Menu

Against War In Iraq

0 Comment

And the UN officials destroyed whatever weapons and military possessions including chemical and nuclear weapons and missiles that Iraq had, back in 1998 during its inspection. It was further deprived of the financial aid that might be required for redevelopment of its military possessions for mass destruction. Iraq’s military potential had grown considerably weaker ever since and was no threat to its region, let alone America.And the UN officials destroyed whatever weapons and military possessions including chemical and nuclear weapons and missiles that Iraq had, back in 1998 during its inspection. It was further deprived of the financial aid that might be required for redevelopment of its military possessions for mass destruction. Iraq’s military potential had grown considerably weaker ever since and was no threat to its region, let alone America. Once the notion that Iraq is equipped with mass destruction deadly weapons was disqualified to a considerable extent, the US administration went forward to accuse Iraq of aiding the terrorist groups. Since these terrorist groups were the major threat to the security of the United States, Iraq was made to be justified target for pre-emptive actions.The administration blamed Iraq for passing on the destructive weapons to these militant groups, hence involving in terrorism. Any solid evidence and the US administration itself could not support even this accusation. Saddam Hussein could in no way be a threat to either its own region or to the United States in any such way. The obvious reason for this being that the Islamic extremists and terrorists were not in favor of Saddam’s secular regime and were a hazard to his direction in the Arab world. The US administration went onward in its baseless accusations against Iraq saying that it was behind the anthrax virus spread as well. Again no evidence could be found to support such blame.
Even if it were so that the charges of possessing mass destructive weapons were proved true, the question arises whether the US is right in its strategy of taking preemptive actions. The very same issues could have been resolved by talks and negotiations, by passing pacts or bringing strategic regimes within Iraq. So much bloodshed and brutality was brought to the nation of Iraq all in the name of protecting the world’s super economic and military power from potential and supposed Iraqi weapons. This is all but beyond acceptable for any logical thinker.
It was not Iraq that had been posing security threat to the American nation, due to its supposed alliance with the Islamic militant groups. In fact, now the Americans have far greater enemies disgusting its violent moves upon a nation that has never been proved to be a direct or indirect threat to them. George Soros opines in his new book, Something is fundamentally wrong with President Bush’s contention that he has made us safer at home by taking the war on terror abroad. There are many more people willing to sacrifice their lives to kill Americans than there were on 9/11. http://www.georgesoros.com/iraq-wargclid=CJrU0PKP_ogCFQriXgodNzjz9Q
I completely agree with the opinion of George Soros, now not just other nations (Islamic ones to be precise), but