A bit late, but still funny (and educational!)

Ok, if you want to have the drawn out explaination of why it is bullshit here goes.

1A. Oil
They argue both that it isn't about the oil and that even if it was about the oil would that make it wrong because we are removing Saddam. You can't argue one and then say well, if not that then here is our secondary reason.

2A. Bully
What does the actions of the other nations, most of then not having a thing to do with Iraq have to do with whether the US is a bully or not, that list leaves out all the US offensives. It is one sided propoganda and not any argument against saying the US is bullying.

2B and 2C...I've not really heard these anti-war stances.

2D- The defense is that Bush went out of the way to involve the UN. How does this negate him being a "unilateralist". If he was truly being multilateralist he would not attack UNLESS the UN said ok. Merely asking them and not accepting the answer isn't multilateralist. That the UK went along isn't really multilateralist either, they are our closest ally, to be multilateralist one must have a broad spectrum. This was a UK-US deal with only bribed support (which was discribed in 2B)

2E...not heard that one

2F. I'll propose an alternative, you don't bomb the country and kill all sorts of people. You lift the embargo and use humanitarian aid to help Iraqis while using weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq. Perhaps you assassinate Saddam. I've seen no real sign that the war has done anything that "begins an oasis of democracy in the tyranny-ridden Middle East, and fights terrorism where it lives and breeds"

3A...this is completely his opinion and a weak argument. Just because he doesn't consider the UN a good place to justify a war doesn't take away that it is THE place to justify a war.

3B...such a reliable souce that it beats the republican drum by calling Germany and France old Europe. That they are taking the pro-war side in fighting the anti-war side ruins their credibility as simply a source trying to be anti-anti-war.

Also, the US props up many countries that are dangers to the world, this is hardly exclusive to France and Germany. Plus as the US is one country of nearly 200, it NEEDS to have its powers restrained. Democracy doesn't like absolute power.

3C. And lets not give into American patriotic arrogance that we are right. There may not have been protests in Afghanistan (probably because it isn't safe enough yet because we've failed to rebuild it), but there were protests in every corner of the Earth against this War...North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/Oceana, and while not its own continent, the middle East. That only half of one countries population supported it goes far beyond mass psychology to common sense. And since Saddam has been gone, indication is that Iraqis are far from happy about the Americans. So no, simply writing off the mass protests as uninformed is ludicrious.

4A. Haven't heard many saying this because most people against a war with Iraq wouldn't like one in N.Korea either.

4B. The information connecting Iraq to terrorism is weak compared to many other nations. If Iraq really is part of the War of Terror, it is poorly choosen. And that we can handle two conflicts at once doesn't justify doing so.

5A. We should let terrorists control foreign policy if the terrorists have a point and the policy is actually flawed. By diving head first into reinforcing the flaws, we WILL encourage more terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have a face and can't be killed. To try to fight it only adds fuel to the fire. It is absurd to think we can win against terrorism.

5B. Once again, I've never heard anyone say this

5C. That was a weak argument...saying, but sometimes it doesn't. War has very rarely brought lasting peace and sparks various other violence. A few exceptions hardly weaken the anti-war argument.

5D. A weak argument. He says that it is to send a message and that Iraq is arbitrarily picked among all the others that the message would apply to.

6A. Ah, here is the real bullshit. He mentions that to this day Saddam seeks nuclear weaponry. He points out the aluminum tubes. The same aluminum tubes that weapons inspectors said were not proper for the purpose but rather for ordinary weaponry. The writer seems to buy the same shady or forged intelligence as the President did. Shoddy intelligence isn't a good counter to the claim. And by all accounts, Saddam was handcuffed by the inspectors.

7A. Heh, this is funny, he says that today's government does not have the same people that supported Saddam. The problem is, it has nearly the exact cast that supported Saddam from the past Republican administrations. The writer does make a good point that being inconsistent from past to present isn't a big deal but...

7B. When the inconsistentcy is from country to country, it is a big deal.

7C. Convinience doesn't excuse hypocricy. There is also no strong reason why lacking of a democracy is a reason to fight a war.

8A. In hindsight they sure don't like the price they are paying.

8B. This has shown to be a bad argument, but that is mainly because Saddam doesn't seem to have any WMD. If he did it would be a valid argument. It is the reason we don't mess with N. Korea. The threat of having a war is greater than not having it. This argument would have been proper for Iraq if they had WMD.