Ciao!

"For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam’s Iraq. "

If US had been clear about its conscience from the start, it wouldn't have been blind for 12 years.

If US had the interest of Iraq's indigents, it wouldn't have waited 12 years.

US knew what a despot Saddam is all this while. But US let him remain in his position after he was defeated in 1991. Was US blind all that time?

I don't discount these humanitarian injustices, Miguel. But don't use these stories to make me believe I'm a wretched criminal if I didn't get swayed by these stories. You're implying that if I were not moved by these stories, then I have no heart. If I take an anti-war stance, then I do not care for human rights? It's a cheap shot.

There will be more random little "terrorists" with self-made bombs that cost a few dollars, who'd blow up hundreds of people, because they do not agree with the war. They hold the population at large in hostage. And that's a real threat.

Does that make me coldhearted, that I care more for the lives of my loved ones instead of the lives of strangers? Does that make sense that many countries are going to be affected with suicide bombers when US goes ahead with this war?

Are you blind to the potential risks caused by actions of your government?

No, it's not a cheap shot. What I'm saying is that if someone talks about humanitarian reasons to avoid war - and doesn't acknowledge that Hussein is a brutal dictator - then I can't give that argument respect. There are many good reasons to oppose war w/ Iraq, but a delicate care for civilians isn't the best one.

What I'm saying is quite literally this: If someone doesn't acknowledge that Hussein is a brutal tyrant, then they have no right to (cynically) oppose war on "humanitarian" principles. Sure, we can say that our brutality (war) might be worse than Hussein's brutality. But an argument that doesn't acknowledge Hussein's brutality is not an honest one.

Yes, we stood idly by for too many years as Hussein brutalized his own people. We should've acted then. For that very reason, it's imperative that we act now. I hope this sets a new precedent: Tyrants beware, you can't hide behind the protective veil of sovereignty as you violate human rights. The international community - or at least the world policeman - will do something.

Yes, US should have acted then.

If the countries round up together and support the war for disarmament, if the UN bucks up its socks and repairs its deficiencies, there might be a chance.

I don't know if it's too late now to argue that human rights concerns is a just cause to go for this war. In general, it always is.
However, the conditions since 911 incident have also changed.

I'm not worried abt tyranical rulers. Their position and desire for power make it easier to control.

What I'm worried abt is the hundreds/thousands of faceless mass who are resentful of US actions and will destroy lives and property randomly to more innocent civilians. These suicide-bombers are the ones who are harder to spot. The 911 attack is the first big precedent. Heard of copy cat killers?

Could we forgo this full-out assault, and replace it with something less disturbing?

I acknowledge Hussein's brutality.

And I also acknowledge other Muslim extremists' brutality of killing many more innocent civilians should the war occur.

If we don't act out of fear of what potential terrorists might do, then we've essentially given in to blackmail. I refuse to let a criminal dictate the terms by which I'll live my life. Those terms will be dictated by me.