From owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu Tue Mar 18 11:00:56 2003
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:37:06 -0600 (CST)
From: info@economicdemocracy.org (Economic Democracy)
Subject: IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT: BUSH WAR-PLANS ARE THE REAL THREAT
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Article: 154204
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Iraqi women, men, children, and babies have just as much a right to
live as those so brutally murdered on 9/11. You don’t fight
terrorism by committing it against other civilians, which is what this
’war’ would be if we don’t stop it
And isn’t it strange how every time Iraq gives in, and
complies with yet another demand, interviewing scientists, spy plane
overflights, and more, every time Iraq does as it’s asked,
Bush/Powell are not overjoyed, but get angrier. Isn’t that
strange?
We keep hearing about the threat of Iraq, and the need to
disarm
Iraq.
As for Iraq, a 5th-rate military power barely surviving economically, the lack of evidence, indeed, the mountains of evidence and testimonials that is it not a threat, should be familiar if the media hadn’t done such a job of shivering on bended knee in subservience to power that is an insult to our democracy and the idea of a free press.
To review: Iraq’s neighbors don’t consider it a threat; on top of that, the very arms inspectors including head inspector Scott Ritter who as BBC pointed out long ago, was disliked by Iraq for being so tough, he too indicates Iraq was 90-95% disarmed and the process was working (hence the need for the media to tar-and-feather him and try to tarnish his name);
On top of THAT, Bush’s own CIA, for heaven’s sake, normally afraid to contradict it’s boss, stated firmly and clearly that Iraq is very unlikely to use any WMD if not attacked (and added, pointing out what common sense tells us, that if, on the other hand, it is attacked, it will probably use anything it’s got; if it’s 99.9% disarmed and down to one single gallon of WMD, they will use whatever they have).
Presumably the CIA director was facing a threat of massive resignations by CIA personnel who would not turn the truth upside down against their own professional expertise and responsibility for the safety of the US
On top of THAT, why did Saddam Hussein not use WMD in 1992? He also didn’t use them in 1993, or 1994, or... until 2003. Why not? Because he’s not suicidal, and knows it would mean near-instant annihilation.
Even more dramatically, Saddam did not use WMD back during the Gulf
War of 1991. Remember, while there are suspected
remains today,
there is NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD back in 1991, that was before
Scott Ritter’s and others’ very successful 90-95%
disarming of Iraq in 1992-1998 found and eliminated those.
So there is no question Saddam had WMD back during the Gulf War.
So, why didn’t he use them?
Again, because he’s not suicidal.
Not even when faced with a direct military attack (and if you’re
ever going to use it, that’s when you’d use it) even then
Saddam didn’t use any—because he’s not
suicidal. That was a war to expel from Kuwait, so not being
suicidal
worked. But now a war for 100% total annihilation of his
regime and indeed his life. . .Saddam would have nothing to lose.
(Before invading Kuwait, like a good dictator
Saddam
specifically summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her of US
opinions on Kuwait. He mistook her we have no opinion on your
border dispute
to be a full green light. And that, and ONLY that,
is what turned him into the Beast of Baghdad. Saddam was ok
with Washington until then; indeed, well supported militarily AND
economically AND diplomatically, so deeply were Rumsfeld and Bush I
and others in bed with Saddam. And that is when Saddam committed by
far his worst crimes, including gassing, and they STILL supported
him. Being a nasty brutal dictator is OK with Washington; just not
being one who (even accidentally) misinterprets orders, being
disobedient, that is the only thing that bothers them)
So the CIA points out common sense. And like the CIA, plus Ritter, plus other inspectors, plus Iraq’s neighbors, the overwhelming truth (plus 12+ years of evidence Saddam is not suicidal) plus the 5th-rate military power that they are all point out the very, very obvious: Iraq is not a threat.
But as the CIA points out, if attacked in a war of annihilation, it
could be a threat. An Israeli analysts quoted on the BBC also
indicated Israel is not at all worried about its safety, not at all
worried about that Iraq poses a threat; but it is worried, if a war is
launched on Iraq, about more terrorism against Israeli as revenge for
the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians—because an uprovoked
war on Iraq would cause what this well placed Israeli
military/government analyst called, An earthquake that would run
through the entire middle east
. Not very palatable...
So Iraq is not a threat..so what’s it all about?
