should the U.S. have war against iraq
... insisting that Iraq must comply with international agreements, we should also remind ourselves that the same agreement applies to the United States and those countries which own the weapons. Both are obliged under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, and both have done nothing to fulfill their commitments. (The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.) (http://www.theage.comau/articles/2002/06/12/1023864297401.html) The U.S. is at this moment developing advanced systems of weapons of mass destruction and is prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow any inspection of its own factories. In fact, last month North Korea confessed possession of the weapons of mass destruction; ¡§how could President Bush go to war against one tyrant because he might be developing nuclear weapons while negotiating with another who just admitted that he has them?¡¨ (Calabresi, October 28,) Is Iraq a military threat to the world? Did Bush declared war on Iraq just because Saddam Hussein promotes ¡§international terror¡¨? There is no evidence to support the claims. It is increasingly clear that the proposed attack on Iraq has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or with the war on terror. During the Gulf War in 1991, while the United States bombed Iraq with a barrage that included 110.000 sorties, Iraq did not destroy even one U.S. tank or plane (New York Times). Iraq has been paying indemnities to Kuwait and U.S. oil corporations since 1991 and has not had the financial capacity to build another arsenal. The October 11, 2002, New York Times revealed the true plan of the United States: ¡§The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American ¡Vled military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today.¡¨(N.Y. times) The true intention of the U.S. government is to recolonize Iraq. The Bush administration wants Iraq to denationalize its oil wealth, ¡§Iraq contains one of the planet¡¦s largest reserves. President Bush would hardly go after Saddam for the oil alone, but it¡¦s certainly a factor.¡¨(Ehrenfeld, September 30) This war is an attempt to reconquer Iraq and all of its natural resources. The Bush administration wants to reshuffle the deck in the Middle East and undo all of the achievement of the national liberation movements from the last sixty years. They want to eliminate independence for all countries in the region and assert their domination and control ¡V not in the interest of the vast majority of people, but for access to oil. The U.S. should not fight Iraq because this will boost the financial burden on the State and its people. It had already cost U.S. taxpayers 50 billion per year to keep U.S. armed forces in the Persian Gulf. The estimated 200 billion for the war on Iraq will come straight out of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and welfare.(Newsletter) The average working class taxpayer will be paying the bill. In addition, the people in the United States only have to stand for the tax burden if the president declares war on Iraq; however, the Iraqis have to bear the losts of their lives, homes, properties etc. In retrospect, Iraq has been incessantly having wars with other states within this 20 years. In 1980 Saddam Hussein attacked Iran; the war lasted 8 years long and cost each side over half a million lives,...