I should also add that the only action we should are those to enforce the UN Sanctions - and if that means war, so be it. I don’t care if what our “real” motivations are. We set boundaries and we must enforce them. Parents who don’t enforce boundaries end up with bratty, unruly kids. But the idea of war to topple Saddam is way to imperialistic for my sensibilities.
Perhaps some introductory words are a good idea. I’m presenting these reasons in the hope they represent what a reasonably intelligent person might use to oppose “this war”. Defining “this war” as a mission to get Saddam, a war which I believe must involve urban combat to take Baghdad and control Iraq. I am not opposed to a revolutionary war within Iraq, nor our helping in such a war. I am not opposed to the assassination of Saddam. I am not opposed to specific bombing programs or other measures to punish Iraq for UN noncompliance. And I am in favor of bombing, special operations, and all other means short of large scale urban combat to stop Saddam from getting a nuclear bomb.
On 1, the polls:
”You say 55% is “far too few.” What is “enough”? Generally speaking, in a democracy 50% +1 is “enough.””
I would think that for a war like this, the invasion and conquest of another country, the president would want to have much more support. It rates as a reason because of that. But of course as commander and chief with authorization from Congress, he doesn’t have to have any popular support.
- War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point:
Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction for 19 years and has never used them on US personnel. There’s no reason to think his behavior will change, unless we go to war. Predictions that he’s about to get the atomic bomb have been discredited, references 4, 17, and 18. Even if true, there are other ways to stop this, references 19 and 20.
”a. Predictions he’s about to get the atomic bomb have been disputed, not discredited. Huge difference.”
Hamza is discredited; therefore his predictions are discredited and those who base their predictions on his are using discredited predictions, reference 18.
“b. You still don’t give any examples of the “other ways to stop this.” Your reference is to the NPT. The NPT doesn’t work if it doesn’t have teeth, as your reference 20 makes clear. After all, Iraq signed the NPT, as did North Korea. And the NPT, by its terms, has no teeth.
So, we can work to put in the teeth we need. I’m not an expert on non-proliferation, but I’m far from believing that the only way we can keep Saddam from getting a bomb is an all out war.
“It is probably correct that Saddam doesn’t have nukes, and is at least a few years away from getting them. But you ignore why that is so. It isn’t because Iraq signed the NPT, or through “other ways to stop this”; it is because twice now violent military means have knocked the stuffing out of Iraq and caused serious damage to its nukes program. The first was the Israeli bombing of the Osirak reactor, and the second was the Gulf War.”
From my introductory paragraph, you can see I have no problem with this. These actions are not the “this war” I am opposed to.
”c. Whether U.S. personnel is attacked does not define U.S. national security. If that were the case, the US wouldn’t have kept troops in Western Europe for the past 55-odd years.”
That depends on how you define “national security” as compared to “our interests”. When Bush says Saddam is a danger to our national security I think he literally means Saddam will attack us. The point here is, I don’t buy the argument that Saddam’s killing of Kurds and others means he’s going to kill Americans. He has nothing to gain from killing us except our wrath, which he has no reason to desire. Saddam seems to kill in order to maintain control, or to gain territory. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect Kuwait and others from him, or help those within Iraq. It just means, I don’t buy the argument that he is such a significant danger to the US, that an all out war is called for.
- 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, reference 11 and 14.
”Ahh, grasshopper, your attempt to link Palestine and Iraq avails you not. If Arab anger at Israel and the US is at a fever pitch, and if that is a bad thing (both of which I concede, but others may differ), that says nothing about the pros and cons of our Iraqi policy.”
From what I’ve read, Arab anger was already high at Israel and the US before Bush started talking about an invasion of Iraq. His talk of such an invasion has made things worse. An actual invasion would make things worse still. If the assumption: the greater Arab anger, the easier al Queda recruitment, is a valid one, and I think it is, then Bush’s war talk and Iraq war could not have come at a worse time politically, if less terrorism is the goal. If Iraq is providing a significant source of terror against the US, then there would be a trade off. Increased Arab anger and recruitment into al Queda might be offset by stopping Iraq’s terror network. But evidence that Iraq is the backbone of al Queda doesn’t exist. If Iraq is supporting other terrorist organizations, then that might be cause for military action. I could add reason 16: Iraq’s support of terrorists other than al Queda is not a sufficient reason for this war. But I’ve chosen to leave that one out.
