 |
| |
|
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
I admit it, when I argue with other people about the Iraq thing, I sometimes lose. The main problem is I can't prove that this war is for Bush to get oil.
I say: "Haven't you noticed how Bush has been so concerened about saving the oil and everything?"
They say: "He's merely trying to get a bonus out of a war in Iraq. And, if the Iraqi oil is still there and in good condition it will be good for the new country's economy and they'll be more successful."
And when I say: "Maybe we should listen to the rest of the world for once."
They say: "The only reason France and Germany are opposed to the war is because of their strategic interests tied up in Iraq. What is not popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular."
They also say: "Even if we have peace now, we'll have to go in their eventually as we did for the Gulf War 1. When we go in their in 10 years, he'll have much more WoMD, for it is definitely possible to produce these in underground basements in Baghdad when only a few hundred inspectors are in the whole country and not get caught."
I'm really embarassed to not be able to win every time on an argument about this. Please give me some help. Also, is there anywhere where I can read a well-structured, well backed-up, not to extremist paper with all the reasons why it is wrong to go to war with Iraq?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
"I admit it, when I argue with other people about the Iraq thing, I sometimes lose. The main problem is I can't prove that this war is for Bush to get oil. "
Let me start by saying that while I am against the war, I do not beieve this line of reasoning. BUt, that said. 1. Mother Jones, a liberal magazine, had a long article about this and what they say has been a move since 1975 for the US to gian control of the Guf oil supplies. I recommend you read it, as it can give you evidence.
As for the pre-emptive strike agrument:
1. Ask them to cite any significant advances in thier arsenal and any evidence of this that they have: it is one thing to say that Iraq kept some of its weapons frombefore: quite another to claim they have reconstituted the porgrams to make some again. To make CB weaposn viable, you need industrial amounts, so some underground lab, unless huge, will not do much for the military use of such weapons. as for "the same thing as before will happen". first Iraq never used WMD aginst forces that had them as well, so to assume they would ever use them aginst a state with far moe WMD is a huge leap of logic,a nd one they must defend, not you argue against. Also, read up on the history of the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. They both occured for specific reasons, and once you know them, you can argue that similar circumstancs no longer exist, and thus to expect the same actions is a great leap of logic they must defend against as well.
As for the "what is popular is not right, right is not popular" line. They are in thoery correct. You could, of course, point to how popular the war is in the US, which shows how such a truism can cut both ways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
john, wait a bit or you'll look dumb later. One reason the journalists are there is to show the WMD as they are found. Other things that will be revealed is that Iraq is connected to terrorists, and what those dealings are. So, the evidence will come in to refute any arguement you are now making...and apparently losing.
Suggestion, let the discussions you are having affect your opinion. If your pov is losing debates, change your pov, it's wrong. Don't let your politics rule your life, your mind...if you have to change your politics to adopt a new pov, do so.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
Problem is, they can always prove that Saddam is more of a threat than that country. The reason I'm not the war though is because if I debate someone that is opposing war I usually lose, also.
Another argument they get me on is they say he might sell the weapons to terrorists and that would hurt us. BTW, what "WoMD" does Saddam have anyway? All I know of is SCUDs, anthrax, and those one missiles. |
The alegations are:
1. he retained several thousand shells and rockets filled with chemcial agents and several thousand liters of anthrax.
