I am waiting as well professor.

1) There Is No Justification for Going to War.

What was Iraq's act of aggression against us that justifies war? There has been no attack on the US, no Iraqi threat of war, no Iraqi connection to September 11.

War should be a last recourse of self-defense, a step to be taken only when all other alternatives have been exhausted. What the Bush Administration is planning is an act of aggression, not an act of self-defense. The international coalition that fought the first Gulf War was cemented by the principle that one country cannot invade another without provocation. Now the White House is poised to dismiss the coalition to launch an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. This would violate the US's historic policy against using force preemptively. We should not go to war against a distant country that has not attacked us.

2) Iraq Does Not Pose a Clear and Present Danger

The White House says we should invade Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction. But during the 1990s United Nations weapons inspectors dismantled all of Iraq's major chemical, biological and nuclear weapons facilities and destroyed nearly all of Iraq's weapons and long-range missiles. In terms of conventional arms, Iraq's military is now at one-third of its pre-Gulf War strength. According to Ex-Marine and former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq presents "absolutely nothing" of a military threat. And given Hussein's natural desire for self-preservation, it is highly unlikely he would launch any attack that would result in his destruction. Since deterrence is working, why should the US start a bloody war that would undoubtedly lead to massive human suffering? (1)

3) When It Comes to Invading Iraq, the US Has Few Allies

The international community supports sending weapons inspectors to Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, but it does not support the White House's goal of "regime change." Many countries in the Middle East are opposed to a war with Iraq. Our allies in Europe think an invasion is foolhardy. Anti-war marches in England and Italy have drawn hundreds of thousands of people. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the US from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to US and global security. (2)

4) An Attack on Iraq Would Make Us Less Safe

An isolated US is an unsafe country. Attacking Iraq without provocation will ignite anti-American sentiment around the world, disrupting efforts to weaken terrorist networks. Any attack would also further destabilize a Middle East already inflamed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While the benefits of invading Iraq are murky, the costs are all-too-clear.

5) A Costly Invasion Would Take Resources Away from Much Needed Priorities at Home

This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. And it's a poorly thought out choice, one that will distract from the social problems here at home. It is estimated that any full-scale invasion of Iraq will cost up to $200 billion. During the first Gulf War, allies like Japan covered 80 percent of the cost. This won't happen again, leaving US taxpayers—already facing budget deficits—to pick up the costs. Instead of spending $200 billion on an unnecessary war, we should be investing in our nation's overcrowded schools and failing health care system. (3)

6) Invading Iraq Would Be Extremely DifficultÐand Without a Clear Victory

An invasion of Iraq will not be nearly as easy as kicking the Taliban out of Kabul. Although Hussein's army has been weakened, Iraq's forces remain large enough to put up a formidable defense. And it is likely that Iraqi forces will be far more determined to defend Baghdad than they were to defend Kuwait City, dragging US forces into a bloody fight in heavily populated areas. And even if the US does overthrow Hussein, what next? As the experience in Afghanistan shows, throwing out a government is easier than putting a new one together. An invasion without allies would leave the US to enforce a peace in a chaotic country fractured by ethnic conflicts.

7) A War Would Kill Thousands of People

An assault on Baghdad would result in far more American casualties than the war in Afghanistan. And the toll on Iraqis would be far higher. According to an estimate by Physicians for Social Responsibility, a full scale invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of as many as 80,000 innocent civilians, or approximately 100 times the number of people killed during the US bombing of Afghanistan. (4)

8) We Should Not Wage a War for Oil

The Bush Administration says we must invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein has violated UN Security Council resolutions, is abusing his own people, and pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Yet the US supports the nuclear-armed dictator of Pakistan and provides billions of dollars in aid to the governments of Turkey and nuclear-armed Israel, both of which are in violation of multiple UN resolutions. The blatant double standard makes one wonder: What is this war really about? The short answer is oil. Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of petroleum, and US oil companies, which exercise immense influence over the current administration, are eager to tap into Iraqi oil. This is wrong. We should not attack people in a far-off country to take their resources.

