Contradictions in Iraq
We are looking to soon have our second war with Iraq upon us, but what has brought us to the brink of war with a nation that has not attacked another country in over a decade? To find this we must look back to our first conflict with Iraq and examine it. It began when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in July of 1990 accused Kuwait of flooding the oil market (causing prices to drop) and theft of oil from the Rumailia Oil Field. Later that month in a meeting with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, Glaspie told Hussein that any dispute between Iraq and Kuwait would be an Arab affair, not one that affects the United States. By January 16th of 1991 Iraq had invaded Kuwait and U.S. forces had begun and offensive to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq and by March 8, 1991 the U.S. troops were returning home from their quick victory. It would appear that Iraq was encouraged to pursue its dispute with Kuwait. Once Iraq did, the United States then condemned and destroyed the already impoverished nation.
Iraq, as a result of its loss was given limits on its weapons, both in range and in destructive capability. The U.N. weapons inspectors are now in Iraq to search out and destroy any weapons that have been deemed illegal for Iraq to possess. The United States has been the only country to even detonate a nuclear bomb as an act of war. I find it odd that it is Iraq, who has never used or to our knowledge ever plans to use nuclear weapons, who has to disarm, and not the United States who has used nuclear weapons or Israel who has stated that it will use nuclear weapons if it sees fit to do so. North Korea has weapon that can hit the coast of the western United States. Iraq does have even close to the capability to hitting the United States with a weapon, yet it is Iraq that we are threatening to go to war with.
Furthermore I would like to point out a very large contradiction in the way the United States is conducting itself with regards to Iraq. Throughout this whole ordeal the United States public has been told that Iraq is not complying with the U.N. resolution 1441, which calls on Iraq to hand over all weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. inspectors in the country. Continuously President Bush has said that Iraq is not compliant with resolution 1441, and thus action must be taken. The U.N. has vetoed resolutions authorizing the use of force in Iraq for compliance, yet President Bush insists that the United States can topple Saddam Husseins regime without the help or authorization of the U.N. If Iraq must adhere so strongly to U.N. resolution 1441, shouldn’t the United States have to adhere just as strongly to the U.N. decision to not go to war on Iraq and let the inspectors finish their jobs, with the time they have requested?
The United State coerced, or at least encouraged a war between Iraq and Kuwait in 1990 and when it came about, destroyed Iraq’s economy by imposing sanctions and ceaseless bombing, and then told Iraq to disarm. The United States is now searching in the dark hoping to find something, anything that will convince the world that a war on Iraq is justified. But even without its allies the U.S. will take on Saddam Hussein alone. The President and Vice President are both former oil company CEOs and now the President is just itching for a war with a Middle Eastern oil producing country that has not attacked us. Perhaps it is in order to get a foothold, a puppet in the Middle East, to secure our oil for the next decade. Blood is thicker than water, but the blood of innocent Iraqis will never be as thick as oil.