Apparently It's Like Rain on My Wedding Day

[Croup]

Apparently It's Like Rain on My Wedding Day

So I, a steadfast opponent of the war in Iraq and full-on critic of Bush Administration policy, has been assigned to participate in a debate and take the side that the war in Iraq was a JUST war. Oh, the not-quite-irony.

In any case, seeing as how I've had this basic argument so many times, I can pretty much figure out how both sides are going to debate. However, I'm still interested in getting some opinions from people here to help me get into the proper mindset for this thing.

Remember, this is a debate about whether or not the Iraq war is JUST, not a good or bad policy decision. So leave arguments like "we've upset our European allies" out of this. I'd appreciate bullet points for arguments just because it'll focus me and let me respond easier, but to be honest, any help you can give would be great.

So yes, I'm calling on all the forum conservatives (not to stereotype, but let's be honest with ourselves) to argue their side in this matter. I'd appreciate hearing from the anti-war camp as well because even though I think I've seen every argument from that side, I could always be suprised.

Lastly, please keep this clean people. I have no desire to rehash arguments that have already gone over 65165416165 times here, and I have no want to see the namecalling and other ridiculous that has been on most political threads of late.

Bring your facts, not your rhetoric. Gracias.

 

[Carnage-DVS]

I'm guessing they're gonna say these things.

1.Got rid of dictator.
2.Got rid of threat to America.
3.Showed world we aren't gonna take any more guff.

 

[Xoranix]

There are websites out there which give statistics on how the U.S.A. has improved Iraqi civilization, e.g. the installation of new schools, houses, and other facilities, etc. I don't know the website off hand but I will try to find it.

By the way I am not really a supporter of the war effort in Iraq but I thought I'd chime in anyway.

Cheers! And good luck! :drink:

 

[Croup]

The thing is, most of those reasons are reasons that can be argued for the war benefitting the United States, not necessarily that the war should be considered just. Improving Iraq's schools, hospitals, way of life, etc is a noble cause (not that it was the only cause, but that's another argument), but it isn't sufficient grounds to invade a country that was not currently involved in violent coups or outright war. That would never fly as justification for war by itself.

As for removing a security concern, that much is very true, and is a reason for the war. But again, it is not reason enough by itself. And if you wanted to argue that, it wouldn't stand up to the accusation that there were plenty of other places that were security concerns with human rights violations (read: North Korea).

Again, not trying to bite the hand that's feeding me information, but I'm just showing how the arguments can be flawed. Just testing myself. Heh.

 

[Plum]

Invading NK would endanger incredibly larger numbers of people in comparison to taking on Iraq. NK certainly doesn't have a stellar human rights record and it seems to pose more of a danger than Iraq, but making the decision to invade that nation would be condemning vast populations to an unhappy end in all likeliness.

Iraq could be seen as a combo platter of sorts. There have been numerous human rights violations throughout the ages, be it the oppression of an entire religious sect or the predetermined 'trials' and executions. Saddam has shown a willingness to embark on unprovoked invasions, as well as tendency to use brutal methods of warfare not only on enemy nations but some of his own populace. He has been condemned time after time by a number of organizations besides the US government, including respected establishments such as Amnesty International. To top it off, the former Iraqi military, while relatively large, could not even begin to compete in direct warfare with the US. That may be US policy to an extent, but it's an issue that can't be ignored when choosing a nation to invade.

Iraq is also a nation of the Middle East, obviously, and a switch of government there could perhaps incite change in neighbouring areas. The Middle East has been a centre of unrest for many years, and change to a more peaceful system would benefit much of the world (not just the Arabs and other Middle Easterners).

Like Xoranix, I don't actually support the war, but that's a whole other topic.

 

[Croup]

Invading NK would endanger incredibly larger numbers of people in comparison to taking on Iraq. NK certainly doesn't have a stellar human rights record and it seems to pose more of a danger than Iraq, but making the decision to invade that nation would be condemning vast populations to an unhappy end in all likeliness.

