War has started, and the people of this nation have taken sides over the issue. Some people, myself included, support the war effort and hope for a successful resolution. Others decry the war, and believe that our nation has made the wrong decision. I do not want anybody reading this to imagine that I wish to repress or censor anybody. That said, there are some very misguided notions going around, and I wish to dispel them in a fair and factual manner. There are valid points for opposing the war effort, and there are invalid points. I am tired of hearing the invalid points stressed.
The top five invalid points of argument:
1. “The United States is acting unilaterally.” The support of Great Britain, Australia and Spain alone make this effort multilateral. Not to mention the 35- plus other countries in agreement. I think Mr. Limbaugh put it best when, to paraphrase, he said that, apparently, unilateral is translated to mean “without France.”
2. “It’s all about oil!” There has never been a plan to appropriate oil for the use of the United States. Certainly, some may be sold to rebuild Iraq, but we’re not the beneficiaries. Remember just whose army it is that keeps trying to set oil wells on fire.
3. “This is Bush’s personal vendetta!” Bush Sr. pulled out of Iraq because Saddam agreed to U.N. terms. Saddam has since broken those terms. Bush Jr. has the guts to do something about it, but that doesn’t make this a personal vendetta.
4. “We’re just out to bomb innocent civilians!” Granted, civilians will die, and that is extremely tragic. However, I doubt that in all of history there has been a war effort such as this, designed to prevent the loss of innocent life. Again, remember who keeps moving military targets behind civilian shields.
5. “War never solved anything!” Please retake your basic history classes if you subscribe to this argument. Examine the Revolutionary War and both World Wars for case studies.
That said, here are some valid viewpoints that some people may hold. I am not saying that I agree with them, simply that they are not wrong due to factual evidence.
1. “We shouldn’t be concerned with what goes on in Iraq.” Fair enough, we’re here and they’re there. I personally believe that it is right to intervene in an unjust regime, but it does come down to weighing values.
2. “Peace, at any cost.” This is genuine pacifism and, as such, is commendable. However, I am less optimistic. I believe that there is a time for war, and this is such a time. Historical notables may disagree with me, like Neville Chamberlain.
3. “It isn’t worth the risk.” This is probably the best argument I’ve heard. I hate the idea of our troops in danger, and when I see POWs on Iraqi television, I feel sick. Nonetheless, I do trust our leaders, and believe that they are doing what is best for our national security.