Announcement

**Sandman** · March 22, 2003, 15:51

You could start out by saying that chemical and biological weapons are mediocre battlefield weapons and almost useless terrorist weapons. To call them 'weapons of mass destruction' is ludicrous.

**GePap** · March 22, 2003, 15:52

"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.

**Asher** · March 22, 2003, 15:53

The war isn't for Bush to get oil, I don't understand that argument at all.

Iraq almost exclusively exports their oil to Europe and Asia...it simply doesn't make sense to ship oil to the US when the US has many locations far closer shipping oil for cheaper.

**DRoseDARs** · March 22, 2003, 15:54

Originally posted by Sandman
You could start out by saying that chemical and biological weapons are mediocre battlefield weapons...

Worked well enough during WWI.

...and almost useless terrorist weapons. To call them 'weapons of mass destruction' is ludicrous.

Methinks Japan's subway patrons have a word or two about that...

**DinoDoc** · March 22, 2003, 15:59

Re: How do I answer the pre-emptive strike arguments?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
The main problem is I can't prove that this war is for Bush to get oil.

That's not suprising. It's a stupid arguement to begin with.

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?

These might help:

An Unnecessary War
Blessed Are the Warmakers?

**Lancer** · March 22, 2003, 16:01

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** · March 22, 2003, 16:03

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

Worked well enough during WWI.

In 4 years of war, they killed about 94,000 men, out of 8 million killed.

Methinks Japan's subway patrons have a word or two about that...

11 dead and hundreads wounded in a very crowded car. A grenade in such a situation would have killed far more people. This does show what Chemical wepaons are best at, creating casualties and not fatalities.

Iraq almost exclusively exports their oil to Europe and Asia...it simply doesn't make sense to ship oil to the US when the US has many locations far closer shipping oil for cheaper.

We already had figures quotes that the US gets a larger supply of its oil from Iraq than the EU. Its burried in a thread, but its here in poly already.

Oh, and overlook statements like Lancers.

**VetLegion** · March 22, 2003, 16:03

The main problem is I can't prove that this war is for Bush to get oil.

maybe not just because oil, but oil is sure a big part of it. Is Bush admin even hiding it?

Asher:

Iraq almost exclusively exports their oil to Europe and Asia...it simply doesn't make sense to ship oil to the US when the US has many locations far closer shipping oil for cheaper.

That doesnt matter, it is all connected. Availability of Iraq oil and its price affects price of oil US buys from say Venezuela.

And when I say: "Maybe we should listen to the rest of the world for once."

dont say that, it is not a good argument

Try the classical approach. For every argument why Saddam has to go down find a leader/country with same 'problem' but which is an ally of US, and ask 'why not them?'. You know the thing, right?

**Inverse Icarus** · March 22, 2003, 16:04

This war is nto about oil you f*cking moron. The fact that Bush wants to save the wells isn't because we're going to TAKE the oil after the war, it's because that oil will provide more money for Iraq than any aid package we set up.

This war isn't about oil, it's a motivating factor, i'll grant you that, but thats NOT the reason the fit hit the shan.

**DRoseDARs** · March 22, 2003, 16:07

Originally posted by GePap
In 4 years of war, they killed about 94,000 men, out of 8 million killed.

That's what, the population of a small town. Yeah, that's pretty small change there...

11 dead and hundreads wounded in a very crowded car. A grenade in such a situation would have killed far more people. This does show what Chemical wepaons are best at, creating casualties and not fatalities.

There's a reason it's called "TERROR"ism. It doesn't have to kill to be effective...

**Sandman** · March 22, 2003, 16:10

Worked well enough during WWI.

Didn't break the deadlock against any troops equipped with gas masks, and was heavily dependent on wind direction. Gas had a minor role compared to machine guns and artillery, the main killers. It also tended to injure much more than kill, which was the main reason for it's subsequent banning.

Methinks Japan's subway patrons have a word or two about that...

Twelve people died in the Tokyo gas attack. The attack was conducted by multiple operatives in a coordinated strike on packed subway trains. If they had used explosives, then hundreds, possibly thousands would have died. Note that a single lunatic armed with a milk carton filled with petrol managed to kill almost two hundred people in the Seoul subway.

**DRoseDARs** · March 22, 2003, 16:12

Sandman, read my responce to GeGap's post since he said the exact same stuff.

**Sandman** · March 22, 2003, 16:14

Iraq almost exclusively exports their oil to Europe and Asia...it simply doesn't make sense to ship oil to the US when the US has many locations far closer shipping oil for cheaper.

The US doesn't want the oil for domestic supply, it just wants it. With the oil it can exert more influence on Europe and Asia.

**Stefu** · March 22, 2003, 16:14

Pre-emptively strike them.

Announcement

How do I answer the pre-emptive strike arguments?

How do I answer the pre-emptive strike arguments?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment