The year was 1990. The date- April 12th. Iraq was still a trusted ally of the United States. In fact, Saddam Hussein, dictator of the rising Middle Eastern nation, offered to destroy his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, provided Israel did the same. The offer, made in the spirit of a Middle East without war, seemed quite fair, genuine, and just at the time. Now, it's October of 2002. You ask yourself, what held us back then from preventing the war that is brewing today? One theory is that Israel possessed nuclear weapons, and the United States knew about it. If this is the case, the US would have no interest in the de-armament in a region which it was arming. So, why not admit that Israel has nukes, if in fact it does? This is not only because of the US's commitment to several non-proliferation treaties, but also because the Foreign Aid Acts of the 1970s strictly prohibits any military aid being given to countries with clandestine nuclear weapons-development programs. This makes the US as blatant a violator of international law as Hussein. Thus, if Israel has gone atomic with the knowledge and implicit consent of the United States, the we could all be considered "rogue nations."
So, of course, we've all heard the popular conception that Saddam Hussein is a power-hungry tyrant, who would do anything to strike at the US, no matter the cost. Yet, his actions convey an entirely different message. While he may not have any scruples, the fact remains that Hussein would not do anything to jeopardize his position of power. One may argue that back in the early '90's, Hussein's unprovoked attack on Kuwait is a perfect example of the unanticipated "rogue action" that he's very capable of taking. However, it is mentioned in Colin Powell's autobiography, "My American Journey," that Iraq practically asked the United States for permission before taking any sort of action. Additionally, it is common knowledge that Kuwait was engaging in practice known as "horizontally drilling," which, in effect, meant that the nation was stealing Iraqi oil.
Bush also repeatedly states that this "madman" has used bio-weapons against his own people. What Bush won't tell you is that Iraq's bio-weapons program would not be existent today if Uncle Sam hadn't equipped it during the Iran-Iraq war. The helicopters, used when Saddam actually gassed the Kurds were sold, over the objections of Congress, to Iraq during President George Bush Sr.'s term. Who brokered this deal? Well, it was none other than our Secretary of Defense, and ardent warhawk, Donald Rumsfeld. The two even met on several occasions in order to exchange advanced tactical information and satellite maps.
This brings across another justification of Bush to go to war: the indigenous people of Iraq. Doesn't Saddam ruthlessly oppress and starve them? In reality, we should be asking ourselves whose fault it is that the Iraqi people are suffering so much today. By all accounts, before the Gulf War, the Iraqi economy was a powerhouse in the Middle East. And now, due to the war, their manufacturing capabilities have come to a standstill, their economy effectively weakened and in shambles. Although we hate to admit it, the ongoing sanctions that we impose on Iraq are causing thousands to starve daily and have robbed these people of their basic necessities. It's all part of an American attempt to propagate our supposed concern for human rights violations, although only in places where it is convenient for us to intervene. For example, Turkey rivals Iraq in its savage oppression of the Kurds. Yet, we don't to seem care much, most likely because we already have airbases and troops stationed there. Moreover, during a major Kurdish uprising in Iraq, the much-needed air support that President Bush Sr. promised never came, resulting in a horrifying massacre of countless people. Now, one of the alleged hallmarks of our invasion is to save the Kurds. As shown above, the US has never really cared about the indigenous people of the Middle East, and just looks out for its own interests.
Futhermore, Iraq isn't the only "rogue nation" that possesses an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. North Korea has also been working on a nuclear weapons program for many years, and is now believed to actually possess missiles, with delivery systems that are actually capable of hitting us (something that Iraq wouldn't even have if given another 10 years to work in secrecy). Needless to say, we've actually been AT WAR with North Koreans in the past, and their people have been living in conditions far worse than the Iraqis. However, despite the incredible urgency on Bush's part, to deal with the threat of an Iraqi nuke, he doesn't seem to pay much attention to the current capabilities of North Korea's nuclear weapons.
On a final note, careful analysis of America's reasons for invading Iraq reveals that the justifications are primarily centered on the assumption that Saddam Hussein is a very irrational, unpredictable, and unapproachable person. We also tend to think that Iraq threatens the security of our nation with its nuclear and biological arsenal of weapons. In terms of logistics, the truth is that Iraq simply does not have the technology, or the ability to launch missiles that will reach our nation. So, taking everything into consideration, Bush's entire proposal can be questioned, as America isn't really at risk.
Moreover, past international events indicate that we repeatedly assume the role of a "global policeman," simply because our country is the most economically sound nation in the world. In this instance, the only international support that we are receiving for assuming such a role is from Britain, while virtually every other country in the United Nations staunchly advocates a much more peaceful means of negotiation with Iraq. Their reasoning, which is much more sensible, is based upon the idea that it really isn't necessary to go to war to regulate the unacceptable actions of Hussein. Proposing reforms that increase the frequency and quality of Iraqi arms inspections, many European nations do indeed see a need to take some sort of action to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein. However, as they rightly perceive, such action does not, in any way call for immediate physical force or violent means, clearly the worse alternative. On Hussein's part, it is understandable that he resents UN inspectors coming into Iraq. While he does attempt to dodge and deceive them at every turn, they have in the past collaborated with the US government to provide target lists and other intelligence for our military. Any rational government leader would be leery to let spies in.
Most assuredly, we cannot discuss the economic situation, or even any other aspect of Iraq, without accepting a substantial amount of responsibility and blame. Placing all of the agency on Saddam's shoulders merely provides a scapegoat for the US government. In general, wars are popular; they boost the economy, and any regime that we set up in Iraq would probably let American companies come in to drill for oil. Let us not forget Bush's humble beginnings in the oil industry. What we must question and take responsibility for, as active citizens with voting rights, are the motives of our government, and our justifications for war. The US government does not have a free license to invade any country, nor are we 'Justice Supreme' in any international situation. Our foreign policy in the past has led us to these crossroads, and taking rash actions now, will only perpetuate more violence down the road. What America needs to start doing is taking responsibility for our past actions and begin to question ourselves.If war can be avoided, why invade? »»