Charles V. Pena on Different Messenger, But Same Message: War:
Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. Security Council wasn’t anything that hasn’t been said before. To be sure, he provided more detailed information in the form of photographs and intercepted radio conversations. But this was simply more evidence affirming what we already know: that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and continues to pursue development of nuclear weapons.
However, the issue of whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction completely misses the more important and fundamental question relative to U.S. security. If mere possession of WMD is the criteria for pre-emptive U.S. military action, then Iraq should not be the only target. After all, according to the Pentagon, existing and emerging threats to the United States include 12 countries with nuclear weapons’ programs, 13 countries with biological weapons, and 16 with chemical weapons.
The relevant issue should be whether Iraq directly threatens the United States requiring pre-emptive U.S. military action. The litmus test to use military force must be that the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is at risk. To begin, although Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, it does not have any military capability to directly attack the United States. None. Zero. Artillery shells capable of carrying chemical munitions possibly tens of miles do not constitute a threat. The longest range weapons Iraq has are a handful of Scud missiles with a range of several hundred kilometers — again, not enough to reach the United States. And the Iraqi military is about half of what it was when the United States defeated it in less than one week in the first Gulf War. Thus, the threat that has been conjured up by the administration is the merging of two disparate notions: WMD and terrorism. Playing on the public’s sense of fear and vulnerability in the aftermath of September 11, the administration’s argument comes down to the assertion that Iraq will give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda terrorists.
Charles Pena, telling the truth. Click here and read the rest. Truth be damned, this war is coming.
And the blood will be on the hands of those beating the drums loudest.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
The Bush Doctrine: Hunt Down Terror
by Jack Wheeler
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/16/144851.shtml
The Insider Agenda Behind Disarming Iraq
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/12-02-2002/insider/vo18no24_iraq.htm
Should America Go to War?
by William Norman Grigg
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/10-21-2002/vo18no21_war.htm
Read Rush Limbaugh’s WSJ guest column, and note well how he has to resort to claiming (in an eerily-Clintonian way) there’s a loophole in the Constitution, just to maintain that the use-of-force resolution is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002149
Why doesn’t the Congress want a formal declaration of war?
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/2002/article/10-17.htm
2/14/2003 7:47:00
“what we already know: that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and continues to pursue development of nuclear weapons”
Actually we don’t know anything of the sort.
The only real evidence on this topic comes from the guys who are paid to investigate precisely this question — namely the UN weapons inspectors who have just reported back to the UN today(their second report) and have said once again that they have found NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS or any sign of any illegal weapons in Iraq.
And despite what Bush says these guys are very good indeed at finding weapons. And despite what Bush says it is very hard to hide a nuclear program or an industrial plant that is manufacturing chemical or biological weapons. Individual CBW weapons could be hidden but they have a short shelf life so the manufacturing of them is what matters.
So if we “know” that what they found is wrong then you have to wonder why the inspectors were sent in there to begin with. You have to wonder if we “know” they have weapons then where are they and why hasn’t any specific information been handed over to the UN weapons inspectors by Bush when (1) he has to by law and (2) it would obviously have been to his huge political advantage to do so.
Might I suggest that the hypothesis that Iraq has no illegal weapons is looking more reasonable than the opposite?
I agree by the way that it wouldn’t make any difference to the illegality of Bush’s actions if Iraq had a mountain of illegal weapons the size of America’s…..
Posted by DavidByron on February 14, 2003 12:55 PM
Powell also pointed out that Iraq cannot account for all its weaponized biologics. Duh. Neither can the US, proven by the fact we haven’t found an anthrax killer running around loose. How can we expect Iraq to comply to something we certainly can’t.
