Ah, understood now, thank you.
The commercial media in Australian, the U.S. and much of Europe is owned by neo-liberal right-wingers, these capitalists have a vested interest in misrepresenting those who oppose the neo-liberal policies of their governments. We need to understand that America is an imperialist nation and as such will use its armed forces, as it is in Iraq, where bribes and threats fail to further their economic and geo-political ends. The super wealthy classes who own the media and other beneficiary industries will support anything that will get American bourgeoisie ahead of others at the expensive of America and foreign workers. So it is not at all surprising that omissive, selective misrepresentations of demonstrators are typical, often they are branded unjustly as violent and mindless bleeding hearts, but I can assure you all this is very rarely the case. If you actually want to know something about the views of anti-war demonstrators I suggest you get out from in front of the TV and attend a demo yourself. It is always a learning experience.
What, exactly, is a ‘neo-liberal conservative’?
I’ve attended lots of demonstrations. I generally find them to be a mixture of old radicals, people who are moved by emotions rather than logic, and lots of people chanting slogans but who have not a clue about the details of the issues.
Looking at the list of 47 organizing groups of the European marches, they tilt HEAVILY to the left. And not just socialists. Communists, Stalinists, Anarchists… Every fringe lefty bunch you can think of.
These marches are not a representation of what the general public thinks. They are the manifestation of a very, very tiny minority of very extreme, activist people. They’re the same people who attend anti-globalization protests and stage sit-ins for the environment. In this case, they are also supported by a lot of people who have a visceral anti-war reaction, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues. These people would be protesting even if Saddam Hussein was known to have a dozen nuclear bombs.
The other night on the ‘Hardball College Tour’, a bunch of protesters interrupted the program by chanting, “No blood for oil! No blood for oil!”. Chris Matthews, to his credit, said, “Shut up and quit interrupting us, and come down to a microphone and say something intelligent. Now’s your chance. You feel this strongly about the issue, come down here and ask questions of these people instead of just disrupting us.”
So these four protestors came down to a microphone. The first one walked up to the mike and started spouting more slogans. Matthews stopped her and said, “Stop for a minute, take a breath, and ask our guests a serious question about this that you think is important.” She opened her mouth, stammered, and stopped. She couldn’t think of anything to say. He extended the offer to the other three people. None of them could think of anything. They were ignorant. Move them outside of their chants, slogans, and a few trite points like, “Why was Saddam our friend in the 80’s, and our enemy now?” And they didn’t have a frickin’ clue.
Yes. For the purposes this thread, I conclude from your response that you agree that the OP is false. What side of this debate are you on? If you disagree, please let me know how you interpret the (poorly articulated) OP.
That said, the rest of this is a hijack. Frankly, though, no one else seems concerned, so let’s continue our side discussion here.
Thankfully, we agree with the definition of a strawman. You made this statement:
I believe that this is a deliberate misstatement of my position, and that it was stated to make it easier to attack my (supposed) position. If you wish to continue to claim it wasn’t a strawman, the onus is on you to show how you reasonably arrived at your conclusion of my position, since the first principle I stated (about justifying our military action in Iraq) stands in contrast to your statement of my position.
If you wish to debate here with me, I request that you use my words as the reflection of my position - not your words. If you are unsure of my position from my words, ask a question (as I have tried with you).
Let’s review another exchange:
Now, please note that in my very first post in this thread:
No one took issue with that statement. I felt no need to expand on “benefits”, as no one appeared to question it.
I observed that none of december’s list related to US national security interests. december did challenge that one did, and I would have liked to have pursued that, but got distracted with the hijacks related to hypotheticals.
After finishing the squabbles on the hypotheticals hijack, I posted this, before your first post into this thread:
I very clearly stated my desire to debate the supposed “benefits” of this action. Nobody, not even yourself, has even attempted to do so.
That is disingenuous, at best. But it isn’t the only example. How bout this:
Perhaps you failed to read my first post, that included:
That statement went unchallenged, except for december asserted that #6 did. And while I have not responded to that point, I would be glad to. For example, consider this OP went unchallenged.
