Iraq [was Re: [CLUE-Talk] Slashdot Gun Control]

[Matt Gushee]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:11:38PM -0700, David Willson wrote:

> - We have good reasons to believe that Iraq is developing nukes, and
> that they have biological weapons. 

Do we, now? Have you heard those reasons? I haven't heard any evidence,
only repeated assertions that it exists. If you believe the president
simply because he is the president, then I guess there's no convincing
you. But:

 * Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector, has made repeated
   public statements that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was effectively
   destroyed by the Gulf War and the subsequent inspection regime. He is
   said to be a conservative and to have strongly supported Bush before
   this issue arose.
   Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/
       (Google for "scott ritter" for many more articles)
 * Hans Blix, current chief inspector, says roughly the same thing.
   Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/05/iraq.nuclear/
        (ditto on Google)

> - Iraq has been ordered not to have them, and to submit to searches
> which will "prove" that they do not have them. 

 * Israel has been ordered many times to cease occupying Palestinian and
   has repeatedly flouted those orders; yet the flow of US military aid
   (something like $3 billion per year) continues unchecked. In the
   1980s, the US was ordered to stop mining Nicaraguan harbors, and
   flat-out refused to comply. The Bush administration recently badgered
   the UN into exempting all US citizens from the jurisdiction of the
   World Criminal Court.

   None of this excuses Saddam Hussein from the consequences of whatever
   he may be doing. And it may be that we need to do something about him
   for the sake of US national interests or on other purely pragmatic
   grounds. But given our record, I don't see how we can talk about
   international law with a straight face.
  
> - Iraq has not allowed the searches.  - The imminent threat of war has
> caused Iraq to allow the searches.  Years of preceding diplomatic
> interaction had failed to do so. 

Maybe. It is hard to get the straight story on exactly what Iraq does
and does not allow. However, if you're referring to Saddam's palaces, 
the latest I recall hearing was that he was opening them up. Again,
since the Bush administration's constant bellowing about the alleged
shortcomings of the inspection process gets much more news coverage than
the inspection process itself, it's hard to tell for sure what's really
happening.

And if you're referring to the assertion that UN weapons inspectors were
"kicked out" of Iraq in 1998, that is a lie. They were evacuated on the
orders of chief inspector Richard Butler. Again, you can search Google
for "butler iraq 1998", but here's one reference that should be of
interest:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/index_12_16.html
The last link on the page points to a Voice of America report which
states, in part,

 U-N WEAPONS MONITORS IN BAGHDAD ARE BEING EVACUATED, JUST IN 
 CASE. 

"Just in case" refers to the possibility of the inspectors' falling
victim to imminent air strikes. Now those air strikes, and the pullout
of the inspectors, were motivated by Butler's report that Saddam Hussein
was failing to cooperate. Fair enough: maybe he was failing to
cooperate. Maybe the allegations of US spying under cover of weapons
inspections are false. If so, why can't our government and media simply
tell the truth, rather than spinning the story beyond recognition?

I'd like to add more. Given that the mainstream media are so reluctant to
challenge the official story, it's very time-consuming to dig up the
facts to bolster my case; this alone took about one hour that I can't
really afford. But for now, let me just leave you with a couple of
random snippets.

 * In the recent Scud missile shipment incident, why did our government
   start dropping hints that the shipment might be headed for Iraq? They
   *knew* it was headed for Yemen. Yes, they did. Check out this report
   from the December 2 Washington Times:
   http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021202-71029594.htm

 * If aggressive states with nuclear weapons are such a menace, why
   haven't we already invaded North Korea? They openly admit to having a
   nuclear weapons program, and have fired several test missiles into
   Japanese waters. Or what about Pakistan, which not only has nukes,
   but is taking our money and using it to brutally suppress human
   rights--and probably also to protect Taliban and Al Qaida fugitives?

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)