It's started. I'm going to refrain from any lengthy discussion of my feelings towards the war, as most of you are already aware of them.
All I will ask is that if you do want to be anti-war, do not post ludicrous arguments. I have spent the better half of the past few months debating endlessly against the peace protesters. Trying to get them to understand this is the only way.
Here is a list of the most common concerns of the war and my (short) rebuttals. If you want to discuss this in person, I'm more than willing to.
1.) Saddam is the target. Why go to war against the Iraqi people?
Iraq is not America. Dissenters within Iraq are shot and murdered. This war requires the removal of not only Saddam, but also the removal of the power structure that supported him. Assassinating Saddam, Qusay, and Uday (his two sons) would not accomplish anything if someone like Taqiz Aziz or a high-ranking general took power.
2.) What about the civilians who will die?
Civilians will die. But you know what? I could never summarize the feelings as well as an Iraqi refugee. He says:
"Yes, civilians will die. My cousins will die, maybe, Allah forbid. But here is a certainty you do not understand in your simplistic Nickelodean diplomacy is that you are guaranteed to have civilians die under Saddam."
3.) N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran ... all these countries are actively developing nuclear weapons (or already have them). Why don't we go after THEM?
Here is the one argument that will anger me more than anything. You cannot APPLY a "cookiecutter" situation to countries that are vastly different. I will focus primarily on N. Korea for my rebuttal.
N. Korea HAS nukes. Seoul sits 30 miles from the DMZ. If we attempted military action, there would be disastrous losses. You do not go after a country that is beyond your scope of handling. The war in Iraq can be done with relativey little bloodshed with little losses to American personnel. Furthermore, the very fact that many Iraqis inside will SUPPORT the American troops creates a far different environment than in N. Korea.
Essentially we cannot take military action in N. Korea because they HAVE nukes and attempting so would be disastrous. In this case, diplomacy is the most powerful tool. Furthermore, N. Korea is surrounded by three strong powers who have direct stakes in removing nuclear weapons. I can assure you Japan and S. Korea care more about removing nuclear weapons than the United States worries about it, and that they are all actively pursuing diplomacy.
4.) This war is not justified.
Under what reasoning do you do this? 12 years, 17 resolutions ... that is not enough time? Don't forget that Resolution 1441 was a final last-ditch effort for Saddam to PROVE he had come clean, not for the inspectors to FIND the weapons. Saddam did not do this. And with reports that Saddam has already fired missiles he was
not supposed to have, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that he was not complying with resolution 627 or 1441.
5.) The US should not act unilaterally.
Unilaterally? What does that mean, exactly? Do you mean without the support of France, Russia, China, and Germany? All who have been illegally violating UN sanctions and have been dealing with Iraq?
Or possibly you think that most Americans don't support this war. You'd be wrong. Or you think we're doing this alone? How come there are 30 countries in our coalition?
It's easy to sit back and say "no, this war is bad." But you don't understand that this is for our security. Iraq is a threat to world peace, as been demonstrated through two wars (2 million deaths between the Iran-Iraq War/Gulf War), the innocent gassing of Iraqi civilians at the hands of Saddam (thousands of Kurds in Halabja were murdered by poison gas launched by Saddam's forces) ... and not to mention Saddam's inceased interest in obtaining nuclear weapons.
The fact of the matter is the diplomacy path long extinguished itself. Saddam was not complying. To even believe that it could of happened is wishful thinking.
