Opinions: Backing the war… still

 by Garrett Cleverly
 published on Tuesday, February 26, 2008

I'm just going to start this article off by saying it: In regards to the war in Iraq, I'm pro-war.

Obviously with the information that the public now knows, we might have not gone into the war and I would have probably had a different opinion, but it's time we all look at the facts, stop pointing fingers at the Bush Administration and jump on board.

When we first were attacked on Sept. 11, every single American was caught up in patriotism, and we all wanted nothing more than revenge. There, I said it — revenge. And if you can honestly look yourself in the face and say you didn't want revenge, you're a hypocrite.

We first started off the war in Afghanistan against al-Qaida to remove terrorism and somehow our troops must have gotten lost because, believe it or not, we ended up in Iraq. I personally felt that there was no possible way Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and even if he did, there was no way he could use them against our country.

Even without the idea that he had weapons of mass destruction, going into Iraq was still a good idea.

A little over five years ago, on Sept. 12, 2002, the White House published a report titled "A Decade of Deception and Defiance." The report states how Saddam Hussein had continually broken 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. If you don't believe me, you can Google it … it's the first thing that comes up.

Now I'm sure your wondering what he could have had done in these U.N. violations. Well, in April of 2002, he offered $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who blew themselves up to help succeed against the infidels. He also had a secretive terrorist training camp, which taught Iraqis and non-Iraqis how to hijack planes and trains. He tested biological and chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds.

Could you honestly imagine what the world would be like if he was still in power? For one thing, that $25,000 fee probably would be way more by now.

Five years later, why should we still be rehashing old news? Because this issue is still at the heart of our country's political landscape. And in this election year, it's critical knowledge that all of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's talk about "change" this and "change" that is complete BS. (And if you can't figure it out by now, a Democratic president is the worst thing that could happen to this country.)

Most of us who attend ASU are at least somewhat intelligent. What can Obama or Clinton as one person really do in four years? The system has been in place for hundreds of years. Not to mention the numerous treaties we have with other nations that won't even expire until after our deaths.

We have to face facts, people; we started the war, and even though it is on the other side of the world, we made it our war and we need to finish what we did. Packing up and leaving would be the worst idea — our country would look weak while terrorism groups would gain power.

So sit down, read the report and after analyzing the hard facts in it, tell me how a person like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can pull out of the war in a blink of an eye. I hate to have to tell it to you straight, but they're not going to.

I understand that even if the Iraq issue is resolved in a satisfactory way, George W. Bush might still be the worst president ever, but after looking into the facts and for once not listening to CNN, I think it's time we all started to make our own decision on important issues facing our society.

Look, I'm not saying we should enter war with every tyrant, but when it comes to global security and threats to other nations, sometimes America has to be the one to step up.

It's pretty much a certainty that Garrett will be responding to anti-war e-mails for the next five years. Pile 'em on at: gcleverl@asu.edu.