By Greg Clayton
I am sick of the anti-American sentiment that has arisen in the past weeks. I support George Bush because he can justify this war.
Most people can agree that if Saddam Hussein has any weapons of mass destruction, he must be disarmed. The dispute seems to be U.S. motivation, timing and legality.
VX nerve, anthrax and mustard gas are not Aspirin; they don’t just go “missing.” Bush’s demands were not excessive; in fact, he just demanded that the weapons be turned over, or their destruction be accounted for. Iraq found this difficult to adhere to, even when it was approved unanimously by the UN.
Iraq has been given every possible opportunity to settle this legally. For 12 years the international community has agreed and demanded that Iraq be disarmed, most recently in UN resolution 1441. Iraq responded the same way to every resolution (over 12 of them) dating back to 1991. Iraq tried again to squeeze time out of the UN. For 12 years, they contributed as little as possible, and then at last possible moment they give a little to appear as if they are in-fact co-operating to buy more time. This is a material breech of UN resolution 1441.
More time is always an option, but should we have given Hitler more time?
Indeed Hitler controlled the most powerful army in the world with the intention to conquer it, but after 9/11, we know the enemy is not attempting world domination and powerful armies are not needed. One chemical attack could leave North America reeling with casualties comparable to WWII.
Should we wait for this to happen? Should we wait for the enemy to strike first and then defend ourselves? The U.S. has been attacked, and it is their duty and right to protect themselves. Saddam does not like the U.S.; Saddam has WMD. Saddam would not hesitate to give these weapons to people like those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11.
Many also feel the U.S. has destroyed the power of the UN. Indeed this is a terrible consequence. But I would also point to France, who said they would “veto any resolution forwarded by the U.S.” They too have destroyed the power and democratic processes intended by the UN.
Critics also say selfish intent to steal the oil of a vulnerable nation makes this war wrong. France’s decision to veto any resolution most certainly also has ties to oil, for they and Russia stand to lose valuable contracts they have now for Iraqi oil. All countries are protecting political and economic interests.
The U.S. has said many times the oil will remain in the control of the Iraqis. Are they blatantly lying about this? Not likely.
If the war was about oil, the U.S. could most certainly find a cheaper alternative to the hundreds of billions the war and rebuilding will cost. If all goes well, the end result will only be a chance for American interests to bid alongside the French and Russian companies for drilling rights.