WMD: Proliferation & Verification

George Walker Bush, fresh from jettisoning the last of his domestic political liabilities with the resignation of Gonzales, has cranked up the rhetoric against Iran: Is that not a declaration of war? With ony 16 or 17 months to go in his term, are we watching the neocon end game unfolding against Tehran?

In light of reading the "Weapons" and "Good Question" threads, I thought it would help if I extracted from White House docs what Bush did say...what the American people were listening to. Just because the word "imminent" was not used does not mean that the picture painted or message didn't suggest so. The widespread fear that Americans have after 9/11 was the intentional fuel used for this warhead that struck Iraq. Apologies for the length--I'll understand if this needs to be erased, nor do I mean for this to be replied to...all excerpts/direct quotes and were taken from: www.whitehouse.gov

The timeline of WMD use on this website, is similar to the majority of such timelines available through American run websites, in that it is horribly slanted. In specific, the U.S. application of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (the most toxic synthetic chemical in existence according to the WHO) in large quantities during the war in Indochina is not mentioned, despite the fact that it killed over a million people, ranking one of the worst WMD uses of all time. The defoliants used in Vietnam were also termed illegal by the Chemical Weapons Convention, yet their use is not on your timeline,

The only quibbles I have are as follows: 1) He writes in regard to the Sarin attack in the Tokyo subway "the injured were better in a few hours." Actually, according to an Air University study "Over 5000 were injured, some receiving such severe damage to their cardiovascular system that they will ultimately die as a result of the attack. Others will survive but with lifelong effects." (Source: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:lyAwPQGhe-IC:https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/student/ay2000/acsc/00-040.pdf+AUM+SHINRIKYO+AND+WEAPONS+OF+MASS+DESTRUCTION+A+CASE+STUDY&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 ).

The problem is actually deeper. Western science is successful because it is a widely shared paradigm. The West, in general, can be seen as a particular paradigm. The insistutions of this paradigm refuse to accept the legitimacy of other paradigms. So for example an indigenous group that does not believe in modern medicine will be considered backward and in need of 'development'. What we need to do is figure out how our societies can function without an unthinking imposition of our own paradigm on that of others. We need to learn to allow people to live, work and unfold their own paradigms and that means accepting standards of 'fact' that we may not share.

What's happening? Why should I be concerned about it? What can I do about it? How much? When? These practical questions for daily living are still needed for the large and complex problems of peace and the good life. When the experts disagree, we should have no opinion except how much money should be given to whom to gain agreement. When experts mostly agree, then they can and must explain it to us. This is their obligation for the huge research funds provided. How much and when are the difficult questions as these are mostly guesswork that will only become clearer with action. Whether taxpayers prefer to pay less now for a future benefit or pay more later for the same but more immediate benefit cannot be easily predicted.