Since the end of World WarII the United States has developed from an almost benevolent superpower to anation that will go to any length to guard its assets and interests. This trendis causing a lot of unrest in the international community, as the U.S. goes fromits parental role to one of a bully. A prime example is the apparent upcoming waragainst Iraq.

Ever since the Gulf War of 1991, fought to preserve oilrights and increase George H. Bush's popularity, the U.S. has been relentlesslybombing Iraq. In fact, there has not been one week since the Gulf War when bombsdid not fall within Iraq's borders. Our explanations have been Iraq's lack ofcooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, and its supposed support of terrorists.These fall short of the evidence needed to launch a continued bombing campaign,and in no way justify a war.

"Iraq today is no longer a militarythreat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures aboutweapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence," says Hans von Sponeck,UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000. The international communityknows this, and realizes that any American attack on Iraq would be for the samereasons as the Gulf War: popularity for the president and oil for thecountry.

The basic assumptions of Bush's reasons are logically false.He assumes that the best way to "combat terrorism" is to wipe out itsbases militarily. But terrorism arises from intensive hatred and the will tofight. If Bush seeks to end terrorism by military means, where will he stop? Withevery attack, terrorists gain more followers. Therefore, an attack on Iraqbecause it harbored terrorists is counter productive, because even if Iraqiterrorists are captured or killed, more will spring up in their place in outragewith America's actions. Military means cannot end terrorism; in fact, when theU.S. attacks supposed terrorists, many see these attacks as terrorist assaults intheir own right.