Iraq Debate: Argue the Other Side

Great Debates
21

“Arguing the other side” is somewhat problematic, since I’m still not sure what side I’m on. If this was a war specifically about UN resolution breaches and ending an undemocratic regime then fine, I’ll go along with it and perhaps even volunteer as an aid worker when the War On Resolution-breaking Undemocratic Regimes reaches Africa, after stopovers in Korea and Israel. If the principles are consistent, I’m all hawk.

However, if this war is really about “something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done” diversionism in order to give a deeply stupid president a token victory, my avian species changes. If I get even a whiff of national interest above consistent principle, I immediately metamorphose into a dove, and a vocal one at that. The air-freshener in this case would be for the US, UK, Bulgaria and Spain to cajole five more members of the UN security council into sanctioning a war.

And so, I’ll argue my true “other side”, which is that both Iraq and the US should act solely in their own national interest, which will involve Iraq invading Kuwait again while its own oilfields are guzzled dry.

22

There is an odd joak.

Where does a nine hundred pound gorilla sit?

Anywhere he damn well wants to.

The USA is riding roughshod over the rest of the world.

The USA has

  • funded . backed and armed terrorist groups ( contras)
  • aided in the assination of democraticaly elected leaders (chile)
  • falsified events for a cause for war (veitnam)
  • bombs neutral countries secretly (cambodia)
  • prevents it’s biological weapons being inspected.
  • remains the only country to use nuclear weapons on cities.
  • is the biggest player in the arms trade.
  • refuses to lets it’s troops serve unless under US leadership
  • is blocking US troops ever being proscreuted by war crime tribunal

The US is a great country. Has produced remarkable people, done greart things. But has also down some terrible things.

I want Saddam out, he is a bad dictator who has killed many. But any war would kill how many relatively innocent iraquis? Hald a million? More less, any way you slice it a lot. IT seems a very high price to pay.

I find the US going on about the Marsh Arabs in very bad taste. The US broadcast messages inciting them to rise up. Them stopped the war and just watched saddam exterminate them.

IThe UN may be a deeply flawed body with a lot of problems. But the fcurrent US policies are just downright childishm give me want I want or else. But it’s about the only body we got for some sort of world co-opertaion.

23

I’m not sure how this fits in but the Next Big Thing just happened. I can hear Colin Powell about to blow a gasket trying to for this thread sway the resolute and intelligent members of the Security Council. Actually, with more confidence, this seems to indicate that Blix thinks the Iraqis are mostly just stepping aside, however.

Hans Blix is a cruel master, he takes with one hand and gives with the other.

24

Um, it’s all about oil, Halliburton, Enron, illicit connections between Bush and Bin Laden, defense contractors, did I mention oil? Oh, and divest from Israel. D&R…[sub]You are too good at this, you know my best stuff[/sub]

25

OIL, Iraqi “I,” black gold, high quality, much unexploited.

War for oil access

26

Mr S said:

The left has a very healthful suspicion of moral certitude. Much evil inflicted upon the world has begun with an appeal to morality. The Taliban were brutal and repressive? Says who? The power-hungry warlords that opposed the Taliban? Have you heard the other side, that the Taliban brought order to a region of violence and chaos? Could it be that Afghanistan needed this period of order to heal the wounds of 15-20 years of civil war?

A love of democracy and freedom tends to flourish where resources and opportunities are plentiful. When there’s not much to go around, a rational distribution of what’s there tends to be more important than wispy notions of “liberty.” Who are we to impose our privileged taste for liberty (vs security) on a dirt poor region like Afghanistan? Let them eat democracy, we say!

There’s no social science model of how a country should progress from warlord to democracy given all the possible variables of culture and environment. Western culture grew up out of feudalism and the divine right of kings. We need to respect the sovereignty of other nations and let them progress at their own pace.

27

Well, I didn’t say anything I didn’t believe, at least in a roundabout way. The thing is, every single thing I said, I have a counter-argument to. Those are the best arguments that I have heard opposing war. And not a single one of them remains convincing to me after a good bout of scrutinization. If I didn’t believe that, I probably wouldn’t be in favor of war, now would I?

And the thing about feeling dirty was a joke. It was kind of odd writing things that I know I could easily debunk, but it wasn’t an affront to my morals, or anything. So don’t fear, you don’t need to feel sorry for me just yet. At least not for those reasons. If you want to mourn my inability to buy an Xbox so that I can play the game that all of my coworkers won’t shut up about, though, by all means, throw some condolences my way. Or throw an Xbox my way, that works too. :slight_smile:
Jeff

28

I submit that we cannot go into Iraq and start bombing people and removing a dictator just because we do not like or trust him. Sure he “needs killin’”. So does dozens of dictators around the world. The world would be alot better off without the likes of Kim Il and Castro, and Mugabe. At what point did the US decide to take it upon themselves to play Judge Dredd on the international community? We still support dictators we do not necessarily like or trust because it is in our national intrests. Would we be saying to the world that it is ok to be a totalitarian dictator as long as they do things in the US’s interest?

