America is the world's defender

America is in the midst of the first real war that Generation X and Y have seen. Anti-war advocates have protested with signs reminiscent of the 1960s, while the men and women who defend our country don gas masks. This war is highly covered, highly anticipated, and highly controversial. Before choosing sides, it is important to be educated on the issues surrounding the war in progress.\nIn an ideal world, war would not exist. All people could live side by side in peace. However, this is not the Utopia of which Thomas Moore dreamt. This is reality. We live in a world in which people fight over land, religion, politics, culture and material goods. The world has experienced international terror first hand. Have we, as Americans, forgotten the terrible tragedy that occurred on Sept. 11? Surely we realize that sheer evil not only exists, but is thriving. \nAmerica prides itself on being a diplomat -- a defender of those in need. Yet, how can we allow those who are creating weapons of mass destruction with the sole intent of killing as many civilians as possible to remain in power? \nThere are those who believe in alternatives to war. They claim that weapons inspections will work and that the United Nations can deter Saddam Hussein. However, empirical evidence proves otherwise. Simply look at Hussein's track record: according to a Feb. 21 article in the New York Times by Kenneth Pollack, in 1974 he attacked Iraq's Kurds, he invaded Iran in 1980, invaded Kuwait in 1990, attempted an assassination against former President Bush in 1993 and threatened to attack Kuwait in 1994. What is it in his record that makes the case for deterrence? \nIn these cases, both the United States and the United Nations were very adamant in their contempt for Hussein's actions. Deterrence did not work, and neither did the weapons inspections. Former weapons inspector Richard Spertzel said, in an interview with National Review Online, "The inspectors don't have a chance." Spertzel went to Iraq over 40 times, and says the inspections "were not very effective, and there's no reason to believe that conditions have changed -- if anything they've gotten worse."\nPollack's New York Times article points out that past international intelligence poorly predicted the progress made in Hussein's Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In the 1980s, nuclear experts thought the Iraqis were at least five or 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency did not believe that such a program even existed. \nThe Persian Gulf War of 1991 proved that not only did Iraq have a nuclear weapons program, but that they were less than two years away from producing a weapon. \nAfter several years of once again believing Hussein had no nuclear weapons program, the international community was shocked to find out in 1998 that Hussein had started programs to build and hide his weapons. In 2001, German intelligence concluded that Iraq was only three to six years away from having a nuclear weapon. \nClearly, pinpointing an exact date for the completion of Saddam Hussein's weapons is a formidable task. As the saying goes, it is better to err on the side of caution. If we lived in an ideal world, deterrence would work and there would be no need for war. Unfortunately, this is not the case.