A visitor from the planet Mars these days could easily get the impression that Iraq is a pioneer in the field of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, such a visitor would almost certainly conclude that Iraq alone is keen on hideously violent weapons, while the rest of the world directs its technological expertise exclusively toward peaceful, constructive purposes.

It might be worth mentioning, at least, that when it comes to violent weapons, Iraq is hardly breaking new ground.

Last week, Britain’s prime minister Tony Blair triumphantly released a dossier purporting to show evidence that Iraq president Saddam Hussein is assembling weapons of mass destruction. But if we’re looking for evidence of such weapons — real ones, which exist right now, which are mounted and ready to be fired at this very moment and have the power to kill millions of people &#0151 we don’t need to go checking under bridges, tables and mattresses in Baghdad. There are plenty closer to home.

The United States alone has 9,000 nuclear warheads, as does Russia, while Britain, France and China have another 950 between them. In contrast, Saddam doesn’t even have one — as even his fiercest critics acknowledge. Instead, they accuse him of having chemical and biological weapons (easier to produce and less potent in terms of sheer murderous possibilities) and of trying to acquire nuclear weapons — that is, trying to acquire the ultimately destructive weapon that others already have in abundance.

But oddly, it is Baghdad that is described by the University of Toronto’s Wesley Wark as having an &#0147unquenchable appetite for weapons of mass destruction.&#0148 If Baghdad’s appetite is unquenchable, how could one characterize Washington’s? Isn’t this a bit like denouncing Donald Trump for being inconsiderate to his ex-wife, while not saying a word about O.J. Simpson?

We also hear constantly about Iraq’s refusal to co-operate with international weapons inspections (although, of course, Iraq has recently promised to submit to such inspections — an offer Washington says can’t be trusted).

One could easily be left with the impression that Israel’s nuclear arsenal — which arms experts believe contains about two hundred warheads — is regularly inspected. In fact, it has never been inspected. That’s because, like India and Pakistan, which reportedly have a couple dozen nuclear warheads each, Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so its arsenal exists outside international law and beyond the reach of inspectors. (Iraq signed the treaty, and therefore is required to submit to inspections.)

But even United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 687 — prohibiting Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction — declares in its preamble that all states must do everything possible to &#0147establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East.&#0148 That would include Israel. But as Washington&#0146s ally, Israel is under no pressure to comply.

It doesn&#0146t seem particularly surprising that Saddam seeks weapons of mass destruction. He&#0146d have to be some kind of peacenik — or just a guy with a death wish — not to be scrambling to assemble some heavy-duty weapons, given the long-standing, open hostility of Washington.

The lack of focus here on Washington&#0146s weapons of mass destruction is all the more striking given Washington&#0146s astonishing moves last month to establish its right to enforce U.S. military dominance through the use of pre-emptive attacks.

Still, faith in benign U.S. power persists. The Globe and Mail columnist Marcus Gee showed the power of this faith in a column, which was aptly headlined: &#0147Don&#0146t worry, Iraq is all he wants.&#0148

Gee mocked the &#0147worriers&#0148 who fear Washington will run roughshod over the globe, insisting it will only go after really terrible leaders, like those who attack other countries. Saddam is certainly a terrible despot, and under him, Iraq has attacked two countries, Iran and Kuwait, in the past twenty-two years.

But such aggression is not unique The U.S. itself has attacked far more countries in the past twenty-two years — a point made powerfully last week by former U.S. attorney-general Ramsey Clark in a letter to the United Nations: &#0147In the same last 22 years,&#0148 Clark wrote, &#0147the U.S. has invaded, or assaulted, Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and others … &#0147

Of course, there&#0146s also the troublesome fact that the U.S., alone in the world, has actually used nuclear weapons in the past — and appears to be thinking of doing so again, according to a Pentagon document leaked to The New York Times last March. The document, called the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, identified Iraq and five other countries —including non-nuclear nations like Libya and Syria — as &#0147immediate contingencies&#0148 for which &#0147requirements for nuclear strike capabilities&#0148 must be established.

It&#0146s amazing the things some people worry about.

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...