True or False? A Crash- appraisal of the American logic in t
Before I start delivering my views to you on the subject of the war in Iraq, I would like to confirm that the word "American" is used here in the sense of the American administration and policy, not in the sense of the nation and its people.
Many complicated arguments took place recently discussing the legitimacy of waging war by the "Land of Freedom" on the "Land of Abraham". Many innocent citizens of the world seem to buy into obvious fallacies. Please allow me to (storm-brain) you for the reality of this war with very basic True or False questions.
The reason for America crossing a few continents and seas with its super impressive missiles to seize a foreign country and change its government is an act of kindness meant to free the Iraqi people from their dictator ruler. What do you think? To help you marking this as "True" or False", I will ask you a few questions here. Who has the right to label a ruler a dictator, a foreign ruler or his own people? Has any one authority a right to displace a ruler of a foreign country even by asking him ( verbally) to leave his home in 48 hours?
Can a war costing trillions of dollars and hundreds of American and British lives be a justified price for the head of any "foreign" ruler?
Another reason for bombing a country three continents away is to rid its neighbours from its malicious threat using "total-destruction" weapons "in case" that country decides to go to war. That ethicality might be anything but "foreign" to the American mind. Yet, it can only be a valid argument if America is planning to "become" a neighbour. Don't you think? And perhaps, America is more qualified to know the interest of the neighbours more than they themselves do. Right? Did I forget to ask whether Israel is probably a neighbour? With the same "total-destruction" weapons? But Israel has a sole right to own certain missiles it might need to defend itself with in case the terrorists-nationals ask for their land back. Almost forgot!
Another reason for America to rip Iraq and shred it is to search for weapons UN inspectors failed to find. Should we assume that American troops are not fighters but Phd holders of some occult tradition? Should we assume that America is an authority above the UN and therefore in a position to "correct" what goes wrong with the UN efficiency? More reasonable, let us think that the CIA has very valid confidential info that Saddam Hussein has Anthrax pre-packed in his palatial fridges and chemical heads stuffed in his republican "Dictator size" mattresses. But why would not America enlighten the UN inspectors with its genius findings?
In the American struggle against terrorism, Hussein's head had to be chopped suey. Well, taking into consideration that the new findings pertaining to the aggressors in the WTC incident confirm that Hussein was Bin Ladden's " left" hand, and that Iraq which is in fact the only ‘secular' regime in the Arab world, must be suspect number one in "radical' terrorism, this could be a very reasonable reason. True?
America , as a super power, has a responsibility to make the world a safer and happier place for all. This is the easiest question to answer! Yes, you cannot go wrong here. What a happier world we are going to have without the United Nations ? With a few million Iraqis less Iraq lost 1.5 million lives because of war and sanctions already)? With funerals in British and American homes? With a stagnant world economy? With fear of travel? With gluing our tearful eyes to TV screens parading loss of life and total destruction?
Since you have gone that far marking the above statements as True or False, you might like to answer this one question about the American Intelligence Quotient. Kill for the dollar is the American dream coming true. That one must be..well.. very TRUE.Or why else are the troops so anxious to save oil fields with minefields - pun truly intended!
About the Author
An Egyptian writer and poet who works in English.