Justification for the war...

[NickE]

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long-range missiles for attacking our allies or us with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn?t virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audiotape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audiotape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?
WM: Absolutely ... unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters. Oh... and Austria.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But voters didn?t elect George Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court selected him
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, colour-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live? WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is it.
This is the one.
This one explains it all.
It is a joke that is not a joke.
Sadly, it is the way it is.
The truth I'm struggling to deal with just now.
And I'm still praying for a miracle.


P.S. And add to this list the fact that anyone who expresses any opinion counter to the Bush Doctrine and his commitment of troops to war with Iraq is vilified --deemed the very opposite of a patriot.

 

[Morph]

LOL. Nice post. Now prepare to be lynched by the angry mob of "patriots".

 

[NickE]

No doubt - but the initial post explains the way people are thinking, so let's see what they can come up with Hopefully a bit more imaginative than most of the other "discussions" I've read around here.

 

[Tominator]

As usual, the simplistic approach of the anti-bush-war crowd make them look like the idiots they are.

 

[Moonbeam]

As usual, the simplistic approach of the anti-bush-war crowd make them look like the idiots they are.
-------------------------------
As usual the simplistic comments of the pro-Bush crowd make them look like the idiots they are?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: NickE
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.
......
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: I give up!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is it.
This is the one.
This one explains it all.
It is a joke that is not a joke.
Sadly, it is the way it is.
The truth I'm struggling to deal with just now.
And I'm still praying for a miracle.


P.S. And add to this list the fact that anyone who expresses any opinion counter to the Bush Doctrine and his commitment of troops to war with Iraq is vilified --deemed the very opposite of a patriot.

REPOST

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tominator
As usual, the simplistic approach of the anti-bush-war crowd make them look like the idiots they are.

Tom Tom Tom. Attack and name call seems to be the bulk of your posts. Perhaps you should try adding something supporting a position sometime. It would make your life less stressful and you might actually be able to enlighten someone.

 

[sandorski]

Here's the Official reason for the war: War is necessary on Iraq for _________(consult this evenings news).

 

[etech]

NickE

In other words, the only way the ant-war protestors can manage to justify their position is by having both sides of the discussion with themselves.

Yes, this is also a repost and all of those "points" have already been refuted.

 

[b0mbrman]

Bleh...what's the alternative? Here's me walking up to any one of many anti-war protests around here

Me: Hi there
Anti-war guy: Hi. How's it going?
Me: Not bad. What's up?
Anti-war guy: Just trying to prevent Bush from committing mass murder--genocide if you will
Me: Cool. No war, eh?
Anti-war guy: Yeah. Stupid war
Me: Yes...war does sorta suck. So what's your plan?
Anti-war guy: How do you mean?
Me: Well. At the heart of this all is that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. That's something everyone can agree on right? He's got a fun little history of invading neighboring countries, gassing Iranians and Kurds, sending random missiles into Israel, violating truce agreements...
Anti-war guy: Yes. But what plan are you talking about?
Me: Oh...well basically, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Bush and Cheney have been linked to oil contracts
Me: Um...yes...that'll happen with rich people...they get connected to rich people things like oil...how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: How can the US complain about Iraq having chemical weapons, when we also have them?!
Me: Well, we haven't used them since we and the world came to an agreement not to decades ago while Saddam's used them twice in the last two decades. So anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Well. The US does bad things too! The British, Turkey, and Israel also do bad things!
Me: Yes we do. How do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: We will alienate important trading partners France, Germany, Russia, China and so forth if we do this! Also, this will create even more terrorists within the Arab world!
Me: Umm...that sucks...anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: End the racist war! No blood for oil!
Me: Okay...So uh, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Bush is doing this because he has a vendetta because of his father not finishing and he's a republican
Me: Um...great...if you'll recall, Clinton did bomb Iraq for a few days straight in Dec 1998 so unless he switched parties and families for just three days, you're kinda wrong . Anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: [silence]
Me: [silence]
Anti-war guy: End the racist war! No blood for oil! Free Khalid Shaik Mohammed! Eye for eye makes blind world!

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Bleh...what's the alternative? Here's me walking up to any one of many anti-war protests around here

Me: Hi there
Anti-war guy: Hi. How's it going?
Me: Not bad. What's up?
Anti-war guy: Just trying to prevent Bush from committing mass murder--genocide if you will
......
Me: Um...great...if you'll recall, Clinton did bomb Iraq for a few days straight in Dec 1998 so unless he switched parties and families for just three days, you're kinda wrong . Anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: [silence]
Me: [silence]
Anti-war guy: End the racist war! No blood for oil! Free Khalid Shaik Mohammed! Eye for eye makes blind world!

