BUSH IS A THREAT, NOT IRAQ (TALKING POINTS

Who is a threat to world peace? A Time online poll indicated
80% of Americans put Bush's regime as the largest threat to world
peace, far above either Iraq or North Korea. More scientific
poll have given less dramatic numbers, but with the same overall
conclusion: most people in the world and huge numbers of Americans
are seeing through the fear-mongering Bush is using to push the
country to a costly and bloody war, and question who the real threat
is.

Key points to consider:

I hope to send part 2 tomorrow based on pieces of varoius essays I've
written, on how past and current actions, and present rhetoric, expose
the real motives (e.g. if Bush/Powell meant a word they say about
"disarming," they would have LOVED the French Plan, as can be
demonstrated very well) Anyway, here are a few:

* Iraq is not a threat.

Iraq is far, far weaker today militarily, than in 1991, when Bush
the first was not threatened by, and even gave active military,
financial and diplomatic support  to Iraq. 
Iraq today is also  economically  at the edge of survival.

* On top of that, why did Saddam not use WMD in 1992, 1993, 1994,
... through 2003? Because he's not suicidal. Any such use would 
mean instant overwhelming retaliation and annihilation. This long
record makes it very clear that Saddam understands very well the
consequences, and hence does not wish to commit suicide by using them.

* For the above reasons, Iraq's neighbors do not fear Iraq. If Iraq
  were such a threat, why would they be opposing a war on Iraq? If
  Iraq were a threat, why would Bush need to do so much arm-twisting,
  bribing, and threatening to withhold economic aid or cooperation,
  merely to get the minimal reluctant cooperation he's gotten so far?
  While Israel's leadership is going along with Bush, thousands of
  Israelis have demonstrated against a war they know will be born by
  "the Iraqi people", and even a senior Israeli official admitted in a
  BBC interview that "Iraq is not a threat to Israel" but that a war
  on Iraq would cause "an earthquake throughout the entire middle east"
  which would "worry Israel" because of "increased terrorism" that
  would result.

* Even more dramatically, and a seldom-mentioned fact is that Saddam's
survival instinct was tested: in 1991 during the Gulf War Iraq was not
merely suspected of having, but known to have, WMD. Why didn't Saddam
use his WMD even when under military attack to expel Iraq from
Kuwait?  Because he's not suicidal. Any WMD Saddam might have
are utterly useless to him offensively, since any use
of them, would mean instant and overwhelming annihilation for him.  As
12 straight years and counting demonstrate very clearly, Saddam has
not such suicidal intentions. Any WMD Saddam might have would be
useful only as a deterrent against an attack on Iraq.

* Even the CIA agrees, Saddam is not a threat if not attacked today.
But if attacked in a war of annihilation against him, grave
consequences may ensue. These include not only potential use of WMD,
but the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian women, men,
children, and babies -- who have just as much a right to live as those
so brutally murdered on 9/11. We do not honor the dead or fight
terrorism, by killing thousands of other civilians elsewhere. In fact,
that would expand terrorism.

* Furthermore, an attack on Iraq would cause a massive escalation of
  counties all over the world attempting to acquire or expand their
  WMD, because it would be a very loud and clear message to the whole
  world that anyone without sufficiently powerful WMD is defenseless
  against "regime change"  by pure military force by the world only
  military superpower -- whose leadership seems to have abandoned any
  pretense of abiding by international law.



= = = =

Sorry we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email

For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/