# A question for protestors and others against the war **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340 "2003-04-04T00:55:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Rusalka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@Rusalka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rusalka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/101 "2003-04-04T20:32:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*No. But I certainly wouldn’t argue against the desirable results. > > And, it doesn’t really matter anyway. > > If I dive into a lake and save somebody what do my motivations matter? > > If I do it because I’m a generous and altruistic person and value human life, well that’s great. If I do it for no other reason than I want to impress girls, brag about it in bars, and get in the newspaper for being a hero does that make it bad? If it’s the latter should I then not dive into the lake? Should I let the person drown because my motives are dishonorable? > > I don’t think it matters much to the person. If I was drowning I wouldn’t really care that the person saving me was an asshole. Saving me is good enough. > > … > > But, if their actions are right and desirable in and of themselves why not support the action itself for the right reasons while denouncing the leaders who are doing it for the wrong ones? > > It seems illogical to denounce the action itself if it is worthy and desirable. \*\* The problem is, your analogy breaks down because you are killing others and damaging a country while you are doing the saving. Who is to say that you are doing less damage by using military force on a whole nation than by using other means? Once you calculate the sum total of misery in each scenario, which one is better? Will the mother who loses her child and husband understand that it was “all for the better”? Would she have chosen this over previous conditions if she knew in advance? Would the Iraqi people you are purportedly trying to help, agree that it’s worth the sacrifice of a few relatives to get rid of a corrupt regime? Shouldn’t it be their choice, not yours? In an ideal world, we could ask them. We can’t, so that makes the issue complex. It’s the appearance of “America knows what’s best for you” which so rankles. We talk about democracy but we gave the Iraqi people no choice. If it was so bad in Iraq, why didn’t we spend our billions of military dollars giving people amnesty in our country (if they chose) instead of bombing them there? ---
**Author:** ![Rusalka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@Rusalka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rusalka)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/102 "2003-04-04T20:41:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*No. But I certainly wouldn’t argue against the desirable results. > > And, it doesn’t really matter anyway. > > If I dive into a lake and save somebody what do my motivations matter? > > If I do it because I’m a generous and altruistic person and value human life, well that’s great. If I do it for no other reason than I want to impress girls, brag about it in bars, and get in the newspaper for being a hero does that make it bad? If it’s the latter should I then not dive into the lake? Should I let the person drown because my motives are dishonorable? > > I don’t think it matters much to the person. If I was drowning I wouldn’t really care that the person saving me was an asshole. Saving me is good enough. > > … > > But, if their actions are right and desirable in and of themselves why not support the action itself for the right reasons while denouncing the leaders who are doing it for the wrong ones? > > It seems illogical to denounce the action itself if it is worthy and desirable. \*\* The problem is, your analogy breaks down because you are killing others and damaging a country while you are doing the saving. Who is to say that you are doing less damage by using military force on a whole nation than by using other means? Once you calculate the sum total of misery in each scenario, which one is better? Will the mother who loses her child and husband understand that it was “all for the better”? Would she have chosen this over previous conditions if she knew in advance? Would the Iraqi people you are purportedly trying to help, agree that it’s worth the sacrifice of a few relatives to get rid of a corrupt regime? Shouldn’t it be their choice, not yours? In an ideal world, we could ask them. We can’t, so that makes the issue complex. It’s the appearance of “America knows what’s best for you” which so rankles. We talk about democracy but we gave the Iraqi people no choice. If it was so bad in Iraq, why didn’t we spend our billions of military dollars giving people amnesty in our country (if they chose) instead of bombing them there? