Give War a Chance

On the third hour of the third day of the third week of the third month of the year 2003 in the third millennium, the coalition’s decision to wage war began and divided the superpowers of the United Nations into two contradicting views: one supporting the war and the other one opposing to it.

At 3 am US time, US President George W. Bush decided to take action by launching “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to protect all nations from the scourge of terrorism and to liberate the Iraqis and let them have the freedom they have longed for.

It must be remembered that after the Gulf War, the United Nations issued resolution number 687 (headed at their goal of establishing the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons). This calls for Saddam to destroy his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But after 12 long years, it has become obvious that the UN has failed in its mandate to disarm the tyrant of Iraq of his WMD.

America’s resolve to unilaterally disarm and oust Saddam hardened because of the regimes growing support to terroristic activities. The 9-11 tragedy made this superpower acutely aware of its vulnerability.

Staunch oppositionists to the coalitions are France and the Soviet Union, which cobbled base a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. They have issued statements claiming that there is no urgent need to go to war at this moment for it will only lead to an unnecessary loss of lives which a number of countries in Europe seem to believe in this statement.

However, a more obvious reason of these leading oppositionists may be self-serving since France and the Soviet Union have extensive trade activities with Iraq which may likely be voided should Saddam’s regime fall.

France supplied Iraq, a country which has 30% of the world’s oil reserves, with a nuclear reactor which can also be used to produce weapons of grade Plutonium. The Soviet Union on the other hand has extensive agreements to supply Iraq with “illegal” weaponry.

Couldn’t there be more compelling reasons for these two countries to oppose the war under the guise of upholding peace and the sanctity of life?

These leading oppositionists are obviously wrong. By making a deal with Saddam, they support terrorism by tolerating Saddam’s lust for power because of the personal benefits they get. By allowing this, the mad man of the middle east can continue terrorism and may come close to living his dreams of world domination.

But then again, who gains from the loss of France and the Soviet Union but the coalition and its allies.

Saddam Hussein does not really give a damn for his people, (or anyone for that matter) as long as he remains in power. The ruthlessness of this man is evident on the account that he actually used chemical weapons on his own people. This man is a dangerous control-maniac. He will kill for his fantasy of having the whole world kneel down to him and make him God.

Are Iraq and its people but a pawn in the battle for global supremacy? Is it fair to put a country’s people lives at stake for the fulfillment of a psychotic ruler’s dream?

“It is not a gift of America to give Iraq freedom, but the gift of God to humanity,” says Bush. Saddam Hussein is a madman. France and the Soviet Union won’t give a damn if other countries get hurt. We have to put an end to it. We have two options: 1. Oppose to the war, let our world suffer in the long run and give peace a chance or 2. Support the war, have momentary suffering, liberate Iraq and give war a chance.

In this situation, the existence of peace relies on war. For the survival of peace: Give war a chance.