[barbara100 at jps.net]

It's not very logical for you to deduce, Jbor, that the Stop the War crowd thinks it's "totally OK" that Saddam launch an attack first. How did you figure that? I think the Stop the War crowd wants to see weapons inspections resume.  And more than a few of us want to see that monster ousted in the night. But there's a big difference between that and all out attack American style.    

In an Australian interview Richard Butler said Dick Chenny's claim that Iraq has nuclear capabilities is out of line. I'm surprised he would have said soemthing different to the Senate. Go read for yourself. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s695405.htm 

And read what he thinks about the US going at it alone. 

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
FOUR CORNERS
Investigative journalism at its very best 

                  
Interview with Richard Butler, the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, 1997-99.

[…]
And what's the likelihood of things panning out like that?

Well I think it's quite likely because you've only got to listen to what they say. At every turn, the Iraqi leadership says that United States threat to them isn't just something between them and the United States. They
keep saying it's the US Zionist Israeli Alliance and so on. Now that plays well in some parts of the Arab  world, but it's deeply dangerous, and I think in those circumstance - and I think what it signals is that if there is an attack by the United States upon Iraq that he will very likely attack Israel as he did during the Gulf war, when Israel was a non combatant, he will attack Israel - possibly with weapons of mass destruction - in an attempt to bring Israel into the war. 

What then would be the chances of Israel responding with it's own weapons of mass destruction?

They'd be very high and I have to tell you Stephen this is my deepest anxiety about a uni-lateral action by the United States, as against a UN enforcement (collective enforcement action/enforcement of international law) it is that Saddam would attack Israel and, as Prime  Minister Sharon said 10 days ago, Israel would this time respond, where they didn't during the Gulf war and I believe what that means is that Israel could
very likely use nuclear weapons and I think that would be a catastrophe.
[…]

 So
> it's actually Scott Ritter's data and opinion which are way out of date.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm
> 
> 31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped
> up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections
> ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.
> 
> The most disturbing and illogical thing about the "Stop the war" protesters,
> that is, apart from the fact that there's currently no actual war to stop,
> is that they seem to be totally OK with the prospect of Saddam launching
> pre-emptive strikes with his (alleged) weapons of mass destruction, just so
> long as no-one else launches a pre-emptive strike to stop him from doing so.
> 
> best
> 
> 
> >  But 
> > can't you find anything more recent?
> > 
> > How about this? In 2002, striaght from the source's mouth:
> > 
> > http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
> > 
> > "While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the
> > disposition of Iraq's
> > proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified
> > disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of
> > every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all
> > significant items of production equipment, and the
> > majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq."
> > 
> > 
> >> 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>