Subject: IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT; BUSH WAR-PLANS ARE

"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
summon 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;

* OTHERWISE, Bush/Powell would have been REALLY overjoyed when Iraq
gave in on inspections the second time around (By the way, Iraq's
"conditions" which 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.

* AGAIN Washington should have been really overjoyed, but, strangely,
was even more upset, when Iraq agreed to have scientists be
interviewed. The more Iraq agreed, the more fist on the table angry
Bush/Powell became in their higher and higher pitched insistence that
Iraq is "not cooperating".

* STILL again, Washington was even more upset -- strangely, 
not happy -- when Iraq agreed  yet another demand: spy planes overhead
which it had very real concerns about that they not be used
to launch a war, or that an accidental mistaking them for fighters
might cause a shooting down, leading to an excuse for war; mostly
Blix worked successfully to resolve those concerns) Why is
is the Regime in Washington more upset the more
Iraq agrees to demands? Could it be that its real agenda isn't what is
says it wants? If it was about doing ask requested Bush/Powell would
be happier each time Iraq agreed to yet another demand, not less happy.

* AND YET AGAIN, when Iraq agreed to , and indeed, started destroying
the Al-Saud missile (if Iraq did not do it,
it would have been "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: "Disarming Public Debate""

http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/mass-distraction.html

= = = = 

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.

= = = =

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

= = = = 

"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

"And so we're told that this is the golden age..
..And gold is the reason for the wars we wage" -U2