Anti-War Arguements

[lehighguy]

Here are the anti-war arguements I've been made aware of. If I'm missing one please fill me in.

Note that I use the following caveats. I assume that the main goal of the war is to A) tople Saddam because it is the right thing to do B) set up an Iraqi state that promotes liberal democracy or at least basic human rights. Those are the reasons I believed in this effort.

I will also not attempt to defend the way Bush has run the war. I think he's incompetent at carrying out every single one of his policy initiatives and I didn't vote for him. I also won't respond to arguements along the lines of "we put Saddam in power". I wasn't even born when we put Saddam in power, and I wouldn't have supported it. I don't harbor any support for the people that did. I'm just trying to fix the mistakes the eldar generation have made and we've paid the price for.

1) The Idealist Arguement
The middle east will fix itself if we let it be. Interference only causes problems.

Response: I disagree for two reasons. The first is we already interfere everytime we go to the gas station. And if were weren't doing it the Chinese or the Indians would. Not to mention we've interfered plenty and its about time we corrected the damage we've caused. The second is I don't see any way the middle east is going to improve on its own. Oil makes it incredibly easy to prop up dictatorships.

1) The Realist Argument (Part 1)
You can't bring democracy to the middle east because they are fundamentally incapable of it. Insert socio/cultural arguement here. Perhaps even use the oh so popular they don't want to be like America line.

Response: First, I don't think people in the Middle East are incapable of democracy. I think that's a rediculously racist view. As for wether they want to be a democracy I think that on a certain level, even when accounting for certain cultural differences, everyone believes in certain inalliable rights. These rights include free speech, free elections, and physical safety among other liberal rights. All 3 of these were violated in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east. Maybe they won't have two houses of congress and a president, but I think nearly every person on this planet wants some of those basic human rights. For me that's what this was about to begin with.

2) The Realist Arguement (Part 2)
It has nothing to do with US interests. It will give terrorist a recruitment tool.

Response: Bush was appealing to these people with WMD claims. Trying to come up with a concrete reason. I never really cared much for that. For me 9/11 was enough to convince me that isolationism doesn't work. For many years I argued the US shouldn't be unvolved oversees because what happens in those countries isn't our problem. But it is. What was going on Afghanistan was our problem. What's going on in the middle east is our problem. If we get Osama another one will replace him unless we make the middle east a livable place where young people have hope instead of hate and frustration.

I also have no doubt that the war will be used by the terrorists to gain strength. However, I think that that strength will be shortlived. Once the changes we hope to institute take place the frustrationa and rage in the youth of the middle east won't be there for them to draw off of. Thinking short term got us supporting Saddam, Osama, and the Wahabis. Perahaps we should start thinking long-term when it comes to the middle east.

4) The Realist Arguement (Part 3)
Alright, there are US interest involved, but it costs too damn much.

On our side preventing another 9/11 or worse is worth quite alot indeed. Worth the blood and treasure I think when you consider the amount of blood and treasure we'd lose in further attacks.
On the Iraqi side, if things work the way they are suppose to the number of lives saved, and the quality of those lives, will I believe outmatch those lost in the conflict.

5) The Realist Arguement (Part 4)
Fine, your cause is just and worth it to America, but there is no way you can implement it because people don't like outsiders.

Response: This is the only valid anti-war arguement I've encountered to date. It seems to me that it can't be settled since its a matter of opinion, and the jury is still out on the results.

A last caveat, its 8:20am here and I haven't slept last night so if this seems incoherent I'll fix it when I wake up.

[bholdr]

Nice post. I'll respond to a couple of the arguments you presented and post a couple more for you to consider...

[ QUOTE ]
1) The Idealist Arguement
The middle east will fix itself if we let it be. Interference only causes problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

i'd actually never heard a serious person say this. it's stupid. the middle east will never 'fix itself' without SOME kind of foreign intervention- nor necessarily military, mind you, bur obviously the community of nations that consumes the resuorce that ultimatly drives their intrests in the region are somewhat responsible for/intrested in improving the stability in the region.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't bring democracy to the middle east because they are fundamentally incapable of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i definitly think all people, everywhere, are or will eventually be capable of sustaining a modern liberal democracy, especially with massive financial help from the first world. However, (insert socio-political argument here [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) culturally, the middle east simply does not have the history and belief systems needed to foster democracy, like there was in the colonies for hundreds of years prior to the american revolution, in britan prior to the ascent of parliment over the knig, etc... look at france, as an example. it will take GENERATIONS, not years or decades... but it will happen.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The Realist Arguement (Part 2)
It has nothing to do with US interests. It will give terrorist a recruitment tool.


[/ QUOTE ]

the first part of this argument is dumb. OIL. I more or less aggree with your analisys of the second statement- that's the plan, anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
4) The Realist Arguement (Part 3)
Alright, there are US interest involved, but it costs too damn much.

On our side preventing another 9/11 or worse is worth quite alot indeed. Worth the blood and treasure I think when you consider the amount of blood and treasure we'd lose in further attacks.
On the Iraqi side, if things work the way they are suppose to the number of lives saved, and the quality of those lives, will I believe outmatch those lost in the conflict.


