Is the war on Iraq perhaps one of the biggest displays of American hypocrisy? The details as to why we want to go to war are still being speculated upon. President Bush urged the United Nations to encourage Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. resolutions or "actions will be unavoidable." Bush said that Saddam has repeatedly violated 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, which include a call for Iraq to disarm its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Iraqi officials rejected Bush's comments (Nation par. 4). The Bush administration says Saddam is intent on acquiring chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to threaten his neighbors in the Middle East. The only way to stop him, according to U.S. officials, is to strike first and decisively. In the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq gave U.N. inspectors unlimited access to search for and destroy weapons of mass destruction and pledged full, final and complete disclosure of its arsenal. Iraq hindered more than it helped the effort, misleading inspectors and refusing access to sensitive buildings. .
The debate to go to war with Iraq is a highly debated issue and the information presented points in the direction of hypocrisy. Until the reasoning behind it is made clearer and makes sense, we should not go to war with Iraq. After the September 11th attack, many high ranking officials as well as the media asked for a military attack against Iraq similar to the ongoing US military operations in Afghanistan, even though so far there has been no evidence linking the Iraqi regime to the terrorist operations in New York and Washington. Although they argue that Saddam Hussein's regime is a constant source of threat to global peace and security, and hence should be eliminated, the fact is that any military strike against Iraq can destabilize the whole Middle East and create more problems for the international community, including the United States.