An Opposing Viewpoint received by e-mail:
Dear men and women of the same simplistic thinking.
Like other presidents, including LBJ and Kennedy--who got us into
Vietnam--and Carter--a nice guy who extended our problems with Iran for 40 times longer
than they needed to be, I think we can assume that Bush's justification for war
was exaggerated if measured by tangible evidence.
However, it is foolish to believe that weapons of mass destruction did not
exist in Iraq as early as 16 months ago, nor that they would not have returned
to Iraq and been employed, probably against Israel and the US, had the invasion
not taken place.
It is foolish to believe that Saddam would not have directly or indirectly
financed a nuclear bomb against the US in the future.
Weapons of mass destruction are not why we needed to invade Iraq. It goes
much deeper than that, and the WMD excuse was erroneously cited as justification.
We must realize that our new enemy is not a single country, it is an
extremist religion known by several names including Jihad. We must rigorously pursue
this enemy in whatever country harbors its infrastructure or members. We must
not "play fairly" and be the fools that Saddam and his peers rely on us to
be. We must play dirty against dirty fighters.
Saddam is a terrorist who deserves death.
At the very least, he paid families of martyred bombers a $25,000 reward for
their acts of terrorism. This is sponsoring terrorism.
He had WMD in the past, using them against his own people and others.
He cannot show where these WMD were destroyed or where they are now.
In 1991 he moved his weapons to his brother in hate, Iran, because he knew we
could not pursue them there. This is probably where the WMD are now. Or they
are in Iraq, hidden--a simple task considering that Iraq is the size of
California (would it be hard to hide 20 semi trucks in California, if you had 2
years to do so? Get real)
Saddam invaded Kuwait without provocation, then set its oil wells afire,
causing an environmental disaster and economic devastation for other Arabs. He
should be hated by liberals and conservatives.
Saddam had over a dozen UN resolutions that would have saved him from
invasion. He chose to obey none of them.
The Sept 11 attack and other attacks against American troops came at us when
we had invaded no Muslim country.
And you think that not attacking terrorist nations will cause that to stop?
Had France lost it's Louvre in a Sept 11 type raid, I wonder how much peace
they would be promoting now. Actually, probably a lot, as they are cowards and
double talkers, just like they were in W.W.II. In fact, at the time that
Hitler invaded them, their military was as strong in all measurable ways as that
of Germany. It was their cowardice that cost the world hundreds of thousands
of lives. If they are attacked again, by whomever, they should be left on
Pan Arab hatred for Americans is based mostly on our support of Israel. Such
support may be wrong, but it will not change. Get used to it. If it does
change, the Arab extremists, for the most part young men who do not want to work
for a living and are involved in the power of a cult, will use history as
their hate justification. They will always find a reason to do what they do,
because it makes them feel important.
The war against Iraq, and against any nation that harbors terrorists, is not
only justified, it is necessary. Bush, poorly equipped in many ways, is
courageous however for rooting out the enemy in the face of such irrational yet
powerful resistance by a minority of uninformed citizens who I suspect hate
their own country, and for the most part, their own lives.
Doing nothing against a clear aggressor sounds wonderful, but our own
personal lives with bullies, and world history, has shown us time and time again that
it does not work. The only thing that men like Saddam and Quadaffi fear is
the loss of their harems, property, power, and lifestyles.
Kerry, a student of history [e-mail]