It is becoming more and more clear to me that you don’t have a clue about how to conduct yourself in a debate. My conduct (at least on this issue) is entirely appropriate. I made an assertion. If unchallenged, I have no responsibility to support it. What is more interesting, is that you haven’t challenged it. Instead, you offer this gem of wisdom:
Duh. Do you wish to debate, or are you just content in criticizing my position, while taking no position yourself? How brave of you.
You requested to know which parts of UN Resolution 1441 authorized the UNSC to determine material breaches of Iraq. They are:
If you believe that this resolution authorizes member states, such as the US, to unilaterally determine compliance, please show me where. Did you doubt that was the case? You see, it isn’t appropriate debating behavior to call for more supporting arguments, unless you are contending that the assertion is false. Either accept it, or refute it. Asking me to go do your homework is not the way this works.
It is not my contention that Iraq has complied with 1441 (or earlier 687), but that Iraq’s contention is that Iraq has complied with 1441. I posted:
What part of that did you fail to understand? How can you then ask me if I contend that Iraq was or still is in material breach?
And this:
And you respond with:
Strawman! I never argued that your moral absolutism is equivalent to moral relativism. Do you understand the difference between a member of society and society?
You seem to, when you acknowledge:
The point being, a nation’s actions may be considered immoral by some members, but not by most. The end result is moral relativism.
Without a higher authority, how does a nation do this?
I interpreted the OP as saying that there are people on the anti-war side who have unitnelligent, poorly thought out, impratical and useless ideas. I agree with this; although it does make implications that I do not agree with.
Presumed guilty until proven innocent? I’m not going to try to dissect my entire thought process. I posted that in good faith, and you can believe that or not.
Okay, so you saw no need to expand on benefits. That doesn’t change the fact that you did not expand on benefits.
I disagree. The implication is that although protesters have claimed that war is not the way to disarm Saddam, they have not presented a feasible alternative. I believe that this postion has been borne out by this thread. No one, including you, has presented a feasible alternative. You have argued why we shouldn’t go to war, but you haven’t presented any peaceful plan for disarmanment.
[quote]
That is disingenuous, at best. But it isn’t the only example. How bout this
That is exactly the quote I was talking about. The fact that it is “unchallenged” does not mean it’s supported.
I’m not saying that you have a responsibility to support it. What I’m saying is that it is inaccurate to later claim that you have refuted a position, simply because you declared it to be false without anyone challenging you.
Alrighty then, I hereby challenge it. 4, 6, and possibly 5 (depending on what he meant by “behavior”) directly affect US security, and 2 and 3 affect our “interests”. 1 itself does not affect what are considered to be our interests, but it could lead to something that does.
For someone quite ready to cry “Strawman!”, you certainly aren’t very careful about paying attention to what I say. I asked you what part of the resolution this refers to:
Why not? What’s wrong with “I don’t know whether you’re right or not. I’d like to see what evidence lead you to your conclusions”?
Do you have something against open minds? Do you find “I’m not sure that it’s true, and I’m not sure that it’s false” to simply be an unacceptable position?
If you’re claiming something, then finding evidence for it is your “homework”, not mine. I think that Iraq has violated 1441. In accordance with “the way this works”, don’t bother asking me for evidence. I’m not going to do your homework for you.
You said
I was asking for a clarification of that. You know, asking questions about your position. Something you claimed you were in favor of.
:rolleyes: [mixed metaphor]Some day, your sheep are going to be attacked by a real strawman, and no one is going to believe you. [/mixed metaphor]
You said “Even if the individuals of a society espouse moral objectivism (but differ in their opinion as to what those morals are)…” I understood that to mean that we are imagining a society in which everyone shares my moral absolutism, even if they they don’t agree with me as to what those absolute morals are. It is therefore not unreasonable for me to assume that society as a whole will share my absolute morality.
I don’t see how that follows. Moral relativism is not simply a disagreement about what morality is.
The leaders ask themselves whether something is moral. Of course, this isn’t a guarantee of moral action.
