The news has been recently saturated with soundbites and transcriptions of President Bush’s inflammatory speeches regarding Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors under the assumption that Iraq has have been manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WOMD), and he has stated that he will seek Congress’ approval to take military action against Iraq, and, more specifically, to pursue a “regime change”.
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, and the South against Kuwait — leaving Baghdad defended by a mediocre force of 25,000 troops.
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 multiple missile strikes and the destruction of radar facilities. Iraq claims that only civilians had been targeted and killed. 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 — which is the entire reason to have such weaponry. 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 dåmnëd.
Author’s Note: The question of whether or not to attack Iraq is long since moot, and any sense of Iraq’s military domination was erased in about a week after the initial invasion. Saddam Hussein was pulled from a hole in the ground in Tikrit in December 2003, and executed three years later in Baghdad.
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 shìt 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 shìt 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 pìssëd 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.
as i am hearin diz i think we should attack iraq because if dey do sumthin to us we attack if dey didnt do anythin we should juz leave dere sorry butts alone~~!!!
WELL IM SEATING HERE READING WHAT EVERYONE HAS WRITTEN SAYING THAT WE SHOULDNT ATTACK UNLESS HE CONT. TO ATTACK US.WELL THATS KINDA DUMM. IN OTHER WORDS WERE GOING TO GIVE HIM THE UPPER HAND IF HE STRIKES FIRST.WAR SUCKS YES! AND I WISH I DIDNT HAVE TO FIGHT. BUT HEY THE REALITY IS THAT THERES ÃSSHØLÊ LIKE HIM OUTHERE JUST BEING A BULLY.SURE IF WE ATTACK THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL DIE…..BUT I’D WOULD RATHER HAVE THERE PEOPLE DIE THAN MY OWN FAMILY.I THINK WE NEED TO JUST TAKE HIS ÃSS OUT TOO. THEN GO FOR FIDEL CASTRO TOO
Hmmm… Well, if that was any indication of the quality of the members of our armed services I have to say I’m very concerned about their being given guns.
WTF…WHO THE HÊLL IS THIS TALKING SHÍT! THIS SITE IS TO POST WHAT EVERYONE THINKS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT! AND IF U DONT LIKE WHAT I THINK..I REALLY DONE GIVE A FÙÇK! AND PLEASE DONT SAY STUFF OVER THE NET THAT U WONT SAY IN PERSON…YEA UR REALLY MATURE…U TOLD ME HUH! LOL
Adrian – If the site is “to post what everyone thinks about this subject”, why are you objecting to my posting what I think? I didn’t object in ANY WAY to your voicing your opinion. I just expressed concern over the amount of thought behind it. And, if you were here, I WOULD say that to you in person. Since this is over the ‘net I’m doing as close to that as I can: I’m using my real name and my real email address. I’m not trying to hide behind any anonymity. But let me ask you, if I did say it to your face what would your reaction be when I did? Debate me or hit me? Dan – THANK YOU for the well-considered comments. For myself, I’m uncomfortable with valuing American lives over those of foreign civilians just because they are American lives. I realize sometimes choices must be made between harming a few innocents to spare a large number. But it really doesn’t sit well with me and I’m by no means convinced an invasion is a good idea, for a whole HOST of reasons the “possibly unforeseen consequences” not the least of them. I disagree that the responsibility of a citizen is to support the leader “regardless of what decision he makes”. On the contrary, if I feel it is a bad or wrong decision it is my responsibility to stand up and say so. Dissent is NOT unpatriotic.
I have a friend who really wants to be a police officer. He is self-admittedly volatile, hot-tempered and irrational, and I have told him to his face that I do not think he should be allowed to own or use a gun, and I also told him that I would not allow him in the house with a gun. He is mature enough to understand and respect that, and therefore I respect him in return. You are visiting my “house on the Internet” and therefore I have the right to say (or to allow anyone else to say) that I (or they) don’t think you should have a gun in your possession either (based solely on the apparently cavalier attitude towards human life portrayed in the comments you have provided). Personally, I don’t think going into Iraq with guns blazing is the answer. – RDL
This is an extremely complex issue. There are strong arguements for each side. On the one hand, we could launch a premptive strike against Iraq, Though this would be a huge step with possibly unforeseen consequences, it is also the course of action that I agree with. However, if carried out, this would be an action that is totally against our political and moral beliefs, and is something that a U.S. president has never attempted. I think that in order to have an actual opinion on a topic such as this, it is important to look into the facts and make informed observations. It might not seem right to “bomb the shìt out of them”. However, some people also hold the belief that it was not right to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What it comes down to in the end is saving American lives. If, by attacking Iraq first, we are able to save the lives of our servicemen and civilians, then we should take that step. In the end, I think that it is the responsibility of every American to support our president, regardless of what decision he makes.
