Woah. This should be a teevee ad.

The fact that we're allowed to protest against the U.S. killing Iraqi citizens and the Iraqi citizens can't protest against their own impending deaths from U.S. led bombings doesn't make the war protestors wrong.
I think it's tragic that Iraqi citizens have to live under an oppressive regime. But that doesn't make it the case that war is acceptable, much less warranted. The propositions that "Saddam is bad" and that "war is bad" are not mutually exclusive.

Let's play a game:

I think it's tragic that Iraqi citizens have to live under an oppressive regime. But...

Do you see the error in that sentence?

If you oppose war with Saddam, you oppose the allies' plans to bring democracy and human rights to the region.

If you can live with that sort of thing, that's fine. I can't. I won't. Nor will I let people like you forget just exactly what it is you're defending.

Well said, Dean...it's not a price I'm willing to pay either.

Amy, do you really think the average Iraqi cares at this point who liberates them? In case you didn't notice, there was a similar anti-American march in Bahgdad over the weekend...at which only 3,000 Iraqis participated. Can you possibly extrapolate a clue from that? Do you really think Saddam would prevent his citizens from protesting their "own impending deaths from U.S. led bombings"?

War is sometimes necessary to eliminate evil. And the world has given peace a chance for the last 12 years...Dean's just showing you the results.

excellent Dean. just excellent. that's all i have to say. very well done and said.

Wow! Thank you for that. I'd chip in money to put that on TV.

Outstanding job, Dean.

Wow! Very moving.

Completely awesome.

Just to be clear, this was created by Dissident Frogman. I'm only running it. Others are welcome to as well.

"Saddam is bad" and "war is bad" are not mutually exclusive. The point, however, is that war may be bad, but Saddam is *worse*. What Dean leaves out of his excellent Flash presentation is the fact that we shall not be going to war to avenge those lives or save the lives of their neighbours and relatives. We go to war to protect ourselves from Saddam's weapons. That we will eliminate the Iraqi people's greatest source of misery is a fringe benefit for us, and of incalculable value for them.

March 3rd is the new moon. Think they can hang on that long?

"If you oppose war with Saddam, you oppose the allies' plans to bring democracy and human rights to the region.

There is a lot of talk about bringing Democracy to Iraq, but did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. ISN'T going to bring real Democracy to Iraq?

Read "Our Hopes Betrayed" and see what you think. I think that bringing Democracy to Iraq is a laudable goal, but I don't think opposing the war is opposing Democracy in Iraq. People have been trying to equate opposition to war to support for Saddam and his regime and that just isn't true. You use some very powerful images in support of your cause. Now imagine that those images came about because of U.S. bombs and bullets. How do you feel now? If we ever hope for a better world, a better place to live, we have to start now. We have to take those first hard steps to resolving our conflicts in a more diplomatic fashion and with full support of our most important allies.

And for the record, the North Korean regime has a record on human rights that is at least as horrid as Saddam's, but we have resolved to use diplomacy to resolve that crisis. Why the difference? Because North Korea already has Weapons of Mass Destruction? Well, so does Iraq, supposedly, which is why we want to go in there so badly, evidently.

The one real difference is "oil". Iraq has it. North Korea doesn't. Funny how war for oil isn't quite as humanitarian as "Defending Democracy". That's why no one claims that as a reason to go to war. Instead we are fed high and noble causes for war such as "Liberating Iraqis" or "Defending Democracy" or "Defeating Terrorism" or "Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction" or "Securing the Peace" or whatever.

One difference is that we've tried diplomacy for 12 freaking years with Saddam & it hasn't worked with him. War should be a last resort, which is one reason we're not bombing North Korea as we speak.

Another difference is that we're sure that NK has nukes...it's not as clear whether Saddam does, though it is fairly clear that he's at least trying to get them. Saddam does have, IMO, bio & chemical weapons, which are a threat to us. North Korea is much more likely to hit its neighbors than us with its nukes; Saddam is much more likely to supply the terrorists with his bio & chemical weapons.

It's all well & good to say there's other means than war to resolve these issues, but I've yet to hear anyone with a viable, realistic alternative when diplomacy has so clearly failed. At some point, you have to back up your words with actions, or your words have no effect on anyone.

The argument about not helping the oppressed Iraqis because someone might get the oil is on par with not allowing me to stop a rapist because I would enjoy kicking the living sh*t out of the rapist.

I'm thinking the rapee wouldn't mind.

Maybe you folks who are against intervention enjoy watching the slaughter, in that secret black thing you call a heart. Just as long as you can feel superior, it doesn't matter what happens to these people.

"See how much better we are than the thugs who perform these acts of barbarity?"

"See how much better we are than the thugs who would go to war to rescue the victims?"

