There's been a lot of debate on whether the US should have gone into Iraq. I personally support the decision.
There's no question that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - this was a fact in the early 90's, and is the reason why the UN resolutions were created. The big question was whether Iraq followed through on the resolutions and properly disposed of these WMD's. The UN inspectors were in place in order to ensure this task was carried out, but these inspectors were eventually denied entry.
We had several choices:
1. Trust Saddam's word that these WMD's were destroyed
2. View his defiance as a impending threat
3. Take the defiance with a grain of salt and wait for an imminent threat
Which of the three choices would you take? I choose option 2. The only real debate I see is whether or not it was an impending threat. I believe it was, but that is based on an opinion I formulated on Saddam's character through the media. I'm open to rebuttals.
If I were in Saddam's shoes, and I had truly destroyed the WMD's .. I would have no problem coughing up the evidence. The only reason I see for Saddam to do what he did was if he was hiding something.
|
Threaded Mode
