USA in Iraq
Topic: Archive
26 SEPTEMBER 2003 1:44 PM EDT AMERICA IN IRAQ

President Bush is speaking today (Tuesday 9/24) at the United Nations. He desperately seeks help from the UN, the body that he ignored before the war, to rebuild Iraq. How did he get into this mess? Well, to us he said it was the weapons of mass destruction that were probably aimed right at several targets around the US. Someone had to stop Hussein from pushing that big red button. Then we find out there are no such things, or at least they still haven't found them. However president Bush never claimed a connection between 9/11 and Iraq although that would have been easy. Basically they tell us all this was done to keep the citizens of the US and most other countries safe. Safe from what? If we really look at it, Saddam never threatened to attack the USA. Was the decision to go to war made on too weak a basis? More importantly is this war just? Someone might say that no war is ever just. Others might argue that you should do all you can to protect people, but can we go too far in protecting people? When you think about it, does the army protect us by defending (staying inside our borders) or by attacking too? What are acceptable reasons for going overseas to protect others? That could be answered with a concept called Just War. It is an 800-year-old attempt to answer the question what are good reasons to start a war. It states that a war to be just has to have a proper reason and a proper authority. Also it does not allow any hidden reasons. In this particular case a proper authority in my opinion would have been the UN. A proper cause and hidden reasons are the matters we must discuss. Let's see what happened; Mr. Bush protected the citizens of the USA and Iraq from Saddam Hussein. He freed Iraq from the tyranny of the Baath party (the party led by Saddam Hussein), but not without the blood of many US and Iraqi soldiers. It sounds like a proper reason. After all the good that finally came out of the war, I am left with a feeling of a hidden purpose. Even if the US is the world's most powerful nation and helps many countries, I don't think that all this was done just to end the suffering in Iraq. Freeing a nation might have been a wonderful side-affect. Then again I wonder if protecting Iraqis was used for making another purpose just and acceptable. It would have been like getting two flies with one hit. We all know how, conveniently, Iraq also possesses large amounts of oil. The most just thing to do (if you happen to possess the world's most effective army) is make life better for someone, in the end that is what counts at the moment. Because normal citizens of the world won't ever know the final truth, we are left guessing. Anna Lehto


26 SEPTEMBER 2003 1:47 PM EDT AMERICA AND IRAQ, A RESPONSE

The Military defense force of the United States of America is attacking to defend America. I believe that President Bush and Congress feel that they are defending the innocent citizens of our country, but while doing so American troops are killing innocent people in Iraq and Baghdad. Although we do not kill innocent people on purpose, accidents do happen. When looking at the bigger picture, America is attacking so that in the future fewer innocent people will be killed, tortured and raped in the Middle East. With the sacrifice of many lives we can change Iraq and give people the human rights they deserve, especially after all the suffering they have endured under the rule of Saddam. The sacrifices we give will make the future better for everyone. The United States of America is attacking to keep peace. We fight for peace, so we will not have to fight anymore. If there was another way to end all terrorism, murder and war, we would do it; but today there are no other options known to us. If someone can think of one please let me and the world know. There are horrible people in this world and our country is working to defend the victims of these atrocious criminals. It would be nice if America could stay in America to defend this country, but that is not the case. Terrorist attacks are undetected, therefore we have to go out and stop the terrorists before they attempt to hurt any more people. America cannot police the world, but we try to do our best by defending our country and the people in it. We are trying to help the Iraqi's by giving them a democratic government where they can learn to rule fairly and with equal rights. I am against war and wish we did not have to use lives to gain rights but we must, like our forefathers did, maintain the rights we have today, here in America. When the English men migrated from England to America they fought against Britain to gain their human rights and seceded to form the country we have today. Our military troops understand this and are willing to give their lives to help others. If we only think about the present and ourselves, our future generations will perish. One reason to believe that the military is attacking rather than defending is words straight from the President's mouth; "there is no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties" President Bush said. But Bush also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks. If there was no evidence than how could we have had just cause to attack, Bush should not contradict himself, it confuses the public. America cannot extend its fight for peace to unreasonable proceedings of war because we are dealing with lives. The lives that are at risk have families and friends that would be devastated with the loss of a known life. It is reasonable to fight to end Iraqi suffering, but it is not if we are attacking there terrorists but end up killing the innocent. Krista Lindback