Both are obliged under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, and both have done nothing to fulfill their commitments. (The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.) (http://www.theage.comau/articles/2002/06/12/1023864297401.html) The U.S. is at this moment developing advanced systems of weapons of mass destruction and is prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow any inspection of its own factories. In fact, last month North Korea confessed possession of the weapons of mass destruction; "how could President Bush go to war against one tyrant because he might be developing nuclear weapons while negotiating with another who just admitted that he has them?" (Calabresi, October 28,) .
Is Iraq a military threat to the world? Did Bush declared war on Iraq just because Saddam Hussein promotes "international terror"? There is no evidence to support the claims. It is increasingly clear that the proposed attack on Iraq has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or with the war on terror. During the Gulf War in 1991, while the United States bombed Iraq with a barrage that included 110.000 sorties, Iraq did not destroy even one U.S. tank or plane (New York Times). Iraq has been paying indemnities to Kuwait and U.S. oil corporations since 1991 and has not had the financial capacity to build another arsenal. The October 11, 2002, New York Times revealed the true plan of the United States: "The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American -led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.