BrianTheAtheist

This is the view of an American and I will be referring to Americans. Please, still respond even if your not American.

I have racked my brain trying to figure out, the reasons behind, or ideal containedin, an anti-war argument dealing with Iraq. I can name reason after reason and cite example after example of why it is completly justified. Colin Powell also did this on the floor of the UN General Assembly, yet France and Germany as well as nearly half of America, still argue that a war with Iraq is completly unjustifiable. I completly understand that there will be those who argue no war is justifiable, I'm just not one of them and i want opinions from people other than those pacifists. :banghead:

Moral justifications such as human rights. Rights, argued by some, to be endowed by our creator, and are inalienable. Does this apply to Iraqi's??? Don't they deserve the right, no simple liberty, of walking outside their home and not fearing for their life. Democracy has been deemed, via multiple studies, as the most productive government, which has the greatest amount of liberty and greatest number of individual right, exempting totalitarian democracies inwhich a fascist dictator controls every aspect of life. Is it not the right, no, the responsibility of the US to democratize the nations inwhich the civil liberties and basic rights are denied to the people of those nations.

The war with Itaq will not be a frugal one, nor a flawless one. People will die, innocent people will die. But, like the a famous man once said, . “…these dead shall not have died in vain, …that government of, the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this earth.”

I am merely looking for reasons that deem the war with Saddam unjust. There will likely be arguement, but my purpose is to become aware of a "con" arguement.

Rain Dog

I would be happy to argue against going to war in Iraq, but I am not opposed to it on moral grounds or based on the notion of its being "unjust". I am opposed to it because it is crystal clear to me that it is contrary to the national interests of the United States. Thus, I don't think this is the forum for "my side" of the debate.

RD

Edited to add:

Your own argument in favor of going to war could as well or better be applied to a list of countries as long as your arm, including some US allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia). Will they be next? Shall we embark on a jihad for democracy?

Edited again to ask:

Just what the hell is a "totalitarian democracy"?

Wiploc

Outstanding! You have my full attention. I'll feel much better about the war if you tell me why it is justified.



Sure. But it's probably just because we haven't heard your justifications.



Well I'm no pacifist. I'm just someone who thinks the president shouldn't run this country into war without an explanation. You can agree with that, I assume?



We gonna take on every lesser nation at once, or hit them one at a time? Mexico is closer; why don't we start with Mexico?



Well I'd love to hear the pro argument, so I'm glad to run across you.
crc

Vorkosigan

Is it not the right, no, the responsibility of the US to democratize the nations inwhich the civil liberties and basic rights are denied to the people of those nations.

I agree! Let's bomb the 48 states where gays are not allowed to marry.

People will die, innocent people will die. But, like the a famous man once said, . ?these dead shall not have died in vain, …that government of, the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from this earth.?

And just think: after we kill all the people in Iraq, they won't have to worry about the civil rights Hussein took from them!

V

Theli

You don't seriously think they will bomb all the people in Iraq. Personally, I think Saddam is a much bigger threat to the people in Iraq than Bush.

seanie

I share a concern for the welfare of the poor downtroden masses of the world. And I'm all for attempts to rescue people from oppression, along with poverty, starvation and disease.

I'm just not convinced a $200,000,000,000 lethal fireworks display is necessarily the best way to address these issues.

avalanche:ix

here are some (simplified) reasons of mine:


1. there's no pretext. 'evidence' given of weapons of mass destruction in hands of the iraqi regime are flimsical and non-conclusive. even if they were found to have them, it would not be a proper pretext for war.


2. global economic concerns. allready the economy is fluctuating because of impending war.


3. region destabilization. this is pretty much a given if war occurs. it will erupt the middle east into flames, certainly civil unrest among the entire region, increased hostilities in israel.


4. It appears to be an attempt at a diversion from internal domestic U.S problems, aswell as compensating for still not having captured osama bin laden.


5. The international community does not agree. the U.S, like any other nation, still has to abide by international law.


6. estimates range up to 2 million iraqi refugees.


7. civilian deathtoll will be massive. regardless of what people may believe, modern weapons are NOT as accurate as we might like. Baghdad has 5 million inhabitants. what about the bush plan of raining down over 5000 missiles on baghdad in the space of a few hours? civilian deathtoll will be huge.


there is no justification of war. period.

brighid

I have read the information Colin Powell has presented, and I have listened to the justification and criticisms of this war. I find the evidence, when examined further to be weak. Although I do agree that Sadaam is an evil, murderous bastard I don’t believe that the Iraqi people should suffer further depravation because of his past. Sadaam has been contained, and even if we do find some WMD that is NOT enough to destroy a country and kill and displace millions of innocent civilians who are not party to, but hostages of this totalitarian regime.

I do not agree that we have ANY right to impose our way of life, or thinking on any other nation. I certainly don’t believe we have the right to invade a sovereign nation, even if it is run by a totalitarian regime. The US stance on Iraq is transparently hypocritical. North Korea is a MUCH greater threat (IMHO) then Iraqi is. It has said we do have, and plan to make MORE nuclear weapons capable of hitting the Western US. They have said they will use pre-emptive strikes, and the anti-American and government supported hostility in North Korea seems to blow any similar sentiments the Iraqi government and people may have OUT of the water.

I am absolutely opposed to pre-emptive strikes and feel the arrogant and cowboy tactics the US has proposed are dangerous and have largely contributed to the current global, nuclear crisis of rogue nations like North Korea.

The likelihood of terrorist attacks on US soil increases exponentially with any war on Iraqi soil. Even the hawkish administration knows this, so if national security is SUCH a concern why beat the war drums? We have thus far, with the aid of our allies been able to thwart many attempts, even if some have been successful.

