Actually, most of us simply gave up on you a while ao and decided no to engage in debat with someone who kept accusing us of stupidity and ignorance, without actually providing any reason as to why we should accept your side. that is more or less the reason I’ve decided not to debate you. I don’t need the aggravation during finals.
Nope, nope, none of the above. It was the old Weapons of Mass Distraction campaign, followed by a lemming-like retreat due to the lack of credible argumentation. Of course, you may convince yourself that it was for your stated reasons and continue to pound your collective chests. Which is only a reflection of this whole war effort.
In any event, trust you do well in your exams and actually manage to learn something. Might want to give this thread another shot if you do.
Okay, what the heck, I’ll debate Red. I just ask that he not accuse me (again) of being ignorant.
As I understand it, the three primary motivations for the Iraq War are:, in declining order of importance:
[list=#][li]Oil. Invading Iraq doesn’t automatically give the Americans access to their oil reserves (as was typical in the conquor-and-occupy imperialism of the past) but turning Iraq into a stable somewhat-democratic nation allows for efficient production of oil. Although Saudi Arabia has more oil, their economic system is relatively corrupt and designed to benefit a wealthy few. If Iraq adopted a more corporate structure (the secular dictatorship of the last few decades may make this transition relatively easy) they could pump out oil faster and more efficiently. This has the effect (ideally) of lowering oil prices worldwide, and the benefit to the oil-hungry U.S. is apparant. Lower fuel prices in the U.S. can inspire economic recovery, especially of the already-troubled airlines.[/li][li]Terrorism. The Saddam regime lived by violence and it was in their interest to inspire violence against Western targets, be it in giving money to the families of suicide bombers or in tenuous support for Al-Queda. The full range of their participation is currently unclear, but toppling a violent Arab regime (along with attendant sabre-rattling) certainly puts Syria on notice that it could happen to them. Ideally, this reduces the state sponsorship of Arab terrorism.[/li][li]Regional Stabilization. Saddam was an aggressive dictator, waging war on his neighbors repeatedly over the last few decades. So long as he remained in power, there was little motivation for him to adopt a more peaceful stance, and even after his eventual death, all indications are that his sons would be worse. The Americans had a choice of monitoring Iraq indefinitely (including maintaining a defensive force in Kuwait, as they now do in South Korea), or ending the regime. Both choices are expensive, but at least the second is faster. Having a relatively stable Middle-East helps oil production (see #1).[/li][/list]
It can easily be argued that for political reasons, the Bush Administration didn’t mention #1 a lot, playing instead on #2 and #3, as well as frequent mention of Weapons of Mass Destruction. But so what? The oil motivation is clear enough and wars have always been fought over economic resources. As wars go, this one was relatively quick, and it had the fringe benefit of removing Saddam from power. Sometime in the next two years, I hope to see lower gas prices in North America, coupled with economic growth. Also (using the example of Germany and Japan), I’d like to see a continued American prescence in Iraq as that nation gets a firmly-established democratic system of some kind that will not yield to a military, fundamentalist or political coup. I believe the Iraq could become one of the most advanced and stable Arab democracies and I hope to see it before the decade is out. I favour optimism over paranoia.
So, no, I don’t believe this war was stupid or insane. There are important reasons which were underplayed, and less-important reasons that were overplayed, but I don’t see the whole thing as an exercise in lying.
GWB, as commander-in-chief of the American military, was within his rights to dispatch troops. It was up to Congress to stop him by withholding funding, if they wanted, and it’s up to the American people to withhold their votes in 2004, if they want.
Thank you, but I think it was disengenuous to use me to backhand the other posters who didnt agree with your position. Calling people names is not enticement for rational debate. I do appreciate the compliment and strive to live up to them.
Good to know the ground rules of any debate. I can sense a pattern with the descpritions (or labels) you have given but allow me to offer another one. How about “open minded”? Anyone with a critical mind can easily see that there are gaps in the official reasons presented. Some people (such as yourself) would take that as sign of foul play, of deliberate subterfuge or of something inherantly abeit unspecified evil. Anyone following politics can easily tell you that politicians never publicly tell you everything. They only tell you what you want to hear. What Bush did is no more , no less than what any politician wouldve done.
So those of us who supported this war know that the official reasons are lacking in overall merit at face value. We were willing to delay judgement until the administration shows us everything (or most of everything) We kept our minds open to the idea that he may be right.
Try not to make opinions for me. I am perfectly capable of doing it on my own. I chose not to debate your list because I already admitted that I dont know. Thats not to say I agree with them or with you or that I concede defeat. One cannot debate rationally without the facts to support them. Since You dont have all the facts either, It would be just a useless exchange of conjecture.
