If The Chronicle finds George W. Bush's reasons for going to war "clear and compelling," then maybe it can present them to the international community, which has no idea what they are or which simply does not think they are compelling.
As for this war being humanitarian in nature, the United States government has long been one that has supported and installed dictators throughout the world. Latin America is a particularly good example of this, as well as countries such as Vietnam and South Korea.
Is Saddam Hussein really a threat to the international community? May I remind The Chronicle that not only did the United States put Hussein in power, but also sold him anthrax agents and endorsed Great Britain's construction of his chemical and munitions factories. If the U.S. is so worried about weapons of mass destruction, why does it not go after North Korea, which decidedly does have weapons of mass destruction and is eager to use them against us?
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the Gulf War. It is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion.
The Chronicle makes a good point in saying that Iraq has violated countless U.N. resolutions while building weapons of mass destruction. But does this not sound uncannily familiar to Israel, which, for the past 30 years since resolution 242, has refused to withdraw from the occupied territories?
Lastly, France and Germany, which share the view of most countries all over the international community, have had the ill-fortune of receiving the brunt of U.S. hostility. But these countries are hardly cowardly; they are wise and lucid enough to oppose the United States and use France's veto power to end a war that is about nothing more than oil, retribution, American interests and probably more obscure reasons that the U.S. government would not dare tell its citizens.
Laurel Redding
Trinity '06
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.