Google effe op weapons of mass destruction:
http://www.google.nl/search?q=weapons+of+mass+destruction&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=nl&lr=
En klik op bovenste :D
Fillastiene
08-07-03, 15:29
:haha:
Ik vind sigaretten ook eigenlijk een massa-destructie...
Misschien zijn dat de wapens die werden bedoeld?
“…if all other possibilities are excluded, the one which remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes
The drums of war beat louder with each passing day: all that is missing is a pretext to invade an already battered and miserable Iraq. Try as it might, the CIA has been unable to show even a hint of a connection between Saddam Hussein’s aggressively secular regime and the fundamentalist Al Quaeda; Iraq’s once supposedly mighty conventional forces are a shadow of their former selves and do not form a credible threat to anyone; and in any case there has not been the remotest suggestion of a threat to other countries in the region. But, ipso facto, as there will be a war, there must be a reason. And the only remaining reason, no matter how unlikely, will have to do. A pre-emptive war will be launched to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses such weapons, the capacity or even the ambition to produce them, or the intent to use them. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein has sought to acquire them in the past, and has indeed used them in both internecine disputes and during the war with Iran. So what would prevent him from doing so in the future? And indeed, how can we be sure he has no already done so, and is not preparing to hold Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE hostage to a non-conventional strike? In typical Rumsfeldian doublespeak, “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”.
The bogeyman of Hussein’s WMD potential is one of magical allure for the West Wing hawks. Similar to al-Quaeda, it has the convenient characteristics of at once posing a massive potential threat to security, and at the same time it is virtually impossible to prove that it does not exist. After all, one suitcase bomb and *poof* - Tel Aviv is a smoldering crater, or thousands of New Yorkers are dying horribly of smallpox. Since “we will never know until it is too late”, virtually anything is justified as a preventative measure. And the success of cloak-and-dagger covert operations and cluster bomb strikes against urban targets can only be measured by the lack of subsequent non-conventional retaliation. It is hard to imagine a more convenient philosophy for the armchair militarists of the Bush administration: massive military force justified not by the presence of a credible enemy, but by its absence; and victory proven by the ashen silence which remains after the departing roar of the bombers.
The Emperor’s New Clothes
Bush, Rumsfeld et al have painted a truly horrible picture of the possibility of what might happen if Saddam Hussein were to obtain WMD and use them. What most members of Congress and the mainstream media have been too polite to point out, however, is that there is virtually no evidence that this is a likely scenario - certainly not at the supremely high standard required when considering the prospect of war with a sovereign state.
Scott Ritter, former head of UN weapons inspections in Iraq, has taken pains to point out that Iraq has been certifiably disarmed of WMD and delivery vehicles. The philosophy of pre-emptive war and regime change, he says, “…is not about the security of the United States…This is about domestic American politics.”
Even if we were to take Bush’s supposed criteria for pre-emptive war at face value - possession of weapons of mass destruction; a dictatorial government; repeated violation of UN Security Council resolution; a history of military aggression against its neighbors; and a willingness to repress its own civilian population - surely he must see how many of America’s erstwhile allies fit the same profile. Israel has been in violation of Security Council resolutions for 34 years, shows no hesitation in invading and occupying neighboring lands, has no compunction about using massive military force against civilians, and would surely use its nuclear weapons if the need arose. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with both nuclear weapons and a penchant for war. Surely Mssrs Bush and Rumsfeld would hesitate before agreeing to let Russia launch a pre-emptive strike on either nation in the name of a bickering and indecisive Security Council.
Perhaps equally distressing is the blithe disregard of Bush’s war council of the consequences which would attend execution of such a ‘pre-emptive war’, not to mention their guileless assumption of their ‘right’ to do so. Given the lack of a credible threat from Iraq, a pre-emptive war will be viewed by most of the world (particularly Arab nations) as a crass throwback to pre-WWII imperialism. Indeed, this may serve as the catalyst for a popular Islamic reaction against one or more moderate governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and so forth which al Quaeda hoped in vain after September 11. The fragile consensus among America and her European allies which has built around intervening for good rather than gain over the past ten years will be shattered, possibly irreparably. A fragmented west and hopelessly radicalized Middle East is the best which can be expected in the wake of an attack on Iraq.
