Saddam Hussein has been in our lives for a very long time. He has been a major part in wars in the past. He is a threat to the United States as well as his own country and other countries in the Middle East. But is he more then just a threat? Is there any argument that would justify killing him and many innocent people in the Middle East because of a threat that Saddam could possibly have weapons of mass destruction? Many people including me are scared of the possibility of war and being attacked again. However, is it ethically right to attack and kill this man for the potential of what he can do? We may be turning the tables on who is being wrong. We have the weaponry to take out their whole country and more. But wouldn't that be just as wrong as if Saddam attacked us?
Respect for others.
This is a very powerful moral standard. Do onto others, as you would want done onto you. Obviously the reason we are contemplating killing Hussein is because we are scared of what he could potentially do to us. However, he has not done anything to force us into taking action. If we cool off and let things take their course and let the hot heads of the Middle East calm down maybe things will be resolved. After all, this is a war on Saddam Hussein, not on the Middle East. If we take action to soon and start a war with Saddam and his army, many innocent Middle Easterners and Americans will be killed
Saddam Hussein is a very powerful man. He has been accused of many things. However, how much proof is there that he has all of these weapons of mass destruction? And...