Spring Break
Letter: Iraq is no threat
Issue date: 2/6/03 Section: Commentary
I continue to be shocked and dismayed at the unjustified support of war against Iraq, which I once again saw in Sean Nottage's column "War with Iraq is inevitable and much needed." Like so many who are calling for war, his arguments rely on lies that the Bush administration have repeated so often that people have taken them as fact.
First off, the tragedy with the Columbia space shuttle was terrible, and I am sickened by anyone who celebrates innocent deaths. However, Nottage's idea that the reaction of a few Iraqis is justification for war is beyond absurd. It is an insult to the victims and degrades the very serious issue of whether or not we should go to war.
I continue reading about how Iraq's lack of cooperation gives us the right to invade. It is obvious that Iraq has not been perfect in its disclosure of possible weapons. But there is also no proof that they have weapons either. Bush claims that Iraq can have nuclear weapons within a year, but weapons inspectors are discovering first hand that Iraq has no capability to make nuclear weapons. By the time inspectors left in 1998, nearly all of Iraq's weapons had been destroyed. Even more importantly, Iraq's weapons factories were completely destroyed. Any chemicals that may have remained in Iraq would have expired years ago. Inspectors should remain in Iraq to keep such weapons out of Saddam Hussein's hands, but the case for war has not yet been made.
Even if Iraq were to possess some weapons, there is no evidence that they plan to use them. Say what you will about Saddam Hussein, but he realizes that attacking America would ensure his death. They have never been a threat to attack America. Nottage also talked about the threat of Hussein selling weapons to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. That sounds like a threat, until one realized that Hussein is a secular leader, and that he has always been an enemy of such Islamic fundamentalists. Osama bin Laden has even called for Hussein's death in the past. If people took the time to learn these facts, Bush could not get away with instilling fear in the American people without any factual evidence. Another important issue that no one wants to talk about is what will happen if Hussein is removed from power. Democracy will not occur overnight, and the question of who is in power after Hussein is a critical one. Sixty percent of Iraqis are Shi's Muslims. This group is in power in Iran, a country Bush dubbed as part of his "axis of evil." Twenty-three percent are Kurds, who have been fought by Turkey when trying to establish an independent Kurdistan. Putting such a group in power could potentially add more instability to the region. The remaining seventeen percent are Sunnis, like Hussein. If someone from Hussein's party were in power, is there any guarantee the country would be better off? I do not, by any means, think Hussein is the best option to run Iraq. However, it is clear that achieving peace and democracy may be just as difficult even after he is removed. As a country, we should be concerned with threats to our safety and well-being. The fact is that Iraq is not a threat to us at this time. I urge people to closely examine what is fact and what is fiction. Do not simply base your decisions on what Bush tells you. It is his administration's premature cries for war that are the greatest threat to our peace. Blindly following his word will lead to tragic and unnecessary deaths for Americans and Iraqis.
-Kelly McCabe
First off, the tragedy with the Columbia space shuttle was terrible, and I am sickened by anyone who celebrates innocent deaths. However, Nottage's idea that the reaction of a few Iraqis is justification for war is beyond absurd. It is an insult to the victims and degrades the very serious issue of whether or not we should go to war.
I continue reading about how Iraq's lack of cooperation gives us the right to invade. It is obvious that Iraq has not been perfect in its disclosure of possible weapons. But there is also no proof that they have weapons either. Bush claims that Iraq can have nuclear weapons within a year, but weapons inspectors are discovering first hand that Iraq has no capability to make nuclear weapons. By the time inspectors left in 1998, nearly all of Iraq's weapons had been destroyed. Even more importantly, Iraq's weapons factories were completely destroyed. Any chemicals that may have remained in Iraq would have expired years ago. Inspectors should remain in Iraq to keep such weapons out of Saddam Hussein's hands, but the case for war has not yet been made.
Even if Iraq were to possess some weapons, there is no evidence that they plan to use them. Say what you will about Saddam Hussein, but he realizes that attacking America would ensure his death. They have never been a threat to attack America. Nottage also talked about the threat of Hussein selling weapons to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. That sounds like a threat, until one realized that Hussein is a secular leader, and that he has always been an enemy of such Islamic fundamentalists. Osama bin Laden has even called for Hussein's death in the past. If people took the time to learn these facts, Bush could not get away with instilling fear in the American people without any factual evidence. Another important issue that no one wants to talk about is what will happen if Hussein is removed from power. Democracy will not occur overnight, and the question of who is in power after Hussein is a critical one. Sixty percent of Iraqis are Shi's Muslims. This group is in power in Iran, a country Bush dubbed as part of his "axis of evil." Twenty-three percent are Kurds, who have been fought by Turkey when trying to establish an independent Kurdistan. Putting such a group in power could potentially add more instability to the region. The remaining seventeen percent are Sunnis, like Hussein. If someone from Hussein's party were in power, is there any guarantee the country would be better off? I do not, by any means, think Hussein is the best option to run Iraq. However, it is clear that achieving peace and democracy may be just as difficult even after he is removed. As a country, we should be concerned with threats to our safety and well-being. The fact is that Iraq is not a threat to us at this time. I urge people to closely examine what is fact and what is fiction. Do not simply base your decisions on what Bush tells you. It is his administration's premature cries for war that are the greatest threat to our peace. Blindly following his word will lead to tragic and unnecessary deaths for Americans and Iraqis.
-Kelly McCabe