To put it simply, the war on Iraq is not only in America’s best interests, but it is also necessary for the well-being of all Americans. Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be a threat to the whole world. He regularly carries out the executions of Iraqi citizens; sometimes even he himself carries out the acts. In the 12 years since the first Gulf War, he clearly has not put forth any effort to respect the demands of the United Nations; demands he has no choice but to follow. He has refused to disarm. In fact, he has continued to amass his weapons as well as explore other weapons technologies. The majority against the invasion of Iraq has presented two “arguments:” that the only purpose of invading Iraq is so we can gain access to their oil resources and that invading Iraq is a unilateral initiative of the Bush administration which ignored the authority and recommendations of the United Nations. I will address each of these arguments individually.
“We’re only in it for the oil.”
This argument is so stupid that I don’t even need to spend the time to address it, but I will anyways. I recently received an e-mail that, in my opinion, says it all. “If your only anti-war slogan is ‘No war for oil,’ sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.” Why in God’s name would we go to war just to get oil? Even if Bush’s primary interest was oil, no one could say that he would favor the loss of American troops for it. If we wanted oil so badly from Iraq, we could have just bought it. It would have been immensely easier to just strike a deal with Saddam Hussein and called it a day. In fact, just a few years ago, one of his sons tried striking a deal with us to buy oil. Our economy, in the poor shape it is in, is still twice as large as the second largest economy. If we wanted something as insignificant as oil, we would just buy it. Saying that we’re going to war only for oil is shallow, uninformed, and most of all stupid.
“Iraq is a unilateral initiative of the Bush administration.”
If the Bush administration had no intentions of seeking UN approval and always planned on acting alone, our troops would have invaded Iraq months ago. Perhaps you’ve heard talk of UN Resolution 1441. The UN Security Council passed this resolution in November of last year; close to 5 months ago. It called for the IMMEDIATE and UNCONDITIONAL DISARMAMENT of the specified weapons in Iraq. Based on intelligence and data gathered by people smarter and more informed than all of you anti-war babies, it was determined that Iraq had made no efforts to disarm at all. Furthermore, it stated that Iraq had to prove their innocence. It made no mention of needing to send in inspectors and trying to prove their guilt. Iraq had an obligation to fully disclose their disarmament status. In addition, Saddam Hussein regularly exterminates all of those who oppose him. If he has no problems slaughtering his own citizens, what would possess anyone to believe that he would hesitate in attacking the United States, or any other country for that matter? He already showed that he had the motivation and willingness to attack when he invaded Kuwait.
Back to the UN, what other “diplomatic options” did we have? We drafted and passed Resolution 1441. We sent in inspectors. I think I need to go over what an inspector does. Another word for inspect is oversee. The inspectors were sent in to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. They were not sent in for a scavenger hunt. Iraq had an obligation to unconditionally cooperate to prove to the world that they had no more weapons that posed a threat to any other countries. That clearly did not happen. Furthermore, how could Germany and France objectively express their opinions on the subject of disarmament when they have been selling weapons to Iraq? There is a definite conflict of interests there. It should have been obvious to everyone that Saddam Hussein’s decision last month to destroy the 20 or so missiles that he did destroy were nothing but a game. I was sickened to hear the support that he immediately received as a result. Not only were you fooled by a madman, but you wanted to be fooled. From now on, unless drastic reorganization occurs, I am going to seriously question the legitimacy of the United Nations. For a country like France to have such great power is mesmerizing.
This war has been marked by perpetual protests and civil disobedience. Before we invaded, fine, have your protests, block traffic, and disrupt the lives of people trying to make a living. I don’t agree with it, but have your way. You have the right to assemble and say what you want, so that automatically means you have the right to abuse those rights for no reason. I know how it goes. However, as soon as our troops crossed the border into Iraq, they are putting their lives on the line for those very rights. To continue to protest when they are fighting is disrespectful and Anti-American. The press did not give you the freedom of speech; soldiers did. They may be against the war as well, but they do not have the luxury of being able to express their personal opinions. They are busting their asses protecting your freedoms. Show the slightest bit of respect and help them realize what they are fighting for.
**I recently came across an outstanding opinion article written by a Penn State student for the Digital Collegian. Please check it out!
