Google
 

Friday, October 29, 2004

Reasons for War

By: Ed


War, death, and prisoners are shown in an endless loop 24 hours a day on news networks. The horrifying reality of the events in Iraq cannot be captured in its entirety by
these images, but we do get, at least, a glimpse of it.

Looking at these aspects of war, a person without knowledge of the reasoning behind it would naturally oppose its existence. That person would not be human if they did not. It is important to know why our country is doing this though, because it is necessary.

In 1990, showing none of the dedication to peace some protesters against the war have, Iraq launched an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait and exiled its leaders.

Surprisingly, the UN Security Council gave the Iraqi government a window to leave the forcibly occupied Kuwait without bloodshed. The Iraqi government refused. It then took a coalition of countries, including the United States, France, England, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

In 1991 Kuwait was taken back and a cease-fire was called. This cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq destroying its chemical and biological weapons, discontinuing any nuclear weapons programs, paying for damage to Kuwait, and allowing UN inspections to ensure the governments compliance. Iraq agreed to these terms.

Complying with the terms of the cease-fire was not just a way to avoid fighting for Iraq, but also a chance to earn back the trust of the world. Iraq did not seem to want that opportunity, though, and did not follow all of the conditions of the cease-fire.

In the years to follow the UN would pass several resolutions, insisting each was the very last chance for Iraq. Of course, Iraq did not take these seriously. If no consequences are ever carried out then there is no incentive to comply.

Iraq denied inspectors at times, gave incorrect information on chemical weapon amounts and potency, claiming they “just forgot,” and, contrary to the inspector’s rights to interview workers privately, some interviews were only allowed to take place in the presence of government officials, thus intimidating the workers.

Finally, 11 years after Kuwait’s occupation, resolution 1441 was unanimously passed by the Security Council, even France. The world now stood together to say “this is Iraq’s last, last, really last chance to comply.”

The UN’s resolve was short lived, though, for when Iraq failed to meet UN requirements, yet again, some members of the UN still wanted more time. Come to find these countries had companies within them that had shady dealings with Iraq.

Insisting 12 years of deception from the Iraqi government was enough, coupled with the fact that Saddam was a HUGE human rights violator (having hundreds of thousands of political dissenters, ect murdered), the United States, along with England, and other allies, began the attack on Iraq our country is now in. So, this is not necessarily the start of a new war, but the continuation of an old one after a 12 year hiatus. Iraq broke the cease-fire by not following the conditions it agreed to in order to ensure peace and now it is under attack.

The question of whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction can be answered with simple logic. If a country, with a proven record of deception, cruelty, and
disregard for human life, has weapons of mass destruction 12 years ago and never shows proof of the weapons destruction, which is required by the UN resolutions, then that country most likely still has those weapons, and for a reason. If they don't have the weapons then a worse scenario is being carried out. They are selling those weapons to the highest bidder. Either scenario warrants war to bring peace.

This link is the last (I am pretty sure) statement by the head UN weapons inspector Dr. Blix.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Ed

0 comments: