question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME

[marbles]

Been reading a lot of the war arguments, and you make some solid points. Most importantly, I don't believe anyone involved in this mess is telling the whole truth, especially my own government. There's one string of logic I can't get past in the case for war though:

1. Saddam Hussein is a bad dude (I think we're all in agreement here).
2. The world has asked him to disarm (we all know the resolutions).
3. He will not disarm.

So what world do we live in if we collectively ask a bad dude to disarm, he gives the world the finger, and he faces no repurcussions?

Honestly, this is not a flame. I just want to know how you guys resolve that logic string to conclude that no war is still the best approach? If not war, how do you deal with Saddam's insolence?

[B-Man]

Usually, they respond by saying things like, "There are also bad dudes in ________ (North Korea, Iran, etc.--fill in blank with whoever you choose), and we aren't going to war with them, so why should we go to war with Iraq?" In other words, two wrongs make a right; unless we take on ALL of the "bad dudes", right now, then we are morally estopped from doing something about any of them (including Saddam).

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[adios]

Yes the UN is in nearly unanimous agreement that Iraq must disarm (I believe UN Resolution 441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council) but that fact often gets ignored. UN Secratary-General Annan, Nobel Peace Prize recipient no less, supports Iraq disarmermant 100%. France and Germany voted for 441. Yet this fact is continuously ignored by those condemning the USA. Here's a list of the reasons I compiled:

1. Israel is in violation of many UN resolutions.

2. North Korea has nukes.

3. There is no evidence of a link of Iran to al Qaeda.

4. Scant evidence of WMD's.

5. There will civil war in Iraq among the various factions upon Hussein's removal.

6. Bush is a war monger.

7. Bush is a puppet of big oil companies.

8. Bush is a facist.

9. The republicans stole the 2000 presidential election.

10. This all part of the plan for US to expand it's empire.

11. Saddam is not a threat and is contained.

It's the time proven strategy of throwing enough crap against the wall and some of it will stick.

[B-Man]

Great list. I'll add one more

12. The U.S. is a terrorist state.

[marbles]

All right, both sides have their lists of rhetoric (e.g. Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11).

I'm really trying to get a flame-free response on this question. I'm pretty sure I'm in favor of attacking only because of the logic string I mentioned, but want to see the other side's perspective on this one point.

[adios]

My post wasn't intended to be a flame. It's a legitimate laundry list of the reason I've read and heard. I'll address my friend Ray's post later but I don't think Bush has done a very convincing job about threat of Iraq to the American public. As to the laundry list, let's take number 1) Israel is in violation of UN Resolutions. If countries want the UN to address this issue as well as the issue of Iraq disarmerment perhaps some sort of "linkage" needs to be proposed by those countries that feel that way. Perhaps the UN process is flawed in such a way that it can't be effective. However, to ignore the process and put one's head in the sand regarding the UN resolutions that apply seems to be a total repudiation of the UN itself. If that's the case then those who oppose military action to enforce the UN resolutions need to either come up with an alternative or state that the UN was wrong in passing the resolution in the first place. What I'm seeing is that there are many that simply have an agenda to trash the republicans and Bush. I have literally read nothing from those who are vocal in their denunciation of the USA in this matter say that UN Resolution 441 is wrong and/or the UN is worthless organization and/or Annan and Blix are wrong in their efforts. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today about why Germany is so opposed to military action. It's well worth reading IMO. Very sad when you realize the horrors of war that have been endured and inflicted by and on mankind. Germany has basically taken a pacifist stand against military action and as I've stated before I respect this stand. I think the UN offers the best hope for world peace and freedom for mankind. It's certainly not a perfect organization but it can be a damned inconvienience to blatent political agendas (a good thing). The trouble with the UN IMO is that there is lack of leadership and too many political agendas being promoted by it's members, USA included. And for those who question the wisdom of the American people during this whole crises, polls have consistently showed that Americans want UN Security Council approval before undertaking military action against Iraq. We'll see how it unfolds but the UN as an effective organization is in jeopardy IMO.

[Chris Alger]

I was under the impression that it was the proponents of war that had the burden of proof. Maybe I'm old school. You still haven't explained:

(1) how Iraq's violation of UN resolutions can justify war while Turkey's and Israel's can't even justify cutting lethal aid, much less the slightest attempt to enforce UN resolutions against them; and

(2) how, given the above, that violating UN resolutions can possibly be the real reason this war is going to happen. There has to be some other reason that renders UN resolutions either pretext or only part of the case.

[matt_d]

3,4,5 and 11 are the most credible reasons IMO.

Here are some more, from a "realist"/pragmatic perspective:

12. The war will not achieve its intended objectives, and negative unintended/unforseeable consequences will predominate (Murphy's Law)
13. Invading and occupying Iraq may increase rather than reduce terrorist threats to the West.
14. World security will be destabilised and WMD development encouraged (e.g. N Korea, Iran, Syria)
15. Foreign military campaigns are always accompanied by an expansion in the role of government, leading to higher taxes, increasing public debt, inflation, currency depreciation, and reduction in civil liberties.
16. Initial military successes, especially in the face of widespread doubt, often lead to overconfidence by politicians ("Swelled head" syndrome). This significantly increases the chance of bad plays being made in future when the stakes are much higher (possible example being confronting China/N Korea). WWI is a good example of what can happen in this situation.
17. Unilateral pre-emptive invasions set a worrying precedent. Should America eventually be faced with a rival superpower, it will no longer be able to complain if said superpower starts invading neighbouring states for trumped up "security" reasons (e.g. China now has a green light to invade N Korea to "protect" itself from WMD; Taiwan and S Korea cannot build up WMD defences due to fear of Chinese invasion; India can attack the nuclear-armed military dictatorship in Pakistan)
18. Under the US constitution, foreign military action is illegal without a Congressional Declaration of War. Thus Bush has broken his oath to uphold & protect the constitution.

For American citizens, another concern is the political motivation behind the war, and the shady conduct of the Bush administration in gathering support for an invasion. If Americans decide to support a war and occupation, it should be after consideration of the true facts of the situation, not as a result of propaganda and deception by unelected and unaccountable members of the executive branch. Public ignorance about the facts has been exploited by politicians. It is against your best interests to support politicians who are "economical" with the truth, and put private agendas ahead of their duty to the public.

[Ray Zee]

it is clear the world would be better off without him. but is it our job to remove him. also they say he hasnt disarmed. so why havent they found his weapons. i remember bush saying he was going to give proof saadam had weapons, but i never have seen it. that was a lie as he said they had the proof. only rethoric about them. or little missles that can do only small damage. and doesnt a country have the right to have weapons for protection with in reason.
currently his country is totally constrained from doing any deadly acts. with many other countrys much more dangerous than his.

[marbles]

"i remember bush saying he was going to give proof saadam had weapons, but i never have seen it. that was a lie as he said they had the proof."

--I agree that this looks like a lie (or half-truth, since he does have proof of the little missles). The thing is, I think it was a pointless lie for Bush to tell... Isn't the burden of proof on Saddam, that he has to prove he's destroyed the weapons he had back in 1991?