Hey y'all,
I just thought I'd pose the question. Everyone who has an opinion, please feel free, here's mine:
I think that the UN has to do more to protect citizens all over the world in the near future, and lame inspections for WMD's doesn't cut it. I fear a suicide bomber coming over...not with a bomb, but infected with small pox (if you were born after, I think, 1975, you are NOT immunized against it and once you have it, make a will) or some other god awful creation, killing millions.
Attacking pro's: Protect the world from a fearless tyrant, and make the world a safer place. War could jumpstart our lagging economy, like it did in the past. Would supress terrorist activity in the region.
Attacking con's: If intial attack fails or is slow, we could be a potential target for WMD. It would be expensive and could cost many lives. Oil reserves would suffer (even higher gas prices).
Most of the Iraqi population doesn't share the same beliefs as Saddam (he did use chemical weapons on them ), also half of the army surrendered in the Gulf War without ever firing a shot. So Iraqi support could be somewhat favorable considering. I say, send a couple B-52's and wait for the defication! The only thing that would suck is that we would have to maintain presence in the country until it was stable. That is expensive and well.....Black Hawk Down.
Just my 2c.
~Chuck Vashro
