War or not?

I'm interested in what everyone thinks about the whole war with Iraq thing. Is it a good idea or not and why?

Personally I think Saddam is a bad man who is power hungry and has been proven to be uncooperative and very dangerous. I would support measures to stop him. After 9/11 alot of people questioned how on earth our security and intelligence wasn't able to prevent the tragedy. Now I think there is proof that Saddam can do something against the US but some are saying not to stop him - wait until he actually does something. But do we want to wait until he strikes us first?

[mommax3]

I just was reading more in depth about this -- my U.S. News & World Report came in the mail today. I think we need to get rid of Saddam -- he will only mean trouble for our country, one way or another, if he is left alone. I hate the thought of war and casualties, (ours or theirs) but he is like the sandbox bully that needs to be taken down a peg or two (or taken out completely). Personally, I don't want to wait until he does something to us first.

Just my .02!

Sally

[PrincessFiona]

well...

I agree that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous leader, but I guess I disagree about the idea of a preemptive strike for several reasons: Most importantly, we dont' have the support of the United Nations. I think that the UN acts kind of as a system of checks and balances for the world... We are asking a great deal of the world community, but the US is not willing to join the world community in it's global warming 'war on terror'. We still have not finished things up in Afghanistan and the horrible conflict between Israel and Palestine continues to rage on with no real solution in site. That region of the world is in such uproar right now....without the unanimous support of our own government and people (that are divided on the issue), unanimous support of the world communities and increased stability in the region, I don't know what we hope to accomplish. We don't know if we 'took out' bin Laden...what makes us thing we'll be able to target Hussein accurately....and if we do remove Hussein from power what are the potential consequenes? Would the new leader be better or would we leap from the frying pan into the fire? If we are going to choose the leader, are we prepared to present ourselves as an imperialist country that takes down the leaders that we deem dangerous? Would these actions deepen the growing hatred of 'america' by some extremists? In addition, Hussein has not taken any new action in the last 6 weeks...why now? Why not a year ago? There doesn't seem to be a new 'cause'.....and that makes this a bit hard to swallow. We just can't strike out against leaders because we are afraid of them or think that at sometime in the future they 'might' develop weapons of mass destruction....

At the end of the day, there are many dangerous countries that we do business with...ruled by dictators who have committed crimes against their people...ie..Pakistan, Saudia Arabia...even China. Saudia Arabia and Pakistan are also likely to have been harboring terrorists....are they next on our list? And...how will we distribute our troops so that we have adequate coverage?

Where do our responsibilities lie globally? Can we really demand that the world support us in our 'war on terror' when we don't participate in world issues that we choose not to find relevent to us (ie..global warming).

As you see, the idea of attacking Iraq bring up many questions in my mind that remain unanswered...and so I stand on the other side of the attack Iraq spectrum...


Kris

[Auspicious]

Ditto to everything Kris said.

Kris, you bring up some very good points. However, with regards to the UN, while it was developed to be the "checks and balances" as you say, it has done nothing to enforce its regulations. It's like telling a child repeatedly behave or else and when the child doesn't, there are no consequences. Soon the child (in this case, Hussein) learns that "stop it" doesn't really mean anything and he can do what he wants because ultimately the UN won't do anything about it. I believe that Saddam has accumulated weapons of mass destruction or else he would let the UN in to check it out and he refuses to do that. If he has nothing to hide or has done nothing that can be viewed as dubious at best, why the secrecy?

No, we haven't solved the problem with bin Laden, you're right. Heck, it's crazy that we don't even know where he is. But we do know where Hussein his and he is brazen enough to not care that we know. But it appears that Congress has approved of Bush's plans (as I've read in the paper this morning) which shows me that Congress must know that something must be done.

I'm a big believer that there are many, many things the average citizen doesn't know about their own country... I don't think we'd go to war just for the sake of Bush finishing up "Daddy's business"... I just believe that there is a hell of a lot that we (average citizens) don't know... and the truth is... I don't want to know. Whatever it takes to secure my freedom... it that means war, so be it. That whole part of the world is one huge mess.... <sigh> I say just pave it... give the kids a place to skateboard....

But seriously... I cannot stand Bush.... but I would support going to war. Plus, it gives Bush something to focus on so he doesn't screw things up here in the U.S. and drag us backwards.... yeah, I'm a liberal!

Carey

[DCJenn]

I started to reply but since I hate George W. Bush and everything he stands for with such an incredible passion that even if it were a great idea to blow Iraq off the map- I'd hate it on principle. But it's not even a semi-good idea, for all of the reasons that Kris so eloquently stated, and because he's such a f-ing idiot.

and yes, I'm Liberal, very, very Liberal. (and so is my husband the Army Officer...who yes, just put Ft. Bragg on his preference list for next year- deep soothing breaths)

Jenn

Kris is spot on.

I really really really do not like this whole idea of war and IMO (and its very possible that i am ignorant and uninformed) stems from a lack of understanding and tolerance.

I guess I am quite critical of US foreign policy, the government seems to intervein when it is of importance to them, but when it isnt (a la kyoto, east timor so on and so forth).

Pre-emptive strikes are a bad idea and make the US government as bad as those they consider the enemy.

The US embassy in Bali was bombed on the weeked killing nearly 200 people so far - the suspected work of terrorist, perhaps in response to the Australian involvement in East Timor. How will the US government respond to this?

Carey is right that it may distract Bush's attention from royally messing things up in the US - but for those of us in the rest of the world is spells disaster (that is if he has any concept of the rest of the world).

I agree that Saddam probably has 'weapons of mass destruction' (which is interesting seeing as Iraq cannot have radiotherapy linear accelerators to treat cancer as they generate radiation and are considered weapons) is this to say that the US does not? Or that Bush would not use them? That is what really frightens me about pre-emptive attacks.

I am very dissapointed that the Prime Minister has offered support to this war, for such a long terrorists thought that Australia was a small country next to Germany.

my 0.02

Tegan

[DCJenn]

Tegan-

Thanks for giving us the perspective form the other side of the world. I completely agree with your perspective. I was completely stunned and very disappointed when we backed out of the Kyoto accords (along with everything else)- we looked like such buffoons.

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

Politics....

Kris is spot on

I love that expression! Our family friends in N. Ireland also use the "dead on" expression...both are lovely 8)

I gained a very different perspective on our foreign policy while living abroad for years. I left the US believing the "we're #1" mantra and came back several years later certain in the knowledge that we are one of the many great countries in this world..... It is true that we as Americans aren't as educated about what is going on in the world or in our own country......the news in this country is a catastrophe.....the 'No Spin Zone' is nothing but a spin zone...and most of what is reported is biased.

International news reports are summed up in the "80 seconds around the world" reports on the major networks, and it is really sad.

At the end of the day, President Bush had the opportunity to lay out the facts to the world...we may not know what the dirty details are, but these were made available to the global powers...who analyzed the information and concluded that a preemptive strike would not be prudent.

We live far away from Iraq and the damage that we will cause. We've become too removed from war.

Wow, I'm so grateful that we are having this debate here and that we all feel free to speak our minds...whether we agree with each other or not...

Ahhhhh...Freedom!

Kris