question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

Been reading a lot of the war arguments, and you make some solid points. Most importantly, I don't believe anyone involved in this mess is telling the whole truth, especially my own government. There's one string of logic I can't get past in the case for war though:

1. Saddam Hussein is a bad dude (I think we're all in agreement here).
2. The world has asked him to disarm (we all know the resolutions).
3. He will not disarm.

So what world do we live in if we collectively ask a bad dude to disarm, he gives the world the finger, and he faces no repurcussions?

Honestly, this is not a flame. I just want to know how you guys resolve that logic string to conclude that no war is still the best approach? If not war, how do you deal with Saddam's insolence?

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

Usually, they respond by saying things like, "There are also bad dudes in ________ (North Korea, Iran, etc.--fill in blank with whoever you choose), and we aren't going to war with them, so why should we go to war with Iraq?" In other words, two wrongs make a right; unless we take on ALL of the "bad dudes", right now, then we are morally estopped from doing something about any of them (including Saddam).

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

Yes the UN is in nearly unanimous agreement that Iraq must disarm (I believe UN Resolution 441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council) but that fact often gets ignored. UN Secratary-General Annan, Nobel Peace Prize recipient no less, supports Iraq disarmermant 100%. France and Germany voted for 441. Yet this fact is continuously ignored by those condemning the USA. Here's a list of the reasons I compiled:

1. Israel is in violation of many UN resolutions.

2. North Korea has nukes.

3. There is no evidence of a link of Iran to al Qaeda.

4. Scant evidence of WMD's.

5. There will civil war in Iraq among the various factions upon Hussein's removal.

6. Bush is a war monger.

7. Bush is a puppet of big oil companies.

8. Bush is a facist.

9. The republicans stole the 2000 presidential election.

10. This all part of the plan for US to expand it's empire.

11. Saddam is not a threat and is contained.

It's the time proven strategy of throwing enough crap against the wall and some of it will stick.

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

Great list. I'll add one more

12. The U.S. is a terrorist state.

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

it is clear the world would be better off without him. but is it our job to remove him. also they say he hasnt disarmed. so why havent they found his weapons. i remember bush saying he was going to give proof saadam had weapons, but i never have seen it. that was a lie as he said they had the proof. only rethoric about them. or little missles that can do only small damage. and doesnt a country have the right to have weapons for protection with in reason.
currently his country is totally constrained from doing any deadly acts. with many other countrys much more dangerous than his.

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

All right, both sides have their lists of rhetoric (e.g. Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11).

I'm really trying to get a flame-free response on this question. I'm pretty sure I'm in favor of attacking only because of the logic string I mentioned, but want to see the other side's perspective on this one point.

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

"i remember bush saying he was going to give proof saadam had weapons, but i never have seen it. that was a lie as he said they had the proof."

--I agree that this looks like a lie (or half-truth, since he does have proof of the little missles). The thing is, I think it was a pointless lie for Bush to tell... Isn't the burden of proof on Saddam, that he has to prove he's destroyed the weapons he had back in 1991?

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

I might have given a serious response, but since all the pro-war guys jumped in, I'll just give this half-sarcastic answer:

Going to war with Iraq is similar to giving HDPM the death penalty on suspicion (without proof) of owning illegal hand grenades.

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

"I think it was a pointless lie for Bush to tell"

Uhhhhh, not if he wants to go to war.

Re: question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME
 

M: "I think it was a pointless lie for Bush to tell"
CM: Uhhhhh, not if he wants to go to war.

--I'm not so sure about that. I think there's a huge amount of the population that's on the fence here (I am among them), and lying/misleading us only makes us more skeptical. Can't imagine that result is what he's looking for.