Just tell him to "quit playing de ping pong" and call him a chirping bird. Then act like he is even more ignorant when he asks you WTF you are talking about

 

[da loser]

lol @ both conversations. In response to both, they obviously distract from the real situation?
We were attacked on 9/11. 9/11 and past terrorist acts have shown that we can't afford to not react else we show weakness and open ourselves to more attacks. we do not wish another attack to happen, especially a catastrophic one that could be caused by WMDs, ie a threat to national security. Iraq has been creating WMDs in defiance of the UN. Iraq is not complying, therefore action must be taken. Let's start an embargo. Embargo does not work, leads to massive deaths and continuation of the WMD programs within Iraq. US decides it fears an attack will be eminent in the future if action is not taken, therefore goes to UN to get action in hopes of a unified response to pressure Iraq. UN is not firm with Iraq, leading to no disarmament. US does not wish to wait until Iraq has WMDS, feels waiting longer will only make future action costlier for US forces. US attacks Iraq.

Now, the debate should not be really about international law because it is a farce. International law is determined by force or mutual agreement, force is of course the overriding factor. Furthermore, trying to draw conclusions between different cases to show hypocrisy does not work in international relations, plus it's a very weak argument to make. It's akin to saying if i cut your arm off it's bad, if i cut your leg off it's bad. You must stop me from cutting your arm off because it's bad. Then I counter, if it's so bad, why don't you stop me from cutting off your leg.

So the debate should focus on the existance of WMDs and whether force is justified for potential future acts. The WMD issue has been debated countless times. The more important issue is whether the risk of an attack in the future justifies current action as well as the risk of the current action. Any other arguments detract from this and are really just superificial. This is where I belief the anti-war movement hijacked the entire process. In an effort eliminate any future threat, the US tried to go through the UN to disarm. But showing the future threat needed proof through the UN inspections (proof required by anti-war, in fact the threat would exist if disarmament occured as long as knowledge to reproduce remained), no weapons were found, so the anti-war people sought to use the non-existance of WMDs as the focus of the debate. Since, no proof was found and the US still felt Iraq represented a threat in the future that outwayed the risk of a war in the present; any means necessary to justify the war on legal grounds were made.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: da loser
lol @ both conversations. In response to both, they obviously distract from the real situation?
We were attacked on 9/11. 9/11 and past terrorist acts have shown that we can't afford to not react else we show weakness and open ourselves to more attacks. we do not wish another attack to happen, especially a catastrophic one that could be caused by WMDs, ie a threat to national security. Iraq has been creating WMDs in defiance of the UN. Iraq is not complying, therefore action must be taken. Let's start an embargo. Embargo does not work, leads to massive deaths and continuation of the WMD programs within Iraq. US decides it fears an attack will be eminent in the future if action is not taken, therefore goes to UN to get action in hopes of a unified response to pressure Iraq. UN is not firm with Iraq, leading to no disarmament. US does not wish to wait until Iraq has WMDS, feels waiting longer will only make future action costlier for US forces. US attacks Iraq.

Now, the debate should not be really about international law because it is a farce. International law is determined by force or mutual agreement, force is of course the overriding factor. Furthermore, trying to draw conclusions between different cases to show hypocrisy does not work in international relations, plus it's a very weak argument to make. It's akin to saying if i cut your arm off it's bad, if i cut your leg off it's bad. You must stop me from cutting your arm off because it's bad. Then I counter, if it's so bad, why don't you stop me from cutting off your leg.

So the debate should focus on the existance of WMDs and whether force is justified for potential future acts. The WMD issue has been debated countless times. The more important issue is whether the risk of an attack in the future justifies current action as well as the risk of the current action. Any other arguments detract from this and are really just superificial. This is where I belief the anti-war movement hijacked the entire process. In an effort eliminate any future threat, the US tried to go through the UN to disarm. But showing the future threat needed proof through the UN inspections (proof required by anti-war, in fact the threat would exist if disarmament occured as long as knowledge to reproduce remained), no weapons were found, so the anti-war people sought to use the non-existance of WMDs as the focus of the debate. Since, no proof was found and the US still felt Iraq represented a threat in the future that outwayed the risk of a war in the present; any means necessary to justify the war on legal grounds were made.

There's a few problems concerning this. Certainly Iraq has/had unique capabilities concerning the manufacture of such materials, that is not in question since the historical record shows the existance and success of such. However, the knowledge of how to produce such materials lies with the scientists/engineers that have been employed by Saddam and despite certain unique capabilities(facilities) that were(are?) present in Iraq, many of the potential weapons can be reproduced without the complex facilities that (exist?) once existed. So sure, Iraq may be neutralized as a "potential" source of WMD(Chem/BIO), but the real danger lies in the dispersion of the scientists/engineers from Iraq, for their expertise can't be dissolved through shredding of documents or the destruction of facilities. I don't know how many of these people have already left Iraq or how many remain, but if/when they do disperse they could easily begin manufacture of certain WMD almost anywhere else.

In short, the invasion of Iraq will do little to prevent WMD from falling into the wrong hands. In fact, it might even accelerate it. We already have examples of Ricin suspected to be manufactured by Al Queda in Africa for example and there was that religious sect in Japan who manufactured (something..don't remember what it was) in Japan which they used on a Subway. The US, IMO, is wasting time and money on this invasion in regards to the proliferation of WMD, the cat is already out of the bag and now it is more prudent to address the issue of Terrorist groups and of border(US) integrity.

