How do I answer the pre-emptive strike arguments?

[GePap]

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

You know this statement makes no sense?

94,000 killed not all at once, in some horrific mass attack..no, 94,00 killed over 4 years fo figthing, hundreas of times used accross a continent. 20,000 British troops died on July 1st, 1916 due to bullets and shells: that doesn't make bullets and shells weapons of mass destruction.

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

The point is to disprove the "doomsday" scenerios the US admin makes up about thousands being killed all at once. The terrorist would do just as well with a truck bomb (just look at Good ol' Timothy from Oklahoma)

[johncmcleod]

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?

Problem is, they can always prove that Saddam is more of a threat than that country. The reason I'm not the war though is because if I debate someone that is opposing war I usually lose, also.

Another argument they get me on is they say he might sell the weapons to terrorists and that would hurt us. BTW, what "WoMD" does Saddam have anyway? All I know of is SCUDs, anthrax, and those one missiles.

[Inverse Icarus]

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

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I'm really embarassed to not be able to win every time on an argument about this. Please give me some help. 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?

You see john, you're arguging to win, nto to find the truth.

your argument is wrong, flawed, and simple craptacular.

keep looking for a cogent argument from any anti-war source. you'll find nothing.

Kofi Anan said after the US & UK said they were going in "It is sad that the nations that opposed the war could not come together to present a unified course of action."

the only reasoning i'll accept from any anti-war protester is if they oppose war in general. i'll accept that, but i'll still dismiss them as idealist utopia wishing hippies.

keep looking for your argument.

[Sandman]

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

In the context of the First World War it's a small change.

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

If it doesn't kill, it's less terrifying. The media hype surrounding gas is responsible for most of the fear factor in any case.

[VetLegion]

The reason I'm not the war though is because if I debate someone that is opposing war I usually lose, also.

well we tracked the problem. youi dont have an opinion really

you are not alone! join the club, I ll start a thread about it

[johncmcleod]

UberKrux, doesn't it upset you that the war on Iraq is illegal? Unauthorized regime change is against the UN's rules. And 1441 didn't call for war. It said serious consequecnes, and it's standard protocol that you must call for a second reso to approve war. The US did, but it was never voted on. Also, the war is unprovoked. Things that might happen in the future aren't reason enough. You don't know they'll happen.

[GePap]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Problem is, they can always prove that Saddam is more of a threat than that country. The reason I'm not the war though is because if I debate someone that is opposing war I usually lose, also.

Another argument they get me on is they say he might sell the weapons to terrorists and that would hurt us. BTW, what "WoMD" does Saddam have anyway? All I know of is SCUDs, anthrax, and those one missiles.

The alegations are:

1. he retained several thousand shells and rockets filled with chemcial agents and several thousand liters of anthrax.

2. He retained a few dozen SCUD's and has drones that could spray WMD over troops.

Over the next few days we will know. As for how much of a direct threat thse pose to the US: the SCUDs could reach US bases in the region, never the US. The pres. said drones could be mounted of shore on ships, but honestly, this is just farcical. As for the effeciveness of these weapons: they are not that effective unless used precisely and in large quantities, if what you want to do is kill dozens upon dozens of people. You can point to the inbaility of Iraq ot itself deliver such quantities at the US, and the even greater inability of terrorists to do so, plus then you can point at the rather weak links as of yet formed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or perhaps argue that a man as paranoid as Saddam, who won't erven give WMD to his regular army is rather unlikely to give them to groups who's loyalty to him are questionable at best.

[johncmcleod]

I'm not only arguing to win. I've changed my opinion on the war about 3 or 4 times.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
UberKrux, doesn't it upset you that the war on Iraq is illegal? Unauthorized regime change is against the UN's rules. And 1441 didn't call for war. It said serious consequecnes, and it's standard protocol that you must call for a second reso to approve war. The US did, but it was never voted on. Also, the war is unprovoked. Things that might happen in the future aren't reason enough. You don't know they'll happen.

if you dont know my stance on the UN yet, i'll summarize it thusly:
The UN is a clusterf*cked beuracracy that gets nothing done, especially when something needs to be done.

unprevoked my ass. Saddam has said on multiple occasions that fi he had the means he'd hit america with anything he could (nuclear, biological, whatever). personally, i believe he has major ties to terrorism. i cant prove he did, you cant prove he didn't, so take it as you will. Saddam is a threat to America, directly or indirectly. He's also a horrible man in general, even to his own people.

war is wrong. right, i get that. i understand the points, hell, i may even agree with most of them, but you miss the bottom line. war is effective and oftentimes necessary.

