Flip-Flop :: Debate the other side :: Iraq

I believe that the war in Iraq was ill-timed. with everything going on in the world, Saddam was contained and was not the threat that he was made out to be. We should have contrated on removing al Qaeda from places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Phillipines, and Somalia first. Al Qaeda was and continues to be a much greater threat.

The reasons leading to the war have been found to be unproven at this time. While I don't think popular opinion should ever dictate American foreign policy, I think greater communication with our allies like Germany, France and Russia would have been more prudent. Theere were reasons they felt attacking Iraq was wrong and those issues should have been dealt with before any invasion.

Now, keep in mind the idea for this thread and do not hold what I have said against me in any other thread.

Good point. I too ask people to respect this.

True McG, but Saddam was a destabilizing force in the middle east. He had fought major wars with both Iran and Saudi Arabia (proxy kuwait) and presided over an oppressive and despotic regime. If he was not removed the long term prospects for stability in the middle of the world major source of oil was poor.

Interesting thread...


To contend that Iraq was "contained" is practically meaningless in today's world. The most immediate threats come not from nations themselves, but from individuals within nations. Iraq was led by an individual who had shown no hesitation to wreak terror on his own people and who made no secret of his opinions of or intentions toward the United States and their (its) allies; it is difficult to imagine such an individual not offering aid to those who wish to attack us. To chase terrorists from Afghanistan and consider their pursuit finished is like trying to get the air out of a ziploc bag by putting your finger on one spot.

The threat of terrorism needs to be addressed by appropriate means wherever it may reside. In the case of Iraq, diplomatic means had been exhausted, and all that remained was to leave Saddam Hussein in power, hoping that he would neither aid or abet terrorists, or to remove him from power. For both the stability of the region and for our own safety, overthrowing Saddam's regime was the only reasonable course of action.

You raise a valid point here, but Saddam showed no history of providing support to terror organizations other than sending money to the families of martyr's in Palestine who he saw as fighting against one of his greatest enemies, Israel. Now, while Israel is a thorn in the middle east, Saddam was within his rights to do as he did.

Saddam had been under a microscope for 12 years. Keeping that microscope on him for say another five years while we completed our round up of known terrorists around the world would have proven to be a much wiser move.

We could have given Saddam an ultimatum. He has until the end of our Al Qaeda round up to change his ways or change his address. By our show of force in dealing with international terrorism, we would in effect be demonstrating our resolve to dictators like Saddam that we were serious.

The war in Iraq is an immoral and illegal war that has alienated almost all other nations and has inspired new recruits and new funding for terrorist organizations who are legitimately outraged at our actions and are essentially justified in retaliating and/or defending themselves. Iraq was not our business and anyway, the status quo would have kept it contained. Our invasion and occupation has cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis and was an unconscionable immoral operation. Had we properly utilized the United Nations as the administrative body, there would have been no war and no unnecessary deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. Abu Ghraib is indicative of our immoral, corrupt, lying president and his administration and 9/11 is completely unrelated. The U.S. president is an idiot and must be removed from office to prevent anything like this happening ever again.

While I can agree that the threat that Iraq posed might have been subject to some hyperbole I am not sure that this is reason enough for us not to have invaded.

The reasons I find that best support the war are not a matter of terrorism but rather a mixture of humanitarian concerns and the possibility of creating something beter in a region that sorely needs it.

While I do not buy the notion that this would directly make a difference in terror I do think that efforts to change the world for the better (and Democracy is better than a dictatorship in significant ways) are a good enough reason even without the terror threat casus belli that the war was primarily sold under.

I also do not think that the timing was wrong to the tune of rendering the war a net loss in the cost/benefit scale.

Sure, if humanitarian concerns are the reason there have been better times to act (like, for example, when Saddam was actively causing humanitarian crises) but this is a case where I think it is better late than never.



Perhaps the stated reasons and the main banner under which teh war drums beat were unfounded but I am not sure that this should render other reasons invalid.

While perhaps not a reason that can be considered "proven" or not the humanitarian reasons for disposing of a dictator are not on the same shaky ground that are the WMDs and even if the WMD threat was not dire that does not mean disposal of a dictator and an attempt to promote (in the strongest meaning of the word) democracy was not sufficient motivation.



I too would like to have had more efforts at broadening our support and do not think it would have been impossible to do so.

But at the same time I welcome a change in American foresign policy to a more individualistic hands-on approach.

While we have our share of errors we have a pretty good track record as far as indominable superpowers go and I support many of our core ideologies.

