As stated previously, Bush has been referring to Iraq as a member of an axis of evil. The other members of that Axis would be Iran and North Korea. Back in 1994 there was an agreement reached that North Korea was to abandon pursuing a nuclear weapons program all together and Korea received billions of dollars in aid because of this. However as by an article named N Korea must disarm: Bush (2002): “The United States said last month North Korea had admitted during talks that it had breached a 1994 agreement and was pursuing a nuclear weapons program with enriched uranium. US officials have said the north already has one or two plutonium nuclear bombs.” Iraq is still years away from developing these types of nuclear arms and yet the United States is attacking Iraq over North Korea? In fact the only thing that the United States is doing in Stalinist North Korea’s case is, according to the same article, “work with countries in the neighborhood to convince North Korea that it is not in the world’s interest that they develop nuclear weapons through highly enriched uranium.” The US is ready to rush into a full fledge war against Iraq, who does not even have nuclear arms, while merely attempting to convince North Korea that it is “not in the world’s interest” to develop nuclear arms. North Korea, like Iraq, broke agreements but yet one receives a much harsher punishment than the other, for its failure to cooperate. According to an article by Moravitz(2002):
Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS that North Korea is more of a threat to the United States than Iraq. The Democrat from Florida pointed out that North Korea is developing long-range missiles that could reach the United States and already has nuclear weapons.
So what would make President Bush want to attack Iraq over North Korea. Is it because Korea has quite a large military and Iraq would be an easier battle? Is he trying to finish off what his father couldn’t? How can Bush justify an attack on Iraq and yet do nothing in Korea?
Many believe that the real reason behind this attack has nothing to do with terrorism and threats at all. Many believe that the reason Bush is attacking is for the oil rich reservoirs in Iraq and the surrounding area. It is known that the United States, like many other developed nations has a need for oil. It is also known that reservoirs in North America are running short and are already at full production. The Middle East on the other hand is very rich in oil reservoirs. Iraq itself contains 11 percent of the oil reservoirs in the world and has massive untapped reservoirs. As Charles V. Pena (2002), a former U.S. Defense Department adviser, states “Oil is at the center of our Middle East policy,
Everything we do in the region is ostensibly to ensure ourselves a cheap supply.”
So there it is. According to Tom Fennell, America now depends greatly on the Middle East for oil. In fact 27.5 per cent of its oil comes from this region and that figure is expected to climb in coming years. If the U.S. was to seize control of Iraqi oil reservoirs, which would most likely be the case after an attack, George W. Bush would ensure that for years to come, his country would have cheap crude. After all George Bush was in the oil business himself, and he also decided to build a rig on a reserve in Alaska, so what is to stop him from using Iraq’s oil for his own benefits? Bush is constantly doing what he wants, and getting what he wants, without paying attention to the world around him.
In an article by Levin (2002) it is stated that: “Bush is beyond a doubt, the World’s Greatest Living Example of how a lucky few get exactly what they want, whether they deserve it or not. And now, as the World’s Most Powerful Man, he seems intent on acting as if the globe is his frat house.” Bush rarely takes the advice of what the rest of the global community has to say. As stated by Dyer (2002): “America’s friends and allies are close to unanimous in believing that an attack on Iraq would be stupid, illegal, costly in American and Iraqi lives and enormously counter-productive in terms of Middle Eastern politics.” France, China and Russia have shown that they are clearly against the attacks. As the French President Jacques Chirac states: ‘we are beginning to see the temptation of legitimizing the unilateral and preventive use of force – this development is worrying’. Even perhaps America’s closest ally, Canada, is also putting its word in as Chrétien said there is still not enough evidence to warrant an attack. Yet Bush is still forging ahead with plan after plan of possible options for an attack on Iraq, with or without the consent of the rest of the world. It seems as if the United States is drifting apart from global consent and seeing itself as the sole authority. According to Dyer(2002): Jordan’s King Abdullah states himself that “All of us are saying: ‘Hey, United States, we don’t think this is a very good idea’” but as Dyer (2002) points out: “the Americans don’t listen to foreigners so much.”
Attacking the Middle East now could be the breaking point for the Middle Eastern region. We know that Bush has little regard for the civilian lives in Iraq, as he has shown through his air raids which have left the country devastated in poverty and starvation. Bush is creating renewed feelings of hatred and violence against the Western World and other “peaceful” countries. This will, in all probability, lead to more terrorist groups forming, lead to more attacks on our societies in the west and lead to a more violent world for us to live in. Throughout all this chaos, someone has to become the “bigger man” and step down before things get even more out of control. It would be reasonable to think that the more developed, “mature” nation would be the one to do so. According to Whitaker(2002): The President of Egypt has warned President Bush that “an attack on Iraq could plunge the Middle East into chaos.” Another quote from the article stated by Mr. Mubarak told students in the coastal city of Alexandria: “If you [Americans] strike at the Iraqi people because of one or two individuals and leave the Palestinian issue [unsolved], not a single [Arab] ruler will be able to curb the popular sentiments.” So therefore by choosing to address certain issues and leaving others unaddressed, the president will be making, yet, more enemies. The same article also states that Saddam is also trying to turn sentiments against President Bush by “warning that US action against Iraq would be an attack on all Arabs: ‘The American threats do not target Iraq alone but all the Arab nation,’ he said.” It is obvious that flexing the American military muscle in Iraq would lead to more problems with terrorism, and increase the unpopularity of the already unpopular United States in the Arab world.