The west
—really, US/UK, are not interested in
disarming
Iraq. As noted, Iraq is 90-95% disarmed by 1998, and
even more disarmed today with the on-going Al Saud destruction and
more, and no matter how Bush/Powell and the media try to terrify, and
emotionally terrorize the American people, Iraq not a threat to
anyone, because Saddam (like the last 12 years) is not suicidal) and
Iraqi is very well contained. And it could be even further disarmed
with the same inspection process that got it 90-95% disarmed so far
very successfully.
Washington and its British Lieutenant
don’t care about
disarming but it’s a nice sound bite.
Their agenda isn’t disarming
Otherwise they would be
overjoyed (rather than angry) at Scott Ritter’s reports;
conditionswhich is gave up on, with a guns to its head, were in many cases very reasonable; which is why they were largely censored from American public’s ears; Remember, 99.9999% of Iraqis are not Saddam Hussein, and just want to live in peace. He is a brutal dictator, but the country’s demands were still reasonable: a) an end to weekly/daily bombing by US/UK in the US-UK-declared (non-UN-authorized)
no fly zone, and b) something in writing and specific as to what conditions would, upon being met, would lead to an end to the sanctions); Iraq caved in and let the inspections return without these reasonable conditions being met.
not cooperating.
those evil nasty Iraqis have proved we MUST start a WAR and do it RIGHT NOW!), then instead of happy, the UK/US reaction was
it’s a cynical ploy. Hello? Orwell? Are you there? If you don’t do it, you get bombed, if you do, if you comply with what you’ve been asked to do, it’s a
cynical ploy
A war would also make the US and others far less safe. Yes, increased
terrorism. But also, every county on the planet would make a mad rush
to develop, or massively accelerate, it’s efforts to get WMD as
the only possible defense, as the only possible deterrent, if it
learns that international law, the UN, nothing matters, in a world
where one lone rogue superpower will regime change
anyone it
likes, unless (like North Korea) you present a credible *deterring
threat*. That’s a very ugly lesson that the world would be
taught if Washington acted in the completely unprovoked, on top of
internationally illegal war on Iraq, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
would massively proliferate across the world in so many spots that
undoing them all would be utterly impossible.
On top of that, the people of Iraq are innocent. In fact they are the
victims of Saddam, and are owned a huge apology by Bush I, Rumsfeld,
and other Bush II pals who did what the peace movement never did: sold
Saddam weapons, gave him economic air, shielded him diplomatically,
sold him what he needed to create WMD, and more. They should be
ashamed. Instead of an apology and doing community service in Baghdad,
they now want to slaughter thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Iraqi
civilian victims are their solution
Most anyone will tell you they would rather let a guilty person go
free (or even 10 go free) than put a single innocent person in
prison. Then why would anyone KILL thousands of innocents (Iraqis) to
catch one guilty person? It’s worse than that actually...Imagine
the guilty person was earlier aided by the person now wanting to kill
thousands to catch
. It’s even worse: there are other ways
to get rid of the guilty person (the one in Baghdad; the guilty ones
here who sold him weapons, the ones in Washington, are not so easy to
put on trial, Bush and Rumsfeld and company..)
The idea of war
(really, one-sided slaughter) in Iraq is a
horrible idea on many other levels of course (namely we don’t
even have to let the guilty go free, as county after country show you
CAN get rid of brutal dictatorships without resort to a bloody war --
e.g. Indonesia’s Suharto was gotten rid of without bombing,
though he was responsible for the second largest proportional genocide
of the 20th century, killing some 200,000 of 600,000 East Timorese)
It’s not about disarming Iraq, it’s about something rather
different that is left out of polite conversation; see the Essay:
Weapons of Mass Distraction:
http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/mass-distraction.html
Disarming Public Debate
Most of all, again, the Iraqi people, the civilian women, men, children, and babies who live in Baghdad have no less a right to live than those so brutally murdered on 9/11. No less.
It is spitting at the memory of those 9/11 victims to propose a
Response
that does the same thing to thousands of other equally
innocent civilians...an insane and immoral response
that adopts
Bin Laden’s (and apparently Bush/Powell’s) idea that
it’s acceptable to slaughter hundreds, even thousands or more
people, innocent women, men, children, and babies, all for your own
political ambitions. That is terrorism, period.
You don’t fight terrorism by committing it against others. and by adopting the methods of the terrorists. Americans know better—and real patriots must rise up and stop Bush/Powell, with haste.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
—George Orwell
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities
—Voltaire