Nobody wants war. And using military action against a sovereign country is something that shouldn't be done lightly.
There are many principled viewpoints on both sides. And, unfortunately, there's a lot of arrogance on both sides as well.
-- The case against military action --
On the case against military action, there is the simple fact that Iraq is a sovereign country and that the world is supposed to put its faith into the United Nations to determine when military action against a country is warranted. The UN has enacted a new resolution that provides for military inspectors to help ensure that Iraq has given up its weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps more time could be given to make the dtermination of whether Iraq has really complied.
Besides, a regime change in Iraq, as terrible as Saddam is, would leave quite a vacuum which could destabilize the entire middle east. Terrorist reprisals could be made on western countries and an unknown number of innocent civilians could be harmed in the process. It seems a better way might be to contain Saddam and just keey a close eye on him. What right, does the United States and UK have to decide who governs what country?
And if the USA/UK are going to go into Iraq, where does it stop? If they become the final arbiter on who is allowed to have a country, who's next? Is this the wave of the future? That an american hyperpower is going to run amok across the world in order to create a new world order of its own design? Would it not be better for the US and UK to work with their friends and come to a better understanding?
Is Iraq really that dangerous? If it is, then surely there would be more obvious evidence. A smoking gun. Not inuendo and rumor but facts ala the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anything less only feeds the rumors that this excursion is really about controlling oil resources and cementing Anglo-American world hegemony.
-- The case for military action --
Not only is Saddam a brutal dictator that has killed thousands of his own people with chemical weapons over the years, he actively gives money to suicide bombers in Israel. Shortly after 9/11 the policy of the United States has been to replace regimes that support terrorism. Clearly Saddam fits the bill there.
Additionally, for 11 years Saddam has played cat and mouse with the UN. The 1991 Gulf War CEASE FIRE rested on the stipulation that he abide by the UN resolutions. He has violated this for 11 years and reports from Iraq indicate that he continues to play those games. Is the UN as useless as the league of nations?
The inspectors aren't there to search for WMD, they are there to work WITH Iraq to ensure compliance. South Africa, Ukraine, and others have gone through this process in the past without problems. The fact is, Saddam wants weapons of mass destruction. Starting with chemical and biological and ending with nuclear weapons. There is no shortage of evidence to show that. You can't take a picture of a nuclear bomb. But defectors and evidence recovered by inspectors along with intelligence has shown a trail that leads to only a single conclusion: Saddam is trying to get these weapons in violation of the cease fire terms.
And what would he do with such weapons? Based on his history, he would use them to intimidate his neighbors and dominate the middle east. He might provide them to terrorists. Oil isn't the main issue here, security is. But before you dismiss oil as being something irrelevant, without middle eastern oil, the world economy would come to a halt. How many millions would starve or freeze due to food and heat not being able to be distributed?
Security from weapons of mass destruction is the main issue. But one cannot just blindly ignore the reliance of modern societies on petroleum.
But let's talk more about what would happen if Iraq gets WMD: The United States would be the top target of any WMD equipped terrorist. That's why the US can't allow its interests to be secondary to some warm fuzzy UN wish list. A protestor in Belgium has little to fear from a nuclear armed Iraq. A citizen of New York or Washington has plenty to worry about. That's why 2/3rds of Americans support military action. They see the threat.
As for UN "support" let's remember who the UN security council is: USA, UK versus France, Russia, and China. In effect, "UN support" means Russia, France, and China. Two of those countries have significant oil deals with Saddam that create an economic reason for them to resist his removal.
As for casaulties - there were few civilian casaulties in the first gulf war (despite the propaganda some might say). There were few civilian casaulties in Afghanastan and a second gulf war would probably cause fewer deaths than the number of people who have died due to Saddam's policies in the past year.
The only reason why Saddam is even marginally cooperating now is because the US has made a credible use of force. Until then, there were no inspections at all. It is not sustainable for any country, even the US, to have to keep its military on high alert in order to get some brutal dictator to abide by UN resolutions.
At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Saddam's had 11 years to cooperate. He clearly has not. He continues to play games. And can the United States, let alone the world, risk this man getting weapons of mass destruction?
If people are really concerned about casaulties, then perhaps it is better to act now than wait until he has nuclear and biological weapons that he can use against his neighbors or supply to his terrorist friends.
The allies were faced with a similar situation in 1938 with Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, they chose appeasement and a few years later World War II was the result which led to the deaths of over 50 million people. Let us not make that mistake again.
--
Regardless of what position you take, there are two ways of corresponding with those who have opposite views. You can deride their views and principles or you can try to address their concerns.
Personally, I wish we lived in a world without such troubling problems.