9) Other Options Besides War Are Available

When North Korea announced that it was close to constructing a nuclear weapon, the Bush Administration didn't threaten war—instead, it started cooperating with our allies in Asia to defuse the situation. The North Korean experience shows a way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proves that negotiations are preferable to war. If the White House's end goal is to enhance our security, then dialogue is preferable to conflict.

10) Opposition to the War Is Growing

Americans know deep down that this impending war makes no sense. According to recent polls, 40 percent of Americans are against a war with Iraq.

Our task is to turn the public's latent misgivings into blatant opposition. If the citizens say loud and clear that we don't want a war against Iraq, it will be more difficult for the president to go through with his scheme. We have to educate our fellow citizens about why war with Iraq is wrong, and then hold our elected representatives accountable to the will of the people.

From before the war

Good job, you have mastered the copy and paste technique.

Freeing 25,000,000 people from a brutal dictator was such a horrible thing to do.

Have you watched the fucking news lately ?

Americans died over there for no reason.
Our government is spending billions of dollars a day on nothing. Our government is giving Iraq billions of dollars that should stay in our country.

Shame on you for thinking this war was a good thing. Not a single good thing has come from it, or ever will come from it.

How ignorant can you be ?

Nice comeback.

If the priority was in fact the liberation of the Iraqi people why was that argument not presented to the U.N. or by the Bush administration until AFTER the start of the war?

That idea was spun into the equation only after the start of the war to shift the focus since the initail argument of WMD and terrorist ties held no weight.

When did the U.S. policy shift towards invading countries and forcefully removing men that are considered brutal dictators? If that is in fact our policy, then why have we avoided Africa or deposing Castro? Do we not consider Castro a brutal dictator?

The interesting thing about this, is that really isn't a Republican Vs Democrat thing. Politicians don't do what they think is right and just. They do what public opinion polls tell them they should do.

Weather or not Clinton felt deposing Sadaam or going to war with Iraq was justified and weather or not he wanted to go in there with guns blazing, there wasn't the level of public support to justify action.

If he HAD invaded Iraq without public support, rest assured it would have been the Republicans putting him on the hot seat for it. It makes it a little easier to question Bush in this case because of Iraqi oil, his administration's ties to oil and defence related business and Sr's proir dealings with Sadaam.

Regardless of who was in the White House, 9/11 created a charged atmosphere where the shift in public opinion about millitary agression has changed. All the administration needed was to present a feasable argument laced in half truths and speculation based on investigative guesswork and the majority hopped on board while the vocal minority were labeled as being anti-American.

Democracy in a nutshell: Mob rule!

We'll analyze the facts later.

Like this:

Or this:

were all that witty... :rolleyes:

Excellent post Socal!

I never said freeing the people was the main priority. Saying it had nothing to do with it is a complete lie though.

Nope, you are not alone. I am tired of rehashing the same old shit. In ten years we will see the results. I believe they will be positive.

Gas will still be the same price or higher.
Terrorists will still blow shit up.
Americans will still be gullible idiots.
Our government will still be run by retards.

Nothing has changed in the last 20 years, why do you think it will get any better in the next 10 ?

I don't share your pessimistic outlook of the world Ian. Anyway I was speaking specifically of Iraq. If they can manage to govern themselves without having a despot in control I think that will be a good thing.

Because Bush will be out of the White house.

Who gives a fuck about Iraq ?
Why do we care about any of these shitty little countries with they're whacked governments and whacked religions ?

Why doesn't America focus on America for a change ?

AY-MEN.

Wow, and here I thought you were on the left. That was a very right-wing thing to say.

See, I'm neither.
The whole left, right, liberal, bullshit is just a way to divide a country and does nothing to help America.

If I had to chose a party it would be the "Common Fucking Sense Party®"

I agree. Thats why I'm not worried what the world things of us, screw 'um. Their issues are just that, theirs. If kickin the shit out of some 3rd world despot wanna be god makes us safer, so be it.

Make them fear you, don't live in fear. Thats not living.

We just need to do it with a SEAL team or Sam Fisher or a space laser instead of sending an entire army in there and killing too many civilians and troops, and destroying too many resources.

I play video games, I know we're capable of it.

Can I make t-shirts and signs?

That was funny as hell!