Today at school I got handed a little pamphlet that stated that we should not go to war with Iraq, and stated seven reasons (shown below). Having placed myself reluctantly on the pro-attack side, I was at first inclined to not care, but as I read, it seemed to me not only that some of these reasons pretty stupid (such as Nos. 1 and 2), but that there was something fallacious about it all. However, not liking to discuss something unless I am well-versed in the information, I didn’t really talk to anyone about it. It is because of this lack of knowledge that I came here to find out what dopes thought of these reasons, and whether The writer is off base or if I am just mistaken. i thought I saw a thread similar to this a while back, but I have been unable to find it. anyway, here are the reasons:
People (both Iraqi and American) will die.
Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, and poses no military threat to the US or it’s neighbors
Saddam Hussein has no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11
A war would be disastrous for the area, and likely destabalize the entire Middle East.
A war would only increase anti-American feelings and increase the likelihood of terrorism.
North Korea is far more dangerous than Iraq… but it has no oil.
A US invasion and the subsequent regime change would be illegal under international law.
** ñañi **, what school gives out pamphlets stateing no war with Iraq? College? public school? Liberal Arts?
Just wondering…
for the OP…
We are not currently obligated to get oil from Iraq.
My Wag: If Saddam is hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction, the inspectors will not find them unless they stumble upon them. Regardless of any inspector findings the US is most likely going to attack anyway and eventually find something that could potentially flaten Isreal or some other enemy of the Mid-east. I just hope it’s not called a Jihad.
Wow, how unjustifiable is that statement? Not just that, but they were never accused of having nuclear weapons. And I would say they are a threat to the US and it’s allies, not neighbors (Heh, like Iraq wants to harm Canada or Mexico ).
Who ever said they did? I know US never did. Like the UN sent in weapons inspectors to look for terrorists…right.
Well…we know Israel will be prepared. They have a ton of (good) Pat missiles and support of many world powers. Do we care about the rest of the Middle East being angry? Probably not. They already hate us enough. This was probably the most legit statement of the 7, because it didn’t say something completely bias and rediculous. It still is very subjective though.
Sure it will. Which is why terrorists have been blowing themselves up in the streets over the past few months in protest of getting ready for war. If this was true, we would’ve seen response by now.
That is a completely unjustifiable comment. I’d like your first hand reports on North Korea’s full military arsenal, buddy. Or shall we simulate a war between Iraq and N. Korea to see who would win.
Right…which is why the UN agreed to approve action against Iraq if necessary. Show me proof buddy.
Not a good reason. Obviously people will die, that’s not a reason in and of itself…the question is will their deaths be for a worthwhile cause. So really, we have six reasons.
Correct about nuclear weapons. But what about biological or chemical? As for a threat to the US, that’s certainly true. I’m not really too afraid of Iraq. It IS a threat to it’s neighbors though.
Most likely true. Al-Qaeda has no love for Saddam. But then, I’ve seen stranger alliances (Khemal and the Bolsheviks in the interwar period, for instance).
Maaaaaybe. Since I don’t think that the Bush Administration will do this right, it most likely will lead to destablization. But it’s not a given.
Another maaaaaybe. Depends on how it was done and what the results were. Again, my lack of faith in the Bush Administration leads me to believe this is a likely outcome. If I were running things, I’d do it right, though.
North Korea is far more dangerous than Iraq? Maybe. The shot about oil is just stupid though. An attack on North Korea is out of the question mostly because of its large protector - China. Same reason there was never an out and out attack on Poland or Hungary during the Cold War.
Iraq has no such protector, and is a danger. I’d rather replace the regime now than wait for trouble to really start. Of course, I wish I had confidence in the Bushies to do it right so it wouldn’t backfire. But I don’t.
International law is a joke. Who cares?
So, in conclusion - I oppose this action more or less because I think the Bushies are incompetent and will mess it up in the long run.
Splanky, certain high-ranking members of the United States government (who shall remain nameless) have said Iraq is working on getting Nuclear weapons and may have them already. They may also have bio and chemical weapons; we gave them some in the 70’s. Sure, if we really do have evidence of those weapons, I’d like to hear it Mr. Bush. But until I hear it, no dice. Another thing: “Its neighbors” (typo corrected) was refering to Iraq’s neighbors, not America’s.
The United States did more than imply it. Remember the whole “Axis of Evil” spiel? Sheesh.
Saddam Hussien could have been (egads!) an ally against Al-Queda. They hate the schmuck. Just being hypothetical with that one. We’ve supported worse evils.
We want to stop terrorism. The Great Satan invading an Arab nation for no highly noticeable reason (a preemtive strike? :rolleyes: ) is going in inflame the Arab world, cut off needed allies, and make them hate us more. Which will equal more terrorist attacks. The Gulf War spawned 9/11 when we put American soldiers on “sacred” ground in Saudi Arabia.