Iraq could be seen as a combo platter of sorts. There have been numerous human rights violations throughout the ages, be it the oppression of an entire religious sect or the predetermined 'trials' and executions. Saddam has shown a willingness to embark on unprovoked invasions, as well as tendency to use brutal methods of warfare not only on enemy nations but some of his own populace. He has been condemned time after time by a number of organizations besides the US government, including respected establishments such as Amnesty International. To top it off, the former Iraqi military, while relatively large, could not even begin to compete in direct warfare with the US. That may be US policy to an extent, but it's an issue that can't be ignored when choosing a nation to invade.

Iraq is also a nation of the Middle East, obviously, and a switch of government there could perhaps incite change in neighbouring areas. The Middle East has been a centre of unrest for many years, and change to a more peaceful system would benefit much of the world (not just the Arabs and other Middle Easterners).

Like Xoranix, I don't actually support the war, but that's a whole other topic.

Well put Plum. I'd just like to make a few comments.

I'll agree with you that North Korea would have been a much harder fight militarily, but it doesn't quite tackle the issue of just or unjust. While I agree that Iraq's an easier sell to the American public, the issue of just war doesn't quite apply there.

And I agree with you over the human rights abuses in Iraq. The problem is, when has the US invaded a country solely for humanitarian issues while that country WASN'T in an unstable state? We will help defeat an unjust ruler that has public support in his own country rising up against him, but I can't think of a full scale war that was started solely due to human rights abuses within a country. Human rights comes into play greatly, but can't stand on it's own as the only reasoning.

The last point I was going to make was that while organizations like Amnesty International were aware of the human rights abuses in Iraq, have any of them come out and supported our war to stop them? That's part honest question and part counterpoint.

Thanks for the input. Seriously.

 

[LunarSolaris]

A truly learned man understands all sides of an argument.

It's always good to play devils advocate against yourself - you learn more that way.

 

[adamfgt78]

I'm guessing they're gonna say these things.

1.Got rid of dictator.
2.Got rid of threat to America.
3.Showed world we aren't gonna take any more guff.

I think that #3 definately doesn't qualify as a "just" reason. #2 is debatable since that basically hinges on showing that Iraq was a, in fact, a direct threat. I think that this is being shown to have not been the case, which I think is causing a lot of Americans to sour on the whole Iraq situation. I took an class in college called Ethics in International Affairs, among other INTA classes. If I remember correctly, pre-emptive wars are considered just, while preventative are not. A pre-emptive war is one where there is good evidence that a hostile nation is on the brink of attacking another nation. An example of a pre-emptive attack is the Six-Day War of 1967. Egyptian, Jordanian(sp?), and Syrian forces were literally piling up on the Israeli border. Israel did a pre-emptive strike on the opposing forces an annihilated them. A preventative strike is one where there is no evidence of an eminent attack. The attacked nation may not be on friendly terms and might be a threat in the long run, but show no signs of immediate aggression themselves. If you're going to be defending the Iraq war in these terms, you're going to need to portray it as a pre-emptive strike not a preventative strike.

How serious of a debate is this? You might consider checking out Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations by Michael Walzer. It is one of the texts that we used in our class and might give you some valuable perspective on how a just war is defined.

 

[jimmyboy]

1. Iraqi Freedom stabilized the Middle East.

Prior to the war, several Arab nations were openly seeking Nukes. After the war, most have stopped. Libya went from sponsoring terrorism to openly joining the fight against terrorism. Albeit there Iraq itself is yet to be stabilized, this is inconsequential because it is temporarily. While there is fighting inside Iraq, there cease to be a regional threat. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the talk of democracy may spread to Iran, where a renewall student movement may turn that nation democratic.

2. Iraqi Freedom lowered terrorist threats by eliminated a terrorist haven.

Albeit there failed to be a direct link between Al Queda and Sadam Hussein, the fact that a Carlos the Terrorist was openly living in Iraq shows that Iraq openned its borders to terrorists.

