CESAPI - Attack on Iraq, why?

For some time the US has been trying to get public support and allies for an invasion of Iraq. After Sept. 11th the US claimed that Iraq had ties to terrorism. With no evidence coming forth, the US then claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no weapons inspectors in Iraq to confirm or deny this. Iraq said it would accept British weapons inspectors (Associated Press report March 1, 2002). But Colin Powell said "U.S. policy is that, regardless of what the inspectors do, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad." (May 5 2002, ABC's "This Week"). It would appear the US is determined to attack Iraq, and the current administration will use any reason to get allies or go it alone.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

"No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And of course that is the reason we have been given for going to war against Iraq -- because of the threat posed by these weapons. It has been nothing but rhetorically laced speculation, not hard facts, that have been presented by either the United States or Great Britain to back this up, and until they provide hard facts, there is no case for war." Scott Ritter CNNACCESS July 17, 2002 "The technology required by Iraq to reconstitute its [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs would have to be bought in the open market in violation of sanctions in a manner which was undetected by the myriad of intelligence services, not just the American or Canadian, but the Israeli, the German and others, and not a single nation can come forward with anything other than rumours of tidbits being purchased by the Iraqis. These tidbits do not constitute a weapons program. These tidbits don't even constitute in many cases a breach of international law. They constitute an effort by the Iraqi government to circumvent sanctions to get equipment they need to rebuild their society which they can't do under the current sanctions regime." Scott Ritter testifying to the Canadian Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. June 4,2002 On Jan.10, 2001, William Cohen, outgoing secretary of defense advised George Bush that "Iraq no longer constitutes a military threat to its neighbors."

International Support

"I just returned from a trip to NATO. ... the reason why I was invited to speak to NATO was that three successive, high-level delegations from Washington, D.C., travelled to Brussels: Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy undersecretary of defence; Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defence; and Richard Armitage from the state department. ... encouraging NATO to develop a policy which was supportive of the American position vis-à -vis Iraq. ... They provided speculation and they refused to answer questions. After two hours of briefing and answering questions, 16 of the 18 nations present, including over 12 ambassadors, were disappointed with the American response. They felt that they had been lied to and deceived; the two exceptions being the United Kingdom and Canada. But the rest of the NATO membership was very disturbed by what they had heard in terms of my being able to provide substantive fact that directly contradicted the case the United States is making for war."

Canada's Role

Canada continues to support the sanctions and spends $35.9 million per year to provide a ship which takes part in the blockade of Iraq's ports. On the issue of invading Iraq Canada must take a stance, recognizing that Iraq is disarmed and does not constitute a threat to any of its neighbours. Both of the former UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck along with Scott Ritter have called for Canada to take a leadership role in mediating an end to this travesty. We must let our representatives in Ottawa know that this is the right thing to do and it is what we want.

A-Day "Shock & Awe" Plans for massive bombing