Quote:
Originally posted by Azred:
The original topic title is "Why?" Why attack Iraq, a year and a half after the events of 9/11/2001? Based on the collected intelligence reports, the main Al Queda stronghold was in Afghanistan. Since the evidence pointed to Al Queda being the culprits, go after them where they are hiding. Thus, when intelligence reports show strong links between Iraq and Al Queda, then Iraq finds itself of the list of pending targets.
Is it not the right of a country to defend itself reasonably (yes, I said "reasonably", not "nuke 'em till they glow") against an enemy who has attacked? As soon as the news about Pearl Harbor got to Washington, Congress assembled and passed a declaration of war the next day. There was no talking, no diplomacy, no "cooling off period", no chants of "give peace a chance". No, there was action.
I think those who oppose this proposed military action (since there is no "war" currently in progress) seem to be missing the point that there have been plenty of talks, diplomatic meetings, weapons inspector reports, etc. giving Hussein more than enough time to 1) distance himself from Al Queda and 2) comply with the UN sanctions mandated back in 1991 (sanctions to which he initially agreed). Hussein has had more than a decade to clean up his act. How much more time should he be given?
Were America to be as warmongering a nation as I have heard some suggest, then would we not have already invaded Iraq? Would there not already be an American flag flying over Baghdad?
Is America perfect? No! Yes, we used chemical weapons back in the Vietnam War. Yes, we have used cluster bombs and incendiary devices in our military actions. Yes, we are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on another nation. So what? A nation is like a person--you make mistakes and face difficult choices when you are growing up, but you live and grow and learn.
Protest if you must. Chant. Burn some flags. Hate Bush and America. None of that will matter, though, because when Hussein is gone we will have one less rabid enemy and the Iraqi people will be able to choose their own fate instead of having one handed to them whether they like it or not.
|
Given the rather vague evidence available that Iraq has "strong" if any links to Al Queda, I hardly call the war on terror a principled reason to pre-emptively invade Iraq.
As far as making the world a better place, most of the world is against this conflict, so that shoots this point in the foot right from the start.
Hussien certainly thrives on power and dominion regardless of human suffering, that does not make him unique. He also waged war as an aggressor. The carnage of war is the most horrible thing humanity can do to one another. Whichever-side wins, many sons and daughters become dead bodies. Maybe if it were 1991 and we were all ready to take out the conquering dictator this would be a reasonable argument for starting and creating the carnage of war. It is not 1991 anymore.
The fact alone that Saddam has a sorrid past and
may become a future threat doesn't stack up either.
If Iraq is being watched and monitored, until there is clear and present danger, it is not worth the cost.
I guess you can tell I disagree, but that's okay. [img]smile.gif[/img]