The “evidence” about Iraq’s threat to the US is tenuous at best. The same threats, and more, can be attributed to Libya, NK, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and yes, even France. Any Nation that supports any form of terrorism and is not in lock-step with theUS, has the capabilities of producing and secretly distributing WMD, and does not have the US interest in mind in all things they do. The Administaration has only focused on Iraq, so therefore we have the “compelling evidence”, from the government, about the “guilt” of Iraq. I am sure if the US wanted to make the case, they could supply the same evidence to the world about all of the nations I listed, including france. And I have no doubt that any nation in the world would not have to dig deep to to find very substantial evidence that the US could be working to do the same to other states.

Now, I am not in the conspiracy theory camp, that assumes that anything our government does should be considered circumspect and considered a fabrication to fit the administrations ends rather than the cause. I trust my govenment to an extent. And I trust the “proof” they have shown is reasonable and at least somewhat accurate. Yes, I think it is also somewhat misleading. But that does not take away the from the foundation of their accusations. Because there has to be some basis of truth even to their misleading evidence.

Just because I believe the evidence is credible to an extent, does not mean I have to agree that war is our only choice. I do not think I should have to show evidence of why war is not a valid next step. Human history of war iself is evidence enough of why that course is detrimental to all involved. And the risks of tenuous risks to American lives is not comparable to the well doccumented risks of a war.

29

<donning devil’s advocate coat>

The best reason in favor of war is one that I have not really seen much discussed, at least not until Powell’s rather forceful speech this morning in response to the inspectors’ latest report.

Specifically, Iraq must be turned into an example. There are two angles on this.

First is with respect to the legitimacy of the United Nations. That body has become less and less effective in recent years, split by conflicting priorities and reduced to squabbling over methods instead of focusing on objectives. A dictator like Saddam knows this, and has been playing the members off each other. If the U.N. fails to act, even in the face of such brazen defiance, the body might as well be written off entirely.

Obviously unified force is best, but in the absence of that (as appears to be the current case), it must be made clear that such stagnation will not prevent action from being taken on other fronts. Just because the U.N. is tangled into inaction doesn’t mean bad guys won’t be confronted by other means.

And that’s the second angle: If the criminal regime in Iraq succeeds in securing its regional power by acquisition of WMD, every tinpot dictator on the globe will step up his pursuit of same. Only by stopping Iraq in its tracks can it be made clear to the world community that such thuggery will not be tolerated.

In the short term, we’re looking to North Korea, but there are many other aspirants to that level of menace. If they know their militarism and border incursions will be met with immediate and overwhelming resistance, the result will be increased world security, not less. But if, by contrast, Saddam’s grasp at a higher level of power is reluctantly accepted, we’ll encourage any number of similar wannabe dictators to focus their efforts to acquire WMDs. This is totally aside from the short-term concern of Saddam selling his weapons to bin Laden or his successors; the long-term prospect of everyone from Venezuela to Uzbekistan loading up their missiles with biological agents is nothing less than terrifying. Only by making an example of Iraq now, before it’s too late, can we clearly establish the ground rules for future nonproliferation in the coming decades.

Naturally (taking off the devil’s advocate coat), I have serious reservations about whether or not the U.S. should take the role of world policeman, and whether our moral superiority, bordering on smugness, can be justified. At the same time, I do think Saddam’s regime is nothing less than a brutal criminal cabal that should be fired into the sun for the sake of the Iraqi people. And further, I do see the U.N. collapsing into League-of-Nations worthlessness in the absence of clear objectives and strong leadership. I don’t honestly think rushing headlong into war is the solution, but these are legitimate concerns.

30

Saddam Hussain: Transfiguration

  • Reasons why we should not wage war against Saddam Hussian.*

***Saddam Hussain has destroyed all weapons that were required by the United Nations Agreement ten years ago.

***Saddam Hussain has been duly re-elected Dictator by a popular vote of 99.7% of the Iraqi people. This at once demonstrates the love of the people for their Dictator as well as the openness of iraqi society. The .03% of malcontents that voted against Saddam Hussain were allowed to go their way unmolested.

***Saddam Hussain has learned his lesson. He will no longer invade his neighboring countries like Kuwait. And although we have heard that explosives have been set around all of Iraqi oil wells, Saddam will not set them on fire like he did during the Kuwait invasion. He has become an environmentalist.

***The so-called gassing of the kurdish people by Saddam is much exaggerated. Some of the ten thousand so-called victims were strangled. Death by strangulation has the same appearance as the effect of death by gassing, but is acceptable under the terms of the U.N. rules of disengagement.

*** I am a good hearted but fuzzy thinker.

31

Methinks you have failed to grasp the point of the thread, Milum. But thanks for playing.

32

Iraq would be insane to allow one WOMD to slip out, to be used by one terrorist, that could remotely be traced back to Saddam Hussein.