North Korea has nukes, and they admitted it. They’re a military state with Human Rights abuses that make its inhabitants flee to fucking China of all places. As far as the US is concerned; they are a threat to its allies in the region. They seem like pretty nasty guys. But we are not attacking them because (like Neurotik has said) China.
Whether North Korea is “better” or “worse” is entirely irrelevent. A country should not be required to go to war with every enemy in order to go to war with one.
I assume you’re looking for an intelligent response to your OP rather than the kneejerks you will get from all the warmongers hanging around in here so…
True and a very valid reason. Forget talk of “smart bombs” etc. Innocent Iraqis will die. The question “Does Iraq pose a sufficient threat to warrant the killing of innocent people?” is a serious question.
Hmm…
I’m assuming “it’s neighbours” means Iraq’s neighbours not America’s neighbours so I think Mexico and Canada can rest easy for the moment.
Seems extremely doubtful that Iraq has nukes. It also seems unlikely that Iraq is going to attack any of it’s neighbours any time soon so this one is probably true.
I don’t think the alleged biological and chemical threat is anything to worry overmuch about. Biological weapons are harder to use than you might think - a sudden gust of wind can dilute the bacteria in the air such that it is ineffective, biological weapons are best in enclosed spaces. Also there are vaccines against these kind of things.
Chemical weapons are nasty but very localised. You can wear protective clothing and again there are antidotes.
Biological and chemical are both nasty of course, but neither would be a particularly useful offensive weapon against another country. It’s really only nukes that we need worry about and it seems they don’t have them (or indeed the means to deliver them).
True as far as we know although Iraqi intelligence appear to be a pretty nasty bunch so I wouldn’t entirely rule it out.
I’m not convinced by this one. There’s no love for Saddam Insane in the region. Iraqi people would be better off without him (economically, politically and in terms of human rights). I don’t think people in the neighbouring countries would be too worried about living next door to an Iraq without Saddam so they’d probably get over it.
Probably will increase anti-American feeling amongst those who already harbour such feelings. Terrorism is going to happen anyway whether the US attacks Iraq or not so no point in worrying about it.
Although note that Iraqis don’t tend to be amongst the terrorists that attack America. Anti-Americanism isn’t a particularly noticeable trait among Iraqis (when compared with some other countries in the region anyway).
True, I would say, since N. Korea has nukes, long-range missiles that can deliver them and hates America. N. Korea seems to be a far more pressing problem than Iraq far as I can see. The oil thing is irrelevant (or at least of minor importance) since most US oil comes from elsewhere.
Not sure about this. If the UN oks it then it’s probably kosher under international law.
So, doesn’t leave us much reason to attack does it?
The only real justification I’ve come across is that by removing Saddam we can remove the sanctions which have killed half a million Iraqi children since they were imposed. If Saddam was gone then we could stop treating Iraq as a pariah nation and deal with them in a normal manner again.
Whether this justification warrants killing thousands of innocent Iraqis is a judgement call.
I think that one of the best arguments against going to war, that wasn’t mentioned in the list, is that every reason being given to go to war is a lie.
In a Sep. news conference, Bush stated that the IAEA reported that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon, and that that was “all the reason we need” to invade. The only problem is that the IAEA had never said any such thing.
The U.S. has been desperately looking for some way to link bin Laden with Iraq. Rumsfeld told several lies about al Queda in Iraq.
Whenever I talk to somebody who supports a war in Iraq, I like to ask this question:
Are you willing to die to overthrow Saddam and install whichever type of government the U.S. leadership choses to install in Baghdad?
If you are not willing to die, then you have no fucking right to consign other people to death for a cause that you are not willing to die for yourself.
Why not ask an honest question instead of one designed to give only the answer you want?
Why not word the question so that it reflects the reason that most people actually give for going to war instead of your “American Imperialism!” straw-man?
By your very own words, any invasion would be the result of the percieved need to defend the lives of Americans and American allies, not the need to nation-build in the middle east.
First off, our national policy is a darn sight more level-headed then one of asking suicidal people if we should or should not do something. All of our armed forces are comprised of volunteers, who damn well knew they may or may not go to war. Our armed forces are not composed of suicide bombers who expect to die in the course of their duties.
Secondly, we have every ‘fucking right’, my little leftist friend, to consign other people (volunteers, remember?) to do go to war. That is how a non-dictatorship works, you see? Civilians tell the generals when and where to go to war. It may not be perfect, but it keeps things going nicely.
Yes. And if Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and is allowed to develop nukes, then eventually many, many more people will die trying to stop him.
