Tuesday, July 22, 2003

breaking: Uday and Qusay killed in Mosul

From the New Zealand National Business Review:

The United States military command in Iraq has confirmed that, following an intense firefight in Mosul, Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay have been killed.

The deaths have been confirmed by the US Central Command.

US army spokesman Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said during a televised Baghdad briefing that, "An Iraqi source informed the 101st Airborne Division today that several suspects, including Qusay and Uday, numbers two and three on the US Central Command's most-wanted list, were hiding in a residence near the northern edge of the city," he said.

"The six-hour operation began when the division's 2nd Brigade combat team approached the house and received small arms fire. The division subsequently employed multiple weapon systems to subdue the suspects who had barricaded themselves inside the house and continued to resist detention fiercely.

"Four persons were killed during that operation and were removed from the building and we have since confirmed that Uday and Qusay Hussein are among the dead."

He said positive identification of the bodies had been made from multiple sources.

Well, although Saddam's sons can't be brought to trial, at least this may convince the Iraqis at Saddam and his regime is not coming back. However, Operation Iraqi Freedom should not be judged entirely by its results--it's unfair to criticize the Administration for not yet finding Saddam, just as it's unfair to praise them for receiving a lucky piece of information leading to the killing of Uday and Qusay. What must also be taken into account is the motivation behind Operation Iraqi Freedom--was there real, convincing evidence proving Iraq's intention to rebuild its WMD capacity? Or was the US just setting up Saddam for a fall, to lessen the threat of dictators controlling the world's oil supply?

I personally think oil had a major part to play in attacking Iraq. Why is Bush not calling for a coalition strike on North Korea, even as it flaunts its nuclear intentions?

CRAWFORD, TEXAS -- President Bush appeared on Monday to shrug off evidence that North Korea might have begun producing plutonium at a second, hidden nuclear facility, and avoided any hint of confrontation with the country as it races to expand its nuclear arsenal.

"The desire by the North Koreans to convince the world that they're in the process of developing a nuclear arsenal is nothing new," Bush said, striking a more moderate tone than he did in March, when he declared that the United States would not "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea.

What the heck is Bush implying? We destroy a regime for possibly developing nuclear weapons, but we take time to talk to one that is internationally-known to be developing them?

I'm not saying we should attack North Korea. Rather, I'm saying that you should ask yourself what the difference between North Korea and Iraq is. I'm not going to say that answer is the O-word, but it very well could be. Protecting the world's oil supply could be a justifiable cause. But not when it is shamefully covered up.


Post a Comment

<< Home