"Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...." -Dennis Miller
Like everybody, there are quite a few things in this world which just annoy the hell out of me. I try not to voice these opinions for various reasons. I never want to hurt anyone's feelings, I appear bitter when I do, etc. Unfortunately, unless I voice my frustrations, they don't go away. The solution I've come up with, is this Rant & Roar section of my website. Every so often, I plan to vent my frustration, go on a rant and just plain roar about a certain topic that annoys me. I mean absolutely no offense to anyone in particular. This section is not an excuse for me to attack anyone. It's just me letting off some steam.
You can also check out my previous rants.
*NOTE: The following rant was written at the very onset of the war. My thoughts and feelings about the war were, and still are, in a constant state of flux. This rant was more of an attempt to solidify and work through the conflicting views I had than it was about taking a specific stand on the war.. It should be viewed as such. At the end of the rant in red font, I have added a paragraph about my current thoughts and feelings now that the war has ended.
We were the generation that was supposed to grow up without war. We were supposed to look at the past and learn from it. We were supposing solve our problems without death. We were supposed to know better. Now, here we are, the ones preparing to invade. Of course, the issue is not so simple. There are many people who would argue that we are not starting a war, we are stopping one. There are people who would argue that war has come to us, and we are fighting only in self-defense. Quite frankly, I think a war on Iraq might indeed be necessary, but only if done for the right reasons. Unfortunately, I think the reasons people use to defend this war are unjustified.
This war is being advertised as a war of self-defense. Saddam is a madman and he will attack us with nuclear/chemical/biological weapons as soon as he gets the chance. As a result, we need to attack him first to avoid such a disaster and an all out war. First and foremost, this argument is not only illogical, but also morally unjustified. Do people honestly think that the way to make sure Iraq won’t use their weapons of mass destruction is to attack them? The best way to stop someone from using a weapon isn't to attack him. That’ll just give him a legitimate reason for carrying one. And as we saw during the Gulf War, Saddam won't hesitate to use chemical weapons on invading armies. If he has weapons of mass destruction, then he'll be far more likely use them if he has nothing left to lose. If we attack Iraq and try to remove Saddam, he will have no reason not to attack the US with everything he has. Saddam may be a "madman", but he isn't stupid. He enjoys being in power. If he were to attack the US in any way, the United States would bomb Iraq until it was a smoking crater. What would he gain from such an attack? It would be impossible from him to make an attack on every single major American city and military base at the same time. Anything short of that would result in the US obliterating Iraq in a moment. Again, how would he benefit from such an attack? What good would it do him? He would have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Unlike the terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers, Saddam isn't a religious zealot. He doesn't care about self-sacrifice and religious wars. He is a dictator who enjoys the power he has. He doesn't want to lose that. He is well aware that he stands no chance against the US.
Saddam, it is argued, has used chemical weapons on his own people. He is more than capable of using these weapons against us. This is not being disputed. No one is claiming that Saddam isn't an evil mother-fucker. The issue isn't if he's evil enough to use these weapons, it's if the benefits for such an attack will outweigh the consequences for him. Not only that, but even if he does have weapons of mass destruction, he currently has no means of deploying them. No missile he possesses can reach the United States. Of course, he doesn't need missiles to deploy such weapons. He could use terrorists to smuggle it into the US. Again, I fail to see the benefit such an attack would have. Even if he did nuke a major US city, the retribution would be so powerful that the US would not stop until he was dead. Hardly a good position for him.
Speaking of terrorism, I've heard some rather absurd arguments that Saddam has been co-operating with Osama Bin Laden. We have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. As far as I can tell, this is a way for people to blame Saddam for 9/11. People claim that Osama would gladly work with anyone to achieve his goals and therefore would have no problem working with Saddam. Granted, but that isn't evidence of anything. Hell, we could say the same thing about any and all countries. Osama would gladly co-operate with Denmark if it brought him closer to his goals, but that doesn't mean Denmark is responsible for 9/11. Saddam does admittedly give money to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers, but it seems far more likely that he does this to curry favour with the religious fundamentalists and not out of some deep-seeded desire for terrorism.
The next argument for war is that Saddam has had 12 years to disarm, but he hasn't. Why would this be the case if he didn't intend to attack? This, if anything, shows that he is not the immediate threat they claim he is. If Saddam has had these weapons for over 10 years, then why now, all of the sudden, is he a threat we cannot allow? People claim that if we do not act now, then in a few months, it will be too late to avoid an attack. Why was this claim not made 2 years ago? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Why now, all of the sudden, is he the greatest possible threat to the world? Now, I'm not saying that Saddam is a cuddly bunny. He's a bad guy who does need to be disarmed and removed, but he is not the immediate threat he is made out to be. There are reasons that Saddam should be removed, but self-defense is not one of them. North Korea, who actually has nuclear weapons, and who has outwardly told us they will attack us if war breaks out, is a far greater threat than Saddam.
