Why We Were Right To Liberate Iraq

The following piece was written by Ghost Dog 644 on the GameFAQs War on Terrorism Message Board during 2003. As such, some of the arguments made were found wanting in the period since it was written (nor do I agree with everything the author wrote), yet it still remains remarkably relevant and accurate about the background to the Third Gulf War and is the most powerful case made in favour of the liberation of Iraq.

First of all, let me just say that I’m anti-war and pro-common sense, I’m neither Republican nor Democrat (everyone in politics is all the same), and if you ask me who was my favourite president in the last 3 decades, I’d probably say Clinton.

Going back to me saying I’m anti-war, I’m anti-war to an extent. I do realize that there are instances where action must be taken. I strongly believe that this is one of those instances. So here in this topic, I will attempt to explain why I hold my position and why I am "getting sick and tired" of anti-war protestors and the extreme liberalism within the movement.

"Bush is attacking Iraq to get oil."

This is the biggest myth surrounding the entire campaign. People would be surprised to learn that only 2.2% of the oil we consume comes from Iraq. In fact, Middle East nations only provide about 11.5% total of the oil we consume. Indeed, there are analysts who say that within the next decade we will end up importing more from Middle Eastern countries. If that were the case, then we would’ve attacked Saudi Arabia as they give us 7.9%. Hell, if it were REALLY all about oil, Canada would be a conquered nation by now as we import the most oil from them (9.9%). Or how about conquer Mexico? Mexico gives us 7.8% of our oil, just below Saudi Arabia. 6 other nations exported more oil to us than Iraq did in 2002. If this government is an "oil-hungry-corrupt-imperialistic" government, why have we not attacked those nations?

Although we import very little from Iraq, there is no denying that Iraq has plenty of oil. Last I remember they are the 2nd biggest exporter of oil in the world. So many will still cling to the false argument that this is all about oil. This is what people don’t understand, the main reason the U.S. imports its oil in a big spread of different nations, is because it is a strategic structure. The government isn’t stupid; they realize that if we as a country depend heavily on one nation for our oil, it would be devastating if something negative happened within that nation that would prevent oil importing. Think of the importation of oil as a mutual fund. It has to be diversified because putting your eggs in one basket is suicide. It is quite obvious why we import more oil from Canada than any other country, because obviously we know that they are just as stable as we are and can keep a consistent flow as opposed to South America and the Middle East.

"Bush is attacking Iraq to force them to give us their oil and get rich during the reconstruction."

Another tired old mythical argument. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deployment of troops costs $9-13 billion. Thereafter, to maintain the war on Iraq, it will cost $6-9 billion per month. Returning the forces to the U.S. will cost an estimated $5-7 billion. Temporary occupation will cost another $1-4 billion per month after the war ends. This doesn’t even take into account the initial and continuing costs of setting up a new government or the amount of military equipment lost. Nor does it take into account the billions lost on tighter national security (NYC requires $5 million per week!). So how the hell is the U.S. getting rich in all of this exactly? Lastly and most importantly, this does not even take into account the number of lives that could be lost.

Let us also not forget, that we WILL NOT be the only ones reconstructing Iraq after the war. Spain, Britain, and the other 43 countries that have signed on to support this war will also be lending a hand. There is no doubt that Germany, France, China, and Russia will also definitely jump in once we do the dirty work for them. Hell, France is already saying they’re going to veto in letting the U.S. have anything to do with Iraq reconstruction! In addition, the UN will be keeping a close watch, as they will be sending in their workers for humanitarian purposes and just 2 days ago the LA Times reported that the UN will be GAINING CONTROL of the oil wells in Iraq after the war and all the profits from it. A lot of people seem to think that we’re going to just cakewalk the war, create a puppet government, get the oil, and get rich. If we look at the numbers constructively, that reasoning makes absolutely no sense.

