Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent ???

>>>It is one of the unanswered questions of the war: where are the weapons of mass destruction which both the United States and Britain said that Iraq possessed? >>But if they are not found there will be recriminations. The war was justified on the grounds that Iraq had not complied with UN resolutions to declare and destroy them. Jon B. Wolfsthal, a weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington said: "Failure to discover chemical and biological weapons in Iraq will be used by many groups to vilify the United States". "It will also reinforce claims that such weapons were only a pretext for America to remove Saddam's regime for other political or geostrategic reasons," he added. >>The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, remains open-minded about whether Iraq had such weapons, but is highly critical of Britain and the US. He accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq. >>Nor have the so-called mobile biological warfare laboratories, about which a great deal was made. Drawings of these were presented to the Security Council by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Some were reminded of the plot of the Graham Greene novel Our Man In Havana, in which a British agent based his descriptions of secret installations on the vacuum cleaners he sold in his shop. >>There have been numerous rumours and false leads. There was the case of the US soldiers who were overcome by the "effects of a nerve agent" near Karbala. It turned out that they had been suffering from dehydration and recovered quickly after food and drink. The suspect chemicals proved to be pesticides. >>No doubt, Washington and London could construct a defence. They could say that Iraq had the capacity to make such weapons and that therefore the threat did exist. <

?

Mr Cook, who resigned his position as Leader of the Commons over the war with Iraq, told the New Statesman that Mr Blair's closeness to the US President was a "strategic error".

Válka dokonale vyvrátila důvody, kvůli nimž měla být vedena.

Válka ještě neskončila a vy již soudíte? A dokonce tak jednoznačně? Asi máte lepší zdroje informací a lepší analýzy než ti, kteří ji vedou. V tom případě byste mohl mít lepší zaměstnání, třeba jako šéf CIA. Válka určitě nebyla vedena proto, že by statečná irácká armáda měla pokořit západní svět. A ZHN? Kdo ví? Já, na rozdíl, od pana Komárka, nemohu vyloučit, že se najdou zítra.

Re: Válka dokonale vyvrátila důvody, kvůli nimž měla být vedena.

proč zítra? proč třeba ne až pozítří? nebo i jinak dočasně (jednotka dočasnosti = 1 furt)?

Nejsem Komarek.

Ale reaguju.Je dobre,ze je valka v Iraku a ne v Cesku.Ono jde totiz o uhel pohledu.Kdyz by bomby padaly na Prahu...Nebo treba na jine misto?Ja bych se smal.Lidske blbosti.Totiz vzdy ma pravdu silnejsi.Ted USA.Ale zamyslel se nekdo treba nad tim,co je pricina a co dusledek?Je to opravdu svata valka?Pokud ano,i v USA a v Ceske republice ziji vyznavaci Koranu.A jsouto treba potencionalni letci.

írácké psycho

Re: írácké psycho

co se Vám nezdá? nebo myslíte, že mezi "bohatsvím státu" a "bohatsvím občanů státu" musí být ve většině nějaká přímá úměra?  Měl byste ho spíše pěkně poporist, aby na toho psychiatra přispěl Vám, ne?

Komarek

Jestli cte tyto prispevky nekdo z redakce iDnes, prosim oznacujte nejak viditelne prispevky pana Komarka. V televizi taky upozornuji, ze nasledujici zabery budou drasticke. Jinak jeste par takovych "clanku" a uz sem nepolezu.

Preventivní válka

Re: Preventivní válka

Husák by líp umět neuměl...

lol