Iraq probably does not have nuclear weapons today. However, Iraq WILL have them in a few years. Do you want to wait until then? The problem with weapons of mass destruction is that if you wait until a country has them, it’s too late to stop them.
And Saddam is a threat to the U.S., in that he can act as a financial sponsor of terror or slide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists to use against the U.S. He is a direct threat to his neighbors. Remember Kuwait? Any guesses as to how threatened THEY feel by Saddam? Especially since he has a nasty habit of occasionally mobilizing his army along the border. He’s certainly a threat to Israel, because he attacked them in the last war without provocation, and is also currently funding Palestinian suicide bombers. It’s worth noting that Israel is practically begging the U.S. to hit Saddam now, because they know that if he gets his hands on a nuke, the mostly likely place in the world for it to go off is in downtown Tel Aviv.
Oh, Saddam could also be a direct threat to the U.S. I just read an article about there being evidence that Saddam is working on sea-launching his missiles. That means he could sail a ship up to the limit of international waters and launch a SCUD with a nuke on it at a coastal U.S. city. Pretty speculative and unlikely at this time, but in the world of WMD and asymmetrical warfare, Saddam doesn’t have to be the Soviet Union in order to threaten the U.S.
We’re not sure about that, and it’s irrelevant anyway. I know people on this board keep repeating that Saddam hates al-Qaida, but I’ve seen no evidence of that. The original fatwa Osama Bin Laden issued against the U.S. began by listing the supposed offenses the U.S. had committed against the people of Iraq, and went on for about half its length specifically defending Iraq. Hussein clearly has ties with Palestinian terrorists, since he is paying them for blowing themselves up. There are reports that al-Qaida is attacking the Kurds, who hate Saddam, and other reports that Iraq is training members of al-Qaida.
I think even if there was animosity between them, the current situation may well bring them together. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Or, it could be a great liberating force. Millions of Iraqis live in a brutal dictatorship. Does their disaster count for anything? How about the Kurds, against whom Saddam has been waging genocide?
Some experts believe that Iraq is the key to reforming the entire middle east. Iran is ready for reform right now, and having a democratic Iraq next door will be a fine influence on them. A free Iraq would also put big pressure on Saudi Arabia to moderate.
On the other hand, an Iraq that is nothing more than a U.S. puppet with a huge U.S. military presence could in fact make the situation in the middle east worse. It all depends on how skillfully the post-Saddam situation is handled. But I have faith in the Bush administration’s ability in this regard.
See Above.
So what? You do what you can. It is not possible to engage North Korea militarily. So you use other tools at your disposal. Maybe you even have to just try to be diplomatic with them. That’s what the U.S. had to do with the Soviets, after all. Not by choice, because by necessity.
On the other hand, Iraq may have less weaponry, but it is far less stable with Saddam in charge. And it is causing far more political problems because of the Middle East situation.
That’s not clear. Iraq is technically in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement. which may in fact be reasonable legal justification. Or, the U.S. could get U.N. approval.
In a civilized society it would work quite differently. For one thing, the onus is never on those who oppose war to justify why we shouldn’t go to war. Rather, those who propose war have a very high burden of proof to justify the mass destruction and loss of life that war entails. In a civilized society, those who propose a war would bring their case to the public, and there would be a debate. Those who proposed war would have to answer detailed questions about their motives for going to war, the cost of the war, and what the intended result of the war will be.
None of this has happened.
Instead, what has happened is that the Bushites formed a plan to invade Iraq and let it sit. Then, after 911, when the country was whipped into hysteria, they preyed on peoples’ fears to justify the war. They lie to the people about the situation. They attempt to scare the populace into supporting a war that it wouldn’t support otherwise. Essentially, they are following Hermann Goering’s prescription for how to start a war. When Goering was in the dock at Nuremburg he explained how it works:
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
When the media is controlled by the pro-war crowd it is very difficult to counter all of the mis-information, lies and distortions that are repeated ad nauseum, but still there is significant resistance to this unjust war.
Again, if you are not willing to die for the cause, you have no right to consign others to die for it. It is not just the soldiers who will die, although that is bad enough. Many of the soldiers, on both sides, are misled and lied to, or are compelled to join the military to make a decent life for themselves. It is disgusting to claim that these lives are expendable because they volunteered for it.
But, in modern war, it is the civilians who suffer. This will be especially true in the war on Iraq, as it will involve heavy bombardment of civilian areas. We can expect mass civilian deaths, displacements, starvations, rampant disease and shattered lives. Furthermore, the Bushites haven’t given the slightest indication that the government they will install will be any better than the government of Saddam.
Unless you are signing up to be on the first wave into Baghdad, you are a hypocrite and a coward.
