I'm currently watching Scott Ritter on an American news show. He says that while touring for weapon inspections in Iraq, they never told the locals ahead of time where they were going, they made surprise visits, and over five years they didmantled 90 to 95 per cent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production capacity. He says they never in five years saw any evidence whatsoever of any mobile fatories or any kinds, and the USA has never supplied evidence of such. Now, the UN weapon inspectors were in there doing their jobs. And the USA, not Iraq, ordered them out of Iraq. Since then, Iraq has invited UN weapon inspectors back in. In fact, Iraq sent a letter to the USA Congress inviting them as well to send in their own US weapon inspectors. The USA declined. Since Scott Ritter has come out and basically completely undermined the already baseless assertions of the US government regarding Iraq and chem/bio weapons, the US government has instead come out with "Iraq may develop nuclear weapons". So, the US government's pretext for war now is the hypothetical future situation in which Iraq might some day develop nuclear weapons. I must say, dozens of nations might some day develop nuclear weapons, and the US is not threatening to attack them, so it doesn't seem a valid excuse for war. I have heard one US reporter specialising in politics suggest that the US has every right to attack Iraq because Iraq's past performance means they will do it all again. Such as chemical attacks against Iran and against Iraq's kurds. So, is the US saying that the past is a valid excuse for future wars? If so, then surely the US deserves to be attacked for Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the chemical weapons they used in Vietnam. Clearly that is logical. If the US uses the past as an excuse for attacking a nation, then the US must agree that the US deserves to be attacked. Clearly the US is not saying that though. Iraq does not want war with the USA. Saddam Hussein may be a complete bastard, but he's not a moron. Nobody wants the USA's massive military coming in their front door. Iraq's ambassadors to other nations have repeatedly said they don't want a fight, and have repeatedly invited weapon inspectors to come in and investigate anything they want. So, what has the US government got? No chemical and biological weapons excuse. The past is an illogical and flimsy line of crap, it doesn't work since that would eman the US deserves to be attacked as well. Iraq doesn't want war. The best the US government can come up with is that maybe, some day, Iraq might have nuclear weapons. That's it? Iraq might have nukes some day? Well, the USA has heaps of the things, and is the only country to ever use nukes as weapons. And the USA deliberately targeted civilians. Again, Iraq does not want war. Even if they some day develop nukes, does anyone really think they are stupid enough to try delivering one or two with their rather low levels of rocket technology to the USA, with all its defences, and with the USA's ability to pulverise that entire region? It's bollocks. Is there really any valid, rational excuse for the USA threatening to invade Iraq and kill its people?
Also, the news is saying Iraq can build A nuclear weapon in a few months if they can get hold of high grade uranium/plutonium (I forgot which one it was). My point is, so can everyone else. Also, what are they gonna do with ONE nuke. Nuke New York and sit back and wait for the US to send a couple hundred their way. Saddam is smarter than that, the US Government knows that. They are just trying to get their people on their side. DAMN PROPAGANDA
[nitpick] I think, actually, that Iraq started kicking inspectors out when they claimed to have evidence that U.S. members of the U.N. inspection teams were spying and expelled the majority of U.S. participants in October of 1997. In November of the same year, Iraq expelled the remaining six U.S. inspectors and the United Nations withdrew other inspectors in protest. Iraq re-admitted UN inspectors after the US and UK began another military build-up in the Gulf. UNSCOM went about its mandate of monitoring the destruction of the Iraq's weapons facilities until 1998 when the UN recalled inspection teams from Iraq prior to the US bombing of December 1998. The “issue” since then is that Iraq has refused to allow the return of inspectors due to “unsatisfactory conditions” that the U.S. has placed upon the agreement. [/nitpick] Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
My mom keeps saying George W is only pursuing war with Iraq for his own agenda - which she says is killing Saddamm, which Daddy Bush didn't do. I told her she's crazy..
Adam I send your message to the PM, the Attorony Genral, the minister for foreign affares, the US consulate genral of Melb, the age, the sun, and the Australian i will post there responcesPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Another question. If the US is relying on the past history of Iraq's aggression to prove the danger, then I wonder. How many Americans has Iraq killed? How many Iraqis has America killed? By my count, Iraq is responsible for about 100 US deaths (during the Gulf War). That's it. And the US is responsible from anywhere between 100,000 - 500,000 Iraq deaths (depending on whether you count deaths as a result of sanctions). Who's a threat to who?
Asguard, it should be interesting if there are any responses. I just hope you ran that stuff through a spell-checker first, as I made a few errors. Captain Canada, I seem to recall that during Desert Storm, more Americans and British and all died from USA gunfire than from Iraqi gunfire. I recall that one incident of a US Apache helicopter opening up with its machine gun on a British APC, when the British inside were trying everything to get the Americans to realise who they were.
IIRC In the Gulf War, friendly fire accounted for almost a third of the over 200 Americans killed, raising doubts about the advances in military technology. Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
Ah, it's not the technology itself, but the poor training and the reliance upon that technology. I'm very impressed with US miulitary tech, I just wish Australia could afford to do it too.
What about the friendly fire count in Vietnam? That was way too high I'm just about to send an editted version of Ants e-mail to Tony Blair
