Peace and War News
Updated 10/6/2003

The War Debate | Protest Pics & Video: SF 1-18-03
World & Sacramento 2-15-03 | SF 2-16-03

This page contains political arguments on both sides from before the US war in Iraq started up until the present. This is interesting historically because it details arguments used for America's first openly preemptive war. We hope to be as informative reasonable, balanced and as brutally honest as possible. Please send an email if you feel anything on this page should be changed. Send corrections, details, facts, links!

1. Protection or Protection Racket? | 2. Where are Saddam's WMD? | 3. A Patriotic Duty to Support Bush | 4. Saddam threatens the US | 5. Acceptability of Killing Humans | 6. Is it an oil conquest? | 7. We need Iraq's Oil for our National Security | 8. We must strike first | 9. Anti-war is all about anti-Bush | 10. Anti-war protesters are paranoid conspiracy nuts | 11. Have you forgotten 9-11?


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 1: Protection ... or Protection Racket?

"The Gravest danger we face in the war on terror is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. ...

The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons ... 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents; Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. ... Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. ...

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program ... He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. ...

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene next week to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world. We will consult. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will act for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world. -


A Protection Racket is a scam where you hire someone to scare people then you offer to protect those frightened people (even if they don't want to be protected) ... for a price. You use their money to cause more trouble for them.

As chaos expands, so does your own money and power. People give up cash, liberty and even their lives to get "safety."

Bush and Co.'s US Iraq attack slaughtered tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people. Scared Americans will continue to pay for 'protection'. Is this the real reason Bush encourages attacks on Americans?

To stop the cycle: find / admit who is paying the bad guys, then cut off the funding at the source with legal action. Honest people in power must file suit, bring to trial and convict criminals involved in racketeering. No person or group can be above the law. A nation is not truly secure while those in power use the shield of national security as a cloak to hide abuse of power.

We now know that the claims about uranium from Africa were in fact bogus. ( see Fake documents embarassing to US - CNN).

Where is the evidence that Saddam aids al-Qaida? There is none. But there IS evidence that Bush aids al-Qaida to the tune of $27 million.

As of July 3, 2003, no bio or nuclear weapons have been found after our invasion of Iraq and after months of intense searching by a large team of US experts. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is now back peddaling, saying supposed weapons were a "bureaucratic" justification for invasion.

Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 2: Where are Saddam's WMD?

The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons ... 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents; Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. " - Written before the invasion of Iraq, but still up on 5/29/03

June 6, 2002 - Mr. Rumsfeld made clear during a stopover in London yesterday that the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction will be high on his agenda "We know that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq has had a sizable appetite for weapons of mass destruction," he said after meeting British Defense Minister Geoff Hoon. "Every month that goes by, their programs mature. That is not something that is a happy prospect for that region." - washingtontimes

November 22, 2002 — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday the United States would not believe Saddam Hussein if he claimed Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. - abcnews

According to Rumsfeld “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
- zmag

On March 17, 2003, Mr Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - dailytelegraph

May 27, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking in New York on Tuesday, said it was possible the reason Iraqi chemical or biological weapons had not yet been found was that Saddam Hussein's government ''decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict." - nytimes

The US military Invasion of Iraq begain on March 20, 2003. Three days prior to the invasion, Bush stated that intelligence left no doubt that Saddam continued to possess and conceal the most leathal of weapons.

The largest world wide anti-war protest in history took place on Feb, 15, 2003 in response to Bush's plans for war on Iraq. Protestors claimed UN inspections should be allowed to work. If there were weapons, the inspectors would find them.

The Iraqi defectors said as long ago as 1995 that the weapons had been destroyed. If these are the same defectors used by the hawks for intelligence, why only selectively believe them?

Yes, Saddam had bio weapons. We gave him some. We have them too. In fact, Rumsfeld condoned the use of US use of incapacitating chemicals against Iraq. Listen to audio with his testimony if you doubt it. Is Rummy a cure, or a cause? See Rumspeak for perspective on Rumsfeld, they guy who said, "Our nuclear weapons are defensive, not offensive."

