишават рисковете от предприемането на действия. Когато имаш змия в двора си, не чакаш първо да те ухапе, а после да предприемеш действия в самозащита.
Опасността е непосредствена. Производството на оръжия за масово унищожение нараства и става все по-трудно за противодействие с всеки изминал ден. Когато става въпрос не за стотици убити в конвенционална атака, а за десетки или стотици хиляди убити от химическа, биологична или ядрена атака, факторът време има още по-голямо значение.
Историята на Ирак, постиженията на неговия народ, висшите цивилизации от миналото и неговите природни богатства показват, че съществува възможност за положителна трансформация щом тиранията на Хюсеин бъде отстранена. Тази трансформация може да спомогне за създаването на пример, който да бъде следван и от другите арабски страни и целия регион. Предизвикателството, което представлява Ирак, предлага и възможност за исторически поврат, който да доведе до едно по-мирно, по-свободно и благоденстващо бъдеще.
Това е важен момент в историята на международните отношения. Разрешението за действие е налице. Ние положихме безброй усилия, за да накараме Саддам Хюсеин да се съобрази с добре обмислените решения на единодушния Съвет за сигурност на ООН. Нека се обърнем към Съвета за сигурност и поставим отново въпроса със загрижеността на държава, готова за решителни действия. Този въпрос трябва да бъде поставен веднага и пред Конгреса. Членовете на конгреса ще трябва да решат на чия страна са. След това нека да действаме.

*Джордж Шулц е бивш Държавен секретар на САЩ.

Добави мнение   Мнения:4 1