It's kinda difficult to reply, considering that it's a very heated debate and in politics like in other touchy subjects people are very passionate about their point of view, and the thing im not looking for is to continue a thread of "we are right, and you are wrong" that's been going so far.
I just have some comments that remain as objective as my opinion, which is probably not a lot.
If US and allies involvement isn't fueled by factors such as the oil, but because they're doing the "right" thing, and want to bring "democracy" to Iraq, then how come in other countries, especially African countries in the past years, they haven't intervened? How come this is a special case in which they feel they need to intervene. If it's about Iraq having WOMD then it's kinda understandable, but again, there are far more important threats such as North Korea, and how come they are not invading them? It's difficult to accept such different positions to similar situations.
I understand people's pro-war point of view posted in this forum that can basically be resumed in "Iraq didn't meet with what was asked of them from resolutions, so they must pay", but why the urgency? if they (UN and US) let Iraq go not meeting up to requirements from resolutions for the last 12 years, why the sudden urgency?
And the thing is, im not against military action, im just against it being taken with such a sense of hurry, and disregarding other nations opinions in the process. But i understand what you all people say, that maybe enough is enough and it was time to take things into action. Hopefully, and that's probably the best we can all do, is wish that things dont go as bad as they can go in a war, and also that we try to see the whole scope of things, the opinions of both the people that are against war, and those that support it. That, can probably give us a broader picture of the situation.
Again i would urge you to read the link:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.aspIt's long, and everything but it's certainly a good read.
Cheers!
Greenish