7 reasons to not make war on Iraq

Great Debates
41

First off, you can’t have it both ways: you can’t say it is not a democracy and then claim that there is a democratic process.

But, actually, the U.S. Constitution is quite clear on matters of war. Namely, only the congress has the power to declare war. The Bushites are circumventing this by simply not declaring war and then waging war anyway, and the congress rubber-stamps his decisions.

I see that none of the people who support war are yet declaring that they are willing to die for the cause. Hypocrites and cowards all.

42

Since supporters of the war believe it will save lives, one could ask you the same question. Are you willing to die for the cause of avoiding immediate war?

This may sound silly, but tens of millions of people died for the cause of avoiding war with Hitler in the 1930’s.

43

Today, I met with this student to go over one of his papers. It was supposed to be a narrative, 3 to five pages. He’d written a paragraph. Basically, it was three or four sentences saying that he and his family had fled Iraq.

I urged him to get specific, to offer details, to expand, you know, all those things you say when someone just hasn’t done the assignment.

He says, “Do you know anything about Kurds?”

And he tells me. He expands. He offers specific detail. He tells me about his mom running to the field outside his village where he was playing soccer. His mom scoops him up and they’re running and–where is his father? He has no idea. And he hears helicopters. And he doesn’t know a thing but that they’re in this white van tearing away from his village, and he looks out the back window and as he does, he sees, far away, people running, tripping, falling, and crawling and then not crawling. And he sees explosions and the van is jolted like an earthquake but it keeps going, into the night, and when it runs out of gas, they start walking.

“8,000 people in my village,” he says. “Bombs,” he says. “I hear of chemicals. Mass execution, mass graves. I saw these. I know this.”

I don’t imagine this kid (he was older, actually, but he seems a kid), was making this up. I’d heard about atrocities and the Kurds. But now, hearing it from this kid, who says he and his family ended up walking all the way to Iran because it was actually SAFER there for them–even tho’ Iran doesn’t exactly hold its arms out, you know, just welcoming Iraqis or Kurds–all I could think was, nobody has ever paid any attention to this.

My point, I guess, is that I’m inclined to dismiss all of these reasons, out of hand, because the first one is so insultingly naive. It’s so very precious and earnest. That deliberate tone of “Now, children, isn’t that really just so simple” makes me want to gag.

It’s not that simple. Whether you think we should go in there or not, it’s not a simple thing.

“People will die.”

Yeah, well, thanks for the keen insight, knucklehead. Helps a lot.

44

december, I agree wholeheartedly. I’m not going to consign innocent Iraqis to die under Hussein, just for the sake of avoiding war.

45

Actually, that’s not true. Even in a totalitarian state, there needs to be at least tacit support of the war by the population.

46

No they don’t. Or, if they do they are morons. Even the CIA has reported that Iraq poses little or no threat even to its neighbors, unless it is attacked.

And, obviously, if you cared at all about human life you would seek out peaceful alternatives to war. Duh.

You guys have got to come up with a new argument. I mean, this old Hitler argument has been round the block so many times, it is barely holding together.

It is moronic to compare Saddam with Hitler. Hitler was on the path to conquering the world, with the most advanced weaponry known to Man, a powerful navy and air force, and a powerful industrial base to fuel the war machine. Iraq has no navy, no air force to speak of, its army is 1/10 what it was in 1990 when it was overwhelmed in hours by the U.S., and it’s industry has been demolished. I mean, this comparison doesn’t even rise to the level of a joke.

So, will you be on the first wave into Badhdad?

47

So why is it that nobody can have a valid opinion on the war unless they’re going to be on the front lines, hmm? Let’s turn the tables.

Chumpsky, are you going to be at risk of having your tongue cut out by one of Saddam’s goons? Are you going to move to an area that is within range of any WMDs that Saddam may have or develop? No? Well then why should anyone give a rat’s ass about your willingness to let Saddam continue killing his people and threatening the Middle East?

Jeff

48

Ok, december, you convinced me, I give up. Saddam is Hitler. If we let him roam unchecked any longer, soon his mighty armies will land in New York and we’ll all be speaking Arabic.

49

Yes. But I think that argument like “North Korea has nukes too” or “there’s no link between Al-Quaeda and Irak” “Hussein killed Kurds (like nobody was aware of it before)” raise a real issue : that the arguments given by the american administration to support a possible war with Iraq are dishonest and misleading.

50

Of course, the CIA has reason to back that claim up. I mean, just look at Hussein’s record. He attacked Kuwait without provocation. He fired Scuds at Israel without provocation from them. Actions speak very loudly.

Also, here’s a little bit of logic for you, Chumpsky.

Premise: Saddam kills and rapes his own citizens and, through financing the families of suicide bombers, is a cause for the murder of innocent Israelis.

It follows that if Saddam did not have the recources of the country of Iraq at his command, he could not be able to kill his own citizens and terrorize (I’m not calling him a “terrorist.” It’s just a word) many folks in the region.

So, if we get rid of either Saddam or his weapons, innocent lives will be spared.