I feel the same way about voting, but so many people shove the concept down others’ throats that it becomes more important to vote than it does to vote intelligently. Don’t get me wrong; I feel voting is very important. But I advocate not voting at all if you can’t make an intelligent, informed decision. I’ve often not voted on specific issues that I had not (in my opinion) properly researched. Not casting is better than random casting. So I waver between supporting Bush with Iraq because I don’t really know all the facts, but I do not advocate senseless violence based on political agendas. It is a fine line. – RDL
You’re welcome for the comments, Sean. I know it’s always better to debate the facts rather than emotion. Back to Iraq. I think that I stand with most of the country when I say that we will have to wait and see how things develop and then take it from there. I’m not sure about you, but American lives have always been more important to me, no matter what the circumstances.
ok… as i hearing about Iraq and the U.S. We shouldn’t attack un less they attackt he U.S first that when we go in. If the U.S attack first of all they should ask the nation first to see what is our opion to do. Ask of out ROTC is talking Iraq its seem so………..like duh come on now when we ever goin to stop HAVING WAR!!!!!
Is that english you are speaking?
Going through, reading everyone’s comments about this whole war issue, sorta made me think. Me, I’m up for whatever happens… If we go to war, then so be it, if not, then we don’t. But, here’s the thing with me: I do not understand that some people get so angry with each other over the fact that going to war is the only way to go, and others think not. Some of you feel the same way I do. Reason being, we really have no control if we do fight Iraq or not, so all we can do is sit and wait, and just go with the flow of whatever happens, be it terrible, or just grand. All I’m saying is, arguing or what have you, is not going to stop the fact of whatever is going to happen in the future. There, I spoke my mind. I hope no one gets pìssëd øff, because this is America, what happened to FREEDOM OF SPEECH? This is my concern. People get angry at others for speaking their minds… Just accept it, and I accept whatever you guys/gals have to say on this topic.
Hey, I’m all for you speaking your mind. Absolutely. But I disagree with the laissez faire if-we-go-we-go-if-we-don’t-we-don’t-we-have-no-control attitude. Of COURSE we have control. “We the People.” Remember? Our “leaders” don’t get to do things without our permission.
I disagree. We, the people… well, not me… elected George Bush… well, not exactly “elected”… OK, start over! Our system of government, flawed as it may be, gives George Bush the power to act on our behalf, to engage in war, to make decisions without our explicit approval or control. He and other elected officials don’t need our permission to do anything; they answer to us at the polls. Well, sort of… – RDL
Ok, sorry! It’s just I’m not really into our government… Yes, I believe we should have one, but just the “leaders” scare the hëll out of me right now, and they can do anything. I hope you understand that some people are in fear (like me) because, yes, I hate war. Some are not in fear, like you, maybe. It’s just how I feel; it’s like we don’t have a say in anything that our government does, and of course, maybe we do. I feel it’s more of an emotional, mental thing with different individuals… I feel what will happen will happen, and I will be fearful the whole way. I hope you understand my viewpoint.
Well, they let the U.N. inspectors in, so either they are very good at hiding things, or they have nothing to hide. We can also use the fact that if we attack Iraq and do the same as we did in Afghanistan then we’ll take possesion of the oil wells and the prices will go way down.
I’d imagine once greedy Americans got their hands on the oil, they’d raise the prices after a brief price cut…
Is no one concerned with the fact that the UN inspectors seem to find no WMD? As I understand it, GWB has publicly stated that the US has “absolute proof” that Iraq has WMD and that the proof is detailed. He also has stated the US’ intention to share that proof. I can see two reasons for no WMD being found: Either the US is not sharing the proof with the UN. Right now, this seems inexplicably untactical as it undermines the US’ position in this affair. Or the proof has been shared with the UN, and has been proven to be faulty. Oops! Either way, there seems to be something fishy here… Anyone have a third explanation? And, by the way, I just stumbled in here on this site. From what I’ve seen it has an unusually open debate climate (and moderation!) on issues pertaining to US policies, even in the face of some pretty [provocative] anti-US sentiments and comments… Being a part-time critic myself, I tip my hat to that!
I think critical mass has been obtained. There isn’t any backing down now. To do so would only make Saddam even more bold, make the UN the true joke that it is, bolden the Iranian leaders to crack down harder on their Democracy groups, bolden North Korea to screem louder and generally make our country the laughing stock of the world (paper tiger). According the UN resolutions, the burden of proof is on Saddam, not the inspectors. Also, he still hasn’t accounted for the hostages he acquired at the end of the war (Kuwaiti citizens, foreign workers, etc.,). I believe we will have a coalition. Some countries will be willing (England, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Russia, to name a few), some will come with conditions (Newer NATO countries, Turkey, Kuwait), while others will come kicking and screaming (France and Germany…after we show them evidence that they were selling forbidden items to Iraq as well as expose their business deals with Saddam). I was against this war until recently. I was too afraid of the consequences and took counsel of my fears (I can only imagine the similar debates/concerns in 1775, 1860, 1917 and 1940). The biggest (and most important) decisions are often the scarriest. To have this madman giving/selling WOMD is too great a threat. Reluctantly, I feel we must do what must me done. I pray that this war will be swift and that Saddam and his thugs will be taken to justice.