The American Gulf War Veterans Association called for his resignation for lies about the US shipping biological weapons to Iraq during the 1980’s. The evidence these vets cite is the 551 page Senate Report 103-900, “United States Dual-Use Exports To Iraq And Their Impact On the Health of The Persian Gulf War Veterans,” dated May 25,1994.

SENATE TESTIMONY FROM EX-SENATOR DONALD RIEGLE (Feb, Oct 1994): (Senate Reports 103-900, 103-983, 103-984): STATES THAT BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS were manufactured, sold and shipped to Iraq with the full knowledge of the Bush Administration, Department of Commerce and Centers for Disease Control. Govt. records at 202 512-2250 only has documents back to 105th congress (1997-1998) but you can view the reports at this military web site.

Love it or leave it
Change it or lose it
Issue 3: It is a patriotic duty to support war and Bush


The filth at these protests are liberal anti-Bush, anti-capitalism and anti-American. Many are communists and many smoke pot on a regular basis. The antiwar movement is confined to a few radicals on the 'left coast'. Not supporting the President is un-American and it gives aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies. In the latest tape, Bin Laden calls Bush 'stupid' and this is exactly what the protesters are saying in their protests. Therefore the peace protesters are no better than terrorists. These so-called 'peace' protests are unpatriotic and the filth at them are a stain on this great nation. These people jeopardize our national security and they should be tried and hanged as traitors. If they hate America so much they should leave.


Protesting war or a US President is not un-American. In fact, it is the patriotic duty of the American people to watch then alter or abolish their government when it becomes corrupt. Presidents do go bad (Nixon, for example). In the case of the Bush Iraq war, the call for peace comes not only from liberal Americans but also from top republicans and conservative groups such as the Cato Institute in Washington, DC. Those who seek war often use emotionally charged propaganda and fear tactics to intimidate and bully others into supporting aggression. Don't give in to fear, stand proud America. Agreeing with a murderer that the sky is blue does not make you a murderer. Checks and balances are essential to our great country's freedom and peaceful protests are the democratic balance in action. Peace is not unpatriotic. Dissent is not undemocratic. If we do not work to maintain our rights, tyrants will take them.


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 4: Saddam and Iraq's weapons threaten the US.

"The best, most capable, intelligence agencies in the world the CIA, the British MI5 and Israeli Mossad Special Operations Division are all very wary of the potential threat posed by Iraqi Scud missiles.

Several of the latest CIA reports and recent defector statements indicate that Iraq has biological/chemical weapons on hand. Blister agents, mustard gas, VX gas, anthrax, and the nerve agents Sarin and Taburn are all possible payloads for Scud missiles. ... We cannot rule out the possibility of Saddam's first use of chemical/biological weapons in a war if he feels it is to his advantage. " -

Tony Blair makes the point that " A majority of decent and well-meaning people said there was no need to confront Hitler and that those who did were war-mongers."

Saddams weapons of mass destruction are very easy to hide and very small amounts can kill many people in horrible ways. I know for a fact that he has those weapons.

Saddam could easily bring them to this country or give them to terrorists who would then use them on YOUR city. We can't let that happen here. We must protect our families.


After over 3 months (11-27-02 to 3-5-03), UN inspectors in Iraq did not find weapons of mass destruction. As of 4-16-03, still none have been found. Even if they are found the distance between the US and Iraq is around 5000 miles from washington DC and 8000 miles from California. Iraq is believed to have hidden up to two dozen Scuds, which have a range of up to 373 miles.

The CIA indicated that "Saddam is unlikely to use his lethal arsenal against the United States unless he comes under military attack. ... One of our worst-case scenarios (would be if) a US offensive turns out to be the catalyst for Iraqi biological or chemical weapons to be launched into Israel or friendly coalition forces. " - It seems they were wrong since he didn't use the weapons.

Saddan is no Hitler. 'Hitler conquered all of Europe from the Arctic to the Aegean and from the Atlantic to Stalingrad ... And Saddam? He invaded Kuwait, a sandbox half the size of Denmark, and got tossed out after a 100-hour ground war' - Buchanan

If all nations in the UN had the same intelligence which the US claims justifies immediate military action, why don't other nations such as France, Germany, China, and Russia agree with the US course of action?