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/103 "2003-04-04T20:46:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milossarian \* > \*\*elucidator: > \*\* > Some who accuse Dubya of being overly simplistic sure seem to get derailed themselves when the talk turns to multiple, simultaneous objectives. Actually, as I see it, the problem is that Bush has put forward a variety of motives for the war. In arguments, all too often when one of his motives is questioned, pro-war arguers move onto a different motive. I see conversations like, “But Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction!” “We’ve seen no evidence that he has these weapons in any useable form.” “But Iraq violated the UN Measures!” “These measures do not contain triggers for going to war.” “Have you forgotten September 11?!” “There’s no evidence that Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks.” “But Iraq is torturing its citizens!” “Yes, but an invasion isn’t the right answer to that.” “Look, I’ve shown you that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, that they’ve violated the UN Measures, that defeating them is vital to fighting the War on Terrorism, and that they mistreat their citizens. How many more reasons for the war do you need?” “Aaaargh!” While not all arguments are of this nature (and of course, neither side is as simplistic as I’m portraying them above), it can be very difficult to address all the points simultaneously. What you’re seeing as an inability to accept multiple reasons for action, I see as an inability to argue against multiple unrelated reasons simultaneously. There is, it’s true, a certain suspicion amongst many anti-war people that the administration doesn’t have a single really good reason for war, and so they’re throwing out all the reasons they can think of in hopes that something will stick. But I don’t think you need to address that suspicion; I don’t see many anti-war folks hinging their objections to the war on it. > [@](#): > > There’s much hue and cry over how the U.S. “failed in diplomacy.” Curiously, all such criticism is leveled by those who have A) shown previous dislike for George W. Bush, and B) are opposed to war in Iraq. Under this kind of twisted logic, it was Bush’s responsibility to concede to the French, German and Russian position. I disagree. My fiancee’s father, to take one example, is a conservative veteran who voted for Bush, who voted for Jesse Helms every chance he got. He thinks the war is a terrible idea, thinks Bush screwed things up grandly. I’ve encountered that same sentiment many times – including here on these boards – from veterans. > [@](#): > > 1. Whether you agree with him or not, Bush is citing a national security threat to the United States as a primary motivation for the action in Iraq. See, this is what I’m talking about above. Is the national security threat the primary motivation for the action in Iraq? I think that’s one of the weakest pro-war arguments in the arsenal – indeed, I think that invading Iraq _creates_, rather than contains, a threat to national security. Hussein has no motivation to attack the US (beyond attacking patrolling planes in Iraq’s airspace), and plenty of motivation for not attacking. But honestly, I didn’t think national security was a primary motivation for the action – I thought that liberating Iraq was being done because we’re such a selfless nation of do-gooders. If that’s the case, our actoin makes more sense. But it’s hard for me to figure out which reason is really our primary reason, and which reasons are just beneficial side-effects. > [@](#): > > “More inspectors.” The whole idea of the inspectors was to verify Iraq’s voluntary disclosure and disarmament. 100,000 inspectors couldn’t detect carefully hidden WMD, if the person who has them in hand is diligent about them not being found. I disagree. Although we went a long time without inspectors in Iraq, it’s very possible that Iraq used that time to get rid of its WMDs, so that it could readmit the inspectors later and put its thumb in the US’ eye. I saw no indication that the inspectors were failing in their job, and definitely think that we should have acquiesced to the international opinion that the inspectors should have been given the time they needed to do their job. > [@](#): > > “Action will inflame Islamic hatred of the U.S.” There’s enough of that now, thanks. Our choice is Islamic hatred and Saddam Hussein with WMD, or Islamic hatred with a democratic Iraq and no WMD. Not at all. Our choice is to lessen the resentment that many Middle-Eastern folks feel toward the United States in the region by working together with world bodies to defuse crises, or to heighten that same resentment by adopting an I-don’t-care-what-anyone-else-thinks attitude. Hatred of the US isn’t an on-off toggle. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/104 "2003-04-04T20:47:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > \*\*That is to say, protesting because “there must be a better way” assumes that there _is_ a better way, and it would be of inestimably more use if you might possibly suggest it, rather than merely claiming its existence. Fair? \*\* How did I know somebody would say this? As I had hoped would be obvious (silly me), I avoided specifying the viable alternatives because off two reasons: (1) It has already been done, even in other threads on the SDMB, _ad nauseam_ by me and other posters here. And (2) that is not the subject of _this_ thread, and I am loathe to hijack it in this way. If you’re interested in reading more in depth about some of the viable options to war, read some of the threads **Abe** cited earlier, or Google “alternatives to war in Iraq” and see what you, come up with yourself. I personally get tired of pro-war people saying that we don’t have viable alternatives to war in mind, just because we don’t detail them in depth _every time_ it comes up in discussion. I (and many, many others) have already done so, many times over. It is not appropriate to this discussion, if we’re to