Editor,
It scares the hell out of me that we have an administration in charge of our country that can't contain its excitement about going to war. Our leaders' reasoning seems questionable, hypocritical and deceitful at best.
If we are going to fight a war because our security is threatened where is the hard evidence of Saddam's intent? And, if they are so concerned about security why aren't they doing something about health care? I know a lot of people who feel very insecure about their health because they cannot afford insurance or a visit to their doctors. If our leaders are so concerned with security, why isn't anything of substance being done to increase most Americans' job or economic securities? It feels to me like security is just a word that the warmongers use loosely to scare us into seeing things their way.
Is a hypothetical situation enough reason to shed innocent blood? Bush and Cheney seem to think so. I never knew that having the ability to read the future was part of their political repertoire. My god, if they have this paranormal ability why weren't they able to foresee and prevent the events that took place on Sept. 11, or the corporate corruption that has surfaced recently. The implications of their newfound abilities are alarming.
Well, what about the weapons of mass destruction? In case Bush has forgotten, the United States is the leading producer of weapons. If I remember correctly, I think the United States has a proven track record of indiscriminate and irresponsible use of these weapons. The United States has indiscriminately dropped more bombs in Iraq than were dropped on all of Vietnam. Those smart bombs that we keep hearing about aren't smart enough to refrain from killing innocent civilians. The premature deaths of close to half-a-million Iraqi children, is directly related to U.S. sanctions placed upon this country. I sure hope that someone who has lost a child, due to U.S. policy in the region, doesn't come to power after Saddam is ousted. If weapons of mass destruction give Bush nightmares maybe an attack on the pentagon would be more appropriate.
But what about the contract Saddam put on George's life? Surely anyone who could talk about assassinating an American president deserves to die, right? Another old saying we should keep in mind when debating our involvement in someone else's affairs is - you reap what you sow. In other words, if it is wrong to condemn Saddam for wanting to violently terminate Bush's presidency, what do we call it when our leaders give the CIA the authority to kill Saddam?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
I could be way off base here but the real reason for all the salivating on Capitol Hill over Iraq seems more about special interests, power and money. The question we should really be asking is who stands to gain from this war? Weapons manufactures and contractors, big contributors to Bush's candidacy, stand to gain the most.
And when you consider the fact that Iraq contains one of the world's largest reserves of oil, it is no wonder our oil-entrenched administration has such a hard on for war.
Doug Flynn
UNM alumnus