Really, if Saddam had these weapons, why didn't he use them when attacked? Why, even as Bush declares his regime gone, have no illegal bio or chem weapons yet been found? (Dallas Morning News, 4/16/03)

As of 10/6/03: American David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group in Baghdad, has just reported that despite the $300 million in expenditures and the efforts of many hundreds of individuals working for him, no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have been found.


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 5: It is sometimes acceptabe to kill innocent people.

Leaders must make difficult decisions. There are times when some innocent human lives must be sacrificed for the greater good or to protect other innocent lives. Collateral damage is unfortunate and should be minimized but is sometimes unavoidable in war.

The US has conducted different operations to maintain democracy or to oust evil leaders around the world in countries such as Grenada, Panama, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Our attacks were never indiscriminate against the civilian populations and we never sought to hold any territory or assets beyond the time it took to turn the goods over to a legitimate government. The reports of civilian casualties are inflated by the enemy and they come from sources that are unreliable.

There is often knee-jerk outrage at civilian casualties but the reality is that US forces are highly trained and targeted. There is always an effort to minimize collateral damage to civilian facilities in populated regions. In the long run, civilians are better off with our help and protection because the evil men that run these countries are far more deadly to them than our military efforts to liberate them.

Rational persons must reject the
dogma of moral equivalence that says the use of force to remove a murderous despot is no better than the murders committed by the despot. Moral equivalence would say that using violence to prevent a crime (for example, fighting to defend an innocent victim) is just as bad as the violence used against the innocent victim.

Killing is wrong. A war on Iraq would result in horrific casualties and over 50% of Iraq's population are children. There are better ways to solve problems caused by ideological differences or limited resources. Minimum force should be used to protect against violent aggressors. Those who see only solutions of war and destruction are not using their full creative human potential. Civilian casualties are purposefully played down and under reported in the US media. We don't get the real story.

According to Professor Marc W. Herold's A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: "What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 ... civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of US military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

According to another source "Despite the adulation of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) as a "finely-tuned" or "bulls-eye" war, the campaign failed to set a new standard for precision in one important respect: the rate of civilians killed per bomb dropped. In fact, this rate was far higher in the Afghanistan conflict -- perhaps four times higher -- than in the 1999 Balkans war."

The military attitude toward civilian deaths (collateral damage) is that you have to break some eggs to make an omelet. So sad, but there were dangerous men mixed in with the civilians we just killed.


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 6: The attack on Iraq is not about an oil conquest.

Bush would not lie about his reasons for invading Iraq. Powell has already said that we will not take Iraqi oil when we invade the country.

Iraq's oil "belongs to the Iraqi people" and the United States would hold Iraqi reserves in trust if it occupied Iraq after a war, Secretary of State Colin Powell said. - CNN. January 23, 2003

If we really need oil badly, there are other less expensive and less risky ways to get as much oil as we want. The "war for oil" cliché is irrational liberal nonsense.

If the US was after oil, why didn't Bush Sr. take Kuwait's oil at the end of the Persian Gulf War? We didn't take the oil then and we won't take it this time. History shows us the truth, and the truth is that we don't just go to other countries and steal their resources! The whole idea is absurd and paranoid.

The report by New American Century is not sinister. Read it yourself. It is simply a foreign policy analysis of potential threats to US security and recommendations for promoting American security and prosperity. Those who call it a blueprint for world domination are rediculous and they are taking statements from this work out of context.

The USA needs 20 million barrels of oil per day. Iraq has 112 billion, the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world ( US Dept. of Energy ) others say 115 billion and that Iraq's proven oil reserves will continue to increase in the future to reach 300 billion barrels, eventually overrunning Saudi Arabia.

According to Gary Samore, director of studies at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London.
"... the US intention is to very quickly occupy and protect the oilfields as an asset to be drawn on after the war." - Reuters. Kellogg Brown & Root, owned by Halliburton ( Vice President Dick Cheney was Chairman) has already won a Pentagon contract regarding the rebuilding of Iraq's oil fields after war.