Okie Dokie
My only real recourse for any wrongdoing perpetrated by Bush is to express my disaproval of his work. I can decide not to vote for him and state my reasons to anyone willing to listen. However, for now, I do trust the man. I voted for him so I should. Do I do that based solely on what he has stated so far? No. I am waiting for the other shoe to fall. If it dont fall soon, then I start espressing some deep concerns. At the very least on how he handled the information desemmination and at worst his motivations. I gave him the benefit of the doubt because I believed him when he said no action is worse than war. The anti-war faction did very little to convince me Bush was wrong.
If saddam was the “end” and war was the means then I agree it was justifiable. Heck, just Take a survey in Iraq if they want Saddam back. If the “end” was war and the means was to tell the public only what they needed to know (without knowingly lying to them) then again I would consider that as justifiable. If they are caught in a lie then we deal with it. If we, the americans, made a mistake about letting Bush run rampant in Iraq, then at least, I personally, think that Iraq was made better for it. I would rather be in this position and be wrong than to be on the anti-war position and have Bush be right.
I missed that irony on purpose.
Just a brief post to acknowledge the responses and make a couple of points.
Bryan
Great, I welcome your change of heart. But for edification purposes, please show me where I called you “ignorant” the first time – much less twice.
The only thing I’ve found that even comes close is my reply to this post of yours, where you’ll notice it’s you who chose to self-ascribe the adjective. However, as it seems my original statement has been repeatedly misconstrued, I am obviously partly to blame for its lack of clarity. My apologies extended for my share of the blame if that’s the case.
In any event, I don’t want to play semantic wrangling or get into [more of] a pissing contest over this. I am perfectly aware that my choice of labels for those who backed this war based on the Administration’s official justifications are far from flattering – but see, I find nothing flattering about their stand. And that’s what I am debating here, that the massive propaganda campaign used to sell this invasion to the American public (and in cases like yours, a few foreigners) was based on lies and deceit. Which, again, I am perfectly willing and capable of proving if asked.
In fact, for the sake of expediency, if interested, you can simply click on this link World Forums, where I answered the questions in full after a pro-war poster was brave enough to take a stab at them. Please note that wherever possible, I linked directly to the White House’s own website, and all rebuttals are taken from mainstream media.
Given the above, I honestly don’t think I am being overly harsh labeling those that backed the Iraq Invasion the way I do. Further, would you agree that there are, in fact, plenty of ignorant, naive, mendacious and overly patriotic (uncritical) people that bought into the propaganda? Are you (plural) included in that group? Well, I think that is a question that can only be answered by each interested individual provided they are able to put away their biases to do so.
In a direct reply to you, Bryan, after reading your last post, I’d say that no, you’ve gone beyond the party line and taken a more pragmatic line of reasoning. However, based on facts readily available – and many revealed in the questionnaire – I don’t see how any of those justify the invasion of a sovereign nation with the resulting international turmoil we’re now seeing. Both the application of the preemptive strike doctrine as well as the enormous hit to the credibility of the United States, lead me to believe that the end was certainly not justified by the means. However, I realize the speculative nature of that latter comment as well as the fact that I might be proved wrong with time. But it is also beyond the narrow scope of the argument I’ve put forth. Or tried to anyway.
Your thoughts?
PS-X, my apologies, for I am more than a bit pressed for time at the moment, and have already overextended myself with this reply. I could try to respond to you directly as time allows or, alternatively, you could use the salient parts of this post (if any) and tie them into your own rebuttal.
Ah, well, you see, that is exactly what made me very irritated towards you. You assume an awful lot, mostly that anyone who disagrees with you 9at leadst in this issue) is deluded. I am unwilling to debate with name-callers. You will note I was present in the debate until you began your insult campaign.
I am fine with an imtelligent conversation. neverthless, please refrain from your more exitable tendencies, lest you invoke the wrath of a mod.
Actually, the three reasons I cited previously were enough to “sell” me, with or without WMDs.
You could label some of those that backed the invasion as such, and I don’t doubt there are some “uncritical” people, but so what? Here’s an important point: Bush didn’t actually need the approval of the American public in order to stage the invasion. He does need their approval in order to get re-elected in 2004, and it’s this cause that prompts political slipperiness and exageration.
As for membership in “that group”… well, no, I’m not ignorant or naive or mendacious, and I still think the invasion was worthwhile, for the three reasons I cited earlier. If I was American, I would not have voted for Bush in 2000 in any case, and would not do so in 2004, if that has any relevance.