The world may be arguing over the best approach now, but given that circumstance, there would be no argument. There would be universal support for excising the cancer that is Saddam Hussein.

Given that, any zeal for attacking now to eliminate a potential WOMD threat in Iraq is not necessary. Iraq is contained by both the USA and UK, who want to take military action, and by those nations who have stuck their necks out in calling for holding off on such an attack.

[sub]I don’t actually believe that’s an effective argument, but it’s the best I can do. :wink: [/sub]

33
  • dove IRL, virtual hawk *

I’d like to, for a while, put aside all considerations of the moral legitimacy of invading Iraq, and speak bluntly.

Oil is a motive for invading Iraq? And why shouldnt it? Whether we like it or not, it lies within the interest of Europeans and Americans alike, to in some way have access to the worlds supply of oil, just as it does with a number of other resources. Without prosperity the idealistic “make love not war”-cry would be (even more) ridiculous at best. And if we leave the control of the resources we depend on to be held hostage by our sworn enemies our prosperity dies fast.

Maybe some of you people remember what the Oil embargo of the 70s and the following recession did to the “Hippie movement”? Whether you like to admit it or not - the only thing that stands between you, average Joe, and the world of the great crash of 1929 all over again, is the hard work of your government looking out for your interests.

The “pacifist” and “anti globalization” movements display the finest in human bigotery: They enjoy all the privilieges of their lives, material and imaterial, but still they want more. They want to put themselves in a higher moral position than the people providing it for them.

In the process they oppose the riddance of an utterly despicable dictator just to be able to avoid even the tiniest drop of blood on their own hands.

34

Okay, one from me too.
I am against this war because I look upon it as illegal.

The best line of argument for war would be that we live in a dog-eat-dog world. Treaties and the UN ‘overseer’ function are just a thin layer of veneer. Real Politik and Il Principe still reign supreme.
In that light there is no right or wrong, just the tactics of getting and staying on top. So if it serves a nation, or a faction or a single leader, they must do what it takes to secure their position.

We will bloody well take the oil and create a sphere of influence and drive a wedge in alliances and rip up treaties. Damn the world, if it serves our interest and if we can pull it off, we will.
You other folks can have a try at this game as well, if you like. But don’t step on our turf.

35

My entire problem with the U.S./U.K. view of Iraq is if they have these items, why can’t everyone? Why can the US have VX gas? Is it ok for the UK to start manufacturing biological weapons if they wish? Of course.

Many people tell me that the reason why is because Iraq has done terrible things with their weapons. I don’t know about you, but IMHO inventing these weapons is pretty terrible, and I didn’t see anyone screaming and yelling when we did so. And if they did (I can’t speak for all weapons made at all times without sounding like an ass), why are they still around? They are around because countries know that they act as a deterrent to the outbreak of war.

Certainly, Saddam is a bad man. And he did say that he would get rid of his weapons of mass destruction when we stopped kicking his ass back during Desert Storm. If I was in his position, however, I wouldn’t eliminate my most powerful weapons. On the contrary, if I was the leader of a country, I would want to have a full arsenal of weapons that people feared and respected.

My belief is that if the people of Iraq hate Saddam, they need to rebel. Since when is it the UN’s job to depose “bad leaders”. Where were they when Jimmy Carter was president? Why does the entire world need to decide who runs a country? The argument I hear about an Iraqi rebellion is that they would get the crap kicked out of the, and they’re right. Many countries have had rebels who got the crap kicked out of them only to eventually overthrow the person in power that they didn’t like.

I’m not sure if war with Iraq (or any country, including North Korea for that matter) will change anything. Saddam’s son is a known sadist who rapes and murders people for fun. The most powerful people in the country may or may not be just as fanatically anti-American as Saddam. I would imagine that all logical people would think that any leader that will gas and murder his own people is bad. Iraqi, American, Canadian, Korean, Kenyan, Jordanian, that’s not important. Logic is logic, the world over.

We’ve tried to resolve conflicts throught the hisotry of mankind with war, and often with disasterous results. Is it impossible to try something else? Is there no way to come to a compromise, agreement, treaty, discussion, anything before we decide to send an Army of brave people to the Middle East to die?

The brass tacks of it is, if France had VX gas to shoot at Iraq, we wouldn’t bitch at them. We may even allow Germany to have it, and we’ve seen what they like to do with a little too much power before. Our alliances are always shifting (Afghanistan ring a bell, circa late 1980s, Iraq before that?) and we are just asking for more trouble.

If the United States doesn’t want to be the world police, then they should damn well stop trying. And if they do, then I guess I’ve gotta get the hell out of the greatest country on the planet.

36

Methinks you have failed to grasp the point of the thread, Milum. But thanks for playing. ~ Cervaise

Methinks, Cervaise, that you fail to understand the import of Capt. Caustic’s thread. There is no playing here. This is not a game.

Thanks for your kind attempt to delimit the rules. ~ Milum.