Here in North America, as in other democracies in the world, all individuals are treated as equals. In ones country, one has the same rights and privileges as anyone else in that country. If one breaks the law they will also receive the same punishment as anyone else who breaks the law. It doesn’t matter if one is big or small, rich or poor, black or white, everyone gets treated the same and is entitled to the same rights. That’s how the system works. It works like that in municipalities, it works like that in provinces or states, and it works like that at the national level. It would be reasonable to think that that’s how it might also work worldwide. However Bush is set on thinking that he is “above” the law and has the right to do what he likes. Bush decided, without aid or even consent from NATO or the rest of the world that it would be necessary, according to N Korea must disarm: Bush(2002): “We will deal with each threat differently…Each threat requires a different type of response.” This is absolutely contradictory to the way the United States themselves work as a whole. Saddam Hussein and Iraq should be treated justly and evenly. Every country should be treated equally, with little to no exceptions. The United States is acting like a bully, picking on the smaller countries while it leaves the bigger ones that might pose more of a threat unmolested. Responding differently to every threat makes other countries feel discriminated and stereotyped. If all countries were to be treated equally under the same set of rules and guidelines, they would feel less discriminated and outcast from the rest of the world. Countries worldwide would think they are being treated justly. It would also stop countries like the United States from abusing their power and rights. Knowing the consequences of stupid actions, countries might be less inclined on making stupid decisions which would obviously lead to punishment. Instead, there exists the world of the present. Developed, run and abused by the richer countries, we have unfortunate countries and people feeling excluded from the greatness of this planet. This leads to hostile people like Saddam Hussein grasping to keep a hold on the only valuable resource that he has, oil. This gambling on what the States United will or will not do next is a matter of life or death for the people of Iraqi people. Will the United States abuse its power and create a war? A set of rules should be made and followed in order to eliminate this problem; rather then rushing into a war based on one mans interests, anger or stupidity.
Attacking Iraq, contradictory to what George W. Bush might think, would have a far greater negative impact then the possible benefits that Bush is looking for. Bush is supposedly concerned for the peace of his nation, yet the reason his nation is threatened is because of his unjust and unneeded attacks on nation’s world wide. He is also causing direct negative effects; economically and morally, on his country by even threatening to go to war. He is putting much of his government’s attention on Iraq, while his own country is in recession. He is wasting tax payer’s money and national resources for an unworthy cause. He listens but doesn’t take the advice of his countries allies. He is becoming known as a type of “bully” doing as he pleases when he pleases for reasons that please himself. Iraq itself does not pose any immediate threat to the United States. It doesn’t have the developed technology capable of attacking the “homeland” of the United States. It is in fact no where near reaching these types of advanced weapons. Shoe bombs and Suitcase bombs pose much more of a threat then Saddam’s “arsenal of mass destruction” on the other side of the world. Whether Bush is looking for cheap oil, trying to finish what his father started or even diverting attention away from the up coming election is unknown, however, what is known is that the United States has no equitable right or reason to simply march into Iraq and destroy a country which has been devastated by wars for much of its existence. Rather then being the Police of the world, which the United States once was, Bush and the U.S administration seem to be becoming corrupt. A statement by Martin(2002) sums up the topic with:
One of the charges against the Nazi leaders at Nuremberg was that they “plotted aggressive war” against countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway and Yugoslavia. Similar charges would be in order against high officials in Washington, as they openly scheme to wage war against a country that poses no credible threat to the United States.
References
Dobbin, M. (November 8, 2002) Bush targets gridlock, Saddam. The Sacramento Bee. [On-line Serial]. Available at:
Dyer, G. (July 31, 2002) Not all are dancing to Bush’s war drums. The Hamilton Spectator [On-line Serial] Available at:
Fennell, T., Lowther, W. (October 7, 2002) Not for justice, but oil. MacLean’s Archive. [On-line Serial], Available at:
Levin, B. (November 4, 2002) Of Bushes and Stones. MacLean’s Archive [On-line Serial] Available at:
Lewine, F. (October 26, 2002) Global rallies protest possible U.S. war on Iraq. CNN.com [On-line Serial] Available at:
Martin, P. (July 31, 2002) Washington debate continues over attack on Iraq. World Socialist Web Site [On-line Serial] Available at:
Moravitz, M. (November 2, 2002) Debate Intensifies on US Approach to Iraq, N. Korea Weapons Programs. Voice of America News [On-Line Serial] Available at:
N Korea must disarm: Bush, (November 8, 2002). News Interactive[On-Line Serial] Available at:
Whitaker, B. (August 28, 2002) Attack on Iraq would create chaos in Middle East, Egypt cautions US. The Guardian [On-line Serial] Available at: