To call America a threat to peace is ridiculous; America has made mistakes in the past but every action taken has been done in the interest of world affairs. Case and point, who protected Western Europe from the Communists for the last fifty years? It certainly wasn't France. Before that World War II was fought to keep fascists and dictators from taking control of the world. In World War I, America fought to spread democracy around the globe, along with understanding and compassion of others. Now, to say that these conflicts were fought for self-sacrificing reasons would be ridiculous. In World War I America also had its trade threatened by Germany, in World War II she was attacked by the Japanese before becoming involved, in the Cold War it was a matter of ideological survival that kept us from capitulating. But is that so wrong? Can a country fight a war for both idealistic and commercial reasons? For both self serving and self sacrificing reasons? The answer of course is yes. Today Americans marched into Iraq for a number of reasons: to halt the spread of WMD's, to destroy and secure a former home for terrorists, to spread democracy to the middle east, and to secure a friendly Oil producing country, to put pressure on Iran, to give leverage to the peace talks in Israel. Wars can be fought for many reasons. To say that Bush declared war on Iraq for only oil would be like saying Wilson only declared war on Germany for money.
Those who wish for peace, and only peace, are wishful thinkers. In the past several thousand years of human history there has never been a time of total peace, ever. Humans have always fought each other, its part of Human nature. The UN has shown itself to be a purveyor of the theory of peace at all costs. Those who consider a Saddam Hussein in charge better then an American occupation force are the most uncompassionate people this world has ever seen to say the least. Preserving the status quo strictly to maintain peace is not only horribly uncaring, but irresponsible. Those who oppose the liberties of the people they rule over should never be given the responsibility of running a nation. They should be removed immediately, and if America is pulling the roots from the garden of democracy more power to them.
Justification is the word of our times and America was more then justified for invading Iraq. Putting the rhetoric aside for a moment and consider what Saddam was actually doing: killing those who stood up against him, torturing athletes who weren't good enough to win medals, dictating to twenty five million free thinking people, and invading smaller surrounding countries. This man shouldn't be trusted with a piece of string, let alone a large nation with an even bigger army. If anything America is at fault for not finishing the job during the Gulf War. That should be the issue, not the reasons why soldiers are marching in now. He deserved everything he got.
It seems that the most outspoken critics of American Foreign policy are critiquing the Iraq war strictly because it was fought by America. To the critics, anything America does must be wrong, so invading a helpless country must be even worse. Instead of considering the many reasons why Iraq was attacked, and why Saddam was removed, they just assume it was the wrong thing to do. To fall prey to this ill informed view is to fall prey to stupidity. I urge all of you who may read this to do your own investigation of the war and what is currently being done. Americans are still dying to insure the safety of Iraqi's. These American boys and girls are giving their lives for a people on the other side of the world. Do not just trust The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and the Washington Post to give all the facts straight and fair. America, despite its failings, has always been a good guy, someone you can turn to when your in trouble. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.