T with ra and than cod full
scale public relations campaign to build support. If you listened only to the U.S. media, you might think that the case for a military assault to bring about a "regime change" is airtight.
Iraq has developed "weapons of mass destruction" in order to threaten the U.S. and its neighbours. Saddam Hussein is an "evil madman" who has shown his willingness to use these weapons in wars with other nations and against "his own people."
And Iraq has defied United Nations (UN)
But at every step in this argument, U.S. officials rely on exaggeration, half-truths, rank hypocrisy, or outright lies - and the media eats it up. Let's look at each point in DOES IRAQ have weapons of mass destruction?
After enduring decimation in the A lot Gut War and one than a
decade of UN sanctions, it's highly unlikely that Iraq has a threatening arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Shas repeatedly warned that Saddam Hussein somehow continues to develop vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons and that Saddam has also begun a nuclear
Citing satellite photos, Bush asserts that Iraq has reconstructed buildings at a site formerly alleged to be part of Iraq's nuclear program, and Bush says that Iraq tried to purchase high-strength aluminium tubes and other equipment needed for constructing gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium
"If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
Author and activist Robert Jensen points out the absurdity of this claim: That's the equivalent of saying, If Iraq had a nuclear weapon, it would have a nuclear weapon."
The CIA also seems to dispute Bush's assertions. A recent CIA report says it will take at least five years for Iraq to develop the uranium necessary for a nuclear weapon. And the report admits that the aluminium centrifuge tubes are often used for conventional weapons not prohibited by UN resolutions.
The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies makes the same point.
"Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons," and "it would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile production facilities"
The fact that the Bush administration is exaggerating or lying about evidence of Iraq's weapons programs is even beginning to ranide the intelligence community.
*Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and Behind the war drive with their Iraqi counterparts (from 1986),
• approved technological exports to Iraq's missile procurement agency to extend the missiles' range (1988),
•blocked bills condemning Iraq in the House of Representatives (1985) and Senate (1988).
Only now, when the U.S. is making a case for war against Iraq, does it want to call attention to Iraq's use of chemical and biological weapons
But no one should take the U.S. government's newfound concern for the people of Iraq seriously. On the short list of candidates to replace Saddam after the regime change is none other than General Nizar AlKhazraji, the field commander in charge of the attack on Halabja!
Brigadier-General Najib Al-Salihi is also on the U.S. short list to lead a post-Saddam Iraq. Al-Salihi played an important military role in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and also helped organise the repression of the antiSaddam uprisings at the end of the first Gulf