Is Iraqi war justified?

[MDLarson]

I watched President Bush's speech a couple of nights ago and tend to agree with his main points:

1) Saddam and his regime are a threat to the West (primarily terrorism.)
2) The UN has issued a demand for the disarmament of Iraq, which it has failed to do.
3) Diplomacy has not worked thus far and action is needed to back up the UN resolution.

Consider this quote from here.

None of the Iraqis who agreed to be interviewed for this article had any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Armand, a filmmaker from Chicago, says he hopes if there is a war, Saddam will be ousted.

"It makes me sick when people campaign against war," says Armand, who says he fled Iraq after taking part in the unsuccessful rebellion against Saddam that followed the Gulf War. "I don?t want to live in this constant fear all the time. If there is a war and my family survives the war, I will at least be able to go and see them."

I realize that most of you folks are democrats and do not support Bush, but I'd like to get past that and just debate the necessity of this war.

p.s. I voted "Yes"

[Ricky]

War is never justified.

[Giaguara]

Peace.

"Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required. "

Well. In Milan (Italy) there was a Swiss pilot piloting a Cessna to one of the famous skyscrapers (Pirelli, a skyscraper in the European scale) in last April or May. As far as I know, Italy hasn't started a war to Switzerland for that. About 10 persons died on that 'attack'. Does it qualify as a terrorist attack? A Swiss pilot flied intentionally into that building.

[toast]

I am not a pacifist.
I voted no because, for the last two weeks, I have read hundreds of posts in this macosx.com café, and I didn't find one sole valuable argument supporting war, whereas I've read dozens of thoughtful opinions against it.

Pax,
Toast

[MDLarson]

Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required. Does no one see this simple equation? Or is my equation wrong? How can one justify idleness in these circumstances?

[RacerX]

Originally posted by MDLarson
Indeed, peace is preferred, but when terrorists fly planes into buildings (causing massive loss of life) we cannot simply let the enemy plot for more of the same. Action is required.

Yes, absolutely! Action is required. We should never have started on this distraction in the first place.

If the Bush doctrine actually holds water, then why Iraq and not North Korea? Iraq isn't really a threat to anyone (but their own people) at this point. North Korea is going out of their way to be seen as a threat (though it is most likely a weird cry for help) and actually has the ability to do what Iraq can't (actually hurt us).

I only see three threats to US interests at this point (not in any order of magnitude):

• Terrorism from al Qaeda cells
• North Korea
• George W. Bush

[JetwingX]

as many of you may know i am anti-war

read below (the sig )

[AppMan]

Lock and load! Line em' up & take em out!