War? If you took a poll asking people a general question as to whether they want a war, probably 99% would say no. Even now, I don't think most people want a war. However, how they react to that differs. Some are protesting a war, while others feel that some of us are in danger and would not oppose a war that is in our self-defense.
I think that liberating the Iraqi people would be a perceived side benefit of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. I have never thought that the reason so many countries support a military offensive as a last resort is *primarily* for the purpose of liberating the Iraqis. Rather, it is because they perceive Saddam to be a very dangerous and destabilizing influence in the middle east and beyond. If he were on the up and up he would have declared or detroyed his weapons long ago. He's had, what now, 14 years to comply with the 50 or so UN resolutions? As I posted a link recently, the US State Dept. throughout Clinton's 8 years said that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorists. There are reams of reports going back all those years from intelligence agencies, the UN, etc. that detail his support of and links with terrorists, including Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda affiliated groups, Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, the Palestinian suicide bombers and so on. In the latest Al Qaeda tape from yesterday, there are numerous exhortations to join in the fight supporting Iraq. Lots of people do believe all this evidence and that is why they are wary and not so quick to say antiwar at all costs. The "violence begets violence" argument does not hold up for some. Taking it to a simple level - we have all heard of violent husbands and boyfriends who have beat their wives and girlfriends for years. And the women usually never fight back, ever, but just take it because they are so cowed. These violent men seem to become only more empowered by the woman's acquiesence and it is usually not until law enforcment and/or social service authorities intervene that the men are finally stopped or locked up. In such cases of violence, only intervention from the outside stops the cycle of violence. The oil motive does not hold up for many people, either. If that were true "Bushie I" and the US could have just wormed their way in and taken over Kuwait after it was liberated from Saddam. Or could have kept going and taken out Saddam and installed its "oil empire" 14 years ago. Or never agreed to the sanctions and said "we're going to keep getting all the oil we can out of Iraq" like it is now being reported that France and Germany have done through the back door in defiance of the UN sanctions all along. Oil is definintely part of the overall equation, no doubt, because it is Iraq's primary export and many other countries rely on Iraqi oil much more than the U.S. does. The Iraqi people would most likely be far better off economically under a different regime. But ultimately, I think the reasons why it has come to this point are ALL of these factors involved and the most overriding reason is many people's true belief that Saddam is a threat to the US and some other countries through his long-detailed complicity with supporting terrorist groups. Whether one believes that or not, the reality is that many people do believe it and do not want to just sit back and do nothing and let him continue. Kakki