You have consigned them all to hell on earth while you posture and preen about the oil, "real" democracy, Mumia or just about any other PERSONAL gripe with the system. They continue to die horrible deaths while you quibble about multilateralism vs unilaterlism, perfect vs adequate and who will get the oil.

Your thought processes are no deeper than an oil slick and I'm sure you will continue to find ways to avoid facing the real issue..

We either stand for protecting the weak and helpless or we stand for nothing.

"Saddam does have, IMO, bio & chemical weapons, which are a threat to us. North Korea is much more likely to hit its neighbors than us with its nukes; Saddam is much more likely to supply the terrorists with his bio & chemical"

I think you've hit upon the real difference between those that are for the war with Iraq and those that are anti-war, at least in my mind. I do believe that Saddam has biological and chemical weapons. I do not believe that he is going to supply terrorists with these weapons. For one, his regime will more than likely be the first target of the terrorists. One of Al Qaeda's stated goals is a united Muslim state, spanning the entirety of the Islamic world. Their hatred for the secular Arab governments in place right now is implacable, and Saddam's secular regime would be one of the first targets of a well-armed terrorist group. The argument that Saddam is going to give the weapons he has to terrorists is unimaginable in that light.
I would be much more worried about, say, Iran's government doing something like this, because their political philosophies are much more in line with Al Qaeda's. Sure, the U.S. claims that there are Al Qaeda agents active in Iraq. Probably true. That doesn't mean that they are working in concert with the government of Iraq. By all claims, the Al Qaeda agents are more active in Kurd controlled Iraq, an area beyond Saddam's control. The U.S. also claims that there are Al Qaeda agents active in Iran, and Pakistan. Osama bin Laden's oldest son and some of the senior Al Qaeda leaders are supposedly in Iran, and Iran is supposedly pursuing nukes and Pakistan already has them, but there is no talk of invading Iran, or Pakistan.

I also think that if Saddam were to use his weapons, they would be against his neighbors, most especially Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. However, I don't even think that likely. The only times that Saddam has resorted to these weapons is to save his own hide, first to fend off waves of invading Iranians in a war that he started, and then to put down various rebellions inside his country. While I don't defend his use of these weapons, the circumstances for their use do appear to be largely defensive, not offensive. He didn't use them in the first Gulf War because he knew that to do so was to invite death and disaster, and he knew the U.S. could respond with nukes. He took his chances that he could survive without them and was right.

So, the only threat I see from Saddam's WMDs is if we actually invade Iraq with the stated purpose of removing him from power. I think then, when all other options are used up, he would then consider using the weapons on American troops, or finally passing those weapons along to terrorists in the hopes that they will avenge him.

That, I think, is the fundamental difference in the point of view between those that are against the war and those that are for it. It's whether you believe that there is actually a threat to the U.S. and her allies or not. I for one do not believe that there is a threat UNLESS we invade. Then I think that the threat increases greatly.

I've always boggled at the "No War for Oil" and "It's about the Oil, Stupid" arguements. When has Iraq denied anyone the oil it produces? Never to my knowledge. In fact, Iraqi oil exports were restricted by UN mandate and US approval. So where is the logic in claiming we are going to war solely to obtain an oil supply we already have access to and some measure of control over?

Mike,

Do you think that just because it's the U.S. doing the killing and maiming that it is somehow okay? I don't approve of Saddam Hussein killing his own people, but neither do I condone the U.S. doing so. Killing is wrong no matter who is doing it. I know that CNN makes war look so clean and antiseptic, but you can't imagine that it is ever so.

And I don't pretend that their won't be humanitarian concerns addressed by a U.S. war with Iraq, I am just not naive enough to believe that is why our leaders are choosing this war at this time. If protecting innocents were truly a valid reason for the U.S. to go to war, the U.S. would have stood up for the Shia Muslims that were slaughtered by the thousands when Bush, Sr. told them to "rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein". Instead, your government and mine stood by and watched. Then when the Kurds in the north revolted, again with assurances from Bush, Sr. that we would be there to help, the U.S. stood by as thousands were killed and forced to flee their homes. Again, if this was a prime motivator for our government, we be in North Korea right now. I mean, here is a country where TEN percent of the population has died over the last few years, either due to famine or persecution. But we aren't there. If we truly were going to war to promote Democracy, we'd be in Iran supporting the vast majority of people who are disenfranchised and disenchanted with their government.

I too want our government to stand for something. I want us to stand for the best things that the world has to offer. I want us to stand for Liberty, Justice, and Democracy. But if we go to war for other reasons....either for oil or power or economic or political gain, we cheapen those ideals, even if we bring them along with us as a byproduct of war. The only thing we really represent in that case is Hypocrisy, one thing I never want my nation to stand for.

