Matt wrote:

"Since when if a war illegitimate or unjustified because a nation can't "sell" it to certain others in the international community? It's far, far more important for America to do whatever it takes to protect her security "

Frankly, this is NOT about our security. For the same reasons I wrote in response to Tech1 in this same thread- Iraq is not a clear and present danger

"Since when if a war illegitimate or unjustified because a nation can't "sell" it to certain others in the international community?"

You failed to capture (or purposefully misread) the core of my argument- Not that this war *is* unjust, but it will be seen to be so by the global community, and THAT is who will place us on the level of Stalin, and write the history books. *THAT* is what will damage our national intterests.

Matt:
"Both terrorist groups and terror states, including Saddam's Iraq, pose a grave and growing threat to the civilized world"

I assume you place as a 'terror state' anyone who hates us and is armed with WMD...

Okay, I will re-write what I wrote to Tech1:

[copy]
While I was not able to quickly locate 2003 numbers, this was quote was attributed to the monteray institute in 1998... And FAS is a pretty good source.

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1998/03/980319-wmd.htm

"CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS ARE AVAILABLE TO ELEVEN NATIONS, ACCORDING TO THE
MONTEREY INSTITUTE'S CENTER FOR NON-PROLIFERATION STUDIES AND THE
HENRY L. STIMSON CENTER. THESE COUNTRIES ARE CHINA, EGYPT, IRAN,
IRAQ, ISRAEL, LIBYA, NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA, SYRIA, TAIWAN AND THE
UNITED STATES. "

Those who are hostile to the US include
N Korea
Iran
Iraq
Syria
Sometimes China

Syria, China and Libya are certainly outside of our authority, and Egypt is moving away very rapidly. So, are we to War with them as well?

[/copy]

You throw around 'terror' a liitle too freely in my opinion. Ther people who flew those planes into the WTC were terrorists. The Iraqi army are not those people. Saddam is a madman, but he is not UBL. Saddam is just the latest little prick to wear the mantle of dictator and oppressor. He is bad,, yes, and deserves a bullet, but he is NOT THE SAME as the people who carried out Sept11 nor is he motivated by the same zeal. He is a power-hungry mad dog- and in that he is very predictable.

"Also, foreign governments in the Middle-east curse us up and down then turn around and sell us all the oil we want for big bucks. Don't confuse their shallow political rhetoric with the reality of lucrative business deals"

And how, pray tell, am I confusing that? Irrelevant. You imply that I listen to their drivel, I assure you, I don't.

"This is totally false. The Bush administration has provided powerful and compelling arguments for the removal of Saddam"

No, the Bush administration so far has only succeeded in proving the sublimely obvious: that Saddam has WMD. Even the obscene French don't deny that he has them... To do so would be dumb.

What the Bush administration has NOT demonstrated is that Saddam is a clear and present danger justifying pre-emptive attack, or that he has any means or plans to deliver WMD to america.

"You fail to realize that most opposition to the war effort isn't at all due to the strength or weakness of the arguments. Most of it is due to the disturbing realization, in the minds of many, that the US just may be powerful enough to pull it off."

If you had actually read my analysis of the French motives, you would realize you are preaching to the choir. Just because France, Germany, Russia and China are using popular opposition to this war to jocky for global position does NOT mean that this is NOT the wrong war at the wrong time. Thats like selecting your beliefs based on the character of those who hold contrary beliefs.

"Most of the opposition among Arab and other Muslim states is due to the dread fear that the existence of a new, free, democratic Iraq would put pressure on them to reform their barbaric, despotic regimes. That's tough language but it's absolutely true."

Agreed, the muslim world is morally, politically, ethically bankrupt. Again, it has no bearing.

Matt:
"Dead Jews in concentration camps? This analogy of yours is simply obscene. Here's a brutal butcher called Saddam Hussein who's responsible for the deaths of over a million people, and you think our efforts to disarm him, remove him and liberate Iraq, and provide their people with a chance for a better future, would make us look like Nazis in the eyes of the world?? Not unless the world is insane."

Perhaps the world is insane, because that is what they think. MAINSTREAM British news rags are showing pictures of american politicians with blood on their hands. Look, Obnscene as it may be, if we don't do something quick- like change tactics in selling this war OR delay/defer the war THAT IS what popular sentiment will liken it to- The holocaust

And lets face it, there are brutal butchers all over the world- some of them we put in power or send aid to. As long as we coddle one madman, then its hard to 'sell' a war against a madman we helped create!

you may find me obscent to introduce the argument of the holocaust- it is an obscene moment of human history. However, that it is obscene does not change the fact that that is what this war is being likened to AROUND THE WORLD!

"Completely false. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War because the ideological foundation of communism was fundamentally incompatible with basic human nature, and the artificial system could only be sustained through brutal coercion,"

C'mon matt. Why did the coercion fail? Why did the Soviet political machine grind to a halt in its attempts to spread communism? Because the west showed the world the lies of the Soviet Union- Do you remember the famous "Don't wait for the translation- answer me now" moment where the Soviets were revealed as the liars they were? Why did the people of the communist countries refuse to accept brutal coercion? Because the west "trickled in" information of freedom and justice and democracy and *sold* the people right out from under their iron fist. To do this, we had to keep a moral highground, we had to 'win the hearts and minds'.

But, as my post says, this is only just 'in part', which you seem to misread....

Best,

Davin E. Lafon