|
Well, January 30th is D-Day for the Iraqis; that is when they will have thier first free election in almost 30 years. This time, there will be more than just one candidate for election. When Saddam was in power, every "election" that came only had him on there, and most of the time the ballot just asked a question like "Do you want Saddam Hussein as President?" and you had to check either "Yes" or "No".
Now, people here in America and all over the world are bitching because we went into a soveriegn nation and topple a leginiment leader, and that we went in only for the oil, and that Bush lied about WMD, etc. Well, here at whitehouse.gov they have the full text of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, dated October 2002. It has several reasons why we went in, all legitimate reasons. I'll go over a few points here and give my thoughts on it. My thoughts are in bold.
1. Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Saddam had a history of using death squads against anyone that he does not like. He used them to put down a Shi'ite uprising, very brutally. He also had men, women, and even children bused to a remote area in Iraq, took all of them out, and shot all of them to death, then buried them in mass graves.
2. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council
Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fired repeatedly upon our aircraft, as well as the British and other coalition fighter/bomber planes that patrol over the no-fly zones that were set up to protect the Kurds to the north and Shi'ites to the south. The AAA continued to fire on our planes without impunity, and fortunally, not one airplane was shot down. Many times, the AAA didn't even get a chance to fire one shot; they were blown up with our bombs.
3. Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens
Saddam willingly housed the now-infamous Abu Mossab al-Zarqawi, who was shot and injured in the leg from fighting the coalition forces in Afghanistan. Saddam has also given out rewards to the families of homicide bombers that killed Israelis.
4. Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself
If it looks like a rose, smells like a rose, then it has to be a damn rose. Even if Saddam didn't have these WMD stockpiles, he sure as Hell acted like he did by barring the Weapons Inspectors access to certain areas in Iraq. We weren't going to stand by and let Saddam just hand these weapons over to terrorists who want to do harm to Americans anywhere. Saddam had used these weapons in the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, and gassed the Kurds in the late 80s. Due to that record, I would try to do everything I could to stop the same thing from happening in any country of the world.
5. Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949
We should have gone after Saddam after the third violation. Resolution 678 said that we can use any or all necessary means to enforce the resolutions conserning Iraq over its civilian repression and its blantant violations of all the UNSC resolutions.
That is only five of the reasons why we went into Iraq. Saddam had violated 17 resolutions concerning its WMD and civilian repression, as well as a host of other things. I just can't understand the anti-war activists that are bitching about the "crimes" the US led coalition is committing/will be committing in Iraq before we went in, but not one word about how bad the Iraqis have under Saddam. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Well, I might as well sign off for now. Read and post your thoughts in the comments section.
And those are my thougts, now for yours.
|
ch
r) n :