15 reasons to stop this war

Great Debates
1
  1. The American people do not favor this war:

According to the latest Zogby poll only 39% of Americans favor this war if “thousands of casualties” is included in the question. Some people chalk this up to “spoiled Americans”, but I prefer to believe that Americans sense that if there are thousands of casualties something is wrong. And something is wrong.

  1. War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point:

Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction for 19 years and never used them on US personnel. There’s no reason to think his behavior will change, unless we go to war. The report that he’s about to get the atomic bomb has been discredited. Even if true, there are other ways to stop this.

  1. Saddam is not significantly linked to al Queda:

It goes against common sense to think so. Saddam cares about Saddam, not Islamic fundamentalist revolution. He fought a war against the Ayatollahs of Iran. He has killed mullahs in his country. And the evidence of links are puny.

  1. Bush’s war talk is a political mistake in the Arab world and; therefore, a mistake in the war on terror:

Arabs often watch Israeli solders killing and maiming Palestinians on al Jazeera tv, pictures we never see. Arab anger at Israel and the US is at fever pitch. Bush’s war talk fuels this anger. This is bound to favor al Queda recruitment.

  1. Saddam is a horrible dictator but:

If we are going to start fighting wars on a humanitarian basis we have a lot of explaining to do. We’ve done little about the humanitarian crises in Somalia, Rwanda, Tibet, etc. Besides there is a better way, see number 15.

  1. We will not bring democracy to Iraq:

We have never wanted democracy in Iraq because the most populous group is Shiites, a southern group likely to align with Iran. The “federation” the white house proposes would be difficult in the best of circumstances. It will likely end when we leave.

  1. Preparing for this war is taking resources away from the war on terror:

Republicans have complained that special forces have been reassigned from anti-terrorist to Iraq duties, reference 7 below. This is probably just the tip of an iceberg.

  1. Bush has not prepared for this war in a sensible way:

Why he refuses to learn from his father is beyond me, get the most support from the largest number of countries and form the largest coalition you can. Instead, we first get a public debate among members of the administration. Then he practically tells the world we really don’t care if they help or not. He goes to Congress before he goes to the U.N., instead of the other way around. First inspections have been a failure, now we will give inspections another chance. He even pretends disarmament is the same as regime change.

  1. The war will not be like Desert Storm:

In Desert Storm, Saddam’s troops fought in the open desert. All indications are he is not going to make that mistake again, reference 9. Baghdad, with its suburbs, is 9 million people. The urban combat is going to involve high casualties on all sides, reference 10.

  1. Iraq is not like Afghanistan:

We will not have the support of large revolutionary forces on the ground, the urban combat will be nothing like Afghanistan, and we will not be welcomed the way we were there. The people of Iraq blame the UN sanctions on us, not Saddam. As a journalist who recently traveled in Iraq says, “They hate Saddam, but they hate us more” (reference 8). These sanctions have caused real hardship and many Iraqis believe the propaganda that children have died for lack of medicine etc. Few Iraqis believe we are doing this for them. They think we are after their oil. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t true. They believe it, and Saddam is now forming civilian “martyrs brigades” who will likely fight. Many Iraqi civilians have rifles at home. We may find that our troops will have to deal with sniper fire even after the “war is won”.

  1. Iraq is not like Japan or Germany of 1945:

Japan and Germany were conquered, demoralized nations in 1945, ready for change. An attempt had been made on Hitler’s life. Nothing like that has happened in Iraq. Iraq has not been conquered and the people of Iraq are more angry than demoralized.

  1. Iraq is like Germany after world war one:

Humiliated by defeat and forced to disarm, if we force a chaotic democracy we will complete the analogy.

  1. There are other ways to punish Saddam for non-compliance:

Such as bombing or my personal favorite, take pieces of his country away from him until he complies.

  1. If you want war, and I do, there is a better way:

I want war for purely humanitarian reasons, but not this war. In my version we would slow down and take the time to help the Kurds, Shiites, and interested Sunnis develop large revolutionary armies. We would get as much international help as possible. We would seriously consider splitting the country into thirds, a Kurdistan in the north, a country for the Shiites in the south. I know there are problems with this, but if your going to dream, why not? But it is just a dream, with Bush it’s his war or no war. I prefer no, to his war.

