At least you are debating the issues. My response was to something quite different.
There are obviously distinctly different approaches to this issue. The arguments and the fears that underly those arguments in your post, are generally the standard arguments of those opposed to war with Iraq.
I find myself in strong disagreement with most of them.
I don't think for example the doomsday scenario painted by the "anti's" is a likely outcome. I am sure it will not be another Vietnam but more like another Afghanistan, where no one will support Saddam. (for the reason that his neighbours fear that without the might of the US opposing him they would be easy prey to his dream of a new "Babylonian Empire").
I take the view that your side shows an almost inhuman indifference to the present suffering of those under Saddam's tyranny and that a military operation led by the US will, in it's benefits for the Iraqis, far outweigh any casualties as a result of a war.
Further I think the view of the "anti's" toward the US and GB is jaundiced and plays ducks and drakes with the facts and the truth. I have more confidence in their interpretation of the facts than that of the "anti's".
I think we all hate the bloodshed and suffering that war brings but I am not a pacifist and my reading of history is that both these great nations along with Australia have, through fighting wars against tyrants,made the world a better place than it would otherwise have been. ie there is a credible record that engenders my trust in them.
