I am currently attending an extremely liberal school. It seems at times that there is no opposition, which I think is horrible - “A closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.” I am niether for or against the Iraqi war, but I feel that I should take a stand and let these people know that there is an opposing view point. There are campus-wide emails going back and forth daily about how much they agree with each other that there should be no war in Iraq. As if they could be “righter.” Personally I think they are all just uninformed, waiting for that one argument that completely shuts them up. I have already argued with small groups, and it seemed to make a dent in their liberal brains, but I don’t really feel as if I have any real good ammunition.
Also, embarrassingly, I didn’t get into politics until about a year ago… never seemed to interest me… so I don’t really know for sure what horrible things Saddam has done. I have heard he has killed his own people, but I am not sure of the validity of that statement
I would be very pleased to hear reasons as to why you think war with Saddam is justified. Thanks for your assistance!
[quote]
I find this accusation a bit ironic in the context of the rest of your post. [/qoute]
Yes, I thought of that after I posted… what I mean is, they all use the same arguments, “The United States just wants oil, they don’t really care about the people,” or “Bush hasn’t used diplomacy, that’s his problem, that’s why we’re bombing Iraq,” and my favorite, “Bush is an Idiot…” OOOOOKAY. So that is what I mean by being uninformed… granted I am uninformed, I think I have a fighting chance if given a little better ammunition. Thanks.
Well, here are some reasons that have been put forward by the administration at various times:
The Iraqi regime gave some sort of unspecified support to the Sept. 11 hijackers
The Iraqi regime possesses one or more types of chemical or biological weapons, has a program to develop nuclear weapons, and intends to use these against the US
Yoicks, I hate it when I hit the wrong key; lets try that again, shall we?
Well, here are some reasons that have been put forward by ouradministration at various times (according to the press):
The Iraqi regime gave some sort of unspecified support to the Sept. 11 hijackers
The Iraqi regime possesses one or more types of chemical or biological weapons, has a program to develop nuclear weapons, and intends to use somne or all of these against the US
2a) The Iraqi regime intends to pass the above-named weapons on to unspecified terrorist groups for use against the US
The Iraqi regime is in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 and several other UN resolutions, dating back to the close of the Gulf War
The Iraqi people are in urgent need of liberation by US military forces.
Now, you will want to examine through research whether any of these reasons actually hold water, but that’s up to you.
I wouldn’t bother talking to your average “anti-war” type if I were you. You could get a more individually thought-out opinion from talking to a sheep. Most “anti-war” people tend to rely on the same old mantras and one-sentence arguments that they’ll just bleat in your face and sycophantically agree with each other: “There’s no proof Saddam has chemical weapons”, “Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam” “The Americans are carpet-bombing children!” All nonsense, of course. The essential core of their argument is “Hey! War is BAD! And we’re against war, because wars are bad! Aren’t we just the most righteous people who ever lived?” It’s not so much a political position as it is naivity and narcisscism rolled into one.
If you must argue with them, start by asking them whether they think ALL wars are bad, or whether it is occasionally correct to start a war. If they plump for the former, tear them to pieces on the fact they would have had the Allies done nothing while Hitler marched over the face of the Earth. If the go for the latter, things get a little more complicated. Ask them under what circumstances they think wars should be started. Then again pull them to pieces in that the criteria they will list (has to be last resort, needs clear threat to those waging the war, don’t be naughty and bomb civilians, needs backing of international law) would have prevented the western Allies from fighting Hitler.
Also, trip them up by asking whether states should break international law. They’ll say “no”. “Really?” says you. “So Britain was wrong in the 19th century to send its navy to stop slave ships taking Africans as slaves to America, as that interference was against international law at the time?” Embarassed silence.
As for unpleasant things Saddam has done: killing one or two million of his own people; invading Iran in 1980 beginning a war that killed a further million people; using chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s; and practices of torture so evil it’s off the scale (he has kids tortured in front of their parents in ways I won’t go into).
You could also ask the “anti-war” brigade what they intend to do about this. You may well get a “overthrowing Saddam is matter for the Iraqi people” answer. In which case, point out that Saddam’s internal security is so strong and vicious that the Iraqi people are incapable of overthowing him. The only method of removing the regime is outside invasion by a much stronger power, ie America. So give them a choice- Saddam forever, or the war. That’s the only realistic choice there is.