keep it on-topic. If you’re really that interested, feel free to look it up. ---
**Author:** ![Gozu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gozu/32/6615_2.png) [@Gozu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gozu)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/105 "2003-04-04T21:24:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*No, putting an end to a dictatorship is NOT always a good thing. And Afghanis were CERTAINLY not better off once the Najibullah regime was removed. Putting an end to a dictatorship is only a good thing if you are in position to make things better. \*\* You are saying that replacing a dictatorship with another is not always good. well duh! The chances of this happening in Iraq are ridiculously small And you have no reason to believe this would happen. But in any case, I do not see how any new dictature would be worse that Saddam’s regime. So your point is moot. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\* > Thanks, but I rather think it is you who don’t know anything about the position of people who DO know. Numerous Iraqi expats are heading back to Iraq to fight the US, rather willing to put up with a cruel dictator than seeing their country stripped of its sovereignty. And numerous Iraqi refugees march on german streets with signs reading ‘No to dictatorship - No to this war’. Just yesterday, Iraqi refugees in Amman were interviewed on German TV, expressing a feeling of betrayal against the US in light of the civilian casualties. \*\* Well, you’re wrong. My country IS a dictatorship. Political prisoners, no freedom of press, no respect of human rights, widespread corruption: the whole shabang. And compared to Iraq, it’s a paradise to live in. There are millions of iraqi expatriates around the world. The few who are returning are a very small minority and that minority is going back either for religious reasons (wage jihad against the infidels), wounded national pride and anger about the civilan casualties. NOT because they want to defend Saddam’s regime. The sign you were talking about is a perfect example of what is going on in Iraqi minds: they want Saddam’s regime to end but they also don’t want innocent men, women and children to die. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\* > You are seriously kidding yourself if you expect a new government to be unconditionally friendly to the US. Especially if you intend to follow through with the above. Stripping people of their property and hogtieing their economy is not a good way to induce friendliness. \*\* I didn’t say it would be unconditionally friendly. I said it would be friendly, period. Surely a huge improvement over an openly hostile regime from the american point of view. Saddam has done much worse than just stripping people of their property and hogtying the economy. No matter how bad the U.S botch it, it will still be a huge improvement. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\* > I am not sure what makes you think that Al Qaeda is being weakened. It is in fact assumed by the intelligence community to be stronger perhaps than before 9/11, and militant groups are currently receiving a surge of new recruits. \*\* Maybe you should question the reliability of the “intelligence community’s” assumptions. What makes me think that alqaeda is being weakened are the arrests of several high placed members and the total lack of attacks on u.s soil when the timeframe is ideal. Facts, not assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/106 "2003-04-05T00:24:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*The wooly mammoth relaxed, and considered the situation. The black ooze of the tarpit bubbled around his ankles, inching slowly, slowly towards his knees. He was pleased with his decision. He had considered wading into the tar pit, but worried he might not get deep enough before he was stuck. After careful planning, he took a bold gamble. He went back about half a mile, got a running start and leapt nimbly into the tar, landing squarely on all four feet. > > The situation was excellent. He was content. \*\* Your insulting analogy extincts. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/107 "2003-04-05T00:53:17Z")
Daniel: > [@](#): > > \*\*There is, it’s true, a certain suspicion amongst many anti-war people that the administration doesn’t have a single really good reason for war, and so they’re throwing out all the reasons they can think of in hopes that something will stick. \*\* I don’t think Bush and Blair should be faulted because Saddam Hussein offers a plethora of reasons for why he should be removed as the leader of Iraq. I didn’t like when the Bush administration seemed to push the Al Qaeda connection. It gave the Axis of Appeasement the opportunity to discount all of the evidence Colin Powell gave at the U.N. Even though it may well be true. There is certainly evidence that Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam are comingled. > [@](#): > > \*\*I disagree. My fiancee’s father, to take one example, is a conservative veteran who voted for Bush, who voted for Jesse Helms every chance he got. He thinks the war is a terrible idea, thinks Bush screwed things up grandly. I’ve encountered that same sentiment many times – including here on these boards – from veterans. \*\* That may be so. But you show me a cite on the SDMB that laments that the U.N. didn’t make the ultimate decision on whether