Why I oppose the war - by Daniel Brugioni
1. Bush (whom I think has had a disastrous run as a President) first advocated war because of Iraq's supposed nuclear arms build up. There was never any proof of any nuclear arms build up (at least none that was ever submitted to the UN or the world at large.) US "intelligence" submitted photos to the UN but (according to the Chicago Tribune) they were dismissed when it was determined that they had been doctored.
2. Failing to find any evidence of a nuclear program, Bush started the al Qaeda link theory. Again, no proof was ever submitted to the UN or the world at large. Again, the al Qaeda and Hussein's Baath Party are not allies, though they may be after this war is over.
3. I don't doubt that there are chemical and biological weapons in Iraq or with their allies. But again, there is NO proof that these still exist. (And if they do, why exactly hasn't Iraq, essentially a defenseless country, started using them?) And even if they do, declaring war on a country that has not committed an act of aggression for weapons that were documented 12 years ago - and violating the US penned UN charter of 1945 in the process - seems monumentally unwise.
4. The US congress has allowed Bush war powers without declaring war (blatantly anti-constitutional) thus diminishing the system of checks and balances, giving Bush undo power as an elected official.
5. The UN hasn't approved this. Far from being the "pussies" that everyone seems to think, they are upholding their responsibility to the UN charter (written mostly by the US in 1945.) They have been given no proof that a preemptive strike was necessary and thus opted out (as have a majority of our allies.) This has had terrible consequences in the relationship with our allies and their relationship with each other.
6. A preemptive strike against a country that has neither committed nor planned any attack on the US is illegal - again citing the agreement of 1945 - which WE wrote.
7. We have the lowest standard of living of any developed nation, a health care system that ranks with Egypt in terms of the care of patients, an educational system that is crumbling (and I know - I work in it) and we are spending, by all accounts I've heard, 220 billion dollars on this war. (Granted, Bush has, as of today, requested only 150 billion.)
8. The president of Egypt has said the the terroristic backlash against the US will increase "100 fold." We have thumbed our noses at our allies in the UN (especially Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China) thus eliminating any aid on their part when it happens. It looks as though our leaders have not looked long term with this.
9. The only proof - and I stress - the only proof we have is that Saddam Hussein has been cruel to his people. If you believe in anything to do with "Iraqi liberation" I've got an Escort to sell you. If you think we are doing this to liberate poor people across the ocean...you must leave in a very happy place. It just isnt happening.
10. This looks to be a war for oil. Why would the US media stress that "oilfields were in our control?" Why would coalition forces usher Kuwaiti firefighters through a war zone to put out oil well fires if this was a war for liberation or against terror? Hmmm...If not for oil, then for imperialism, for a one-world government, which Hussein has expressed no interest in.
11. In the Arab/ Muslim world there is much dissent and hatred against the great Satan of the US. By attacking (in the world's eyes without cause) a Muslim/ Arab nation, we are tossing rocks at the bee's nest so to speak, stirring up the fundamentalists into a jihad-istic fervor that may make the many future battles this war will create very difficulat on us.
I don't doubt that Hussein needs to be removed, but so do many of the dictators we are trading with (China, Saudi Arabia). There just doesn't seem to be enough here for me to support a war with this many negative implications. I do support our troops but it saddens me that we seem to be using them as pawns in an imperialistic endeavor. I am a pacifist but I do believe that there are wars that need to be fought. I just dont think that this is one of them.
I apologize if I have submitted any of my opinions as fact (like Mr. Bush does.) I tried not to. Get back to me with any reply you have.
Dan
1. Bush (whom I think has had a disastrous run as a President) first advocated war because of Iraq's supposed nuclear arms build up. There was never any proof of any nuclear arms build up (at least none that was ever submitted to the UN or the world at large.) US "intelligence" submitted photos to the UN but (according to the Chicago Tribune) they were dismissed when it was determined that they had been doctored.
2. Failing to find any evidence of a nuclear program, Bush started the al Qaeda link theory. Again, no proof was ever submitted to the UN or the world at large. Again, the al Qaeda and Hussein's Baath Party are not allies, though they may be after this war is over.
3. I don't doubt that there are chemical and biological weapons in Iraq or with their allies. But again, there is NO proof that these still exist. (And if they do, why exactly hasn't Iraq, essentially a defenseless country, started using them?) And even if they do, declaring war on a country that has not committed an act of aggression for weapons that were documented 12 years ago - and violating the US penned UN charter of 1945 in the process - seems monumentally unwise.
4. The US congress has allowed Bush war powers without declaring war (blatantly anti-constitutional) thus diminishing the system of checks and balances, giving Bush undo power as an elected official.
5. The UN hasn't approved this. Far from being the "pussies" that everyone seems to think, they are upholding their responsibility to the UN charter (written mostly by the US in 1945.) They have been given no proof that a preemptive strike was necessary and thus opted out (as have a majority of our allies.) This has had terrible consequences in the relationship with our allies and their relationship with each other.
6. A preemptive strike against a country that has neither committed nor planned any attack on the US is illegal - again citing the agreement of 1945 - which WE wrote.
7. We have the lowest standard of living of any developed nation, a health care system that ranks with Egypt in terms of the care of patients, an educational system that is crumbling (and I know - I work in it) and we are spending, by all accounts I've heard, 220 billion dollars on this war. (Granted, Bush has, as of today, requested only 150 billion.)
8. The president of Egypt has said the the terroristic backlash against the US will increase "100 fold." We have thumbed our noses at our allies in the UN (especially Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China) thus eliminating any aid on their part when it happens. It looks as though our leaders have not looked long term with this.
9. The only proof - and I stress - the only proof we have is that Saddam Hussein has been cruel to his people. If you believe in anything to do with "Iraqi liberation" I've got an Escort to sell you. If you think we are doing this to liberate poor people across the ocean...you must leave in a very happy place. It just isnt happening.
10. This looks to be a war for oil. Why would the US media stress that "oilfields were in our control?" Why would coalition forces usher Kuwaiti firefighters through a war zone to put out oil well fires if this was a war for liberation or against terror? Hmmm...If not for oil, then for imperialism, for a one-world government, which Hussein has expressed no interest in.
11. In the Arab/ Muslim world there is much dissent and hatred against the great Satan of the US. By attacking (in the world's eyes without cause) a Muslim/ Arab nation, we are tossing rocks at the bee's nest so to speak, stirring up the fundamentalists into a jihad-istic fervor that may make the many future battles this war will create very difficulat on us.
I don't doubt that Hussein needs to be removed, but so do many of the dictators we are trading with (China, Saudi Arabia). There just doesn't seem to be enough here for me to support a war with this many negative implications. I do support our troops but it saddens me that we seem to be using them as pawns in an imperialistic endeavor. I am a pacifist but I do believe that there are wars that need to be fought. I just dont think that this is one of them.
I apologize if I have submitted any of my opinions as fact (like Mr. Bush does.) I tried not to. Get back to me with any reply you have.
Dan
Comments