Ok pasted here is a smaller/newer version of my article i wrote for my school newspaper. Here's the link for the original, longer article (twice as long, more info): http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=37
Bush has been criticized recently for pushing to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Previous attacks went as far to say the Bush administration and FBI ?knew? about the 9/11 hijackings, but didn?t prevent them, assuming, he really was informed. And yet he is receiving such harsh criticism for wanting to replace an imminent danger? The very same liberals and Democrats who blamed Bush for the 9/11 attacks, now hypocritically attack him for wanting to eliminate another serious threat.
Some Democratic congressmen have journeyed to Iraq and called Bush a liar. Others falsely stated that the US has never launched a preemptive strike. They must be suffering from a case of liberal amnesia. We have previously attacked Kosovo/Bosnia, Sudan, and Somalia just to name a few. These attacks were justified, but pacifists kept quiet, and now pounce on Bush. The hypocrisy of the situation and anti Republican partisanship is overwhelming. There are exceptions, most notably Joe Lieberman, who signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.
There?s no doubt Saddam is a threat. The United Nations Special Commission has confirmed that he possesses, and repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons. Since the Gulf War, UN inspectors have confiscated 700 tons of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological warfare/research factories, nearly 50 Scud missiles, and many traces of chemical agents such as sulfur mustard gas and a toxic nerve agent VX. Past inspectors were often stalled. There have been no inspections since 1998. Stocks of weapons are unaccounted for.
And let's not forget ties to Al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence of Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officials meeting, confirmed by non-biased sources. Many Iraqi officials have trained Al-Qaeda and radical Islamic terrorist groups. Hussein and these terrorists share a common goal: the extermination of the US, Israel, and the "infidel" world. Al-Qaeda has the motivation we?ve seen for the past ten years, and Iraq has the weapons they will need.
In addition, Hussein and his Baath party have a violent history. He ruthlessly executed family members including his son-in-laws and opposing politicians. Then he waged a deadly war with Iran, followed by numerous attacks against Israel. Most famous of all, his invasion of Kuwait sparked the Gulf War. Who can say he won't attack the US, a country Al-Qaeda and he already hate, when he is murdering his neighbors for no reason? It doesn?t stop there; he has repeatedly murdered the Kurds, a non-Arab ethnic group in northern Iraq, and Shiite Muslims in the south. British and US enforced no-fly zones in these regions have kept them alive.
This war isn?t interfering with the war on terrorism, as Al Gore would have us believe. It is a crucial obstacle in a region already a hotbed for terrorism. It?s naïve to ignore Iraq. So what are some clichéd excuses against attacking Hussein?
Some worry that attacking Iraq could disrupt our oil supply, causing prices to skyrocket. Wrong. Less than 3% of our oil comes from Iraq. In fact, we are not dependant on any Middle Eastern oil. Over the past decade, only 10-20% of our oil is Middle Eastern. Of all the oil exported to the world from the Middle East, Iraq contributes a small 15%. Our European "allies" are worried about their oil stakes. European nations get a significantly higher portion of their oil from Iraq and the Middle East, and are under the thumbs of dictators who control their oil. As for Iraq's neighbors, removing Saddam's strong control over Iraqi oil would threaten their oil reserves. They would face competition, threatening their oil prices, and changing their status quo.
Recently, he agreed to let inspectors search, but only certain areas. Civilian regions and his several palaces, bigger than small towns, were off limits. A little common sense shows how ridiculous this is: Imagine a kid is suspected of hiding drugs in his room. When the parents demand to search the room, the kid only allows the closet to be searched but not his dresser or backpack. Obviously the kid is hiding something, or why else would he deny access to parts of his room? UN inspectors need full access to ensure he is not hiding any weapons.
Which brings up another anti-war argument: Why should the US be allowed search Iraq and not vice-versa? Why can?t Iraq own weapons? Here's a concept: Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism, and ruled by a remorseless dictator, who is a threat to world peace. Asking why Iraq should not be given access to the US is equivalent to asking why criminals shouldn?t be given access to the homes of police, when the police have the right to search a suspect's property. So why should we let a criminal (Iraq) search the US?
Moral relativism doesn?t exist, the notion that all morals and "truths" are subjective. Using that logic, one could say Stalin, Mao, or Hitler were moral people, or that Hussein's morals and values equal America's. Some things are black and white. No amount of politically correct moral relativism can say that according to civilized and modern standards, Hussein and terrorists are moral humans. Our morals and values are, to put it in layman's terms, better. Any PC-driven argument against this only furthers the support of civil liberties of criminals and their supporters.
