Bizarro-World Iraq War Thread ( a Challenge)

Great Debates
1

An exercise in debate and rhetoric for those who can handle it.

You examine all sides of an issue and then make up your mind, right? You’re a fair-minded person, aren’t you? You’re capable of reasoning about emotional issues, correct? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may already have the drive and motivation necessary to succeed in this Bizzarro-World Thread.

Here are the guidelines.

First, give a brief synopsis of your views on the invasion of Iraq. Include what you think are the relevant issues, relevant facts and the “why” of your decision to hold the opinions that you hold.

Second, enter the Bizzaro-World Transmogrifier. Now make a brief case for the opposing side of your actual position.

Third, everytime you enter this thread, re-enter the Bizzaro-World Transmogrifier. Continue the thread as normaql, EXCEPT that you must argue for the view that opposes you actual position(s) on the war.

NO SARCASTIC POSTS WILLL BE ACCEPTED FOR CONSIDERATION. If you can’t handle this sort of thing, just stay away. There’s no point to coming here and presenting the worst, most holey arguments for the opposing side. No points will be awarded for lame-assed crap like that. If you’re gonna do this, do it right.

It may be such that:

Bizzarro-World Reeder and Bizzarro-World Aldebaran, (should they choose to accept the challenge), would be in favor of the US-led invasion of Iraq. Bizzarro-World December and Bizzarro-World Sam Stone, (should they feel up to the challenge), would be against the US-led invasion of Iraq.

2

I will now take a brief, sequestered hiatus whilst I compose my initial entry.

thank you,

Simon X

3

Nice idea, Simon. I think I’ll give it a shot.

I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it unnecessarily risky. Saddam Hussain may have had NBC weapons, but in twelve years he never made any attempt to use them against the United States, indicating that he respected our nuclear deterrent. In addition, other aspects of containment (UN sanctions, US/UK no-fly zones, etc.) provided a mechanism whereby Baghdad’s conventional power was kept in perpetual check. Ba’athism was a dying ideology, and little threat to the United States. On the other hand, an invasion of Iraq would open up a Pandora’s box of potential new threats in the region, from Kurdish nationalism to Shi’ah fundamentalism, and could quite possibly inspire new support for al-Qaa:ada throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. The devil we knew was better than the many we did not.

Containment assumed that Saddam was a static enemy, which was no tthe case. The real danger in Saddam’s NBC weapons was never the B(iological) or the C(hemical) but the N(uclear). Saddam might have been deterred from using the first two against the United States, but if he ever acquired a nuclear weapon - which he almost certainly would eventually - the tables would be turned. Saddam wouldn’t even need to threat the continental United States with nuclear weapons to wreak havoc in the region; threatening Kuwait or the eastern Saudi oil fields would be just as terrifying. How could we risk continuing containment, much less dealing with Iraq militarily, if Saddam held the world’s petroleum supply hostage with nuclear weapons?

In addition, while war in Iraq would certainly inflame Arab and Muslim anger at the United States in the short term, in the long term it would actually be better in this regard than a continued policy of containment. For twelve years, the world saw Iraqi women and children die at the hands of the US containment regime, while Saddam Hussain remained in power and apparently unharmed. Support for sanctions and the no-fly zones was already dangerously eroded in 2002-2003 - how much longer could they withstand the PR damage caused by fruitless Iraqi civilian deaths?

4

This sounds funny… But I’ll need time to formulate my views.

Just to see if I get the intention right:

  1. I make my case why I condemn the invasion of Iraq.

  2. I make a turn of 180 degree and make a case why this was the best thing that could happen.

  3. Every time I enter, I debate with myself = I come back to the position previous to the last post I made and try to convince myself to switch camp.
    Is that correct or do I miss something and is it required also to debate the postitions of others?
    Salaam. A.

