82272909
I posted this on the Maxspeak site in response to a post by Haruspex, that was a thoughtful pro war argument. I think they are good anti war points, but far from the only ones that can be made.
Quick comments.
1. In order to prevent Iraq from gaining “regional hegemony over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia” as Haruspex puts it, all we need to do is deter Saddam’s ability to make Nuclear weapons. He’s had Chem and Bio WMDs for years and they haven�t helped him. Stopping him from making nukes is easier than stopping him from making any WMDs, and I would think could be done through diplomacy. Especially considering that the most likely source for nuclear material and know how would come from other countries (Former Soviet states and North Korea come to mind).
2. As for the pros and cons, the largest con in my mind is that attacking Iraq will raise the likelihood of another Al Qeada attack Simply by creating an entire nation of displaced and potentially very angry Arabs. Also, when do you think it will be easier for Al Qeada to get a hold of Iraq�s Chemical and Biological weapons, when they are being hidden by Saddam or when they are being protected by some easily bribed guards after a US attack destabilizes the country. In order to equal the Iraqi WMD strike �what if�s� of the pro-war side, the anti-war side should ask if the war people will be able to live with themselves when a VX attack hits New York, and it ends up the attack was planned in Pakistan while we were mucking around in Iraq.