US sanctions don?t kill the Iraqi people. Lifting sanctions would supply the dictator with more money, not the people. Terrorism is Hussein?s oppressive tool. Children in many Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq are indoctrinated to despise the US, and blame the faults of their leaders on the US. Oddly many people here seem to be falling victim to the same leftist propaganda.
Suppose the US is greedy, hegemonic, jingoist, [insert Noam Chomsky buzzword here]. While it?s true self-interest is one of many factors in attacking Iraq, almost anything someone does benefits them. Nothing is wrong with liberating a nation, even if motivated by only self-interest. Motivations mean nothing when it results in a nation and its people being freed, and a threat to world peace eliminated. Once again, assuming the anti-American crowd is correct, just because a nation has done past wrongs doesn?t mean it can't do the right thing. A person dealing drugs can still turn in a competing drug dealer to the police. He may be motivated by self-interest, but the result benefits the community if there is one less drug dealer on the streets.
Another argument is that war will only lead to more war, giving the radical Muslim world more reason to hate us. Actually, ignoring the threat can only lead to more war. Anti-war Left-wingers are the ones shortsighted. Have they not studied history? During World War II the US maintained a neutral position. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan, proving isolationism fatal. Rewind a few years to an even more fatal pacifist mistake. As Hitler gained power, and invaded parts of Czechoslovakia, the European nations did nothing but negotiate. Giving in to Hitler instead of reducing his growing power, British Prime Minister Chamberlain proclaimed, "Peace in our times". The same goes for Clinton's lax approach to apprehending bin Laden and curbing terrorism after several attacks, leading up to 9/11.
Peace seems appealing at first. Opponents to the war want peace immediately and don?t care about the future risks. Peace is all they can grasp, and they demand it right then and there. Granted, war is bad, but one needs to analyze the end results of using a little force versus neglect, especially when dealing with terrorists. Give up a few years of fighting for short-lived peace, and a horrible war will result. Sacrifice a few years of peace, and long-term peace will be achieved. A democratic republic will be set up, similar to Afghanistan. It would help if the UN acted like the UN and not the League of Nations. Sometimes peace can only be achieved through war.
Or we could just believe Sean Penn, who went to Iraq and announced Iraq is not a threat and possesses no weapons. What a shame our troops and inspectors had to miss Christmas, knowing Hollywood was on the case.
http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=37 (for different, longer version)
Bush has been criticized recently for pushing to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Previous attacks went as far to say the Bush administration and FBI ?knew? about the 9/11 hijackings, but didn?t prevent them, assuming, he really was informed. And yet he is receiving such harsh criticism for wanting to replace an imminent danger? The very same liberals and Democrats who blamed Bush for the 9/11 attacks, now hypocritically attack him for wanting to eliminate another serious threat.
Some Democratic congressmen have journeyed to Iraq and called Bush a liar. Others falsely stated that the US has never launched a preemptive strike. They must be suffering from a case of liberal amnesia. We have previously attacked Kosovo/Bosnia, Sudan, and Somalia just to name a few. These attacks were justified, but pacifists kept quiet, and now pounce on Bush. The hypocrisy of the situation and anti Republican partisanship is overwhelming. There are exceptions, most notably Joe Lieberman, who signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.
There?s no doubt Saddam is a threat. The United Nations Special Commission has confirmed that he possesses, and repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons. Since the Gulf War, UN inspectors have confiscated 700 tons of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological warfare/research factories, nearly 50 Scud missiles, and many traces of chemical agents such as sulfur mustard gas and a toxic nerve agent VX. Past inspectors were often stalled. There have been no inspections since 1998. Stocks of weapons are unaccounted for.
And let's not forget ties to Al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence of Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officials meeting, confirmed by non-biased sources. Many Iraqi officials have trained Al-Qaeda and radical Islamic terrorist groups. Hussein and these terrorists share a common goal: the extermination of the US, Israel, and the "infidel" world. Al-Qaeda has the motivation we?ve seen for the past ten years, and Iraq has the weapons they will need.
In addition, Hussein and his Baath party have a violent history. He ruthlessly executed family members including his son-in-laws and opposing politicians. Then he waged a deadly war with Iran, followed by numerous attacks against Israel. Most famous of all, his invasion of Kuwait sparked the Gulf War. Who can say he won't attack the US, a country Al-Qaeda and he already hate, when he is murdering his neighbors for no reason? It doesn?t stop there; he has repeatedly murdered the Kurds, a non-Arab ethnic group in northern Iraq, and Shiite Muslims in the south. British and US enforced no-fly zones in these regions have kept them alive.
