Note to readers in Irish America: another bad case of collusion this week, eh?

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis Saturday July 26, 2003 15:27 by rooster

I'm talking about US forces working hand in glove with a paid informer who led them to the sons of Saddam.

And wasn't that a clear cut case of "shoot to kill"?

Many in the international community are asking, "why were these men not taken alive?" Surely if the US wanted them alive, for afterall, they held much information on Iraqs WOMD (or lack of them).

When the US wanted Manuel Noriega for trial they put the compound he was in under siege, so when Uday and Qusay opened fire and the forces withdrew, why the hurry to open up with their weapons and level the compound?

Why not take out the floodlights and the rock music seal it off and starve them out? Or perhaps the decision was taken higher up the chain of command that these men should be assasinated in order to prevent them ever taking the stand as this would prove that the reasons for starting the war were completely fabricated.

Does this also call for a full independent inquiry?