Editor,
War is a devastating creation of humans. To even consider killing innocent people is an atrocious idea. Why must supreme dictators feel that they must tyranize the weaker countries for the prospect of oil? Oil is indeed valuable and the cause for wars. Our over-dependence upon it is much to blame.
For the answers, we must not direct these questions to George W. Bush, but rather to Saddam Hussein.
At this time, President Bush has done nothing in the manner of attacking an innocent country. Saddam, however, has. Saddam invaded Iran for its oil, and after ending an eight-year war under ceasefire, Iraq had a debt of over $75 billion. What did Hussein do to solve Iraq's financial crisis? He invaded Kuwait for its petroleum resources. In August 1990, Saddam sent troops into Kuwait and annexed it. After stationing more than 2 million troops in Kuwait, Saddam refused to leave.
The United Nations' requests for Saddam to leave were ignored. Over a six-week period, troops organized by the United Nations drove Iraqi forces 140 miles into Iraqi territory. The war was subsequently stopped under a ceasefire, so technically the war with Iraq has never ended. After returning a democratic government to Kuwait, "big oil" and the Bush family did not gain anything. Why would that be different if the United States invaded Iraq today?
To label the United States as the aggressor is inaccurate. To say that we are led by a reckless, bullying president who wants to prove his manhood through warfare is both silly and myopic.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
After all, Saddam is the one who invaded two countries for their oil and flaunts his "manhood" around the Middle East. He has ruthlessly maintained his power, while his "aggressor" Bush is the duly elected leader of a free people. Some are calling for a regime change in America, a change in a democratically elected leader who owes his authority to the majority of Americans who elected him. Saddam joined the Ba'ath party and was involved in an attempt to assassinate the president of Iraq in 1959. His party forcefully overthrew the government, eventually resulting in Hussein's assumption of dictatorial powers. Organizations and communities have opposed Saddam; he has responded by ruthlessly eliminating them. The no-fly zone in Iraq was imposed to guarantee the Kurds some level of autonomy. Iraq has responded by attacking patrolling planes.
How can we as Americans ignore the killing of innocent people? Can we as a democratic nation support such a tyrannical dictator? Can the United States fail to take action against a man antithetical to the premises upon which free nations are based? By opposing war and allowing Saddam to continue killing innocent people, we tacitly show support of genocide and the loss of innocent life. Force will evict Saddam from power and prevent future innocents from being killed. Why should our democratic and effective government change and Hussein's oppressive regime not? The answer is a matter of common sense.
Keith Hudson
UNM student