  1. This administration has some explaining to do:

What could be worse than a president or his aides demanding the “information” they want so they can justify a war. Yet a number of articles have come out indicating this is taking place, references 1, 2, and 3. Even Bush’s honesty is being questioned. His war speech was full of holes, reference 4, and our national media is beginning to wonder, references 5 and 6.

References:

  1. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676

  2. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story

  3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,807194,00.html

  4. http://www.accuracy.org/bush/

  5. http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/thenote_oct22.html

  6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html

  7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,811430,00.html

  8. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/opinion/04KRIS.html

  9. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/international/middleeast/10MILI.html?pagewanted=1

  10. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20020925.htm

2

Yeah. What he said.

What I have been wondering is why? We have not been provoked by any aggression and Iraq isn’t out invading the nieghbors like last go. So why? WMD? If that is the case I guess it is off to Korea next eh?

3

I’m really beginning to start to wonder if they have any evidence whatsoever that Iraq even has weapons of mass destruction. Recently, documents have come out that detail how extensively Iraqi infrastructure was annihilated. It seems very, very unlikely that he has had time to rebuild weapons of mass destruction in the quantities that Bush is talking about. If anything, he most likely still has weapons left over from the Pre-Gulf War era.

I’m beginning to wonder if they had any concrete evidence they showed anyone about Al Qaeda too. Not that I’m saying that Al Qaeda is innocent, but we, the public, never received one hard document that shows the links.

4

Welcome to the SDMB, aaaphen256 and Blivit too.

First of all, the war hasn’t started, I think you OP needs to be amended to possibly:

.

Other than that, I have no comment on the OP.

5

I have yet to see any hard evidence either. It is not in the UNSCOM report and the only hard evidence I have heard is in interviews with weapons inspectors that testify to the contrary and say that the weapons don’t exist.

We never intended to lift any sanctions against Iraq, short of a regime change. You can bet your bottom dollar that Iraq could bend over backwards and juggle while eating a flaming sword to meet the UN resolutions but we will not stop short of war.

6

As President and Commander in Chief, his first responsibility is to the American people, not the UN, so why wouldn’t he go to Congress first?

7

He doesn’t even have to go to Congress. He can make undeclared war for a period of 60 days. Now, an invasion isn’t going to last 60 days or less. So, if he wants to extend it, he has to pull the troops out and it’s extended to 90 days. That’s a time frame from which with 600,000 troops he could feasibly take Iraq. Not only that, but the Congress has already passed a resolution giving the President the authority to use force. They’ve basically given him a blank check for an invasion. Saddam should be expecting it. The world should be expecting it. The question is, where is it going to come from. Kuwait? Israel? Turkey? Jordan? Iran? All of those are unlikely. Where are we going to find ground bases to house bombers, troops, etc.

The only thing that’s going to stop Bush, is if the American public (over 50%) rallies together, and says, No War. That’s the only thing. We’ll go in without international support. No one is going to step in, and say, United States, you can’t do that to Iraq. We’re the most powerful country in the world. You don’t want to mess with us. We basically took Afghanistan ourselves. It’s highly unlikely that we will receive any international support now.

The real question, what’s the secret agenda behind invading Iraq? Sure, liberating Kuwait may have seemed the “right” thing to do, but it was over oil. Will this be the next war fought over oil?

8

Coming out of the woodwork, preaching to the choir.

Awesome!

9

I doubt it is over oil this time. It seems to be more of a revenge/try to set up a stable democracy combo, flavored with frustration over not finding Osama. Oil is just why we were over there in the first place, hence us doing nothing in poorer parts of the world with just as bad dictators.

10
  1. A war in Iraq is going to cost the American people a lot of money. It will also probably extend the current recession, as the uncertainty of starting a war doesn’t exactly promote investment.
11

Welcome to the Straightr dope, aaaphen256. That was an excellent OP, although I do not agree with most of it.
<<1. The American people do not favor this war>>

If and when Iraq is found to be in breech of their agreement and the President goes to the country and explains why he is going to war, I have no doubt that a big majority of Americans will support him and favor the war. I suppose support could wane if the war dragged on for years with many American casualties, but that seems terrifically unlikely. Iraq has no major power backing them, as North Vietnam did.

<<2. War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point:

Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction for 19 years and never used them on US personnel.>>

Saddam has attacked US personnel and he has used WMDs. It doesn’t seem far-fetched that he might do both. It also seems likely that he would use nuclear weapons to blackmail us, while conquering Kuwait and perhaps Saudi Arabia.

