I want to ask a few questions of logic on the issue of going after Iraq based on fear they are developing weapons of mass destruction. If they really are developing such weapons then aren’t our armed forces at great risk of being attacked with them? Also, isn’t there a grave likelihood of those weapons being used against nearby Israel? And what about the likelihood of an attack on Iraq provoking a biological attack on us at home?
But the Administration argues that overthrowing the regime will be “a cakewalk.” That’s a contradiction – If there are such weapons to justify the attack how can they say it will be so easy?
If such weapons are used, are we going to retaliate? Is Israel? If so, how, and who to retaliate against? Since part of the justification for the idea of attacking Iraq is that the Iraqi people oppose the current government how can we in any way justify attacking a city full of our supposed supporters? Maybe we could attack ANOTHER country!
All of this is in response to the World Trade Center attack of 9/11 even though there is no evidence at all that Iraq had anything to do with that. Using our logic for attacking Iraq in response to 9/11, if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction would this justify our going after, perhaps North Korea.
None of this is to say that we shouldn’t do something about Iraq if there really is evidence that they are again developing weapons of mass destruction. The Administration has not seen fit to share with us any evidence. None at all. Again, if it really is the case, we need to do something. But we also need to think it through, and make an HONEST case to the public. Bush is not doing this.