LEADER OF THE PACK
AMERICAN DREAMS BEST OF THE G21 DAY ONE G21 AFRICA G21 BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSTORE G21 Digital Internet Postcards JOIN OUR MAILING LIST. You'll be glad you did. Surveys that affect our look and feel and much more. Be part of the In-Crowd! G21 EUROPE G21 MIDEAST G21 NEWS GLOBAL* BEAT HOT LINKS IRISH EYES MY GLASS HOUSE NY STATE (Of Mind) POWERSSOUND RDR TABLOID HART THE SEX COLUMN VOX POPULI RECOMMENDED DAILY REQUIREMENT ARCHIVES. LAST WEEK's EDITION MEET THE G-CREW! These are the people behind this jam-band every week. HOME TABLE OF CONTENTS & BACK ISSUES |
Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam Hussein ever had them, he would have used them during the Persian Gulf War. The fact he didn't use them, proves he didn't have chemical or biological weapons. If he didn't have them then, he certainly didn't any time since then, since that's when he had the most he ever had. He doesn't want to let weapons inspectors in because he wants to hide the fact he DOESN'T have weapons of mass destruction.
Part of the confusion seems to derive from the fact that today, unlike any previous time or in any other context, people seem to be using the phrase "chemical weapons" or "biological weapons" to refer to just the toxic chemicals or biological agents themselves. You need to design a way of putting it in a warhead on a missile that is designed to explode up in the air in such a way as to allow the material to rain down on the enemy.
This is actually extremely difficult, from an engineering point and is, by far, the most difficult aspect of developing chemical weapons. Iraq never had any such capability.
I remember during a Pentagon briefing I watched, during the Persian Gulf War, a reporter asked about the possibility of chemical or biological weapons and the spokesman said they were taking every precaution, but were not actually concerned about it, because they knew he did not have a delivery system.
Is the United States going to let weapons inspectors in to prove we don't have weapons of mass destruction? Well, that's a joke since we have more weapons of mass destruction than any country in the world. We have several times as many nuclear warheads as necessary to cause the extinction of the human species. We openly admit that without a trace of an apology.
Also, we're the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons -- not once but twice -- against civilian populations, and we haven't apologized for that either.
Another excuse is that Iraq has "attacked all its neighbors" or is a "threat to its neighbors".
The only other countries that Iraq has ever attacked were Iran and Kuwait.
In the first case, we didn't have any sympathy for Iranians so we didn't mind that.
In the second case, the world fought a huge, giant war to reverse the invasion which indicates how unforgivable rest of the world thinks it is for a larger country to launch a totally unprovoked attack against a smaller weaker country, totally taking over all its territory, and overthrowing its government, even if the smaller country is not the nicest country in the world, which tells you why the rest of the world is against an American attack on Iraq.
Iraq has not taken any aggressive action against anyone in the last ten years.
Imagine the following scenario. Tomorrow morning you turn on CNN and there's breaking news. Iraq has just invaded Kuwait! Could you imagine that happening? See how ridiculous that hypothetical is? No one could imagine that happening. The idea of Iraq invading Kuwait today is unimaginable. If no one could imagine Iraq attacking Kuwait, no one could imagine Iraq attacking any other country.
Now, compare that to the United States. The United States attacks more countries than any country in history. We are constantly attacking other countries. With the one exception of Pearl Harbor, every military action ever taken by the United States, from the colonial times to right now, has been us attacking other countries. We are always the aggressor.
I have actually heard people against the war in Iraq say "The United States doesn't attack other countries". You can't even make a list of all the countries we attacked or invaded since World War II. We slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Persian Gulf War.
Then some people claim we should attack Iraq because there's al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Now compare that to the United States. Since we are an open society, al-Qaeda members can operate freely in this country. They can freely enter this country, since we encourage immigrants to come here. I'm sure there are far more al-Qaeda in the United States than Iraq.
In short, the reasons given for attacking Iraq are totally false. However, if you took the false accusations against Iraq, and multiplied them by a thousand, you would have the truth about the United States which we don't deny. Would it therefore be morally justified for some other country to attack the United States, and overthrow our government?
