Opinion Blood and Freedom By Scott T. Hards	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
流した血の代償としての自由 痛みを伴う手術はしないに越したことはない。 しかし病気を治す方法がほかになければ 手術で健康を取り戻すことも必要だろう。

Don't let George fool you. The Iraq war was never about weapons of mass destruction, the security of the United States, or any Iraqi link to the al-Qaeda. These were all stupid public excuses for justifying the invasion.

And don't listen to the cynics, either; it was not about oil. U.S. President George W. Bush may not have been a straight-A student, but he knows there are better ways to get cheap oil than spend 100 billion dollars (¥18 trillion) invading a country. Even if the United States stole all of Iraq's current oil production, it would take at least six years to earn back the costs of this war.

No, I think that for Bush, the key reason behind his decision to attack Iraq was to finish the job his father failed to complete 12 years ago - a sort of revenge, if you will, against the man who has thumbed his nose at the United States and the United Nations ever since.

So the president did the right thing for all the wrong reasons. Though I have some mixed feelings, I support the war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

For 24 years, the people of Iraq suffered under a ruthless dictator who used fear, torture, murder and chemical weapons to cement his place in power. Anti-war voices begged for a peaceful resolution, but let's be realistic: There is no peaceful way to remove a dictator. Would you willingly give up infinite wealth and power?

Prior to the war, opinion polls showed most people against it. Funny thing is, I didn't see the results of any polls taken in Iraq. Foreign journalists in that country reported anecdotally, however, that most Iraqis supported the U.S. invasion and the overthrow of Hussein. The massive celebrations that took place after Baghdad fell proved them right.

The peace protestors and those foolhardy "human shields" were exercising their civil rights of free expression - ironically something the Iraqis they were trying to "protect" didn't have. So in my view, such people believe it's more important to avoid spilling blood than to allow an entire nation to enjoy the freedoms laid out in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These anti-war activists confuse the absence of violence with true peace. What gives them the right to tell the Iraqis that they cannot experience the same freedoms, simply because they're uncomfortable with the means of achieving them? Imagine the world today if, 60 years ago, the United States had decided not to invade Normandy and liberate France from Hitler because "civilians might get killed"? Freedom comes at a price.

Being cut deeply with a sharp knife is an unpleasant thought. Most people want to avoid it. But what if it was part of an operation to remove a cancer? Surgery is messy, involving blood, pain, removal of healthy tissue, scarring and long recoveries. But people go through it anyway because they want to get healthy. It's the same for Iraq. Yes, there was blood and pain, and there will be scarring, but in the end, Iraq will be a much healthier nation because of it. Thankfully, there were two countries that had the courage to pick up the scalpel and go to work.

Shukan ST: May 2, 2003

(C) All rights reserved