Kurt, I think this article most clearly outlines the oil benefits of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Oil, War, and the Future of Iraq Simultaneously, it outlines why France, Russia and China might be adamant in their demands for a political solution.

Here is another good article about the "oil" scenario. Oil after Saddam: All bets are in . There is a good series that looks on this issue at MSNBC.COM.This may not change your mind about the coming war, but it is at the very least informative.

Keehar,

1. The easiest answer to "it's about OIIIILLLLL" is that it's NOT. If we wanted Saddams oil, we could BUY it a hell of a lot cheaper than we could run a war. Saddam would be happy to sell us all the oil we want, and, for that matter, would be happy to be our buddy if we apologized for talking bad about him and gave him lots of money and toys. ALL of which would be much much cheaper than a war in terms of not only dollars but probably public opinion as well.

2. The fact that George Senior screwed it up by not taking out Saddam in 1990, and by not supporting those trying to overthrow the regime does not, in any way, mean that we are not allowed to correct that mistake. The US is not perfect, but that does not mean we should not TRY to make things right.

3. I'll bet a dollar you have no workable alternative to war. Try to take my dollar, I beg of you.

Let me get this straight--if there were NO NATIONAL INTEREST AT ALL in Iraq, merely a humanitarian problem, you would be all for going to war. But since there are both national security concerns AND a humanitarian concern, you think war is improper?

What is your primary concern here? If the true concern is human suffering, the human cost to the Iraqi people of an American military campaign would be smaller than the human cost of continued reign of Saddam. It seems both unidealistic and hypocritical to ensure the continued existece of a murderous and totalitarian regime simply because it is someone else's if out primanry values are liberty, justice and demoncracy. Such a stand is not idealistic, but isonaltionist--it argues that any violation of rights is permissible so long as it does not involve us.

If the problem is hypocisy per se, then our going to war to protect American interests should be unproblematic since the protection of American security has been the administration line all along. There is the issue of whether American Security really is in danger, but I would have thought that the Secretay of State's report to the Security Council should have quelled thouse doubts. The notion that ideological differences would preclude Iraqi-AlQaeda collusion betray either an ignorace of e.g. the Nazi-Soviet Pact in the 1930's, the subsequent Anglo-American-Soviet Alliance in the 1940's and the US-PRC collusion against the Soviet Union in the 1970's, or an willful disregard of the intellegence information provided by Secretary Powell that whatever ideological differences between Saddam and Bin Laden, and whatever issues with Saddam's official zone of control, collusion between Saddam and AlQaeda has been occuring as a factual matter. Naturally, one might dismiss such reports as lies and fabrications, but then we have left the realm of reasonable debate and entered the zone of wild conspiracy theories.

Gary,

1.) We could buy all the oil that Saddam would sell us. What would he buy with that money? More weapons to defy us. That is why we will not and do not buy more oil from Saddam.

2.) George Senior did screw up. I still maintain that we are NOT going back into Iraq simply to correct that mistake.

3.) Let's see, IF I buy into the goals that have been stated for the war, specifically disarmament, I can use one argument. I know you'll hate it, but give the U.N. inspectors the tools to do the job of disarmament. That means turning over the intelligence that we have on Iraq's weapons programs (all of it) and doing our damndest to make sure that they have all the support we can give them in order to destroy Iraq's weapons. Sure, keep our troops in place to keep the pressure on, but I do believe that if we REALLY wanted them to succeed, the inspectors could and would succeed, if not in total disarmament, at least in containment, which has been good enough for us for the last twelve years.

3a.)However, I DON'T buy into any of the arguments for war, so I don't need an alternative. I only need an alternative for war if I believe in accomplishing the same goals that you do. Currently, I do not believe that either disarmament or regime change or oil are good and viable reasons for going to war, and as I have said earlier, the U.S. isn't just doing this for the high ideals of Democracy and Liberty, and wouldn't. So, unless I buy into your goals and your means, I have no need for an alternative. The alternative, and it works, is no-war. You can tip me over at Silflay Hraka, but I suspect that you won't. :)

Han,

You have me wrong. I don't support going to war for any reason at this point. In my mind, wars don't solve problems, they create problems. I do want to end human suffering in Iraq, but I do not think that war is the tool to do it. As I said, war creates suffering, it doesn't ease it. You may say that you can use fire to fight fire, or that in the long run, the suffering is eased, but I don't buy it. How long did it take for the suffering from WWI and WWII to end? 40 to 50 odd years if you say it ended at the end of the Cold War, but the repercussions are still there. There is still suffering and pain in the Koreas 50 years later. No big problem solved there. Take a look at the situation in the Middle East right now. Have the Israeli-Arab wars of the last 50 odd years solved anything, or have they created more chaos? Wars breed wars. Wars breed suffering. They do not solve the problems that we have now. We could go to war to solve the problems in Iraq, but then what? How many millions of people in the world will we alienate? How many of those will be Muslims? How many of those Muslims will believe that they have to resort to terror to make themselves heard? How long do you think it will take the U.S. as a nation to quell the shockwaves that run through the Muslim world? Will 50 years be enough? 100? How many more wars will we have to fight to end that conflict? How many more wars will that generate?