[/ QUOTE ]

some would say that the current war is the price we pay for our freedom. some say that 9-11 is the cost of a free state. what really disturbs me more than anything else is that we have LOST freedoms since 9-11, esp the muslim population in the U.S... it's EO 9066 all over again, on a smaller scale, of course, but as a japanese american, it really frightens me.

and is preventing another 9-11 worth 1600 odd dead soldiers, 20k wounded, 100k dead iraqis, uncounted iraqi wounded $200 billion and counting, strained relationships with the rest of the first world, an inability to respond to another regional conflict if need be, and so on and so forth? it's a value judgment, my answer is NO, the benifits from invading iraq do not outweigh the costs, not short term, not long term, not by a long shot. i played poker three noights ago, there were three wounded soldiers at the table, one missing an arm, one that was in the mess hall bombing, and one in a wheelchair. it's just too much, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
5) The Realist Arguement (Part 4)
Fine, your cause is just and worth it to America, but there is no way you can implement it because people don't like outsiders.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is actually silly, IMO. they couldn't possibly hate us more than they hated saddam, could they? ummm...

****


here's a couple of big anti-war arguments that you left out, and the only important ones, IMO:

A: The idealist argument reduex-
It is simply wrong to invade another country in what is basicly a resource grab. Sure, we're spreading freedom and democracy and all that, as well as 'fighting terror' but if you believe that those are/were the primary reasons for going to war, you are a fool. it is now, and always has been, about OIL, and we need it to be in stable and generous supply or we are screwed. If it had nothing to do with oil, there are many oppressive regimes FAR WORSE than Saddam Hussien that we should've toppled, but we didn't... why? no oil. Rawanda, Congo, Sudan, North Korea, etc, etc... the conservatives like to talk abouit 'human rights' and they like to support those rights, but only when they get something out of the deal... like OIL and LAND for military bases.

i understand the 'regional stability' arguments and so on, but why is that so important in the middle east wen it's not in central africa, for exapmle? OIL.

B: the pragmatic/ cost/benifit argument:
Utilizing combined diplomatic recources and the threat of military power we could've acheived the same targeted result with far less bloodshed.

I believe this to be true. Saddam was very close to accepting an amnesty/home in exile offer from syria before we invaded. less than a week before the invasion, Hussien TOTALLY CAPITULATED, insisting that he would allow wepons inspectors full and complete access, etc... we invaded anyway. the writing was on the wall, and Saddam could always read those kind of signs well... he is a survivor, and given another few months we could've convinced him that his survival depended on his removal from power.

Unfourtunatly, because of Bush's Ham-handed rush to baghdad, we'll never know...

[lehighguy]

On your response to #4 I disagree. I don't see how we aren't looking at 100 years of terrorism if we can't get rid of the current situation in the middle east. I feel like we'll end up doing the same thing anyway in Iraq or another country the next time theres an attack. I watched Three Kings again last night and kept thinking about how we should have done this in 1991 instead of listening to the it costs too much bullshit. I feel like if we do nothing we are just putting it off.

As for oil I can't prove that isn't Bush's motivation. But as I stated I didn't vote for Bush so I don't have to defend him. I don't care why Bush did it as long as it has the desired effect. The US as a country certainly isn't in it for the oil when you consider the monetary cost of the war far far outways any nominal effect it might have on future gas prices.

The why other countries arguement never carried much wait for me. I have three finals this week. Should I not do any of them or should I try to do them one at a time.

As for Saddam giving up I don't think that would happen. As soon as American forces left he would be back in power. And if he left without us invading he would just leave some other Baath member in power. None of these outcomes achieves the objectives I talked about. They might be valid in argueing against WMD, but as I said that whole branch of the pro-war arguement is silly. Why would we want to invade a country that already had WMD, they would use them on our troops. Once they have WMD its too late for military action. Its why we'll never touch NK.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
The US as a country certainly isn't in it for the oil when you consider the monetary cost of the war far far outways any nominal effect it might have on future gas prices.


[/ QUOTE ]

remember that bush, etc, believed that the cost would be far less than it has turned out to be. also, in terms of long-term economic health, a few hundred billion is peanuts... i still maintain that OIL is at the root of this war and all of our concerns about the region, albeit not always directly. there are a lot more benifits, concerns, and factors involved in securing the energy supply than just gas prices, BTW...

[ QUOTE ]
As for Saddam giving up I don't think that would happen. As soon as American forces left he would be back in power. And if he left without us invading he would just leave some other Baath member in power. None of these outcomes achieves the objectives I talked about.

[/ QUOTE ]

but how SURE are you? are you sure enough that you accept all of the loss of 'blood and treasure' as necessary? are you CERTAIN that the rush to war gave the alternitives enough of a chance? i think that the administration was set on invading no matter what, and was trying to do so as quickly as possible. it's simply reckless to go to war without exausting all of the diplomatic options...

[ QUOTE ]
I watched Three Kings again last night and kept thinking about how we should have done this in 1991 instead of listening to the it costs too much bullshit.

[/ QUOTE ]

the reason that we didn't remove Saddam in '91 wasn't the cost AT ALL, it was that Bush 41 and his advisors were realistic enough to realize that we had no plausable exit strategy, and Iran at the time was aggressivly spreading and encouraging muslim fundamentalist elements in Iraq, Saddam was the only thing keeping it in check... basicly, bush 41 realized that if we had removed Saddam in 91, we'd be screwed with a long term commitment to a quagmire with no real end in sight... like we are now... he even said as much on numerous occasions (none since his son took office, of course)

that said, it would've been easier then, with the whole international community behind us and Japan, France, Germany, etc, footing the bill. (other nations paid for most of the '91 war, in exchange for the U.S. accepting most of the risk).

[a1doug182]

This war is about nothing but money & power. The administration in place has done nothing but lie and change it's motives to fit what sounds justifiable at the moment. If we went in because we thought they had nukes then why aren't we already in N.Korea? It's about oil (Iraq), Halliburton (no bid contracts) and the Carlyle Group (defense weapons) to mention a few. We will fight as long as this administration is in power. It is a conflict of interest that everyone on this administration stands to gain financually as long as we are fighting. Bush only protects the Haves and screws the Have Nots.