<WARNING WARNING, shameless rant follows>

So, much like any other criminal he was lucky to retain even partial rights in society. It also states that if Iraq failed to comply with disarmament (which it did) military force can be used.

I'm not saying that I'm pro-saddam. I was presenting that article just as another point of view. I dont agree with everything that guy was saying (in fact I take with a huge grain of salt when he goes off on talking about how he met saddam and how much he is beloved and respected by the people of iraq) . But if your argument is that saddam must be militarily overthrown because he ignores UN resolutions, then why aren't we paying attention to israel, which has broken way more security council resolutions and had way more passed regarding it as well. Again, not saying I am anti-israel, but it's rather hippocritical to use the UN-resolution breaking argument to focus just on saddam. Also, if our reason for attacking him is that he broke UN resolutions, why is the US circumventing the security council to attack him? Aren't we trying to enforce their resolutions? There's something sort of oxymoronic in attacking someone to enforce resolutions from a body we deem unimportant...

Over the course of those 12 years Saddam has continued to break international law by failing to work with UN inspectors and disarm. As a result he stacked up even more resolutions. I found almost 20. Maybe there are more.

FYI: israel has had over 100: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/sctoc.html

I don't totally agree that the US should have moved forward with the attack without a majority vote of the UN, but I definitely don't buy into any of the arguments in Saddam's favor. He's had 12 years. Who gets that many chances with regard to anything in life?

Personally I haven't really heard any arguments in saddam's favor. It seems that a lot of people who hear arguments against the current US war take them as de facto arguments espousing saddam, as though the US solution were the only possible outcome. (And I agree with you that the US shouldn't have moved forward without UN S.C. blessing, and probably that we would have had the right to attack had it been given). My issues are the following: 1) Nobody has demonstrably proved to me, as of yet, that the iraqis will be any better off with saddam gone and a US military occupation instead. There are a myriad list of problems that our occupation present: turkey pissing off the kurds and a kurdish rebellion in northern iraq, constant attacks on the occupying troops by saddam loyalists even after his death causing mayhem throughout the country, obtaining of WMD by any of a hundred militant groups in the chaos following saddams fall. Not to mention the obvious inflaming of arabs against us which could fuck us over 10, 20 years from now (witness: iran/iraq war in the 1980s, training of the mujuhadeen fighters in afghanistan to fight the soviets, etc). There is a saying among the arabs (again, kodus to my girlfriend for sharing this saying with me): "Better a thousand years of tyranny than one day of anarchy"... Check out a book called "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805062394/qid=1048622760/sr=8... which describes the distastrous results of american action in other countries back on to the US itself. 2) I am amazed at the way that our (the US) administration has steadfastedly refused to believe that there are ANY solutions to the problem other than a military intervention in iraq. Think outside of the box people!! 3) I find it extraordinarily difficult to take at face value anything that bush says with regard to saddam hussein, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad!". The fact that bush was talking about dealing with saddam long before sept 11th is one reason for this. Dick cheney and haliburton (which I might add is a 11 billion dollar a year oilfield services company which has had extensive dealings with iraq in the past) are another. Rumsfeld was chummy with saddam during the reagan administration and in fact the US provided saddam with the know how to build some chemical weapons AND turned the other way when he used them against iran... The fact that bush cannot seem to get his story straight as to exactly WHY we are attacking iraq is another. Bringing democracy is a good ideal, but why focus on iraq and not, say, pakistan which already has nuclear weapons and the wherewithal to start a nuclear war with india as well as tons of islamic militants just dying to overthrow the current regime there and an entire branch of government, the ISI, which supported the taliban! Anybody noticed that none of the sept 11th hijackers were indian muslims? But instead we're giving their leader, who took control in a military coup in 1999, $280 billion in aid and attacking iraq, a country which is militarily weak and inordinately poor, outside of saddam's ruling elite.

I really don't think there would be so many people protesting this war if they knew all the facts.

I think the reason that there are so many protesters is that people ARE aware of the facts. I dont know, in the end both sides of this argument have valid points. On the one hand, saddam is evil and should go. On the other, should the US really be the one to do it, and in the manner we have chosen to? The UN security council is critical to the future of the world because we need to have a world body which discusses and works out conflict. Is it a good idea to form ad hoc coalitions to attack member nations outside of the UN framework? Well if we can do it, why can't anyone else? On the other hand, kofi annan made a very interesting speech which basically says that sovereignty is not absolute, that the UN has the right to intervene in cases of humanitarian crisis: http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/services/bu/veb/anniversary/reports/dies/ann... As I said, both sides have valid points... I guess what it really comes down to is are you a pessimist or an optimist when it comes to the war. IE: Do the potential gains of attacking iraq and winning outweigh the risks of inaction. As far as the risks of inaction go, in the 12 years saddam has had since gulf war one, he hasn't done shit. You can present all kinds of shadowy evidence that perhaps he has been trying to do this, we think he has that, we know he has this thing because he SAID he had it before but SAYS he doesnt have it now. But the fact of the matter is he hasn't actually done anything since attacking kuwait because he knows if he did we would squash him, and rightly so. The fact that we are currently ignoring north korea despite the fact that they have already achieved the state we so fear from iraq blows a hole in the idea that we have to prevent saddam from threatening us in the future. North korea threatens us now, as they already have intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as nuclear warheads, and we ignore them. So the idea that we have to attack him now, that there is some kind of desparate time limit is bull. I am a pessimist. When I look at our country attacking iraq, I dont see the one perfect golden outcome that bush sees. It seems to me exceedingly unlikely that things will turn out there exactly as we would like, especially since a lot can change in 50 years, or in 5 years of occupation (look at the israel/palestine issue). All I see is how many scenarios there are where things DONT go our way. And not just do they go wrong, they go terribly, catastrophically wrong. But then again, the man leading the country doesn't believe in chance. This is a man who believes that all things that happen happen under the auspices of a just god. As far as I'm concerned, george w bush is just as much a religious fundamentalist as osama bin laden, and he scares me more because HE is in charge of the worlds largest and most powerful military ever. I end my rant with the following quotes from the book "Fortunate Son", also an interesting read: "You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office." -George W. Bush, 1989 "If we have to use smoke and mirrors to give the impression that Bush is not what a lot of people think he is, then we'll do whatever it takes." -Bush Presidential Strategist/Advisor, 1999 "[I]n 1993, Bush as Texas Governor told the Houston Chronicle that he believed there was no place in heaven for anyone who did not accept Jesus Christ as his "personal savior." _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail