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.
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 pìššëd off, 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.
I THINK WE SHOULDN’T!!!!!!!!!!!!