[Mar 21, 12:13]Ryan K [e-mail] While I don't wholly support this particular war, I do support the disarmament and reorganization of Iraq and any nation that has and will support/finance/engage in terrorism.
It is a proven fact that Saddam and his regime financed terrorist cells... both al Qaeda (indirectly) and others. It is a fact that he has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, on his enemies and his own citizens. Just because we've lived in "peace" with for the past decade doesn't mean it will remain that way. He is a person who apparently has no moral dilemma killing anyone in the blast radius of his weapons and just because he might not be capable of attacking US citizens on US soil doesn't mean he should be allowed to amass such weapons freely... especially when the UN (Not just the USA) has voted not to allow it.
There is no concrete proof that he currently has these weapons, but there is no proof that he doesn't and the fact that he wasn't cooperating with inspectors only serves to raise the doubts of the world. I think the stories of torture he's inflicted upon his own people could be saved for another argument.
I do not think a pre-emptive strike is/was necessary.. I think the UN could get their dicks out of their own asses and actually put some of their influence into action to get him disarmed and possibly out of power. However, it wasn't getting done, in the past 12+ years and France and Germany have basically stated that it will never get done if they have something to say about it.
Odds are that this war on Iraq will be just as ineffective for the "War on Terrorism" as the Afghanistan operation was. If anything good comes of this particular skirmish it'll be removing a bad person from power and hopefully setting up a democratic government of the Iraqi people.
As far as Korea goes... Not all fights can be fought at once. It is quite obvious that Korea isn't going to use their nuclear weapons in a terrorist strike. The fact that they're jumping around like dejected little dogs shows that they want the attention and that they want a way to get into the world view. Iraq and Yemen and al Qaeda etc... on the other hand, are quite happy to keep silent about what they're doing or planning until they invade Kuwait, or bomb a night club in Southeast Asia, or a ship in the Yemeni sea, or office buildings in New York. That's the difference between terrorism and global conflict.
This Iraqi war is not necessary in it's current form but some type of serious action was.. whether military or political. I can pretty much guarantee that once Bush has wiped his hands of Saddam, he'll move on to something else. Yemen, IRA... whoever.
I just hope he realizes that we understand there's an ulterior motive behind this particular action being taken now... he's guaranteed his big corporate oil status for years to come.
BTW... before any of you respond, be sure you've read my whole post before you spout off... I hate it when people only look at the headlines and try to form an argument.
[Mar 21, 13:03]Luke [e-mail] "This Iraqi war is not necessary in it's current form but some type of serious action was.. whether military or political."
And to that I agree 100%. I'm not suggesting we simply ignore Iraq. It's just that in this case war was neither the only or best option.
[Mar 23, 02:21]Mark Sadly, war is the only option. The fact that he is a terrrible murder is enough to get rid of him in my book. Is it not funny how the citizens welcome us?
[Mar 23, 08:39]Luke [e-mail] How is war the only option?
And if being a murderer was enough to start a war, we'd have started quite a few more.
Obviously, the news doesn't show you all the people that *don't* welcome us.
[Mar 23, 15:06]Mark He wont leave any other way. The news shows me the majority favor us there.
[Mar 23, 15:06]Mark He wont leave any other way. The news shows me the majority favor us there.
[Mar 23, 18:17]Luke [e-mail] Again, I just don't understand the "urgent need" to get him out. Why has he suddenly become a major problem *now*? What changed from the previous 10 years?
[Mar 24, 10:21]anonymous What changed in the past 10 years?
[Mar 24, 23:17]Mark Urgent need now? I honestly don't know. We can't just wait and cross our fingers that he will go away. Why wasn't he taken care of years ago? I honestly don't know that either.
[Mar 26, 23:11]anonymous >What changed in the past 10 years?
>
>How about the President?
Except, during the Clinton Administration American troops were sent to protect Kuwait after Iraqi troops began amassing on the border. And after an Iraqi assassination attempt on former President Bush was thwarted, the Clinton Administration sent an "appropriate message" in the form of a cruise missile direcly on Saddam's compound. :) And in the beginning of his first term, Bill Clinton made the decision to enter Somalia without major world support or UN support.
So what's changed in the last 10 years is actually our own awareness and the advent of the Internet. Relatively speaking, the world and America has remained the same, but no one has told it.
[Mar 26, 23:26]Luke [e-mail] The point of "awareness" is a good one. Things probably *would* be much different 10 years ago if our state of communication was what it is today. Would Clinton have seen a larger backlash? Probably.
That said, a key difference between then and now is that unlike prior conflicts, we started the aggression this time around. We fired the first shot, so to speak.
[Mar 26, 23:33]anonymous Resolutions are only as meaningful as the organization creating them, and those abiding by them. If the Iraqi regime had never invaded Kuwait, or signed a cease-fire treaty, America would have no right to re-invade Iraq. And if the UN hadn't intervened the first time, and allowed America to finish the job, we might not be having this conversation.
[Mar 26, 23:52]Luke [e-mail] Keep in mind that resolution 1441 does NOT specifically state that a war will be started provided Iraq does not (immediately) comply. The closest to that would be:
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"
Like it or not, war wasn't the only possible option for forcing Iraq to comply.