|
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
Ask yourself one question: where will more innocent civilians die? leaving saddam in power where he controls the fate of the sanctioned iraqi people (and terroist factions threatening the world), or changing his regime which has boiled down to happening only through milirtary means?
i've answered the question myself and the best solution for the world with fewest civilian casulaties is to oust him from power as soon as possible! |
hmm.. a good question, and you may well be right, that more would die under saddamns rule. I don't think so, but it's a definite possibility.
However, in my opinion, it is not up to the USA to make this decision nor enforce it. If the UN were to make such a determination, then i would support a multilateral endeavour to remove saddamn from power.
My opinion is that weapons inspectors should go back into the country. They should be escorted by military convoys, and if force is required to ensure that all possible weapons sites can be inspected, then the convoys should be allowed to use military force.
We need to ensure that saddamn does not have weapons of mass destruction.
However, this approach will not be taken. This morning, the US and UK launched an air attack against Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp?pne=msn
I believe the reason for using an air attack, instead of sending in ground troops is that it is obviously much safer to drop smart bombs on your enemy from 15,000 feet than to send soldiers in on the ground where they could become targets of enemy forces. this is a way to maximize devastation of your enemy, and minimize risk of your forces, and is a common tactic of the USA after so many americans died in Vietnam.
Unfortunately, the US does NOT have the support of the rest of the world in this bombing. Canada does not support it, we want PROOF, and i'm proud of my prime minister.
for your convenience i will post some quotes from the msnbc article above, showing who is for this war, and who is against it.
The Arab world
Egypt: President Hosni Mubarak says there is not enough evidence to justify military action.
Iran: Tehran is strongly opposed to U.S. plans.
Jordan: King Abdullah has campaigned against a military strike and said Jordan will not allow U.S. troops to operate from its territory.
Saudi Arabia: A key ally during the Gulf War, the kingdom has rejected any role in a new campaign.
Syria: Damascus, while no friend of Saddam Hussein, is opposed to U.S. action.
Canada: “Unlikely” to join a U.S.-led invasion unless proof emerges that Saddam Hussein plans to attack the Western world.
China: Opposes military action, demands the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq.
Germany: The government, in the midst of an election battle, has been loudest among the European allies in criticizing U.S. plans.
India: Opposes armed action against any country, “more particularly with the avowed purpose of changing a regime.”
Russia: Moscow staunchly opposes U.S. action and has recently improved its own relations with the Iraqi government.
United Nations: Secretary-General Kofi Annan has urged the United States to resist attacking Iraq.
This is not good. the US should NOT be taking military action against a country when so many other countries oppose it. This sets the stage for more hatred of america, which is obviously growing, even on this small message board. it might even start a world war.
just to not appear biased here are the countries that DO support this attack:
Israel: A firm supporter of the U.S. policy to oust Saddam Hussein, the government has urged President Bush not to delay military action. Meantime, the Israeli public is being prepared for retaliatory Iraqi missile attacks in the event of an American attack.
and here are the maybes:
Australia: The government has promised to give “serious consideration” to a request for military help from the United States.
Bahrain: Headquarters of the Navy’s 5th fleet, the tiny Persian Gulf island is already home to more than 4,000 U.S. troops. The government, while officially opposed to military action against Iraq, is expected to allow the U.S. to operate from its bases in the country.
Britain: Prime Minister Tony Blair and other officials have repeatedly said it is too early to make a decision about whether to participate in such an attack, but Britain is expected to provide some military help if asked.
Kuwait: No friend of Saddam Hussein, Kuwait has expressed reservations about a U.S. attack but would likely help in the event of military action. There already are thousands U.S. Army soldiers are based in Camp Doha near Kuwait City.
Qatar: Although officially opposed to an attack, the government has permitted the United States to rapidly upgrade its al Udeid air base over the past year. Commander of U.S. Central Command Tommy Franks has said the base is being developed for "times of crisis."
Turkey: NATO member and Iraq neighbor, the government is worried about the fallout from a “regime change” in Baghdad, especially when it comes to the separatist aspirations of restless Kurds in northern Iraq and Turkey.
Even the UN is saying not to do this! It's a tragedy, and i worry for the future.
|
