President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and all other supporters of an attack on Iraq favor taking out the Iraqi regime because they want peace, not bloodshed. Unlike anti-war activists, war supporters realize that taking no action now will lead to far more loss of life and destruction later.

After Hitler gained control of Germany in the 1930s, he began to build up the military, a clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles. However, the world's most powerful nations did nothing, allowing Germany to build up its military into the world's most dominant force. The rest is history.

If history is suppose to teach us, opponents of a war with Iraq must have been absent for this lesson.

For twelve years Saddam Hussein and Iraq have violated international weapons treaties that they agreed to follow after the Gulf War in 1991. As part of the treaty, Iraq had to stop its development of weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles and face weapon inspections conducted by the United Nations. Since then, according to Bush, "Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge."

Ever since the end of the Gulf War, the treaty has been regarded by Iraq as nothing more than a joke. Hussein has kicked weapon inspectors out of the country, secretly attempted to build weapons of mass destructions and committed various other violations. However, the United Nations have responded with little more than a slap on the wrist. The inability of the U.N. to enforce the weapons agreement with Iraq closely resembles the League of Nations' inability to enforce the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.

Those opposed to war argue that the weapons inspectors have yet to discover the "smoking gun" needed to justify war. But, what today qualifies to be a "smoking gun?" In the Gulf War, the "smoking gun" was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In World War II, it was Hitler's invasion of Poland. These "smoking guns" have only provided justification for war after violence has taken place.

Opponents of the war also want the United Nation weapons inspectors to be given more time to search for weapons in Iraq. Apparently, twelve years was not enough time for Iraq to comply with the treaty. This may be because, when it comes to enforcing treaties and agreements, the United Nations has about as much power as Quince Orchard's Model U.N. team. Hussein has led weapons inspectors in a game of hide-and-seek for over a decade; a few more inspectors and few more policies is not going to suddenly make Hussein comply.

The reality is that Iraq is headed by an unstable regime which will lead to a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world. Ironically, while the U.N. tries to track Iraq's weapons, Iraq will host the U.N.'s Disarmament Committee in March.

Another argument used by those against attacking Iraq is the one that says that thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will be killed if we attack. How ignorant does one have to be not to know that this is happening in Iraq right now? For years Hussein has tortured his own citizens and denied them basic rights, making the Iraqi people suffer in horrible living conditions with almost no freedom. While an attack on Iraq will inevitably kill some Iraq civilians, it will liberate the overwhelming majority.

It seems ironic that the same liberals who supported intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia are suddenly against liberating the Iraqi people. Iraq has killed more Muslims than any other nation, yet anti-war activists are calling a U.S. attack "genocide." It is mind-boggling that a group called Students for Peace and Justice believes that justice is allowing Hussein to escape any consequences of murdering thousands of Muslims.

Regarding Iraq's use of human shields in combat, it is not the United States' fault that Hussein will use his own people as shields for his army. However, the fact that Hussein will sacrifice his own people for his own benefit only supports the idea that Hussein should be removed. Any person who is willing to use hospitals and children to protect his soldiers has no business being the leader of a nation.

Finally, every government's primary concern is its national security. As an unstable regime, Iraq would be a serious threat to the United States if it acquired a weapon of mass destruction. Therefore, as the President, Bush has the responsibility and duty to "protect and defend" the United States at any cost, even if that means killing Iraqi civilians.

Pro-war activists are not against peace. They just realize sometimes it takes war to secure peace.