to go to war in Iraq, that also includes criticism of France, Germany and Russia for the breakdown in diplomacy, and I’ll give you a dollar. Those that apparently see the U.N. as the absolute authority on war in Iraq are against the Bush and Blair opinion; and not against France, Russia and Germany’s opinion. France rendered diplomacy moot the moment Jacques Chirac said (paraphrasing) “No matter what you say or show us, we will not authorize military action in Iraq.” That’s “Bush failing at diplomacy?” Bush’s failure was being convinced that he could show all of the evidence that existed that Saddam Hussein was lying, hiding and playing games on WMD, and the rest of the world would have no choice but to concur and move along, having said what they said in Resolution 1441. Silly George. Since when do politics and logic have to intersect? > [@](#): > > \*\*Is the national security threat the primary motivation for the action in Iraq? \*\* I said it was A primary motivation; not THE primary motivation. Given the 20,000 times Bush cited the potential threat of Iraq’s WMD, I would assume it is the primary motivation, but not the only one. > [@](#): > > \*\*But honestly, I didn’t think national security was a primary motivation for the action – I thought that liberating Iraq was being done because we’re such a selfless nation of do-gooders. \*\* Then perhaps you should refresh your memory, by checking out President Bush’s every statement that involved “Iraq” or “Saddam Hussein” since about November 2001. I don’t think you can put “honestly” and “I didn’t think national security was a primary motivation for the action” in the same sentence, if you do that. > [@](#): > > \*\*But it’s hard for me to figure out which reason is really our primary reason, and which reasons are just beneficial side-effects. \*\* Read some Tony Blair speeches. He’s more eloquent than Bush. Maybe you’ll get it then. Unless “not getting it” is a position you’ve staked out for yourself on this issue. Believe me, I’ve seen that one on these boards a few dozen times. > [@](#): > > \*\*Although we went a long time without inspectors in Iraq, it’s very possible that Iraq used that time to get rid of its WMDs, so that it could readmit the inspectors later and put its thumb in the US’ eye. \*\* :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > \*\*I saw no indication that the inspectors were failing in their job, and definitely think that we should have acquiesced to the international opinion that the inspectors should have been given the time they needed to do their job. \*\* This popular position perpetuates the myth that we were supposed to look for Saddam Hussein’s WMD as Saddam attempted to hide them from us. Perhaps you should read U.N. Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 to disavow yourself of that myth. The inspectors were there to be verifiers; not detectives. As for, “I saw no evidence the inspectors were failing in their job,” I give you Hans Blix: > [@](#): > > Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, **a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were “unaccounted for.”** One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. **If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.** Please provide me the cite where Iraq did one of the two things Blix says must occur at the end of that passage. I’ll wait. More Blix: > [@](#): > > In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues “deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside.” The declaration submitted by Iraq on Dec. 7, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions. There, Daniel. You said that you had no evidence that the inspections weren’t accomplishing their jobs. Now you do. > [@](#): > > \*\*Our choice is to lessen the resentment that many Middle-Eastern folks feel toward the United States in the region by working together with world bodies to defuse crises, or to heighten that same resentment by adopting an I-don’t-care-what-anyone-else-thinks attitude. \*\* I’m glad to hear that you will be a champion against France’s, Germany’s and Russia’s irresponsible intransigence on this issue. Isn’t it most important that we work with other nations? Why do people who think like you make it essential that any action be taken “through world bodies?” More of Europe supports that action in Iraq than does not. As I’ve already stated, Bush, whether you chose to hear it or not, has cited a national security threat against the United States posed by Saddam Hussein several thousand times. For a U.S. Commander in Chief to cede a national security decision to a “world body” that may or may not have the U.S.'s best interests at heart would be absolute deriliction of duty. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/108 "2003-04-05T01:07:16Z")
