It looks like America could be going to war. Everyday, it looks more and more like America will be using military action to force Iraq into compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions for weapons inspections.

The words heard nightly on the news are frightening.

Biological and chemical warfare. Anthrax. Nerve gas. Weapons of mass destruction.

Even more ominous is the potential threat the Iraqi regime poses to the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be a brutal dictator who has used ‘weapons of mass destruction’ against his own people and his neighboring states.

Perhaps my judgment is influenced by the selected information the American media feeds the public, but it seems to me that Saddam Hussein is nuts and needs to be removed from power.

His actions not only resemble those of historical vicious dictators, but the media has gone so far as to compare him to the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

He reportedly hated and feared former President Bush so vehemently that he plotted a failed attempt to assassinate him.

He has made strategic political decisions that have resulted in the starvation and deprivation of his own people.

He reportedly killed members of his own family for political reasons, and I think it is time he be removed — either politically or physically — from power before he kills a member of my family.

My little brother is a naval officer stationed in the Persian Gulf. If Saddam releases biological warfare, my brother could be one of the people affected.

However, I don’t think bombing Iraq is the solution.

Saddam has a past history of using women and children to shield his palaces and arsenals while cowardly hiding himself safely underground. Air bombs will only destroy infrastructure and take innocent human lives.

It’s a confusing and complicated issue.

I sometimes wonder if Americans are getting the whole story from their government and media.

Over and over again, we hear President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and major media associations try to convince us that it is Saddam Hussein — not the United States — who places innocent Iraqi civilians in harm’s way.

Yet, it will be America’s bombs that directly kill the people — even if it is done in the name of U.N. peacekeeping measures.

But is it truly and solely a peacekeeping measure?

Sometimes it seems to me that the “peacekeeping” front is camouflaging an attempt to keep the flow of cheap oil coming to our country. And, sometimes it looks like just a plain old vendetta against Saddam.

Leaders of other countries have done equally terrible things to their own people and also are suspected of secretly stockpiling “weapons of mass destruction.”

Why isn’t the U.S. on “peacekeeping missions” in those countries?

Clinton, Albright and Defense Secretary William Cohen say the U.S. is dealing with Saddam because his is the only regime to actually use weapons of mass destruction on his own people and neighboring countries.

I can see the logic in that, but I don’t think dealing only with Iraq and only destroying their weapons is going to lead to lasting stability and peace.

We need to give support to citizen uprisings trying to overthrow Iraq’s current regime.

We need consistent foreign policy and action in the Middle East.

If we are going to use either diplomatic or military force to disarm Saddam Hussein, we need to disarm every country with weapons of mass destruction.

Not just Iraqi weapons, but Syrian missiles and Israeli nuclear weapons and possible Iranian rockets need to be destroyed.

We don’t need to “win” the kind of war we fought in the Gulf seven years ago, only temporarily setting back dangerous regimes by destroying their weapons.

If my young brother and other American soldiers are going to risk their lives, we damn well better find real and lasting peace in the Middle East.

And the only lasting peace is based on human rights and consistent justice.

---

Jonquil Wegmann is a senior in community and regional planning from Bellevue.