Should we bomb/strike Iraq

[Joel Glidden]

Ok. I'm going to back up a bit and try to be a bit more constructive (edit) than I have been in earlier posts (/edit). This is the situation as I see it.

• Iraq, in the hands of Saddam Hussein, poses a serious threat to American interests and American allies in the middle east. These include, but are not limited to Israel and U.S. military forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar.
• Saddam has a very well known reputation for his cruelty and willingness to deploy weapons of mass destruction against any reachable target that opposes him - military and civilian alike.
• There exists a great deal of intelligence that suggests that Saddam has continued development in his illicit weapons programs in direct violation of the U.N.
• Saddam has a track record of supporting terrorists. With support from Iraq, a terrorist network could deliver a significant attack against an American city with chemical or biological weapons.
• If Saddam is allowed to proceed in the development of his weapons programs, there exists a significant probability that terrorist networks with his support may obtain nuclear weapons for use against American targets.

That having been said, I'll admit that I know none of this first hand. I have not been to Iraq. I have not interviewed Saddam or any Iraqis that were taken prisoner during Desert Storm. All I have to go on are statements and documents released by U.S. and British intelligence agencies. I could choose not to believe these sources. But what reason could they have to lie to me? If they are being untruthful about Iraq, then who should I believe? Saddam?

Certainly, attacking Iraq will have consequences. But it is my belief that allowing Saddam's power to grow unchecked will have far graver consequences. If the day were to come that Saddam handed a suitcase nuke to Al-Qaeda, do you think he would urge them to try and come to a diplomatic solution before leveling DC?

I'll hang up and listen for a while now.

-Joel