The Bush team makes the shocking claim that the UN and the US Congress have in essence already authorized him to take military action. Both bodies, however, approved the Desert Storm operation on the strict condition that it’s goal be limited to eviction of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and not be extended to an invasion of Iraqi territory. Congress voted the same day for a resolution stating specifically that any invasion of Iraq would require explicit Congressional approval. Behind its flimsy reasoning, Bush’s team is conducting a strategy of bullying and strong-arming both bodies into bending to its will. Congress is being shamed into compliance with surly allegations of weakness and lack of patriotism on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, while the UN is being bluntly told that the invasion will happen no matter what - if it wants to “maintain relevance”, it will pass the appropriate resolutions justifying, ex post facto, what the Bush team has been planning for months. The results of these startlingly effective tactics are already becoming clear - a further strengthening of an already grotesquely imperial presidency, and a humiliating setback to the importance of the UN and the rule of law.
Peace through superior firepower
Granting that Bush is a simpleton who believes his own childishly naïve propaganda, those who surround him are not. The most hawkish in Bush’s cabinet must see that even before 1991 Iraq was a hopeless paper tiger, and today poses no threat to anyone. Colin Powell said ruefully in an interview in 1991, “I’m out of demons. I’m out of villains. I’m down to Castro and Kim Il Sung.” Dick Cheney agreed in 1992, “The threats have become remote, so remote that they are difficult to discern”. The question we must ask is, why this appalling hunger for war with a helpless enemy?
The easy answer is oil, but this ultimately fails as an explanation. The United States exposure to the Persian Gulf is limited: only 17% of its oil imports comes from the region. Iraq produces less than 2 million barrels of oil per day, or less than 10% of total OPEC production. When it stopped producing for a month in April to protest Israeli activities in the Occupied Territories, world prices went up by a temporary 1.2%. The International Energy Agency has a strategic reserve of 4 billion barrels, or more than 5 years of Iraqi production. Any disruption of Iraq’s oil flow can easily be compensated for: conversely, the benefits of ‘controlling’ it would be equally marginal.
Larry Lindsey, a senior White House economic adviser, estimated the cost of another war with Iraq to be at least 100 billion USD. He seeks to soften our concern for our pocketbooks, saying that, “under every plausible scenario, the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war," The 1991 Gulf War is estimated to have cost between 61 and 71 billion USD. It is worth noting that the GDP of Iraq is 57 billion USD, and its sovereign debt is 132 billion USD. In other words, one could very literally buy Iraq for less than it will take to conquer it. It would surely be cheaper and probably more effective to offer every Iraqi adult 25.000 USD to be paid in the event of Saddam Hussein being deposed and the country complying totally with relevant UN resolutions. Looked at another way, U.S. foreign aid this year will total less than 10 billion USD: rather than irreparably damaging our international image fighting a needless war which no one wants, we could increase our development aid budget tenfold, saving tens of millions from disease and famine.
Any sensible cost-benefit analysis of war with Iraq shows it to be a deadly and expensive farce, except from one point of view: feeding the insatiable monster that is the Pentagon procurement budget. Bush’s cries for huge increases in the military budget may have been heeded in a moment of fear and recklessness spawned by September 11, but the increasing waste of our bloated military budget is becoming inexorably clearer to the public. It is the network of entrenched interests in government, the military, and the arms industry which demands war, not the safety of the American public or democracy itself.
Were this simply another case of multi-billion dollar pork-barrel politics, it would be one thing. But this is not politics: this is war. Let us not forget that the last Gulf War cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives: and there can be no more appalling thought than that of an immature and uninformed American polity being duped into supporting a devastating assault on a helpless adversary in order to boost the profits of Boeing and Halliburton. Yet this is precisely what is happening. One might have hoped that a little over a year ago, the true costs of such adventures had become clear amid the roar of crumbling towers. But not yet, it seems. Maybe next time…
Colin Shea
http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/features/issue4/emperor.htm
Geplaatst door Donna
Google effe op weapons of mass destruction:
http://www.google.nl/search?q=weapons+of+mass+destruction&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=nl&lr=
En klik op bovenste :D
Je bent de derde al deze week. :moe:
En ik heb tegen de juf gezegd dat je weer niet zit op te letten. :student:
Waar is de dictator en zijn regime?
Geplaatst door Waiting
Waar is de dictator en zijn regime?
maak daarove maar geen zorgen zijn vervanger toont een aardig staaltje tirannie :wink:
Geplaatst door Waiting
Waar is de dictator en zijn regime?
Weggebombardeerd door de Amerikanen, de Britten en de Polen in verband met de grootscheepse aanwezigheid van een hele zooi weapons of mass destruction die binnen 45 minuten kunnen worden ingezet.
Ze vieren nu vakantie op het strand van Florida.