|
Registered: October 30, 2002
Posts: 608
|
Before I begin my editorial, I would like to say that a lot of you protesting this war because "civilians will die" and "want peace" are deluded. What about the estimated five-hundred thousand Iraqis dead by Iraq? The Kurds, Christians, Jews, dissenting Muslims, and women Saddam has slaughtered or had raped? Do you call this "peace"? That is the peace of slavery, of oppression, of nazi-inspired Islamic militarism. Under Saddam's regime and his republican guard, there will never be peace in Iraq for countless minorities and ordinary Iraqis.
Many of you say this is a unilateral operation, but this is not only incorrect but a misunderstanding of basic diplomatic terminology. Unilateralist is literally one country going it only, whereas our nation has over forty countries alongside it in this final war against Iraq. This is, and has always been, a multi-lateral strike against Iraq. We have asked congress, the American people, and the UN to take action against Saddam. The UN itself approved the US inspired resolution 1441, a resolution clearly in favor of not only disarming Saddam but listing “serious consequences” for his non-compliance. So far, the vast majority of Americans have approved of this war, and actual weapons that Saddam was said to not possess have ether been used or been found. In Kuwait, several scud missiles of illegal range fired by Iraq finally arrived. Many reporters now carry gas masks in anticipation of chemical warfare. This effectively negates the claim that Iraq does not possess illegal weapons, as the Iraqis fire weapons those only weeks before they denied ever existed (which when found they were forced to dismantle).
Many nations that did not support us our now regretting it: outside of the battlefield France recently found a container of Risen was found that was linked to Iraq. How ironic that the French who denied these weapons in the civilized world, those who said that not only did Iraq not support terrorists but maintained that attacking Iraq would start a wave of terrorist attacks, are now the first to discover the seriousness of Saddam’s potential arsenal. The attack that could have taken place should this Risen had been unleashed would un-doubt ably had rivaled the destruction of 9/11 or the bio-terrorist attack on a Japanese subway years before by a single doomsday cult. What the French are discovering right now is that not only are they becoming increasingly isolated in this war on their stance, but that the US is gaining in affluence while they are discovering the full horror of Saddam’s terrorist support and weapons of mass destruction.
Some countries accuse us of going to war for oil, yet ignore the fact that we could have obtained oil from Iraq at any time from the Gulf War to the 1998 unauthorized bombing raid that President Clinton initiated (which many anti-war democrats, such as Tom Daschle, were in favor of). Have the people who claim this war is about oil considered that the United States could go about far more effective methods of imperialism we could use, that the majority of are oil comes not just from the middle east but from Venezuela and other countries? Why would we attack Saddam after so many years just for oil when we could attack Chavez, who is much closer and also a refuge of not only Colombian terrorists but drug dealers? What about the United States record after the first world war of staunch anti-imperialism, with our liberation of countless people from the evils of communism, fascism (nationalism, capitalism, socialistic), totalitarianism, and militarism, all of which I might add were done without demanded payment or reparations?
If this argument is not enough, look at the records of our strongest opponents: France has supported Rwanda’s genocidal “ethnic cleansing” of the Tutsis. Turkey has shown aggression towards Cyprus and the Kurds. China has illegally and brutally occupied Tibet and killed pro-democracy protestors at Tiananmen Square. Russia continues to harass Chechnya despite its de facto independence and the former Soviet Union’s abuses towards it. Libya has among the worst human rights records ever, with political dissidents routinely attacked by the government and women continually suffer. What moral authority do any of these nations have against us, the country that has been overwhelmingly on the side of democracy and human rights during the twentieth century? What do totalitarian monsters like the Chinese government and the Libyans have to say to us that are at all not hypocritical or anti-American? Nothing at all, these are countries that have proven themselves to be in support of terrorists and aggressors for years. It is the Chinese who support Stalinist North Korea, and it is the Chinese who sell scuds to the highest bidder.
What of the French and Russians oil deals with the Iraqis? Are the billions in oil they have invested in the region inconsequential in their decisions? Do any of you honestly believe that pure belief in diplomacy (that in this case has failed miserably due to Iraq’s non-compliance); is their real reason for opposing us? What about both nations nasty centuries old tradition of anti-Semitism, could that be a possible undercurrent towards their support of such a blatantly anti-Semitic dictatorship as Iraq? This is not as far-fetched as it sounds, because the French in many cases during the Second World War openly collaborated with the Nazis, and to this day many hate crimes occur that are not properly dealt with by the government. Not only that, but France has continually criticized or even demonized the Israelis, often taking the side of the Palestine who continually terrorize and murder them (as do many in the far-left). France has a growing Muslim population as well along with this; due to its low populate growth and high immigration rate. With the increase in Muslims, paranoia of terrorism in that country has increased, and many demagogues such as Jean Marie LePenn have attempted to exploit this. Whatever their motivation though, the French and the Russians most definitely have some sinister reasons for their opposition to this war, as do many countries who oppose us.
For many of you who know in your hearts that this could be solved through real diplomacy rather than the pathetic inspections that the UN has used, I sympathize with you. In the ideal world, the UN would be assisted with soldiers to go to each area where biological weapons were known to be produced or suspected of producing weapons. But instead, the UN has been made irrelevant and the only effective option being explored is war. This is a tragedy, but with the vast ineffectiveness of the current UN and the sham of inspections that have been going on for twelve years, this current war is the only real alternative.
In closing, I would like to say that war is never a glorified occurrence; it is a terrible struggle against an enemy that hopefully will not triumph in the end. But war is justified many times, and when diplomacy is clearly not working or failing to accomplish its objectives, it is necessary to deal with evil. Maybe this war will last shortly like the first Gulf War did, or perhaps it will be as drawn out as our current search for those reasonable for the terrorist attacks of September. In the end however, it will not be the length or cost of the war that matters though, it will be the ultimate outcome. With our current technology and the smaller size of the Iraqi army, that outcome will almost assuredly be the liberation of Iraq and the dawn of a new age of foreign policy and progress for the troubled Middle East.
|
Topics 
