>Apart from noises made on
>behalf of the Iraqi people (and not all Iraqi people are opposed to Bush
>toppling Saddam), there really isn't something even remotely positive for
>anti-interventionists to grab onto. I mean, no war on Iraq? Okay. But what
>instead?
Instead of waging war? I guess most people don't accept the notion that waging war will necessarily achieve "something even remotely positive". Many believe there are other alternatives. You keep asking "what instead" and people keep making suggestions. Then you just ask the same question again. It is vaguely disturbing that you think bombing the crap out of the people of Iraq is "something even remotely positive".
I happen to think that a widespread anti-war sentiment is more than a little positive. Because it opens up all sorts of other alternatives to settling disputes. Remember this, even if there are sometimes some positive outcomes from war the bottom line is that the outcome usually depends on who is more powerful, rather than who is in the right.
That might seem OK for people in the US, but you have to try to see it from the point of view of the rest of the world.
But I suppose I'll answer your "what instead" question again. Try to get your head around the idea of a system of international justice, the main obstacle to which is the same US government that for entirely obvious reasons would much prefer to stick to the concept of might makes right.
Saddam Hussein is a gangster, but I think you'll find that most people think George Bush is acting like a gangster too and many of us consider George Bush to be a more imminent danger.
The dichotomy is not war against Iraq or support for Saddam, the real choice is between international justice and international gangsterism. That explains why the opposition to Gulf War 2 is so much stronger than Gulf War 1, in 1 Iraq was the international gangster. This time around America, appears to be the gangster (or a vigilante, which in many ways is more dangerous) rather than the good guy.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas