The basis for our war against Iraq is wrong. In fact, it’s absurd. On paper, it looks like this: We are about to go to war with Saddam Hussein based on United Nations Resolution 1441.
This resolution, as we all (hopefully) know by now, allows Iraq one more chance by giving them 30 days to catalogue all weapons, allow for U.N. tourists to “inspect” the nation, allows the UN tourists to remove and destroy weapons, bars Iraq from threatening any UN member state, and other such things.
Resolution 1441 ends saying, “the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.”
The first thing wrong with this is that we seem to be putting all our eggs into the basket of the United Nations. Personally, I’d love to see Kofi Annan and all his terrorist thugs pack their things up, and leave our nation along with their lousy ideas. Maybe the NRA could then use their building in New York.
Anyway, currently we are using the United Nations as a tool to further our agenda against terrorism.
However, the main reason for which the Bush Administration is basing a possible war is the fact that Iraq simply has weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, evidence continues to mount that they do have WMD and this week, the United Nations “inspectors” amazingly found documents that show a nuclear program at work.
Still, if it is fully uncovered that Saddam Hussein has been hiding chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, that alone is not enough.
This can be directly related to racial profiling. If you’re a cop and you see a person who looks of Middle-Eastern descent walking down the street, you’re not going to immediately arrest him. The only way racial profiling will work is if it is coupled with circumstantial evidence and clearly suspicious activities.
The same thing goes for Saddam Hussein. He has these weapons, but that alone is not a charge. It must be coupled with his previous acts of genocide against the Iraqi people, his actions against Kuwait, his own terrorist actions, and his ties to terrorist organizations. Although President Bush and his cabinet members have made this point, it is a point that must become top priority.
A war against Iraq should actually become a battle – another battle in the ongoing war against terrorism.
Engaging Iraq cannot be perceived as a separate and independent action. Neither can the battle be simply perceived as action against a country that has weapons. It’s got to be more than that.
Otherwise, we might as well go after Israel. God only knows how many U.N. resolutions they have broken. How about North Korea? What about Britain? Maybe we should go after Russia and China at the same time – that sounds like fun. No, any action against Iraq must be in continuation of the war on terrorism or it will fail.
Furthermore, such a battle could possibly stand even with WMD out of the picture. In contrast, if we do not explain and lay out the terrorist ties and capabilities of Saddam Hussein, but only bring forth evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the battle will not see victory.
Yet, when coupling weapons of mass destruction with the capabilities of Saddam Hussein, the United States and her allies have a perfect basis for action.
At this point, it looks like war is inevitable. Through the duration of aggressive action against Iraq, we will be fighting two battles: one against the terrorists, who have committed genocide against the Kurds, invaded Kuwait, sponsored other terrorist organizations and have weapons of mass destruction. The other is a public relations battle with countries around the world and more importantly the American people – both must be won for victory.
