Remember, in such discussions, to try and keep your cool, even if (or, especially if), the other party is growing heated. It's okay to respectfully agree to disagree. Those people who are out-and-out pacifists are not likely to come around to our point of view. Discussion for it's own sake with them is still fine if you're inclined. But these points are more about an attempt to persuade.
The inspectors are not supposed to be investigators, but rather verifiers. They are in Iraq to witness and verify Iraq's (willing) destruction of prohibited weapons. Their job was never intended to be one of hide-and-seek or "gotcha".
Historically, Saddam Hussein has always done just enough, and never more, to avoid having the hammer dropped on him. The "just enough" has rarely been brought about by words from the U.N., but by the massing of allied soldiers on his borders. His "just enough" is also usually targeted at sowing discord amongst the allies, not to adressing the root issues. What has occurred to make anyone believe that this situation has changed?
Those who are saying now to "give the inspectors more time" were the ones in 1990-91 saying to "give the sanctions more time." Twelve years of sanctions has done little to bring Iraq into line with international expectations and norms of behavior, but plenty to make life miserable for Iraqis.
Some against the war ask "why now?" Because if war is necessary to disarm Iraq, when? In the height of summer, as the French proposal before the Security Council suggests? The language of their draft resolution would give the inspectors 4 additional months before a decision for war might be made. If this proposal were approved in March, that would mean action in July. If the Pentagon deemed this too arduous, forces would then have to languish in a holding pattern until fall.
The charge that the war is over oil is utterly preposterous. Based upon information reported by the Department of Energy, Iraq ranks 6th on the list of top 10 countries from whom the US imported oil over the last 3 years. However, the top 4 make up the bulk of those imports. This chart provides illustration. Why would the US spend billions on a war in order to acquire more oil from Iraq, when we already have importing relationships with Canada and Mexico which are 1) geographically closer (thereby reducing transportation costs), 2) countries with whom we have free trade and 3) who are not members of the OPEC cartel?
Just because we can't confront and eliminate every murderous dictator, does that mean we can't confront and eliminate any?