Enginerd: > [@](#): > > My problem is with your characterization of the war as “the only solution.” What alternative would you have proposed that hasn’t been tried over the last 12 years? I think it’s pretty defensible to argue that if we wanted to change Saddam’s behavior it would require force. > [@](#): > > But going back to the UN sanctions, resolutions and weapons inspectors, I think other solutions were possible. It was the administration’s position that eliminated these possibilities, and I think that it was the wrong course of action. I think that the US, with the help of the allies that are in Iraq with us now, could have pushed the UN into further enforcement actions if we had approached the issue differently. All hindsight now, and pretty much irrelevant to what we do from here. What else? We only got as far as we did because of the threat of imminent force. You can only threaten so long before you actually have to follow through. Twelve years is pushing it. > [@](#): > > My point, though, is that you can’t make a valid claim of “last resort” if you did everything you could to eliminate other options without actually trying them. There’s always other options. There’s always something else to try. You may beleive that there was still more that could have been tried. You may be right. I don’t know. That still really doesn’t explain the vituperous denouncement of the action which produces a desirable result. > [@](#): > > The concrete, past actions of the administration, especially the outright dismissal of the concerns of the international community, are the basis for my position. If I grant for purposes of debate that the administrations tactics have been wholly and completely deplorable it still has no bearing on the superlative human rights benefits that **this** action produces. If it’s a murderer who jumps into the lake to save a life, you can still hate the murderer, you can still denounce him. By what logic do you denounce his beneficial actions? Why should we evaluate the deed based on the man? Avalonian: > [@](#): > > Specifically, and to the point: ther anti-war movement is not arguing for the preservation of Hussein. Not implicity, and certainly not explicitly. I agree with you, and I think I’ve been clear about this a couple of times already. That’s why I say “in effect,” meaning that that is the result if not the intent. > [@](#): > > In fact, if we suspected that such efforts would have any effect, we would be protesting Hussein’s regime just as stridently as we are protesting the Bush Administration’s push for war. However, the facts being what they are, Hussein is a dictator, and his country anything but a democracy. Efforts of protest against his atrocities are completely wasted. This is a problematic point for your argument, and one that I’ve considered but not discussed to date. If the goal is indeed the furthering of human rights, the lessening of genocidal atrocities, it should be abundantly clear that the removal of Saddam’s regime would be beneficial to your goals. Protesting against this action with the goal of stopping it is directly contradictory to these humanitarian goals. It may even lead this barbaric regime to believe that it enjoys support. It would me, if I were Saddam, and indeed he has publically lauded the protestors. Protesting against Saddam’s regime would undoubtedly have shown him a more united front. I don’t know if it would have done anything, but it might. There is the uncomfortable possibility to consider that the protests may have encouraged his position of resisting the UN’s resolution actually making a war more certain. Please don’t take that as an insult or an accusation. I raise the possibility for your thought. > [@](#): > > What good would Americans protesting against Hussein do? As I said above, there is at least the possibility that presenting a United front may have given him pause and made him more cooperative. > [@](#): > > What good could Americans protesting the acts of an American President that they feel is misguided do? Potentially, quite a bit. So, we choose to change what we can, if we can. If you had succeeded and Saddam’s regime was preserved and allowed to continue its atrocities unfettered, how is that “doing good?” > [@](#): > > See, for us it’s not as simple as a choice between war or the preservation of a dictatorial regime. For us there is a third option, that of a more diplomatic, less aggressive end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. We would prefer that third option, and so we are against this war. Me too. In the last twelve years since we instituted a diplomatic solution that ended the first gulf war hostilities about 500,000 Kurdish people have been exterminated. Thousands have been tortured, and millions have lived in abject poverty and repression. We talk about the cost of war, but that has been the cost of diplomacy in this instance. I see no other reasonable conclusion in the face of what has occured than to say that the diplomatic solution has been a catastrophic failure far more costly in humanitarian terms than any war to remove him could have been. > [@](#): > > it is against this war, simply because we do not feel it is the best way to solve the problems in Iraq. It’s not that we don’t want the problems solved, just that we feel that war is not the best way to do it. I understand, but do you concede that there has been a colossal humanitarian cost to inaction over the past twelve years? In hindsight, I think it’s safe to say that the diplomatic attempt was demonstrably not the best course of action. By what wishful thinking do you expect that to magically change? I’ll put it quite simply: The cost of attempting a peaceful diplomatic solution is all those that Saddam has tortured, executed , exterminated, and repressed into squalor for the last twelve years. That number of lives lost is well over half a million. By no stretch does a removal through force approach that number. It’s an order of magnitude less. The argument that diplomacy has catastrophic human costs in this circumstance