2. He retained a few dozen SCUD's and has drones that could spray WMD over troops.
Over the next few days we will know. As for how much of a direct threat thse pose to the US: the SCUDs could reach US bases in the region, never the US. The pres. said drones could be mounted of shore on ships, but honestly, this is just farcical. As for the effeciveness of these weapons: they are not that effective unless used precisely and in large quantities, if what you want to do is kill dozens upon dozens of people. You can point to the inbaility of Iraq ot itself deliver such quantities at the US, and the even greater inability of terrorists to do so, plus then you can point at the rather weak links as of yet formed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or perhaps argue that a man as paranoid as Saddam, who won't erven give WMD to his regular army is rather unlikely to give them to groups who's loyalty to him are questionable at best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
UberKrux, doesn't it upset you that the war on Iraq is illegal? Unauthorized regime change is against the UN's rules. And 1441 didn't call for war. It said serious consequecnes, and it's standard protocol that you must call for a second reso to approve war. The US did, but it was never voted on. Also, the war is unprovoked. Things that might happen in the future aren't reason enough. You don't know they'll happen. |
if you dont know my stance on the UN yet, i'll summarize it thusly:
The UN is a clusterf*cked beuracracy that gets nothing done, especially when something needs to be done.
unprevoked my ass. Saddam has said on multiple occasions that fi he had the means he'd hit america with anything he could (nuclear, biological, whatever). personally, i believe he has major ties to terrorism. i cant prove he did, you cant prove he didn't, so take it as you will. Saddam is a threat to America, directly or indirectly. He's also a horrible man in general, even to his own people.
war is wrong. right, i get that. i understand the points, hell, i may even agree with most of them, but you miss the bottom line. war is effective and oftentimes necessary.
This war is as justifiable as any war in recent memory, if not much much moreso
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
|
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
Ever heard of free speech or innocent til proven guilty?
Saddam won't be able to increase his stockpile of WoMD, and he definitely won't be able to build nukes as for the reasons GePap said. |
Innocent until proven guilty still allows actions to be taken when threatened (assault).
And in all honesty, we have NO IDEA what he's capable of building. The UN weapons inspectors were led around in circles, he could have several nukes already for all we know. i cant say either way, but i'd rather err on the side of caution.
quote:
It is so pointless to take out people we think are threats. Killing Saddam is emptying one drop out of an olympic swimming pool. Saddam has never made a terrorist attack on America before. There will always be millions of people capable of doing things just as Saddam is doing, so taking him out is really pointless. |
perfectionist fallacy. we cant fix everything, so why bother trying. great argument you have there, friend. we cant stop all the murders in america, maybe we should stop arresting the ones that do it, because hell, we cant stop them all. it's pointless to jail them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
I'm really embarassed to not be able to win every time on an argument about this. Please give me some help. Also, is there anywhere where I can read a well-structured, well backed-up, not to extremist paper with all the reasons why it is wrong to go to war with Iraq? |
Try some different angles then, there's more than a few to choose from.
For instance, by acting unilaterally and preemptively, he's opened the door to others following in his footsteps. For instance, there is nothing to prevent India from firing it's nuclear bombs at Pakistan, since it might become more dangerous in the future, and should be dealt with beforehand. We might already see that happening with Turkey entering N.Iraq in order to sabotage the Kurdish aspirations.
Or you can mention that most of the people of the Middle East now hate the US with a passion, so it should be much easier for Al Qaeda to round up new recruits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Perhaps this simple though might help:
Simply because something is justifiable, even morally justifiable, it does not necesserally make it wise, or correct to do.
I think it is immenantly justifiable, given all the credible answer the pro-war argument gives us (challenging agreements made and internaitonal norms, being and evi, totalitarian dictatorship [note, connections with Al Qaeda, how BC WMD will kill thousand upon thousand in some armageddon attack are NOT CREDIBLE]), to atempt regime change in NK, and you can bet your life the UN would never allow it. The question is: is it wise? is it correct? will the possible costs, not only of undertaking it by force, but the aftereffects be outweighted by the possible gains from such an action? If so, then it is correct, if not, it is not.
That I think, is the basic question to ask oneself in this case. Do you think the possible costs are less than the possible benefits? How optimistic are you that you will avoid the worst of the possible costs, and gain the best of the possible benefits?
You say that you have wavered in your beliefs about this war. I say, ask yourself those questions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-03-2003 00:39
well we tracked the problem. youi dont have an opinion really 
|