5

I think what you’re supposed to do in this thread is:

  1. State your true position with regards to the war…in your case that you’re against it

  2. Argue the reverse position.

  3. In all further visits to this thread, keep arguing that position…so you’d argue in favor of the war althroughout this thread.

6

Ok, here’s my true position:

The problem I had with this war was the failure in diplomacy that led to it. We acted against the wishes of the UN, and against the wishes of our allies, like France, Germany, and Canada, and I’m afraid we hurt US prestige and also set up a disturbing precident toward unilateral action.

Now, into the transmogrifier!

<zap>

We could have kept on taking action through the UN, but we had been doing that for 10 years, and it wasn’t working very well. Sadaam was shooting at our planes attempting to enforce the no-fly zones, had expelled the weapons inspectors, and was running roughshod over UN declarations. The UN had proved itself useless in the past in managing to enforce the declarations it passed. So, some sort of action was needed.

There’s a danger in relying too much on multilateralism in foreign policy. Sometimes an action needs to get done even if the rest of the world opposes it. In fact, sometimes, an overreliance on multilateralism can allow evils to occur. One of the reasons no one got involved in Rwanda, for example, even though everyone condemned it, was because nobody wanted to go in by themselves, and everybody argued about what actions to take as a group.

There’s also some evidence that nations like Russia and France opposed the war not because of selfless reasons, but instead because of economic ties to Hussein’s Iraq, and we shouldn’t allow our foreign policy to be dictated by foreign businessmen pursuing selfish ends.

Besides, even though the war with Iraq wasn’t good for our relationship with countries like France and Canada, it’s only one issue. We still cooperate with them on a lot of things, and share similar interests. I doubt our foreign policy will fall apart just based on this, and in fact, we’re working together well in Afghanistan right now.

7

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq merely on the basis that I’m opposed to war in general. I’m willing for our nation to go to war. I believe that military action should be the last option as it is one of the most wasteful of our national resources. It’s much better to have the will of our nation carried out through other means. While I was convinced that Hussein most likely had banned weapons, I have never seen any evidence that there was a sufficient threat to the US to justify the need for speed of action that was being advocated. Also I haven’t seen any reason to believe that the war in Iraq will further the interests of the US in any meaningful way. Therefore, my default position of being opposed to armed conflict hadn’t been overcome.
The push for immediate action coupled with the lack of, (IMHO), sufficient justification for the war made me very concerned.

<zizzapzizzle>

While the evidence that the US was imminently threatened has been, in some cases, highly speculative, it’s important to realize that when seen through the lens, (opposed to a “spectrum”), of the 9-11 tragedies that the bar for what constitutes an acceptable threat level necessarily needs to be lowered. We must proactively deal with potential threats of this magnitude with the utmost forcefulness necessary. The potential consequences of inaction are too grave.

The potential benefits of the Iraqi action to the ME area and the US interests in that area are wide, varied and multiple. Establishing permanent basees in Iraq will allow the security situation for various Mid-East countries to change in a benign and beneficial way. With lessened security coincerns, we are now able to remove our troops from the areas that are considered sacred by hundreds of millions of people world-wide. We will be in a better position to bring pressure to bear on Israel, and thus be able to make swift and dramatic progress toward resolving one of the longest running and most divisive conflicts in modern history. This will enable US and her allies to focus on more productive issues and further the cauise of human liberty around the globe. We will be able to focus on procuring the basic human need of liberty and dignity for untold millions of people who have hereto fore only known of such things in the abstract.

8

I saw this war as just another instance of the US imposing its will on the rest of the world.
Its main reason being that a war is part of the cursus equester for a new American president, to assert himself as a leader and to rally the public behind him. The choice of target being mainly the question where most gain can be made.
It is just that this time the selling of the war was abominable, without even a pretext of ‘doing the right thing’ until the process was already well underway.

P.S. I do not hate America or Americans.
I hate Americans (and the rest of the world) being led around by the nose by the US government

In bizzarro world I would most likely go along with the likes of Brutus. A side that, from a certain viewpoint, does have some validity and might even subscribe to.

