Critics of the planned War on Iraq cite the following reasons why we should not or cannot do so.
@ We cannot prove that Saddam is connected to the 11 Sept attacks, or to other acts of terrorism. Response: Because Saddam has not committed one crime does not make him innocent of other crimes. Because Saddam does not pose one kind of threat does not mean he poses no threat at all.
@ It is morally wrong to take unilateral action. Response: Because others fear to act or don't want to bear the costs does not mean action is not warranted. The US has asked Europeans for help; they cannot insist on international consensus and cooperation if they ignore our just concerns and grievances. Arab states demand that we solve the Arab-Israeli conflict before helping us against Iraq. In point of fact, Iraq supports the Palestinian uprising and Palestinian terrorists and the conflict there will be less complex if the Saddam regime is removed from Iraq.
@ Invading Iraq will destabilize some friendly Arab regimes. Response: Destabilizing regimes that support terrorism is central to the US strategy. The countries most likely to be destabilized are corrupt dictatorships hated by their own populations. No one would miss the current government of Syria or the religious dictators of Iran. The biggest problem is Saudi
Arabia, a nominal US ally that supports terrorism and resists US policy but is too economically important to ignore, and an invasion of Iraq would probably come closer to stabilizing that destabilizing the pro-Western elements of that regime.
@ We cannot prove that he is building weapons of mass destruction. Response: He is known to have had chemical weapons, biological weapons, and to have made efforts to build nuclear weapons. The UN inspectors remain convinced he still has some of these weapons and is still trying to build more. We do not need proof that would stand up in a court of law to launch an invasion.
@ It will take a decade of US occupation to bring democracy to Iraq. Response: Yes, but worth doing as it will stabilize the entire region.
@ An invasion of Iraq would divert attention and effort away from the war on terror. Response: Removing Saddam is essential to the success of the war on terror, not a diversion from it. The terrorists believe Saddam won the first war with the US because he was not removed from power. Saddam finances many terrorist groups and pays $25,000 to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber.--Stephen V Cole