is undeniable. Give war a chance. > [@](#): > > our initial question is unfair because it does not even acknowledge the existence of that third option. Whether you agree or disagree that this third option is viable is the subject of a different debate, but your question is poorly-phrased because it ignores the third option entirely. I hope I’ve acknowledged it for you here. I don’t acknowledge it as a possibility because it is in actuality what we have been doing for the last twelve years. I don’t think you can call it a success. > [@](#): > > You’re spending a lot of time assuming a desirable end here, when that end has not yet come. What has happened is a war which has gotten increasingly violent, in which the cost of life, both military and civilian, is mounting more and more rapidly. At what point does the cost outweigh your laudable goal? When the solution approaches parity with the problem. The problem is north of 500,000 lives in twelve years, plus the torture and repression. > [@](#): > > The Bush Administration has changed its story several times while leading up to this war. It has relied on bad information, falsified information, and information whose sources are… shall we say, questionable, to support their bid for war. They have ignored the many voice, both within America and around the world, who see good reason to avoid conflict at this time. This is not true. Support figures in the US approach 80% according to a poll by CNN I saw Wednesday, and we have a good bit of international support. Again though, this really isn’t about popularity, or it shouldn’t be. From a humanitarian standpoint success isn’t measured in popularity but in lives saved, and repression and atrocities ended, right? > [@](#): > > So, another reason your question is unfair is that it assumes that the conclusion of this war will be a positive one. A goodly portion of the anti-war movement is against war precisely because they do not agree with this assumption. I don’t understand. You think we will lose? You think Saddam will somehow remain in power? > [@](#): > > I hope that helped you better understand where we’re coming from, and perhaps to change your preconceptions of the anti-war movement and those who follow it. I’ve gotten some good information, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/109 "2003-04-05T01:35:48Z")
Am I confused here, **Scylla**? Didn’t you say a couple weeks ago that you had decided that you _opposed_ the war? I believe you cited the utter debacle of the diplomatic efforts of Fearless Misleader? Are we talking about the same **Scylla**? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/110 "2003-04-05T01:42:37Z")
Abe: > [@](#): > > That’s false; it is no hard matter to perceive the evident radicalization of the ‘Arab street’, and the work-in-progress on the “Muslim street” beyond the borders of the Arab world. Let’s not ignore facts and trends please. It’s possible that some events after the war may cushion the impact of the damage already done, but that is the hypothetical right now – In the “Iraqi Street” our support is growing by leaps and bounds and we are being actively aided by the populace. That’s what’s happening now. We are being led to the Fedayeem Saddam, shown weapons caches, and looked upon as liberators. The Iraqi Street in the form of people like “Mohammed” who have made selfless acts of courage and compassion on our behalf against the regime tell us a lot about the opinions that matter. I have a theory. Even supposing Bush is a lying imperialist who thinks he’s conquering Iraq to Halliburton’s earnings, it just doesn’t matter. Because one thing is absolutely certain, is absolutely clear. Our soldiers who are there, who are doing the job, they are doing it to liberate Iraq and save a people from a tyrant. You may disagree with our leaders by find it near impossible to place fault with the way our soldiers are comporting themselves. > [@](#): > > Again, I can’t speak for anti-war protesters but I must flag up the responses from errata and Enginerd: it sounds like the problem is in your perception of the situation You may be right. It may be perception. However, I think that my perception is basic and eminently reasonable. 1. Saddam’s regime is an abomination in the eyes of God and man. Nobody here, I’m sure would defend it. 2. Twelve years of diplomacy have been a catastrophic failure. By no reasonable argument is there any reason to suggest Saddam will stop or leave unless we force him too. 3. Removing the regime ends its evil. 4. If one is an activist for **humanity** how can one argue a course of action which results in the preservation of these ongoing atrocities? How do you argue to let it stay? Errata: I have no response for you. maximum C: > [@](#): > > What must be recognized is that all the benefits and harms of war can be added up and measured , in a sort of organic way. Then the course of action that creates the most good for the most people in the long term should be chosen. > > I’ve yet to see a SINGLE OP in this debate forum that actually goes about doing this, weighing BOTH sides and then making a judgment based on all of the factors. Each thread seems to be about one little aspect of the equation, or worse, about the mentality of the people on the “other side”. I addressed this in my previous post. Diplomacy = 500,000 +++ dead, in twelve years, millions repressed, abject poverty, and human rights atrocities. War = maybe 