The state of America in pursuit of war

Initially, the call to arms came after the Sept. 11 tragedy when the government of the United States told the people of the United States that the infamous Osama bin Laden and his army of terrorists were responsible for the attack. The government denied any foreknowledge and simply stated that the attacks were unpreventable. Six months after 9/11, we find out that the government of the United States did have some knowledge of the planned attacks, but they still claimed they were unpreventable.

We were told that Afghanistan, one of the most war torn countries in the world, was ruled by a ruthless regime called the Taliban and that we would be helping the people of Afghanistan while in our pursuit of justice. So we bombed them. We never caught Mr. bin Laden.

With the war in Afghanistan now viewed as a success, this country, the land of the free, has pointed a new finger of blame at yet another country in an attempt to eliminate a “threat.”

Without having caught the man our government named responsible, the United States, led by the legendary George W. Bush, has decided that the quest for “those responsible” is not over. Now we must attack Iraq. The reason behind this: the rule of Iraq is viewed as a threat or, in George W’s words, “He is evil.” Attention has been taken off of Osama bin Laden and focused on Saddam Hussein, though the original purpose of going to war was to avenge the lives of those who died on Sept. 11.

Our government claims that Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorist camps and promoting anti-American propaganda. President Bush tells us that Saddam is an evil man with far too much power and that he is a threat to the entire world. Ironically enough, in many other countries, the man who is the greatest threat and has the most power is the leader of the most powerful country. President Bush fits their description of the character he has made Mr. Hussein out to be.

In no way am I defending Saddam Hussein, or anyone else for that matter, but in this land of the free where we are supposed to be able to critique the liberties and justices we take for granted, can we truly justify this war?

No war is righteous; the best war can be is the lesser of two evils. It can only be right to fight a war if it is judged that not going to war would have even more consequences for humanity, and that is a matter of judgment. But who is to judge? Should the lives of our brothers and sisters, overseas and at home, be at the disposal of a man who’s right to hold the presidency is highly questionable? A man who, prior to the 9-11 attacks, was taken as seriously as Michael Jordan’s attempt to play baseball?

What would happen if we don’t attack Iraq? Is Hussein responsible for what happened on Sept. 11? Why did Sept. 11 happen? Are we really helping to secure our country by bombing others and killing thousands of people? How do we know that this war will be a success?

To counter President Bush’s accusations of going after “evil doers,” here are a few words from the Good Book:

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”-Rom 12:17-21

We need not become buddies with our enemies, but because we have been given the incredible ability to think, reflect and analyze, the tactics we use to counter anti-American sentiment should be less brutish. Burning bridges does not suffice in the long run and violence only breeds more violence.