I'm going to go Ockham's Razor on this and say if Hussein disarmed, we wouldn't be where we are now. Whether or not the war is justified is irrelevant, whether or not Bush is right or wrong is irrelevant. If the leader of a country threatens war unless you stop violating a resolution banning biochemical weapons, it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong; just stop.
We're in this situation, no matter how you slice it, because:
1) Bush made an ultimatum
2) Hussein opted not to disarm
I also don't buy the argument that Hussein *has* disarmed. Everything I've read on it says, "We are stalling."
In any case, neither side has convinced me on the subject of the war. Somebody asked this in another messageboard, so pardon me if I just copy/paste my original response:
"I'm not really pro-war or anti-war; I don't think either side has made a very good argument either way.
1) "No more blood for oil!" - This is the most simplistic strawman argument I have ever seen. Seriously.
2) "Regime change." - Stupidest request ever made by one state TO ANOTHER.
3) I get the whole weapons of mass destruction argument, and I think it's an excellent argument for wanting to go to war, I just think that it's unwise to start rushing into a country which we're pretty sure has BIOCHEMICAL WEAPONS. Because guess what Sadam's gonna do with all the anthrax he doesn't have? Oh.
4) "Bush should be focusing on DOMESTIC problems, not with the MIDDLE EAST!" - Right. Like how he was focusing on education before 9-11. In response to terrorist attacks or rising turmoil in the middle east, the most appropriate move is to remove ourselves from international politics, and possibly cut back on our defense program. I hate people. Why shouldn't he focus on both?
5) "War will help the economy." - This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
Those are my thoughts in a nutshell.
-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com
