Saddam Hussein is obviously a very dangerous and deranged man. He views himself as being on the same level as a god. He has no respect for human life other than his own. He lies, cheats and murders to advance himself and to get what he wants. Saddam Hussein is obsessed with power and he will not stop at anything when it comes to gaining and maintaining his power. Is this the type of man we should allow to have and control chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? This is the big debate going on right now in the United States.
We are in the process of deciding whether or not we should invade Iraq to remove Saddam from power and / or remove his extremely deadly and dangerous weapons. A persons’ first response might be, “absolutely not.” But I would ask everyone to look more deeply into the issue before deciding what he or she thinks should or should not be done. Saddam wants power and control over the world and somehow thinks he is entitled and destined to this. Given the opportunity, he would attempt to take that control. In his mind, the United States is the biggest, and perhaps the only power keeping him from his destiny of global domination.
He hates and wants to destroy our government, our economy, and our way of life. Knowing this, do we want Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction in his power? Some questions and concerns that have been raised concerning the US invading Iraq have been, “Should the United States be allowed to dictate another country?”Is it not morally and ethically wrong for the US to start a war?” These are only a couple of the many concerns the American people have. My answer is this: you have to look at the whole picture. There is rarely such a thing as right or wrong, good or evil, black or white. Most things fall into a middle gray area. What we must decide is which end of the scale is it closer to: the black or the white, the good or the evil, the right or the wrong? No, we probably should not be dictating another country.
The Term Paper on Power S Separation United State
It has proved true, historically, that there is a natural tendency of governments to assume as much power as possible. To prevent this from happening in the United States, the framers of the Constitution divided the functions of the federal government among three branches: the executive branch, legislature or the lawmaking branch and the judiciary. These should be separate and enjoy equal power ...
Yes, perhaps invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power would be ethically wrong. But would it be better for the United States to watch and wait for Saddam to strike at us before we make a move? We know he is a threat. We know that with every passing month he is getting closer and closer to being prepared for a war against the US. Should we just sit back and wait for another 9/11 to happen before we do something about it? If you would fault the government for taking action now to prevent a tragedy, don’t you dare fault them for waiting until the tragedy happens, killing innocent people, before they make a move.
That is, after all, what you have told them to do.
