I don't think the US has any right to do anything in Iraq.
First of all, the US has this notion that we have to play policeman to the world. I just don't agree with the idea of one nation getting involved in another nation's political process.
Nope -- this old chesnut may hold up in Bosnia or Somalia, but *not* in Iraq. This *isn't* a case of the US deciding they'll make the world a better place... the claim is that Iraq is a threat to the United States.
(And lets be fair... the rest of the world will bitch and moan either way -- if the US does get involved it's part of some conspiracy to get whatever natural resource is in that part of the world... and if they don't it's because they're heartless whatevers who don't care about starving African country 258.)
\Second, I'm not sure, but I believe there is still no HARD proof that Sadaam has more than a fire cracker. If we are going to attack, we had better know for sure that we're not just going to kill innocent people.
Nope -- it's quite clear that Saddam *does* have chemical weapons. He's used them to wipe out undesirable portions of his own population.
Now, it's also been clear that he's had them for several years -- so the best you can complain about is that we've taken all this time to change our minds.
Third, assuming Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction... honestly... so what? The US has them. By denying them to another country, while the US still has them is just hypocrytical.
Again, this is only looking at a tiny piece of the problem. The claim is that Iraq is developing such weapons and plans to use them against the US. It's not a case of "we have chemical weapons and nobody else should!" -- if that were true, we'd go to war with half the world... it's a country that we believe is planning to use such weapons against us.
Fourth (this is more of personal bias than fact), I think this is more of an attack of discrimination against the Arab people than anything else. Bush's ratings went up during the war with Afghanistan... why wouldn't the same things happen during a war with Iraq? That's probably the REAL motivation behind it.
Again, that's nonsense. The president's approval rating has almost always increased during a war -- and immediately fallen afterwards. The fact that Bush isn't up for re-election (and would not be during the course of a war with Iraq) kind of squashes the old "war-for-votes" complaint (which has, incidentally, been yepled by the anti-war folks since the Civil War...).
(And look at this from a non-filthy-hippy-and-also-tinfoil-hat-conspiracy point of view: what you are specifically saying is that you think it is *wrong* to do this because the *people* will agree with it!)
Fifth, the US already screwed up matters in the Middle East beyond all else. Now we just wanna continue to interfere?
That's a fairly amorphous and uneducated complaint. Why the *US*? Europe has been just as instrumental in fudging up the middle east since the Dark Ages. The US has made some mistakes in the middle east -- but many of them were instrumental in the greater good (eliminating the Soviet Union).
And can you imagine *any* situation where after you've screwed it up you just run away and ignore it? Especially a situation that's threatening you with chemical weapons?
