Every war brings with it disagreement. With every related event come mixed opinions and emotions. Controversy is a natural part of war. As such it shows its ugly face in the light of our country's most recent war with Iraq. More so than some wars in that we are fighting a it preemptively in hopes to avoid one in the future.
If war is eminent, then why not push the hands of fate and run the show our way some may say. But others feel that by assuming danger is in the near future, and starting a fight rather than responding to an attack, we have become an imperial power in some sense of the word.
The leader of Iraq at the time the conflict was initiated was Saddam Hussein. The president of the United States believed (on the backbone of what he thought was very solid intelligence) that Saddam was manufacturing nuclear weapons even after he made an agreement with the US to stop their production back during the gulf war. The question is, do we sit around and wait for this man to complete his project? A man who has clearly stated many times that he despises the US and has no problem showing his hostility towards it. If allowed to continue, Saddam would have to power to destroy millions of lives with the push of the button. Those weapons in the hand a radical leader such as him, has always been a worry of many nations in past times.
Warnings were given to let US weapons inspectors into Saddam's supposed nuclear facilities, but he refused. Is it now morally right to take this man down in assumption that he is hiding these weapons? Some say yes. He has done it before and he has stated that he will do it again. But what level of force must be used? What amount of military strength must be involved? The war was said to be the fight against terrorism and after the incident on 9/11, the need to strike back took over. President Bush declared war on Iraq.
Here is where the disagreement comes in. On one side you have the simple...