This is hard for me, because in general I consider myself liberal. But I'm finding I have a hawkish streak. I voted yes. Even if it is for oil. Even if he doesn't pose an immediate threat. A good thing could still result from bad or mixed intentions. There are right things to do and wrong things to do. Removing Saddam from power and and instilling a democracy created by and voted for by the people of Iraq is the right thing to do. If that's imperialist of me to say, then so be it. I've spent some time reading the news about this and I've read up on Saddam's background and it horrifies and disgusts me. Take some time to see how this guy got to power, how he kept power, what he did to his enemies (including his own family,) and also the most valuable lesson he learned- that developing WMD is the ticket to him being a world power and never being ignored. Imagine Kim Jong Il, one of the most vile evils on the planet, must now actually be pandered to and negotiated with because he's developed the big toys. Saddam will never be allowed to reach that pinnacle. After reading what I've read, I'll never understand the statement "yeah, Saddam is bad, but..." but what? When confronted with an evil of such great proportions, what is there to say? The so called "war" with Iraq would last a week, maybe two on the outside. And the whole argument that the US supports other dictators doesn't justify leaving this guy alone. Erasing this man is the right thing to do, period.
I have been on the fence on this one. Not really. I voted for GW and am sooooo happy I did. As a former soldier I would support the troops if they were sent into my neighborhood and instructed to burn all of the churches. That being said the case against inaction is overwhelming. The people that support the war will not sleep easy until Hussein is removed from power. The people against the war will not be happy until Bush is out of power. somebody please argue this in a different thread. 12 years. 'Nuff said. Let's get it over with.
I thought it was pretty terrible and dishonest. If he'd thrown in a few more Nazi/Hitler references he might have won me over though.
I think we should. Our fellow American's in the past sacrificed for the future of the country. We should do the same. It's the american way.
My main reason for not wanting to go to war RIGHT NOW is that I don't want the US to pay for all of the cost of removing Saddam. These are UN sanctions that he is violating and the UN as a whole should pay for it.
I voted yes. Trouble has been brewing over there for a long time, and sooner or later something major is going to go down. Might as well get matters taken care of now rather than wait for a pre-emptive strike by Sadaam in 3 or 4 years. Plus, as much as one might be inclined to mistrust Bush, I'd rather place my trust in him than in someone like Sadaam, though he does look quite dapper in that nice brown suit he's been wearing lately.
I'm against the way the Bush Administration has sought to go to war for several reasons and here's why: 1) COST The figures I've seen for this war have ranged from $50 to $200 billion (let's assume $100 billion). At this time, our economy is on shaky ground and many of our states (including Texas) are experiecing budget shortfalls. While it is admirable to seek an end to the suffering of the innocent Iraqi citizens, the services we provide for less fortunate Americans are being choked by a lack of funding. It is even more galling that this administration is making promises to our allies of economic packages and grants in exchange for their support of a war. If the Bush team had presented a plan for paying for Iraq (or had included it in its 2003 budget proposal), I would be less worried about this. However, the Bush team has done neither of these and leads me to believe that the financial planning for this war has been minimal at best. Furthermore, the potential $100 billion is only the cost of the war, not the more lengthy and more expensive task of rebuilding an economically self-sufficient Iraqi democracy. The Marshall cost the American taxpayers $11,820,700,000, plus $1,505,100,000 in loans that were repaid (supporting link) . Roughly adjusted for inflation, that's about $83,654,944,234.70 in today's money (link for inflation calculator - enter years 1951 and 2001) . If we are genuinely interested in rebuilding Iraq, I think we can count on spending at least that much and maybe more. And if we find ourselves short on cash and pull out of Iraq too early, we will be doing a bad job (more on this later). Obviously, cost alone should not be a deterrant to action, especially when dealing with a tyrant like Saddam Hussein. However, the cost should be enough of an incentive for the Bush Administration to seek the cooperation of other nations, which leads me to my next point. 2) International Relations The Bush team has approached the war with Iraq with a "we're right and we don't care what you think" from the very beginning. With Rumsfeld calling some of our closest allies "old Europe" and the Bush openly stating his indifference for international opinion, it's clear that this administration feels nothing else matters but itself. As mentioned above, we spent $11 billion after WWII to ensure that Europe would be an economic partner and ally. Bush has done more to damage this relationship than any modern president. However, the current administration could possibly win them over if they took the same care to diplomatic relations as they do praying. During the Gulf War, Secretary of State James Baker visited every ally to explain our position and to listen to theirs. The Bush team has done nothing of the equivalent. I know many people here feel that Europe (in particular France and Germany) are just being ornery in order to spite the US or to protect their investments in Iraq, and this is probably true to some extent. However, we're all guessing at these reasons because there's been no real dialogue between ourselves and these countries. All we get are some soundbites from the UN presentations that have taken place. We may not be totally ignorant of their motives, but a little information is sometimes more dangerous than none at all. Rather than hypothesize and name-call, Bush should be arranging a face-to-face meeting with all the leaders to set real deadlines and real goals. Because a little humilty on our part might convince them that our motives are more genuine. But I don't think Bush is humble enough to do this, and such a leader is never fit to run a war. 3) Rebuilding Iraq If our goal is regime change, where is the plan for rebuilding a country that has been under both a 30 year brutal dictatorship and decade long sanctions? More than anything, America will be judged by how well it rebuilds Iraq and whether the democratic experiment there works. it's nice to talk about how it will be governed, but we need to do more than that. Are we considering how we will manage the century-old tensions between the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis? During a speech, Thomas Friedman mentioned that Bush wasn't even aware of the ethnic differences of Iraq until recently. I hope the Bush team is better informed than the president, because our ability to get these people to work together will determine whether the rebuilding of Iraq will be a success. Otherwise, we may be simply opening up a new powderkeg of land fighting and terrorism similar to Israel/Palestine. Does anyone think that America (or more importantly, the Middle East) will really be any more secure with such a scenario. Basically, I think the Bush team committed itself to action when it had barely thought through what that action entailed. I do not want any of my friends in the military endangered by what I see as half-assed planning.
Very good post X-Pac...wow! Removing Saddam is the right thing to do since we are already at War and I feel Iraq is one of a few haven countries for terrorists to rely on. I know it won't limit all nations with evil dictators such as he, but it is one less avenue for terrorism to platform. It is the right thing to do in safegaurding our children's future as well as making the future a bit brighter for the helpless subjects living there whose very lives is at Saddam's twisted whim...