About the peaceful solutions thing, I think it’s fair to say that none of us want war when peace is achievable without it. This is the reason that the weapons inspectors are now in Iraq, to get a peaceful solution. Of course seeking out peaceful alternatives to war is the optimal solution, but sometimes war is a necessity. Perhaps not this time, but it sometimes is.

december was comparing Saddam to Hitler, not comparing their relative military might. It is obvious that Hitler had a much stronger military preasence than Iraq currently has, but France and Britain also had larger militaries than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have now. It’s all a matter of context, but the militaries aren’t even the point. What I’m getting from you, Chumpsky, is that we are only justified in attacking someone if they can attack us, ignoring the fact that they can bring about much harm to the state of the region and the people within their borders.

51

Because it is monstrous to consign other people to death for a cause you are not willing to die for yourself.

“There are causes worth dying for, but none worth killing for.”
-Albert Camus

52

Bullshit. You will kill tens of thousands, leave a country in ruins and shatter the lives of an already devastated people. This will just lead to more war, more retaliation, more war–basically All War All The Time.

Bullshit. Bush wants war. He is this very moment trying to undermine the inspectors.

And, if he wanted peace, he would at least try diplomacy. Duh.

I’ll eat my fucking hat if you can show that the collection of murderers and torturers running the U.S. care a fucking whit about anything except themselves. The idea that the U.S. is doing this to help other people, out of an altruistic desire to help the world, is just insane. Obviously, if they cared even the slightest about human life, they would not have been maintaining the murderous economic sanctions and bombing the country 4 times a week for 10 years.

Nobody believes Saddam is a threat, not even Bush and the other liars who use him as a bogeyman to scare the people into supporting this monstrous crime.

As a matter of fact, I was just talking with one of my friends from Kuwait today, and he informed me that even in Kuwait there is strong opposition to a U.S. attack on Iraq.

Don’t be such a schmuck as to believe Bush’s lies.

53

You’re absolutely right. I doubt he owns any large corporations, serves on any boards, or makes large political donations. His opinion doesn’t matter whatsoever.

I seem to recall our President saying on several occasions that terrorism could happen anywhere at any time. So I guess I am living within Saddam’s reach. I’m open season… unless, of course, Saddam has no connection to al-Qaida.

54

We are talking about a regime which has already made unprovoked attacks on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel – leading to the death of as many as a million people. Given this history, how in the world can one say Iraq poses no threat to its neighbors unless it is attacked? Chumpsky, your POV is based on wishful thinking.

Furthermore your reliance on the CIA letter is suspect. First of all, you exaggerated what it said. I found a reference to the letter, which said “the risk was low”, not little or no threat". Do you have the actual cite?

Second, you have chosen this particular letter because it supports what you want to believe. Other sources predict Iraq’s use of nukes for blackmail while they again invade Kuwait.

BTW your word “Even” seems to imply that you think the CIA would tend to overestimate the risk of Iraq attaking its neighbors. Is this what you believe? Do you have evidence?

55

cite?

There are few organizations on Earth that have a worse record of lying (not to mention the murdering, torturing, and running drugs) than the CIA. That’s part of their job, after all.

So, will you be on the first wave into Baghdad?

56

Hence, Bush goes to the UN. He stumps around the world to get support. The Security Council adopts a resolution that the US has a large hand in. Syria doesn’t vote it down. Weapons inspectors are in Iraq, as we speak.

This isn’t diplomatic? What does a diplomatic approach look like?

Exactly what happened in Japan, right? A United States invasion does not automatically lead to massive retaliation. Of course, we must be on guard to make sure that it doesn’t happen.

History shows that, when the situation is handled properly, a nation the United States conquers does not necessarily have massive hostilities after the fact.

57

No. Diplomacy is when you have a dialogue with the state you have a conflict with, and try to come to a settlement. So far, there has been zero contact between U.S. and Iraqi officials. That is, there has been absolutely no diplomacy.

In fact, during the leadup to the first Gulf War, the U.S. avoided diplomacy like the plague, despite Iraq’s numerous offers to come to a peaceful settlement. The fact that is obvious to the rest of the world is that the U.S. wants a war, and is doing everything possible to avoid the terrible specter of peace.
So, will you be on the first wave into Baghdad?

58

Oh, here’s your cite. It states that Hussein would use nuclear blackmail. From the US State Department website.

59

Yes, a more credible source of information is difficult to imagine.

:rolleyes:

Don’t be such a shmuck.

60

Give me a break. These predictions have been all over the place. Here’s one:

First of all, what’s your evidence for this? My impression is that CIA analysts have a good reputation for accurate analysis (although the part of the CIA that overthrew various regimes and engaged in counter-terrorism is another story.)

Second, if they’re lying in this case, in which direction are they lying? Are they over-estimating or under-estimating the chance that Iraq would make an unprovoked attack on its neighbors?

Third, if you think the CIA is one of the worst liars on the face of the earth, then why would your position be based on what they said? :stuck_out_tongue: Of course, the answer is, because their statement supports what you’d like to believe.

Sure I will, if you’ll move to Tel Aviv.