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.
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
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 šhìt 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.
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 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!!!!!