100,000 at most (a WAG but a good one. I’m open to better,) one time cost. Five to one in favor of war. Nietzsche: > [@](#): > > Why don’t the peace protestors support the action in Iraq if it can bring about some positive changes? Close. The status quo is overwhelmingly negative vis a vis humanitarian goals and has not been amenable to twelve years of diplomatic attempts at change. Why argue for a course of action that will preserve this unacceptable state? > [@](#): > > In fact, one can refer to the previous regime change implemented in Iraq’s eastwardly neighbor as an example of how it did not create a favorable environment for its citizens. And one can point to our occupation of Japan and our change of regime as a time when it worked. We did not supervise Iran’s regime change. We did japan’s. Japan is a better model. > [@](#): > > I have heard the argument that it did work in Germany and Japan, but as other posters have already pointed out in the various related threads, Iraq bears no resemblence to either of those countries or cultures. Japan and Germany bore no resemblance to each other, yet it worked in both. What argument is proposed that not only will it not work, but the results will be worse than the current regime? Again, you’re arguing a hypothetical, that it may not work. On the other hand, it may. > [@](#): > > they’re there because they don’t give a shit about Iraqis and want their sons and daughters home and their home free from potential future attacks caused by the hordes of currently brewing pissed off Arabs. I think the argument that we make terrorists is a false one, and future attacks are a prognostication, a potential problem, not one that automatically is. OliverH: > [@](#): > > A frequent claim, but one not supported by any evidence whatsoever. There’s a lot of posts here, and I hate to repeat myself. I’ve made arguments, if you address them, I can answer you. I can’t do much in the way of a meaningful response other than repeating myself to your blank assertion. > [@](#): > > You’re saying that someone HAS to be the US? Why not us? Why stand by and let this regimes barbarism and atrocities continue? > [@](#): > > Where was your arguing for the removal of Saddam when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were butchered because the US failed to deliver promised support for a US-incited insurrection? Actually I argued back then that leaving an impotent Saddam in place was better than creating a martyr, against people who thought he should be removed and it was a mistake to stop. I think I was wrong. > [@](#): > > Saddam would be hard pressed, short of using WMDs, to cause as many dead in as little a frame of time. He didn’t stop short of using WMDs. > [@](#): > > Removing the regime will not immediately improve lives. It will not eliminate human rights abuses. It will not end the ethnic cleansing. Sorry, but your claims have all been proven wrong already. I don’t share your access to a time machine, or crystal ball or wherever you derive your proof. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/111 "2003-04-05T01:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Am I confused here, **Scylla**? Didn’t you say a couple weeks ago that you had decided that you _opposed_ the war? I believe you cited the utter debacle of the diplomatic efforts of Fearless Misleader? Are we talking about the same **Scylla**? \*\* You see any other Scyllas here? You talking to me? ::looks around:: I don’t see any other Scyllas around here, so you must be talking to me. I’m just a sophist woolly mammoth in a tar pit. What do you expect? I’ve either gone extinct or evolved. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/112 "2003-04-05T01:50:47Z")
Van Shore: > [@](#): > > I’ll try to voice the opinion of some of the European anti-war people here (as far as I can speak for anyone else of course) > > To take your example of the drowning man: let’s assume that there are designated lifeguards … in general they have done a great job saving drowning people in the past. However, due to bad organization, they have indeed failed in some drowning accidents. Let’s assume that as you prepare to dive in they call on you to wait for the speedboat/rescue chopper they’d call in… > > You ignore their warnings and dive in … you heroically save the drowning person… As a result, people start thinking that having lifeguards isn’t a good idea; after all, Scylla will save all the drowning people… But Scylla is not going to dedicate his entire life to save drowning people of course, he just acted on what he believed to be the right thing to do… (and it was right). > > Basically what I’m trying to say is that I was against the US acting unilaterally, not because the act of removing Sadam is wrong, but because it undermines the authority of the UN. > > Now the war has started I want the coalition to win it and to do so with the least loss of lives on either side. Thank you for delurking and welcome to the boards. I hope you stay. This is a very interesting and valid viewpoint, and I see little to take issue with in it. I agree that we should have done it without undermining UN athority. I think we could have, and not having done so is a severe failure. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/113 "2003-04-05T01:57:32Z")