Right, that must make it our fault. I remember this one from grade school. “I’m going to continue punching your little brother until you give me five dollars. By not giving me five dollars, you’re hurting your little brother.”
Au contraire. I provided my arguments. Since you don’t wish to support your assertion, I’ll leave it there.
Please see definition number 2. It is common to refute assertions in a debate, without support. Support is only needed if challenged. I’ll simply presume that you understood “refute” by only the first definition.
No one, including you, has asked.
Which I quoted the relevent sections. You ignored my related request, “If you believe that this resolution authorizes member states, such as the US, to unilaterally determine compliance, please show me where.”
Nothing is wrong with it. But there is nothing to debate. Perhaps you should spend more time in GQ or IMHO.
If you doubt it, explain why. That helps the person responding know the direction to go in, otherwise, they may just ramble (or get into the source of morals, when it isn’t necessary).
Only if challenged.
I think so too. So, should the US attack Iraq because you and I think Iraq violated 1441, or should there be a higher standard?
Great. What if said leaders disagree? What/Who controls?
OK. Back to substance:
From december’s original list:
- It might encourage better behavior by terrorists and rogue nations in other parts of the world.
It might,but it is highly unlikely, and the converse is likely true. First, no connection between Iraq and terrorism has been made. Second, the worst terrorism this country has seen was 9/11, which had as its seed the fact that OBL was incensed that US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. Having the US and the coalition of the coerced occupy Iraq will only inflame the anti-Americanism already rampant among fundamentalist muslims. And that will lead to more terrorism, not less.
- It might avoid an even more horrible war a few years down the line.
Again, it might, but of course, it might not. People here like to point out that we’ve been hounding Saddam for 12 years, and he hasn’t reformed. That’s true. I think back to 1961 and the Cuban missle crisis. That was 12 years into the Cold War. The same argument could have been made then that if we didn’t attack, there would be an even more horrible war a few years down. It took 30 some years, but we won the cold war without a shot.
Further, because I believe Iraq is in violation of 1441, if we showed just a little more patience, we would allow the inspectors to continue their mission. I think it is likely they will find proof of non-compliance. Then we can go in, militarily, under the UN banner, and deflect much of the anti-Americanism that will result if we go in without them. There is simply no imminent threat to cause us to act now. And there is no reason to believe that Saddam gets stronger as long as the inspectors are scouring his country.
- It might encourage better behavior by other middle eastern despots.
Again, might, or might not. It will likely raise the level of anti-Americanism that they feel more justified to use terror to achieve their objectives.
Now, with regards to US interests, instead of US National Security:
- It might prevent Saddam Hussein’s WMDs from being used to attack a neighboring country.
It might, or it might not. We both believe that Saddam has had WoMD capability for the past 12 years (at least). He has not used them to attack a neighboring country. He is limited by the no-fly zone. He is limited from UN arms limitations, and the inspectors. All reasonable evidence suggests that if we attack, he will use the WoMD on us, and probably on his neighbors. This one is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- It might prevent Saddam from again starting a war with Kuwait, Iran, Israel, or Saudi Arabia.
Frankly, I am willing to grant this one as fact. If we invade Iraq, Saddam will never ever be able to attack any of those three countries. However, the increased terrorism described in my answers above may well exceed the damage that any one of the above attacks would yeild. If they attack any of those, the US will have UN support to invade Iraq (avoiding issues described above). If they attack Israel, god save their soul (the Israeli’s can take care of themselves when it comes to self defense against Iraq).
Now please explain why you feel a pre-emptive strike by US forces (and a coalition of less than the UN) against Iraq is justified.
“Feel free to offer a non-war suggestion or two.” -Lord Ashtar
And where in the quoted section is “only the UNSC could authorize force to enforce its provisions”?
No, I didn’t ignore it. I fully complied with it.
I think that it was quite clear what I wanted.
I did challenge.
No, not because we think it has, but because it has.
Morally, whoever’s right. Practically, whoever has the most power.