3. Iraqi Freedom saved the lives of non-Iraqis who border Sadam Hussein.

Sadam Hussein have attacked Iran. The Kurds. Kuwaittis. The trend is clear. He is overly ambitious and not afraid to use his power to expand his borders. He had executed both son-in-laws for treason, genocide the Kurds for sedition, gased the Persians for border disputes, purged his own military.
He is no difference from Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Milosovich, or Pol Pot.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Apparently It's Like Rain on My Wedding Day

Is it like the free lunch when you've already paid? Or the good advice that you just didn't take?

Makes me want to listen to that song for some reason . . .

 

[Croup]

I think that #3 definately doesn't qualify as a "just" reason. #2 is debatable since that basically hinges on showing that Iraq was a, in fact, a direct threat. I think that this is being shown to have not been the case, which I think is causing a lot of Americans to sour on the whole Iraq situation. I took an class in college called Ethics in International Affairs, among other INTA classes. If I remember correctly, pre-emptive wars are considered just, while preventative are not. A pre-emptive war is one where there is good evidence that a hostile nation is on the brink of attacking another nation. An example of a pre-emptive attack is the Six-Day War of 1967. Egyptian, Jordanian(sp?), and Syrian forces were literally piling up on the Israeli border. Israel did a pre-emptive strike on the opposing forces an annihilated them. A preventative strike is one where there is no evidence of an eminent attack. The attacked nation may not be on friendly terms and might be a threat in the long run, but show no signs of immediate aggression themselves. If you're going to be defending the Iraq war in these terms, you're going to need to portray it as a pre-emptive strike not a preventative strike.

How serious of a debate is this? You might consider checking out Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations by Michael Walzer. It is one of the texts that we used in our class and might give you some valuable perspective on how a just war is defined.

Heh, I find this funny just because it's everything that my class has been talking about, including reading the Walzer book. The class is Ethics in International Politics. Sounds pretty damn close.

As for your arguments, I'm with you on that. Preemptive is considered just while preventitive is considered unjust. The side that we're arguing is that the definition of "imminent" danger has changed because of terrorism, rogue states, and non-state answers. You can't think of imminence as someone marching his troops up to your borders because that doesn't happen now. It's someone strapping a bomb to himself, or smuggling a dirty bomb into the country, or hijacking airplanes. Therefore imminent threats come from any actors willing to use such methods to harm your state. Not saying that it's the best answer, but it's debatable for sure.

And Lunar, I'm with you on the devil's advocate. Trust me. I know the anti-war side like the back of my hand since it's what I believe in and it's what I have argued for the past year plus. I'm using this as an opportunity for people to throw out ideas and test my responses. And trust me, I thank all of you for helping.

 

[jimmyboy]

4. The decision to liberate Iraq was correct considering the intelligence available.

Here, the current criticism is based on hindsight. A rational stemming from looking back in history. However at the time the decision to remove Sadam Hussein was made, out intelligence indicated that there was WMD. The administration based its decision on it's intelligence source. Now we know that such intelligence may be faulty, but at the time, most people including the majority of Congress was willing to take action. That was the concensus of the U.S.

5. Analogy to Kosovo: Genocide and race.

Here, the situtation is similar to Kosovo, because in both situations the de facto dictator was practicing genocide. Why should we ignore pleas from the Kurds? Do they deserve less life because they are non-Europeans? It's indisputable that the Kurds were being slaughtered. Yet the world turned their back on the Kurds. The U.S. was the only nation sensitive enough to ignore its European rasicm pleas to not save the Kurds.

 

[maccool]

The U.S. was the only nation sensitive enough to ignore its European rasicm pleas to not save the Kurds.

What in the 9 levels of Hell are you talking about? This makes absolutely no sense. I realize you think you're trying to help Croup with his project by enlightening him, but ridiculous statements don't help anyone learn.

Actually, all of your 5 points are really pretty poor. Especially the first two where you admit that they're incorrect. 3 and 5 are the same. The jury's still out on 4 - I'll give you a maybe.

Try this one on: The U.S. depends on oil from the Middle East. We saw an opportunity to move in and gain a bargaining chip against OPEC. We did so, under the guise of whatever flavor of the month story we were fed.

I would much rather this had been put forth as the cause for going to war. In fact, I'd be much more accepting of an invasion using that rationale than anything I've heard so far.

