"But the world isn't like that"

[jbor]

on 17/10/02 2:05 AM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:

> No need for Americans to get this worked up, is all.

... Because you're safer than people in Israel? Is that your argument for
giving terrorism a free hand?

> Saddam's not a threat
> to America, but the President's been telling us he is.

Most of Bush's speeches address "free people everywhere". I don't believe
war should be declared on Iraq now, and it hasn't been. So the "Stop the
war!" protesters are somewhat ... pre-emptive themselves, stupidly so. I do
believe that Saddam poses an ongoing threat, even if only to those peoples
living within his own borders, or nearby, who he doesn't like (Kurds,
Assyrians, Mandaeans, Chaldeans, Christians, Iranians, Kuwaitis, Israelis,
Turks etc etc), and I do believe that a regime with a documented recent
history of developing and using weapons of mass destruction, which has
possible links to terrorist groups, is worth worrying about.

> He's lying to us.
> It's not okay that Israel gets scudded or anything else, but you know full
> well once we start bombing Baghdad, he'll start bombing Tel Aviv if he has
> anything at all. It happened last time, and everybody predicts it'll happen
> again. Poor Israel. This war will be a recipe for disaster for them.
> 
> You don't call that 1996 data compelling, do you?

The source seems rock solid to me. Where's your counter-evidence? It
indicates that Saddam was developing and using weapons of mass destruction
right after the Gulf War. It indicates that the Clinton govt. knew about it
and didn't act. Your argument was that Iraq's "got nothing", so, one
assumes, Americans should just relax, sit back, take it easy etc etc,
echoing Saddam's own rhetoric. The data from the 1997 Zilinskas report
demonstrates just how selfish and short-sighted that attitude is.

> The inspectors saw an end
> to it two years later.

Ya think?

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v278n5/ffull/jsc7087.html

 
Iraq's Biological Weapons: The Past as Future? by Raymond A. Zilinskas, PHD

[...]

CONCLUSIONS

The Iraq of today is similar to Iraq before the Persian Gulf War: it has the
same leader and form of governance, it possesses a large and powerful army
and air force, and it is able to deploy a large, well-trained civilian
workforce. Its oil reserves are the world's third largest, and the
infrastructure for oil exploitation has been rebuilt and is gearing up for
full production. As to its geopolitical standing, the same uneasy,
distrustful relations exist between Iraq and its neighbors as before; in
fact, Iraq's leader may perceive himself as even more beleaguered and as
having additional scores to settle. In consideration of this unsettled
situation, it is wise to prepare for the possibility of Iraq's trying once
again to gain a dominant position in the Middle East.

It is reasonable to assume that, as before, Iraq will attempt to overcome
the numerical superiority of regional opponents by resorting to the use of
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's former ballistic and cruise missiles and
biological warfare components would be the easiest and quickest to
reassemble. How can such disquieting developments be prevented?

The key barrier to Iraq reacquiring weapons of mass destruction undoubtedly
is the collective international will that sustains the several United
Nations Security Council resolutions designed to ensure a subdued Iraq.

[...]

best


> Jbor wrote:
>> 1991-1996 Iraqi military developed and used biological weapons in their
>> conflicts with Iran and with the Kurds. Zilinskas RA. 1997. Iraq's
>> biological weapons: The past as future? J Am Med Assoc 278:418-424.
>> 
>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect24histbiowar.html
>> 
>>> The last UN inspector in Iraq  (1998) said of 450 inspections they came
> up
>>> clean in [virtually] all of them and were in complete compliance.
>>> Saddam's got nothin', and if he does, as far as it's ever gonna go is
>>> Israel.
>> 
>> And that's OK because ... ?
>> 
> 
>