Is war agains Iraq the answer?

Iraq doesn't need disarming any more:

Glasgow Anarchist Students present

Intellectual Self-Defense: Iraq

As the governments of the UK and USA prepare for a new Gulf War, a second war is being fought: the war for our hearts and minds. Propaganda, as a discipline, has existed since the First World War, and its techniques are being applied right now with huge audacity and, for once, only limited success. In this information sheet we puncture some of the more insidious and effective lies being told.

Myth 1: “The Inspectors Were Chucked Out by Saddam�

In 1998, UN weapons inspectors left Iraq. This was not, as is often stated in the press, because Iraq threw them out, but in fact because the US told them to leave so they wouldn't be bombed. This was after the CIA had infiltrated the inspectors and used their inspections as a cover to identify military targets for the bombing.

Myth 2: “Iraq is Uncooperative�

Iraq cooperated well in 1991-1998, and is cooperating again with the new inspections. As a result of that cooperation, 90-95% of its WMD program was eliminated by the weapons inspectors in that period.

Scott Ritter, Chief UN weapons inspector in 1998, argues that inspectors were withdrawn not, as Blair claims, because of a lack of Iraqi cooperation, but because the US deliberately sabotaged the inspections regime. Just prior to the air strikes heralding the end of inspections, Ritter notes: "Inspectors were sent in to carry out sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis."

In a report published on the second day of bombing in December 1998, immediately after the inspectors had left, Ritter said: "What [head of Unscom] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing."

Suggesting that Butler deliberately wrote a distorted justification for war, a UN diplomat said at the time: "Based on the same facts he [Butler] could have said, There were something like 300 inspections and we encountered difficulties in five.'"

Myth 3: “Iraq has Functioning Weapons of Mass Destruction�

Scott Ritter, Chief UN weapons inspector in 1998, on nuclear weapons: "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." ...so Iraq has no nukes.

Ritter on biological weapons:

"For Iraq to have biological weapons today, they'd have to reconstitute a biological manufacturing base. And again, biological research and development was one of the things most heavily inspected by weapons inspectors. We blanketed Iraq - every research and development facility, every university, every school, every hospital, every beer factory: anything with a potential fermentation capability was inspected - and we never found any evidence of ongoing research and development or retention.�

In addition, Iraq's biological weapons were highly unstable, with a shelf-life of 3 years at most. As Iraq has no ability to produce new weapons, anything they did keep is now useless sludge.

And finally chemical weapons:
UN inspectors found the factory producing VX in 1996. Having found it, they blew it up. "With that", Ritter explains, "Iraq lost its capacity to produce VX."

VX also quickly becomes sludge. The International Institute for Strategic Studies' strategic dossier of September 2002 records the likely status of any VX agent in Iraq: "Any VX produced by Iraq before 1991 is likely to have decomposed over the past decade [...]. Any G-agent or V-agent stocks that Iraq concealed from UNSCOM inspections are likely to have deteriorated by now."

Myth 4: “The First Gulf War was Necessary�

This is a common belief, that there was no diplomatic solution available to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Professor Noam Chomsky tells us otherwise: "Two weeks before the deadline for Iraqi withdrawal, the possible contours of a diplomatic settlement appeared to be these: Iraq would withdraw completely from Kuwait with a U.S. pledge not to attack withdrawing forces; foreign troops leave the region; the Security Council indicates a serious commitment to settle other major regional problems. Disputed border issues would be left for later consideration. Once again, we cannot evaluate the prospects for settlement along these -- surely reasonable -- lines, because the offers were flatly rejected, and scarcely entered the media or public awareness. The United States and Britain maintained their commitment to force alone."