question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME

[nicky g]

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Let me put it this way:

The sanctions have now been replaced with the threat of war. The sanctions were originally put in place to persuade Iraq to comply with various demands and resolutions, particularly concerning WMDs. They were not meant to simply punish Iraq. However, Clinton, Blair and Bush have all made it quite clear that the sanctions will NEVER be lifted so long as Saddam is in power. They also actively undermined the inspections process, by putting spies in the original inspections team, which they've admitted, and replacing the original chief weapons inspector, who after several false starts said he was happy with the progress he'd made and that the sanctions should be lifted, with the bullish and idiotic Richard Butler, who set the entire process back to square one before getting his team kicked out.
Now they've decided the sanctions and inspections won't work, and are going to go to war; but the sanctions/inspections process could never work because there was no prospect of the sanctions ever being lifted. Even now if Saddam did whatever it is Bush wants him to do, the war might be averted but the sanctions would remain. Surely before going to war the UK and the US should at least investigate the posibility of fair negotiations and a genuine quid-pro-quo disarmament programme in Iraq before launching this incredibly dangerous adventure.

[adios]

I haven't read all of the new posts and I'm behind on answering the others. As I stated above somewhere I think Bush will run into major political problems if Iraq complies with the latest directive from Blix to dismantle the missles (I hope he does dismantle them). FWIW I actually think Blix is doing a good job as is Annan. We'll see what happens.

[MMMMMM]

nicky please don't take my one-line reply as anything other than a complete expression of my faith in Saddam to refuse to truly give up all his WMD.

I think Saddam has to go---period. The Iraqi people need for Saddam to go, too. It would be impossible for Saddam to truly change his ways and this is really what would be required of him--a few cosmetic changes aren't going to suffice here, IMO, other than to delay the process--Saddam is a tyrant and a survivor through and through, and he's not going to become a decent member of the world community, nor become a decent leader to his people--that just isn't going to happen--and he isn't going to give up what he sees as his Aces-In-The-Hole (his hidden WMD's). So he simply has to go. It's actually better for everyone that way. It wouldn't be better for everyone if he manages to make some concessions and stay in power. The Iraqi people will be glad when he's gone, too--you'll see. As for the "danger" of removing him by force--there are dangers too in leaving him in power--and life itself isn't safe--it's coming time for Saddam's reign of blood and terror to draw to a close.

[nicky g]

I agree with what you say, except for for 2 things which put me in anti-war position:

A. I think the cost of the war will likely outweigh its benefits - that includes the fact that I don't trust the US to run Iraq well or fairly post-Saddam, nor to not sell the Kurds and Shias down the river.
B. I don't think what the US and UK is doing is justifiable under international law, and I don't think it's a good idea for international law to just be whatever the great powers say it is. Maybe there should be a law that requires all countries to be democracies and all tyrants to be toppled by force. But there isn't and i don't see that Bush can just pick and choose when he fancies it.

[matt_d]

3,4,5 and 11 are the most credible reasons IMO.

Here are some more, from a "realist"/pragmatic perspective:

12. The war will not achieve its intended objectives, and negative unintended/unforseeable consequences will predominate (Murphy's Law)
13. Invading and occupying Iraq may increase rather than reduce terrorist threats to the West.
14. World security will be destabilised and WMD development encouraged (e.g. N Korea, Iran, Syria)
15. Foreign military campaigns are always accompanied by an expansion in the role of government, leading to higher taxes, increasing public debt, inflation, currency depreciation, and reduction in civil liberties.
16. Initial military successes, especially in the face of widespread doubt, often lead to overconfidence by politicians ("Swelled head" syndrome). This significantly increases the chance of bad plays being made in future when the stakes are much higher (possible example being confronting China/N Korea). WWI is a good example of what can happen in this situation.
17. Unilateral pre-emptive invasions set a worrying precedent. Should America eventually be faced with a rival superpower, it will no longer be able to complain if said superpower starts invading neighbouring states for trumped up "security" reasons (e.g. China now has a green light to invade N Korea to "protect" itself from WMD; Taiwan and S Korea cannot build up WMD defences due to fear of Chinese invasion; India can attack the nuclear-armed military dictatorship in Pakistan)
18. Under the US constitution, foreign military action is illegal without a Congressional Declaration of War. Thus Bush has broken his oath to uphold & protect the constitution.

For American citizens, another concern is the political motivation behind the war, and the shady conduct of the Bush administration in gathering support for an invasion. If Americans decide to support a war and occupation, it should be after consideration of the true facts of the situation, not as a result of propaganda and deception by unelected and unaccountable members of the executive branch. Public ignorance about the facts has been exploited by politicians. It is against your best interests to support politicians who are "economical" with the truth, and put private agendas ahead of their duty to the public.

[matt_d]

"There is no political solution. You must wage war and kill large numbers of people. It is the human way to solve problems."

Ask Switzerland - they have been in the middle of the two most destructive conflicts in mankind's history, yet have suffered/inflicted almost no casualties of war, and enjoyed remarkable peace and prosperity.

It is difficult to imagine America being worse off if it had pursued a similar policy for the last 100 or so years.