This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new!

The Real Reason We Went to War

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 14, 2004 06:10 AM

First of all, Michael Moore is an established liar (see <A HREF="" title="">James Lileks</a>). Citing him as an authority on anything shows nothing more than a partisan bias and willingness to cite anything to support your position. It does nothing but discredit you and, rather unfortunately, newsforge. I will now seriously question anything of a political nature published by this site, which is set as my homepage.

For you dopey leftists that seem to have no competent understanding of history beyond your personal feelings and wimpiness, please let me explain to you why we went to war.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The United States and Britain, with support from some other countries kicked him out. We pleaded with him diplomatically and Saddam refused to leave, so we forced him out. However, before we took him out completely, he negotiated a cease fire (there was no surrender or peace treaty so both sides were still engaged in a state of conflict). A condition of the cease fire was that Saddam had to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction programs under the eyes of International inspections. Until Iraq completely complied with the terms of the cease fire, the UN imposed certain restrictions upon Iraq.

The refusal of Saddam to comply resulted in even more horrible conditions for the Iraqis than they already endured, and so the UN decided to introduce the oil for food program. Remarkably, due to the undeniable corruption of the UN (which I am sure you admire) the aid was diverted from the Iraqi people, worsening their condition, and was used to further enrich Saddam and help him bypass the UN embargo.

Incidentally, in 1998, France and Germany would openly admit that they were violating the United Nations embargo, which they were doing because it was good for them. They cared not for the Iraqi people.

Meanwhile, the United States and United Kingdom were spending billions to patrol the northern and southern no-fly zones, which were inceidentally imposed after Saddam used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people. The United States under President Clinton was continuing to demand Iraq disarm and come into compliance. Our troops were shot at by Iraqis everyday. We repeatedly were forced to bomb Iraq under President Clinton. Iraq was publicly funding terrorism (He was paying $25,000 to the families of successful Palestinian suicide bombers). We had all kinds of intelligence of known terrorists visiting Iraq. It is a fact of life that many, many international terrorist organizations cooperate. Just look at the old terrorist training camps in Libya. Things were coming to a head.

During the campaign, President Bush repeatedly warned of the dangers that Iraq posed (incidentally some of the very same dnagers that President Clinton remarked upon). Among these were the failure of Iraq to comply with the cease fire agreement and their association with international terror (remember that this cannot be denied because Saddam publicly acknowledged it).

The nightmare is that these two things would result in terrorists acquiring WMD from Iraq. In fact, this has been a major International concern where ever their may be WMDs. Look at the massive amount of internation funds expended to prevent old Soviet weapons from falling in the hands of terrorists.

Now the left hand of diplomacy is credibility, and the right hand is military action. For any country's diplomatic effort to succeed, its interlocutors must believe that is has the ability to impose its will or make that interlocutors effort extremely expensive. This is not a new theory. George Washington even said that the grreatest ensurer of peace was a strong defense.

It is our credibility that has kept China from invading Tawain. Perhaps if we had not liberated Kuwait, that crediblity would be gone. It is our military presence combined with credibility that has kept the North out of South Korea. It is our crediblity that forced Libya to clean up its act. With the terrorists, because we had not been able to find an effective response, and Iraq we were losing crediblity.

Then came September 11. The stakes were raised, and we had no choice but to begin establishing crediblity. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, but they had plenty to do with Al Qaeda and international terrorism. They also were a representation of weakness in American, British, and UN credibility. France and Germany sold their credibility by violating the embargo to which they had agreed.

Now people like you seem to confuse the words terror and Al Qaeda, as in the war on terror is synonymous with the war on Al Qaeda. Following your logic, we should have only gone to war with Japan in World War II and left Germany alone. I wonder how the French would have felt then. Instead, we have resolved to combat it everywhere. As part of that, we realized that credibility being gone with Iraq (diplomacy exhausted) we needed the right hand and we resumed hostilities.

That is why we went to war. We went to account for the WMDs that almost everyone knew existed. We went to depose Saddam (which many on your side of the aisle demanded to know why we did not do the first time we were there), we went to take out a principle supporter of terrorism (and I do not mean in the Al Qaeda sense). We went to send a message and establish credibility that we were not going to idly accept terrorist agression against Americans anymore. And we are doing that. Libya, a huge backer of terrorism, has now backed down. Hello IRA.

As for your statement--

I was horrified by the blank look on President Bush's face as he learned of the 9/11 attacks and sat in front of a group of schoolchildren for nearly 10 minutes, waiting for direction and looking like it was time to go see the principal.
--just what would you have him do--panic in front of a bunch of elementary-age children. I was on a college campus that day and overheard a phone conversation after the first plane hit. I asked if Bin Laden was involved and then walked to the library to see if I could get some more information. The amazing thing to me is that on a college campus, supposedly the home of enlightened intelelctuals such as yourself, that most everyone I saw was in some stage of shock or panic, and I was completely amazed at the number of demands for the United States to drop nuclear bombs on the Middle East--this before we even knew for sure where the attack had come from.

I suppose that you were so much smarter than President Bush that you expected it and were not surprised when we were attacked (I guess you were the one who prompted Oliver North to give his warnings in the early eighties or perhaps you inspired Tom Clancy) If you knew so much, why did you not tell the rest of us so that we might get our friends and family out of harm's way? I suppose you knew exactly who had done, and what we should do. I suppose your urgent attention was needed because the highly trained people who were responsible on the tactical level for dealing with this situation immediately needed your brilliance to micromanage them.

Not President Bush. He knew instantly that no one was launching nuclear missiles at us, and so there was absolutely nothing that required his attention that second. President Bush had enough faith in the people in charge to handle things as best they could. Though he was surprised (as often happens during a surprise attack), President Bush remained calm and avoided needlessly upsetting the small children who were in his presence. He was mature enough to not cause them to panic. I wonder how other presidents have reacted to surprises with this magnitude? I guess we will never know, but we surely know how petty lesser people such as yourself can be. Thank God George W. Bush is president and you are not. I for one am proud of the way he handled himself. I think it shows just how much of man he really is.


Return to Commentary: 'Fahrenheit' 98, 2000, and XP