I am getting a little sick of all the pro-Bush, pro-war fanatics at this university and elsewhere telling me I’m wrong for being against an unnecessary, bloody, ill-advised and ill-intentioned conflict.
I am especially tired of those same groups insisting that this is a “just” war, that we are somehow right in asserting our beliefs and ideas on people and places nothing like our own.
And I am damn tired of people telling me the main reason our boys and girls are dying in the desert is because Saddam Hussein is a terrible tyrant who poses a clear and present danger to world security.
If we believe that, why don’t we continue monitoring and searching for weapons of mass destruction?
Why don’t we assert our claims in front of the rest of the Earth and try Saddam at the World Court? Oh, wait, I know – because WE are the world court. Sorry, I forgot.
Will unilaterally (sorry, Britain and Australia don’t count) invading a sovereign nation in the world’s powder keg, which has a vast supply of anti-American sentiment, not to mention oil, help more than it will hurt? Gee, that’s a tough question. The answer is no.
Is this war necessary? I for one don’t think so, and I know more than a small minority of Americans agree with me. They just apparently are difficult to find.
I challenge anyone on this campus to tell me precisely when he or she had the same epiphany experienced by our president. When did you realize Saddam Hussein was a murderous maniac out to kill Americans, and that we needed to eliminate him right now?
Was it in 1991, when Saddam invaded Kuwait?
Was it after Sept. 11, 2001, and the fact that we wanted to lash out, despite how not a single one of the hijackers was of Iraqi descent?
Or was it after President Bush and his crew started talking about it last fall? That’s what I remember.
I first heard of Operation Bye-Bye Saddam around the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks. It was right when we all remembered the pain and horror of the morning of the attacks, and right when we felt vulnerable and wanted to kill somebody all over again.
And it was right before Republicans needed a viable strategy to win the congressional midterm elections in November.
This is proven fact, not an assertion of wrongdoing. Remember that PowerPoint disk? Dropped by Karl Rove outside the White House gates, it outlines how Republican candidates should use the possible war in Iraq as an election strategy.
It was last fall when someone decided, dammit, Saddam tried to kill my dad and he gassed his own people, so we need to get rid of Saddam’s weapons before he kills us with them. So we sent in the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).
And then the reason for attacking Saddam’s Iraq became, hey – he’s ignoring UN Resolution 1441. Hey, he’s being mean to weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei. Hey, Saddam is the reason the weapons inspectors aren’t finding any hidden weapons.
Screw the French for not agreeing with us. Screw Germany for not wanting to fight. For that matter, screw the UN for not being our lackey.
We’re so darn mad at that “Old Europe” that we’re going to rename our favorite fatty fast food accompaniment. We’re also going to find a new moniker for egg-slathered fried bread, because that’ll show those wimpy fuss-faces we mean business.
And now people are crying out that I don’t support the troops if I oppose the war. That is the most gargantuan absurdity of all.
Yes, I support our troops. So much that I don’t want them to die. No, I don’t think this war is just, and no one will convince me otherwise.
Secretary of State Colin Powell told me himself last fall that the solution to world problems “isn’t always cruise missiles.” The proper course in this conflict is diplomacy, not death and destruction.
It baffles me that people don’t understand how this war will likely cause so many more problems than it will solve.