Here we focus more briefly on some key aspects of speaking with friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers, and other community members who may have only been exposed to Mainstream Corporate Mass-Media "coverage" of this issue. For the more extensive AntiWar Talking Points see http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/iraq-qa.html ( (http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/ also has links to Call Your Senator Talking Points and Activist Strategies/Tactics to Stop Bush's War)
KEY POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND:
*1* People who have been exposed mostly or exclusively to mainstream TV have foremost on their mind extreme exaggerations (or outright lies) about Saddam being infinitely powerful, infinitely dangerous, infinitely more evil than other dictators just as (or even more) murderous than he, etc.
Therefore, it is very easy and tempting to slip into rebuttals of those exaggerations and lies as your first point(s). This is usually a big mistake. This is how you -- anti-war folks who were against Saddam many, many years before, back when Bush Sr. was in bed with Saddam -- appear to be "soft" on Saddam. This is what Bush Jr and co. are hoping for. Don't let it happen. Read on:
*2* One of the first point you might want to make is to ask the question: just how much credibility do Bush and company have? Who are these Pentagon, CIA, militarist folks anyway? Answer: the ones who are now telling us that Saddam is more dangerous than all other countries combined in the known universe, THEY were the same people who TOLD US BACK THEN to look the other way (secret funding of Iraq in the 1980s), or when we found out, that it's OK to support Saddam right thought 1990.
THEY funded Iraq secretly during the Iran-Iraq war (back when anti-war folks like me and so many others were called "soft on the Ayatollah" for 'daring' to question the funding and arms THEY send to Saddam when we said we should not send aid to ANY dictator)
THEY were in bed with Saddam until just right before the invasion of Kuwait.
THEY were the ones who continued to support Saddam even AFTER Saddam's use of chemical "weapons of mass destruction against his own people" was found out. When they recite yet again "used weapons of mass destruction against his own people" we should look at the TV and say, "yeah, with YOUR knowing support before and after it!"
THESE are the folks now telling us that Saddam is the most dangerous man in the known (and unknown) universe.
So they have no credibility whatsoever.
Back then, when Saddam had much more military power, had a strong country rather than a devastated one, had much more weapons than after 10 years of inspections -- back then -- when Saddam was at his MOST powerful level -- that's exactly when THEY told us it was in "US interests" to support Saddam.
So Bush SR, Bush Jr, the militarists, they have absolutely NO credibility. They have less than zero credibility. They have NEGATIVE credibility since they were the most enthusiastic supporters of Saddam, if their ACTIONS (selling him weapons etc) is what we listen to.
ALLOW YOURSELF TO GET ANGRY. But: NOT at the person you're talking to (which is neither productive nor, in most cases, fair; most Americans have good intentions and good hearts) Rather, at the formerly-in-bed-with-Saddam hypocrites who helped Saddam murder people and now want to murder more Iraqis for their "nice little war"
*3* Once that is firmly established, we can continue.
At this point, if asked to back up that Saddam is weaker now, or about the inspections, etc, you may cite information from part I of the Talking Points, http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/iraq-qa.html e.g. Scott Ritter, former head UN weapons Inspector, now (virtually) censored off the air for telling the truth that Iraq is 90-95% disarmed and opposing a military assault;
or Dennis Halliday's quotes on how it's not "all Saddam's fault" but the specifics (which he details carefully) of the sanctions, why Iraqis continue to die;
Or you can cite the opposition of even the most Saddam-hating people of all, the Iraqi opposition groups who have suffered most bitterly under him, how even they oppose (other than the hand-picked US "leaders" brought by Bush to cheerlead the war) -- how they oppose a military assault, see "SADDAM-HATING IRAQI DEFECTOR OPPOSES BUSH'S MILITARY ASSAULT PLANS" at http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/iraqi-defector-opposes which details extensively also how during the original Gulf "War" the Iraqi democratic opposition was given the cold shoulder because another Saddam-like thug (only a more obedient thug than Saddam) was preferred by Washington to a democratic government in Iraq, which, after all, would be democratic enough to respond to it's own people more than to the dictates of the "boss" in Washington, and to similarly use the oil for its own people rather than for ExxonMobil's best interests.
NOW you can make these points, because now you are responding to inquiries. Now you have established that Bush et al have no credibility. Now you have established that you and other peace movement folks have the most iron-clad rock-solid anti-Saddam credentials of all since WE opposed sending him aid during the Iran-Iraq war, and WE opposed US support for Saddam during his crimes up to and including 1990, and WE revealed (see last URL) and opposed Washington's rebuffing of the Iraqi democratic opposition.
Again, see Part I for an extensive list, http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/iraq-qa.html and other articles at http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/ for more details, facts, rebuttals of lies, references, resources, and more.
