The Unjustified War on Iraq
The Bush Administration was impatiently unjustified in the attack on Iraq. The justification the Republican council offered was no more that an attempt to eradicate the blame infused by poorly made, hasty decisions and forceful actions. Liberal magazine, The Nation, publishes many liberal perspectives on the actions that have been taken in prevention of major military action. Although action was necessary, the use of military force by the United States was excessive.
Iraq’s militant leader, Saddam Hussein, has been a sore in foreign relations for the United States since the 1980s. However, the United Nation’s demand for Iraqi military disarmament slowly, but effectively reduced the strength of this tyrant. If the Bush Administration had been more patient and looked at the potential benefits of the use of non- military force, they would have realized,
Saddam is weaker today because inspections forced him to destroy many of his weapons and because containment denied him access to the technology and money to rebuild his military and to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. There is no reason a program of inspections and containment can't work again--especially if the international community is united in its commitment to a strategy that spares Iraqi civilians. (The Editors)
The reasons for nonmilitary actions far outweigh those proposed by the Administration in their justification to attack Iraq. Attacking Iraq was not only not supported by the UN, but harmful to the Iraqi citizens who have been oppressed enough by militant dictators who have suppressed their rights as people. Columnist Jeremy Scahill, for The Nation, wrote the emotion provoking article illustrating the effects of US military bombing on civilians living in nearby areas; the Fartus family told of their,“oldest son, 6-year-old Heider, [being] killed by a US...