None of your points which follow show that december’s list has nothing to do with US security interests; in fact it shows the opposite.
That was one of his excuses. But then, perhaps someone who organizes a plan which kills 3,000 people isn’t the most trustworthy person in the world. Perhaps a more complete description is that ObL wants to foment revolution in Saudi Arabia, and the troops stand in his way? We don’t know. What we know is that Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq share many similarities. Maybe terrorism won’t turn out to be one of those similarities. And maybe it will.
That’s an odd comparison. Cuba did something we didn’t like, we threatened force, and they backed down. How would not attacking after we got what we wanted be dangerous? In the case of Iraq, they’re doing something we don’t like. We threatened force. They didn’t back down. It’s completely the opposite of Cuba. And the reason Cuba backed down is because they believed we were serious. If we back down on Iraq, people aren’t going to think we’re serious. So I think that this is actually an argument why we should attack.
That is one of the few reasonable arguments why not to attack Iraq (yet) that I have seen. But despite what people have said, I really don’t think that Bush is an idiot. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that this has occurred to him, or been brought up by one of his advisors, and he has some reason, which we are not able to fully comprehend, for rejecting it. Furthermore, the OP was originally about war protesters. If anyone protesting the war gave the above as a reason, that would destroy their credibility in my eyes. We don’t know what date Bush has set for the invasion. It’s quite possible that he is planning on waiting a while to see if the inspectors find anything. So going to a protest on the basis of “Bush might invade without giving inspections more time” is just silly. Protests should be made against actual decision that one opposes, not potential decisions that one would oppose.
Sure. It might not affect other countries. But I think that the most likely outcome is that it will
Attacking Saddam will virtually guarantee that his neighbors will not have a serious threat from him. We are trading the possibility of conquest for the possibility of some missiles being fired. Sounds like a good trade to me.
How many people have died from terrorism? Total, over all countries, of all years? My guess is somewhere around 10,000. Now how many wars have their been with fewer than 10,000 casualties? If Iraq starts another war, I think it’s very likely that the casualties will exceed the number of total deaths from terrorism, let alone how many would result from attacking him. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, attacking Iraq and establishing a democracy that respects human rights would be worth another 9/11, let alone any attack that is likely to result. If less than twenty people can do that much damage with four civilian planes, what can several million people do with several hundred military planes? And refraining from an attack due to fears of terrorism is a violation of the principle behind the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” policy.
In securing peace, Iraq made certain promises. If those promises go away, peace should too.
OK, The Ryan, let’s cut to the chase.
There are a few areas of significant differences of opinion between you and I, as I see it, and they are:
- Is Iraq, currently, in further material breach of 1441?
While we both agree that they probably are, you argue as though this is an established and agreed upon fact. I maintain that their position that they have done everything necessary to comply with 1441 is defendable, and the onus is on the UN to show a further material breach.
So you and I disagree here. And while neither of us gets to make the decision, who does?
I maintain that only the UNSC does. You have not taken a position on this, as far as I can tell (other than to assume it is an established fact, and if it were, we wouldn’t be having all this BS in the UN right now).
For example, in the Cuban missle crisis analogy, you claim Saddam has not backed down. I say he has. What has Saddam done that indicates to you that he has not backed down?
Another example, from your last paragraph, you say, “If those promises go away, peace should too.” I can agree with that. Have those promises gone away? What do you point to?
- If the US invades, with a coalition of less than the UN, will it decrease the number of future deaths from terrorism, or will it increase the number of future deaths from terrorism?
This is probably our most significant difference of opinion. You argue, I think, that it would decrease the number of future deaths from terrorism. I strongly disagree.
Perhaps it will be useful to discuss the causes of terrorism. I believe terrorism is caused by people united in a common interest (“Group”) that feel that a conventionally powerful establishment (“Nation”) are imposing their will, backed by conventional force, without a moral basis. The Group feels they have no legitimate peaceful means to avoid the will of the Nation, and have no practical means to use force conventionally. Therefore, the Group resorts to violence targeted at civilians to instill fear in the population of the Nation, in hopes of weakening the resolve of the Nation to impose their will on the Group. In other words, the only means they see available to accomplish their goal.