“It says scads about our Palestinian problem.
You do not propose the logical solution to the anger problem - change US policy towards Israel; instead you demand no war with Iraq. Why fix the peripheral cause of the anger rather than the prime cause?”
I’m just trying to present reasons an intelligent person might use to oppose the war. I’m not trying to solve other problems. But if you are asking, yes, I would be pleased if our policy towards Israel and the Palestinians changed. I think it would help the war on terror, but we should do it because it is the right thing to do, not because of pressure from terrorists.
”As for the recruitment issue - if anger at the US is already at a fever pitch, before a war with Iraq, wouldn’t Al Quad recruitment already be at its peak? “OOOOhh, I’m boiling mad. Now I’m madderrer.””
I think there is a big difference between being angry and deciding to take action due to the anger. There is also the belief that injustice is being done, but I think that is understood.
“Finally, you still haven’t responded to the key criticism of this point - you haven’t provided any evidence that this putative increase in al-Quad recruitment would present more danger to US interests and security than Iraq will.”
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, a few Americans opposed going to war with Germany until Japan was subdued. If I had been alive I’m sure I would not have agreed with this, but I would have considered it an intelligent reason to oppose immediate war with Germany. I’m presenting a similar reason here, but one I think is much more valid. I don’t feel I need to show al-Queda is more dangerous than Iraq to present this reason. The reason passes the reasonability test, in my opinion. But since you ask, I think Iraq has the capacity to be more harmful to us, but not the will, hence less of a threat.
quote:
- 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. Some might say it is not our responsibility, but if you want a war to free Iraq there are better ways, see reason 14.
“Actually, we don’t. We can say that we have decided on a new policy, in which we fight wars on a humanitarian basis. If anyone asks us to explain when we’ve done little about humanitarian crises in the past, we can respond by saying, “well, that was under the old policy. We have a new policy now.”
Ok, I’ll delete that junk, wish the editor worked, how about this:
- Saddam is a horrible dictator but:
We have ignored dictators before. Some might say he is not our responsibility, but if you want a war to free Iraq from Saddam’s influence I think there is a better way, see reason 14.
I don’t like this reason because I think we should take more responsibility than we do, but I have to admit that “they’re not our problem” rates as a valid reason, if that’s the philosophy of the reasoner.
On 6 you say:
“Mr. Margolis’ opinion piece has the same problem as your point #5 - both assume that the U.S. can’t change its policy. Mr. Margolis also ignores the lesson learned from 9/11 - that the old policy of supporting stability at the cost of repression in the Mid-East harmed U.S. interests. The 9/11 attackers came from U.S. allies in repressed but “stable” countries. We’ve learned that stability for its own sake hurts us.”
I rewrote this because of your previous comments but I haven’t reposted it yet. Here’s the new version:
- Bush will not bring democracy to Iraq:
Our government has never wanted democracy in Iraq because the most populous group is Shiite. The fear is, they will align with Iran. Any federation Bush orchestrates will be Sunni dominant and forced on the Shiites. This “democracy” is mocked in foreign policy circles, reference 12.
I could say that Bush will not bring democracy unless he changes his policy, but I think that is so unlikely I might as well leave the statement as is.
quote:
- 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.
“But you have still not answered the question - does this “taking away resources” harm the war on terror? As your own reference 7 notes . . .”
I think it’s a valid reason simply because it might harm the war on terror. For example, I believe the following statement is valid: “One of the reasons I oppose this war is because it might use resources needed for the war on terror.”
quote:
- 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 just before an election, then tries to form a coalition; 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.
“He goes to Congress just before an election, then tries to form a coalition; instead of the other way around. . . .”
Since Congress declares war it seems to me it should be the last step. Why not get on the phone, as his father did, and form the broadest coalition possible, while selling it to the American people and the world. The vote just before an election made the whole thing seem way too political. Also, presidents negotiate treaties all the time that Congress will consider at a later time.
quote:
- 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”.
