Demonstrations opposing military action both domestically and internationally have been growing in number, with many viewing the Bush agenda for war as suspect. As one journalist describes, “He wants control of Iraq’s oil; he wants a quick war to enhance his re-election prospects in 2004; he wants to avenge his dad” (McGeary 36).
b) The U.N. lacks full support of member nations with respect to U.S. military action against Iraq. U.N. foreign-policy chief Javier Solana warned that “without proof that Saddam harbors banned weapons, it would be very difficult to support the war” (McAllister 15). Many member nations are still opposed to military intervention believing the purpose of the U.N. is the resolution of differences through negotiation and diplomacy.
C) The U.S. claims Iraq is guilty of wanting to build nuclear weapons and that this is a scenario that must not be allowed. However, the U.S. argues that military action is needed because of this. Yet the U.S. negotiates with North Korea who is also guilty of possessing nuclear weapons and reviving its nuclear program. It is unfair we negotiate with them while threatening the use of force against Iraq for the same behavior. As John Howard argues, “Other countries have developed nuclear weapons” (1).
d) The U.S. must not wage military action against Iraq until it provides more proof that they have breeched U.N. banned weapons provisions. The Bush Administration keeps referring to Iraq’s desire to get his hands on nuclear weapons. This comes in the face of weapons inspector arguments that “no evidence has been found that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program” (Special 27). Nevertheless, this argument is often used as justification for unilateral military action by the U.S.
e) The U.S. cannot act unilaterally without undermining the credibility of the U.N. and of the U.S. If the U.S. takes it upon itself to act without