Powell also said that we must make war on Iraq because Hussein has WMDs that might be used to kill thousands of people. So, the logical action must therefore be for us to make war on Iraq so we can be certain to kill thousands, if not tens of thousands of people…
Posted by Majkia on February 14, 2003 12:56 PM
majkia: please understand, the people who released the anthrax spores into our country were not federally funded. they brought them to our country themselves. saddam’s bios are federally funded and have been accounted for in the past. you can’t just take these agents to the dumpster and throw them away without leaving some kind of a trace. his administration would keep track of anything he had done with them to get rid of them in the case that a future war may break out over it. if he sold them to terrorists he could be implicated for association. it is vital he turnover all proof he has that these weapons have been destroyed and stop with the charade. if he doesn’t have them anymore, fine prove it and avoid a war. if he does have them, fine destroy them now to avoid a war. neither of which he’s complying with.
the reality is, most of his troops will surrender and the war will be over in a matter of weeks. we do not target civilians, so where you get the tens of thousands dead is beyond me. the last war we only lost a little over a hundred fighting men so i hope you’re not implying that the number will be ours. in the short time it went on, there was a higher percent of deaths in somalia and we really had no business there either, but it was accepted.
Posted by g-money on February 15, 2003 02:52 AM
g-money,
I’m a retired USAF officer who worked for an outfit that was one of the first (if not the first) outfits into Iraq for Desert Storm(counter measures stuff that blinded their radars). Watched classified briefings and classified video of our efforts there.
As for the anthrax killer, the weaponized anthrax was nearly certainly stolen from a military (or military affiliated lab). When the military tried to find out where all our anthrax was, they kept coming up short.
In fact, the Pentagon can’t find billions of dollars of inventory, up to and including large very expensive weapons systems.
Posted by Majkia on February 15, 2003 08:54 AM
ok so if his weapons were stolen you think the man with 100 doubles wouldn’t know who took them. also they wouldn’t have stolen all of his weapons at once and he has made no claim that the agents were stolen. he says “dunno, we don’t have them” and everyone swears he’s telling the truth. come on you’re obviously intelligent, being an officer from the air force. how can you people believe someone that murders his own people over the nation that has obviously treated you well. if someone had stolen his agent she would have known who they were by all of the measures he takes for confidentiality. he would have killed them and their families. unless he sold them and doesn’t want to show a paper trail connecting him. why would’nt he tell us they were stolen instead of showing his contempt and thumbing his nose at us.
Posted by g-money on February 15, 2003 12:44 PM
Sorry about this off topic post, but I’d like to get the word out about a possible threat to journalism and reporting, etc, in Iraq.
There is a real possibility that the US, if they attack, will start the invasion by sending several EMP-bombs over Iraq. These have the effect of burning out electronic devices, such as camcorders, digital cameras, or cellphones.
http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml
One way to keep your electronics protected is to keep it encased in some conductive material. A fully conductive metal box would be good, as would the simple solution of wrapping your electronics in several laters of tinfoil (aluminum foil).
I’m trying to propagate this idea, because I think it would be horrible if a war broke out, and the only reportage available was that provided by the US army.
Posted by camcorder tinfoil on February 14, 2003 12:59 PM
Just found your blog and wanted to tell you that we in Minneapolis are doing what we can to slow down this spiralling madness.
We are stuffing newspapers with anti-war flyers, posting, and on Saturday are taking it to the streets again. The last time we did we got 2500 marchers blocking traffic. We’re hoping for double that on Saturday.
My blog isn’t totally political, but lately every day I am publicizing the protests and posting what I can. Please stop by if you have the time, I put a big button/link to you on mine. We’re trying…
(((FIGHT THE POWER)))
Posted by stacey on February 14, 2003 02:27 PM
stacey: you think blocking traffic and stopping mothers and fathers from getting home to their children is going to do anything other than piss off the people you’re blocking. it’s kind of like those religious people that wait for a red light then go up to the cars and hand out fliers. do they make you want to go to church, knowing you want to get home to feed youre family or if you’re younger talk on the phone with your boyfriend or girlfriend? no it pisses you off! but then again maybe you’re stopping a pregnant woman from going and ” making a choice”, that’s why you do it, right? give it up, washington doesn’t listen to protestors, they never have and they never will. this is why, for each one of the2500 people that go along with you there are 100,000 people at home or work not marching saying “it will never work”.