Now, before I spend time with arguments supporting why I think a US invasion of Iraq will increase terrorism, I would like for you to put forth any differences you see in the causes of terrorism.
- Hi Opal!
Sorry, but I needed to break the list!
I do not intend to avoid any other areas of significant disagreement. If you think I’ve missed something worth discussing further, please highlight it.
Everyone decides for themselves. I decide whether I believe, you decide whether you believ it, UNSC decides whether they believe it, Bush decides whether he believes it.
My knowledge of these matters is rather sketchy. I’m trusting the UN on this one. The UN stopped inspections in 98, saying that Saddam’s obstructions were making them unable to accomplish their goal. In 1441, they declared Iraq to be in violation of UN reslutions. And they have supported sanctions ever since the Gulf War, as punishment for Iraq’s noncompliance. Clearly, the UN does not think that Iraq has fulfilled its obligations.
The area of contention between Bush and the UN is not whether Iraq has violated its agreements, but whether he has violated the latest agreement, and what the punishment should be.
I disagree that terrorism is always about fighting against opression. Often, it is about fighting for oppresion, such as the KKK and gay-bashing. (And the case of the KKK violates your property of not having no practical means of using force conventionally.) Ultimately, terrorism is about controlling another group. If we can forge a regime in Iraq in which people respect each other, the risk of terrorism will be reduced.
Another self-evident statement. Nothing to debate here. Obviously, each individual can reach their own conclusion. This observation contributes zero to the discussion at hand.
Because no individual’s conclusion is relevent. Only the UNSC’s decision is relevent. Or the UNSC’s resolutions are not relevent.
For example, if Bush concludes that Iraq is in further material breach of 1441 (and if we believes his words, he does conclude such), then he will likely invade Iraq, even if the UNSC disagrees. He would do so without UN authorization. And if he goes in without UN authorization, it really isn’t relevent whether Iraq is in further material breach of 1441. He could do it for any reason (moral righteousness, liberation of Iraq, regime change, national security, bad-hair day, etc.).
The US either acknowledges the authority of the UN to make the determination, or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways, can you?
Are you trusting the UN on this one? I agree that 1441 declared Iraq to be in violation of previous UN resolutions. It laid out what Iraq had to do to prove compliance. They had to declare all of their WoMD. They had to allow inspectors to come in unfettered. They had to allow interviews. They had to allow the destruction of any materials in violation of the UN resolutions. Iraq claims to have done all of that. No one has shown otherwise (to the UNSC’s satisfaction).
So I fail to understand how you can say that you are trusting the UN on this one, but support US action without UN authorization. Can you clarify your position on this one for me?
On the second question, I am glad I stopped at just trying to describe the root causes of terrorism, because it is clear we disagree on the definition of terrorism.
In my mind, the KKK and gay-bashing don’t provide examples that constitute terrorism. They may cover hate-crimes, or vigilantism, but I am unaware of any targeting of “non-combatants” in their struggles. It seems in your line of thinking, even genocide is terrorism. Yet I see a clear distinction.
So, before we could possibly agree on the root causes of terrorism, we would need to agree on the definition of terrorism. I inferred the definition I was using above. To reiterate, my definition of terrorism is, “use of violence against (innocent) civilians to instill fear among the population of an established authority, in hopes to weaken the resolve of the established authority to impose their will.”
In order to continue this, would you offer your definition, and then tell me if you see any common ground that we may both accept the same definition?
One last item: I want to backtrack a bit, and offer another argument against #5 in the original list. To refresh your memory:
To which you responded:
GW defined the “Axis of Evil” - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - shortly after 9-11. North Korea is a nuclear power, and is now known to be restarting a nuclear reactor that will generate fissible material useful for creating nuclear weapons. Recent news indicates that Iran’s nuclear development is far beyond what we thought it was, and they are likely only months (not years) away from developing nuclear weapons themselves. All intelligence indicates that Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons, but due to recent circumstances, really isn’t any where close to having any.
