Bill Sykes' - In Retrospect
III.
(September 2006)
Bill Sykes
looks back in retrospect at material which has been published
in previous editions of "View from America",
in an attempt to determine whether the subject matter
written then is still applicable in today’s world.
Article #3A. Were the wars against
Afghanistan and Iraq justified?
Weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush’s reasons, or excuses, for going to war with Iraq
were initially aimed at the removal of the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein
and the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction. The American Armed
Forces searched diligently to uncover Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and
to date have not published the finding of any such weapons.
Claims by Secretary
of State Colin Powell, in a speech to the United Nations some months ago, stated
that possession of weapons of mass destruction by the Iraqis had been confirmed
by intelligence sources. This has not been proven and the credibility of Secretary
of State, the American intelligence community, and the United States administration,
is at stake.
Can one say that the 28,000 or so bombs dropped by coalition
aircraft and the rockets, launched from the large armada
of Coalition ships of war riding at anchor in the Persian
Gulf, apparently including JDAMs and cluster bombs (*) could
be classified as weapons of mass destruction? If
so, are we morally guilty of possession and use of such
weapons.
Whilst on the subject of weapons of mass destruction,
it has been suggested that the following countries having
weapons such as chemical, biological and nuclear, are
the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, Russia
and China.
Other countries with nuclear capabilities, include India,
Pakistan, North Korea, with Iran rapidly making progress
towards developing a nuclear capability. Have I missed
out any one?
(*) Description of Cluster Bombs.
Cluster Bombs, (aka dumb bombs), are a particularly deadly
and vicious weapon of mass destruction. Three different
types of Cluster Bombs have been reported to have been
used by the Coalition Forces in Iraq and can be divided
into three sub-groups, bombs, dispensers, (Which contain
sub-munitions such as small bombs, grenades, or mines),
and the sub-munitions themselves. Some dispensers
stay attached to the aircraft, and discharge their
payload out of the rear or bottom of the dispenser.
A large dispenser generally has a mechanically timed
or proximity fuse which allows the payload in the body
of the bomb to be dispersed at a predetermined height
causing a wide scatter footprint. Sometimes these munitions
fail to detonate on impact, by reason of design, perhaps
intent, or malfunction, and may remain active for many
years later causing many civilian casualties. As I
said previously, cluster bombs are a particularly deadly
and vicious weapon.
Note: I noticed that Israel recently used Cluster
Bombs against Hezbollah in Lebanon - Guess who supplied Israel with those
weapons, why America of course - see I told you nothing has changed.
President Bush declares "The fighting war against the Iraqi Regime
to be won".
The Iraqi armies collapsed in confusion when faced with
the onslaught of the Coalition’s superior weapons
of mass destruction.
This was followed by massive Iraqi troop defections,
accompanied by looting and the loss of law and order.
The next step was America’s intention to establish
a government of the people by the people, not by American
interference of course, but by the Iraqi people themselves
- the first step was to attain a democratic government,
(which unfortunately will not happen during our lifetime),
to ensure that the religious entities do not take over
power and form their own government.
Mr Bush’s proclamation that democracy will be
established appears in his eyes to be very straight forward
until one looks at the powerful religious entities, such
as the Shia who make up 60% of the population and who
are determined to hold the reins of power. There is no
doubt that Shia Muslim Clerics will endeavour to take
over full power of the country and a civil war will certainly
break out and fighting for supremacy will go on for many
years to come. So, the question is, have we freed the
Iraqi people from one despotic regime to be placed under
the control of another regime of potentially the same
degree of brutality and barbarity?
Will Coalition forces have to remain in Iraq to install
and maintain a government formulated in the American
image?
Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon say that there will
not be a permanent Army of Occupation in Iraq and America
does not have plans to stay there, but at the same time
the United States are reported to be setting up semi-permanent
bases which one can assume is due to the moral dilemma
caused by the catastrophic loss of Iraqi civilian lives
and a possible escalation of unrest and violence in the
Middle East.
