The topic of my persuasive argument is "Should America attack Iraq"? I have taken the stance that yes America should. This stance will be founded on the position of Iraq and its dictator in the global community, the UN and the sanctions that have been placed upon Iraq and the responsibilities and personal involvement of the United States in the war against terror. It must be first established, that as the world's only superpower and self proclaimed leader of the free world, America has a responsibility to help foster and encourage peace and democratic principles. Therefore, because of its unique position, any action against a group or state would have to involve the Americans. As the attack of a country requires a large commitment of resources it is logical that any attack would require the Americans to lead the way. .
Now it is reasonable to assume that, especially within the western world, the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is an international criminal and vindicator of terror. It was under his direction that led to the attack of Kuwait, and the murder of many ethnic minorities within Iraq and abroad. It is indisputable that he has used and is still producing biological weapons and recently international agencies have been investigating the possibility of a fledging nuclear program. This alone, I think is more than enough justification for action, and the reality is, if America had not baulked on finishing Saddam in the gulf war, not only wouldn't this speech be written but allot of American officials wouldn't be now wondering why they have to do it all over again. .
After the Gulf War the United Nations imposed heavy sanctions on Iraq, to not only punish, but to help ensure that war didn't occur again. Sanctions are not a new a thing and there has been many cases throughout history where a country has had sanctions imposed upon it, for example Germany. Admittedly some of these sanctions should be lifted, but others such is those that involve weapons of mass destruction, are absolutely essential.
