Anti-war argument [Admin Mod says: Target Practice!!!!]

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it mostly is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.

Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is far from the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'.

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).

Saddam has never been a threat to or threatened the US. This brings into question not only the motives for the war but also whether there is any right by international law to initiate one. Saddam's army was pathetic in the Gulf War and is much weaker now. Even CIA Director George Tenet's believes that the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States is low, however 'should Saddam Hussein conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions'.

Saddam gives no evidence to being the irrational madman that Bush paints him to be (except perhaps when pushed into a corner as mentioned above and as evidenced by him firing missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War). His war on Iran was backed by the US, as was initially his invasion of Kuwait. If we are truly concerned about chemical and biological weapons, we might ask why the US has recently undermined the Chemical Weapons Convention by restricting inspections in the US, killed the Biological Weapons Convention and refused to sign an International Treaty banning germ warfare. We might also ask why the US had to edit Iraq's weapons declaration before releasing it to the public, removing 150 American, British and other foreign companies from it who illegally supplied Iraq's WMD in the first place.

5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years. One need only look at all the well documented case of democratic governments that have been overthrown by CIA covert action and replaced with dictators (i.e. Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia), or the US's blatant ignoring of the World Court (i.e. in the case of the World Court's ruling of $17 billion in damages to Nicaragua for damages incurred in the US's illegal war on it) and other world organisations' rulings or treaties. Such a country has no right to be playing global cop, and when it does we all end up worse off.

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism.

The terrorists are going to target us no matter what we do. We could pull back every single American from the Middle East and they would still hate us. It is like strategy, you hit the supply base first. Doesn't kill many troops, but it will stop them in the end.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.

Last I checked it was a war on Terror, Saddam has known links to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbolah(sp). And has openly said he will pay money for every suicide bomber that attacks Israel, sounds like he supports terrorism.

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.

This may be true, but Hitler had also done wonders on the German economy and infrastructure, and we all know where that ended up.

(i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

1988, He killed roughly 5000 people in one of his own towns, Habja(sp), most of which were women and children.

Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'.

Do you even read anything, or just go blindly with what the Liberals tell you? If he indeed wanted to provide for his "beloved" people than why doesn't he pawn off one of his several royal palaces. Or how about do what the UN asks and disarm, I am certain that the US and UK would gladly send food then. I'm sorry but you do not support your enemies.

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny.

Of course VX gas isn't a major problem in the hands of one of the radical groups I named above. Hitler wasn't much of a threat to America, and once again, we know where that ended.

5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years

Lol, liberal rule number 1. When you can't win, just blame America, cause they are evil capitalist pigs... Look, America isn't a saint, but compaired to the records of the other fine countries in the world, we do a lot damn more than we should. Who does the UN turn to when they need to feed people who live under warlords, you can bet it's not France. How many American troops have died trying to bring food and freedom to innocent people. Case in point Somalia.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.