Like someone to blame
The Fly
Ten years removed from the first Bush administration and once again another Bush administration is gearing up for war against Iraq. The conquer Iraq wing of the Bush administration argues that the military overthrow of Saddam is a vital step in the war on terrorism. The preparations for battle are already under way, as evidenced by satellite images of U.S. Army "tent" cities being constructed in Qatar along with over 1,000 Senior U.S. military planners being moved to the region. In addition, Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz recently returned from Ankara, Turkey to "buy" Turkey's support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz reportedly told Turkish officials the Bush administration is prepared to forgive more than $4 billion that Turkey owes the U.S, hasten the approval of $228 million in aid to Turkey for the current year and endorse Turkey's request to become a member of the European Union.....provided Turkey allows U.S. forces to launch attacks from Turkish soil against Iraq. The march towards war is on...but should it be???
I'm AGAINST a war on Iraq for the following reasons:
1) The U.S. has no justification for war with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the U.S. It's weapons program, while a concern, pose no immediate threat to the U.S. or neighboring countries. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when IT is under attack or about to be under attack. Nothing like that is happening here.
2) Because Iraq is a fellow member of the U.N., the U.N. would need to issue the necessary authority for such an attack on a fellow member. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter clearly states that the U.N. Security Council should determine the existence of any threat towards a member nation as well as decide the action to be taken towards maintaining international peace and security. Tony Blair has been warned by his legal staff that an attack on Iraq without provocation is in direct violation of the U.N. charter.
3).The human cost of war. War is hell. If pushed to the brink in a final showdown with the U.S, Saddam will bring as many Iraqis and Americans down with him. Casualties on both sides could be significant.
4). Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. However, Saddam no doubt retains some of these weapons and has shown a willingness to use them in the past against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops. A war with Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration says it wants to prevent. Facing military defeat, Saddam might resort to launching an attack on the only targets he can hit-Israel or the assemble U.S. forces in the area. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelies, all bets are off in the region. Israel will protect itself and this could lead to a larger war and possibly the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. troops with chemical weapons.
5). Political damage. King Hussein of Jordan has talked about a "Pandora's box" and "political vaccuum" being created by a war on Iraq. The U.S. has NO PLANS for an exit strategy. It is highly possible U.S. forces could find themselves stuck in the middle of a Civil War between the Kurds and Shiites. The U.S. would be acting in Iraq virtually alone and in the face of strong opposition from many nations. The Arab rage in the region could destabilize governments in the region and increase the turmoil in the Middle East. Anti-American hatred would exacerbate itself and undoubtedly produce new recruits for terrorist activity against the U.S.
6). The economic cost. The NY Times reported that the economic cost of a war with Iraq would most likely send the U.S. economy into another prolonged recession like the first encounter with Iraq---only this time much worse as the U.S. would be footing virtually the entire $80 billion + price tag. Deficits would be HUGE, oil and gas prices would skyrocket...and the effects on the global economy would prove to be detrimental as well.
7). No credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape, or form. None.
8). Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare a state of war. It is a blatant abuse of presidential authority to committ the number of resources and human capital in an effort to overthrow a regime that has not attacked us. This is a democracy (republic) of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not Bush's personal dictatorship.
Saddam is certainly an evil man. However, an attack on Iraq by the Bush administration would set a dangerous precedent of preemptive attacks that violates the Charter of the U.N. and undermines the foundation of international law. U.S. and British officials speak openly of preemptive strikes as a necessary response to Saddam's preceived threat and his weapons of mass destruction. The West's attitude is that it can no longer wait to be attacked before responding, but will strike first to eliminate perceived threats before the arise. This is a doctrine of imperial arrogance in my opinion. It is a philosophy not unlike that of aggressors throughout history. It is a formula for endless war and military mobilization. The Pentagon budget under Bush has already spiked $400 billion a year and will rise even further with a cycle of war and vengeance.
The U.S. and the world cannot ignore the weapons threat or dismiss the menace that is Saddam...but I argue that there are always constructive alternatives to war. Has anyone in the Bush camp heard of diplomacy? Iraq has mentioned it would accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors...if the Bush administration requested. Why isn't the Bush admin working with Russia and other nations to enforce an effective weapons embargo on Iraq? These are just a couple of what I believe are viable policy options when addressing the Iraqi threat.
And let's not forget...a regime change in Iraq will do nothing towards making the image of the U.S. any better in the region. And, who's to say the alternative to Saddam would be any better??? It cannot be stated enough the amount of lives the U.S. is responsible for killing with the economic sanctions we have placed on the Iraqi people since the Gulf War. A recent report I saw put that figure somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000 lives lost due to our sanctions. This doesn't exactly endear the Iraqi people towards the West.
Finally, the last reason I'm opposed to a war with Iraq is personal. In fact, it is really my FIRST reason for being opposed to war with them and I admit it is a SELFISH REASON. My beautiful wife is an leiutenant in the U.S. Army, currently with a non-deployable unit. However, she is being transferred to a highly deployable Engineering unit-a unit that has been deployed for both the Gulf War and Bosnia-in October...around about the time many pundits think such an attack is likely. She has been in the Army for 12 years and has never been deployed. She has no fears/qualms about it...she will readily serve her country when/If called. I, however, will be a nutcase and will not only constantly worry for her well being but I will really resent Mr. Bush even more than I do today.
A war with Iraq is not necessary. Public opinion polls already show that most Americans don't support such a war. Now, we need a President to tone down his rhetoric and a Congress to "check" the President on this and provide some leadership. It's time Americans take their country back from the elite politicians who care only about that chip on their shoulder. This could be another Vietnam...only this time we won't be reading about it past tense in the history books...we'll be living the nightmare daily...and one of my loved ones might be a pawn in this entire ordeal. Our leaders need to THINK about this...hard.
