Friday, September 12, 2008

For What Purpose?

The War against Iraq is something that I believe many people do not support (either have never supported it, or are now opposed to it). Many do not believe there are reasons justifying our invasion, or the never-ending occupation that we are now a part of. Looking at the evidence for the War (whatever evidence that may be) can in no way compare to the mountain of reasons for us NOT to have been there in the first place. As long as we are in Iraq and the United States continues following a failed foreign policy that has been proven to be ineffective, you will find me speaking out in opposition to such actions.

One thing that many do not understand is that the Iraq War really is an illegal war. In the Constitution, it clearly states that the Congress alone holds the power to declare war. This is an important aspect of the balance of power. If a President can at any time initiate aggression, then we as a people are giving the President the power to pursue military action that he deems necessary. There is no debate between the hundreds of members of Congress who collaboratively decide and vote on whether a situation is so dire that it requires military intervention. Now, instead of placing all the blame on the current presidential administration, it must be pointed out that members of Congress gladly handed that power over to the President. They gladly gave that responsibility to him. That is why things need to change in Congress, when only a few really are devoted to upholding the Constitution (Ron Paul wrote a bill that would have declared war on Iraq. He made it a point that he would aggressively argue against his own bill, but deemed it necessary for upholding the Constitution. It never made it out of committee).

Now people may say, "But the Congress is the only source of military funding." Whoever argues this puts way too much trust in Congress to make educated and Constitutionally-sound votes (remember, they already gave the power to declare war to the executive branch...). Heaven forbid a Congress member votes against military funding. The attacks of 'they are unpatriotic' and 'they don't support the troops' and 'they are putting our troops at danger by not giving them the proper protection and tools.' So basically, the President can wage a war whenever he deems necessary, and on top of that if you deny him funds you are seen as unpatriotic and you receive relentless attacks about putting troops in harms way. Don't forget, many who are in the House of Representatives must campaign basically all the time as they need to be elected every two years. Any bad press such as the above will clearly put them at a huge disadvantage. See what I’m getting at?

I believe most people agree that war should only be waged when it is completely necessary for the defense of our nation. The Iraq War was and is unprecedented. A third-world impoverished nation, half a world away, who has never committed acts of aggression against the United States, who UN weapons inspectors say have no evidence of 'weapons of mass destruction,' and a country that really doesn't have much of a military, was invaded by the richest and most prosperous nation in the world.

"They may attack us in the future, they may develop nuclear weapons and use them against us." Never before has the United States had pre-emptive war on its agenda. This policy could be used to invade a number of nations who have not attacked us because they may attack us. Quite frankly, there are nations that are much more dangerous than Iraq (could you classify Iraq as dangerous to the United States? Hard case to make).

For the sake of.....ummm....wait why were we in Iraq again? Weapons of Mass Destruction that they supposedly were hiding from us? No that couldn't have been the reason, that couldn't justify thousands of American Soldiers being killed, destroying a nations infrastructure, causing extreme social unrest, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being killed.....but there has to be some reason? Saddam, that must be it! He was an evil, evil, dictator! I think someone forgot to check the history books on this one, we were allies with him when he committed genocide against the Kurds through the use of gas. We allied against Iran, because that’s what made the most sense for the United States at the time. Seems like we are on both sides of every conflict these days...

One thing Iraq has is oils, and lots of it. Few will admit that that was a major driving force behind our invasion of Iraq, as well as a big reason we are so involved in the Middle East.

What is the purpose of staying in Iraq until 'the job is done'? The reasons for going there are flawed, it is an illegal war, it has made America less safe, it has been expensive beyond measure, and the implications of this war will stay with us for a long, long time. It was time for us to end this foolish foreign interventionism and war before it began, but now is better than never. We owe it to our thousands of servicemen and women to put their lives at risk Only When Absolutely Necessary. Anything less is a dishonor and disrespect to them.

If you are interested, watch this video. Its from the organization Iraq War Veterans Against the Iraq War. Take a look:


jpberthiaume said...

One could argue that the attacks on the World Trade Center changed the way we look at war. No longer can we sit idly by and wait to be attacked, and obviously most everyone at the time agreed.

The only other feasible position was, before it happened, to stand against the war. The hindsighters can't have their cake and eat it, too.

I can't argue with going to war with Iraq, but it certainly wasn't handled as it should have been...

The Lizmiester said...

I would encourage you to look at what Saddam did to his own people:

Also, how has the war in Iraq made America less safe? Have we been attack since?

Also, you are flat out wrong by saying that Iraq was lacking a military. I remind you, The First Gulf War. Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait to take over. In fact when we invaded Iraq, in 2003, the Republican National Guard was up 50,000-60,000 troops ( and these were all volunteers. I think your views reflect information that you get from main street media that has not supported a war that has been successful. (show me evidence that it has not been successful)

And my final point. What better reason to go to war than oil? Oil is at the center of our lives. Besides fuel, oil supplies us with byproducts such as PLASTIC. Think of your life without using plastic... And this is just ONE of the many products oil gives us. People use the argument that we went to war for oil like it is a bad thing, but I challenge all of those that argue that point to not use oil or ANY of its by-products for one year and we will measure your quality of life.

For just a fraction of all the things that oil supplies us in our everday life check out this website:

DC said...

First of all, I never said Saddam was not a dictator, and I do believe he did horrible things to the people of Iraq. I'm sure there are thousands of pictures of Iraqi civilians who were killed due to our invasion, though. I don't think our killing is any more justified.

"...and a country that really doesn't have much of a military, was invaded by the richest and most prosperous nation in the world." That is my quote concerning their military.

"All these considerations, along with the huge technological advances made by the American military in the last 10 years, suggest that, should a confrontation with the United States occur, Iraq's armed forces will put up even less of a fight than in 1991. Similarly, while it is true that certain elite units such as the Republican Guard can be expected to fight harder than the Iraqi Regular Army, "elite" is a relative term. As its poor performance in 1991 showed, the Republican Guard, while perhaps Iraq's best fighting formation, can be expected to be heavily outclassed by any American opponents."*

And they were outclassed, by far. I do not think there is any alternate argument. The American military is by far the most advanced in the world.

Thank you for educating me on the many uses of oil, as though I am anti-oil. So what you are saying is that we should invade a foreign nation on the grounds that our private companies can take over the oil fields? I've only heard of oil executives who agree with the argument that we should go to Iraq so that we can have more oil... does that really justifies hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed, and billions upon billions of taxes for Americans? Wars are funded by taxes, there is no getting around that. Somebody has to foot the bill.

Anybody who wants to read a great speech about why we should not go to war (this was before the invasion) should read Ron Paul's dating September 4th, 2002: