Write one sentence to justify war that only applies to Iraq

Great Debates
1

Weapons of Mass Destruction - ooh, there’s a catchy title to throw around as a reason to take unilateral action. But as I read the articles, listen to the reports, watch Tony Blair muddle his way through a press briefing etc I have still to be convinced of what is the actual REASON for invading Iraq.

Let’s just take a step back for a second and consider what is a good reason for starting a war. And when I say a good reason, I mean a SPECIFIC reason, one that stands up to justify not just a war against Iraq, but any war. Perhaps rather than ‘starting a war’, the phrase ‘going to war’ is probably more appropriate.

Reasons put forward so far:

1; Iraq possesses WMD. Hmm, ok; so does Russia, Britain, US, France, Korea et al. Ok, that can’t work then.

2; Iraq sponsors terrorism. Aha - that’s a good reason, except then we must invade Libya, Indonesia, Isreal or Palestine (depending on your point of view), China, Serbia, Bosnia et al. Okay, that won’t work then. And I guess the hundreds of British troops and civilians killed and maimed in Nothern Ireland by explosives and weapons paid for by American supporters of Gerry Adams would probably include the US as a sponsor of terrorism too.

3: Iraq poses a direct threat to the US. Hmmm, you reckon? Technically North Korea is far more capable of direct actions against the US mainland. Russia certainly has the capability but appears more placid at present. Saddam does not have missiles capable of delivering payload to the US.

4: The UN has found casings capable of holding chemical or bacteriological weapons. Oh, that’s good. So does the US postal service - they’re called envelopes. And let’s remember the ‘casings’ used for the last few major bacteriological disasters - rats for the bubonic plague, humans for influenza, smallpox and HIV. Give me a break - I’ve got a thermos flask in my cupboard, could possibly fill it with anthrax spores…well, it IS a potential WMD casing isn’t it…

5; Iraq has previously used WMD on civilians. A historical reason then? Other countries have used gas in wartime, one has used nuclear weaponry and if we are talking about civilian atrocities we could mention Isreal, Palestine, South Africa, Rwanda, Indonesia, China, Britain, Vietnam… the list goes on.

So, to my original point - can anyone give me a clear and valid reason for an invasion of Iraq that would hold up to comparison if the target of the US was NOT Iraq?

Write a sentence that says “Iraq has…; therefore the US and Britain should invade immediately.”

I would say in most cases you could subsitute another country for ‘Iraq’ - would the ‘therefore we should invade immediately’ section still feel right?

2

[Duhbya]They tried to kill my daddy! Revenge is sweet.[/dubya]

3

nixdad, have you reached the point in elementary school where they explain about “conjunctions”? You can uniquely justify war against Iraq in a single sentence, by simply putting the word “and” between the items you listed. While you’re at it, you could add Iraq’s failure to “provide an accurate, full,final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons,their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims arefor purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,” as required by the recent Security Council resolution #1441.

BTW the whole premise of this thread is silly. Suppose it were as urgent to attack some other country as it is to attack Iraq. That wouldn’t reduce the threat from Iraq, would it?

4

Umm… Yes it would…

December, the more and more that I read your posts, the more I realize, that you really think that the way the world works is through the beaurocracy. This is quite to the contrary. Nothing works like it probably was intended to by the Founders. This, however, is the beauty of our Constitution. It can adapt and change. However, the loopholes left, allow for quite a bit of under the table dealing, and a lot of activities that the public never gets wind of.

The fact of the matter is, the UN has no real authoritative power over anything. They can demand resolutions, but the resolutions are only good so long as countries back them up, and for the most part, it’s just the US and her allies.

UN resolutions mean jack. Period. There are no good reasons to attack Iraq as of now, but it’s going to happen. It’s a done deal. As soon as Bush mobilized the troops, we were going to war.

Iraq has WMD. Iraq doesn’t have any potential to use them against the US however. That’s not what concerns us. What concerns us is the potential of Hussein to completely destabilize the entire region.

North Korea, has the missle technology. They have the nukes. They can nuke Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, and a dozen other countries. That to me makes them a much larger threat.
It would be more beneficial to set the North Koreans back 20 years or so, then to set the Iraqis back another 100 years.

Mark my words though. This war isn’t going to be pretty. Hundreds if not thousands of American soldiers will die. Hussein will fight us in the streets, in the buildings, to the death. He will pull out all the stops. He doesn’t fear retribution. He WILL USE WMD against our forces. This war will be very, very costly. Not only in terms of human life, but on the economy too.

5

Firstly December, the elementary school reference was uncalled for as I believe my post raises a legitimate question.

Secondly, simply combining the items I listed would not serve as a reason for invasion (to me). As I have pointed out, some of these reasons just don’t stack up.

Thirdly, failure to comply with a UN resolution does not automatically present a reason for UN members to invade without a directive from that council (and I think someone has already raised the issue of other countries not complying with UN resolutions with no military action being taken against those countries)

Finally, what is this about “Suppose it were as urgent to attack some other country as it is to attack Iraq.”

What urgency? On what basis? And who decides it’s urgent? One must assume urgency means something bad will happen if we don’t act ‘urgently’. So what, and when?

I’m not necessarily arguing against war with Iraq, I’m trying to find out whether the reasons put forward for war would hold up if it were another country.

6

Iraq has been known to possess and use chemical weapons of mass distruction on inhabitants of its own nation, and has espressed the interest to sell their technology abroad.

Iraq has been suspected of attempting to acquire atomic/nuclear weapons of mass distruction in violation of established UN resolutions. While the attempts may not be conflagulatory, the fact that she is willing to export this technology is.

Iraq has a megalomaniacal leader, who is bent on regional power. How many people should die before someone pipes up? How many capitols should fall? How far should we allow him to drive? How much infrastructure and how many new technologies should we allow him to acquire before we say “enough!”.

While I may not fully see eye-to-eye with the current media-thrown agenda, I do see a need to say "Quit screwing around!’ with Hussein. I feel that oil ain’t the main driving force. Nor is the “weapons of mass destruction” thing. My gut feeling tells me there’s something else at work here, something that is giving Dubya a real reason to pursue this. . .

Tripler
Or maybe we should wait to trace the paperwork between the al-Qaida fission device detonated in Pittsburgh and Hussein.

7

Actually, I think this is a new breakthrough in diplomatic relations.

After we’ve justified attacking Iraq in one sentence, we can implement a new global trade framework in the form of a Haiku. Then we can create a new disarmament treaty where the text is in the form of a dove.

The possibilities are endless.

8

In response to the original post, although it clearly will not be enough to satisfy much of what has already been written:

Just as a person willing to kill police poses a particular threat to society, a country willing to directly and boldly oppose UN Security Council resolutions poses a serious threat to the world’s stability, particularly when its violations of those resolutions are meant to hide a nuclear and/or biological weapons threat.

9

Iraq invaded Kuwait, a sovereign nation, and has not live up the terms of the cease fire that ended the war to expell the former from the latter.

Having said that, I still would not go to war for that reason. But I can see where some people might consider that enough.

10

Ok Sam, I got a chuckle from your response - consider me chastened. But the challenge I was offering was not the construction of the words but whether (a);anyone could provide a reason to go to war with Iraq that does not equally apply to another country or regime at present and (b) whether equal application of that reason would justify immediate war with that other country or regime.

And a disarmament treaty in the form of a dove WOULD be pretty cool.

11

Not too specific I know…

And I don’t equate might with being right or having any specific right.

12

How about: “We want thier oil.”

13

Oh games ! Here’s a mouthful - as the Bishop said to the actress:

We should invade Iraq because under a new doctrine that historians will come to know as the ‘Cheney Doctrine’, a global market with a single, capitalist (and therefore essentially amoral) superpower is subject to the same free market forces as was a conventional national market; that is the dominant market player will throw its weight around as it sees fit, seek out market opportunities and utilize its military forces as it would (have) its financial clout to acquire resources and grow; Iraq is but the first - and most obviously necessary - acquisition in this new, uncompromising, Cheney Doctrine, it won’t be the last.

14

Iraq violated the UN-imposed sanctions.

Do I win the washer-dryer set?

15

Okay, let me try this:

There are three major dangers to the U.S. in the world today. They are Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. They are fanatical regimes who have demonstrated a willingness to attack the United States, and who are rapidly developing weapons of tremendous destruction. North Korea provides missiles. Iran does the testing North Korea can’t do. North Korea gives nuclear material to Iran and Iraq, and sells missiles to them.

Now, there is also a war on terror. But it is inextricably linked to these countries, because the confluence of the two threatens to give the terrorists those weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, Iran and Iraq also give significant aid to the terrorists attacking the United States, both through safe harbor and direct support. Iraq in particular is a problem because it has directly attacked the United States by attempting to assassinate George Bush Sr., and has been implicated in the first WTC bombing.

So what do we do about all this, and how does it fit into the war on terror? First of all, we can start by admitting that as long as these countries are around it is going to be very hard to win that war. al-Qaida can fade into Iran or Iraq. State sponsorship gives them access to funds to buy ships and weaponry and to travel.

So what can the U.S. do about it? Well, you start by identifying the threat and focusing the world’s attention on them. Iran looks like it’s in the middle of an internal revolution that will tilt heavily to the United States. So let’s just announce our solidarity with the students and dissidents, and let them percolate. North Korea is a big problem. It’s financially unstable, run by someone a few tomatoes short of a thick rich sauce, and has nuclear weapons. So our options are limited. Let’s just put the screws to them a bit, and manage that situation.