That being said, as I have posted earlier, I do not believe that U.S. national security is at risk from Iraq. I heard Powell's comments just like everyone else. I read the transcript of the bin Laden tape, and to be honest, the evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is circumstantial at best. It wouldn't get you jail time in a murder trial if that is the evidence you used. (Unless you happen to be labeled an enemy combatant.) As I said earlier, I think that is the main difference between pro and anti-war forces. Some see a threat, some don't . I, personally, don't at this time.

So Kehaar’s alternative, as expected, really comes down to continued economic sanctions and “containment”, just like we have been doing for 12 years. Maybe this would work, maybe it wouldn’t but it sounds kind of silly coming from someone who did a lot of moralizing in their previous posts.

How long is this containment going to go on? Until Saddam dies of old age? Probably longer, remember his two lovely sons. Saddam kills Iraqi civilians every day. How many will he kill over the next 10 years? How many will his sons kill over the next 30?

If you want to argue that containment will keep us safer from future terrorism than would a war, fine. But don’t even begin to think you have the moral high ground, you don’t. A war will kill Iraqi civilians. Your alternative will kill Iraqi civilians. But a war will likely be short, and at least then the Iraqi people can have some hope for their future.

Kehaar, It's a good article. If this were truly a rationale for going to war now, then why did we stop the Gulf War before achieving this goal. It was within our power and grasp. There was enough support at home to continue the war to a conclusion that would have allowed the article's scenario, much sooner, and less riskier. The European political climate was much better and the Arab political climate was better than it is now.

It can be argued that George Bush was either a more moral man than his son, and/or too timid to pursue that goal where his son is not. If that is the thinking then I suppose it makes sense to believe that G.W. Bush views 9/11 as a godsend of an opportunity to pursue a war for control of Iraqi oil fields.

But if that were the case, why aren't the Russians, French and Germans on board with it? It would be a simple matter to assure them of a healthy return on thier existing contracts in return for thier support. Not 100%, but they understand business as well and would probably settle for less than that. That would be a much safer alternative than potential loss or an overly drastic cutback of those contract revenues.

Perhaps it can further be argued that Bush is a fool who doesn't recognize this, or is megalomanic enough to not really care. I would think that would have shown up much sooner than this. He seems to me to be a successful businessman and a successful politician. Which he wouldn't be if he were a fool, and highly unlikely if he were that crazy.

I think the article's line of reasoning is fine as far as it goes. Where that line of reasoning stops for me is at being the cause for this war. Not because it is not a possible cause, far worse has been done in history for far less tangible result. But because the current actions I see happening don't support that conclusion, IMO.

I have little doubt that once we do have control of the oil fields, that we will use that control to strengthen our hand in the furtherance of our true goals. And I have no problems with that. The Middle East has had quite long enough, I think, to shovel the manure out of thier own backyard. And if we have to spend blood to go in and shovel it for them , then we deserve the right to use those resources as we see fit to secure our objectives.

Personally, I think we will end up holding those oil fields in trust for a Democratic Iraqi government.

Kehaar, by the way. I wanted to compliment you. I am not a massively prolific blog reader, but I have been perusing and conversing with protestors on other sites. You seem to be one of the very few I have found that demonstrate an ability to reason thier way to thier belief. I don't find myself agreeing with all of your conclusions, but I cannot say that you have not thought long and hard about it. I wish more protestors were of your caliber, I could respect thier arguements.

Mike,

The alternative of containment was really meant as an alternative to war as a means of disarmment.

The alternative to war as a means of regime change is obviously to sincerely pursue having Saddam sent into exile. While I think that you have to offer the threat of war to achieve this goal, I do think it an achievable goal and I think that would solve the humanitarian crisis. I do hold out hope that this may just happen, but not much. Everything you read about Saddam suggests that he won't go for this and would rather go down fighting. I admit that it isn't the strongest of alternatives, but I don't think you give up on it until it has run full course. War, in my opinion, if you are going to do it, should be a real and true, absolute last resort. I do not think we've gotten to that point and I don't think we will for a long time.

Kurt,

"Perhaps it can further be argued that Bush is a fool who doesn't recognize this, or is megalomanic enough to not really care."

