Bombing raids have increased against Iraq as the Bush administration seems to be steaming full speed ahead to war regardless of all obstacles. Few of Americas closest allies support the war with Iraq. Huge street demonstrations have been held against the war and the NATO alliance doesn't support it either.

So what's going on? Why go into a war that will certainly turn what few friends America has left in the Arab world against America? Is it a family thing between the Bush clan and the Hussein clan? Is it really about oil?

Well, most likely it's about weapons of mass destruction, specifically, biological weapons. This is what the Bush administration keeps talking about and the press keeps parroting about, but the facts about biological weapons are few and scattered. That is until PBS television aired a special production about it. You can go to their web page pbs.org and order a copy of it. It's a chilling description about the effects of biological weapons. It shows how the American army held a test where they sprayed a non-toxic chemical from one single airplane in a certain location where the wind currents spread it to over 500,000 acres. If this airplane had a lethal biological payload, it could easily have killed every man, woman and child in the entire South East. Four such airplanes could easily have wiped out all of America, as well as parts of Canada and Mexico.

The most worrisome fact about biological weapons, is the possibility that the people developing these weapons may someday develop a bug that people have no immunity against, with no vaccine for it, and if it can spread from person to person; such a bug may be called a doomsday bug that may wipe out most or all of humanity. If you can imagine a plague like virus that spreads through the air as well as from person to person, you can imagine the damage it can cause.

Biological weapons are also easy and cheap to make. They can easily be produced in any house, apartment, basement, cave, trailer, jungle camp or ship at sea. Parts and equipment can easily be obtained from medical supply companies by catalog orders. Or to state this as simply as possible, it's extremely difficult to stop development of biological weapons, they can too easily be hidden anywhere. So, what is the most effective method to get rid of biological weapons?

First of all, a military attack will not work, because the attacked country can very easily move the laboratories; but if you have the help of the country with the suspected labs you will have twice the force to find the labs. This can very easily be done; if you can imagine the American government going to Saddam Hussein and saying: look Saddam, we have over 200 billion dollars that we are ready to spend to blow your country to bits and kill off a major part of the population. Now, what if instead of doing that, we just give you the 200 billion dollars to "purchase" the perpetual right to search your country with your help. Additional "rewards" for any found labs can be added to the deal. Well, old Saddam may be a viscous killer, but he's not stupid, he just might take the offer. After all, he was once an America ally, and his only real interest is to stay in power.

Also, if the rest of the Arab world can see America making deals instead of dropping bombs, they just might see America differently, maybe even get friendly with America, and tensions just might ease up a little around there. If "bucks not bombs" works or not, we really won't know if we don't try it.

But then again, a real peace in the Mid East can not be achieved until peace can be achieved between the Palestinian people and Israel. To do this a state called Palestine must be established, I think everybody realizes this now.
So what do you think?

If you think biological weapons are the main issue with Iraq, send a blank email to 4it@ddtv.org If you think biological weapons are not the main issue with Iraq, send a blank email to against-it@ddtv.org If you have comments, or if you want to post a resolution with us, send it to ddtv.lugo@att.net We do not open attachments.

Last weeks resolution "Is protesting democratic" got a large majority vote saying YES. Protesting is democratic. But it must be said that a person called Aaron sent us a critique about this resolution: I have some comments on the implications of the crowd size; if one would claim that only a tenth of the people came out against the war, you would also have to take into account the fact that many people did not hear about the protest until it was too late, so therefore, we have to revise it to "what percentage of people who KNEW ABOUT the protest, and were physically able to attend, went to it?" You would also have to take into account that thousands of Jews in Brooklyn, who would've protested, could not, because it was held on a Saturday, and they are not allowed to do certain things on Saturday, such as use any sort of transportation, carry sings, or participate in political activities. On the other hand, many people at the protest came in from other towns, as they do with all protests, thus diminishing from the percentage of NYC residents. It was the biggest protest there ever was, and was also held in many other major cities all over the world. But considering who our current president is, and the things he did to get that job, any questions about what is democratic in America become irrelevant.