<<The report that he’s about to get the atomic bomb has been discredited.>>

Everyone agrees that he is seeking nukes and that we don’t know for certain how far he has to go.

<< Even if true, there are other ways to stop this.>>

This is a vital point. Could you please tell us what approach you would recommend.

<<3. Saddam is not significantly linked to al Queda:>>

I tend to agree.

<<4. Bush’s war talk is a political mistake in the Arab world and; therefore, a mistake in the war on terror:

Arabs often watch Israeli solders killing and maiming Palestinians on al Jazeera tv, pictures we never see.>>

Arab media will show propaganda no matter what we do, so that’s no reason not to use our armaments.

<<If we are going to start fighting wars on a humanitarian basis we have a lot of explaining to do. We’ve done little about the humanitarian crises in Somalia, Rwanda, Tibet, etc.>>

So what? We have to start somewhere. Should we end humanitarian aid in one country because we failed to provide enough aid somewhere else? A search for perfect consistency is simply an excuse for inaction.

<<6. We will not bring democracy to Iraq:

We have never wanted democracy in Iraq>>

Bush says that’s precisely what he does want. It’s what the world community is currently trying to create in Afghanistan.

<<7. Preparing for this war is taking resources away from the war on terror:>>

This would be sort-of true, except that we have plenty of resources and there’s a real risk that Saddam could become a part of the terror group in the future.

<<8. Bush has not prepared for this war in a sensible way:

Why he refuses to learn from his father is beyond me, get the most support from the largest number of countries and form the largest coalition you can.>>

Since he just got unanimous approval at the Security Council, this comment is hard to understand.

<<9. The war will not be like Desert Storm:

In Desert Storm, Saddam’s troops fought in the open desert. All indications are he is not going to make that mistake again, reference 9. Baghdad, with its suburbs, is 9 million people. The urban combat is going to involve high casualties on all sides, reference 10.>>

That depends on our strategy. They can’t actually fight from the cities, if the troops hang out in Bagdad, we can win the war at our leisure.

<<We will not have the support of large revolutionary forces on the ground, the urban combat will be nothing like Afghanistan, and we will not be welcomed the way we were there. >>

I think we will be welcomed by many Iraqis. After all, Saddam is a horrible, cruel dictator.

12

Some selected december points:
"Arab media will show propaganda no matter what we do, so that’s no reason not to use our armaments. "

But this time it wont be propaganda. This will be real. The wild card is Iraqi resistance. That is entirely unpredictable. They may just fold. They may resist for the Fatherland. By comparison, I wouldn’t do squat for George Bush, but if a foreign invader lands in my country they’re gonna meet at least one hippy with a .30/.30.

"Bush says that’s precisely what he does want. It’s what the world community is currently trying to create in Afghanistan. "

Perhaps. Unless, of course, the popular will is a virulently hard line Islamic regime.

“Since he just got unanimous approval at the Security Council, this comment is hard to understand”

The Security Council resolution could as easily be intrepreted as an attempt to stall, and hopefull corral, the American war impulse. I wish them well, but have scant real hope for thier success. Our Leader has invested too much into this to get out without a clear triumph. Backing out without any of the goals acheived would be a political suicide note. It would also be an act of humane intelligence I fear is quite beyond his capacity.

"That depends on our strategy. They can’t actually fight from the cities, if the troops hang out in Bagdad, we can win the war at our leisure. "

Perhaps. On the other hand, we can’t win under that scenario without going into Baghdad, house to house. The civilian casualties of that are horrendous, not to mention our own. And Al Jazeera will catch it all on video. We’ll be lucky if “Great Satan” is the worst they think of us. Al Queda recruiting will be a boom business.

“I think we will be welcomed by many Iraqis. After all, Saddam is a horrible, cruel dictator.”

Thats an enormous comfort, december, given your depth of expertise on the thoughts of the average Iraqi citizen. I have no such expertise to compare.

Hitler was equally awful, it was clear in the ending days of the war that he had destroyed Germany. Yet old men and children turned out by the thousands for his Volksturmm, to resist the foreign invader.

The psychology of dictatorship is not rational. Russians wept openly in the streets of Moscow when Stalin died.

You may be right. For thier sakes, if nothing else, I hope you are right. But if you’re not, we’ll be stacking body bags like cordwood.

