1. What would be the purpose of another attack on Iraq? US Defence Secretary
William Cohen admitted last week that the proposed action will not in fact
be able to force Saddam Hussein into compliance with UN resolutions. As a
chemical engineer I know how easy it is to make chemical and biological
weapons. A one-room chemical plant, a small pharmaceutical research lab,
chemicals and spores readily sold for profit by other nations, instructions
from the Internet, and there you have it. The nerve gas attack launched in a
Tokyo subway shows how easy the manufacturing is. Delivery
is another problem. A big problem--needing a lot of missiles and careful
deployment to do any significant damage at a distance.

So will we bomb every one-room plant, every lab, every chemical drum, every
test tube, every computer terminal in Iraq? No. But enough of them, says US
Secretary of State Madelaine Albright tonight, that "we will substantially
reduce Saddam Hussein's capacity to rebuild weapons of mass destruction".
She admits Iraq doesn't have the capacity now, and more bombing would only
reduce a potential capacity in the future. Along with the potential capacity
for Iraqi children to live past 5 years of age, along with the potential
capacity for Iraqi men and women to lead normal lives again, along with the
potential capacity for Iraq to emerge from the stone age to which we
consigned it by our last bombing campaign.

2. After a perfunctory one-night debate in Parliament (but no vote) and a
brief Cabinet meeting, Canada has announced it will send 1 frigate (16 days
away in the Med), 2 transport planes, and 200-400 troops to the Gulf to be
part of whatever action the US chooses.

3. The Good Book says when Adam was ashamed before God he covered himself
with fig leaves. I guess Canada will now be the (maple) leaf covering some
of Bill Clinton's shame on his next escapade.

So why are we doing this?

Doug Pritchard
Christian Peacemaker Teams
Toronto ON
dpritch [at] web [dot] net