Posted by g-money on February 15, 2003 01:32 AM
hippies.
Posted by g-money on February 14, 2003 08:25 PM
why is everyone so willing to blame the US for the world’s problems. if a man in madagascar kills his cheating wife, you guys would find a way to blame it on the US. there are tyrants in this world and most of them are trying to find a way around the US so they can complete their deeds. as soon as you acknowledge the fact that there are evil people outside of the united states, the sooner you will understand what is going on and why.
Posted by g-money on February 15, 2003 02:59 AM
“why is everyone so willing to blame the US for the world’s problems”
Let me guess. Your answer has nothing to do with American militarism, the constant invasions, destabilising democracies, funding of terrorism etc etc…. you say that everyone is “jealous of our freedoms”, right?
“if a man in madagascar kills his cheating wife, you guys would find a way to blame it on the US”
Well, maybe if it was in the Congo 🙂
Seriously.
Africa where millions are dying due to America interventions. The fact is you can’t put a pin in the map anywhere in the world without it being close to some American incursion or other.
War and terrorism do effect people’s lives, yes they do. Very much. That is why they are universally condemned. But although we talk about the death toll and indirect deaths like the AIDS epidemic sweeping central/south Africa, for every death there are many many injuries and for every injury there are many many smaller less consequential stresses put on people….
…like a man being separated from his family maybe? …like a woman seeking security, cheating on her absent husband maybe?…like a man home from war, desensitised to violence, killing his cheating wife maybe?
Just another death and not due to America at all of course. Just a result of the general malaise caused by endless wars and the cheap price put on life. War is hell — not just because of the death toll.
“as soon as you acknowledge the fact that there are evil people outside of the united states, the sooner you will understand what is going on and why.”
America is replacing an old US sponsored dictator in Iraq with anew one. Like changing the batteries in a torch. Except you generally don’t need to kill hundreds of thousands of people with the latter.
Posted by DavidByron on February 15, 2003 08:02 PM
the deaths in africa have nothing to do with america. when apartheid ended the whites were drove from south africa. the ones that remained were farmers for the most part and they kept the people fed. the africans were told by the warlords to take the land from the whites and kill them and their families. so they did, now they don’t know how to farm the land and what is farmed goes to the warlords and their troops.
yes you’re right, we have no history of saving lives, just killing them and causing pain and suffering. we saved the british, french, italians, spanish, russia and the other parts of asia and europe including china in wwII. the same goes for wwI. when france got their asses kicked in vietnam we recognized they were in trouble and offered assisstance. so what did they do? they bailed out andleft us there. the only reason we even remotely took saddam’s side in the 80’s iran/iraq conflict is because he posed less of athreat at the time than iran did. what are you saying, we should have took care of him then? that would be a preimptive strike with no proof of immediate danger from the guy. the only dictator he will be replaced with is one the people of iraq can decide on for themselves and i’m sure it would be a dictator that would feed his people and educate them. president bush has also promised 15billion dollars to african countries to help in their fight against the aids epidemic, he even still promised it after desmond tutu disgraced our president in front of the world.
have you ever lived in a communist country? i spent 5 years in east germany from 1979-1984 and i know how much worse we could have it. if you think america is so evil, why don’t you move to a country where you can put your anti-americanism to good use and stop bugging us with your communist ideas.
Posted by g-money on February 16, 2003 02:50 AM
So, “g-money” (what a joke of a screenname):
Have you learned how to spell, use proper punctuation and write a coherent argument?
I would hope so. Your comments here indicate emotional immaturity and an inability to handle disagreement. You default to insults, gaslighting, and abusive comments.
Have you matured in the last 18 years? Hmm.