Proponents of Iraqi war try to justify the war by saying how Saddam Hussein was a vicious dictator who didn’t comply with UN’s inspections and was a threat to countries such as Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia make a good argument. Were we wrong to invade Iraq to protect neighboring countries from invasion? Terrorists from Middle East have been planning and executing attacks on America and other countries since 1993 and were hostile toward US many years prior to this. Everyone has heard about 9/11 and how almost 3000 people died in a terrorist attacks. Shouldn’t we stop these people or at least make them think twice before executing these types of actions? War on terrorism can’t be won by violence; even if we do kill all terrorist, there will be other people who disagree with what we do and become the new ‘terrorists’. My final reason to why war on terrorism is wrong is because there isn’t a clear definition of who the terrorist actually is.
First of all, how can we win the war against violence terrorism causes if we stimulate more violence in the process? Isn’t the whole reason for the ‘war on terror’ is to stop violence in the world and make it a better place for everyone? If so, then we are contradicting our own believes by attacking and killing thousands of innocent people who want the same as everyone else, freedom. History proves that violence doesn’t usually solve anything, after US invaded Iraq, thousands of people have been suffering. Many lost their homes and had their city leveled. Some may argue that Iraq can now vote for their ruler and US has brought democracy to the country. However, they can only vote for US-friendly ruler; therefore, they are in a way, choosing their oppressor rather than someone who could help the country. Some reports indicate that the U.S made the world a lot more unsafe for everybody since the invasion in 2003. The number of death due to terrorism rose from a little over 700 to almost 5000. This makes me believe that fighting war against terror is pointless and will only cause more deaths and provoke more attacks.
Secondly, by killing innocent people in Iraq, we become the terrors in the eyes of those whose family been killed for not something they have done, but for something their government has done. Our government does a lot of things that a lot of people don’t agree with, which would make it ‘OK’ for other countries to attack the public like our government attacked Iraq. A big part of the world doesn’t agree with what U.S. is doing in Iraq, yet we are not considered terrorist. For example, many soldiers were killed in noncombat areas, such as 2005 Bali bombing, is this terrorism or is this war? In the last few years about 100,000 civilian died due to violence and in fact 6 were killed on November 21, 2010. Half were caused by IEDs and two by gunfire! United States is the richest country in the world and we must set a good example to the world, not illegally invade and occupy other countries. Arresting innocent people without any charges presented to the person and sending them to other countries to be tortured isn’t something we should do. If these people were truly terrorists, shouldn’t we try them in a court of law? U.S. occupation forces are the ones who receive most of the blame, which in turn translates to blaming the people of America. Many nations, even before the Bush Administration expressed their frustrations with U.S. foreign policies and how they affected their economic issues, as well as, deepened poverty and inequality around the world. Children of these miserable places, once they grow up might become the new ‘terrorists’ after seeing what was done to their parents, witness how American soldiers interrogated and searched through their homes and what happened to their country in general. In a way, by fighting against terrorism, we are creating more terrorists. But will they really be wrong for defending their country and fighting off the attack on their country? There isn’t a clear definition of a terrorist. Were African Americans wrong by fighting for what they believed in? Were they terrorists?
In conclusion, there will always be disagreement among people; after all, there are almost 7 billion of us. Of course, there are better ways to handle situations, much more better ways of proving your point and showing how someone is wrong, but ‘bombing’ our way out terror has been the answer to terrorism in most cases. Interestingly, the places that were decided to be threats are also the places of great importance to US politically. Panama Canal quite important for trade and Middle East has most of the world’s fossil fuels. People have begun to see that the wars are strategically forced on lands for production of oil and natural gas. Is this the reason why there are wars in Middle East? Possibly, but maybe because its revenge, if they killed your family and friends, would you tolerate it?