Yaolee Chen

English 101

Glenn Simsahw

A better Argument

Based on three principles, the economic, political, and social, I argue that Senate Robert C. Byrd had made a better judgment on the war to Iraq. As we often hear from the media today, whether or not the US shall use the military force to disarm Iraq. Byrd covered the topic with a careful thought why the US had better not to have war with the Iraq.

Disarm or not to disarm is self-determination. The Westerners often idealized the reality. George Kennan, after World War II in 1946, sent an 8,000 word telegrams to Henry S Truman, the Present of the United States. Kennan in the telegrams said the US played a role as a policeman to secure the safety of the world. So it is necessary for the US to military support against the despot, like Saddam Hussein whom we have today. Nixon based on army control commission visited China and Soviet to have Army Limitation Treaty, in hope the Soviet would reduce the making nuclear weapons. But the disarm is an ideology, despise the SALT talk or nuclear cut, the US kept producing military weapons, and every time the weapons became even more destructive. The “equal-army-exist” also is a lie because when other countries were making more powerful weapon and a law-abide country would not improve the arm, the obedient country would not be able to face the competition. And still, countries did not sign in the United Nation need not to disarm. So, Saddam Hussein would have committed suicide if he disarmed.

Byrd carefully examined the reality how much the US can afford to war. First, on economy, the war cost the US too much money: “This administration has fostered policies, which have slowed economic growth” (Robert C. Byrd, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 23^rd, 2003. op.). Second, on political, “the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future” (Byrd). The US today played a role as an imposed force to disarm Iraq that is using the military power to force Saddam Hussein to disarm. While doing so, the US is practicing the rule of terrorist-- we use violence to achieve our goal. Third, on political, the US would have broken the law of peace treaty if our solution was to use the violence, that is we based on the judgment of our heart (we thought they were evil and the US was good). But now, if a good country used violence, all nations in the world were permissible to use violence; eventually, the US would have made void the peace diplomacy, peace conference, and peace institution. And the whole world would be like tribes lived in the Stone Age: one group of people threw stones at the others.

I have another less persuasive article by Tony Blair because the argument was based on logical without a concrete supporting detail. War is good because it gives the US glory and honor that we will overthrown the despot who had come to harass the peace of the whole world (Tony, Los Angeles Times Feb 23^rd, 2003). The article was logic and sound, but if one would examine it carefully, the argument started from the war is good because Al-Queada started the war, and it ends out with the US shall attack at Saddam Hussein. Notice that Al-Queada and Saddam Hussein were two different persons, the organization they participated were different as well. Al-Queada was the Islamic Fundamentalist, and his followers were a bunch of the religious people. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, was a strong believer of the Ba’thism (the Single Arabian Nationalism). The one who attacked the World Trade Center was sent from the Islamic that hold a varied religious view against the US culture. But Saddam Hussein was a politician, who had never started the war or used violence against the US, even in the Gulf War. Tony might be a great speaker if he had a better knowledge about the conflicts. But at this point, he had shoot at the wrong person. In a politic debate, the audience was easy to be persuaded by Tony Blair because he addressed the issue lively.

Nevertheless, I like the article by Byrd better. He counts carefully how much the US would have lost economically, socially, and politically, if we declare war against Iraq. If the US declared the war, the US would had encouraged the nation around the world to strength their military defense: the US would have repeated the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 or the Battle of Waterloo of 1815. And we are going back to the Stone Age for imposing the propaganda of disarms on Iraq.