People who claim that Iraq is our biggest threat believe that this is because Saddam is a total nut-job. North Korea has the nukes, but Saddam is crazy! Sure, he would have little to gain and everything to lose if he attacked the US, but he's a wacko. He's Looney-Tunes! He's not making decisions rationally because he's a madman. The only problem with this theory is that we have no evidence for it whatsoever. Sure, Saddam may be a sadistic, evil son-of-a-bitch, but does that make him crazy? Not really. I mean, if he were having sex with electrical sockets while sucking on goat testicles, then I'd be well onboard with this insane theory. As it stands though, Saddam may be evil, but we have no reason to think he's crazy.
Let's now examine the notion of a "preemptive strike". Bush’s top security advisor has admitted that they would have attacked Iraq whether the inspectors found weapons or not. Does nobody else find it slightly disturbing that an invasion of Iraq was set before we were even sure Saddam still had weapons? You can’t just go to war with someone because they might possibly become a threat in the future. Otherwise, you’d be able to go to war with anyone at any time and be able to call it self-defense. By this logic, isn’t Saddam Hussein equally as justified in attacking the US on the same grounds? After all, the United States has weapons of mass destruction and they are planning to attack Iraq no matter what. Doesn’t this mean Hussein should use a preemptive strike against the US to avoid an inevitable war? And if he did attack, would it really avoid a war, or just create a much bloodier one? It's easy for people to say that it's not the same situation. After all, Saddam is evil and the US isn't. The point however, is that the logic behind a preemptive strike is flawed. If it's justifiable for the US to attack Saddam on these grounds, then it’s equally as justifiable for Saddam to attack the US on the same grounds.
We also need to consider the repercussions of this war. Terrorism against the US will very likely increase if this war goes through. Not to mention the fact that North Korea has threatened to attack the US if war breaks out. Now, people argue that terrorist threats are not valid reasons to avoid a war. After all, if we avoided war because of what terrorists might do, we'd be rewarding terrorism. This is probably true, but it's also not relevant to the point at hand. The US says they are invading Iraq for self-defense reasons. They are attacking Iraq to make life safer for US citizens. So, if this invasion were to increase terrorist attacks or bring about an attack by North Korea, then the US will obviously have failed in achieving their goal. Saddam is not our biggest threat, and attacking him might be far more devastating than letting him be for the moment while we deal with larger threats, like North Korea.
Quite frankly, I don't think this war is motivated completely by self-defense, not with North Korea sitting in the wings with working nuclear weapons (and who we know has sold weapons to terrorists). It seems that this obsession with Iraq is based on more than just a possible future threat. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it just seems like a war on Iraq for "self-defense" reasons isn't justifiable enough. So, what is motivating this war? Well, like most people who aren't high ranking members of the US government, I don't know. There are many benefits to invading Iraq, and perhaps a combination of these are motivating factors.
1) Oil: This is one we all hear a lot. The fact that the US will have access to a nice supply of oil if this war is successful might be a nice incentive, but I doubt this alone would be reason enough for war. It's not like there's such a massive shortage of oil that the US has no choice but to invade and conquer another country. The US gets oil from countries other than Iraq, and it seems a bit excessive to invade Iraq just for oil. Like I said, I don't really know the motivating factors of this war, so oil may indeed be the hidden reason for this war. I just can't help thinking that while it may be a contributing factor, it isn't enough to support a war.
2) Show of Force: To me, this seems like it would be the most likely reason for a war. When the World Trade Center fell, the United States was pushed into a war. This was not a war against any particular nation or country, but on terrorism itself. It is a war that can never truly be won. No matter how hard the US fights, there will always be terrorists and there will always be terror. Let's also not forget that Osama Bin Laden escaped every US attempt to capture and/or kill him. The US was struck a terrible blow on 9/11 and was unable to bring those who attacked them to justice. What this shows, is that the US is capable of being attacked without the attackers being brought to justice. This is obviously not a position the US wants to be in. They need to show their enemies that they are not to be fucked with. They have to show potential attackers that any attempt to hurt US citizens will lead to retribution. They need a show of force. In comes Iraq: the perfect target. People know Saddam Hussein is bad guy. No one likes Saddam. He's an evil dictator who kills his own people. Also, like the terrorists who attacked the US, he's an Arab. Since George Bush fought Saddam during the Gulf, it means that George W. Bush has access to someone who knows Saddam's way of thinking during a war and his tactical methods. It also means that the US has intimate knowledge of Iraqi terrain.
