Video Games Forum - Free Online Arcade and Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Is the War a Pre-Emptive Attack?

The Big Nerd · #1 (**permalink**) 03-27-2003, 08:56 PM

I have been reading a lot of posts from people who are anti war individuals, and I have been fairly impressed by the reasoning used in posts such as Darth_Faction. However, they all seem to have the idea that we are pre-emptively attacking a country that may attack us, and thus we are setting a dangerous precedent.

This war is not pre-emptive though. After the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, Saddam had to cease production of all war, and prove it. Inspectors were tried and kicked out, no fly zones were enforced, but the planes are shot at, etc. Saddam was almost forced to stop those banned weapons programs after the first war, and he agreed to stop them, otherwise the previous war would have gone all the way to Baghdad, Iraq's capital. So we gave him chances after chances after chances, and since then, he has refused to allow scientists to be interviewed, shot at planes in the no fly zone, kicked out inspectors and refused to allow his presidential palaces to be inspected, etc. So finally, with Bush leading the way, the world puts maximum pressure and threats of war on Iraq.

And what happens? Saddam plays games with America. He stalls. Think about it, if he really destroyed the weapons programs, he would have proof, he would allow those who destroyed them to talk about it, he would be EAGER to show the world that he had cooperated so he could get the sanctions lifted. Instead, he lets the inspectors search all over, giving them zero information about where the destruction of the weapons took place, and when bush says thats enough, suddenly they destroy 3 or 4 missiles that go 20 miles out of range.

Bottom line: Saddam is just wasting the worlds time and energy, he has no intention of giving up his WMD ambitions. In other words, he has no intention of living up to the agreement that ended the Gulf War. This war is almost finishing that job, and is therefore NOT a "pre-emptive strike against a country that hasnt threatened us".

I understand why some people feel like it is a pre-emptive strike, but considering all the facts and what has happened in Iraq the last dozen years, I feel like Saddam has had plenty of chances to cooperate and has refused, and therefore the forced removal of his regime is justified.

Opinions?