You know, there was no direct need to take the wooly mammoth fable _personally_. Unless, of course, you want to. Simple question, really, doesn’t require much. Did you change your mind? And, if so, might we inquire as to why? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/114 "2003-04-05T01:59:49Z")
Spiritus: > [@](#): > > In other words, you are taking a single short-term effect of a position, isolating it from context, and then charging people with supporting that single thing. While not precisely a strawman, it is also not particularly helpful if your hope is to understand th eposition of the protesters. You use gun control as an example but I don’t see the analogy as being valid. One who argues against gun control is indeed arguing a result that leaves guns available to homicidal madmen. However, that is not the primary effect. It is, they argue a negative of the greater good that the right to bear arms provides (or at least I argue it that way.) The peace protestors posit no greater good that I can see. > [@](#): > > ewscrasher > Your hatred makes you blind. If you only knew the power of the darkside… ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/115 "2003-04-05T02:06:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*You know, there was no direct need to take the wooly mammoth fable _personally_. Unless, of course, you want to. \*\* It allows me to stand on my Soph box. > [@](#): > > \*\*Simple question, really, doesn’t require much. Did you change your mind? And, if so, might we inquire as to why? \*\* Yes. I did. Kin of. A poster in the other thread you mention changed it. He said (my paraphrase) If you think the war is being fought for good reasons why should a diplomatic screw-up change that? So I think we are wrong in why we are fighting this war, and how we got to it diplomatically. To give you a metaphor you will like: Posit a detective who falsifies evidence or otherwise breaks procedure but still manages to apprehend the right serial killer. The cop is wrong in his actions. Apprehending the serial killer was still a good thing even if it was done wrong. We entered into this war badly. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/116 "2003-04-05T02:08:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Okay, here’s where the problem starts. > > If you _really_ think that war is no worse than surgery, there’s simply no point in discussing this topic with you further. \*\* Ok. Sorry you feel that way. It’s been nice talking to you, though. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/117 "2003-04-05T02:11:44Z")
Daniel: > [@](#): > > First, Scylla, I appreciate both your disagreement with newcrasher and your politeness in the face of baiting by some of the antiwar folks. > > That said, the issue you raised is the hardest one for me to deal with in my opposition to the war. My position is not a simple anti-war position, however. Here’s where I stand on things. Thanks. > [@](#): > > 1. We gotta do something, but not like this. We should have acted through the UN, should have used our clout to step up inspections, should have kept the pressure on Hussein through the UN. I agree that we could have done better, and there is cause for legitimate criticism because of it. I don’t think we should have stopped because we didn’t achieve the optimum solution as letting things default to the status quo would have been even worse. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/118 "2003-04-05T02:17:55Z")
Glee: Even if true, Halliburton making a bunch of money is hardly an objection to the humanitarian gains of regime change. yawndave: > [@](#): > > I am against the war because I feel that at some point, our species has to find a better way than killing those who we disagree with. Is that even possible? I don’t know. I don’t know either. I hope your right. In the meantime force that results in immediate positive humanitarian goals seems like a viable stopgap, or at least not something worthy of protest. > [@](#): > > Call me naive, but don’t call me anti-American. or late for dinner. Rusalka: > [@](#): > > The problem is, your analogy breaks down because you are killing others and damaging a country while you are doing the saving. Who is to say that you are doing less damage by using military force on a whole nation than by using other means? > Once you calculate the sum total of misery in each scenario, which one is better? I addressed this in an earlier reply on this page. I hope you won’t think me rude if I refer you to it rather than repeat. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/119 "2003-04-05T02:21:10Z")
So one would be right to protest the _procedure_ for entering the war, but should support the war _itself_ because of its beneficial effects on the Iraqi people? _Regardless_ of its potentially disastrous effects for ME stability, etc? You didn’t, by any chance, receive your eduction from Jesuits? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340/120 "2003-04-05T02:44:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*So one would be right to protest the _procedure_ for entering the war, but should support the war _itself_ because of its beneficial effects on the Iraqi people? \*\* No. I am questioning why one would denounce it. > [@](#): > > _Regardless_ of its potentially disastrous effects for ME stability, etc? A hypothetical. > [@](#): > > \*\*You didn’t, by any chance, receive your eduction from Jesuits? \*\* Actually, I did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-protestors-and-others-against-the-war/166340.md?page=7)