Look here, sonny, I’ve spent my whole life in the company of these kind of people, to one extent or another. I know my guilty middle-class types like the back of my hand.
I’m against the war because I believe it’s a purely political war to boost Bush’s approval ratings, take the focus off of the economy and the tax cuts for the rich, and also make people forget that we still haven’t caught Bin Laden (remember him, the person responsible for 9/11?)
Iraq has not done anything to the US, or any other sovereign nation since the last gulf war. We have invaded a sovereign nation with no provocation from them. Then we have the nerve to be surprised that the Iraqi people are not welcoming us with open arms. How would you react to people who invaded American, claiming to bring us a better (though unspecified) government.
I Know Lots, speak for the ones you know then. I know a lot of anti-war people who can provide extensive and well-reasoned justification for their opinions. Which is not to say I don’t know of some idiot knee-jerk leftist ones too. I am in college, after all.
So, even though you don’t know anything about the war, or have an opinion on it, but you’re assuming it’s a good idea, and are looking for some justification? That’s great.
Well, good luck finding some opinions to parrot. I’m sure it will be very helpful of you to provide your ignorant anti-war classmates with some ignorant pro-war viewpoints, to help broaden their minds. I’m sure that will make for quite a lively debate, at the very least.
** Deathstatic**, take notes. This is about as close to your average “anti-war” type, as I Know Lots mentioned.
Ariadne, My apologies for using you as a ginea pig.
3 very good “sounding” reasons. If this was in the GD, this would instantly get 2 or 3 requests for cite to prove veracity. These 3 are speculation. No real basis in fact and is only meant to demean a president they obviously do not like or respect. They cant prove any of this and depending on your knowledge base, your skills in debating or your confidence, these are fun exercises of how to make your opponent look unprepared. Be prepared for shouting as embarassment sets in.
The economy is a bit of a give. The economic situations are bad anecdotally, but if you look at any economic chart, the US economy has been recovering 6 months after 9-11. Its just not recovering as fast as most people would like and to those people, a slow recovery equals a bad economy which isnt true. Look that fact up yourself for later use.
This is a slight of hand. What has Bin Laden got to do with Iraqi oppression, non-compliance with resolution 1441, violations of 1991 surrender treaty and CIA evidence of Weapons of mass destruction? We havent caught OBL but he isnt posing as big a threat as he did a year ago and what did we do to make him less of a threat? The same thing we’re doing to Saddam now.
Oh gee, this one always strikes me as odd. They havent done anything since the last time. As Bush said, waiting for a first strike with an enemy that has WoMD is suicide. What if there was no WoMD? Hey, Saddams fault on that. Had he cooperated, this would all not be happening.
Another opinion. This would require a little knowledge in international protocol and law. Some history knowledge would also be helpful. Stay away from any Israel comparisons or you’ll be in a hostile arguement that has nothing to do with Iraq or this war. Ask them why the UN hasnt made any formal protest against this war. The Iraqis certainly requested it and the French oppose this wholeheartedly. See theres the little matter of Resolution 1441 allowing for “dire consequences” (war) if Iraq does not fully and completely cooperate which it obviously did not. Whether the inspectors couldve done it or not is immaterial since Iraq was not cooperating “fully and completely”.
If this was an issue, why are the Iraqis dressed as civilians? What happened to all the refugees? Surely even a small percentage would find it necesary to leave Basra, Nasirya or Um Qasr. Doesnt it strike anyone odd that people wont leave an inherantly dangerous situation unless someone was forcing them to stay? Why were there surrenders in the beginning until the Fayadeem-Saddam appeared on the scene.
Dont get sucked into the metaphor discussion, its too inaccurate, not worth it, and just confuses the issue. If a frog had wings it might do a lot of strange things but the fact of the matter is that frogs dont have wings.
