Should We Attack Iraq?
The news has been recently saturated with soundbites and transcriptions of President Bush’s newly inflammatory speeches regarding Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors under the assumption that they have been manufacturing and stockpiling WOMD (weapons of mass destruction), and he has stated that he will seek Congress’ approval to take military action against Iraq, and, more specifically, to pursue a “regime change”.
The question is, should we attack Iraq, or shouldn’t we?
One one side, I find it very likely that Iraq has continued the manufacture of WOMD, and was involved with the attacks last September 11. President Bush stated that Saddam “has sidestepped, crawfished, wheedled out of any agreement that he had made not to develop weapons of mass destruction.” The current regime has also violated multiple UN directives, including cooperation with the weapons inspections, and in doing so has increased the hardship of the lives of Iraqi citizens. The country’s military is spread thin, busy defending the north against indigenous Kurdish rebels and the border with Syria, the east against Iran-backed Shiite militants, the south against Kuwait, leaving Baghdad defended by a mediocre force of 25,000. Externally, the Iraqi government is rallying for political support not only from Arab and Muslim countries, but from other countries. But internally, the government-controlled media states that the United States will be militarily defeated. Strongholds in both the north and south no-fly zones have electronically targeted coalition planes 34 times since the creation of the zones, resulting in missile strikes and the destruction of radar facilities. Typically, Iraq claims that only civilians have been targeted. Iraq is a dictatorship, a pox on world governments, a poison to its people, a threat to freedom.
On the other hand, North Korea faces a similar fate to Iraq. They hold the technologies of all three major types of WOMD: biological, chemical, and nuclear. Undersecretary of State John Bolton accuses them of being “the world’s foremost peddler of ballistic missile-related equipment, components, materials, and technical expertise” and they have “one of the most robust offensive bioweapons programs on Earth.” North Korea also has rejected proposed visits by international weapons inspectors until the United States complies with a 1994 agreement to build two new reactors incapable of producing weapons-grade material, a project dismally behind schedule. Like Iraq, North Korea puts its own leadership ahead of the populace, John Bolton stating that its “people can starve as long as the leadership is well fed.” I see little in Iraq that could be considered more of a threat than that which is in North Korea. Yet, we do not appear to be imminently at war with North Korea.
Saddam may not be stupid enough to blatantly strike first. Doing so would pre-ordain his death sentence and a massive Western military incursion demolishing Baghdad and much of Iraq, despite their apocryphal insistence of eventual military domination. However, if the United States strikes first, he may deploy internally developed WOMD in retaliation. Anywhere. Both are reason enough for each side to take pause before taking any action. Time will tell whether or not irrefutable evidence surfaces that the Iraqi government was involved in the deadly attack on our homeland. If it is satisfactorily proven to me that the current regime supported the al-Qaeda terrorists in any way, then Iraq has already struck first, and I vote for an immediate invasion.
Cost be dámnëd.
re Paul Whitings comment - “The UK media is just as bad. Did they report the 1000-1500 protesters arrested in SF ? I heard they didn’t”. I saw it mentioned on the news channels and in the papers here in the UK, though it wasn’t a big deal. Would have been suprising NOT to see protests in the US after all the other reports of protests in every other country. From my experience the mainstream UK media generally is a lot more sceptical than its American counterpart and tends to report all the news, not just what nationalistic agenda dictates. By the way, interesting report on the main news tonight about why the British troops are wearing their friendlier-looking berets in Bazra instead of helmets, “to disassociate themselves from the American troops”. Seemingly this is a hangover from the peace-keeping roll in Belfast and knowing how to deal with civilians, not something that the American troops have had much experience with, except what they have learnt from Israeli forces in Palastine (boom boom you’re dead). Should be interesting to see when they feel safe enough to discard their hard hats. Interesting website
Sorry Johnny, that wasn’t clear. I meant that to my knowledge the SF protesters arrests had not been reported in the US press. The UK media is bad because it is also being used as a tool to manipulate public opinion, and the television here is nothing but war reports most of the time. Interesting to see is how the Govt is slipping in loads of dodgy legislation whilst everyone’s concerned about the war. Is this going on in the US too ?
Interesting satirical article in theonion.com, an overall pretty good American satire site.
just because saddam husain like osama’s çøçk doesnt mean that we should go blow the šhìt out those guys. if we do that we should kill all the queer áššëš here in the u.s. too. thanks for lettin me have my input. kill those lazy fággøtš.
I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THE USA AND NOT WORRY ABOUT OTHER CONTRIES, IF THEY ATTACK FIRST, WE SHOULD ATTACK BACK BOTTOM LINE
Except… the real bottom line is that Iraq didn’t attack us. No other country did.
So let’s put away the thoughtless “me first, nobody else matters” yelling and try to realize that our actions do have consequences for ourselves. Would you like it if your next door neighbor took that attitude and started dumping their garbage in your back yard because, hey, you don’t matter?