“Doesn’t this rule out your point #14? If the Iraqi people are so united against us, why do you think we’d be able to rally large revolutionary armies to do our fighting for us - and expect them to have any support, instead of being looked at as U.S. puppets?”
If we lift the sanctions in the north and south, where the Kurds and Shiites live, give them weapons and supplies, and help them form effective armies, I think they’ll forgive us regarding the sanctions. I don’t care if the Kurds and Shiites are regarded as US puppets. I would hope they would ally with us. I haven’t made up my mind about what should happen after that. Saddam could be contained until he dies of old age, as Stalin was, or perhaps enough Sunnis would join a revolutionary army. I would take a “we’ll decide this later” approach, after we help the Shiites and Kurds (and Ma’dan).
On 11:
“As I stated earlier, there have been numerous attempts on Saddam’s life.
2. In any event, why do you think an assassination attempt is a prerequisite? There was no such attempt in Japan.
3. To be a conquered, demoralized nation, you must first be conquered and demoralized. Of course, Iraq is not like Japan or German of 1945 - we haven’t invaded yet.
What you fail to do is provide any evidence that, after a successful invasion, Iraq will not be like Germany or Japan of 1945.”
Sorry, I don’t know how I missed that about attempts on his life, I’ll change this one too:
- Iraq is not like Japan or Germany of 1945:
Japan and Germany were conquered, demoralized nations in 1945, ready for change. Iraq has not yet been conquered and the people of Iraq are more angry than demoralized.
First of all, I’ve heard Dr. Rice use this analogy as though this is true for Iraq now. That the Iraqi people are demoralized, hate Saddam, are ready for change, and their troops will surrender in droves. It rates as a reason because reasonable people can disagree with the analogy. My way of disagreeing with it is this: In 1945, in my opinion, the people of both Japan and Germany felt they had failed. We did not need to “occupy” either country for years, as people predict we will have to in Iraq. The Japanese and the Germans were ready for change. I think the Iraqi people will resent our presence and wish us gone. They will suspect our imposition of democracy, and fear the dominance of other groups.
quote:
- Iraq is like Germany after world war one:
Humiliated by defeat and forced to disarm, if an unworkable democracy is imposed the analogy will be complete. Of course, an analogy the Arabs use is Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, and we know how well that’s gone.
“Precisely - that is the current status of Iraq. And what changed Germany after WWI into Germany after WWII? Invasion and surrender.”
And we paid a heavy price. How much better if Germany had been treated with respect after WWI, instead of like an outlaw nation. Then the bitterness they felt helped Hitler to power. Some argue that we should lift the sanctions for just this reason. I don’t agree, but I don’t argue either. If we are lucky and no war happens, then we can debate what to do next. Otherwise, it seems off the subject. In the mean time, it rates as a reason to me because humiliating a nation can be a dangerous thing to do.
quote:
- 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.
“So, an invasion of Iraq will further anger Arabs and increase Al-Quad recruitment, but bombing and/or conquering parts of Arab (Iraqi) land won’t??!!
Either of these options, we get the worst of both worlds: increased Arab anger and Al-Quad recruitment, without any decrease in the threat posed by Saddam.”
Doing this war to punish Saddam for UN noncompliance seems excessive to me, so it goes on the “reasonable reasons to oppose” list. If people want more information about my personal favorite they can ask. I like the idea of liberating the Kurds and Shiites from Saddam. We might be able to do it with relatively few troops and little added Arab anger, but as I say below it’s just a dream. With Bush we will probably have a war to “get Saddam” and Baghdad will be conquered in less than a year. I think violence may continue with the occupation and under those conditions I will support our withdraw. We cannot help when we are unwelcome. Bush will resist this, but maybe the anti-war movement will help change things in 2004. That’s a much more realistic dream and my opinion.
quote:
- 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 restart the middle east peace process. We would get as much international help as possible. We would 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.
“A “better” way is generally limited to those “possible” ways. This was tried before and didn’t work.”
The CIA has helped quite a few people obtain power. Why not ask them to do it for democratic revolutions, for a change.