13

All of your references are the (far left) liberal media. One, the guardian is even farther to the left. Not what you would call unbiased reporting. Most of them tend to report only news relevant to their way of thinking.

The main reason for undertaking any action against Saddam Hussein is to ensure he will not achieve nuclear weapons capabilities. After he has rendered his first TND their will be no discussions, inspections, or negotiations that will favor the United States point of view. Saddam will try to enforce his will upon us, his neighbors (Israel), and his allies. And wouldn’t you think that someone who looks after himself as well as he does, would try to pad his bank accounts with more cash. possibly from the sale of nuclear materials to interested third parties.

That said, We and the world would be in the same position that we are in regards to N. Korea.

14

Not that that has mattered in the past. What do you think would happen if you took a poll among the Arab world to see how many believe in the massacre at Jenin? You know, the one that never actually happened?

15

milroyj wrote:

“As President and Commander in Chief, his first responsibility is to the American people, not the UN, so why wouldn’t he go to Congress first?”

I will probably change that section. Since Congress declares war I assumed that it is politically better to get your dogs in a row, including the American people, before you go to Congress. I also didn’t like the timing, just before the election. War shouldn’t be a political game.

16

occ wrote:

"Coming out of the woodwork, preaching to the choir.

Awesome!"

Your being derrogatory? Are you assuming I haven’t posted in conservative circles? Why?

17

You’ve got to be kidding. Oh well, here goes…

He set fire to the oild fields, creating a huge ecological disaster. He gassed his own people. The only reason he didn’t use WMD’s on our troops was because of the thinly veiled threat of a nuke pointed at Baghdad if he did.

I guess that’s why he funds suicide bombers in Israel, right? What if his “only caring for himself” includes striking at the US in any way possible, including handing WMD’s off to Al Qaeda? That is the real nightmare scenario painted by those who worry about Saddam. Why don’t you address that very real danger?

If we never see the pictures, how do you know about them, praytell? What would be a better course of action? Showing the Arab world that if you’re scarey and threatening, we’ll do what you want? How do you reconcile the Arab League’s vote on the recent resolution?

First of all, this is a straw man argument. It will be a happy byproduct (as it was in Afghanistan) if humanitarian concerns are served by a conflict in Iraq. Make no mistake, if war does come to pass in Iraq it will be about protecting the security of the US as well as the rest of the civilized world. Secondly, read up on your Somalia history–we did try to help. They even made a newspaper series, book, and movie about the end of it. You should check it out.

You mean, like by brokering a resolution in the UN approved unanimously by the security council? Including the Arab League?!?

Actually, there is a revolutionary force, though it diminished somewhat after we abandoned them after the Gulf War.

Ah, so international law and national sovereignty don’t mean anything to you. You are clearly a warmongering imperialist–or do you think that annexing parts of Iraq will somehow not result in war, or is any different than Hitler’s actions leading up to WW2? (Oops, there goes Godwin’s Law).

Oops, there’s that imperialist bent again. So you don’t have problems invading for humanitarian reasons, eh? Frankly, I find that disgusting–A naked desire to use force in a far more sinister way than Bush or his supporters.

18

qersys writes:

"All of your references are the (far left) liberal media. One, the guardian is even farther to the left. Not what you would call unbiased reporting. Most of them tend to report only news relevant to their way of thinking. "

I wasn’t aware the Houston Chronicle is far left, is it? Is the LA times?

“The main reason for undertaking any action against Saddam Hussein is to ensure he will not achieve nuclear weapons capabilities. After he has rendered his first TND their will be no discussions, inspections, or negotiations that will favor the United States point of view. Saddam will try to enforce his will upon us, his neighbors (Israel), and his allies. And wouldn’t you think that someone who looks after himself as well as he does, would try to pad his bank accounts with more cash. possibly from the sale of nuclear materials to interested third parties.”

I don’t think Saddam is suicidal, if he gets one and uses it he knows he’s dead. We lived with the Soviets having TND and worse. Saddam seems a lot like Stalin to me. Regardless, we can stop his nuclear program without urban combat in Baghdad, but I’m affraid Bush isn’t going to let us.

19

emarkp

A little suggestion: edit your post, try again without the impudent sarcasm, try adding some common courtesy, and I’ll be quite happy to respond.

20

Well, yes, We now know that we survived the Cold War. But, survival was far from obvious at the time. In particular, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was touch and go as to whether the world would be destroyed in a nuclear war.