We should NOT proceed alone and if this administration thinks we can successfully fight a war in Iraq without the assistance of our European and Arab allies they are insane. If Bush thinks public and international opinion don’t matter wait until those countries decide to punish the US with economic sanctions, or refusal to export as protest to the war, or refuse to collect and provide US with vital intelligence for the war on terrorism.

The world’s financial crisis, as well as our present economic condition will be drastically worsened by this unnecessary war. More people will be out of jobs in the US and all over the world, civil unrest will increase thereby creating a fertile ground for more terrorists, we will sacrifice the lives of our military personnel and we are embarking down a dangerous road to nuclear proliferation – at the very least we are hastening it.

There is no “smoking gun”, just speculative evidence that is not clear and convincing. The other world leaders have said they would back the US if there was clear and convincing evidence of WMD, but nothing so egregious has been provided (either privately or publicly) that warrants a WAR! Further action is necessary, destruction of any weapons found is necessary, the removal of Sadaam is favorable and can be done with covert military action supported by coalition troops or special operatives.

War should be a LAST resort measure. We have not yet reached the end of the diplomatic or other means of disarmament and punishment. We should also remember that someday our own tactics can and will likely be used against us, as the pre-emptive position NK has taken in response to the identical US policy. Does the citizens of the US and the world want to drink that bitter ale? They are saying emphatically NO. If George Bush and this administration ignore that it will to their political peril, possibly even the end of the US as a global superpower that is looked up to and respected. If you think economic times are bad now, imagine what will happen when another terrorist attack happens on US soil to topple our markets even further.

Brighid

Frotiw

I am not a pacifist. I haven't even settled my mind on the Iraq issure there are good arguements for and and against a war. You ask for arguments against war so I will emphasize the US critical arguement that doesn't mean I will accept the stance that most antiwar people do. Just a noticeing.

I think no matter whereither the was is the best or worst sollution the arguments presented by Bush and his adminstration are EXTREMLY poor. I really can't understand how anyone can by persuaded by such arguments. As far as remeber from the begining the UN weapon inspectors was sent to Iraq to find out whereither Saddam carried US(and allied) threathning weapons. If Iraq carried weapons of mass destruction the situation would be considered a "smoking barrel" situation meaning that a first strike "might" be justified. Not long after the premises of justifed war changed now it was all of a sudden(remember this was before the presented "evidence ") a MATTER OF FACT that Iraq carried weapons. Now is suddenly wasn't important what the weapons inspectors would or would not find now Saddam had to account for the weapons everybody but Bush(adminstration) didn't know about. Am I the only who can see how the premises surdenly change here? At the this time Bush was attempting to convince Europe(+rest world) that Saddam had to lay down THE ARMS that so far wasn't found.
Im not ignorant ofcause it's very likely that US intelligence would know something that the weapons inspectors didn't know. Sure but how are you supposed to convince other countries about this. Had they found something an told the US inspectors were to find it then everything was COMPLETLY different. Obviosly you cannot convince foreign countries with showing evidence. Anyway that was attemted. The purpose and great thing about the UN peace inspectors are that they are UN, and internationally trusted by many countries.
But there was "evidence" latter on yes but NOT through the UN weapons inspectors. Obviosly the US internal evidence will not pack such an argumental puch as if it was from UN independant weapons inspectors(who was granted this mission ALSO by USA). And conserning this evidence: it's wasn't exactly conving I mean even CIA have grudges. And even if this evidence is true it is hardly a "smoking barrel".
This is just one argument. There is also the military analytics who say that Bush will HAVE to start the war now(there is no turning back) because +200.000 soldiers away from US is not good(bad morale+economical cost). Then there is also the fact that Iraq oil will be very beneficial for US some claim this is the main reason for staring the war. It's just a simple robbery. I wouldn't go that far such specualtions might or might not be true(Im doubting) but neither way it doesn't exactly help Bush' credabillity. They same sort of speculative teories goes about Bush father envolvement(Is this payback/revenge for his farther). Again this is not something I would claim but it does weaken his credability outside US.

Another sort og disturbing thing is the Hurry of Bush. This is not so much an argument more part of the reasons why many object. If Bush has to kill all these people could he alteast wait a couple of weaks to find out whereither there is a reason to kill them.

Finaly(there are more objections though) exactly why is justified to attack to prevent an attack? This seems to be the main argument for attacking: "we should attack now or we might be attacked ourselves".
Ok sure but following this thought(which VERY STRONGLY seems to be accepted by Bush) shouldn't Saddam hurry and attack USA with everything he got right now. Everybody must agree that if anyone has serius reason to believe that his country WILL be attacked it must Saddam. If Saddam adopted the argument from Bush he'd better launch everything he got in the face of Bush and it couldn't be fast enough.

My main objection is proberly that hearing Bush utter these fanatical war retorics makes him sound frieghtning similar to e.g. Saddam. If the US wan't to promote freedom and democracy(which is GREAT) they must do so by actually exercising freedom and international democracy not resembling the nazies and communists considering the goal more important than the mean. It is not alright to kill and hurt people because the consequences presummably will be good, that was what the Nazies and the communists thought. This shouldn't be understood provocative I like USA(NY is where I would LOVE to live) sometimes europeans just seem to to see some unwanted traits the Eupeans have seen before(e.g. WWII). The Europeans have seen some bad cases of retorical strong war-eager men and are therfor very cautios of the like.

Again I am not a pacifist I thought e.g. the attacks in Afghanistan and other places was justified but this completly different. It is also noteworthy that this time it is not only lefties and pacifist who argue against the war there are quite a lot of different oppions against the war.

There are several other arguments but this will have to do for now.

EDIT: And while this reply was written most of these good arguments was brought by Brighid. I agree completly in Brighid's objections.