As of this writing, January 2, 2003, I'm not aware of any direct proof Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush Administration seems poised to conduct war on Iraq with or without proof.
If no weapons of mass destruction are found by the United Nations inspection team, led by Hans Blix, what will or should America do?
Will Bush decide on war anyway?
If the Bush Administration plays the war card, is there any way to stop the generals from marching innocent Americans into the Winds of War? And how would history view such a war?
My theory is a U.S. vs. Iraq War could be prevented if Hans Blix, because his inspection team cannot find any weapons of mass destruction, decides himself to become a human shield and remain in Iraq. Were this to happen, Bush would have to think long and hard how future historians would use their pens. More importantly, he'd have to think long and hard about his own war.
Any thoughts, folks? Let's hear 'em!
PS: With the Pope's church weakened from scandals too numerous, maybe peace-minded folk really do need someone like Hans Blix to step up to the plate just to make sure Bush is throwing the right stuff.
And speaking of the right stuff, here's a bit of something on lots of folks who are today influence public opinion as to whether or not America should go to war with Iraq:
nhgazette.com
Below are some relevant articles or news stories relative to war developments:
March 2, 1999:
washingtonpost.com
December 21, 2001
wsfi.net
July 30, 2002:
news.bbc.co.uk
September 9, 2002
cnn.com
January 5, 2003:
ccmep.org
January 6, 2003:
cnn.com
cdi.org
truthout.org
washingtonpost.com
January 7, 2003:
workingforchange.com
guardian.co.uk
January 8, 2003:
msnbc.com
January 9, 2003:
newsday.com
newsday.com
edinburghnews.com |