This war isn?t interfering with the war on terrorism, as Al Gore would have us believe. It is a crucial obstacle in a region already a hotbed for terrorism. It?s naïve to ignore Iraq. So what are some clichéd excuses against attacking Hussein?
Some worry that attacking Iraq could disrupt our oil supply, causing prices to skyrocket. Wrong. Less than 3% of our oil comes from Iraq. In fact, we are not dependant on any Middle Eastern oil. Over the past decade, only 10-20% of our oil is Middle Eastern. Of all the oil exported to the world from the Middle East, Iraq contributes a small 15%. Our European "allies" are worried about their oil stakes. European nations get a significantly higher portion of their oil from Iraq and the Middle East, and are under the thumbs of dictators who control their oil. As for Iraq's neighbors, removing Saddam's strong control over Iraqi oil would threaten their oil reserves. They would face competition, threatening their oil prices, and changing their status quo.
Recently, he agreed to let inspectors search, but only certain areas. Civilian regions and his several palaces, bigger than small towns, were off limits. A little common sense shows how ridiculous this is: Imagine a kid is suspected of hiding drugs in his room. When the parents demand to search the room, the kid only allows the closet to be searched but not his dresser or backpack. Obviously the kid is hiding something, or why else would he deny access to parts of his room? UN inspectors need full access to ensure he is not hiding any weapons.
Which brings up another anti-war argument: Why should the US be allowed search Iraq and not vice-versa? Why can?t Iraq own weapons? Here's a concept: Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism, and ruled by a remorseless dictator, who is a threat to world peace. Asking why Iraq should not be given access to the US is equivalent to asking why criminals shouldn?t be given access to the homes of police, when the police have the right to search a suspect's property. So why should we let a criminal (Iraq) search the US?
Moral relativism doesn?t exist, the notion that all morals and "truths" are subjective. Using that logic, one could say Stalin, Mao, or Hitler were moral people, or that Hussein's morals and values equal America's. Some things are black and white. No amount of politically correct moral relativism can say that according to civilized and modern standards, Hussein and terrorists are moral humans. Our morals and values are, to put it in layman's terms, better. Any PC-driven argument against this only furthers the support of civil liberties of criminals and their supporters.
US sanctions don?t kill the Iraqi people. Lifting sanctions would supply the dictator with more money, not the people. Terrorism is Hussein?s oppressive tool. Children in many Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq are indoctrinated to despise the US, and blame the faults of their leaders on the US. Oddly many people here seem to be falling victim to the same leftist propaganda.
Suppose the US is greedy, hegemonic, jingoist, [insert Noam Chomsky buzzword here]. While it?s true self-interest is one of many factors in attacking Iraq, almost anything someone does benefits them. Nothing is wrong with liberating a nation, even if motivated by only self-interest. Motivations mean nothing when it results in a nation and its people being freed, and a threat to world peace eliminated. Once again, assuming the anti-American crowd is correct, just because a nation has done past wrongs doesn?t mean it can't do the right thing. A person dealing drugs can still turn in a competing drug dealer to the police. He may be motivated by self-interest, but the result benefits the community if there is one less drug dealer on the streets.
Another argument is that war will only lead to more war, giving the radical Muslim world more reason to hate us. Actually, ignoring the threat can only lead to more war. Anti-war Left-wingers are the ones shortsighted. Have they not studied history? During World War II the US maintained a neutral position. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan, proving isolationism fatal. Rewind a few years to an even more fatal pacifist mistake. As Hitler gained power, and invaded parts of Czechoslovakia, the European nations did nothing but negotiate. Giving in to Hitler instead of reducing his growing power, British Prime Minister Chamberlain proclaimed, "Peace in our times". The same goes for Clinton's lax approach to apprehending bin Laden and curbing terrorism after several attacks, leading up to 9/11.
Peace seems appealing at first. Opponents to the war want peace immediately and don?t care about the future risks. Peace is all they can grasp, and they demand it right then and there. Granted, war is bad, but one needs to analyze the end results of using a little force versus neglect, especially when dealing with terrorists. Give up a few years of fighting for short-lived peace, and a horrible war will result. Sacrifice a few years of peace, and long-term peace will be achieved. A democratic republic will be set up, similar to Afghanistan. It would help if the UN acted like the UN and not the League of Nations. Sometimes peace can only be achieved through war.
Or we could just believe Sean Penn, who went to Iraq and announced Iraq is not a threat and possesses no weapons. What a shame our troops and inspectors had to miss Christmas, knowing Hollywood was on the case.
http://www.4ranters.com/detail.php?id=37 (for different, longer version)