President Bush, (who never served in the real military),
arrived by air on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS
Abraham Lincoln when it docked in San Diego on Thursday
the 1st of May. Dressed like a military aviator he took
full advantage of a photo opportunity, which appeared
to be more of political campaign commercial for re-election
than a declaration that the fighting war in Iraq was
over. He received the adulation of the captive naval
audience, worthy of a papal gathering. Wonder if he will
still be so popular at the end of his first four year
term of office as President of the United States, when
the Presidential elections takes place in November of
2004?
Perhaps when the American public finally realise
the cost of the war in lives, and its effect on the world
economies, causing the loss of many thousands of jobs
and returning America back to the unenviable position
of the largest debtor nation in the world, the current
adulation and support for President Bush and his Republican
administration will diminish, and serious competition
will come from Democratic sources, (to balance the books
and get this nation back upon an sound economic footing),
that is if the Democrats can get their act together and
come up with a suitable and acceptable candidate.
Prime time looting.
When the fighting in Baghdad started to come to an end
wholesale looting commenced, as predicted. The world
media initially focused on the rank and file looting
of general every day objects of lower echelon value,
but refrained from reporting news of the ransacking of
hospitals, hotels, and even mosques. This was to come
later. The most important items of loot, which hardly
received a mention, were obtained from the Iraqi Museum
of Antiquities. The raids to obtain priceless artifacts,
which had obviously been carefully planned in advance
by experts, stripped the Museum of thousands of ancient
priceless and irreplaceable items. Some of these items,
finally found their way to the United States and Europe,
and one can be sure that they will be destined to be
ensconced in private collections and will never see the
light of day again. Warnings issued to the Bush Administration
by leading American archaeologists that the sacking of
the Museum was completely predictable and that priceless
and irreplaceable antiquities were being placed at great
risk fell upon deaf ears, or perhaps the saving of the
oil reserves were considered to be of more importance.
Mr. Martin Sullivan, chairman of President Bush’s
Advisory Committee on Cultural Property subsequently
resigned over the issue, saying that it was inexcusable
that the Museum had a lower priority than the Iraqi Oil
Ministry.
It has been reported that even General Jay Garner, the
head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistance, (ORHA), was appalled that a request for the
protection of the Museum, (by coalition forces), had
been ignored. It was quoted that the looting of cultural
treasures would be an irreparable loss of the greatest
importance to all of humanity.
Rebuilding Iraq. (Was it all about oil after all)?
President Bush has declared that the foundations of democracy
have been laid in Iraq, and that he will stand by Iraq
until democracy flourishes. That will be for the next
two years, or less, as I’m sure that is the amount
of time that he has left as President of the United States.
He also stated, (great guy for stating things), that
now is the time to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure with
the help of members of the coalition for peace.
The general
consensus of world opinion appears to suggest that the
Coalition of two who bombed the Iraqi cities into ruins
should be the ones to pay for the rebuilding. The United
States apparently has other ideas on the subject and
intends to "allow" the Iraqis the pleasure
of paying for the rebuilding of their own country by
turning over their oil interests to American and British
oil companies as payment for services provided.
Apparently
the American administration set up a business consortium,
(even before the first shots against Iraq were fired),
and two year no-bid contracts were offered worth approximately
$60B dollars, to be spent over the next three years.
These major contracts bypassed the usual competitive
bidding procurement procedures as they were stated to
be secret and classified due to reasons of national security.
It’s not difficult to guess the identity of the
major companies that received the windfall, how about
Bechtel, Halliburton, Fluor, Parsons, etc for starters. The
Pentagon secretly awarded a Halliburton subsidiary, (Kellogg,
Brown and Root), a two-year no bid contract worth up
to $7B dollars, to work on putting out oil fires and
the repairing of other unspecified damage to petroleum
industry property in Iraq after the shooting war started.
This was estimated to be a $50,000 dollars a day payment
for a five man team. I know that the work is extremely
dangerous, but so is soldiering and fighting a desert
war and their pay is miniscule in comparison.