If we invade Iraq, and depose Saddam, but negotiate diplomatically (compromise) with Iran and North Korea, which of the following messages is more likely delivered to other middle eastern despots?
If you wish to be able to maintain autonomy without being susceptible to coersion from the US, you must:
- not develop WoMD at all.
- develop nuclear weapons first.
But he’s using 1441 as one of his reasons. He could use other reasons (and he has provided other motivations), but I don’t see how “You can’t do it for this reason” follows from "You could do it for this other reason.
There are two determinations: whether Iraq is in violation, and whether to use force. They can be evaluated separately.
The UN has said that Iraq is in violation. I trust this statement. Does the fact that I agree with one thing the UN has said mean that I must agree with everyrthing they say?
On the second question, I am glad I stopped at just trying to describe the root causes of terrorism, because it is clear we disagree on the definition of terrorism.
Two major points that need to be clarified are “innocent” and “established authority”.
innocent: what does this mean? Does it mean morally culpable? Would it be terrorism to deliberately target a civilian truckl carrying munitions to the front? What about people in a factory building the munitions? AFAIK, every terrorist organization claims that there are no innocents among its targets. So we’re getting into that question of absolute versus relative morality again. Is there an absolute standard for “innocent”? Or does the term vary between societies? You said that you didn’t see the KKK or gay-bashers as targetting non-combatents. Are civil rights workers and flaming homosexuals “combatents”? Do they not fall under the catetogery of “innocent” civilians? Also, I think you’re forgetting such things as church bombings.
established authority: does this mean that no government can be guilty of terrorism within their own borders (since it is the established authority, whatever it does isn’t going to be against the established authority).
I think that “terrorism” is a subjective term without a precise definition. So what follows is just a general idea of what I consider it to mean:
Terrorism is an attempt to create anxiety within a non-military target through violence.
Well, although I think that technically attacking soldiers would cause terror, it’s generally understood that it doesn’t apply to legitimate military targets. We also agree that terrorists generally are trying to advance an agenda, although you seem to restrict to it negative agendas (stop doing this) while I think that it includes positive agendas (start doing this).
As for your last point, are you saying that “We won’t attack you, no matter what weapons you have” is better than “We won’t attack you unless you have nuclear weapons”? It is a fact of life that countries will be reluctant to attack countries that cam seriously harm them. So we should also be reluctant to attack countries that can’t seriously harm us, just to even things out a bit? Countries are going to want nuclear weapons no matter what we do.
As I thought we already agreed, 1441 wasn’t to determine whether Iraq was in violation - as you noted, 1441 states that they are. 1441 laid out what was needed to avoid the use of force. They can’t be evaluated separately - they are the same thing.
To suggests otherwise, takes the whole thing out of context. What is happening is the equivalent of a few jurors saying, “we found the defendant guilty, and regardless of what the other jurors think, we are going to impose the sentence we see fit”.
It is George’s right to lead the US into war. And to live with the consequences. But to sign onto the UN process, but then ignore the decision, is duplicitous.
And I’m quickly losing interest in trying to find common ground with you on a definition of terrorism. None of the examples you provided for innocent civilians would meet my criteria of innocent. And all of your non-combatants are combatants in the context of the struggles of the KKK and gay-bashers. Even churchs are combatants in the civil rights arena. Which is why none of those fall under terrorism, IMHO.
And I don’t restrict my definition to prohibitive or proscriptive actions, simply to prevent an established authority to impose their will (through either prohibitions or proscriptions).
And on your final question, I am suggesting that if you determine that countries are equally wrong (morally or otherwise), and you are only prepared to attack ones which can’t harm you, then you have reinforced the idea that America is “bullying” in their foreign policy. And that would be a strong case against any sort of underlying (absolute or otherwise) moral basis.
If they’re the same thing, how can you say that 1441 addressed one, but not the other?
Well, then, I’d like to know who you would consider innocent. Were the people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing innocent? The Pentagon? The planes? WTC?