• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Lately it is quite appropriate that the elephant is the Republican mascot; the party’s recent rhetoric regarding the war on Iraq makes about as much sense as what those animals fling at zoo passersby.

The only true reason to justify war on Iraq is plainly self-interest, but the Republicans have come up with their own whiny, bleeding-heart reasons to placate a handful of crying pacifists, who would rather die than raise a finger in defense. Hussein is cited as a madman and dictator who rapes and kills, maims and tortures. It is our duty to stop this terrible madman and make the world safe for democracy.

The result of this whimpering is that anti-war pacifists and liberals have good arguments to counter George Bush’s stammering. It is true that the United States has helped dictators before and regime changes have historically led to other dictators taking power. Furthermore other dictators exist who treat their people just as harshly and other countries have already developed horrible weapons.

Until Bush goes beyond these peripheral, albeit relevant, reasons for war on Iraq and gets to the true cause of the matter, there will always exist rational dissent.

It is simply in the interest of the United States and its citizens that Hussein be brought down, tarred and feathered, and that his entire infrastructure and weaponry be deactivated.

The purpose of the United States government, as established by the ideals of the founding fathers, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. It is not to ensure that the United States police the world, protect other nations, and give handouts to everyone while taxing heavily. 

In accordance with these criteria, we helped the Taliban when it was in our best interest to weaken the Soviet Union. We supported Iraq when Iran was the largest threat. And we helped the Soviet Union when Germany and Japan were the greater threat during World War II.

We did not support and/or create these dictatorships out of a general feeling of duty to the world, or to make the world safe for Democracy. We did it because it was the proper action for the government to take to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

World War II serves as a perfect example of proper reasoning for entering a war. It was true that Hitler was a madman bent on world control, eradicating groups of people from the earth, and gross crimes against humanity. It is a travesty that he rose to power.

But the United States was wise to stay neutral until the war directly threatened the people living under its governance. If we had entered early, the United States might have ended up like Britain, broke and unable to continue fighting due to leveled infrastructure. By waiting until it was in our best interest, and it was apparent that the war effort would pay off, we led a campaign to rid the world of some of the most terrible men in history.

Iraq is the same way. It is a direct threat to the existence of the American way of life. And while Iraq has not directly attacked us yet, Hussein has shown constant antagonism and hatred toward our country. Furthermore, Iraq has also shown the ability and will to destroy innocent countries and people during Desert Storm. Lastly, diplomacy has proven unsuccessful, unlike in other hostile countries where options still exist. With such a terrible record, it is ignorant to think Hussein would hesitate to assault the United States if given the opportunity.

That is why we must act swiftly, despite what the United Nations instructs. The U.N. countries that are anti-war have their own interests in mind too. War with Iraq would mean the loss of years of diplomacy, business and negotiations.

So until Bush sweeps the elephant dung aside and cites pure self-interest as the true reason for a war, there will always be good reasons to avoid conflict. The only argument against self-interest is that the United States should deny its founding principles.