 |
Does this reasoning justify killing lots of innocent Iraqi's?
Again, I agree, that even if a war is justified with a moral argument, the costs and benefits must be weighed.
This is where the "extra reasons" fit in. While Hussein's treatment of his own people is not a justification for war, it makes war less objectionable. Even supposing we have over-estimated Hussein's threat to us, the Iraqi people as a whole are likely to benefit from Hussein's removal.
Why attack Iraq, when others also have weapons, especially North Korea?
First, I have never heard anyone argue this point with a sincere plan to attack North Korea! People arguing this point seem to be only trying to label the US a "hypocrite". This is a distraction, not a logical argument.
But the answer is that North Korea is a different situation, requiring a different strategy. Containment in Iraq clearly does not work, but we have an alternative. Containment in North Korea may not work, but the alternatives are worse. If containment in North Korea fails, I believe the USA will ultimately withdraw from the region, South Korea and Japan will become nuclear powers, and the world will be a much more dangerous place.
I hope that the UN community will learn a lesson from Iraq, and make containment work in North Korea.
Why not wait for the present inspections to "finish the job"?
UN resolution 1441 gave Iraq "one last opportunity to disarm". I have not heard anyone argue that Hussein really is disarming. There may be other benefits to continuing inspections, but the original purpose of the inspections has been fulfilled - we know Hussein has not disarmed. There might be benefits to continuing inspections - but there are also costs. The costs of a delay - probably including more American battle casualties - must be intelligently weighed against the benefits.
What proof do Americans have that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?
Hans Blix's report and other sources say Saddam Hussein had 30000 chemical weapons plus many other forbidden items. Iraq has never shown plausible evidence that these were destroyed.
The "burden of proof" should be on Iraq to prove it has destroyed these weapons. Somehow the question changed, and now we are supposed to "find a smoking gun". I see this as a political distraction by people opposed to military action for other reasons.
Why is George W Bush acting unilaterally?
Although Iraq is a threat to the world, he is a particular threat to the USA. If he uses terrorists against a city, it will very likely be here, because Hussein sees us as his primary opponent. If Hussein attacks another country again - in the
|
|