*4* After this, now you can talk about what a war would do. A "war" which is after all what? a euphemism for a one-sided military assault which, no matter how we agree Saddam is bad, would kill huge thousands of Iraqi forced conscripts, as well as innocent civilian men, women and children who deserve to live just as much as those 3,000 in the World Trade Center. A war that:
(i) Would create more anti-US terrorism as a result of this, in so many tiny nooks and holes around the world that we will never find them all, and some will be "successful". No one was called "apologetic" for Tim McVeigh for wanting to understand the root causes of his actions (including government killing of innocent civilians in Waco, does not make McVeigh's crimes ok, but which were also crimes). We need to understand and admit root-causes. And murdering lots and lots of thousands of innocent civilians by any country, will end up creating terrorists -- or to put it differently, will end up being a HUGE help to terrorist groups trying to "recruit"
(ii) Would violate international law and promote a "law of the jungle" globe.
(iii) Would it be ok to for Haiti or Sudan (see http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/iraq-qa.html ) to bomb the US? Not only do these countries not have the military to do it, but, much more importantly, no sane person would say they have the moral right to bomb the US, even though (see this URL) they have both provably been subjected to terrorism by the US (Sudan) or have the US harbor (already court-convicted) terrorists by the US (Haiti ; the US is harboring a CONVICTED terrorist who killed over 20,000 people; Afghanistan held Bin Laden and only asked for evidence since he was not yet convicted, but accused of complicity in killing not 20,000 but 3,000) Again see the first talking points for details and references.
(iv) It's morally wrong to kill thousands of innocent men women and children in Iraq just as much as it would be morally wrong if things were the reserves
*5* KEY POINTS:
(i) Give the PRAGMATIC reasons first, those are easier for others to hear, and give the principled ones (it's wrong, international law, etc) second.
(ii) But, *do* give the principled reasons too, don't just stop with the pragmatic ones. People respect principles, despite the belief to the contrary. It's just that with all the whipping people up into a frenzy on TV, they first need to hear some facts, some pragmatic arguments, etc, and then they open up to (and respect) principled arguments which one can heap on top of the pragmatic ones.
(iii) As Julia Butterfly said: stress also what we are FOR not just what we are AGAINST. See near the very end of http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/iraq-qa.html for thoughts on "what are you for, then?"
(iv) Overall, keeping all of the above specific tips and suggestions in mind, we should aim to have vision: the above outlines how our positions are coherent, consistent, moral, and pragmatic (will make us all safer) -- that's a very powerful four-some -- let it shine in your discussions as the caring pours from your heart at the same time as the logic and reason and coherence pour from your mind.
Peace, love, and truth,
HB
Postscript: did we mention about the so-called Iraqi "threat"? Never mind that Iraq is far far weaker now than it was in 1990 and earlier when, at its most powerful and thus much more dangerous, Bush and Rumsfeld thought it was ok to support Saddam. Because there is even more powerful information: Saddam could have used WMD during the Gulf War. Why didn't he? Becaues he's not suicidal. Not only hasn't he usd it against the US in the past 12 years, but he didn't use it even when under direct military attack pushed out of Kuwait and Iraq itself bombed -- but short of trying to overthrow him. What other country has been tested to that extent? Again it's a test of Saddam being non-suicidal and sane, not of being "nice", but no other country was tested so extensively that, so long as you don't try to overthrow them, are are not stupid enough to try to use WMD against the US If Saddam was not suicidal in 1991, or 1992, or 1993, or 1994 or ... for 12+ years...What evidence is there that he's suddenly suicidal now? If he wasn't suicidal even under attack to expel [not exterminate] him, where is the evidence that suddenly he's suicidal enough to contemplate an attack on anyone or be a danger to anyone? No such evidence has been presented very simply, because it doest'n exist. Iraq is not a threat. Iraq is more "contained" than any country. Military analysts know it, the CIA admitted it because as much as it fears its boss Bush, they could not stomach being on record with such a lie. There's been no evidence, just the TERRORizing of the American people by Bush and the media for the last 6 or more months to try to terrify them about a 5th-rate military power barely surviving. Even an Israeli military member was quoted on BBC: "If [Bush invades Iraq] there will be an Earthquake throught eh middle east..We're not really worried about what Iraq could do..but we are worried about HIGHER terrorism afterwards if Bush goes to war" Even the CIA pointed out the obvious, to Bush Jr's horror: Saddam is very unlikely to use WMD if not attacked. But if put into a "I have nothing to lose" situation with his back against the wall, faced with the annihilation of his government, and of his personhood, then, without needing to be agroup of rocket scientists, the CIA pointed out that in THAT case Saddam *would* be likely to use WMD. Duh! Use anything including the kitchen sink if they are about to annihilate your entire government and personhood, no kidding. "Oil" leave it to you to figure out what this is about... But it's not about access to oil. We could have access to oil if we wanted it, as the war-mongers point out. They say this to "prove" it's not about oil. But it is about oil, just not about access to oil It's about control over oil. If we lifted sanctions we'd have access to oil, but Iraq not Washington would control Iraqi oil. They have no problem with a dictator controling the oil, even a brutal dictator, we their support for brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc etc show, not to mention their support for pre-Gulf-War Saddam, when he committed bigger crimes than the invasaion of Kuwait, which Washington had no problems with. But to control the world's second largest source of oil would mean Bush would not just have access to oil, but control over who else get it. And thus control over, a level over, power over, and a threat over, all other countries who need that oil, be they third world, Europe, Japan, or anyone else. It's about control over oil, and thus control, and power, over the rest of the world, if you have near total control over the middle east's oil...