Bush’s motives unclear for war with Iraq

Chris DeVore, Reporter Staff Writer (MSU Reporter

To combat weapons of mass destruction, to secure oil rights or plain old imperialism, just what are the motives behind the Bush administration’s desire to oust Saddam Hussein?

Everybody has his or her own ideas. I believe there is a great deal more to the issue than protecting the world from an Iraqi threat.

There have been numerous news stories broadcast nationally describing the opposition to an attack on Iraq by a majority of U.S. allies. Report after report says there is a lack of credible evidence that Iraq is the threat the U.S. claims.

Do those other governments know more than our government? Is the whole story being presented to the American public? What is behind the push for a war?

The answer to the first question is probably not.

According to other news reports I’ve seen, there is opposition to an invasion of Iraq within our government, as well as among some military leaders.

You have to decide for yourself.

A large part of the Bush agenda is to secure a position in the Middle East, create a democratic ally, and get U.S. forces in close proximity to some of the largest oil producing nations in the world with less resistance.

It’s imperative that the United States is able to exercise some level of control over the ever-shrinking supply of oil.

We all know what happens to the value of a commodity when the supply does not keep up with demand and the extent some people will go to control the supply.

Oil is a big deal and will continue to become a bigger deal as more and more oil is being used.

The threat to attack Iraq is a strong-arm tactic to get the foothold that the Bush administration is looking for.

It’s no secret that Bush and some of his closest advisors have strong ties to the energy industry.

There is a lot of money waiting to be made in them there oil fields y’all, especially when production peaks and begins its decline as is predicted to happen in the next few years.

There might be some truth to the allegations about Iraqi weapons production, but they are certainly not the only threat to world peace when weapons of mass destruction are considered.

I wonder what country has the largest stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Why is Iraq being singled out? Could it have anything to do with old business?

I’m sure Bush Senior is just sitting on the sidelines keeping his mouth shut.

It seems to me the Iraqis would be hard pressed to have the capability of being the aggressor the Bush administration claims it is, since the United States has actively enforced a trade embargo, no fly zones and periodic bombing raids to destroy radar equipment since the end of the Gulf War, not to mention the ongoing campaign to paint Saddam Hussein as the devil incarnate.

Take a moment to consider who is the chest beater in this situation.

There is no way Iraq has the resources to fight a war against the United States.

Some of the war hawks in this country dismiss the lack of international support, and it seems to me the decision to attack has been made. There appears to be a strong effort to win the support of the American public, and it’s just a matter of time before action is taken.

There is a thirst for blood in this country I don’t understand.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I find it odd that a government and country rooted so deeply in Christianity and the word of God seems to take such a casual approach to a military action that threatens the lives of a population that is already on its knees.

Copyright Reporter