- This administration has some explaining to do:
What could be worse than a president or his aides trying to push our intelligence services to certain conclusions so they can justify a war. They have tried to compromise the objectivity of our intelligence services and that is outrageous. A number of articles discuss this, 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 as well, references 5, 6, and 15.
“Again, I’m not seeing the connection between the questions of “is Bush acting properly?” and “should we fight this war?””
This is not just acting improperly it’s acting immorally. If Bush can’t be trusted to run his administration better than this, why should we trust him to take us into war?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by aaaphen256 *
**Perhaps some introductory words are a good idea. I’m presenting these reasons"…[UNQUOTE]
Sheeeeeeesh aaaphen256, can’t you summarize a bit and knock off with the great anti-whatever blather?
You have some valid discussion points but we can only eat so much long-winded tripe at one sitting (especially given the quoting/responses).
Yeah! And furthermore, you’re using up all the good stuff! I mean, here I am in a mood to be all biting and trenchant, and this newbie posts three volumes of insightful intelligence.
Sorry Uigi, I’ve been trying to work with Sua and things seem to be getting longer and longer.
Hey elucidator, want to be trenchant, try the (are women mean?) post started by december. Plenty to sound off about in there. A bit too close to home for me now though.
Um, aaphen256, we aren’t working together. You are trying to convince me and others why “Bush’s war” is bad, but “your war” is good.
And you are doing a horrible job. First off, most of your arguments urge that any war is bad. This is an inherent contradiction with your basic position that we should be pursuing a particular type of war. Your Point #14 cannot be reconciled with points #1-12. You make all these arguments against war, when all you are really bitching about is what war strategy should be used.
Second, you act as if you know what strategy the military will use. You don’t, so your position is kind of moot.
Sua
Your right Sua, you aren’t working with me, apparently your entire goal here is to harrass. I’ve talked about how 14 works with 1 to 12, but you refuse to get it. As for strategy if you know a way of getting Saddam without getting control of Baghdad, please let us know.
Ok, just for the heck of it. Why do you keep pushing the idea that I am promoting “my war” over Bush’s war? Isn’t it obvious when I say that my war is a “dream” that has no chance of happening, that the choice is Bush’s war or no war at all, and that I choose to oppose Bush’s war; that I’m against Bush’s war and I’m promoting “no war” right now against Iraq as an alternative? I am NOT promoting “my war”.
You say that my “arguments urge that any war is bad”. Prove it, quote me.
OK, aaaphen256, I agree. However, now you’ve undone your point #13 *"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."*
Would you agree that in practice there are NO other ways to disarm Saddam. In that case, can you explain why leaving Saddam with a growing arsenal of WMDs is better than a war now?
My entire goal here is to debate you and defeat your fallacious arguments. This forum is called Great Debates, not Great Agreements.
You see, I am in favor of a war with Iraq if Iraq refuses to disarm. You are opposed to that war. I’m supposed to ‘work with you’ to strengthen your arguments? I don’t think so.
::sigh:: Refusing to agree with a weak and self-contradictory argument is not “refusing to get it.” It’s called disagreeing. You think you have reconciled your inherently self-contradictory positions. I think your attempt to reconcile them have failed.
Fine. Your point #2 “War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point.” Unless you are arguing that it is appropriate for the United States to arm rebels in another country and encourage them to attack their government when the U.S. does not have a national security interest in doing so, this argument urges that any war with Iraq is bad.
Your point #7 “Preparing for this war is taking resources away from the war on terror” Unless you are arguing that the effort to equip and train your army of Shi’ite, Kurd and Sunni rebels will not use up any US military resources, this argument urges that any war with Iraq is bad.
Shall I go on?
Sua
Pointing out the reasonable things that Bush could do but won’t may be a “dream” with no chance of happening, yet it is still a valid reason to oppose this war. So I think item
13 is fine as is. All out war is an excessive escalation, there are alternatives if one wants to punish Saddam for noncompliance. Inspectors are back in Iraq. If they are satisfied, I will be satisfied. To answer your question, the only certain way to disarm anyone like Saddam is to jail him or kill him. But I’m not convinced Saddam has a growing arsenal of WMDs and if he does I’m far from convinced he would use them against us.
