I would like to express support of Ramsey Tesdell’s five reasons to oppose the war on Iraq, and point out some fallacies in Chad Hayward and Brian Dirks’ letters.

1. Iraq does not pose a threat to the United States. There is no proof that Hussein has the ability to use the weapons he has been accused of owning. Indeed, if a peaceful route is taken through the United Nations, then Iraq’s weapons can be removed.

2. A pre-emptive strike on Iraq will set a dangerous precedent. If the United States invades Iraq merely on a claim that Iraq is supporting terrorism, then other countries would feel validated in doing the same. One such scenario that probably will happen if we invade Iraq is Russia will invade Georgia, based on the claim that Georgia is allowing Chechen terrorists to pass through the country. An invasion of Iraq would set a precedent allowing any rogue state to invade another state based solely on unproven claims.

3. War with Iraq will cause a humanitarian disaster. Yes, Hussein is harmful to his own people. Yes, because of economic sanctions thousands of Iraqis have died from starvation (which means that economic sanctions should end or be altered). However, the invasion of Iraq would mean the deaths of civilians. Once America is in power in Iraq, there will certainly be violence as internal factions struggle for power over the government and over oil fields. Due to the no-fly zone, Kurds have had relative peace in the last ten years. However, if there are struggles over oil fields, then the Kurds would most certainly be put in harm’s way.

4. International pressure is deterring Hussein from military aggression. In fact, he has been willing to allow U.N. inspectors back into the country. However, this does not play into Bush’s hands, and he accuses Hussein of political maneuvering. Whether Hussein’s recent allowance of U.N. inspection is a movement to take power from Bush or not, it is important to remember that past inspections in Iraq have been foiled by American involvement.

5. While the United States has been successful in promoting regime changes in countries, the jury is still out on Afghanistan. In fact, the Northern Alliance, with whom we allied ourselves, is incredibly guilty of many human rights violations. If we look at other countries where the U.S. supported regime changes, we find that America is not so successful at instituting democracies. In fact, dictatorships are usually set up: Iran, Iraq, Honduras, El Salvador and more.

As to Dirks’ claim that Desert Storm only lasted 100 hours and that we were only fighting the military: That was not an invasion to topple a government. George W. Bush’s proposed invasion of Iraq is not a repeat of the war a decade ago. An invasion of Iraq to oust Hussein would involve much more time, money and lives. I believe the evidence supporting Tesdell’s five reasons are very valid reasons.

Mike Faris

Senior

English