A report from 2000 calling for military control of Persian Gulf oil whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power was written for the Bush team even before the election for President took place. It was commissioned by NAC supporters future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and President Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and future Chief of Staff for Cheney Lewis Libby. 'This is a blueprint for US world domination - a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.' Sunday Herald, 9/14/02


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 7: Iraq's OIL is Essential to our National Security

We have to be realistic. Iraqi oil is the world's second largest supply. Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest reserves - plus 110 trillion cubic feet of gas according to the US Dept. of Energy. The US uses about 20 million barrels of oil per day. Iraqi oil can power the entire USA for over 15 years and maintain our standard of living. A war that costs $100 billion is still a good deal since at $30 / barrel the profit will be about $3.26 trillion dollars.

Imperialism is not justifiable. Spend the $50 billion to $1.6 trillion that will be spent on war to instead develop alternative energy ( solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, hydrogen fuel cells ) and fund research into new exotic ideas such as controlled fusion and zero point energy. Get everyone in America involved and excited about this quest. Include conservation. If no new sources of oil are found, world oil will run out in 2037 anyway.


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 8: We must strike first to keep America safe.

The Hollywood fantasy or utopian ideals of positive thinking and being 'nice' unfortunately don't carry any moral force when we are faced with a regime that will do anything to survive.

You can't just be 'nice' to terrorists because they want to KILL you! These people place no value on human life. History repeatedly teaches us the lesson that appeasement and containment only forestall the inevitable reckoning and in fact, they make it worse when it finally does come. We must take action. We can not become a limp and worthless debating society.

Paul Wolfowitz is the main Whitehouse proponent of preemptive first strikes against any who might threaten the US. ( see pbs (video). ) Bush listens to Wolfowitz and he declared to every nation, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"There is no 'cycle of violence' in the present-day Middle East, only persistent Arab murders of Jewish civilians followed by carefully limited Israeli retaliations. " - israeliinsider

Liberal interventionism is the conviction that America should actively promote the cause of democracy around the world. The idea is that the international community, in some extreme cases, should intervene to restore an essential minimum of respect for human rights, the rule of law, good government and democracy.

Preemptive attacks are Hitler's tactics in action. Good guys don't strike first. This strategy is used by Israel's leaders and it only fuels a never ending cycle of violence. One side kills then the other side kills and it keeps on going. Just read the news. The logic: "scary murderers exist, so I need to become a scary murderer" indicates mental illness. Fearful, simplistic, narrow minded, black and white thinking says there is only good and evil. 'You must kill or be killed!' Reason, however, says there are alternatives.

Relax. There is always danger, yet conflict resolution does in fact work all over the world every day. Murderers who place no value on human life are held in prisons by sane people who do not themselves need to become murderers. Intelligent debate is 'manly' and is the healthy hallmark of a civilized democratic society. In practice, doomsday thinking and fear leads to the very aggression that is feared.

Colin Powell and others strongly disagree with Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz's father's family was wiped out in the Holocaust. He may be operating from his own terror, seeking to abuse others because he was abused.

Iraq is not very dangerous to the USA. After all, Saddam has been around for 12 years. However, if the US attacks Iraq in its fear, it will be seen by others as a dangerous agressor. Those others, like North Korea (which does have nuclear weapons that can reach the US), will then threaten the US in their fear. We will push back and the cycle of stupidity will lead straight to WWIII. This is course of action is madness.


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 9: The anti-war protesters just hate George W Bush.

When you look at the facts, the anti-war argument quickly devolves into little more than a rant against Bush, and the whole anti-war argument boils down to "Bush SUX."

These people's personal dislike of GW Bush is clouding their judgment about the war with Iraq. These people have an irrational fixation on Bush.

The reason is, he is so successful. He is the leader of the world's most powerful nation, he is attractive to women, he is a good family man, he is religous and to top it all off, he is a man of the people. Liberals just can't stand his success. It drives them crazy.