In the
last year alone, Halliburton subsidiaries have delivered
$1.3B worth of services to the United States government
for work usually done by the United States military themselves,
such as the building of camps and the feeding and housing
of American troops.
The coalition forces were given a priority task of securing
all the oil fields in order to prevent destruction by
the Iraqis.
"So, this fray was about oil after all".
By coincidence the CEO
of Halliburton, (prior to his appointment as Vice President of the United States),
was Dick Cheney, who states that he has no financial interests in the Halliburton
Company - amazing. The other major companies involved in the non-competitive
bidding contracts were of course Bechtel, Fluor and Parsons, all of whom have
one thing in common, lots of friends in very high place to whom they had obviously
over the years made substantial monetary contributions. Jobs for the good old
boys - would I be the one to suggest such malarkey - certainly not.
It would appear to me that such contracting procedures
could lead to all kinds of charges of corruption in high
places and possibly be the subject of possible future
legal action for fraudulent practices - but I wouldn’t
hold my breath to see if it does happen.
Mr. Cheney’s alleged business dealings.
Mr Cheney was a former Secretary of Defence, former chief
of staff to a President, and a former member of Congress
with no apparent business experience in the oil industry
- so the question arises why would he be given the
job of CEO of a multi-billion dollar oil service company
such as Halliburton? Could it be the fact that he had
associated with people in high places related to government
contracts, and that he attended many top secret meetings
where the allocation of classified contracts were discussed
that got him the job as CEO at Halliburton as the company
ended up with billions of dollars worth of new government
contracts.
During the five years Mr. Cheney was employed
by Halliburton the company doubled the value of its
federal contracts and Mr. Cheney became a very rich
man. What a coincidence! Of course there is nothing
illegal in having friends in high places and Mr. Cheney
is not alone in having business contacts with government
procurement officers but what maybe illegal is if the
people in question benefited from their association
with the agents of the government by receiving information
that is confidential, (not available to competing companies),
and used that information to financially benefit themselves,
or the companies upon which they served in executive
positions.
Is Syria, or even Iran, next on America’s
target of opportunity list?
The American Administration apparently are once again
setting their sights on what have been called potential
targets of opportunity and are coming up with reasons
for possible intervention in the affairs of countries
adjoining the borders of Iraq by issuing warnings that
countries who do not refrain from allowing Iraqi leaders
to seek safe haven by crossing their borders, and also
have been known to harbour terrorist organisations, will
be subjected to swift reprisals from the free world.
Relevant information.
The city of Damascus, capital of Syria, dates back to
6000 BC and prides itself on being the oldest continuously
inhabited city in history. During that troubled history,
Syria has been conquered many times by many varied hostile
armies, and as early as 1800 BC the King of Assyria established
his capital there.
The kingdom was later captured successively by the Babylonians,
the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Chaldeans, the Persians,
Alexander the Great, the Crusaders, and the Mongols in
1260 AD, on and on, ad infinitum. Syria’s final
degradation was the Israeli invasion in 1967, in which
Israel captured and occupied the Golan Heights, a 400
square mile piece of land within 25 miles of the capital
city of Damascus.
Syria is still officially at war with Israel and demands
the return of the captured land.
Currently Syria, for a country where 90% of the people
are of the Muslim faith, is a remarkably permissive society,
but of course the way of life is designed to cater to
the 60% of the population who are under the age of twenty-one.
Note: To view the complete May 2003 edition
of "View from America" please click HERE.
Disclaimer
Some of the information gathered for this news letter has been gleaned from American
and International media sources, (including the Internet), and as such is quoted
as accurately as possible. I try to obtain confirmation on each subject from
several outlets, so the text is a mixture of composite news items and personal
comments and therefore the reader must make his/her own judgment as to the reliability
and degree of accuracy of the subjects discussed.
We
welcome feedback about any of the contents of these articles.
Please send all correspondence to bill_sykes@huddersfield1.co.uk
|