Here’s what Stephen Zunes, author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism and associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco has to say about Saddam’s use of WMDs:
“He attacked Iranian troops because he knew Iran had no allies that would defend it. And we now know that officials from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assisted Iraq in targeting Iranian forces in the full knowledge that they were using chemical weapons. Saddam used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians because he knew they couldn’t fight back. And the U.S. helped cover up the Halabja massacre and other assaults by falsely claiming the Iranians were responsible. In other words, Saddam is a coward. He will use WMDs when he knows he won’t have to suffer the consequences, especially when the world’s most powerful country is supporting him.”
There are many possibilities of action now, some of them are:
End the sanctions and withdraw.
Continue as we have been doing, sanctions etc
Arm and otherwise help, more than we are, the Kurds and Shiites who are in the no-fly-zones.
Put troops into the no-fly-zones, but not into the middle of the country.
A siege of Baghdad.
Take Baghdad through urban combat.
Take the whole country, kill Saddam, then leave.
Take the whole country, kill Saddam, then try to establish democracy.
I’m not promoting any of the first 4. I’m against the last 4. I’m unconvinced Saddam is enough of a threat or enough of a humanitarian problem within middle Iraq to justify an all out war to take Baghdad and other Sunni cities. In other words, I’m against a war to “get Saddam”. It is my understanding that is how Bush defines this war.
Sua, the only thing you’ve debated is how the OP is written. You’ve:
Refused to see the OP for what it is, a list of reasons to oppose the war.
Demanded that I demonstrate things for each and every reason, which is unnecessary. The reasons stand as reasons. You can disagree or agree as you like.
Tried to make rules about using phrases like “in my opinion”.
Gotten stuck on the idea that I’m promoting “my war”.
Not bothered to address the points I made when I refuted yours.
Told me that my points are fallacious, weak, and self-contradictory without saying why.
So one last time, for the time being, I’ll indulge this debate about the way the OP is written, then I’m going to insist on something more real. The only reason I can imagine that you continue to insist that my positions are “weak and self-contradictory”, besides your desire to be rude, is that your stuck on the idea that I’m promoting a different kind of war, which I am not. I can point out a different way to do this war without promoting it, as a way to show just how bad an idea Bush’s war is, and nothing more.
You say:
“Fine. Your point #2 “War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point.” Unless you are arguing that it is appropriate for the United States to arm rebels in another country and encourage them to attack their government when the U.S. does not have a national security interest in doing so, this argument urges that any war with Iraq is bad.”
First of all, and here we go again, I don’t have to argue anything, I’m merely trying to present REASONS an intelligent person might use to OPPOSE THIS WAR, not promote anything or any alternatives. Are there cases where for the sake of democracy or for humanitarian reasons the USA might help a revolutionary army, even though our national security is not enhanced, and I would think this is OK, yes. Is Iraq one of these cases, maybe, I’m not promoting that, just bringing it up as one of the possible alternatives to Bush’s war. We also might go to war against Iraq in order to help someone else, as we did to free Kuwait. One could argue that the conquest of Kuwait by Iraq did not harm our national security, yet I would still support it, and I did.
And you say:
“Your point #7 “Preparing for this war is taking resources away from the war on terror” Unless you are arguing that the effort to equip and train your army of Shi’ite, Kurd and Sunni rebels will not use up any US military resources, this argument urges that any war with Iraq is bad.”
Bush has argued this war will not take away resources from the war on terror. I cite something that indicates it already has. So I rate it as a reason. Yes “resources” could be used as a reason against any war. There are pros and cons to every war. The use of resources is always a con. I’m not trying to name the pros (you would if you wanted a real debate). I’m naming the cons. And yes, some are more significant than others.
So, if we’re done with the nit picking of the OP, how about you disagree with one of the REASONS and give a counter opinion for a change. For example you could say:
I think the war is justified based on US national security and here’s why . . .
As a matter of fact I insist. Until you do, as far as I’m concerned the “debate” about the way the OP is written is over. And by the way, if you manage to cool-it with the insults, that would be a nice change as well.