While we have made mistakes in the past while promoting these ideologies I still hold them to be sound and I am not sure that we should let multilateralism be an impediment to progress that we might be able to bring about through our power and the ability it grants us to take action without the need for multilateral basis.

Having friends is always nice, but I prefer an American policy in which we do not let it be a pre-requisite to doing what's right.

Many nations do not share our idelogy and if our fundamental ideologies (democracy, capitalism) are indeed the best we have we should not let those countries be an impediment toward working toward the ideologies we believe in and support.

That is, of course, contingient on the notion that said ideologies like democracy are, in fact, the best ones to be promoting.

Some of the large nations that opposed the war did not oppose it out of a difference in those fundamental ideologies but rather objections as to the manner in which we should work towards them.

The principle objection they seem to have is the issue of multilateralism and audited and substantiated reasons for going to war. But as I have already said, I am not convinced that multilateralism and a sound casus belli within the mechanisms that audit them are pre-requisites to an act that can have good consequences regardless.

Having an airtight case for the war and having support for it would be really nice, and I mean that sincerely, but at the same time I do not think that not having them means the net result of the war is a negative.

I think the positives in terms of advancement of democracy and disposal of a dictator outweight the acknowledged downsides of working without a quorum.

Maybe a quote that can best summarize my position is that "too many cooks can spoil the broth".

In this case, I think we had a good idea for a broth and even though some reasonable cooks raised reasonable reservations and objections to it I think the broth is good enough to override those objections.

Wrong Craven. Unilateral aggression never solves anything and it is illegal and immoral.

Wiser in what context? Perhaps wiser in the context of the war on terror but I do think that there are reasons beyond the war on terror that made regime change in Iraq attractive.

His containment speaks only about the degree to which he poses a threat outside of his borders but with the exception of the no-fly zones his containment did not address his effect within his nation.

In other words, while he might have been contained from attacking his neighbours he was still humping his country right in the rear.



I hear of resolve a lot and I am not sure the world operates under as simplified a set of psychological maxims as is often forwarded.

For some people, a threat, resolve and even overwhelming military advantage means little. Their own actions are not governed by what we consider a sensible reaction to these elements.

But that ambiguous argument aside, I do not think saddam could change in the ways that I think regime change could change the Iraqi status quo.

While he might have tried to renounce militarism outside of his borders would he have been convinced to forward democracy within his own nation?

Psst, the idea is to argue it well. It sounds like you are trying to make a reverse argument here.

If you want to use humanitarian reasons for an invasion, I think you would make a better arguement for invading Israel, Sudan, Mozambique, hell, all of Africa for that matter, No. Korea, China, etc. There are peopel in all those countries that are under far dire situations than the citizens of Iraq.

But, if you do want to use humanitarian issues and a predominate issue for war, wouldn't the UN be a much better place to forward that agenda?

The United States has a personality complex. Do we want to be a nation of the world or do we want to be a world unto ourselves? Unilateral actions like those in Iraq do nothing to forward our foreign policy agenda except force a negative view from foreign nations. Despite our wishes, we depend on foreign trade and assistance as heavily as the world depends on American trade and assisstance. We had the world on it's knees following 9/11. We could have set up all kinds of trade agreements and furthered our international economy like never before. But, we blew it. <shakes head>

But has said alienation resulted in a net loss that is not outweighed by the positives that can come from regime change?

And whether or not we fan the flames of hatred by people with a pre-existing disposition to hate us does that result in a net negative that is not outweighed by the possibility of promotion of democracy?

I contend that we've lost those hearts and minds and the best we can do is to create the situations under which the next set of them might be on better terms.



One time I saw a man and a woman who were being robbed. They had a kid with them and the assailants wanted to take them on a ride to the bank to empty their bank accounts.

It was not my business either, but that didn't stop me from trying to offer to take their place and ultimately preventing them from moving from the initial crim scene to a protracted situation under the criminal's control.



Upon what criteria is your basis for claiming immorality?

While I can acknowledge and lament the loss of innocent life I think the changes can result in touching many more lives for the better.



What is "proper" use of the UN?

What is the basis for the value judgement of "unnnecessary"?




Stepping out of character again:

Fox, please try to argue it in earnest, and not just parody what you think are poor arguments from your opponent's side. Please use arguments that you actually thinka re sound on an intellectually honest level even if they are ones you disagree with.

For example, the arguments you are using are the worst of the anti-war camp and the idea is to argue the opposite side well.

