The swelling protests against war on Iraq forget that the US was impelled into war by an attack on its territory, against enemies that target innocents and include the worst human rights violators on the planet. For whom is this insufficient justification to choose sides?
...
If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would today be the nineteenth province of Iraq (and on his own recently produced evidence, Saddam Hussein would have acquired nuclear weapons). Moreover, Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority which surrounds those who intone the ‘peace’ mantra.
...
Any ‘peace movement’ that even pretends to care for human rights will be very shaken by what will be uncovered when the regime of Saddam Hussein falls. Prisons, mass graves, weapon sites … just you wait. To say that he might do more terrible things if attacked or threatened is to miss the point. Last time he massacred the Iraqi and Kurdish population, he was withdrawing his forces under an international guarantee. The Iraqi and Kurdish peoples are now, by every measure we have or know, determined to be rid of him. And the hope, which is perhaps a slim one but very much sturdier than other hopes, is that the next Iraqi regime will be better and safer, not just from our point of view but from theirs. The sanctions policy, which was probably always hopeless, is now quite indefensible. If lifted, it would allow Saddam’s oligarchy to re-equip.
(via Ipse Dixit)