The UN, human rights, international law… It’s just people being nice to each other.
Or rather, pretending to be nice, There are no such things as rights. Treaties and laws don’t have any real power. It’s just lip service to the public.
In reality it’s a dog eat dog world out there and every country (or indeed everyone) is after its own interests.
Actually living up to the lip service will ultimately get your country into a situation where you will have to give up some area of power. This will hurt your country and will bite you in the ass, when that power you gave up will be used against you. And, it being a dog eat dog world, rest assured that it will come back to bite.

Therefore if it was really necessary to invade Iraq, be it simply to grab the oil or to get rid of another player in the field, plus you can get away with it, why not? It’s just Real Politik , every man for himself. In order to survive * you* must be the one with the biggest stick.

9

No, what I meant was that, in this thread, you should maintain the position that is opposite of what your genuine real-life position. That way, while in here, you are debating on the side of what would normally be your opposition.

Yes, in this thread, you should debate from your bizzarro-world stance.

Basically, you debate the pro side of the opposite of what you really believe.

I hope that I’ve come close to saying what I meant to mean.

10

I have to commend you, SimonX , on this great idea for a discussion. It’s like a course in intellectual honesty. I daresay that only those who are secure in their own objectivity would take part…

I plan to join the bizarro-world thread myself, but I just wanted to mention something here… did you notice that everyone who took part in the thread to date has originally OPPOSED the war in Iraq?

There’s no one here that originally SUPPORTED the war. Where are those guys? I’d like to see them give it a shot…

11

I’d noticed, but didn’t think much ‘bout it. The thread ain’t even 24 hours old yet. If there’re no takers after a week or so, I might say somethin’ 'bout it.

12

I supported this war becuase I generally feel that a world without Hussien is better than a world with Hussien. The accusations of WMD and the administrations insistance that Iraq possesed them now and my lack of a world wide intelligence ogrinization to independently verify their claims I had to take their word. I couldn’t reasonably expect them to provide hard evidence to the nation.

They couldn’t go on CNN and say “Well we found a huge stockpile of nerve gas. Source you ask. Well we have a agent named gary whos the 2nd most senior member of Iraq’s WMD program.” That would result in the next night our agent Gary experiencing brutal torture and the WMD moved.

I understood that possible destabilization of the region could occur along with the fact that it would take years to rebuild Iraq. Since they had WMD and Hussien isn’t a man I want in power anywhere I supported the war.

<zzzapp>

I was against this war becuase eventhough I generally feel that a world without Hussien is better than a world with Hussien. The accusations of WMD and the administrations insistance that Iraq possesed them now and my lack of a world wide intelligence ogrinization to independently verify their claims I wanted hard evidence but I couldn’t reasonably expect them to provide hard evidence to the nation.

They couldn’t go on CNN and say “Well we found a huge stockpile of nerve gas. Source you ask. Well we have a agent named gary whos the 2nd most senior member of Iraq’s WMD program.” That would result in the next night our agent Gary experiencing brutal torture and the WMD moved.

I expect every politican to lie and do anything they can to push forth their agenda. Therefore I can not justify a war costing hundreds of American and thousands of Iraqi lives on the word of a politician.

I fully understand that Hussien is still a threat and should continue to be contained by the UN inspectors and a enforcement of the no fly zone

Latro I don’t believe you explained fully why you supported the war. You did make clear that the US could make war but never why they should

13

There also is a dire need to address some of the underlying causes of terrorism. The disparity of political power in some of the ME states encourages the frustration and cynicism that leads young men to be open to recruitment in terrorist organizations. It is vital to address these political grievances. To address them in Iraq, we had no other viable option other than force. We had to depose Hussein to reduce the pool of potential terrorists in the long-term. The cause of human liberty is inextricably wedded to the War on Terrorism. The invasion of Iraq is just one part of the War on Terrorism.

