|Back to Index|
US: Action against Iraq
Tom Moore defends his position: "North Korea is a much greater threat than Iraq. Since the Gulf war, Iraq has not attacked anyone. The attack on Kuwait was made after Ieaq asked our Ambassador about it and she said we didn't care or something to that effect. Since North Korea is obviously a much greater threat and since none of Iraq's neighbors except Israel support the war, it is hard to see why we should attack them. Iraq is far from building nuclear weapons. If we were attacking them because they have WMD and have violated UN resolutions, we might want to consider a country that has nuclear weapons plus chemical and biological weapons plus has violated many, many times UN resolutions, Israel! Therefor I have trouble taking on its face the reason that the US government gives for attacking Iraq.
Iran as well as Iraq has used poison gas and the major instance of use of gas on the Kurds was during a battle in the 1980s over a Kurdish city between the Iranians and the Iraqis. The CIA concluded that the deaths were caused by the type of gas the Iranians used not that of Iraq. My sources on whether the military call chemicals and biological "weapons of mass destruction" may be wrong, but these weapons clearly don't fit the bill. Under the right circumstances they could kill a lot of people but they don't destroy much. Nuclear weapons do produce massive destruction. Chemical weapons are not all that effective except in small areas, and biological weapons are hard to handle and deliver safely to others. Fire bombing has a record of killing lots more people than any use to date of chemical or biological weapons, but we don't call such bombing WMD, even though they not only do kill a lot they also destroy a lot of property".
RH: What Tom says about the American Ambassador in Iraq is extremely important. I recollect it vaguely. Did she seem to give Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait? I have seen no informed discussion of this. We need it.
Ronald Hilton - 2/17/03