I'll leave it at that. :)

It's been fun debating with you guys, but I actually do have work to do today, even though everyone else is snowed in at home. Hopefully if nothing else, this will help everyone to see the other side of the argument, the other side of the coin. No matter what your opinion might be, make sure you inform it!

Dean, I return your world to your control!

Thanks, Kurt, and all! See you around the blogosphere.

First, I want to thank you...it's rare these days to have an intelligent discussion with someone who opposes war and I appreciate your arguments. (As a regular reader of Silflay, I'm not surprised.)

Second, it seems to me that our primary difference is that you view war as unacceptable for any reason...I view it as a sometimes necessary evil. (I don't believe killing is always wrong, and is in fact sometimes necessary to prevent a greater evil.) But war should always be a last resort.

I agree that Saddam & Bin Laden are not natural allies. Saddam is, after all, not a Muslim. But politics make for strange bedfellows, and they do have a mutual interest---us. I disagree that Saddam is a "first target" for the terrorists, I believe that dubious distinction fell to us. I think he & North Korea, among otheres, have been more than happy to supply BL's terrorists with whatever they needed.

As for war not ending suffering, I would hazard a guess that the Holocaust survivors, South Koreans, et al, would disagree with you. IMO, the Israel-Arab conflict seems unending because no one has been willing to let it flare into an all-out war...perhaps that's been wise, but I don't think that's ever going to be resolved until the Palis are completely defeated.

I applaud your views...if everyone were like you, wars would not be necessary. But the reality is that they're not.

So Kehaar believes that WWII created more problems than it solved. I guess that explains those annoying demands for higher pay from the guards at Auschwitz.

Inspectors cannot disarm Iraq. All they can do - in the very best of all possible scenarios - is *verify* that Iraq has disarmed itself. I don't believe that there are any circumstances that would cause Saddam to voluntarily disarm. So that's a second point on which we disagree.

I guess this is off-topic, but I came here to confess to being a turd.

For weeks, I've been hearing "Esmay this" and "Esmay that," and you even posted a comment on my blog, and I had no idea what the story was, and I never bothered to check. Finally got here today through a link on someone else's site.

Nice blog, dude.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has a link to the Iraq Foundation. Both promote democracy in Iraq. Some people have taken that to mean - bomb Iraq now. This is apparently the position of the burgeoning "Support Democracy in Iraq" campaign. The Iraq Foundation approvingly points to this position from the American Teacher's Federation, hosted on the Iraq Foundation site.

This ATF paper puts its full support behind the United Nations and allowing the inspections to run their course. And, of course, following the usual practice of people who can only think in black and white, any position against bombing Iraq now must mean a position against democracy in Iraq.

I also liked this link via the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (official unofficial government site), which decries the stated American goal of installing a military governor.

Iraqi Kurds also seem to fear Turkey's intent. It gets complex. It's not black and white.

In fact, I did like much of the information at DefendDemocracy.org, but even they do not come out 100 percent in support of military action now. There's a variety of views presented.

Read this DefendDemocracy.org essay on a post-Saddam Iraq. And this one, too.

Then realize how disastrous it would have been to have invaded Iraq already. None of the suggestions listed have occured. We would not have been and still are not ready as a country to foster democracy on the terms the exiled democratic leaders in Iraq would like.

The Rove administration has instead talked about "shock and awe," about destroying the country's infrastructure, and about installing Army chief Tommy Franks as a military governor.

Where most so-called "peace" advocates show their hatred is in their willingness to uncritically accept the notion that America plans on betraying the goals of democracy.

On the same day that the Guardian came out with its piece claiming that the Bush administration was going to betray the goals of Democracy, the administration announced its goals for democracy in Iraq--which clearly showed that for practical reasons, there would likely be military governance at first, but with a clear path of transition to democracy, planned as quickly as possible.

Hatemongers who believe that America would allow anything less show their irrationality and their contempt, and that their concern is less about Iraq than it is attacking Bush--or America as a whole, in some cases.

"their willingness to uncritically accept the notion that America plans on betraying the goals of democracy"

Thanks, Dean - that sums it up nicely.

>> The one real difference is "oil". Iraq has it. North Korea doesn't. Funny how war for oil isn't quite as humanitarian as "Defending Democracy". That's why no one claims that as a reason to go to war. Instead, we are fed high and noble causes for war such as "Liberating Iraqis" or "Defending Democracy" or "Defeating Terrorism" or "Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction" or "Securing the Peace" or whatever.

Keehar,

With all due respect, it is not about the oil at all. It simply does not make any sense. You obviously have done no math to see why. America buys about 80,000 barrels of oil yearly from Iraq. Even at $40/ Barrel, this adds up to only $3,200,000/year. Spending $100 billion on a war and helping a nation recover from it would make each barrel of oil cost over $1 Million/Barrel. This is stupid economic reasoning. I believe you are easily brainwashed by the first thing you see in print.