If antiwar folks going to use this agrument, it’s better put more this way, I think:
Let’s say President Bush comes to you and says he can completely subdue Iraq/terrorism instantly with your help. The cost, however, is that your 1-year-old daughter must be killed. She will feel no pain, and no one else will die. Assume you believe he can do this. What do you do?
Before you answer that, though, contrast it with this one:
Let’s say President Roosevelt comes to you in December of 1939 and says he can completely defeat Germany and Japan instantly . The cost, however, is that your 1-year-old daughter must be killed. She will feel no pain, and no one else will die. Assume you believe he can do this. Also, just like the other question, you have no knowledge of the future. What do you do?
This is a ridiculous claim, that only the very frightened can believe.
Look, the only way that nuclear weapons can be of any use to a state is if people know that it has them. It wouldn’t do Saddam any good if he had nuclear weapons and nobody knew about them. But, if he made even the slightest move toward acquiring nuclear weapons he would be destroyed.
Furthermore, if you are honestly concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, then the very WORST thing to do would be to invade Iraq.
Why? If the U.S. is allowed to invade Iraq it will send a clear message that the only way to protect yourself from an invasion is to acquire nuclear weapons. Indeed, this is why North Korea aquired them, and it has worked! The U.S. will not invade countries like North Korea that can fight back. So, what happens is that countries see that they are vulnerable to attack unless they acquire a sufficient deterrent, and this can only be nuclear weapons. This is the only way to defend yourself against U.S. aggression.
If the U.S. had the slightest concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it would work to strengthen international treaties on nuclear weapons proliferation and international law. Instead, it has done the exact opposite. It has worked with single-minded dedication at undermining international law and agreements on WMD proliferation.
Only by working for peace will we reduce the threat of mass destruction. Invading a defenseless country sure as hell isn’t going to do it.
This is a very good point. In fact, I was having a discussion the other day, and I offered a proposal that I think would end all (U.S.) wars if it were implemented.
The proposal is this: We pass a constitutional amendment mandating that any U.S. president who enters the country into a war must sacrifice one of his children. You see, leaders, especially sociopaths like Bush, are very willing to sacrifice other peoples’ lives for their own ends. In Bush’s case, it isn’t even for a good cause, but just for more power. But, if the cause really is just, if it really is worth sacrificing lives for, then you should be willing to sacrifice your own life, or those of your own family, before you consign other people, other peoples’ sons and daughters to death. If a president shows that he is willing to sacrifice his own son or daughter, then he could show that it was really worth it. To make it even better, we could mandate that the president himself has to commit suicide after the war is over, to really show that he is committed.
I should add I meant to say 1941 and not 1939 in my earlier post, although the other date adds another dimension, certainly.
Wow, Chump, your scenario’s even worse than mine. Someone threw a claim at me a few weeks ago - that the last session of Congress didn’t have any sons or daughters serving in the military. Anyone know? Even if true, it might have changed after the election.
-And if we do nothing, Mr Hussein will stay in power. Dude gassed the Kurds during the Iran/Iraq war (which the West strongly condemned, mind you.) That’s genocide. The regime has prison guards with the express job of “violating the honor of women.” (That’s “rape women” for those of us who don’t speak in euphamisms.) A coalition invasion may be bad, but it wouldn’t be half as bad as allowing this guy to stay in power.
Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, and poses no military threat to the US or it’s neighbors
-But Mr Hussein’s regime does pose a threat to his own people. Are American lives more valuable than Iraqi lives? Of course not. Also, during the Gulf War, Iraq fired scuds at Israel. He freaking went to war with Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. Saying that the regime doesn’t pose a threat to its neighbors is ludicrous.
Saddam Hussein has no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11
-He doesn’t have any mafia connections either. No connections to the IRA. No connections to the Tamil Tiger rebels. Al Qaeda is not the only bad group of folks in the world.
A war would be disastrous for the area, and likely destabalize the entire Middle East.
-Is the current situation in the Middle East worth saving? We have the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict, claiming innocent lives on both sides of the aisle. There’s rampant opression in Saudi Arabia. Iran, though slowly getting better, is still opressive. Iraq is, of course, an evil dictatorship. Maybe destabilization isn’t that bad, after all.
A war would only increase anti-American feelings and increase the likelihood of terrorism.
-Like others have said, it’s not as if anti-Americanism could get much worse. Besides, if we did something good for the region, it may actually help our image out.
North Korea is far more dangerous than Iraq… but it has no oil.
-So we have to attack all of our enemies? Otherwise, we’re hypocrites, right?
A US invasion and the subsequent regime change would be illegal under international law.
Someone threw a claim at me a few weeks ago - that the last session of Congress didn’t have any sons or daughters serving in the military. Anyone know? Even if true, it might have changed after the election.