>>>You used the anthrax example. Think how many people can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax.<<<
That's true. Perhaps the US should keep better track of the anthraz it has at military installations. Aren't we missing some? Moreover, virtually every nation in the world can do this, as can just about any university laboratory.
>>>And think about how it's not just a question of whether Saddam Hussein might put them on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it to some city of people he wanted to destroy.<<<
Saddam's track record using chemicals is a defensive one where he's using them under warring conditions. Regarding the first use against the Iranians, his positions were being overrun; regarding the second instance, there was a key town situated on a roadway that would have created a clear path to Baghdad and they got used again.
I wish he hadn't used them. But, ironically, the US is probably glad he did. Otherwise Iraq would be Iran, and the US doesn't particularly like religious fundamentalist goverments. Another irony, is in Bush's version of democracy, the Shi'ite majority may well do this anyway. And we probably won't like that either.
>>>Think about all the terrorists and drug runners and other bad actors that could just parade through Baghdad to pick up their stores if we don't take the strongest possible action.<<<
Do you know how many terrorists from American-friendly dictators and drug runners have roamed America? Should we attack ourselves?
>>>I far prefer the United Nations. I far prefer the inspectors. I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing. But if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. And that is not a threat. I have shown that I do not relish this sort of thing. Every time it's discussed around here, I said, you know, one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while -- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while -- is that there is always time enough to kill. And, therefore, we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances. And I've done that.<<<
First off, Bush's so-called alliance--how come we haven't heard the phrase "Coalition of the Willing," lately?--consists of two strong European nations out of step with their populations: Britain with a strong military complement; Spain with fly-over rights. Then there's about 450 Australian soldiers and a Czech Republic decontamination truck. Hardly a strong alliance or partnership. Fact of the matter is 70 percent or more of world opinion vehemently oppose this war, and I suspect both the leaders of Britain and Spain will later hear from their constituents.
Now, as to the inspections? Saddam's son, Kamel, when he defected and met with US and British intelligence agents, and UN weapons inspectors, made many claims, only of which the US has publicly touted: that Saddam was once close to nuclear. The information that was repressed and never saw the light of day until Newsweek exposed this a couple of weeks ago, is Kamel's statement that Saddam actually buried most of his WDM.
Presently, the Blix, et. al., are current analyzing this pit where this disposal is to have taken place and the results from this analysis are not yet in. Shall we blame the French for this, because they want perhaps to see what becomes of this very important issue, which goes right to the heart of where the supposed missing WDM are located?
Why was half of the Kamel intelligence statement repressed, while the other half, the nuclear part became Bush gospel, together with the fabricated Iraqi agent-Niger documents falsely showing Saddam was trying to buy urnanium, together with the purchased aluminum tubes that were supposedly for nuclear purposes but turned out, in reality, to be for a stronger conventional rocket system?
And, of course, we hear all sorts of talkinghead generals talking about how our advanced units will move in quickly to shore up the oil wells and go in to the sites where the weapons of mass destruction are located and neutralize those sites. Huh? How come the 101st (which is presently a fractured force, part on land/part at sea) and the 82nd Airborne units know where these weapons are and the UN weapons inspections don't?
Gordon, you don't think there's something wrong with this picture?
The fact of reality, as of March 16, 2003 is that Bush could go to war on March 17, 2003 while Blix might want to deliver his report which is very likely to contain information about the missing WDM on March 18, 2003.
So don't tell me Bush believes in the weapons inspectors. If he said that, he lied again. Just like when he lies every time he says "Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors." Fact? Saddam didn't. Clinton advised then chief weapons inspector Richard Butler to pull 'em, which he did without consulting the United Nations Security Council.
So we don't hear the truth from Bush, nor from AM talk radio nor FoxNews. Hey, what's wrong with the truth? Is it all that bad?
Gordan, what I liked about Bush's answer is that at least--regardless of the flaws in his argument--it seemed coherent. Meanwhile, here's some Sunday reading for you:
MEDIA vs. PROPAGANDA--SEARCH FOR TRUTH:
fas.org
american-reporter.com
rense.com
browndailyherald.com
truthout.org
smh.com.au
atlanta.creativeloafing.com
rense.com
guardian.co.uk
arabnews.com
globalissues.org
globalissues.org
buzzle.com
zmag.org
zmag.org
pbs.org
pbs.org
zmag.org
fair.org
sierratimes.com
rense.com
smh.com.au
atimes.com
themoscowtimes.com
mediamonitors.net
thestar.com
observer.co.uk
alternet.org
talkingpointsmemo.com
rsf.org
iranian.com
homepage.eircom.net |