The real reason we will attack Saddam Hussein is that he supports the very terrorist organizations that attacked us on 9/11. Hussein has used every weapon he ever possessed. He will use nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons at the first opportunity. Please do not bore me with the “Why doesn’t Bush supply the evidence to prove this to us?” argument, either.

Colin Powell stated publicly that the administration has much more evidence to support their case than he presented to the United Nations. That means the evidence you seek is classified information. Supplying that information will do no more than compromise means and sources of collecting that classified intelligence. People may very well die who supply us with some of this information. Other highly expensive means of collecting information on our adversaries will become useless. That is why.

>>Second, it seems to me that our primary difference is that you view war as unacceptable for any reason...I view it as a sometimes necessary evil. (I don't believe killing is always wrong, and is in fact sometimes necessary to prevent a greater evil.) But war should always be a last resort….As for war not ending suffering, I would hazard a guess that the Holocaust survivors, South Koreans, et al, would disagree with you…I applaud your views...if everyone were like you, wars would not be necessary. But the reality is that they're not.

Rita,

I would like to add something to what you’ve said. Wars may or may not be necessary; however, they do necessarily always occur. I believe war is a natural state of the human condition; and that nothing will change that.

The United Nations will not end wars. The United Nations did not prevent over 700 wars and civil wars occurred worldwide since the U.N. was created in October 1945. The United States will not prevent wars from occurring. The 1973 Guiness Book of World Records stated that since the beginning of recorded history there have been a total of 14 days of total peace across the planet Earth. So, if you add up all the seconds, minutes, hours, and days since in recorded history you will have only fourteen days of total peace. Wars will always occur.

I believe you must plan for the next war without being quick to start one. Since Al Qaeda attacked the United States unprovoked on 9/11 and he is sponsored by Saddam Hussein, they are necessarily in the same basket together. Therefore, they are both fair targets deserving the same end. Removing Saddam Hussein and eliminating every Al Qaeda member is the only way to save us from this menace.

As most of you that have read my previous comments regarding this war. While I am opposed to this war, the more I read and watch t.v., it is obvious that war is unpreventable.

I believe that all people deserve the right to live in peace, with equal rights as their fellow man. It breaks my heart to see how those in Afganistan, and Saudi Arabia live in fear over these crazy, mean-spirited rulers. And what's worst, we, as Americans have to live in fear of another terrorist attack on our soil. People are going crazy with buying plastic and duct tape to protect their homes and families from bioterrorism, and from nuclear attacks.

I feel that everything should be done to preserve, and protect our nation, as well as other nations who are fighting with us. France and Germany can go to hell as far as I am concerned. As much assistance that we have given their country in the past, and they want to cop an attitude over us going to war, even to the point where they want us to practically kiss ass to Hussein? Absolutly not! Saddam Has played enough games with us, and we have been to patient. It is time to handle business, and do whatever needed to protect our country.

Bush needs to do what he needs to do. Even if it means to declare war, and take these terrorist out.

Kevin,

I have already argued against most of your points, but I feel I have to repeat myself for you.

For one, we don't buy more oil from Iraq because we don't want him purchasing more weapons with that money. The oil we do buy from him is for humanitarian purposes only. If you read the articles linked above, you will see that Iraq is easily capable of producing 5 to 6 million barrels of oil per day, and perhaps as many as 7 or 8 million barrels per day. Let's say 5 million is right. Multiply that by 365 days for one year. Multiply that by 15 or 20 years. Add to that the reduced influence of Saudi Arabia as far as the oil markets go, and you have a substantial position for going in for oil. I don't know where you got your figures, but they obviously pale in comparison to the potential.

And I repeat that there is no known connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The only evidence is highly circumstantial, and given the U.S. war footing, I am inclined to believe that it is a stretch of propaganda. I do not dispute the fact that Saddam Hussein has WMDs. I just don't think it is a valid excuse for going to war, nor do I think it is our governments reason for going to war. If it were, we'd be in N. Korea right now. Let's see...homicidal dictator, WMDs, threatening to neighbors and U.S...pretty much a straight match. Now, why are we attacking Saddam and urging diplomacy for N.Korea again? Hmm? I'm sure that Powell has plenty of evidence. I believe it. I just don't think it's a reason to go to war, because I don't see any threat.

Who is urging diplomacy with N. Korea? They want to negotiate with us, but I haven't heard anything from our govt that indicates any willingness at all in negotiating with them.

If N. Korea wants to negotiate, they should try negotiating with somebody they didn't just screw over.

