Tylor Brand

As is usual in war, the imminent one with Iraq has produced quite a bit of self-righteous soapbox preaching from both the chicken-hawks and the peaceniks, who both spout catch phrases but don't objectively say why.

As they control the media, the ones with their fingers on the trigger tend to win out. So, in the interest of fair play, let's toss around a few pro-war arguments in a historical context, shall we?

(Note: I use "we" for flow. This does not suggest we did anything. It was the state.)

1. Saddam has violated the U.N. mandates.

Re-read that last statement. Done? OK, now ask yourself this: Whose mandate was it? There you go! Is it our duty to enforce the treaty between England and France following the 100 Years War? Of course not. It isn't our duty or even our right to enforce any treaty that isn't our own (so say Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter. All resources must first be exhausted before force can even be considered). This most certainly is not our treaty.

2. Saddam is a baby-killing dictator.

Yes, he is. Let's go back to the situation when this occurred. The U.S.-supported Kurdish rebels were about to break off from Iraq when Turkey started carping because Kurdish independence from Iraq could cause its Kurds to rise up and demand independence, or even (Allah forbid) equality, and that we should allow Iraq to crush the rebellion. So what did this freedom-loving state do? We stepped back and let Saddam obliterate our former Kurdish helpers to placate our allies. Indirectly because of us, the situation degraded into genocide.

Not only this, but in March 1988, we defended Saddam's use of chemical weapons that killed 5,000 of the 70,000 citizens in the Kurdish town of Halabja in the U.N. Assembly because we supported Iraq against Iran. Iraq had previously been playing dumb about the massive evidence of chemical weapons use in the Iranian war during 1986.

3. Saddam supports terrorists.

Historically, Saddam has supported terror, but in a limited sense. Palestinian terror groups receive money from him because he hates Israel. He hates Israel not for religious reasons, but because it is the only threat to his supremacy in the region and has been a thorn in his side for decades. He was actually targeted for attack by Osama bin Laden's group earlier in his dictatorship, due to his secular stance on government. So, the only reason he'd give them weapons would be if he was losing and wanted revenge. (Such a scenario is not out of the question, and is in fact highly likely, in light of the attempt on former King, er, President Bush in 1993).

To be fair, we've supported our fair share of terror in the past. Are we justified for doing so then in the name of "national security" (that is, state interest), and then turning and punishing others for the same stunt?

Here's a short list of our guys: Noriega, Hussein, the Mujahadeen, Nicaraguan Contras, Pinochet and the list goes on and on. Our $2.4 billion dollar funding of paramilitaries in Colombia alone makes us the world's leading terrorist sponsor! And that's a per year figure, folks.

To be short, this war won't be a replay of the Gulf War or Afghanistan (whose "heroes" are still coming home in boxes). Saddam has pulled his Republican Guard into Baghdad where he expects heavy urban combat conditions. Prognosis? To use military euphemisms, the "collateral damage" will be high ÷ for us and for them. (But more so for them.) He has chemical weaponry that he won't hesitate to use if we press him to do so, and he has no reason to expect we'll let him live this time. (Last time he knew from the start thanks to the Saudis).

The reason we're going is also a mystery since: a) Bush lies like a rug, b) oil is always in question, and c) being there is good politically (election time!).

Overall, though, I'd say the reality is that because bin Laden is gone, we need a new enemy to continue the war and keep the public mooing peacefully. Since Hitler had a scheduling conflict in his Berlin bunker, Saddam has stepped in nicely.