I caution even in this mild case bacuse we have had such a great start, and in the past this was never possible because people just took up the other side and adopted the worst arguments to continue to argue for their own side through proxy.

I agree that all of those nations are good places to look at ways to improve.

But at the same time I don't think they are nations in a situation in which we can generate enough political capital to invade.

While WMD might not have panned out as a casus belli it was something that helped bring support for the war.

I guess what I am saying is that Iraq was a unique situation in which we could make a humanitarian difference. Unique because it had an infamous dictator that our public would be more pre-disposed to dispose.

Other nations might need it as badly but I fear my compatriots wouldn't care enough and I think Iraq is the only one that we could really sell to our public.

As much as I think those countries may need intervention I do not think we could have gained a plurality of support for those interventions.

And I don't think the existence of more need negates the good of addressing another need.

For example, if I gave food to a person in need of it I do not think it is an act rendered negative by the fact that there might be more needy individuals.



At times yes, and at times no. Maybe the UN is a good place to bring about the fundamental changes that the world needs to make. Maybe it is a good place to offer the structure for evolution to global civility that we currently only see on national levels.

But while it may be getting there it is not there yet, and I don't think it's wrong to spot wash our clothes if the full load of laudry won't be done for a while.

<grins>

bbl ... just bookmarking for now.

Note to Craven: You have to be kidding. How many are arguing exactly that it is the policy and the standards set by 'Bushco' that created the climate in which Abu Ghraib happened and it is the lies and deceptions by the Bush administration that got us into the war in the first place. I wasn't being facetious at all. That is honestly the argument several are using. So, in this reverse debate, I will stand on my statement.

I, personally, do not mind if our leaders have to lie, or break international treaties, or throw away the concept of universal human rights, as long as the purpose that they set out to accomplish is accomplished, and it makes me and my family feel safer.

All those who oppose the Iraq war seem to think things would be better if Saddam was still in power. They wouldn't.

While I respect the UN as an organization I believe that they are too slow to react to breaking events. Iraq posed an immediate threat to the rest of the world, Saddam was a butcher, and we went in and cleaned house. Easy as pie.

Nowdays you hear nothing but complain, complain, complain from those who oppose the war. I just want to hear something positive out of the liberals for once. A recognition of the sacrifices made by brave Americans in the name of freedom, after all, THEY didn't decide to start this war and to denigrate them would be terrible. Are there some civilian casualties? Well, of course, do you believe that war goes on in a vacuum? You have to break some eggs to make an omlette, as bad as that sounds.

We can no longer sit back and be the America of old. We have power; we've let the rest of the world do and say as they please for a long time, and that wasn't a bad thing when they weren't blowing up our buildings. Now that they have started, the easiest solution to getting rid of terrorism is to round up all the terrorists, and kill those who we can't capture alive. Governments that support these terrorist organizations (such as Iraql, which we have mounds of evidence for) are out too, and they'd better realize that quick.

Time will tell whether or not our actions were justified. It is better to support the nation now, and our president, even though I do not neccessarily agree with all of his opinions, than it is to criticize constantly and whine about how bad things are.

In closing, God Bless America and G.W.!

Whew. That was harder than I thought it would be.

Cycloptichorn

This is basically a panglossian argument. In the best of all possible worlds that might work, but al Qaeda represents a rejection of modernism. It feeds off the social discontent fostered in part by despotic regimes such as Hussain's which it claims modernism creates. Removal of this regime and it replacement by a free and democratic Iraq challenges the basic argument of groups like al Qaeda; that reform is possible only by rejecting modernism and returning to a fundamentalist Islamic society. Regimes such as Saddams are as much the cause of al Qaeda as is the presence of western forces in the middle east. We are unlikely to roundup al Qaeda anytime soon. But the removal of those elements that create al Qaeda will leave it withering on the vine.

Aside: Fox, I know there are people using those brainfart arguments. But again the idea is not to simply parody arguments you disagree with but to try to actually make a good case for the side on which you are not on.

Hell I could use this as a platform to mock the crappy arguments from the other side but I'm asking people to make an effort not to.

Get it? The idea is not to use this as a new way to bash the same arguments but to actually think and try to use arguments that are not shoddy.

"Argue it well" is the motto, not "here's a new way for you to pick on the same idiotic arguments through parody".

I think that this is a wonderful thread, seriously. There is no better way to sharpen your rhetoric than to play devil's advocate against yourself.

Great idea, Craven!

Cycloptichorn