Then there’s Iraq. By far the biggest immediate problem with respect to the war on terror, which is largely rooted in Middle Eastern instability. And there’s Saddam, threatening his neighbors, allowing a bunch of thuggish regimes to blame their economic problems on having to spend a bundle on defense, and with the constant presence of the U.S. in the middle of that conflict. Don’t forget, it’s that very presence required to contain Saddam that made Bin Laden quiver with rage in his cave.

And, Saddam is in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and is busy making weapons of mass destruction which could wind up in the hands of terrorists, so the case can be made that the U.S. already has the legal rationale for taking him out. Plus there are disturbing connections to various terror groups, his funding of Palestinian suicide bombers, and constant shooting at U.S. and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone.

And the cold realization hits you that Iraq WILL have to be dealt with. Saddam is eventually going to get a nuke, and the crazy son of a bitch will be parading it all over the middle east. He’s agressive enough that he could decide he’s bought immunity with his nuke, and start attacking his neighbors again. And of course, he would love to sneak one to a terrorist. And you can’t hope for Saddam’s death of old age even, because both of his sons are vicious little chips off the old block.

So given that Iraq has to be dealt with, you realize that it’s going to be very advantageous to do it sooner rather than later, while Saddam is at his weakest. Plus, there will be a big advantage to having a friendly Iraq - the example of a democracy next door will speed up the revolution in Iraq, and once the U.S. is no longer dependent on Saudi Arabia for a military staging point, we can finally take off the kid gloves and start really putting the screws to the Saudis to shape up. Iraq may well be the key to a complete re-alignment in the Middle East.

There. That’s the justification. The longer Saddam is around, the greater the risk that one day a U.S. city will go up in a mushroom cloud. There’s no hope of reforming him, and his sons are no better. And he’s a key to winning the war on terror and eliminating the political situation in the Middle East that spawned it in the first place. And after all, that’s really the only long term way to ‘winning’ the war on terror - to get rid of the fanaticism that supports it and remove its state sponsorship.

16

A reliable friend in Canada told me that a recent poll there indicated that 75% of those polled consider George W. Bush to be the most dangerous leader in the world. In doing a brief search, I was unable to verify that information.

But if it were true, and another country considered us a danger because of our WMDs and what they see as a trigger-happy leader who has violated the rights of his own citizens, why shouldn’t we be attacked?

It’s an old question, but does might make right?

17

A quick and easy (less than 2,000 American dead) victory over Iraq gives W an electoral college victory in 2004 larger than Reagan’s win in 1988.

This is, sadly, the only reason for the rapid early 2003 buildup and likely March attack, and…

for the estrangement from formerly close allies in Europe,

for the absolute indifference to opposition from Iraq’s neighbors (save Israel),

for the absurdity of Bush offers of food stamps to the much more dangerous North Koreans,

for the virtual abandonment of the fight against Al Queda (apparently being waged by Britain, Spain and France),

for the wilfull ignorance and cowardly overtures to Libya, a terrorist nation that has willfully spilled innocent American and British blood - and remains unpunished (save two tokens),

for the absurd (or deliberately false) linking of Al Queda to Saddam while Al Queda maintains bases in the northeastern Kurdish controlled areas of Iraq (under U.S. air “protection”) - despite reports in the media that Al Queda operatives may have fled there from Afghanistan

for the disgusting 2002 pre-election comment by W that Democrats who opposed W’s stripping of Federal workers in the new “Homeland Security” Department of their civil servant status -
that those Democrats “don’t believe in the security of America”

for the retention of the leadership of the FBI, CIA and NSA after their failure on September 11

and for the deliberate, well crafted transformation of W from a ne’rdowell frat boy into the bold, decisive, commander in chief, - who with a massive win in 2004 can take on the real enemy of America -

Franklin Roosevelt’s evil legacy of social security, government aid to the “needy” and the “so-called” United Nations.

:wally

dos centavos

18

Nixdad:

“I would say in most cases you could subsitute another country for ‘Iraq’ - would the ‘therefore we should invade immediately’ section still feel right?”

We do not have to treat all “evil doers” equally. Country A and Country B may be equally “evil” but if Country A is a threat to the US while Country B is not, there is no earthly reason that we must not go to war with A unless we also go to war with B.

19

Then by your logic, we should also be getting ready to launch invasions against Venezuella, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Algeria, and Indonesia.

Yeah…just like Bush Sr.'s victory in 2002 after the first Gulf War.

I guess if we just hide here in the USA and don’t bother anyone, the rest of the world won’t bother us.

20

Firstly, which Korea are you talking about? Anyway, that example is irrelevant. None of those nations are specifically forbade from having WMDs by treaty. Iraq is.