Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
I, as many other students, have recently noticed the peace protesters on front campus and around the world. I understand the plight of those who say they want peace, not war. I myself desire a resolution of peace, and not of war; however, I wonder how many of those protesters are properly informed of all or at least most of the facts regarding the situation in Iraq. I would assume that many others protest because it’s the “trendy” thing to do or because most of Hollywood opposes the war.
My opinion is that we should not base our decisions about the Iraqi threat on ideologies of the left or right, but rather on the facts. If you are walking around with a banner that says, “NO WAR WITH IRAQ!” what are you really asking? Are you asking for more time to gain international support, to let inspections work, or do you simply think that our president is lying about Hussein’s weapons and his intentions for their use?
Many of the countries that do not support the United States have not experienced a massive terror attack and probably do not feel threatened by Iraq, as many Americans do. They’ve seen the carnage Hussein has inflicted on his neighbors and on his own people over the last two decades. They’ve witnessed him defy every major United Nations resolution over the last 12 years. It’s fairly obvious most of the opposing countries have made their decision, and it will not likely change. A good friend of mine, a political science major once told me “all politics are local.” Why should a countries politicians risk angering their own people, or voters, when the issue does not serve their own interests? Diplomacy has its place and has had its place for the last 12 years that Hussein has been defying U.N. resolutions. Those who seem content with unending, unfruitful U.N. debating should seriously think about our own nation’s defense. Maybe the opposing countries are waiting to see if inspections work
The argument to “let inspections work” is one of the most ridiculous ones I’ve heard thus far. We have one hundred inspectors looking for a needle in a huge haystack. How are 100, or even 500, people going to find weapons that can be stored in transfer trucks throughout a country the size of California? Let us say, for arguments sake, that Iraq was the size of Atlanta. It wouldn’t make a difference because inspectors cannot stop every tractor-trailer truck (I’m sure there are thousands) that they see. Given that knowledge, the only way to argue that inspections work would be to assume that Hussein will voluntarily give up his weapons of mass destruction. I seriously doubt; however, that Inspector Gadget – I mean Blix is a strong force of intimidation to Hussein. It would be nice if many of Hussein’s chemical weapons of mass destruction (VX nerve agent, mustard gas, anthrax, etc.) were actually destroyed after the Gulf War as he now claims. Unfortunately, there is zero proof of their destruction on record. Tons upon tons of deadly nerve gases and toxins, and we are to believe they just disappeared without a trace? If you simply take Hussein on his word that they were destroyed, chances are you also believe in the Tooth Fairy. But wait! Iraq has already destroyed 64 Al samoud missiles; nearly half of those he possesses.
Inspections must work! Assuming you do not believe the chemical weapons were destroyed; Hussein gave us the equivalent of 64 Fruit Loops out of a 16 ounce box. Of course he’s going to give us a few scraps to appease the inspectors, make himself look like a cooperating kind-of-guy and draw out the process of his overthrow even longer.
Should we just leave Iraq alone with Hussein’s regime in power? If we do, should we think that he would not try to develop more powerful weapons of mass destruction? If and when he does develop more weapons, should we assume that he wouldn’t sell them to a terrorist regime that could easily smuggle them into the United States? I guarantee there have been illegal drug shipments smuggled in that are three times the size of a bomb that could kill thousands. Maybe we should assume that the terrorists wouldn’t use these weapons against the United States. After all, everyone loves the United States. Uranium is, in fact, hard to come by, but it’s foolish to believe that a man with so much Iraqi wealth at his disposal won’t eventually make the purchase. If he makes that purchase and if his scientists are half as intelligent as ours were 50 years ago, goodbye New York City!
I know that if I were a terrorist, the first place I’d detonate an atomic bomb would be in the middle of Washington D.C. This act would essentially decapitate our government, sending many U.S. citizens (not including myself) into mass hysteria. It’s kind of ironic that many of the people who would be killed by this hypothetical bomb would be “peace loving” protestors who have marched on the capitol to stop our nations’ defenses against this threat.
Many of us are concerned about the cost of human life by the escalating war. An image of a dead Iraqi baby or of a U.S. soldier coming home in a body bag pops into our heads. For those of you with that image permanently ingrained in your heads, I encourage you to check out Hussein’s bio on the History Channel. He’s already been there-done that. It’s nearly a 100 percent probability that people will die if we go to war; however, I happen to agree with the president’s comment two weeks ago when he said, “The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action.” If one of his weapons of mass destruction reaches the United States, there will be many more mental images of dead innocents to add to those of Sept. 11.
Many protesters feel like Bush is nothing more than a lying propagandist, hell bent on going to war. Yet, it’s a well-documented fact that Hussein is a lying propagandist. Given all of the factors from Hussein’s deception regarding his weapons of mass destruction to his past history of their use (key words: Iraqi Kurds), I think it’s obvious the he should not be in power. That’s not to mention his deceptions to his own people in regards to the oil for food programs. Ultimately, if I am choosing between two liars, I support President Bush. Again, I respect the opinions of those who disagree with military action against Saddam Hussein; I simply disagree with their assessment of the threat. Until facts are otherwise presented, I will continue to support the Commander in Chief of the United States. I may, however, stop by the next protest to grab a free slice of pizza.
Chris Whitley
Senior
Posted by Colonnade Archives
on Mar 28 2003. Filed under Letters to the Editor.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
