Those who support the war have certainly had plenty of time to test and justify their ideas in the public eye: First have been the interminable debates in Congress and the Senate, dating back to the Clinton years. Then, there's the numerous Presidential speeches and Sunday-morning press opine-ins. And of course, the regular number of guests on any news channel or program you'd care to turn to.

Perhaps I'm living in an insulated world (hey, I do listen to NPR frequently), but anti-war sentiments are often trumpeted, but almost never actually debated. But it is debate, not mere repetition (advertising) which determines the value of an idea.

For example, Tom Daschle insisted that diplomacy could have avoided a war. That's an anti-war sentiment. But the press has not debated this idea. Instead they've debated whether diplomacy could have added more allies, etc. So Daschle's anti-war assertion has gone, as far as I have seen, completely unquestioned. I would like to see Daschle, or anyone really, explain how diplomacy could have avoided a military confrontation between Saddam and the rest of the world. Just once. Please.

So I cherish opportunities to hear those who support the war speak to those who dislike the war.

Here's why debate is important: We live in reality. Some ideas are true, some ideas are false. The value of believing true ideas is that they give us a guide to correct action. For example, we have to know whether the bridge is out before driving across it. If we're wrong, we either die or stop our journey, wrongly. With Iraq, the stakes are even higher, since millions of peoples' lives, inside and outside Iraq, will be affected.

Peace activists argue this war is immoral. Why? Because it will result in increased death and suffering in Iraq and the world, they allege. But it is also possible, just possible, that they are wrong. And if so, then it is their stance which, if followed, would then result in increased death and suffering in the world. And, by their own judgements, would be immoral.

So its pretty important, this question about killing people -- its pretty important that we have the right idea, not the wrong one. That we try to figure out which of the two ideas will result in greater peace and security, and more non-dead, non-suffering people.

So war-protestors, if they are right, have a moral responsibility to convince those of us who think why they are right. Why their position would have saved lives. To show why their position is the correct one.

Sadly, I have yet to hear a single convincing defense of the anti-war position. Many that I interact with won't answer a single question, the rest fail at that first question. Usually the topic is quickly changed so the question doesn't have to be considered,

That, my friends, is not the hallmark of a honest person with a believable position.

Most of the debates, sadly, go a lot like this. Its a 2M download, not too long. Listen to it, its very interesting. (Actually, in a very, very sad way, its hilarious. Or would be if lives weren't at stake.)

[Via the insomnomaniac.]