There are a group of right-wing hawks in this country that are absolutely obsessed with attacking Iraq, and will say whatever they think will make us attack Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11, but when you had Sept 11, they said, oh, Iraq must have been behind Sept 11. Therefore, we have to attack Iraq. When you had the anthrax scare, they said, oh, Iraq must be behind the anthrax. Therefore, we have to attack Iraq. Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction, but they just make up the claim that Iraq does, and theref
Iraq is probably the least likely country in the world to ever get a hold of nuclear weapons. There is no such thing as an Iraqi physicist. That's an oxymoron. It's an impoverished third world nation with no indigenous scientific background or technical expertise needed for developing nuclear weapons, no fissionable material, and no resources needed for developing nuclear weapons. They are under sanctions, and the embargo. They have had weapons inspectors explore every inch of their country. We have military air craft flying constant patrols over the country, and we bomb Iraq every so often with little fan fare. We have spy satellites, and they are the microscope of world scrutiny. Developing nuclear weapons is way out of their league. If nuclear weapons were easy enough to develop that Iraq
What really illustrates the obsession of the right-wing hawks to make up excuses to attack Iraq, no matter how ludicrous, is when they actually suggested that there was a living American MIA left over from the Persian Gulf War being held in Iraq, the obvious implication being now we have to attack Iraq because we have to get our guy back.. Aside from being cruel to the family, this illustrates their fanatical desperation to think up any excuse they can of, no matter how ridiculous, to attack Iraq.
One of the justified arguments against attacking Iraq is that it would be very difficult. To counter this, the hawks make up the claim that it would be very easy. Some of them claim it would be a cake walk. All of you have to do is show up, and the mere presence of the Americans will cause the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This sounds like the Bay of Pigs. Last time, all you had to do was kick the Iraqi troops out of that one tiny little area called Kuwait. Even so, it was a huge undertaking that involved killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. This next war will be vastly more difficult. Instead of gaining control of just the tiny area called Kuwait, you would have to gain control over the entire country of Iraq
Another fantasy promoted by the hawks for the sole purpose to encouraging support for the war, is that after Saddam, you would have democracy in Iraq, which is the least likely country in the Middle East to ever achieve democracy. There are four realistic scenarios for a post-Saddam Iraq.
The official reason for the war is that Iraq won't let weapons inspectors in. Iraq has endured a more humiliating regime of weapons inspection than any country in history, and the United Nations inspectors, including many Americans, such as Scott Ritter, agree that they do not have any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein never used chemical or biological weapons during the Persian Gulf War, which proves he didn't have them at that time. Of course, the United States has more nuclear weapons then any other country in the world, and I don't think we're claiming that it would therefore be justified for some other country to attack the United States, and overthrow our government.
Hanford, CA, USA - I remember during the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein boasting he had a "devastating weapon that would terrify our enemies and delight our friends". Despite that, no chemical biological weapons were ever used. First of all, this proves that he pretends to have weapons that he does not. In fact, that bizarre statement sounds almost like he's pretending to have some sort of science-fiction weapon. Second of all, could you imagine the same man that made that statement NOT using everything he had? Could you imagine him holding back? During the Persian Gulf War, he wanted to win very badly and certainly used everything he had against us. The fact that no chemical or biological weapons were used proves that he had no such thing in his possession. Of course, he wanted very badly for people to think he had chemical or biological weapons, and he still does.
Actually, that is very unlikely. Those that fled Afghanistan went to Pakistan. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin have been bitter enemies that hated each other. Al-Qaeda hates Iraq since it's a secular country that would normally be a lap dog of the West. Iraq hates Islamic fundamentalists since they fear an Islamic revolution like [the one that] happened in Iran. Since Iraq is an oppressive dictatorship, they can effectively keep Islamic terrorists out of their country. Also, Saddam Hussein would never give weapons to anybody since he wants power only for himself, and trusts no one else.
I don't know why any of these four scenarios would be so much preferable to the present situation as to justify slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
JEFFERY WINKLER - is a writer and physics buff who lives in Hanford, California. This is his first article for The World's Magazine.
WEB SITE PICK OF THE WEEK: Tigers! Just the mention of them brings up an exotic idea. But how much do you really know about them? You can learn more at the 5 Tigers site. Enjoy!
| MY GLASS HOUSE | THE PREVIOUS EVENT | COMING ATTRACTIONS | THE WRITERS/GUIDELINES | |