Assuming that Bush is a maniac who doesn’t care about the lives of our troops and Iraqi citizens and we’re really in it so we can get oil and he can get revenge for his daddy, assuming this is all true as stupid as that may sound. As I’ve stated in my first argument, strategically, it would be suicide to depend on one territory for oil, especially such a dangerous and volatile territory. It would be stupid on our part to get rid of our ties with Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and the 3 other nations we imported more from than Iraq now that we “control” Iraq and can get “free oil as our spoils.” And again, this is just not possible due to the amount of other countries that will be either directly monitoring or directly aiding with the reconstruction. And remember that politically, Bush and Blair have a lot to loose on this campaign. If they half-ass their aid in the reconstruction and for some magical reason we are able to abuse Iraqi oil for our own purposes without any of the other countries noticing and the Iraqi territory becomes one big mess… then Bush will surely loose the next election and go down in history as one of the most scandalous leaders and Blair will be exiled from Britain for being “America’s poodle.” Not only that, but if the territory does become one big mess, how the hell are we going to keep importing oil from it? So in essence, EVEN IF we assume that this is about getting rich and oil, the amount we reap will end up going back to keeping a stable government anyway. Once the war is all said and done, as Bush and Blair promised, the oil will go back to the people that own it, the Iraqis.

"France, Russia, China, and Germany should be commended for standing up against the U.S."

This one really sickens me and it really proves the hypocrisy of it all. France will loose an estimated $6-9 billion in oil contracts. Russia and Germany have similar contracts to a lesser extent with Iraq. This is why these countries refused to take ANY FORM of military action because they have the most to loose. Not only would they loose money by liberating Iraq and reconstructing it, but they would also loose their precious oil discount contracts. They’re not anti-war because they’re a "peace-loving-nation." They’re not anti-war because they just love the UN so much and need their approval. They’re not anti-war because they care about the lives lost. False, false, and false. What’s really disgusting is that these are the same countries protestors’ praise, the same protestors who claim that the U.S. is going in because it’s "all about the oil."

Now, I did not mention China. Communist China is against us, big surprise there. Why China and their sweatshops, yes, China is really against war because they care oh so much about human lives, right...

"No one supports the U.S., this is a unilateral pre-emptive move to war."

Bush Sr. had 30 countries with him when he attacked Iraq. Bush Jr. has 45. I don’t need to say much else.

"I would support the war if we had UN approval. It’s hypocritical of us to invade a country for disobeying the UN by disobeying the UN ourselves."

Why do we need approval for something that the UN approved already? The wording of the infamous 1441 was really very "loose." It had to be in order for France, Russia, and Germany to sign on it because any explicit use of the word "immediate military action," the 3 would’ve trounced it because of their oil contracts. So instead, they replaced it with "severe consequences." It is only now that the U.S. is finally saying that, "Oh, that means military action." Where as the countries against military action is saying, "No, it doesn’t." Although France, Russia, and Germany can’t say exactly what the hell "severe consequences" means. So instead they took another route and started saying, "Well, we should only do that if Iraq is not cooperating, but Iraq is cooperating." BS, BS, and BS!

Listen all you anti-war folks out there. Saddam has had 12 friggin’ years to disarm. 17 resolutions after, how the hell are we still "investigating"? During that time he kicked inspectors out, then lately we get interviews of him saying, "Well, I did have WoMD when I wasn’t supposed to have them, but they’re all gone now." Then we find out he has missiles he’s not supposed to have and it’s just, "Oh, it’s all just an accident." This coming from Saddam and the UN believes it! Ridiculous. Everyone signed a trillion resolutions and gave deadline after deadline... "Oh, but 12 years after they’re cooperating, so c’mon, let’s give ‘em another 2 months." How about giving them another 2 months after that, and another 2 months after that, and another 2 months after that? I give Bush credit for saying, "The BS stops here," and then finally having the gonads to do something about it. The UN wasn’t obeying the UN resolutions; it is as simple as that.

"Clinton would’ve done a better job in diplomacy."

