|
Personally, I think that the way Bush has deflected the world's anger from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein has been one of the greatest public relations efforts in history.
I agree that Saddam isn't the nicest bloke in the world, and if he is found to be producing/selling WOMD then he probably should be ousted. However, I haven't seen any evidence of this.
Remember that British intelligence "dossier" that they released a few months back? Colin Powell said it was a "fine paper" and "describe[d] in equisite detail Iraqi deception activities." Trouble is, more than half of the text was stolen straight out of the pages of magazines. (See here if you don't believe me).
Also, the US came straight out a few weeks ago and said "this factory is making chemical weapons." Satellite photos and all. Iraqi officials took Western media to the factory - the damn thing was destroyed and had been nothing but crumbling concrete for several years.
In 1998 the US launched a cruise missile attack on a factory in Sudan, claiming it was chemical weapons and had links to Osama bin Laden. The factory was hit by several Tomahawk missiles and destroyed. It turns out the factory was making aspirin, not weapons, and that there was no connection bin Laden at all. (Again, click here for evidence).
My point is that you cannot believe everything the US (or indeed Australian) government says.
Also, alliances are (or rather should be) symbiotic relationships. Co-dependance. I don't see our alliance with the US in this fashion. If we were as an important an ally as they say we are (or as important as we'd like to believe), then surely they would take our opinions into consideration, which I don't see happening. To bastardise networking terminology, it's a client/server relationship, not a peer-to-peer relationship.
And from their perspective, why not? What do we have to offer them that isn't an actress or dangerous animal? Very little. I'm not suggesting we should end the US alliance, far from it, but the position we are in at the moment doesn't exactly scream strength.
We stand on the brink of war in Iraq (because war will happen in the next month or two, however much we argue and debate). Australian servicemen and women are going to die, so the US populace can feel slightly safer until the next public enemy is announced.
Personally I see this as a conflict that has nothing to do with us. We are a long way out of the range of the WOMD that Saddam supposedly possesses (of which there is still no solid proof). Even if the Saddam/al-Qaeda link is proven (which it still isn't), regional terrorist groups like Jemaah Islamiah pose a much greater threat to us.
So to sum up a long post (sorry about that ), we shouldn't go to war in Iraq because:
- Iraq has nothing to do with us, we should worry about our own region
- Being a part of what is seen in the Muslim world as a war against Islam will increase the likelihood of terrorist acts in and against Australia exponentially (I might remind everyone that the world's largest Muslim country is just to our north)
- Bush has still left the big questions unanswered. Why is Saddam a much graver threat now than he was five years ago? Why can't we take several months to carry out thorough weapons inspections in Iraq (which ironically could help the US if the inspectors find the "smoking gun" Bush so desperately needs)?
Looking in a different light, this whole debate doesn't really matter. We can argue the ins and the outs of war until we are blue in the fingers from typing, but the world is going to be plunged into war anyway for one simple reason - America can do what it likes and there is nobody to stop them. I find the whole "single superpower" world to be quite terrifying, in that Bush really can do what he likes, so long as the American people are on his side. During the cold war, the USSR acted as a counter-balance, ensuring that the US didn't always (or often) get its own way, eg Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Berlin etc. That counter-balance is now gone. I'll leave you all to ponder that 
___________________
|