This post is in response to KorpDeath's continued argument for war against Iraq.

I'm not saying the U.S should go to war for any nother reason than the entire civilized world has already unanimously agreed 12 freakin' years ago that "severe consequences" will be had if SoDamn Insane doesn't disarm.....Has he disarmed? Has he layed out all of his weapons and systematically destroyed them for the world to see? No. Just so you don't think I'm actually asking you a question, I'll answer it for myself.

I don't like war, just like I don't condone violence of any kind. However, when faced with the fact that this guy means absolutely nothing but death, destruction, rape, carnage, I mean for God's sake he imprisoned Iraq's soccer team and coach for losing in the Olympics. Before you people go off and tell me what a bad person I am, and what a horrible country I live in try to understand the person you stand behind. Because if you don't back resolution 1441, then you back Sodom.
Think of the iraqi children that are gassed on whim by they're dictator. Saddam Hussein's son rapes and kills when he feels "upset." They're was a russian ballerina Saddam's son raped, what about her justice? Think of the iraqi soccer team who was imprisoned and tortured for they're loss in the olympics, where is they're justice? Saddam is a monster who needs to be rooted (out? ) before things turn worse.
Hold on one second. Anyone who supports a war, please, stop arguing the moral standpoint, for it is complete bullshit. Saddam has been doing terrible things for a long, long time now. No major superpower really gave a ****, because they're all looking out for number one, e.g. During the Iran Iraq war, Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians:

Late, in March 1986, the UN secretary general, Javier Perez de Cuellar, formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran...Iraq attempted to deny using chemicals, but the evidence, in the form of many badly burned casualties flown to European hospitals for treatment, was overwhelming.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

The US didn't do anything about it then (obviously). It was playing both sides for its own best interests. There is a web page here that goes into greater detail on this issue.

One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."
From the previously mentioned web page. Even when Saddam used chemical weapons on his own citizens, the US didn't do anything. It's a baseless argument.

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes...In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an “open letter” to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate “the threat posed by Saddam.” It urged Clinton to “provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

No slight on the US or Rumsfeld, I'm just going insane with people thinking that a fundamental part of the push for war is the way Saddam treats his citizens.

OK, here are my arguments for not supporting this war. Please, if I'm wrong or have presented incorrect evidence, tell me. If you think my arguments are irrational, tell me. I'm perfectly open to opposing but rational arguments.

Here are some basic facts:

  • Saddam is a pretty bad guy. No argument.
    No-one really wants Saddam to be in possession of WMD.
    Although it is thus far unproven, there is a chance that he does have in his possession WMD.
    It's possible that he provides/has provided weapons to fanatical groups, who may possibly use them on civilian targets/allied interests/US interests.

These are all valid reasons for the disarmament of Iraq. What they do not validate, however, is a US-led coalition raining death and destruction upon the Iraqi people. Especially considering the argument is only with Saddam. The single valid reason for war is to relieve Iraq of its WMD. It is not the US' job to institute occupation afterwards, and the US should have absolutely no part in deciding who will run the country or how the country should be run after Saddam has been deposed and relieved of his WMD. These things should be done by the UN, or at the very least by a body who does not have a conflict of interest regarding who will run Iraq or the way Iraq should be run. However, it is looking more and more likely that the US will play a great part in the way Iraq is run after the war is over. This is where my opposition to the war lies.

Believe it or not KorpDeath, oil is a pretty important commodity, and it is probably one of the reasons that the US is going to war with Iraq. If the US occupies Iraq afterwards, and there are oilfields intact, who is going to stop the US and her allies doing whatever it will with the oil? The temptation would be too great, especially considering the importance the US has placed on Middle East oil in the past.

Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out countries like India, which is engaged in developing oil fields in that country.

Analysts said Iraq -- with proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, next only to Saudi Arabia -- could throw the global oil market into a tailspin by resuming full-fledged production if U.N. sanctions against it were lifted.

Besides India, countries like France, Russia, China, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria have signed or sought to sign agreements to develop Iraqi oil fields, rebuild refineries and undertake exploration activities.

Iraq is permitted to produce 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil a day under a U.N. oil-for-food programme, but actual production is about 1.5 to 2 million barrels.

This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies....The source noted that U.S. President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have strong links with the oil industry and alleged that the threat to attack Iraq was aimed at helping American oil companies.

In 1973, Iraq nationalised all oil companies. By displacing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime, U.S. and British companies would be able to re-enter the country and get a major share of its oil industry.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/020923/43/1viab.html

Here are some more points to ponder:

  • It is doubtful that Saddam would use WMD unprovoked. Simply because it's obvious that he enjoys his reign, and if he were to use them, his country would be obliterated.
    These missing WMD need to be accounted for before any war begins. A war with Iraq would be a great reason for a fanatical group to launch an attack, assuming Iraq has passed weapons on to said groups.
    North Korea is a nation which is an actual, clear threat to the US and her allies, yet 'diplomacy' is the answer to that problem, while 'war' is the answer to Iraq.
    UN approval would not make any difference, it was easy enough to get for 1441, and that link bascally demonstrates why the UN is losing relevance (not revelance )

So in short, my opposition to a US-led coalition waging war on Iraq is mainly because of the implications of this war, and also because of the conflicts of interest presented by the primary nations responsible for this war. UN approval matters neither way, for it is something that can be coerced out of nations, and therefore has little overall significance.

<edit>
"too long of a post to read"

Just making it an extra bit longer for this special person
</edit>