This is my little rant on arguably the biggest topic in the news during this time. This is what I feel after having read dozens of articles and hundreds of opinions on message boards from both the uninformed and those in the know.
A couple weeks ago thousands of people across North America and Europe marched in protest against a war in Iraq. George Bush has become a cultural icon of warmongering in the international community; his name, the buzzword in relation to World War 3. It is clear that most would have a peaceful resolution to the so-called Iraq crisis. Of course no one wants any deaths (well, maybe Osama, Hussein and their lot do, but they're not marching the streets), but I think what people fail to realize is the death toll has already begun. Saddam has been gassing his own people and assassinating anyone who speaks up against him. Yes, this is happening in other countries as well, but those other countries don't have extreme anti-American views and a nuclear arsenal.
Can war be avoided? I say no. Not unless Saddam genuinely agreess to put away the guns, which he won't. He even harbours terrorists associated with Bin Laden (Colin Powell, statement to UN Security Council, February 14). So unless someone opposes him and forces him to disarm, he will lash out, and this time it won't be only 3000 who die. If he is left alone more will feel the effects of his iron rule; Iraqis AND Americans. This is not a theory, it's a fact. It's been happening for the last decade, just no one's been paying any attention. Only now does the UN raise its head, because Saddam suddenly has access to biological/chemical weaponry.
Should America go to war? I think the question is, why isn't everyone else? It is clear that Saddam's "morals" (in the humanitarian perspective of things) are nonexistent. He will resort to any and all means to preserve his position in power. What sane country would leave a man like that alone to his devices, hoping he keeps his fingers within his own borders? It would appear that Bush and his allies are the only ones willing to take a proactive stance.
Many say Bush is in it only for the oil. That was an international problem, oh maybe say, 20 years ago. I have a newspaper article from that time prophecying doom upon mankind when the oil supply runs out 20 years from then. It is obvious we aren't going to run out of that particular resource any time soon. It takes a LOT of consumption to drain the Earth of 2 billion years' worth of compressed fossilization. Saddam knows this; in fact he released a statement saying in the event of a war he won't even bother burning his oil wells or dams. So that incentive goes out the window. The space maybe? Oh yes, the US has great need for an additional 400 square km of wasteland. When it comes down to it, there is no reason other than the safety of the international community, something that most of the UN seems to to be unable to fathom.
Yes, there will be civilian deaths. Yes, much money will be taken from American taxpayers for funding. Yes, the UN will most likely be pissed off. Such is war. But you know what? When it comes to the greater good of the people of the world, it is worth it. Grandiose you say? Go to an Iraqi clinic and see the effects of Saddam's bio-agents. Then stand in front of me and say peace is the only way.