"1) No war for oil!!!

Was Kosavo about oil? Was Somalia? Was Haiti?, Was Afghanistan? Come on people, just because a war takes place in an oil region doesn’t mean its about oil. "

Very few anti-war folks that I know say this. This is a trite little misconception of the discountables on the left that has been picked up by the discountables on the right as some sort of blanket generalization of the aforementioned left.

Great, we here at the zone have two braincells to rub together. Cool. Lets get over it. This war is not JUST about oil, and the anti-war folks are not JUST saying this.

"2) You can’t liberate people by killing them!!!!!!

Well Duh. What about the 99.99 % of the population that won’t be killed? That’s based on 2,300 civilians killed out of 23 million folks. So far the number is far less. The fact that roughly 100 times that number have been killed by the regime we are trying to eliminate also seems lost on these people. Do liberals typically suffer from mathlexia? Cries of cold logic in such analysis are simply excuses for looking the other way while Saddam continues to murder his own people"

I see, so to kill .01 percent of the population and allowing 99.99 percent to live is moral. So its okay to kill SOME people against the will of that people, as a whole, in the process of determining for that people as a whole who shall rule them and in what fashion?

And because the regime we are after kills N+M people, we are justified in killing N people to topple the regieme, even when a vast number of that people do not want us there?

Do conservatives suffer from Vissinilexia? Where words like 'Liberation' mean, somehow, the opposite of what they are by definition?

Its not that the anti-war folks boil it down to a person-shot-is-not-liberated, its that it is a bald-faced lie to choose FOR a people who rules and how AND to call that forcing of our will 'Liberation'.

"3) We should give sanctions and inspections a chance!!!!

OK how many more decades did you want to try this? How many more times would you tolerate Iraq kicking out all inspectors? How long do you think it would take Saddam to re-arm even if inspections stripped all WMD from his arsenal? How do you ignore that all Iraqi gestures of compliance came after credible threats of force? If you understand that, do you understand France’s threat to veto any use of force castrated the potential of inspections and sanctions. How many more years did you want France and Russia to profit from violating sanctions?"

Again, very few on the 'left' thought inspections would work in the first place- They were a pre-amble to war and EVERYONE knew it. Bush got whipped at the UN by, through sheer ineptitude, allowing an inspection regime to form that WOULD find nothing and WOULD ONLY say 'give inspections a chance'. This was a game from the start- We knew, they knew, they knew that we knew. The only people who didn't see what was up was the administration.

"4) War is evil!!!

Yes. Was it evil to stop Hitler? There are worse evils. History has shown appeasement of greedy tyrants is doomed to failure. A credible threat of force is often the best way to avoid its use."

Yes, war is evil. Stopping Hitler was clear, clean self-defense. Saddam was not being appeased, he was being kept in a little box with shrinking control of hos own country and a degenerating military. There was no clear and present danger posed by Iraq. What grounds there was to claim a PROXIMAL and DISTANT threat equally or more excellently applied to about a dozen countries arounds the world.

"5) The war will increase terrorism!!!

Possibly short term. But foreign countries will be far less likely to shelter terrorists and this long term loss will diminish their capabilities. Short term terrorist attacks are unlikely to have the impact of long term plans such as 911."

Yes, it will- Ridge[id] thought so- he raised our little color-coded terror alert system to Mauve or orange or whatever- 1 down from the top thingie that says 'bend over and kiss your ass goodbye'. About 6 US soldiers have been killed by terrorist attacks (car bombings) in Iraq- More americans than have died in terrorist events since 9/11. The entire extreemist muslim world is gaining credibility due to the resentment felt around the world at a war that is both unjust and unjustified. Even main-stream 'liberal' clerics in the most respected SCHOLARLY institutions of Islam are issuing Fatwas calling for Jihad against america.

") This war is about self-protection not liberating Iraq.

First and foremost yes, but to say it is not about liberating Iraq is false. This is a significant reason many Americans support the war. It is the main reason I have wanted Saddam taken out for over a decade."

Okay, so you agree with the statement but say its 'top-10-dumb' riiight

"7) The US helped Saddam get where he is!!!

All the more reason to help take him out in my view. We should help clean up our messes in my opinion."

Okay, so lets go get the house of saud, the Egyptian 'president', the Jordanian 'king' and half a dozen others around the world who are brutal dictators we insalled and supported. How are we cleaning up our own messes by killing passels of Iraqis in the process? So we should kill the people our former lapdogs are oppressing to take responsibility for the oppression of our former lapdogs? This is complete nonsense and bullshit. A 'Planet X' argument.

"8) This war will alienate US allies!!!

They aren’t worthy much as allies if they jump ship so quickly. Canada is changing its tune and even France and Turkey are backpeddling. While none of them has joined our side they are showing signs of concern about the impacts of not being involved"

Ahh, I see, ANYONE who disagrees with us in our lust for war and stands unconvinced by our unconvincing arguments is, necessarily, an unworthy ally? Alliance goes both ways, thats why its called an alliance (maybe the right wing should add that to 'liberation' for their next words-of-the-day)

As to your take on who is peddling in what direction, I don't see it. Not in the news I see.

"9) The US has really screwed up the plans for this war!!!

This war is a huge success based on historical norms. It may even come close to matching the success of the first gulf war despite putting ground troups at risk much earlier. The successful protection of key civilian assets shows why this risky strategy was deemed necessary."

Nope. I never claimed that. I don't think very many people believe this.

"10) Bush is a moron!!

I’d start getting a little embarrassed to claim this when he keeps winning big battles with Democrats. "
Dear god, so a dumbass beats another dumbass in a battle of wits, does that make the victorious dumbass a brilliant man?