I'll chime in here by saying that I am certainly not pro war, but neither am pro tyrannical leader. You see, regardless of how one feels about war, how they feel about the fact that a large underlying reason for this conflict is oil, and regardless of how one feels about G.W. Bush, intellectually, this conflict makes sense.
The arguments against a war with Iraq are as follows:
1. "No blood for oil." Well, on that point, most (other than die hard, fanatical, laissez faire capitalists) would agree that, certainly, nobody should be killed simply for sake of maintaining an already bloated oil dependant lifestyle here in the U.S. Yes, Oil has become the "lifeblood" of virtually everything that's done in the U.S., but the fact remains that most of the U.S.'s oil comes from South America, Canada, and right here in the U.S., so the fact remains that, while oil is an underlying motivator in this conflict, it is not the motivator as some would have you believe.
2. The U.S. is simply playing "global bully" and is trying to push around weaker regimes. The U.S. is the World's sole remaining superpower and, therefore, has a certain level of responsibility to the rest of the World. Other nations use the U.S. dollar as backing for their own money, they rely on the U.S. to lead the way on most economic and political issues, and the rest of the world generally relies on the U.S. to assist in brokering deals between nations ranging from peaceful conflict resolution to economic free trade pacts. In other words, whether the rest of the World likes it or not, they generally follow the lead of the U.S.
Additionally, the U.S. is called upon to do something in virtually every armed conflict around the globe. In other words, the U.S. is not the "global bully" but rather, is seen as somewhat of a global police force that is called upon to act in cases where all else has failed. Most conservatives (i.e. the ardent pro war portion of the population) hate this fact, however, as a superpower, the U.S. cannot sit idly by and watch other nations draw surrounding states into a sinkhole type situation where conflict expands from a one small area and expands into a larger, regional conflict. Remember, WWI began with a relatively small conflict in the region that was formerly known as Yugoslavia.
3. Innocent people will die. I hate to break the news to everyone who opposes a conflict here, but innocent people are going to die whether the U.S. invades or not. Innocent people in Iraq have been dying for decades now under the rule of a man who, by all accounts, is both paranoid and brilliant- a very dangerous combination for a man in control of a nation. Sadaam Hussein is a man who unleashed chemical weapons on his own people, he is a man who has murdered, massacred, and maimed anyone (and this includes family members) who he even suspected of not playing 100% within his rules. Hussein is a man who builds castle after castle, compound after compound, and monument after monument- expending billions, if not trillions, of dollars- all while his people live in squalor and poverty.
Hussein is also a man who despises western culture and has been a sponsor of global terrorism throughout the world. He pays family's of suicide bombers more money than they likely had ever seen, he harbors international criminals and allows them to operate globally with his blessing, and he has chemical and biological weapons (both vehemently banned by the U.N. and the Geneva convention by the way) developed to the point where they can now become a global threat depending upon whose hands the weapons are placed into.
Sadaam is a man who is maniacal, and is capable of virtually anything that will hedge him into power. He is a man who is as firmly entrenched within a position of authority as any that have ever been, and he is a man who has already proven that he is not afraid to level his neighbors, defy the World, and laugh in the face of an onslaught. In other words: he's exceptionally dangerous.
Additionally there is this to consider. The U.S. is firmly tied to Israel as its most fervent and supportive ally. The U.S. will not allow another nation to encroach upon the nation of Israel without sending in its own troops to reinforce the nation that sits on a virtual island amongst nations that despise all it stands for.
Sadaam Hussein has stated time and again his hatred towards the nation of Israel and desires almost as much as anything else in his life, to see it annihilated. The reasoning behind this (this is my own theory) is due to the fact that most Muslim nations see the Israeliâ€™s as infidels encroaching upon their holy land. Sadaam is a man of tremendous ambition who has elevated himself to the status of a God (at least in his own mind.) The one thing he lacks is the respect and admiration of the Muslim world at large and the one thing that would certainly bring him that admiration and adoration that he desires would be for him to devastate Israel, and destroy that nation.
While this would likely be suicidal, there is always the possibility that neighboring nations would be drawn into the war in order to see Israel removed from the face of the Earth once again. In this case, war would be inevitable, it would be exceptionally messy, and it would be a war covering several fronts, with several different political implications. It would likely bring about what could become WWIII.
While this last bit is theory, it is certainly within the realm of plausible possibility, and something to be considered by those who oppose war in this circumstance simply for the sake of opposing war.
My appeal to those of you in opposition to this conflict is this: consider all likely scenarios prior to passing judgment. While this is not what any of us want, it is an event that is virtually inevitable because, at some point, Hussein will act in a manner that will draw the U.S. into an armed conflict. The difference now is that greater casualties can be prevented if the war machine operates as planned.
**Disclaimer: Sorry about the length of this thing, I couldn't have made it any shorter and made the points that I needed to make. I also apologize if the thoughts seem to run together a bit; this slight dissertation could have gone on for several more pages but, in the interest of time (and attention spans) I tried to make this argument as succinct as possible. Thanks.