>> Now, why are we attacking Saddam and urging diplomacy for N.Korea again?

Kehaar,

Please note the economic position of Kim Jong Il. He is actually very, very weak economically. He has nothing going for himself now except his ability to manufacture nuclear weapons for sale. North Korea has no natural resources to export. North Korea has no economy to manufacture commercial exports. North Korea has nothing. This leaves North Korea very dependent on the west for hard currency, unless it can sell nuclear weapons to countries or terrorists who will pay top dollar. This is a very precarious economic and political position in which Kim Jon Il leaves North Korea. He is more interested in maintaining his own power than the welfare of his own citizens. It is his BIGGEST mistake. Therefore, North Korea is very susceptible to diplomacy whereas Saddam Hussein is not.

Saddam Hussein proved he is not open to any diplomacy for the past twelve years. He repeatedly illustrated his contempt for the United Nations by thumbing his nose at EIGHTEEN consecutive Security Council resolutions requiring him to abide by the armistice ending the 1991 Gulf War. Diplomacy was tried and failed with Saddam Hussein. Therefore, diplomacy is no longer a viable option with him. Forcefully disarming Hussein is the only option left.

Saddam Hussein is strategically located in the Middle East athwart one of the largest petroleum reserves in the world. He is also strategically located next door to other countries that are in the exact same economic position. His desire to dominate the region using its oil reserves to enhance his personal power and to finance his war against the United States makes this man a menace to civilized society. He must go. Every government knows Saddam’s desire to humiliate the United States. The United States and the western world cannot allow this Mephistopheles to cement his alliance with international terrorists. Doing so will only result in more terrorist attacks against the United States and her allies. Not acting now will only embolden these terrorists and their state sponsors furthering their belief that the west is not resolute in stopping them.

>>And I repeat that there is no known connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The only evidence is highly circumstantial, and given the U.S. war footing, I am inclined to believe that it is a stretch of propaganda. I do not dispute the fact that Saddam Hussein has WMDs. I just don't think it is a valid excuse for going to war, nor do I think it is our government’s reason for going to war. If it were, we'd be in N. Korea right now. Let's see...homicidal dictator, WMDs, threatening to neighbors and U.S...pretty much a straight match. Hmm? I'm sure that Powell has plenty of evidence. I believe it. I just don't think it's a reason to go to war, because I don't see any threat.

Kehaar,

Hussein undoubtedly supports international terrorism. He already pays bounties to Palestinian homicide bombers. Mohammed Atta was seen in Prague meeting with an Iraqi intelligence agent three months before 9/11. Osama bin Laden admitted on a recently released audiotape that HE IS aligned with Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden encouraged suicide bombers to attack Americans after we invade Iraq. I believe that is all the proof that is required to establish a connection. Leaving Saddam Hussein in place will only result in more terrorist attacks against the United States and her allies.

I also firmly believe Colin Powell when he stated the United States has more evidence than he showed to the United Nations. This information can illustrate the inextricable link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Powell did not show this information because it is undoubtedly classified. Showing this classified information publicly will unnecessarily reveal means and sources of collecting intelligence information. Some agent may die as a result. Other expensive technical sources such as multi-million dollar satellites, fiber optic cable tapping equipment, radio or phone-tapping equipment might be rendered useless with such revelations. I am sorry you are not yet convinced. After we successfully invade Iraq, you will have all the evidence you need.

Kevin, thanks for fleshing out your argument. I don't have any more time to devote to debate today, but I appreciate you sharing your view. As far as Saddam's link to Al Qaeda, I voiced my view on that yesterday. I still think that Saddam is target number one for Al Qaeda. And if you read transcripts of the tape, you'll see that bin Laden aligns himself with the people of Iraq, not with Saddam's "infidel regime". That's a big difference.

Kehaar,
It does not take a genius to know that Saddam has 100% support from Al-Qaeda. They both have deep hatred for the United States, so of course, it would serve to their advantage to work together to destroy us and our allies.

I truly believe that oil has little to do with the reason for war, but to protect us. Bush "owes it to us to keep our country safe." Oil, may have played a role in dessert storm, but we face bigger adversity now.... this is a fight for our protection and freedom.

I don't want you to be fooled that Al-Qaeda is not working with Saddam. Saddam and Ossama are probably working, as I type, on a terrorism plan.

Fev cold facts about Irak ;a]How many Iraki soldiers die in war over Kuweit? b]How many Irakis love Amerika for this ?What happen if Iraki people say ,,my country rigt or wrong " How we going to win this war if we have to fight them in citys in evry corner,at what cost?Do you not spliting the skin on living bear? All yours discutants don,t event think about.Mr. Bush say Hussejn put his army bihind human shield ?!!!Thats the reason i bring it hier. Joe. k.