Well, Giraffe thank you for the vote of confidence… I was actually thinking about educating myself first, but your way seems a lot more fun… in fact I think I might just make up stuff… COUGHASSHOLECOUGH
Let’s talk a little about what we’re going to war against shall we? Since 9-11, Bush has been dead-set on fighting terrorism… Saddam helped our decision by paying families of suicide bombers 20-25k apiece. Not to mention the 17 times he has broken the rules. Don’t shoot down planes seems to be a pretty reasonable rule (among many). Seems to me that all the anti-war folk forget what a monster Saddam, his sons, and the rest of his regime seem to be. Habitual rape, torture and murder are good reasons to take a harder look at what is going on in Iraq. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I agree that Uday had good reason for torturing that soccer player. Seriously, I hate losing too! And the Kurds and Shi’ites had it coming, obviously - all those violent women and children.
Also, let’s not forget the fedayeen: stealing away family members and forcing fathers and brothers to fight or the rest of their family will be executed. Saddam has little/no regard for human life.
People ask, “Why are we doing this now?” The question should be, “Why didn’t we do this a long time ago?” The UN is obviously not going to do anything about this, so I say, “Go, fight, win, US.”
Yes, citizens are going to be killed. However - news flash - THOUSANDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED BY SADDAM. And I could almost guarantee he staged that missile in the market place to make us look bad, just like his soldiers dressing up in US military fatigues and killing Iraqi people. I must also mention here that our laser and GPS guided missile system is top-notch - we rarely miss. If citizens are killed, it will be because they are in or very near federal buildings. We don’t aim for non-military or non-strategic targets (communications towers).
Again, I am not pro-war, but I do acknowledge the fact that I don’t know everything that my commander in chief knows. I hope he is leading us correctly. He has my vote of confidence. As for all of you that would rather bash me than make a point, please take this moment to go fuck yourself. Thank you.
See, the reason I made fun of you was because in your OP, you explicitly state that you don’t really know anything about the current situation nor the history behind it, but you’re looking for reasons to support a position you’ve already decided you probably hold. That’s fine, I guess, but it’s exactly as ignorant as the anti-war students you complain about. In other words, you’re not educating yourself if you’ve already decided what your opinion is before you have the facts.
Your latest post just confirms my assessment. You’re simply parroting the tired refrain of “Saddam is bad” and “if he won’t respect international law then he must be stopped, international law be damned!” Since no one is arguing that Saddam is not bad, it’s not very convincing.
Then, Giraffe why isn’t the global community doing anything about it? What’s the next step after Saddam=bad? Diplomacy doesn’t work. We try to work with the guy and he basically laughs in our faces. The 12 thousand some-odd page summary of weapons and such is a prime example of him just jerking us around. He is supposed to comply with the regulations set forth. He is supposed to offer what knowledge of the weapons he has and NOT send the inspectors on a wild-goose chase.
Please educate me rather than telling me that I am an idiot. Giraffe, I am beginning to think you’re are French… too much opposing without proposing alternatives.
So, your defense of Bush’s lack of focus on the economy is that it’s actually just fine? Interesting. We should mention this to all the people without jobs, I’m sure they’d be glad to hear it.
**
Now here is something we agree on. Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. But how can you say he doesn’t pose a threat?? Al Qaeda successfully attacked the U.S., killing thousands of civilians. They have publicly pledged more attacks. How can you discount that threat in favor of starting a completely unrelated war with Iraq? What about the wave of anti-Americanism sweeping the Muslim world in response to this war? You’re not worried about any possible future consequences of making ourselves a target of that hate?
**
This is some truly bizarre caveman logic. If Saddam doesn’t have WMD, he should have cooperated with inspectors and turned them over right away and we wouldn’t have invaded. Right.
To maintain a world ruled by law rather than might, we needed to present convincing evidence of an immediate threat from Iraq, not demand that he prove he doesn’t have weapons immediately or else we start a war. We presented no such evidence, beyond reminding people of Saddam’s misdeeds over a decade ago. While those might be grounds for an eventual invasion, they in no way justified abandoning inspections and diplomacy. A multilateral solution would have taken longer, but been infinitely smarter in the long run. Bush couldn’t have handled this situation worse, even if the final outcome was to be war.
**
So now you’re implying that the UN agreed with the war, because they haven’t formally protested? You’re arguing that because Saddam was not respecting international law, we had to disregard international law in order to show how important it is to respect international law?
**
Sooooo, now you’re arguing that the Iraqi population is in fact welcoming us?
I’m surprised you didn’t also mention the fact that every country in the world actually supports us and that the coalition is larger than the first Gulf War, because this time we’ve got Eritrea on board.
