The Iraq Inquiry has started.The facts are being unearthed.The liars are on the stage one after one.But who will punish them? Who will heal Iraqis' wounds and bring back their beloved ones who are lost to this dirty war? And who will fix Iraq?
These are questions the West must tackle because simply they were behind all the sufferings and ordeals this country has been facing since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion which, day after day, is being approved that it was based on lies and those who were behind it were only blood-seekers.
Last June, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the Inquiry.That's fine.But only "to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict" and not seeking the facts for setting the appropriate apology to Iraqis and determining the mechanism on how to help their country, which has been turned into a jungle, stand on its legs again.
"Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country," the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, said at the launch of the Inquiry.
What an arrogance.This is the West double standards.
This is as if someone says: LET the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are slain since 2003, the millions of widows, sons, lovers who are left behind them, the millions of displaced people and refugees and the 179 dead British soldiers and their families, GO TO HELL.
The first two liars were William Ehrman, the Foreign Office's director of international security from 2000 to 2002, and Tim Dowse, the Foreign Office's head of counter-proliferation between 2001 to 2003.
Ehram said: "in terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq."
While Dows added that Iraq "wasn't top of the list" and "In terms of my concerns on coming into the job in 2001, I would say we put Libya and Iran ahead of Iraq."
SO WHY YOU BOTH DIDN'T MENTION THESE COUNTRIES THEN?
But even the two went further when said that Iraq's previous regime had no relations with Al-Qaida and no evidence was found that Saddam Hussein had provided terrorist groups with material for chemical or biological weapons as the West was alleging at that time.
And for possessing chemical and biological arms can be detonated within 45 minutes, Ehrman said: "We did, at the very end, I think on the 10th of March, get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam hadn't yet ordered their assembly."
kassakhoon@gmail.com
These are questions the West must tackle because simply they were behind all the sufferings and ordeals this country has been facing since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion which, day after day, is being approved that it was based on lies and those who were behind it were only blood-seekers.
Last June, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the Inquiry.That's fine.But only "to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict" and not seeking the facts for setting the appropriate apology to Iraqis and determining the mechanism on how to help their country, which has been turned into a jungle, stand on its legs again.
"Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country," the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, said at the launch of the Inquiry.
What an arrogance.This is the West double standards.
This is as if someone says: LET the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are slain since 2003, the millions of widows, sons, lovers who are left behind them, the millions of displaced people and refugees and the 179 dead British soldiers and their families, GO TO HELL.
The first two liars were William Ehrman, the Foreign Office's director of international security from 2000 to 2002, and Tim Dowse, the Foreign Office's head of counter-proliferation between 2001 to 2003.
Ehram said: "in terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq."
While Dows added that Iraq "wasn't top of the list" and "In terms of my concerns on coming into the job in 2001, I would say we put Libya and Iran ahead of Iraq."
SO WHY YOU BOTH DIDN'T MENTION THESE COUNTRIES THEN?
But even the two went further when said that Iraq's previous regime had no relations with Al-Qaida and no evidence was found that Saddam Hussein had provided terrorist groups with material for chemical or biological weapons as the West was alleging at that time.
And for possessing chemical and biological arms can be detonated within 45 minutes, Ehrman said: "We did, at the very end, I think on the 10th of March, get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam hadn't yet ordered their assembly."
kassakhoon@gmail.com