Kehaar,

I believe another tape was recently released than the one you linked to. That is the tape to which I referred.

Dean wrote:

If you oppose war with Saddam, you oppose the allies' plans to bring democracy and human rights to the region.

If you can live with that sort of thing, that's fine. I can't. I won't. Nor will I let people like you forget just exactly what it is you're defending.

Maybe you should read this:

Turkey has reportedly been offered the right to occupy much of Iraqi Kurdistan. Yes, that's right: as we move to liberate the Iraqis, our first step may be to deliver people who have been effectively independent since 1991 into the hands of a hated foreign overlord. Moral clarity!

Meanwhile, outraged Iraqi exiles report that there won't be any equivalent of postwar de-Nazification, in which accomplices of the defeated regime were purged from public life. Instead the Bush administration intends to preserve most of the current regime: Saddam Hussein and a few top officials will be replaced with Americans, but the rest will stay.

You don't have to be an Iraq expert to realize that many very nasty people will therefore remain in power — more moral clarity! — and that the U.S. will in effect take responsibility for maintaining the rule of the Sunni minority over the Shiite majority.

Does that sound like "the allies' plans for democracy?" No, it sounds like the American plan for maintaining the status quo.

It shouldn't be surprising. The CIA helped put the Baath Party into power in the first place. Why change horses now? Bush Sr. didn't do it 1991.

I said in '91 and will say again: there might be good reasons for attacking Iraq. But don't fool yourselves or insult the rest of us with the idea that it's about "freedom and democracy." Did we bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan? Doesn't look like it.

Keehar wrote:3a.)However, I DON'T buy into any of the arguments for war, so I don't need an alternative. I only need an alternative for war if I believe in accomplishing the same goals that you do. Currently, I do not believe that either disarmament or regime change or oil are good and viable reasons for going to war, and as I have said earlier, the U.S. isn't just doing this for the high ideals of Democracy and Liberty, and wouldn't. So, unless I buy into your goals and your means, I have no need for an alternative. The alternative, and it works, is no-war. You can tip me over at Silflay Hraka, but I suspect that you won't. :)

No-war is, indeed, an alternative with its own consequences. You do not support disarmament or regime change. Fine. Since you accept Iraqi armaments, including wmd, and the leadership which has used and has threatened to use again these weapons, one can only assume you have no problem with the fatalities and casualties their use will cause. let us be clear, you are not upset at the prospect of any gov't- surely you did not pick Iraq as the only gov't allowed to have and use these weapons- killing whomever. But they will do so for peace, amen.

Maybe you should read this:

I've read it, silly person, and I great deal more that you obviously haven't.

you suck big penis

I'm glad to see that those of you who defended and supported Saddam haven't lost your witty edge and cutting reasoning skills.

Peace at any price? A contradiction in terms peace/at any price (words do not go in the same sentence logically!)

I would like to point out some facts:
-Number of WMD's found: 0
-Saddam Hussien has NOT been found/captured/killed
-Osama Bin Laden has NOT been found/captured/killed
-We have almost completely abandoned Afghanistan, and left it on it's own. It is struggling with warlords and groups contradicting the current gov't.
-We are spending Billions on rebuilding Iraq.-

Why are we spending so much more on Iraq? Shouldn't it be a humanitarian mission to help and rebuild BOTH countries? Perhaps the oil in Iraq may have something to do with it. The oil, however, is that of the Iraqi People and not ours to take. We are using it for our own benafit and it is rediculous.

I would also like to point out that the reason Osama Bin Laden started his terrorist organization is because we abandoned a country just the way we have abandoned Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. We are increasing terrorism, not erasing it.

Might I add that our country is no more safe than it was on Sept. 11th? What new securit measures have you seen? We can't build "invisible" defensive walls by destroying the terrorist. In stead of investing 87 Billion in an almost useless war, why don't we invest it in building some walls, hidden Sams(the kind that pop up from underground), fortification, and additional security structures? We could also institute new security plans and probably create some jobs. The money left over could goto Humanitarian causes!!!

Might I add that there are people far worse than Hussein out there. Syria, North Korea, what about the Congo? Why aren't we helping liberate them, or helping them out?

I'll tell you this much, North Korea is Iraq x 5. They have wealth, and they already have weapons, so what in the hell are we doing in Iraq..a desert with no Weapons of Mass Destruction?

That is all.

You guys have to face the truth we just killed our own troops and around 20.000 to 50 thousand civilians in Iraq on a war based on lies…
Click here

Go help out our troops that are asking us for bullet proof vets and ammunition that the pentagon does not provide them.

For 4.5 million years the Iraqi people have to life with U-236 in their environment, and they do not have access to cancer treatment that is just rising since the last gulf war.