Click to read about the best places to eat on campus, freshman packing tips, and how to keep in touch with friends.

Better safe than sorry with Iraq

When we were told after Sept. 11 that the world was changed forever, we were told right. Now, we are headed toward a new phase in our war on terror. We are about to start Round II with Iraq, and it seems some Americans do not understand why this step is not only necessary but crucial in our quest to succeed in ridding the world of terror.

Saddam Hussein is definitely a threat to the United States and the entire world. It is safe to say that he does possess some forms of biological or chemical weapons and is working diligently on producing nuclear weapons.

If Hussein gets a nuclear weapon, he can literally take the world hostage. He can threaten to bomb Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or countless other countries in that region. Millions of innocent people would be put at risk and stability in the region would be thrown severely off balance. How would we stop him if he were to possess weapons of mass destruction?

Hussein is not a rational, peaceful leader who would be trustworthy and responsible with that kind of power. We have seen him slaughter his own people, invade surrounding countries and use weapons of mass destruction in the past.

The main goal of the United States is to oust Hussein from power and control Iraq, destroying any possibility of a deadly threat from that country and its dictatorial leader.

The administration will use Iraq’s failure to comply with U.N. regulations as the basis for their whole argument. Then they will throw in the likelihood that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and is eagerly seeking nuclear capabilities.

So far, the first two points do hold true, but here is the part of the argument that you will not hear. If we win the war and Saddam Hussein is killed, a “temporary” democratic system will be implemented in the country. We will then control the oil inside of Iraq and not have to rely on Saudi Arabia.

We will also build sophisticated air bases and military zones inside of Iraq, which will diminish our need for bases inside of Saudi Arabia, further reducing our dependence on the country.

Other countries sponsoring terror will see our force, and the administration hopes that this will influence them to give up all terrorist ties. The plan will attempt to influence countries like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to meet our demands in the war on terror.

The administration also hopes that the democracy we implement in Iraq will spread like falling dominoes throughout the Middle East. This would be a major victory in the war on terror.

We definitely need weapons inspections before the Bush Administration uses military force, but we all know that they will not work. We must be allowed inside of Hussein’s enormous palaces and have access to all areas of the country. We must be allowed to talk with some of their scientists outside of Iraq without intimidation or threats being used. Anything less will not bring forth the truth that we must obtain.

We are in the middle of a global war on terrorism. To think for one second that Iraq is not a crucial part of world terrorism is unintelligent. America’s decision to strike Iraq could result in the death of some of our bravest fighters, but it could also save the lives of countless innocent civilians in the United States and abroad.

Jordan Gorman is a sophomore majoring in mass