Iraq is not a threat: Bush war plans are the real threat

From the Economic Democracy organization, 17 March 2003

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;

• 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.

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