Sunday, July 20, 2008

Met These Clueless College Kids That We Shouldn’t Gone to War

Met These Clueless College Kids That We Shouldn’t Gone to War
Current mood: tested
Category: News and Politics


I just returned home from Arizona on a little "R&R" and I couldn't believe I actually came across some liberal idiots at a well-known bookstore in the heart on the campus of Arizona State University. I came across a couple college kids, must be taking summer class, sitting around having Starbucks coffee and talking about the war in Iraq. I guess they haven't been getting the news lately, or high on weed, but they are still talking that we shouldn't have gone to war over there.

In my amazement, they caught me smirking and cringing in utter disgust. One of the kids asked me, "Dude, you got to be a pro-war murderer?" I said you are blinded by your ignorance. I came over and gave them a history lesson that wasn't provided by their history professor.

I told them that the war in Iraq was a necessary war to get rid a dictator that was a menace to society. A dictator that harbored terrorists. A dictator that paid terrorist families who blew themselves up. A dictator that went to war against Iran. A dictator that invaded another country like Kuwait for their oil. A dictator that used WMD against his own people (Kurds). A dictator that starved his own people (UN's Oil for Food Scandal).

I needed to remind them that President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. I also need to remind them twice that the war in Iraq started because Saddam Hussein violated the final ultimatum UN Security Council Resolution 1441. These kids had no idea that Saddam had to show the burden of proof that he got rid of his WMD in order that he can retain his power in Iraq. Since Saddam refused to disclose those information and block UN inspectors from doing their job, we had no other choice, but to lead a coalition and oust Saddam butt from power.

These kids said why didn't we give strict sanctions against Saddam or start a coup. I told them that sanctions against Saddam didn't work and provided them the "Oil for Food Scandal" example. I told them that US and British planes were being shot at on a daily base around the "no-fly" zone over northern and southern Iraq. Shooting our planes is not something that Pentagon wants to hear nor hostage taken if one of our planes got shot down.

But the most important defining moment is when Saddam refusing to cooperate and ignored the final ultimatum by the UN. Let's included that Saddam was a threat to the US interest before 9/11. He went to war against Iran and Kuwait and fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saddam funded and harbored terrorists. He used WMD against Iran and the Kurds.

I did remind these college kids that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 because I knew that it was on the back of their minds. I told them that Bush goal was to take out as many different terrorist groups that had safe haven in Iraq. It was the Presidents job to prevent another attack by allowing the theater of battle to occur in Iraq than in the USA.

One kid said that we didn't do enough before we jumped the gun. I said that we didn't rush into war. By working with the UN, we have tried formal diplomatic censure, weapons' inspectors, economic sanctions, and endless resolutions, but that didn't stop Saddam from being defiant. Leaving Saddam in power was a greater risk because of his routine attacks on US and British planes over the "no-fly" zones, his perpetual goal to attain and amass WMD, his goal to take out Israel, and his continual desire to take over Kuwait.

Another kid talked about Saddam didn't have WMD, which was typical rhetoric provided by the MSM. My answer to that was something not reported in full detail by the MSM. After the fall of the Saddam regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons' programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea.

Therefore, by knowing that Saddam had the intent to restart his nuclear ambition and having to endure a 9/11, the President was obligated in the best interest of the USA to take him out. Of course the chance for Saddam to attack the US is very slim, but deploying WMD against us via proxy such as one of many terrorist groups Saddam support is very likely.

The risk of leaving Saddam in power outweighed the risk of war is debatable. But one thing for certain, what would happen if everything occurred differently? In the 90's we experience five major acts of terrorism in the US and our interest abroad. To think to have a "nuclear happy" Saddam in power is unimaginable. Today, we haven't experienced a terrorist attack since 9/11. If we had a terrorist attack here in the US, I wonder what type of environment we would be in? As I told one of the kids, "this war was not a war of choice, but a war of necessity."

After making that comment, I just walked out of the bookstore without buying my White Chocolate Mocha Venti. Grr! LOL. I hope I made sense to these kids without confusing their ideological Liberal rhetoric.