The trouble with this argument is that *anyone* could do it, but such troubles are only probable where the country has access to the appropriate materiel. Currently there is no evidence that such materiel is held by Iraq. while the inability to monitor developments in Iraq since 1998 is troubling we should note that she did comply with UN requirements until then, when the US, UK and Israel, acted extremely blatantly against the UN mandate, presumably in the hope of causing the "regime change" which has finally been acknowledged to be the US objective.
On the other hand, Israel, the UK, previous CIS members, The Peoples Republic of China, and US, are known to hold nuclear, biological and chemical weapon stocks. All these countries also have attacked other countries. The CIS and Israel have repeatedly brutally attacked their neighbors. Israel is currently involved in an illegal occupation, while the CIS is involved in a quasi-legal occupation and genocide in Chechnya and is threatening Georgia. The US has announced its willingness to use WMDs in warfare. Israel rejects not only monitoring, but even the treaties which Iraq has signed, limiting the development, storage, proliferation or use of such weapons - and has allegedly been heavily involved in such transfers. The US too, has rejected the same treaties and facility inspections as it is demanding that Iraq submit to, and is involved in an International campaign to undermine the one court which would be able to act against the leaders of nations.
Doers this mean that we need to see preemptive removal from his office of the executive leaders of at least the US, the CIS and Israel? If so, who is going to do it? If not, why are we focusing on possible threat while employing current threats to do so?
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26560>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:23 MDT