 

[Croup]

What in the 9 levels of Hell are you talking about? This makes absolutely no sense. I realize you think you're trying to help Croup with his project by enlightening him, but ridiculous statements don't help anyone learn.

Actually, all of your 5 points are really pretty poor. Especially the first two where you admit that they're incorrect. 3 and 5 are the same. The jury's still out on 4 - I'll give you a maybe.

Try this one on: The U.S. depends on oil from the Middle East. We saw an opportunity to move in and gain a bargaining chip against OPEC. We did so, under the guise of whatever flavor of the month story we were fed.

I would much rather this had been put forth as the cause for going to war. In fact, I'd be much more accepting of an invasion using that rationale than anything I've heard so far.

As far as jimmyboy goes, I'm going to have to agree with mac on this one. Number 4 is pretty much the only one that I'd have a shot to stand on in this debate. While some of those might have influenced opinion on going into Iraq, they most likely weren't the causes and DEFINITELY couldn't be used to call the war just.

As for your comments mac, I do agree with you that oil and energy security were the primary concerns when this war was conceived and declared. I also agree that if the politicians had been honest about this claim, I might actually have given them some more credit about this war. My main complaint always was that they were grasping at straws to justify the war instead of bringing up the one issue that made some sense.

But again, that doesn't make the war JUST. In fact, in all senses of international ethics and morality, invading a country to take a vital natural resource away from them would be unjust and immoral. Again, not to say that I don't agree with you on the general point, just on the morality issue.

Since I've been basically countering people's arguments this whole time, I'll show you the basic outline for my side of the debate. That might help discussion and focus criticism:

1. The Nature of War Has Changed
-due to terrorism and non-state actors, the line between preventative and preemptive war has been blurred
-Sadaam Hussein has supported terrorists, is blatantly anti-US, and is largely unafraid of UN or US retaliation. He would willingly sell chemical weapons or WMDs (operating on previous intelligence at the time of war) to terrorists or other rogue states
-terror attacks are immediate and without buildup - they make "vague" threats much more imminent because of the lack of warning that is crucial to their success

2. This War a Preemptive War
-see above point about Sadaam Hussein
-preventative war is to eliminate a country that may be a threat to you in the future - Sadaam was a threat now due to willingness to use weapons not necessarily on mainland US, but to US civilians in other countries and the sale of weapons to other groups
-ergo, this war was preemptive becauese Sadaam was an immediate threat to US security

3. Oil Security Is Not a Detraction From War
-just because oil is at stake, it does not mean that the war is somehow injust
-oil is vital to national security and stability
-this argument is not meant to say that oil makes a war just, instead that it doesn't automatically make it UNjust

4. Humanitarian Reasons
-Sadaam Hussein's regime repeatedly committed acts of torture and extrajudicial murder
-repressed the Kurds with extreme violence
-was an unstable dictator who was liable to take any number of unpredictable actions
-started two wars in time as Iraq leader
-responsible for regime of fear, murder and unpredictability


I think that currently point 3 is rather weak, but that's the one my partner is arguing. I'm mainly responsible for 1 (which introduces 2) and 4. Any thoughts?

 

[maccool]

Not bad. Better than anything I could do. I reckon you're in a pickle because it is nigh impossible to say that any war is just, especially when the two sides are so mismatched.

I think your best bet is to go for the pre-emptive war angle. Although the whole burning a village to save it mentality doesn't make much sense. But, you will be able to argue that it is just. Moral, probably not. I guess you can justify just about anything, though.

 

[jimmyboy]

Look,

Just because the argument is ridiculous to you doesn't mean that it sucks. You never know if someone on the panel is crazy enough to buy the argument. The best you can do it to throw it out and make it sound good.

Have you ever notice that some of the arguments from Smeg is kind of nuts? Right up the point where three other conservative members jump on the band wagon and give it the thumbs up.

As for the oil angle. Sorry but no conservative would ever admit to it. To ask them to do so would be asking them to admit that they were greedy. Theyr'e self-rightous, so they'll never go for it.