To answer your question directly, it depends one what you mean by "attacking Iraq". If you mean toppling Saddam and ending his murderous rein of terror, then yes, I am all for that. However, I am not for attacking Iraq at any cost. For instance, I wouldn't support carpet bombing their cities or a nuclear missile strike.
He's murdered thousands of his own people, and no doubt will continue to do so when his dictatorial rule is challenged. The people of Iraq deserve better than that.
It also appears he's hell bent on developing weapons of mass destruction. I believe he's mad. And if he thinks he can use those weapons on the United States through a clandestine terrorist network, I believe he will do so. Some reports suggest his terrorist training camps played a major role in the attack of America on 9/11. I believe it's plausible.
He's also dangerous to world peace. The world is becoming too globally interconnected to allow a mad-man an open invitation to destroy democratic civilizations around the world. Not taking him out of power will embolden him, and give radical Islamic zealots a deeper reason to follow him down his road of fascism.
Potentially, there are many ways to take him out of power. It's up to our military leaders and strategic thinkers to find the best way. Any way we proceed the mission is clear, Saddam must be removed from power.
I agree with President Bush on that.
If we attack Iraq and they in turn attack Israel, strategically it makes sense to keep them out of the conflict. Therefore, protecting Israel from scud missile attacks is an important part of the equation.
I agree with JLA on that too.
Bill Clinton attacked a dictator in Kosovo for far less reasons.
Question: Did you support Bill Clinton when he attacked Kosovo in order to remove Milosovic from power? |
