I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint here, without diverging too much into the rationale behind the .
US government position on Iraq. I ask anyone who considers attending an anti-war demonstration, in the interests of fair-mindedness, to please ruminate on it. Simply put, anyone who has been shot at on the battlefield despises war. I have spoken to many of those .
in the Armed Forces who either experienced actual combat, or dreaded going to it. However, the world is not a .
place to take light-handedly. There are groups of people who will behave in their own self-interests, who will .
murder to acquire power, and then utilize it to oppress their citizenry, and threaten neighboring countries. This .
is such the case in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's pursuit of WMDs is motivated by a desire to secure his seat of .
authority in the region, and increase the size of his sphere of influence. Consider this: why would he develop .
such programs otherwise? He poses a potentially dramatic destabilizing force in the region, especially to places .
which are teetering on the edge of civilian rebellion such as Saudi-Arabia. Should he acquire them, he would be .
enabled, with the advantage of deterrence to attempt to expand his borders. An action such as this would be of .
massive consequence, and the US would be forced to intervene. Hussein has been given a multitude of opportunities .
to disarm himself, and has consistently violated UN resolutions. On a side note, there were few protests about US .
action in places such as the Balkans, and Somalia, where America's military and NATO eviscerated the dictatorship .
of Slobodan Milosevic, and attempted to supply aid to millions in Operation Restore Hope. Iraq's people are in a .
situation under the harsh rule of a despot. Iraq will change a great deal under democratic order. Insofar as .
"no blood for oil," it is the stated goal of the Bush administration to allow Iraq to retain control of its oil .