14

treis:
wow!.. the transmogrifier had nearly no effect on you!
You are immune!

15

My problem in that regard is best broached by analogy.

Let’s say I’m playing chess and, in mid-game, I have concluded that I have a forced win, regardless of my opponent’s responses. If at that moment, the tournament director has us switch sides, does intellectual honesty require that I play on with what were formerly my opponent’s doomed pieces, or does it require that I tip over my king and concede?

To be fair, a few of them have already admitted they were hoodwinked by the Administration, and had been wrong to support the war. So they’ve already done for real what this thread asks them to do as an intellectual exercise only.

16

This will be a drive-by; I’m at work.

For me it was simply a matter of weighing the options, and I was always aware that others might do the math differently. But I felt that:
[ul]
[1]Whatever regime the US puts in place can’t hardly be worse than Saddam is to the Iraqis
[2]It will send a message that “we aren’t going to take this crap” and forces moderate Muslims to chose which side they’re on
[3]It will provide a stable oil supply to keep the world economy moving if/when Saudi Arabia implodes
[4]If SH develops nukes, which he clearly wants to, it’s only a matter of time until Tel Aviv is a crater.
[5]Any alienation of the EU and UN are either short lived, or else reveal fundamental differences that would come out sooner or later anyway.
[/ul]
to which my alter-ego responds
[ul]
[1]It’s none of our damn business.
[2]Okay, fine … and what if they choose the other side?
[3]Evidence that SA is going to implode?
[4]Poppycock. They will help him feel secure. He might use them against Iran, if at all, and he would not let them slip to terrorist groups.
[5]What’s so bad about papering over our differences for another 50 years, if the alternative is a permanent rift among the west?
[/ul]

17

O.K., I’ll play - sounds like fun:

Bear in mind that this is brief, as per the OP’s request.

No one ever doubted that Saddam was a bad guy, but the fact is, in this world, we have agreed to certain rules of international conduct. Rule number 1 is you don’t get to attack other sovereign countries, yes - EVEN IF THEY ARE BAD GUYS. It’s clearly spelled out in international law - a law which we AGREED to abide by when we joined the U.N.

There’s lots and lots of bad guys in the world, but we don’t get to just attack them unilaterally. The people of Iraq may not have liked Saddam, but that doesn’t mean they wanted the U.S. to drop bombs on them. The U.N. and most of the world wanted to handle the situation in a civilized manner, according to the rule of law. Without law, what you have is anarchy. Bush made the decision to thumb his nose at the U.N., world opinion, and international law. IMO that was a big mistake. He tried to justify the decision with some flimsy rationalization about Iraq being an immediate threat to the U.S., but few people outside the U.S. believed it, and in fact the case for this imminent danger is now falling apart like a house of cards.

(O.K., I guess that wasn’t as brief as I hoped)

<Gears spin, smoke billows, various mechanical noises>

After 9/11, everything changed for the U.S.; If we are to protect our citizens, we must take a proactive approach to fighting terrorism. Saddam was clearly up to no good; how much evidence do we need to realize that he was enabling terrorism? Do we have to have a signed letter from Saddam to Osama on the front page or the New York Times? We can only divulge so much of our internal intelligence sources without compromising our national security. Iraq was defying the U.N., and could not account for weapons of mass destruction that they clearly had in the past. The other member nations of the U.N. were obviously in bed with Saddam, and weren’t going to do squat. We HAD to act. Besides which, how is the world worse off with Saddam out of power? He was an evil dictator who needed to be taken out.

18

Right, but in this case, it’s not that clear cut. There were good arguments both for and against war.

19

Shit, you’re right.
Uhm, in Bizarro World I would be American?

Nah, I’ll think of something better tomorrow.

20

Me am think war in world be bad thing, but we only can get war sometimes by first having peace. Good thing about that is that one can make pre-peace time too good and cause more peace before peace, so war always happen. This am very good.