3) A New Middle East Ally: It is no secret that the Arab world doesn't have much love for the United States. If an Iraqi government could be set up which has positive ties to the US, it would give them another ally in the Arab world. This would help them keep an eye on countries like Iran as well as establish another post in the Mideast they could use as a military springboard if it becomes necessary.
4) Humanitarian Reasons: I firmly believe that this is the only really justifiable reason for invading Iraq. If this war was being waged to free Iraqi citizens from a horrible dictator, then I would fully support it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. If it were, than the humanitarian issue would be mentioned as a top priority instead of as a secondary and/or a bonus that would come about from the war. Now, some might argue that any kind of war would kill Iraqi citizens, not help them. If the war's top concern was the freeing of Iraqi citizens, then there would be a much more conscious effort of preventing civilian casualties than if the war was being waged for other reasons. Also, a war might be the only way to help Iraqi civilians since Saddam's children might easily seize power after his death, and the terrible conditions there would remain. A war might be the only real solution. Of course, this raises the question: even if the current war isn't being done for the express purpose of helping Iraqi civilians, if that's the outcome, does it really matter what the intentions are? Not really. Unfortunately, as we saw with Afghanistan, removing an evil government doesn't necessarily mean helping civilians. With Afghanistan, after the US removed the Taliban and found that Osama had left, they quickly forgot all the aid they promised the civilians there and another corrupt government quickly took over where the Taliban left off. Since that wasn't much of a concern to the US, the issue wasn't brought up. This unfortunately shows that a war with Iraq for "self-defense" reasons doesn't mean civilians will be helped, which is why I am unable to support it. Hopefully, Iraqi civilians will be helped by this war and I will be proven wrong. As it stands though, unless this becomes the primary concern of the US government, I don't think this war is justifiable.
It seems that a war with Iraq is now truly unavoidable. Let's just hope it's being fought for the right reasons. People who support this war say that attacking Saddam now is our best chance of stopping him before he gets weapons of mass destruction and uses them against the US. Frankly, anyone who says this with certainly is full of shit. This war might stop a potential attack from Iraq and it might indeed show terrorists that America is not to be trifled with. The truth is though, that we don't know what the consequences of this war will be. Anyone who tells you that this war will ultimately save more lives than it will cost is either really easily swayed by propaganda, or doesn't enjoy thinking about things. The truth is that we don't know what this war will bring. A preemptive strike in "self-defense" is ultimately unjustifiable and unsupportable, but if it does help the Iraqi citizens living under Saddam's rule, then it will be worth it. Let's just hope the responses to this war won't throw us all into a third world war.
My thoughts on the war one month later:
The war is over. While the invasion of Iraq took only a few weeks, my thoughts and feelings about it have changed and evolved (and continue to do so). It has been very hard for me to decide if the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, or a mistake. I've thought about it over and over, but the more I think about it, the harder it becomes for me to stand by any particular point of view. In my last rant, I tried to put into writing what my stance on the war was. While I still support much of what I said, my views have changed a great deal since then, and continue to do so. People on both sides of this issue have made valid points which are hard to deny. As such, I'm left with feelings of confusion, frustration and uncertainty. Strangely, it seems that no one else is left with these feelings. The one thing I've noticed that unites all people who were so vocal in their opinions about the war, is that they have no problem ignoring, grossly oversimplifying and throwing out valid arguments simply because it conflicts with their chosen views. The fact that people were so polarized on this issue meant that people were ignoring key factors. On the one hand, we had those who claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would, without question, use them at first opportunity. Now that the war is over, we see that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Or, if he did have them, he certainly didn't use them. Not surprisingly, these people have become rather silent as of late. On the other hand, we had those who claimed that a war on Iraq would cost far more innocent lives than letting Saddam stay in power. Now that the war is over, and the American troops have been hailed as saviours, these people have become rather silent as well. This issue is not black and white, and never was. I'm sick of the oversimplification. In my rant, I said that if the US wasn't concerned first and foremost with helping the civilians of Iraq, then I wasn't sure if I could support a war on Iraq. With the war over, the issue of whether it was a good idea or not has become moot. As I've said, if those living in Iraq are helped because of the War, whether it was intentional or not, it's still worth it. While it's far too early to predict what will happen in the next few months and years, it does seem like those who have been freed from Saddam's rule are happy about it. That's a good start. I hope that my fears were unfounded. Here's hoping that things will get better for those living in Iraq, and not worse for everyone concerned.
<----- Back to previous rants
<----- Back to my homepage