Yeah, he would’ve done EXACTLY what Bush is doing now. You can look at past speeches of Clinton during his term and all of his comments literally parallel everything Bush is saying now, especially because it was a time when Iraq had kicked the inspectors out. It is unfortunate that Clinton has gone the "partisan" route and denounced what Bush is saying and doing when his "thoughts" on it mirrored Bush’s during his Presidency. I’m not even going to bother quoting Clinton because a lot of newspapers and news talk radio shows have caught on the hypocrisy already.

"We’re going to bomb the hell out of Iraq and kill lots of innocent people."

Please show me a war that was won without collateral damage… You can’t… Collateral damage is inevitable. The U.S. is doing EVERYTHING in its technological power to avoid such casualties. This is one of the main reasons why before the "shock and awe" campaign we saw today, surgical strikes aimed at assassinating Saddam were performed "outside of the original plan." We saw an opportunity to eliminate the main problem quickly and we took it. If Saddam were truly dead, it would be equivalent to cutting off the head of the snake. The war would go along much quicker and much smoother in essence equalling into less violence. The problem I believe is that when people think bombs, they see pictures of warplanes in the 50s just randomly dropping bombs. This is NOT what is happening, everything that has been targeted are military locations. The accuracy of our military technology has become so precise that it borders on the ridiculous. We ARE NOT just dropping bombs all over Baghdad and other cities just for the hell of dropping bombs. We know what is being hit and what needs to be hit. Look at the videos, bombs are going off and it looks like hell, but electricity is still on and non-military targets are all still pretty much intact. We are not here to DESTROY a nation, we are here to destroy an evil regime and liberate an entire country.

"We have no proof that they have WoMD."

How many missiles have been fired at Kuwait so far that Saddam SWORE had all been destroyed? The way the investigations by the UN were being met by Saddam was ludicrous. Leaving out the fact that he once kicked the investigators out, when the investigators were supposedly conducting their investigations, Iraqi officials were heavily monitoring them. I don’t remember who said it, it might’ve been Conan O’Brien or Jon Stewart, but basically this is how they jokingly saw the investigations. If your mom goes into your room and says, "I’m going to come back here in 4 months and I’m going to look for weed in your room. I better not find any or your are in deep trouble." That is essentially how the investigations were going. Wherever the investigators were going to go next, Iraqi officials had to be asked ahead of time. Whomever they interviewed, Iraqi officials had to be there. And even in the remaining days when Iraqi officials finally conceded to giving the UN "private" interviews with scientists, there were reports coming back saying the interviews were being tapped!

Ask yourself this; does Iraq look like a country disarming? It sure as hell doesn’t, unless you’re as blind as Blix is. We are talking about Saddam here, did you hear me? Saddam! The man has no credibility and there is no doubt in my mind that there was no way in hell that we would ever be able to conduct a REAL investigation in Iraq with him in power. I’m not even going to mention a lot of "coincidental" evidence that we intercepted. In fact, this is one of our greatest fears right now. That Baghdad is one big trap that once our forces come in Saddam will unleash his bio/chem. weapons on our men and women as a last resort (if he’s even still alive).

Let’s live in fantasyland and assume that Saddam doesn’t have WoMDs. With the strategy of appeasement the UN was giving Saddam, there is absolutely, positively no doubt in my mind that within the next few years Saddam would’ve come to a point where he would obtain such technology and you sure as hell better believe he’ll sell it to terrorists and aid terrorists in harming our land and our allies. Hell, this is the same bastard who gives Palestinian suicide bombers’ families $210,000. You’d have to be pretty stupid and naïve to think that a man like Saddam who utterly detests the U.S. hasn’t in fact already in some way aided and harboured terrorists against America, not just Israel, Iran, and Kuwait. Saddam makes billions on oil each year, it sure as hell ain’t going back to the people. This bum has to be spending that money on something else besides palaces.