That’s a flaw in your debating technique: your assumption that those who disagree with you are ignorant unless they prove otherwise.
What international turmoil, by the way? Are there hints that a larger war is about to begin?
If anything, American credibility has been improved by their recent actions, including dispelling the Mogadishu myth that a few well-publicized American casualties are enough to make America back down. I think American credibility has only suffered in the eyes of people who were already suspicious of American motives, i.e. those who had a negative view of the U.S. now have an even more negative view. Among American citizens who now view their government (more) negatively, their recourse is the vote in 2004. Among nonAmericans who now view the U.S. government (more) negatively… so what? If another major terrorist action occurs on U.S. soil, it’s fairly obvious that there will be repercussions, even after the current president is replaced.
[hijack]Oh come on! Redfury’s post was really tame and tongue in cheek, smiling bandit. Invoke the wrath of a mod? blinks Isn’t that a tad too sensitive for someone who’s discussing things in “great debates”?[/hijack]
- Insults as to character.
- Calls me a liar and 3) implies I am a brutish idiot.
- Insults a whole group on account of his preconceptions.
Ah yes, the oh-so-mature backhanded compliment. Quite frankly, if he had said that to my face I would have killed him on the spot.
No, I am not joking.
Then I seriously and without joking as well, strongly advice you to turn off the computer and take a walk outside. It’s unhealthy to get that worked up over a messageboard. Been there, done that. I can relate to that.
And I am also of the opinion that you are overreacting and going too far. If you want to kill people for lines like that, you’ve got a serious problem. No kidding, no joking, no smiling. Seriously.
** smiling bandit**
[Moderator Hat ON]
Physical threats are NOT allowed on this message board. You have two choices: calm down or have your posting privileges removed.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Love you, Gaudere.
Susma Rio Sep
Interesting turn of events; I am almost tempted to add “potential homicidal maniacs” to my contention. But I won’t as I am confident that particular % is negligible. I can’t say that I am overly surprised by the comment but I admit to being a bit shocked seeing it in this particular environment.
As I had already mentioned upthread, I think there are a growing number of people that wish all of this would simply “go away.” Just didn’t think it would be taken this far.
Reminded me of a poignant article I’d recently read on MSNBC:
**
In any event, upon further reflection I have decided to withdraw from this thread. My work here is done. I have put forth my contention, provided a copious list of cites to back up my premise, and done my best to refute the [very few] posts that actually adressed the issues raised.
In short, that this war launched on false premises, that it preyed on the base sentiments I have outlined, and that it has potentially done a lot more damage than good by setting a very dangerous precedent and sending American credibility to an all-time low.
Moereover, it is also my contention that as the patriotic chill subsides an increasing number of American politicians will join the rest of the world in the search for all those elusive answers. I am fairly certain, faith in “super duper secret intelligence” will not hold as proper justification to launch a war of choice. Ultimately, questions as to why America got involved in this mess will have to be answered.
In closing, I won’t be making any wild-eyed claims as to who the ultimate ‘winner’ of this ‘debate’ was. For one, I think the sniping took away from the argument presented and thus in was never debated in earnest. Secondly, I don’t think anybody ‘wins’ in the scenario I’ve presented and I believe is true. Best possible outcome would be to learn from it and prevent it from happening again. And lastly, I wouldn’t be presumptious enough to think that claiming ‘victory’ makes it so – I may have played along in such fashion upthread in order to counter the derision sent my way, but ultimately, that is a decision to be made only by those who took enough of an interest in sorting through this flawed affair.
Death threats aside, I do think there’s something to be learned in all of this. What, exactly, is for the reader to decide. To those that took the time to do so, I thank you. To the others, more interested in character assasination than any of the issues raised, thank you as well. For it only encourages me to do a better job next time.
And there will be a next time. In fact, as many as it takes to get real answers.
~Red <----------Off the soapbox and heatened by the catcalls. After all, in the new World Order, war is peace.
Pity.
I find it strangely ironic that you believe so passionately about the misrepresentaion by Bush and Co as to why this war was initiated but you offer up claims of profiteering and malicious usery as more viable premises without so much as a shred of evidence to show deed or intent.
Time will tell and I have every confidence that it will tell volumes for the righteousness of this war. Until then.
Wow, it’s like defending a position agasint a slime attack. There’s nothing solid to fight and it seeps in indiscriminately.
I guess it’s time to wrap up this thread. Thanks to all who have participated. Events in actual history seem to be bearing out my contention. Apologies to all whom I might have offended in any way. And to those who have showed any kind of agreement with my advocacy, I am happy for your approval.
Susma Rio Sep