This is not about oil. The oil will only be relevant in terms of rebuilding Iraq and stability of prices after the war. (OPEC won’t have an excuse then and they may have to compete more so.)
Here comes my rant on the topic… I jumped around so if parts don’t make sense or seem to be interrupted you know why.
Let’s lay out the information for supporting the war:
1. Saddam Hussein is evil and untrustworthy. Contracts can only be trusted if both parties are credible and trustworthy. Do you consider him credible or trustworthy? (Apply to the UN resolutions, their past performance, and personal beliefs about him.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2533229.stm
2. It’s clear that in the past they’ve had biological and chemical weapons. They’ve also pursued nuclear weapons:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/bw-unscom.htm
Where did these weapons go? If he destroyed them then why wouldn’t he simply called the UN in and said here are the weapons. We want to comply, disarm, and do everything that is in the best interest of our country; so please destroy them and document it for our records.
3. Anti-* beliefs. Specific countries definitely raise their citizens to hate other countries and clearly this breeds terrorism. Countries that fail to stop this only create a larger problem and it seems some support that. Enough to go to war? No, but enough for serious concern that will hopefully be addressed by all respected countries.
4. Iraq was the prior instigator in the Gulf War, they invaded Kuwait and brought that upon themselves. That was back in 1990 and they’ve had all this time to stop these programs and to reform. Clearly they didn’t learn as they admitted to having a weapons program in 1996.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021117-iraq03.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/gulfguide/gwtimeline.html
5. Iraq has in the past kicked out UN inspectors and seems to do so whenever the pressure is off. It seems to be a looping cycle and when he feels the pressure is off I have no doubt that he would try to do so again. At the very least he would do so if he didn’t believe that there was a threat that the UN would respond by authorizing military action. (Purely speculation based on his past actions)
6. Colin Powell’s address to the UN clearly presented disturbing evidence, rather then drag this on longer I’ll just link away:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030205-125557-6004r
Rather then address the issues they dismiss it without rebuttal:
http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1117231
7. Iraq consistently is firing upon coalition airplanes. If I take out a handgun and shoot at you then you can legally defend yourself by any means necessary. If I repeat the firing you will obviously want me arrested so I don't threaten you or your family. Apply it to the above situation. Yet it seems people view this as a non-issue as it happens so often that the media often gives it seconds of airtime and most people ignore it.
Reasons people oppose the war:
1. Belief that all war is unnecessary and any loss of life is unacceptable. This is the idealistic belief but unfortunately when dealing with those who don’t share your viewpoint it’s worthless. Here is a scenario I’ve previously heard and repeated, I find it quite effective:
You’re out walking when someone rushes up to you and starts punching you. This person is anti-violence and lets the person continue beating them. You fall down and the attacker forces you to get up or he’ll kill you. You can either get up or be killed. You get up and try to flee but the attacker knocks you back down and continues beating you. This can continue until you’re dead or until you choose to defend yourself. Do you defend yourself or die?
A perfect example? No, but this is the type of person we are dealing with. He would rather see us dead then alive and he isn’t using your using morals and ethics or else we wouldn't be in this position. Hence the "Can't we all just get along?" doesn't apply.
2. Containment is a better solution – Many believe he is indeed evil, has these weapons, lies about them, but that we should still just contain him. I personally don’t believe this is realistic but if they know the facts and still believe this then I have nothing against this viewpoint. I would respectfully disagree but that’s why we have two viewpoints. To learn from both sides and come up with your own conclusions.
3. It’s all about the oil, it’s all about Bush senior, it’s all about *. I think these are misinformed arguments and that
Saddam has really brought this all upon himself. He wants a jihad (holy war) against the USA and Israel and will do what he can. As is he already supports suicide bombers and vice versa:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet...onal/internationalAfricaHeadline_temp/2/2/10/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-hamas-iraq_x.htm
Then top all of this off with liberating the Iraqi people. After the current government is replaced we can use their oil resources as financial security to help them rebuild and to support themselves. (
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0211/p02s02-woiq.html)
We liberated the Afghan people when so many opposed. Now that the primary action is done those who protested are all but silent and the Afghani people are incredibly thankful, but yet we are far from perfection. (One example of many good things:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Mar2002/020311-A-8773J-023.html)
I really wish people would re-focus their anti-war protests to focus on specific issues to educate people on their viewpoints. I also question if many of those people of those people know the whole issues or if they have their own political motives. (Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican, Anti-American, etc.) These same people didn’t take to the streets to protest Iraq’s use of weapons on his own people but yet they protest the removal of Saddam and the liberation of the Iraqi people.
To be fair I can counter every one of my points from the opposite side. However, it always comes back to the question on if Saddam is a good person and if he has the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart. I think an overwhelming majority can answer that question honestly and accurately. Those people will never be convinced and getting any sort of action or approval of action from them is all but impossible.
I tried to use different news sources to avoid seeming one sided but I'm sure I can't please everyone. I'm not trying to convince everyone either, just look at the facts from both sides and then decide. If someone else wants to counter my arguments with links elsewhere feel free. Otherwise if people want me to I'll reply to myself and to play devils advocate. It would be better if someone else did that though.