I'm AGAINST a war on Iraq for the following reasons:
1) The U.S. has no justification for war with Iraq. Iraq has not attacked or credibly threatened the U.S. It's weapons program, while a concern, pose no immediate threat to the U.S. or neighboring countries. Under international law, one country is justified in attacking another only when IT is under attack or about to be under attack. Nothing like that is happening here.
2) Because Iraq is a fellow member of the U.N., the U.N. would need to issue the necessary authority for such an attack on a fellow member. Article 39 of the U.N. Charter clearly states that the U.N. Security Council should determine the existence of any threat towards a member nation as well as decide the action to be taken towards maintaining international peace and security. Tony Blair has been warned by his legal staff that an attack on Iraq without provocation is in direct violation of the U.N. charter.
3).The human cost of war. War is hell. If pushed to the brink in a final showdown with the U.S, Saddam will bring as many Iraqis and Americans down with him. Casualties on both sides could be significant.
4). Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are greatly exaggerated by the Bush administration. However, Saddam no doubt retains some of these weapons and has shown a willingness to use them in the past against Kurdish villages and Iranian troops. A war with Iraq could lead to the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration says it wants to prevent. Facing military defeat, Saddam might resort to launching an attack on the only targets he can hit-Israel or the assemble U.S. forces in the area. If Iraq were to kill hundreds of Israelies, all bets are off in the region. Israel will protect itself and this could lead to a larger war and possibly the use of nuclear weapons, especially if Iraq killed hundreds of U.S. troops with chemical weapons.
5). Political damage. King Hussein of Jordan has talked about a "Pandora's box" and "political vaccuum" being created by a war on Iraq. The U.S. has NO PLANS for an exit strategy. It is highly possible U.S. forces could find themselves stuck in the middle of a Civil War between the Kurds and Shiites. The U.S. would be acting in Iraq virtually alone and in the face of strong opposition from many nations. The Arab rage in the region could destabilize governments in the region and increase the turmoil in the Middle East. Anti-American hatred would exacerbate itself and undoubtedly produce new recruits for terrorist activity against the U.S.
6). The economic cost. The NY Times reported that the economic cost of a war with Iraq would most likely send the U.S. economy into another prolonged recession like the first encounter with Iraq---only this time much worse as the U.S. would be footing virtually the entire $80 billion + price tag. Deficits would be HUGE, oil and gas prices would skyrocket...and the effects on the global economy would prove to be detrimental as well.
7). No credible evidence exists that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks in any way, shape, or form. None.
8). Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to declare a state of war. It is a blatant abuse of presidential authority to committ the number of resources and human capital in an effort to overthrow a regime that has not attacked us. This is a democracy (republic) of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE. This is not Bush's personal dictatorship.
Saddam is certainly an evil man. However, an attack on Iraq by the Bush administration would set a dangerous precedent of preemptive attacks that violates the Charter of the U.N. and undermines the foundation of international law. U.S. and British officials speak openly of preemptive strikes as a necessary response to Saddam's preceived threat and his weapons of mass destruction. The West's attitude is that it can no longer wait to be attacked before responding, but will strike first to eliminate perceived threats before the arise. This is a doctrine of imperial arrogance in my opinion. It is a philosophy not unlike that of aggressors throughout history. It is a formula for endless war and military mobilization. The Pentagon budget under Bush has already spiked $400 billion a year and will rise even further with a cycle of war and vengeance.
The U.S. and the world cannot ignore the weapons threat or dismiss the menace that is Saddam...but I argue that there are always constructive alternatives to war. Has anyone in the Bush camp heard of diplomacy? Iraq has mentioned it would accept the return of U.N. weapons inspectors...if the Bush administration requested. Why isn't the Bush admin working with Russia and other nations to enforce an effective weapons embargo on Iraq? These are just a couple of what I believe are viable policy options when addressing the Iraqi threat.
And let's not forget...a regime change in Iraq will do nothing towards making the image of the U.S. any better in the region. And, who's to say the alternative to Saddam would be any better??? It cannot be stated enough the amount of lives the U.S. is responsible for killing with the economic sanctions we have placed on the Iraqi people since the Gulf War. A recent report I saw put that figure somewhere between 200,000-1,000,000 lives lost due to our sanctions. This doesn't exactly endear the Iraqi people towards the West.
Finally, the last reason I'm opposed to a war with Iraq is personal. In fact, it is really my FIRST reason for being opposed to war with them and I admit it is a SELFISH REASON. My beautiful wife is an leiutenant in the U.S. Army, currently with a non-deployable unit. However, she is being transferred to a highly deployable Engineering unit-a unit that has been deployed for both the Gulf War and Bosnia-in October...around about the time many pundits think such an attack is likely. She has been in the Army for 12 years and has never been deployed. She has no fears/qualms about it...she will readily serve her country when/If called. I, however, will be a nutcase and will not only constantly worry for her well being but I will really resent Mr. Bush even more than I do today.
A war with Iraq is not necessary. Public opinion polls already show that most Americans don't support such a war. Now, we need a President to tone down his rhetoric and a Congress to "check" the President on this and provide some leadership. It's time Americans take their country back from the elite politicians who care only about that chip on their shoulder. This could be another Vietnam...only this time we won't be reading about it past tense in the history books...we'll be living the nightmare daily...and one of my loved ones might be a pawn in this entire ordeal. Our leaders need to THINK about this...hard.