Speaking of Israel and Palestine, don’t get me wrong. I think both sides are at fault and have committed equal atrocities. That century long war in that region can only be settled when both sides’ leaders and peoples accept their differences and settle their boundaries once and for all to end all the bloodshed. Neither side is innocent.

There are two camps. Those who wait for something to happen and those who refuse to wait for another 9/11. Clinton understood the danger Saddam posed. Bush understands the danger Saddam poses. I agree with them both. Innocent until proven guilty? Since when was Saddam innocent? He is a monster who has caused infinite crimes against humanity. The man hates the U.S., whether he is a current immediate threat or not is irrelevant. The point is that he is a future threat no matter what. You’d have to be pretty stupid to think he isn’t. You’d have to be pretty stupid to think that he hasn’t funded anti-America terrorist plans already.

"It’s our fault! We gave him the WoMD in the 80s!"

I agree wholeheartedly that it was pretty damn stupid AND hypocritical of the U.S. government to do what they did. This country isn’t a perfect country, we have our scars, hypocrites, and our past leaders have taken plenty of idiotic actions (just like every other country out there). We are now trying to rectify the mess we created. Regardless, with a madman like Saddam, if we didn’t idiotically give him WoMD, France would have (which they did). Russia would have. Saddam would’ve obtained it through some other means.

"Why didn’t we finish him off in the first war?"

Our mission in the first war was to defend Kuwait, not to create a new government for Iraq. That was the UN mission, nothing more nothing less. Hence, we pulled out once the job was done.

"The embargo has killed thousands of Iraqis."

BS, Saddam is the man who has killed thousands of Iraqis. Instead of putting the money back to the people, he places the money instead to build elaborate palaces, terrorists, and weapons. The ultimate responsibility of the Iraqi people leads back to Saddam, no one else.

"Saddam didn’t really kill his ‘own’ people. He only killed the people in the north and south who were rebelling."

Saddam’s crimes against his own country are very well documented. Which is actually quite interesting because one of the stipulations in all the UN resolutions after the first war was that Saddam respect human rights. Yet, every single UN country seems to have turned a blind eye to it save the U.S. and Britain, everyone seemed to have been focused on the WoMD.

He kills ANYONE who opposes him. Rebels, men, women, and children, it does not matter. It is not just the mass murders and punishments that are disgusting, but it is the sickening manner in which they are performed. Any slight suggestion of anti-Saddam could you get you killed. Hell, his own generals even refuse to give him "bad news" or they’ll be killed because Saddam detests "defeatists." This is a man who rules his country through fear and terror.

"Bush is doing this because he ruined the economy and he needs something to bring it back up."

What a bunch of crap. Again, more myth. Anyone who has any sense in the financial industry knows the exact reasons as to why the economy is down as it is. The fall of the dot com stocks, the scandals, and 9/11. This was the country Bush was thrust into; the plunge of the economy was inevitable. Coming to the conclusion that the purpose of this entire war is to bring the economy back up is plain outright paranoid. In addition, I don’t think I need to re-explain the estimated costs of going to war.

"We should be searching for Osama, the real cause of 9/11!"

Here’s what people don’t get. Our entire cause is just not to get those who caused 9/11, but to prevent it from ever happening AGAIN and to topple those who might cause and support such actions. And from what I understand, 2 days ago about 1000 troops were sent out to an undisclosed location in Afghanistan to continue the hunt for Osama. The hunt for him is just as intense as ever and is in no way being deterred by the war. The amount of media coverage on it inevitably did go down because of the war, but what did you expect? Everything is shifting to the war.

"If this is a war about getting rid of a dictator, then why haven’t we gotten rid of the other dictators out there?"

