Two options are presented - both are bad

[danholo]

Nobody seems to care about the Iraqi people who are being held hostage by Saddam Hussein and his thugs.

The irony of the whole thing is that the Iraqi people brought Saddam to power and it's the citizens who have to suffer - just like in The Third Reich and in the FSU. I think being a peace activist against a war on Iraq does not support the Iraqi people at all. It's just supporting a repressive regime led by a brutal dictator who tortures people for the fun of it. Of course the Iraqi people are against an attack on their country (Duh! Why am I even pointing this out?) but in their brainwashed society under "big brother" makes their opinion pretty much useless in one way of thinking. Favoring an attack is not supportive to the Iraqis either, since collateral damage is inevitable in any war and they (Iraqis) will label the attackers to be an even greater "Satan" than before.

In a way I think the US would do a favor to the Iraqi people with an attack to oust Saddam Hussein but, as I said, war always results in many casualties and that's why I oppose the use of force. The precision of laser guided weapons is not always precise and faulty intelligence can have dire consequences. Of course I like a "TV-war" for the pure entertainment it offers but when you think that it's not just a movie where "the good is fighting the evil" it gets you thinking and there are more serious issues to be dealt with. As a military threat I think Iran and North Korea are worse a threat then Iraq. North Koreans are definately much worse off then Iraqis for that matter.

If Saddam Hussein is let off the hook and will die naturally, which peace activists seem to want, the Iraqis suffering won't end; Saddam's son Udai is a worse madman then his old man I hear.

So there are two bad options to choose from - war (kill people) or no war (support a repressive dictatorial power).

Personally, out of these two options, I'm starting to lean towards supporting a war. I don't know why, but I think it'd be better for the Iraqis themselves. But I don't fully trust the US position on helping the Iraqis after a possible war. I guess we'll see.

Trying to get the Iraqi people against Saddam Hussein could be a third option that I'd support gladly and it could and should be considered. I have no idea how that can be done however with all the brainwashing and censorship in that country. Assassination of Saddam and his cronies is also a hard task since you can never find them.

I'd also like to point out the destructive power of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam most likely still has. (Where did they dissappear?) I don't think Saddam is a threat to the world but, maybe I've seen too many movies and played too many games involving terrorists, his type of individual is totally unpredictable. He has the access and power to make weapons of mass destruction. He has access to people like himself who will not do anything to stop the use of these weapons. I think their actions have proven this. Even a small amount of C/B-weapons is extremely lethal. You don't need missiles to be a threat. Even a briefcase can be extremely deadly. Nobody seems to notice this.

[cerulean]

I posted a few weeks ago about Iraqi emigrants who strongly favor a war against Saddam, but don't dare speak out publicly because they still have family members stuck in Iraq. I don't think opposing despotic regimes, or opposing suicide bombing, or opposing the production of WMD under the supervision of psychotic dictators makes one opposed to the Arab people. In fact, Arabs are the ones currently suffering the most under their various dictatorial regimes.

[Am Yisrael]

I think the best option is to assasinate Saddam and "his cronies" and bring back all those who have been exiled out of Iraq. The reason for this is that it will prevent civilians getting killed and making the civilians become "loyal" to Saddam. There should be an international effort however to try and "de-program" Iraqis from the evil propoganda shown about the US and Israel and Saddams "self enhancement" propoganda.

I think the exiled Iraqis should be put into power because of their understanding of persecution by Saddam and living in a different type of regime other than a dictatorship (many exiled Iraqis are very pro-democratic). I think the Kurds and the opressed Shia Muslims must be quickely "bonded" by international effort with the Sunni population to prevent the break up of Iraq into seperate states.

To prevent a break up of the new democratic government. International forces (not military) must then try and enhance the image of democracy to the general public. The younger generation of Iraqis should also get a chance to visit democratic western countries in order for them to compare Saddams regime to a democracy. This will also help subside the hatred of western countries. There must also be international effort to prevent extremist Muslims gaining power. I think using counter-propoganda for the public is the best way for this.

These are my views. I am not against a war to destroy Saddams regime, but I am against the US if it decides to "just leave" after it attacked Iraq (just like Afghanistan), without effort to stabilize the Iraqi population. Im against all this weapon inspection bullsh$t. Saddam has WMD and he is not keeping them as toys. If what I mentioned above works, than maybe other brutal countries citizens might rebel against their own regimes. If the US just invades and "leaves" without any stability enforced on the population then these brutal countries will just get stronger.

[localbrew]

Originally posted by Am Yisrael
These are my views. I am not against a war to destroy Saddams regime, but I am against the US if it decides to "just leave" after it attacked Iraq (just like Afghanistan), without effort to stabilize the Iraqi population.

Where on earth did you get the idea the US has left Afghanistan? There are in fact more US troops (10,000) in Afghanistan right now than there were when we took the country from the Taliban. This is a fact. Maybe you should check yours.

[Bard Fan]

Thomas Friedman's collumn last week provided the clarity most miss in the argument for using force to disarm Iraq.

"It's because he(Saddam) is undermining the U.N., it's because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction."

Sticking to these arguments, the Bush administration would have had a lot easier time than they have had trying to show there are links between Iraq and Al Queda. These arguments along are sufficient to use force.