Questions that the US must answer

PV Vivekanand

AT THIS JUNCTURE where the United States is ardently pushing the international community to war against Iraq in the name of the United Nations and citing Baghdad's non-compliance with Security Council resolutions, Washington has to answer a few questions that it has been ducking,
Foremost of those questions are:
Why is it that Washington cites Iraq's violations of UN Security Council resolutions to justify an all-out war while overlooking that US allies like Turkey and Israel continue to violate dozens of Security Council resolutions?
Isn't it a blatant addition of insult to injury when the US not only endorses Israel's aggressive policies but also prevents the international community from pressuring Israel into seeing logic, justice, fairness and reason?
Why does Washington block other countries from taking military action to force truants to comply with Security Council resolutions? Or is it that it is a right it has reserved for itself as the sole superpower?
Isn't it true that the US warning that the Security Council could lose its "relevance" is based on how far the world body agrees to abide by American commands?
Why does Washington insist that Iraq poses a threat to American national security while there is no evidence whatsover of Baghdad had or has any link with any group that has carried out anti-American attacks or has issued any such threat?
Isn't it clear that a war against Iraq would play into the hands of militants and increase the same "security threats" that Washington cites as a reason for a war?
Why does Washington see an Iraqi threat to other Middle Eastern countries while none of them - except Israel - sees such threat?
Why does Washington refrain from acknowledging that it had given an implicit go ahead to Iraq to invade Kuwait in 1990 by saying it would have no role in an "Arab-Arab" dispute?
Why does Washington cite Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and conveniently sidestep the truth that it was the US which provided such weapons to Iraq and also offered satellite intelligence that helped the Iraqi military to pinpoint Iranian positions to be targeted?
Why does Washington speak in general terms and avoid being specific on its allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction?
Why is that the superb satellite intelligence of the US unable to tell the UN inspectors where to look for such weapons in Iraq?
Why does the US waste no opportunity to hit at Iraqi targets in the "no-fly" zones at the slightest "provacation" while not employing the same warplanes to bomb out any Iraqi weapons site? Isn't it because it has failed to find any such site?
Why does the US cite human rights concerns and the "oppression" of the people of Iraq as a reason for war whereas its record speaks of decade-old alliances with much worse regimes than that of Saddam Hussein? Why is the US not applying the same standards and why the sudden concern for the people of Iraq?
Why does the US refrain from any concern for the oppressed people of Palestine who live under perpetual terror posed by the mighty military machinery of the occupying Israeli forces?
Why does the US allow Israel to use US-supplied weapons and military gear against the Palestinians while it insists on such bans attached to military sales to other countries?
How long would it take the US to recognise that the real threat to peace in the Middle East is posed by Israel's expansionist ambitions and oppressive policies against the Palestinians?
Why does the US fail to acknowledge that a war against Iraq would have serious repercussions on the Middle East?
Isn't the American plan for an open-ended military occupation of Iraq a reincarnation of colonialism?
Isn't it true that the planned war against is aimed at securing control of Iraq's oil to serve American economy and oil companies and shutting out Europeans and others in Washington's quest for absolute global dominance?
Isn't it true that the scenario of war was prepared years ago and the ongoing effort at the Security Council for a new resolution is simply a charade?
Isn't it true that the failure of the council to adopt the new resolution would have no impact on the American determination to go to war against Iraq?
Isn't it true that the administration is trying to muzzle the media citing national security in order to ensure that the American people hear only what Washington wants them to hear?
Isn't it true that the US is ignoring Arab concerns for regional security and stability because it has ceased to care for such issues and is arrogantly confident that it would be able to deal with any eventuality -- even it means total chaos in the region?
Finally, isn't true that the entire war scenario where the US would spend tens of billions of dollars and engage upto 250,000 American soldiers is scripted to suit the interests of Israel?