I've decided to put together a list of the anti-war rhetoric and the quick and dirty answers, explaining why the reason is basic bullshit. If any of you think I've missed something, please let me know.
None of these comments are my own ideas, but are taken from various sources around the web, and as they have occured to me. I wish I could give credit (but if anyone knows where they actually came from, feel free to let me know and I'll be happy to give roper credit, once it has been confirmed). Ready?
"It's all about oil" - If we wanted oil, we could have worked to have the UN sanctions lifted, and bought all the oil we wanted. At fair prices. We have an annual GDP of about 10 trillion dollars, and Iraq's is about $60 billion. Hell, Bill Gates could have bought the country, lock, stock and weapons of mass destruction.
"We want the oil for free" - Why didn't we keep it the last time? We could have claimed Kuwait as 'war booty', and gone into southern Iraq and taken what we wanted, and we had enough power at that time to make it stick. But we freed a nation, put out the fires, and went home.
"We're trying to colonize the region" - Bullshit. If we needed living space, we have whole swathes of the West where no one lives, with much the same climate. If we needed the natural resources, realize that the only thing in the region worth having is the oil, but see above.
"It's a war of the West against Islam" - Tell that to the hundreds and thousands of Muslim Americans who are faithfully serving with honor and distinction in the U.S. military. Tell that to the secular Ba'athist regime. And Saddam has never struck anyone as a particularly religious man, until he realized we were serious about taking him out. Then, lo and behold, it's 'Arab brother, this...' and 'Palestinean, that...' and 'Allahu Achbar, the other...' He'll use anything he can to slow us down. Tell that to Saddam's soldiers who are using mosques (and schools and hospitals) to hide their military equipment, because they know that we will do everything we can to preserve the holy places of any and every religion.
"Millions of people are going to starve" - Millions of people have already starved, but not because we're marching across their sands towards Baghdad. We are shipping in hundreds of tons of food and water every day as part of the humanitarian aid packages. We are the first nation on the planet to ship in food to the people of a nation at the same time we're fighting that nation's government. We might lose a few, or even a few thousand, but not because we're not trying to help. How many people would have starved while we were dithering around with months of worthless inspections?
"What's the rush?" - Ask Clinton back in 1998 why he was demanding that we take out Saddam by force? (But follow up by asking him why he only sent in a few missiles without any real effort. Ask him why he never sent the UNSCOM inspectors back into Iraq.) We've been aiming at terrorist states - and those states that support terrorism for two years now. Bush said that Iraq was a member of the Axis of Evil more than a year ago. I gotta say... this is the longest "rush" that the world has even seen. if we had dealt with Germany and Japan this way, we wouldn't have invaded Normandy until the mid-50's, and then Japan sometime during the 60's.
"Increase the inspections" - Even Hans Blix said that inspections are worthless without cooperation. Iraq has lots of practice and a nation the size of California in which to hide stuff. A few dozen people - heavily chaperoned, monitored, bribed, and threatened - aren't going to find anything more than Saddam wants them to find. It has taken defectors from inside the regime to reveal Saddam's perfidy and treachery, followed by a diplomatic scramble to cover it up, and yet another "full, final, and complete" declaration of everything we had proof of, while denying everything else.
"Bush is doing it to avenge his Dad" - if this were the case (never mind that it is a legitimate casus beli for any nation on the planet), the question should be, why didn't Clinton do anything? Is it because he wanted his predecessor dead?
"This is an illegal war/war of aggression" - Which body politic is necessary to give the United States permission to declare war, based on its national security and the peace and stability of the region? The United States Congress? The United Nations Security Council? How far back are the goal posts going to be moved? How many votes do we have to get to make it legitimate in their eyes? 2? 3? How about 17?
"We're losing, so we should pull out" - By what standards? We've taken HUGE swaths of ground, totalling more than 50% of the ground, and 95% of the air. We've had entire divisions of Iraqi soldiers surrender without firing a shot. We've had Iraqi refugees giving up their precious supplies to cook our soldiers a feast. We've suffered less than 50 deaths, and less than half of those have been because of Iraqi fire (and a few of those were because Iraqis were violating the flag of peace, and we came out to accept their surrender, only to be fired upon). All of that in less than 10 days. What would they require for this to be a win? If Tommy Franks had gone on camera and stated that we would achieve the things we have achieved, he would have been widely pronounced deranged. But he did it, nevertheless.
We're killing thousands of Iraqi children" - I would demand verifiable proof. I would also point out reports that Saddam's son, Qusay, has demanded that school administrators send over young girls (12-14 years old) for his pleasure, and if the girls resist, they are beaten and raped. Those that resist too effectively have their families brought in to watch. So who's the monster here?
I know I've forgotten some, so I might be adding to that list, and if any of you can think of anything, feel free to remind me.
Pleasant dreams, kiddies...