Well, right now I am against a war in Iraq, but I can see how war, in general, is sometimes necessary. For example, in World War II, there was no real possibility of a diplomatic solution until after the Japanese and the Germans were militarily defeated. In the case of WWII, the war was self-defense for many countries.

In Iraq, however, there doesn't seem to be an immediate threat to any other countries. Does Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? I don't know, but I do know that the United States has not presented any plausible, real evidence that he does.

Right now, President Bush seems to be backed into a corner, because he cannot find an acceptable reason to attack. The reasons he wants to go into Iraq are numerous, but I think high on his list is getting his approval rating back up. After having the highest approval rating of any president in decades, Bush is suddenly faced with waning support. If he is going to get reelected, he is going to need majority approval and support; he's trying to get this by winning a war.

The reason I'm against an armed conflict in Iraq is because I haven't seen any evidence that a military intervention is necessary. Should Saddam and his government be overthrown and replaced with a real democratic government? Definitely, but I'm not sure that a war is the best, most efficient way to do that. Right now, to me, it looks like Bush is just grasping at straws. He wants a reason to attack, and yet every time he issues a new ultimatum to Saddam, such as allowing UN inspectors, Saddam complies. So now it has gotten to the point where if Iraq can't prove they don't have WMD, then the US will attack. I don't know how someone proves something doesn't exist, but apparently the US expects Iraq to do just that.

In conclusion, I'm against the war because I see no reason, and no evidence that all other possible approaches (including, but not limited to, diplomacy) have been exhausted.