HaysooChreesto!

I'm in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein. If that means war, then so be it. I believe that 9/11 was an example of unfinished business that resulted in disaster. I believe the same thing applies to Iraq.
There's more, much more, but I think it falls outside the scope of this thread.

I'm an atheist.

seanie

Against the war. Atheist.

I don't believe Saddam poses any threat at the moment and think it extremely unlikely he'll pose any credible threat in the future.

The only grounds you'd be likely to convince me on would be a humanitarian concern for the Iraqis. After all Saddam is extremely unpleasant. They'd probably be better off without him. I nervously supported the action in Kosovo, although I think that was a far simpler situation (that still didn't run according to plan).

I worry about the possiblity of large scale Iraqi casualties.

However that may be avoided. Which brings me to my second major concern.

The worst thing that could happen now is that the war goes really badly. Prolonged, heavy casualties, a humanitarian and environmental catstrophe that destabilises the whole region.

I'd like the war to go quickly and efficiently.

However if the war goes really well that brings it's own dangers. Flushed with that kinda success the architects of this policy are gonna start looking around for the next target.

If convinced of their military invincibility and the doctrine of pre-emptive action, they'll eventually pick a fight that goes horrifically wrong.

NYCparalegal

Agnostic.

Liberal to moderate.

I oppose this war.

Why? I really don't oppose the war per se, in that Saddam is surely a cruel despot to his people and surely needs to step down. I believe that sometimes it takes force to bring about change.

However, here is the crux of the problem. Change can either be good or bad. Now, having read a bit about the various ethnic and religious factions that make up the nation of Iraq, along with the various other factors (such as the Middle East in general, the fundamentalism of Muslim regimes in surrounding countries, etc.), there is a good chance that this change will not be as flowery or as poetic as the administration is selling it. I have a feeling that in the end the Iraqi people will be screwed, no matter what "regime change" has brought...

Claudia

Atheist, French, socialist.

I am against the war. Ang aggressive war could be marginally justified only if it is likely to improve the state of the World. I do not think it is the case for this one (I agree, it can improve for a time Iraqi's situation, but I expect worse fron further World destabilization).
Recently heard on TV: Bush has the choice between a failure and a disater (failure if no war, disaster if war). I agree.
The saddest is that if Bush's administration had behaved intelligently at the begining of the affair, they could have had a large internationnal support (hence reducing the risk of World destabilization).

Alonzo Fyfe

Atheist

In principle, I support a war to remove Saddam from power. It would make the world a better place.

In practice, Bush did such an incompetent job handling the situation that I cannot support Bush's execution of the war. A competent President could have gotten more allies with us. A competent President would have made it clear to the world that this action is being taken on principle, and not on prejudice.

If Bush Sr. had been in office, I have no doubt that the army would have entered Iraq with a security-council blessings, permission to use the military resources of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and with support for the American position in the world at significantly better than the <20% that Bush has mustered.

Around the world, 80% of the world's population sees this as an act of arrogant American unilateralism. That hostility will have ripples far into the indefinite future.

Furthermore, Bush cannot claim that this war is "justified" on the basis of unilaterally enforcing his interpretation of a UN resolution. As a UN resolution, only the UN can legitimately enforce it.

In short, even though Bush may win this particular battle, and COULD HAVE made the world a better place by removing Saddam, his incompetence guarantees he will fail in the larger goal, even if he succeeds in the closer and more immediate goal.

Gary Welsh

Atheist. Independent.

I support the war. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, and in my assessment, a criminal. He should be taken out of power. We should have done it twelve years ago, but now is better than never.

I only wish Bush had emphasized the humanitarian aspect of it, insteading of focusing on disarmament and exaggerating what a threat Saddam is to us. He is mostly a threat to his own people.

Is fighting a war to liberate people from an oppressive dictatorial regime justifiable? I think it is.

theophilus

I needed to get away for awhile; try to gain some perspective; stop ignoring my family to post.

theophilus

I know I don't "own" this thread and can't enforce limitations on what is posted. However, I had requested that there be no argumentation (I kow this requires restraint on a board which is basially for argument).

Most posters have accepted this. However, a couple have been quite critical of other's posts. I have been asked by one participant to be given permission to respond to a critic.

Since he asked, I'm going to say no (even though he can do whatever he wants) and ask that other posters respect limitation. If you wish to argue about the war, there are other threads or you can start your own.

I appreciate all those who have posted.

EarlFlynn

I'm an atheist and a democratic socialist.

I'm against the war.

The evidence would seem to indicate that Saddam isn't a very nice guy, and that the people of Iraq would be better off if someone else (most especially, the Iraqi people themselves) were in charge.

If the motives of the Western world really were pure, then shouldn't we simply try Saddam for crimes against humanity? Gee, it's too bad there isn't some kind of international court that could handle such a task...oh, wait! There is!

If I ran the world, this would be not a military operation, but a law enforcement problem. Use the minimum force necessary to bring Saddam and his cronies to justice, give aid to the Iraqi people to fill in the power vacuum, and let control of Iraqi natural resources remain in Iraqi hands. I.E., no cushy contract for Haliburton after the war.

Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we aren't going to be seen as complete hypocrites, we should apply justice equally to all nations, regardless of the abundance or absence of desirable resources.

It's clear to me that this war was never about terrorism or any potential threat from Saddam. It's all about controlling wealth and making sure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

And because I live in the Western world, I'm partly responsible.

christ-on-a-stick

Atheist, left-leaning independent.

Operation Attack Iraq = Whack.

Against, against, against.