This war is as justifiable as any war in recent memory, if not much much moreso

[johncmcleod]

unprevoked my ass. Saddam has said on multiple occasions that fi he had the means he'd hit america with anything he could (nuclear, biological, whatever). personally, i believe he has major ties to terrorism.

Ever heard of free speech or innocent til proven guilty?

Saddam won't be able to increase his stockpile of WoMD, and he definitely won't be able to build nukes as for the reasons GePap said.

It is so pointless to take out people we think are threats. Killing Saddam is emptying one drop out of an olympic swimming pool. Saddam has never made a terrorist attack on America before. There will always be millions of people capable of doing things just as Saddam is doing, so taking him out is really pointless.

And, as GePap said before his weapons right now won't be a threat. If he directly used them against the US he'd be kicked out of power instantly. He won't make an open attack against us. He's had WoMD for 15 plus years, and he's never hit us.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Ever heard of free speech or innocent til proven guilty?

Saddam won't be able to increase his stockpile of WoMD, and he definitely won't be able to build nukes as for the reasons GePap said.

Innocent until proven guilty still allows actions to be taken when threatened (assault).

And in all honesty, we have NO IDEA what he's capable of building. The UN weapons inspectors were led around in circles, he could have several nukes already for all we know. i cant say either way, but i'd rather err on the side of caution.

It is so pointless to take out people we think are threats. Killing Saddam is emptying one drop out of an olympic swimming pool. Saddam has never made a terrorist attack on America before. There will always be millions of people capable of doing things just as Saddam is doing, so taking him out is really pointless.

perfectionist fallacy. we cant fix everything, so why bother trying. great argument you have there, friend. we cant stop all the murders in america, maybe we should stop arresting the ones that do it, because hell, we cant stop them all. it's pointless to jail them.

[Az]

My main reason for supporting the process of his removal from power is that he is an evil dictator that has caused the death of many people in his country. The other arguments are just cherry on the cream topping.

Why not some other guy?
a) He's one of the ones that are easier to remove.
b) If there is a better candidate ( from the point of possibility of removal, as well), I say, go ahead. But if he's the best possible, I'll be ok with that too.

[Willem]

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

Originally posted by johncmcleod


I'm really embarassed to not be able to win every time on an argument about this. Please give me some help. 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?

Try some different angles then, there's more than a few to choose from.

For instance, by acting unilaterally and preemptively, he's opened the door to others following in his footsteps. For instance, there is nothing to prevent India from firing it's nuclear bombs at Pakistan, since it might become more dangerous in the future, and should be dealt with beforehand. We might already see that happening with Turkey entering N.Iraq in order to sabotage the Kurdish aspirations.

Or you can mention that most of the people of the Middle East now hate the US with a passion, so it should be much easier for Al Qaeda to round up new recruits.

[johncmcleod]

Azazel, since when is it our job to judge who's evil and who's not? Since when are we the world police? And, is it our problem? If what you said is true, then another country, let's say Russia, would have the right to invade us after the Vietnam war. If we could invade a country because we say they're evil (even if they are) then the gov could call an innocent nation evil and then invade them.

[GePap]

Perhaps this simple though might help:

Simply because something is justifiable, even morally justifiable, it does not necesserally make it wise, or correct to do.

I think it is immenantly justifiable, given all the credible answer the pro-war argument gives us (challenging agreements made and internaitonal norms, being and evi, totalitarian dictatorship [note, connections with Al Qaeda, how BC WMD will kill thousand upon thousand in some armageddon attack are NOT CREDIBLE]), to atempt regime change in NK, and you can bet your life the UN would never allow it. The question is: is it wise? is it correct? will the possible costs, not only of undertaking it by force, but the aftereffects be outweighted by the possible gains from such an action? If so, then it is correct, if not, it is not.

That I think, is the basic question to ask oneself in this case. Do you think the possible costs are less than the possible benefits? How optimistic are you that you will avoid the worst of the possible costs, and gain the best of the possible benefits?

You say that you have wavered in your beliefs about this war. I say, ask yourself those questions.