|
|
Why I Support the War in IraqPat Goltz December 6, 2005 This was originally an email to someone about some online news articles about Saddam having ties to Al Qaeda. He said that he didn't feel the articles were proof. Here is what I told him: I agree with you that none of the articles I gave you, at least not individually, are definitive proof. However, some of this is testimony being given in a court of law, and that must meet high standards of proof or it will be thrown out. I am aware that our government has information about the connections with terrorism that cannot be revealed at the present time for security reasons. I also have some sources of information that are not available to the general public, and I am not able to talk about them. We really don't have a right to endanger our efforts to destroy terrorism by satisfying people's curiosity. I realize that as voters, we need to know what is going on, but that doesn't mean we have a right to jeopardize innocent human beings in the process, so a balance must be achieved. As for Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon, etc., yes, there are terrorist connections in this country that are more obvious. That doesn't mean that we should treat them in the same way as Iraq. Iraq did something none of the others did: it aggressed on its neighbors. It actually occupied Kuwait. We can deal successfully with all of the above countries by doing whatever works best in each. In the case of Iraq, we had no choice but to depose Saddam. I am amazed that we did it with as little loss of life as we did, and gratified. In other countries that are still cooperating with us and being willing to take steps away from terrorism, it would be undesirable to depose the current leadership. Here is something I got in my email today, and I think it pretty much explains why we needed to take out Saddam:
End of email. The bottom line for me is that Saddam is a reincarnation of Hitler. We ignored Hitler for far too long. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. We chose not to forget. In the final analysis, it really doesn't matter whether we definitively prove one piece of the puzzle, i.e. that Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda, or that he has chemical weapons, or that he has killed hundreds of thousands of his own subjects. The important thing is that we know he was a tyrant, a cruel and evil man, and he was destroying people and resources out of sheer spite. I don't care if he has ties to Al Qaeda. I care that he has ties to terrorism. I don't care whether he has chemical weapons. He had unbelievable arsenals of conventional weapons that he was using against innocent people, and he has had chemical weapons in the past, and retains the facilities to make more. I don't care whether he directly attacked our nation or not. He is part and parcel of the worldview that did, and if given the opportunity, he would not hesitate to do so in the future. Can we afford to wait until he does? I do not think so. I think that we had a duty to take him out. And for me, that's the end of the argument. For that reason, I find the things you are saying against the war to be repugnant. I can only stomach so much of them. I know that the information that underlies these things is a pack of lies, being promoted by people who wish to destroy our freedom. People are being unbelievably gullible. They won't accept the information in the links I gave you, but they will accept the say-so of people who are known to oppose liberty. All I ever ask is that people apply the same standard to everyone: don't accept the lies just because they are agreeable. Question them just as much as you question the information I gave you. Otherwise, you become gullible as well. And isn't the sole legitimate purpose of government to protect us from aggression and fraud? And didn't we experience aggression on 9/11? And having experienced aggression, doesn't the government have a duty to make sure it never happens again? Can you give me definitive proof that Saddam never would have sent his chemical weapons here for the use of terrorists? Do you really trust Saddam not to do so? I never did. We should have taken him out the first time. But we listened to the UN, and we all know the UN is for one world government, and how tyrannical that would be. The bottom line is that we have only two choices: watch Saddam destroy his neighbors and then come for us, or take him out. What was it Martin Niemoller said? He said, "They came first for the Communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics...but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no-one left to speak up for me." Our mistake during WWII was waiting to take out Hitler. We made that mistake again in Gulf War I. It was time to stop making mistakes. The evidence in the aggregate is overwhelming. So just because you aren't convinced of a small part of it really doesn't influence me, because I am looking at the entire picture. Saddam was an evil man who destroyed hundreds of thousands. He needed to be stopped. It's that simple. I am just glad we had the resources and the balls to do it. Now let me tell you one final thing: one of our sons is in Iraq. He is doing what he needs to do, and we both support him 100%. That makes it pretty personal for me. In addition, our son and I both have a second degree black belt in taekwondo. Every class, we take an oath. That oath says, "I shall observe the tenets of taekwondo. I shall respect instructors and seniors. I shall never misuse taekwondo. I shall be a champion of freedom and justice. I shall build a more peaceful world." The tenets are, "Courtesy, integrity, perseverence, self-control, indomitable spirit, victory". How can one use a deadly fighting skill to be a champion of freedom and justice and build a more peaceful world? By deterrence. If making it known that I can use deadly force to defend innocent people doesn't work, then the next level of deterrence is to use my skills. My body is a deadly weapon. If I see a man killing his wife, I WILL intervene. I won't bother to wait for the police. What I would be doing is protected under the justification statutes: I am legally permitted to use deadly force to protect an innocent human being from aggression. It's that simple. As a result, even though I have done my analysis with sheer reason, it is much more than mere reason for me. It embraces my life and my outlook completely. To see an essay which includes an eyewitness account of the situation in Iraq, with hundreds of pictures, go here: |