Their real issue is with Bush more than with his policy.

Many mass murderer are hated. Go figure. Yes, many dislike Bush, they make fun of him, and call for his impeachment, but others who generally support Bush (eg. the Pope) are also against this war because:

1. Many suspect an oil grab as the true motive.

2. Wolfowitz's doctrine of first strike is

3. Saddam is not really a threat to the USA.

4. Do you really need to be TOLD that killing innocent people is wrong?

5. It is a very bad idea to destabilize the Middle East and to cause places with nukes like North Korea to threaten nuclear war with the USA because they fear our expansion. In other words, let's not start WWIII.



Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 10: Anti-war protesters are paranoid conspiracy nuts

These anti-war people are truly reality challenged. Those who oppose war offer only over-wrought, paranoid interpretations of otherwise innocuous personal details about Bush. They are wacko loony nutcases full of paranoid ramblings and conspiracy theories rather than clear and reasoned criticism. Our country is one where 25% believe the little green men have already landed. It undermines our country to have people passing theories around based on the "hey, it could happen" standard of proof. There is simply not a shred of proof for any of their bizzare claims about oil or a personal vendeta. Even Hillary Clinton jumped on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, by saying the war on Iraq was personal between Bush, his dad and Saddam.

Sure, some of the 10 million anti-war protesters, just like some on the pro-war side are paranoid. Paranoia is by definition irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness. Rational distrust, however, is not paranoia. Rational arguments are based on sound interpretations of reliable evidence. Bush's own words are reliable evidence by which to form an opinion, as is his record of DUI, his executions, secrecy, oil background, etc.), as is the amount of oil under Iraq. A serious drinking problem until age 40, by his own admission, is not an innocuous detail. It speaks to character. Alcoholics often demonstrate serious problems such as suicidal, and antisocial behvior, anxiety and fear, paranoia, anger, lying an deception, stealing, and fighting. Conclusions drawn may be incorrect about Bush, but they are not simply paranoid. Some conspiracies are real. ( watergate, Iran-contra, etc.) Bush said Saddam "tried to kill my dad." Is he being paranoid about Saddam? Until we see the evidence he claims to have, we can't know for sure. By the way, the belief that one is being stalked by invisible leopards is a real example of paranoia.


Attack Iraq
Don't Attack
Issue 11: Have you forgotten 9-11?

Perhaps you have forgotten 9-11? Well I haven't. We can not stand by and let terrorists decide our destiny! Some say we're just looking for a fight, well after 9-11 I'd say you've got that right.


3/20/03 KNCI today played a song that justified war by asking if we've forgotten 9-11. Does KNCI think that Sacramento country listeners are mentally retarded? How about this. A dog once killed an innocent little girl. I say we should go kill all dogs! Why not? Have you forgotten the girl? Dogs are dangerous! Think of the horrible way she died! Dogs have hidden teeth! They must all be slaughtered in the name of justice, before they kill again! (Want proof? Get a stick and raise it to hit any dog. The dog will become violent, growling and showing teeth, proving that you have the right and the duty to kill it!! ) Dark Ages will follow thinking that cries out for violence and endless indiscriminate retribution. SEE THE CARTOON. NO, we have not forgotten. That's the whole point. The terrorist attacks of 9-11 were the worst kind of horror. Why go terrorize someone else? (see shock and awe ).


Updated 1-21-03

Quotes from the mainstream media regarding the 150,000 to 200,000 people protesting in San Francisco and around the world on January 18, 2003.

"Opposition to the war with Iraq may not be deep, but it's getting wider." - John Ritter, USA Today, 1/17/2003

"The country's so big you can name any cause and get 100,000 people into the streets." - Jay Martin, Unemployed fundraiser quoted by John Ritter, USA Today, 1/17/2003

"No arrests or civil disturbances were reported, perhaps the result of a plea from Matt Gonzalez, the new president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 'San Francisco is having something of a budget crisis right now, so do me a favor,' he said. 'Don't turn over any police cars.'" - Herbert A Sample, Sacramento Bee, 1/19/2003