68 of 159

Write now Article Tools

How can a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation that poses no danger to us ever be justified?

One of the justifications for invading Iraq was that they had WMDs. The facts that we know now, show that not to be true. The truth is that it wasn't that this administration could prove that Iraq had WMDs, it was that they couldn't prove that they didn't. That is the same as arresting someone, not because you can prove they did something wrong, but rather that you can't prove that they didn't.

Another of the justification for this war is that there were al Quaida terrorists in Iraq. Saddam was a dictator, and as a dictator he wanted complete control over Iraq. Osama was very popular among Islamic extremists and if Saddam had allowed him and his terrorists to operate in Iraq, he would have had to cede his control over that portion of his population, something a dictator would never have done.

The National Intelligence Estimate, a report from a bipartisan committee that was made up of people from ten different American intelligence agencies, says that by invading Iraq we are making terrorists faster than we can kill them. It also says there is absolutely no proof that Saddam had anything to do with Osama and his minions.

According to Richard Clarke, the former head of the National Security Council under George W. Bush, Osama had been telling his followers for years that the United States wanted to invade and occupy an oil rich Arab country. So what do we do? We invade and occupy an oil rich Arab country, thereby raising Osama's credibility among the Islamic community, and causing untold numbers of extremists to flock to his cause.

At one of the briefings before the war, when Donald Rumsfeld said that we should bomb Iraq, he was told that al Quaida wasn't in Iraq, they were in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld then responded that there weren't any good targets to bomb in Afghanistan, Iraq on the other hand, has lots of good targets to bomb. These comments by Rumsfeld were widely reported, but since America was in the icy grip of fear of terrorists, people just ignored it.

Americans have a short memory when it comes to things like this. If you go back over all the comments and news briefing prior to the invasion of Iraq, you will see a disturbing pattern emerge. It is a pattern of fabrication of evidence, misleading statements, and outright lies. Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied to Congress about getting a hummer from an intern. What did that cost the American people? Virtually nothing. GW and his minions mislead and lied to Congress about Iraq. What did that cost the American people? Well, so far, 3500 American lives, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians killed and nine trillion dollars. If there ever was a case for impeachment, that would be it.

If you want to know what Bush and his Neo-Cons are up to, here is a quote out of their playbook. "At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." They think that to "defend the American way of life" the military option should be the first option deployed. (The Project for the New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury. org/). Pretty scary stuff there.
In my opinion, those people that think the War on Iraq was justified, just aren't paying attention to the facts. The American people are starting to see the truth. It is sad, though, that it is now too late for the Iraqi people.

Learn more about this author, Jeff Stepper.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Analyzing the war on Iraq: Justified or not?
We want to hear your view. Write now!