The U.S. lists around over 40 countries that they deem "dangerous." We can’t all of a sudden attack all these countries at once. Diplomacy has to be established first, war MUST ALWAYS be the last resort. Hell, we’re getting ridiculous backlash from our own public and the international public in trying to get rid of just ONE evil regime already. Imagine trying to get rid of the others. In addition, neither Congress nor the UN would support spending billions and billions in getting rid of every evil regime all at once. We have to start diplomacy with the big ones first or simply let it string out and see if the country can rebel by itself against their malevolent leaders, unless those malevolent leaders have showcased great animosity towards the U.S. and have come to the point where there is sufficient historical and current proof that those leaders in those regimes could either become immediate threats or are already immediate threats to the U.S. and our allies. Going to war isn’t this simple little thing that we can just declare any time we want.

"There is a better way."

This is an interesting issue. If you ask a reasonable protestor, they’ll tell you there is a better way, but when you ask them what way that is, they have no answer. I have the answer, there is no better way. Diplomacy as I stated before comes before anything else. War is a LAST RESORT. However, there is no way in hell we could’ve achieved diplomacy with Saddam. No way. Is 12 years not enough to prove that? How much more appeasement will we give this madman? Another 2 weeks? Another 2 months? Another 2 years? How long should we have kept up the deadly cycle? How long should the Iraqi people have to suffer? How long?

"Everyone has a right to their opinion."

I agree. It was my history teacher who once said, "Freedom of speech was meant to defend what the public deems as bad speech, not defend what the public deems as good speech." This is one of the greatest rights we have in this great nation of ours. If it is your moral principle and philosophy to be anti-war, if you find something wrong with the war no matter how ridiculous the reason is, and if you voice it in an suitable manner, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Here is however my main problem with the so-called peace protestors on the streets. It is the "appropriateness" with which they are protesting. Since when did protest mean vomiting, urinating on, and vandalizing property public and private? Since when did peace protest mean inciting violence? Since when did protest mean making living harder for everyone else? Since when did protesting mean burning the American flag? Since when did protest equal anarchy? Since when did protest mean endangering the public? The jobs of our police officers and national guards on the streets are tough enough as it is already.

Where were these protestors during Kosovo? Where were they? Protestors are quick to say, "Oh, don’t label us pro-Saddam. Don’t label us anti-America. Don’t label us… blah, blah, blah. We’re here for peace!" From the American protests I’ve seen, for every sign that proclaimed peace, there must be 10 signs ridiculing Bush. This is what I honestly believe, that a lot of these protestors are the extreme Democrat liberalists who are still pissed about the Bush-Gore debacle. I can understand someone disagreeing with Bush in many issues; I was never a particularly big fan of him either, but people who put Bush in the same category as Saddam, in the same category as Hitler, to equivocate him to Satan. To label this country, their OWN country, as terrorists. To pathetically attack our leader in such times, it is saddening and sickening. It is demoralizing our government, demoralizing our troops, and encouraging other wicked regimes out there. Do you have a right to do it? Damn right you do. Do I have to respect your rights? Of course. Do I have to respect such ludicrous opinions? No. Respecting rights and respecting opinions are 2 separate issues. In fact, the same right that gives anti-war protestors to spout that type of garbage is the same right that gives me the right to call it moronic and idiotic. It is in fact beyond moronic and idiotic, it is despicable and disgusting, it is beyond words.

These are not PEACE protestors, they are not ANTI-WAR protestors, they are ANTI-BUSH protestors and ANTI-GOVERNMENT protestors. Sean Hannity said it nicely today. Some of these protestors have signs saying "dying for dollars." What does that say about our soldiers and the families of our soldiers abroad? It is disrespecting and disgracing them. You can have an opinion that the government is partially doing it for money (no matter how ridiculous that opinion is), but to be blind to the humanitarian result of this war, the fact that we are liberating a nation, the fact that we are making the world a safer place for everyone by getting rid of this one man and his cronies. To be blind to all the future positive results of this fight is "jaded" and "naïve." Our troops are fighting for all the right reasons. They are dying for the betterment of humanity, I couldn’t give a crap what idiotic extreme conspiracy theory someone claims the government’s motive for this war is, for protestors to degrade their sacrifice appals me to the core.