 

[Feldenak]

Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Bah, the French were cheese-eating surrender monkeys long before the current events.

From an email I received. Enjoy

The Complete Military History of France

- Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000
years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an
Italian.

- Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female
schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French
Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a
Frenchman."

- Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to
ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but
manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that
eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as
chapeaux.

- The Dutch War - Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded
Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of
French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French
their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

- American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to
future Americans, France claims a win even though the English
colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle
Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France
only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was
also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First
Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match
For a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk
Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the
United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to
Not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein."
Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American and British forces
forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.


- World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States
and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed
with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western
army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces
the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French."
This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians,
Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history,
surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to
surrender to North Korean ambassador fail after he takes refuge
in a McDonald's.




The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not
be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France
collapses?"

 

[steell]

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

Care to elaborate on exactly which "Security Council Resolutions" Israel has violated?

Hint: Think before you type.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: steell

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

Care to elaborate on exactly which "Security Council Resolutions" Israel has violated?

Hint: Think before you type.

These resolutions???

 

[steell]

I warned you

Chapter VI and Chapter VII Resolutions

Two chapters of the UN Charter clarify the powers of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter - that deals with "Pacific Resolution of Disputes" - are implemented through a process of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration between the parties to a dispute. UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 is a Chapter VI resolution which, when taken together with Resolution 338, leads to an Israeli withdrawal from territories (not all the territories) that Israel entered in the 1967 Six-Day War, by means of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The resolution is not self-enforced by Israel alone; it requires a negotiating process.
The most severe resolutions of the UN Security Council are those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter - that deal with "Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression." When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council adopted all its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The implementation of those resolutions was not contingent on Iraqi-Kuwaiti negotiations, for Iraq engaged in a clear-cut act of aggression. Moreover, UN resolutions on Iraq are self-enforcing, requiring Iraq alone to comply with their terms. However, the UN recognized, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the need for special military measures to be taken if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor.

It is noteworthy that in 1967, no UN body adopted a resolution branding Israel as the aggressor in the Six-Day War, despite Soviet efforts, for it was commonly accepted that Israeli actions were the result of a war of self-defense.

The debate over compliance with UN resolutions, however, has called attention to flagrant violations of Chapter VII resolutions on Iraq by Syria, which is ironically a member of the UN Security Council. Currently, all of Iraq's oil trade is under UN sanctions. UN Security Council Resolution 661 provided that no state was to trade in Iraqi oil; subsequently, the UN created, for humanitarian reasons, the oil-for-food program, which permitted Iraqi oil sales as long as the UN could strictly control the expenditure of any resulting oil revenues for food and medicine.

However, in the last two years, Syria has agreed to illegally pump Iraqi oil through its pipeline to the Mediterranean in violation of UN Chapter VII sanctions on Iraq. Syria is earning approximately $1 billion per year from this illegal trade that circumvents the UN oil-for-food program. Additionally by harboring known international terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Hizballah, and the Islamic Jihad, Syria is violating the specific terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

 

[steell]

I forgot to include a link (and I hate it when others do that)

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-7.htm

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Bleh...what's the alternative? Here's me walking up to any one of many anti-war protests around here

Me: Hi there
Anti-war guy: Hi. How's it going?
Me: Not bad. What's up?
Anti-war guy: Just trying to prevent Bush from committing mass murder--genocide if you will
Me: Cool. No war, eh?
Anti-war guy: Yeah. Stupid war
Me: Yes...war does sorta suck. So what's your plan?
Anti-war guy: How do you mean?
Me: Well. At the heart of this all is that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. That's something everyone can agree on right? He's got a fun little history of invading neighboring countries, gassing Iranians and Kurds, sending random missiles into Israel, violating truce agreements...
Anti-war guy: Yes. But what plan are you talking about?
Me: Oh...well basically, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Bush and Cheney have been linked to oil contracts
Me: Um...yes...that'll happen with rich people...they get connected to rich people things like oil...how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: How can the US complain about Iraq having chemical weapons, when we also have them?!
Me: Well, we haven't used them since we and the world came to an agreement not to decades ago while Saddam's used them twice in the last two decades. So anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Well. The US does bad things too! The British, Turkey, and Israel also do bad things!
Me: Yes we do. How do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: We will alienate important trading partners France, Germany, Russia, China and so forth if we do this! Also, this will create even more terrorists within the Arab world!
Me: Umm...that sucks...anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: End the racist war! No blood for oil!
Me: Okay...So uh, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Bush is doing this because he has a vendetta because of his father not finishing and he's a republican
Me: Um...great...if you'll recall, Clinton did bomb Iraq for a few days straight in Dec 1998 so unless he switched parties and families for just three days, you're kinda wrong . Anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: [silence]
Me: [silence]
Anti-war guy: End the racist war! No blood for oil! Free Khalid Shaik Mohammed! Eye for eye makes blind world!

LOL