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.
On the one hand I wouldn’t mind seeing a dictator deposed. On the other, I’m very uneasy about ever advocating violence. On a third hand I’m pragmatic enough to know that just wishing the world were a better place isn’t always effective. Although I disagree with just about everything else GW Bush has ever done, I do appreciate his attempt to actually lead. There is something to be said for someone who continues to push for what they feel is the right course of action despite others not agreeing with them. Part of what concerns me is that he seems to be doing it blindly, without even considering the concerns of others. As if we should undertake this devastating course of action just on his say so. The UN isn’t for it. Our allies aren’t for it. Our citizenry isn’t for it. This isn’t anything new. Folks have been saying this for a while: He should stop and make the case for why we should do this; for what has changed that suddenly makes this more urgent than it was, say, five years ago. Remember how Kennedy showed the world the top-secret U2 photographs of missile bases in Cuba? Yes, it revealed some of our intelligence capabilities to the world. But it clearly stated the case. The US (particularly under Bush) has shown little respect for international opinion, no sense of responsibility or obligation to our neighbors, and little willingness to engage in either real peacekeeping or nation building. And the other countries of the world are very understandably concerned about what kind of mess we’re going to leave for them to deal with. After we defeated Germany and Japan we made extensive efforts to rebuild those countries. I haven’t seen any real acknowledgement that a significant post-war effort is going to be required. And cleaning up the mess is always, always more involved, expensive and difficult than making the mess in the first place. The cost concerns me greatly.
My concern is why would we not attack them? Their people are clearly against us. Some say, let us wipe them all clean. If we do, our more populated, condensed areas will strike us as losing less in proportion, but more in general. The solution to any of this is to send the young men into the country to internally extinguish the problem, although it sickens me to think in two years I can be drafted to do that very same. I should appreciate Mr. Bush’s efforts in NOT acting so far, but on one hand I don’t appreciate his comments of acting, fighting, and getting rid of the problem, and on the other hand publicizing that he will wait to remain safe.
“Clearly”? Iraq is an oppressed country. It’s media is tightly controlled by those in power. Information is not freely available to its citizenry and they are not free to say what they think. One could take the fact that someone suggests they know what is “clearly” in the minds of an entire population (a member of which I would bet they had never met) as an example of typical American arrogance.
Yes, I think we should go over to Iraq and bomb the šhìt out of them. They have been fighting against Pakistan for so many years. Plus, if we attack Iraq then we can at least get someone to tell us where Saddam and Bin Laden are, assuming Bin Laden is still alive. So, yes, I agree that we should. Granted, I think we shouldn’t interfere in other countries’ problems, but it has just been getting worse over the years and someone needs to put a stop to it. So it better be the USA after what the Afghanis did to America.
This is what frightens me. Far, far more than Saddam being in power or even a terrorist with an airplane. The absolute absence of thought on the part of Americans as so ably demonstrated by “Someone”.
Actually, the more I read it, the more impressed I am with how many reprehensible things she managed to squeeze into just 6 sentences. - Advocating mass slaughter. (”bomb the šhìt out of them”) - Nonsensical justification. (”cause they’ve been fighting Pakistan” Since when? And India, who we KNOW has weapons of mass destruction, has been fighting with Pakistan far more than anyone else. Should we go bomb New Delhi?) - Foolishness (Do you think we’ll grab someone by the lapels and get them to cough up Bin Laden’s hiding place like on some TV cop drama?) - Self contradiction (”I don’t think we should interfere”) Right. - And cowardice. (”Someone”)
And what did the Afghanis do to America? Most of the hijackers were Saudi. (Yeah, another comment. So sue me. My buttons got pressed.)
And we should bomb Iraq because of “what the Afghanis did”?? Y’know, Canada pìššëd me off so I think I’ll go invade Mexico. And feel free to combine from 11:43 on. I would have if I hadn’t jumped the the gun hitting the POST button. Oh, and here’s a list of things you could pick up for me at the grocery store. And while you’re out…
I do not want us taking [the] lead on Iraq anymore. A lot of people simplify Iraq by just saying “the Americans created Saddam”. Yet, I can’t find proof of that anywhere. What we do know is he does have weapons of mass destruction, and he likes to use those weapons on his own people. He would also like to use those weapons on others. What we also know is; Iraq has NEVER complied with UN resolutions or mandates, Iraq NEVER will comply with UN resolutions or mandates. The US Congress has placed sanctions on Iraq to keep our corporations, government, and people from investing in Saddam’s war machine. That is enough. The UN is creating Saddam, the UN is the reason that Saddam still has WMDs in his possession, the UN is the reason that Saddam might or might not one day build a warhead. So let the UN continue its posturing on Iraq, let the US step out of the equation, and if Saddam decides to use any of his weapons on someone, let the UN clean it up. I know we are a part of the UN, but the only real pressure applied to Iraq over the years has been by the US and Britain. The two countries have had to stand alone, spend money that their taxpayers could have used somewhere else, and use their soldiers for a job they have never been allowed to finish. So for the US and Great Britain, Iraq has been a waste of time, money, and manpower. Let Europe, Russia, China, all the countries of the Middle East, and Kofi deal with Saddam this time. We have better things to be doing than playing footsie with Iraq.
I think the U.S. shouldn’t attack Iraq unless they constantly attack us. If we attack, we will start a war. We will mostly make it worse if we attack. We should just leave them alone.