About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Politics
Anarchism
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Corporatarchy - Rule by the Corporations
Economic Documents
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Foreign Military & Intelligence Agencies
Green Planet
International Banking / Money Laundering
Libertarianism
National Security Agency (NSA)
Police State
Political Documents
Political Spew
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
The Nixon Project
The World Beyond the U.S.A.
U.S. Military
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

Should We Have Gone to Iraq?

by JCX

In the time that has passed since September 11, 2001, it seems that we have been fighting two wars: the war on terror and the war in Iraq. It seems that President Bush is diverting attention away from the real terrorism issues by focusing nation attention away from the war on terror and towards Saddam Hussein. The war on terror was an excuse for the president to implement his own personal agenda: finishing the war in Iraq that his father started years ago. It seems that we are doing the right thing for the Iraqi people by liberating them from the dictator Saddam Hussein, but we are not doing it at the right time. The president is seemingly motivated by the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being developed in Iraq, fearful that Al-Qaeda could get hold of these weapons. Bush uses Saddam Hussein as a scapegoat since as of yet Osama bin Laden has yet to be apprehended, and he cannot stop the terrorists we are supposedly at war with so the Iraqi people we are trying to liberate are also labeled as terrorists by many.

I for one believe that going to war with Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions in the first place. But in the midst of this war in Iraq, whatever happened to the war on terror we were fighting? The war on terror was supposed to keep Americans, not Iraqis safe from terrorists. In fact, the Iraqi people are no better off without Saddam Hussein while our presence there as well as the new system of government creates more hunger among Iraq's working people, giving them low waged laborious jobs which people are desperate for. It almost seems that the United States is terrorizing Iraq.

Attention has been diverted away from the real issues by going to war with Iraq. The real issues are supposed to be the war on terror and homeland security in making sure that this would never happen again, but since Osama bin Laden is so elusive George bush wanted to go after a "bad guy" that might possibly be supportive of Al-Qaeda who was easier to apprehend. In the words of Senator John Kerry, "going to war in Iraq in response to September 11 attacks is like going to war with Mexico in response to the Japanese bombing of pearl harbor." Former president George Bush Senior wrote in a memo that going into Iraq to fight Saddam Hussein will lead to a stalemate and a situation in which American troops will be stuck there for a very long time. I compare this to the situation in Korea. We have had troops there guarding the border for decades and will seemingly never get out. This is the same situation that is currently going on in Iraq. Now that we have set up a new government and are changing things, the peace will not be kept unless an American presence is always there, and even then it will be exceedingly difficult to keep peace.

It is however possible that we have dangerously placed too much emphasis on Al-Qaeda and Osama bin laden alone when in actuality it is much more complex. We unfortunately have a tendency to see it as a single entity controlled and directed by an all-powerful leader pulling the strings. The core of Al-Qaeda is significantly weakened. President Bush said that the American strategy was succeeding and that "more than three quarters of Al-Qaeda's key members and associates have been detained or killed." (BBC)

It is also possible that Al-Qaeda is being underestimated because Al-Qaeda is not a "normal" military force and the war that the United States is engaged in is not a "normal" military struggle. Perceiving the fact that eliminating Al-Qaeda's key operatives as a sign of "winning" risks the misinterpretation of both the goals of Al-Qaeda and it's nature as an organization. The focus on Al-Qaeda's core also ignores the extent of the organization and that there is a vast, looser network of radical groups. President George W. Bush might have been afraid that Al-Qaeda operatives could possibly acquire the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein supposedly had, which would pose a significant thereat to American national security. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks...In the world after September 11, that was a risk that we could not afford to take."(Bush) This statement was based on preliminary intelligence reports that were completely false. All the same, President Bush decided to wage a costly war not only in terms of monetary cost but the cost of American lives. The copious amounts of money being squandered on this war are unacceptable, while the balance is left to be paid by taxpayers. In the city of St. Louis alone taxpayers have been forced to spend "$121,879,135 so far." (National Priorities) "So far, Congress appropriated approximately $56 billion in April 2003; another $72 billion in November 2003, and currently is in the process of appropriating an additional $25 billion, which was requested by the Bush Administration in May 2004. The total amounts to over $150 billion, but will be higher as the Bush Administration requests further spending later this year."(National Priorities)

The cost of the war in Iraq is totally unacceptable, but the loss of the lives of several American soldiers in Iraq is downright despicable. There was no reason to go into war in Iraq, and I feel that president bush was trying to impress his father by trying to finish what he started. But the cost of human lives is too great. A friend of mine who is in the marines is going to be shipped over to Iraq very soon, and I fear for his safety. I have a great concern for his life because of so many previous needless American casualties in Iraq. I blame President Bush for all of this unnecessary loss of human life. We are "fighting the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons."(Kerry)

The main reasons for going to war in Iraq according to the president was to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction as well as chemical and biological weapons stockpiles that Al-Qaeda could possibly acquire. There is a huge problem with this argument though: the only weapons to be found were the missiles and bombs that we attacked Baghdad with, which is why I believe that the United states was terrorizing Iraq more than Iraq was capable of terrorizing the U.S. This, to me is the worst kind of hypocrisy imaginable. As mentioned earlier, the cost of American lives is indescribably horrible, especially since "Saddam Hussein did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the United States invaded Iraq, and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing." (Guggenheim - Post Dispatch) "Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991." (Guggenheim -Post Dispatch). So I ask you this: was the cost of over 150 billion dollars and the lives of over 1,000 United States citizens worth not finding any weapons? It is true Charles Duelfer agrees that Saddam Hussein remained a threat because "interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam Hussein still wanted to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if United Nations sanctions were lifted."(Guggenheim -Post Dispatch) But since such sanctions have not been lifted, I disagree and believe that Saddam Hussein posed no real threat.

In conclusion, I would like to say that President Bush waged a needless war against Iraq. He was desperately searching for weapons of mass destruction along with biological and chemical weapons under the guise of liberating the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. These oppressed Iraqi people that we are trying to liberate are the very same people that have had several of our own missiles fired upon them and bringing their capital city of Baghdad to ruins without a second thought. The innocent people that died at the hands of the United States without any regard for human life were merely referred to as "collateral damage." This thoroughly disgusts me. Now in light of all of these facts, how could anyone have supported the war in Iraq?

Works Cited

The first presidential debate between George Bush and John Kerry BBC News Site: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3644990.stm

National Priorities Website http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Issues/Military/Iraq/CostOfWar.html

St. Louis Post Dispatch October 7, 2004 "Iraqi arms report contradicts Bush" By Ken Guggenheim

 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
Ed & Elaine Brown * Shots Fired *
george galloway what do you think of him?
Hinchey Amendment
why UK accepts US subjugation and infiltration?
George galloway suspended from HP
Why Marxism IS Economically Exploitive...
Situation in Turkey
Putin not playing nicely
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS