Elsewhere, I've written that there are both good and bad reasons to oppose the war against Iraq. Though I support the war, I found and still find some arguments against it very sensible. (But, for me, they didn't trump the arguments in favor of involvement. And they still don't.)

So briefly, before I get into those, let me quickly re-state my 2-3 major reasons in favor of taking Saddam Hussein out of power:

Pro-War Argument #1: Deposing Saddam would save Iraqi lives.

And, as best as I can tell, it has indeed done so. Under Saddam, about 50,000-75,000 people died unnecessary violent, unnecessary deaths. That number is now down in the 10,000-30,000 range. The problem here is that some only apparently care about certain kinds of dead people. If the US kills one person, that's a huge tragedy. If some dictatorship could have been prevented from killing 10,000, that's not worth mentioning -- it's Stalin's logic all over again.

Pro-War Argument #2: Saddam was, and would have been again, a threat to his neighbors.

Avoiding this question, critics try to re-frame this argument as: "Saddam didn't have WMD." To some extent, they were aided by Bush himself in the run-up to the war, who put more focus on this argument than others the administration had previously offered. But Saddam viewed himself as a re-incarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, and wanted to unite the entire mideast behind him by touching off a massive conflict.

Now, on to the anti-war arguments. First, the ones I think are sane:

Sensible counter-argument #1: It's not our job to police the world.

Good enough, but then we shouldn't have been involved in Kosovo, the Philipines, nor Somalia. This is an impossible argument for Clinton supporters to make. And let's stop all these negotiations with North Korea, and cut off all this stupid foreign aid, too, which is meant to have the same effect.

Likewise, it's sensible to note that most of the "allies" we helped liberate from dictatorships -- particularly France, Germany, and South Korea -- now hate us. True enough. But, then, that's an argument which implies the US was right, and these former allies are behaving badly: and that's not good enough for those who want to find the US culpable under every possible circumstance.

2. We shouldn't have done anything without UN approval.

One sub-argument is that the UN is the legitimate arbiter of international law. The problem is that the UN itself agreed that "most dire measures" needed to happen if Saddam failed to cooperate fully with inspections. Yet, when he didn't cooperate fully, the UN then refused to carry out it's own advice.

It's a bit like the police agreeing a certain criminal needs to be arrested, but then are found eating dinner with him at a nearby restaurant. Such "authority" has no moral legitimacy. I once might have bought this argument, but in the wake of the UN's "Oil for Food" scandal -- where we learn that the UN's opposition was basicly bought and paid for by corruption -- anyone who still makes it is hopelessly amoral or naive.

And again, Kosovo was also without UN approval -- so this is another criticism which cannot be made by parties who failed to similarly criticize Clinton. Sadly, that's precisely the crowd who offered this argument.

3. Iraq isn't ready for Democracy / Democracy won't cure a sick nation.

This may be true, but one needs to state why. Japan was certainly "fixed" by being forced to become democratic -- though Japan certainly never had any Democratic history or traditions. Likewise, Italy and Germany were turned from fascist regimes into allies, and leaders of the free world. Is it because the Iraqis are Islamic and Islam is, you feel, incompatible with freedom? Then say so. Is it because the Iraqis are of the wrong race? Then say so. The problem is that critics want to make this argument, and then not explain why.

I think the argument has traction, and I will explain why: Because I believe some of the problem mideastern countries face are related to some facets of sharia, and that anywhere sharia rules, these same problems will recur.

Again, this isn't an argument many of Bush's critics want to pursue, because if he is wrong here, than it is because he thought TOO HIGHLY of Persians and/or Muslims. I support him in this because I think it's the right error to make, similar to being to nice to a dinner guest you suspect will eventually behave like a jerk, or letting your kids try something you suspect they might screw up. It's up to the Iraqi people to sort out how it will go in this regard.

Now for the arguments which strike me as woefully clueless or insane:

1. Bush did it for oil.

Huh? Then why is Iraq in charge of their own oil now? And why isn't the market being flooded with Iraqi oil? In fact, the evidence shows most strongly that the opposition was motivated by oil-greed, and supported by oil money, not supporters of the war. If being motivated by oil is wrong then why don't critics switch sides now that we all know this?

2. Driven by the Christian right, Bush did it to start armageddon.

These theories are only credible to those who don't know thing one about Christianity: (a) Iraq plays no special role in biblical end-times escatology, and (b) Christians don't generally believe they can "bring about" the return of Jesus. In the bible, Jesus says he will come like thief in the night, by surprise -- not like a flight attendant who comes in response to a passenger who pushes the little button above his seat. Nutty!

3. Bush had this in mind before getting into office.

This isn't even a counter-argument, it's just a misdirection. Bush's alleged thoughts, feelings, or motives should have no role in our analysis of whether some action is good or bad.

Regardless, those of us with a memory note it was Democrats, not Bush, who made "regime change in Iraq" our official US policy in the late 1990s. And that the Bush administration was actually talking about dropping sanctions against Iraq before 9/11 happened, not starting a war. This argument presumes people are stupid and will completely forget their history. And apparently, those making it are frequently correct on that point.

4. Bush lied about WMD.

If so, one wonders how, as governor of Texas, he deceived so many international leaders during the late 1990s. Truly, Governor Bush had amazing powers. One also wonders he even bothered to run for President, since he clearly was already in complete control of President Clinton's CIA, not to mention the French, the Russians, Mosad, the Syrians, etc.

5. Iraq wasn't the biggest threat.

True: North Korea was clearly worse. But there was nothing we could do about North Korea since they had nukes. Iraq was simply the biggest threat which we had the ability to do something about.

So would those making this argument then agree we needed to move against, say, Iran and North Korea? No, of course they don't really mean that either.

This argument basicly boils down to saying that unless you're going to be completely perfect, you should never attempt to do good. Unless we can take out every dictatorship in the world, we should never oppose even one. Again, I think you can understand why I put this in the "insane" category.

6. Bush wanted to avenge his father.

Again, this isn't even a counter-argument, it's a thought-blocker. By fixating on our imagined ideas of Bush's psychology, we don't get around to actually asking whether removing Saddam from power was the right or wrong thing to do. If Bush killed OBL to avenge his father, would you oppose that? If Bush's father had been in favor of aid to the poor would you oppose that?

There are two sub-flavors to this argument, both demonstrably nutty. The first is that Bush was making up for the way his father ended the Gulf War. Yet remember that Bush could have killed Saddam at the end of the Gulf War, and simply chose not to. Why would that require vengence?

The other tact is to claim that Saddam attempted to assassinate GHWB. This is, in fact, true. But the fact that it is being offered as an argument against deposing Saddam strikes me as insane: "So you admit Saddam attempted to decapitate the US government, and thus arguing you think we should leave him in power? Isn't that the very reason most people supported striking against the Taliban?"

7. Bush did it for Halliburton.

Again, this isn't a counter-argument since it doesn't even address whether deposing Saddam was the right thing to do. If deposing Saddam is good, I will support it, even if Haliburton might benefit from it. If deposing Saddam was bad, then you'll first have to explain why I should agree with you. Then, when we've decided deposing Saddam was wrong, we can start to ask what role Haliburton played if any, and how they might have profited. But critics apparently want to skip that first step.

Not to mention the second: As it was, Iraq turned out to be highly unprofitable for Haliburton during Bush's first term in office. Looking over Haliburton's earnings history, one notices immediately that they made far more money from the Kosovo war. So I have a hard time understanding how US Democrats can offer this argument with a straight face.

8. The Iraq war is breeding terrorism.

I disagree: I think Iraq is simply where Al Qaeda is currently concentrating their efforts. Polls I've seen seem to show that Al Qaeda has become less popular in the mideast since we went into Iraq, not more popular. And since when was appeasing would-be terrorists the best guide to moral policy choices?

9. Russia / France / China / Syria / North Korea didn't approve!

Again: Since when have these political players acted for the greater good? If a person has been shown to be a good moral authority, based on their track record, then I'll listen to their concerns. But to base your ideas of good and bad on what a dictator is saying? Since when was that the lodestone of your moral compass? That's insane.

So there it is: Most the really good arguments can't be offered from "the left", or by those who supported Clinton. And the "insane" arguments, which far outnumber ones I find sensible, often don't even answer or address the main question on the table! But I'm sure with enough media saturation, many people can be made to believe anything.

If you think I've missed any, feel free to add them below.