How do I answer the pre-emptive strike arguments?

[Spiffor]

JohnMcLeod :

You have to think about the many motives of the war. The war is partly about oil, sure, but it is absolutely not solely about oil. "No blood for oil" is nothing more than a catchy phrase, it is not an argument.

The first thing I say to dispel the myth this war is about liberating the Iraqis is asking :
"Do you really believe Bush would have spent billion dollars, risk American lives and alienated the rest of the world for the altruistic sake of saving Iraqis ?"
People to whom I ask almost always answer "no", and agree with the idea this war has far darker motives than it pretends.

There are many motives for the war, it would be plain wrong to limit it to oil.

- This war can give political gain to Bush. Historically, leaders have always tried to unite their people behind them in the war. A successful war is a huge source of support during elections. It is especially important at a time where domestic problems (bad economy) are occuring.

- One of the reasons Bush raised dramatically the military funding was to help growth occuring again, by motivating demand. By raising the demand for weaponry, the gov indirectly raised the demand for high technolgy, steel and pretty much everything your industry produces. The aim was to significantly raise growth. It happened at the beginning, back in Q1 2002 when growth was estimated to 5,2% a year IIRC.
It is not a reason per se explaining how ill motivated the war is, but it partly explains the Hawkishness in the US recently.

- The US is still waging war against terrorism. The biggest supporter of Islamist fundamentalism and hence terrorism is Saudi Arabia. Saudi gives much money to Islamists, their recruitment machine (Coran schools), and other activities. The US would want to change this. However, it is impossible to do so with a high dependancy of foreign oil, especially when Iraq is hostile and Venezuela is in revolution.
In order to begin tensions with Saudi Arabia, it is necesary to find a reliable source of oil. Iraq has plenty of the reserves, wells and an already developed infrastructure. A puppet government there would be the reliable provider Bush needs so much.
This is the strongest "this is a war for oil" argument that I can think of.

- The US is enforcing the New World Order that emerged from the collapse of the USSR, leaving the US alone at the helm of the world. There is a raising opposition to American superpower (North Korea among the rogue States, France's and Germany's opposition in the UN) that shows this New World Order is encountering difficulties.
The US must show other countries it is willing to enforce this World Order where they are the boss.
In short : the US show everyone who's the top dog.

Iraq has it all to be attacked : despicable dictator, who'd justify how just the war is in the PR-opaganda. Weak army, who'd make such a war short of American casualties. Plenty of oil. No threatening WMD, unlike North Korea.

So much for the war being motivated by the sake of liberating Iraq. You can instill some hostility towards war to your fellows with it, but it won't be nearly enough. More to come next post.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by GePap
This war is in no way a pre-emptive atatck. At best, you can call it a preventive attack, a classfication for which there is absolutely no documnetation.

If you ask the lawers at the State Department and white House, they will tell you that in their legal eyes, Iraq has violated the conditions for the cease-fire in 1991 and thus this war is nice and legal.

If France and the UK had acted in the same way in 1935 when evidence of Hitler's reconstituted Luftwaffe came to light (a violation of the 1918 armistice) it may have gone a long way to preventing the Second WW.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
This war is in no way a pre-emptive atatck. At best, you can call it a preventive attack, a classfication for which there is absolutely no documnetation.

I stand corrected.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ravagon
If France and the UK had acted in the same way in 1935 when evidence of Hitler's reconstituted Luftwaffe came to light (a violation of the 1918 armistice) it may have gone a long way to preventing the Second WW.

I think getting down the trees was a mistake.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ravagon


If France and the UK had acted in the same way in 1935 when evidence of Hitler's reconstituted Luftwaffe came to light (a violation of the 1918 armistice) it may have gone a long way to preventing the Second WW.

Given what France and the Uk had gone through 20 years before and what they were going thorugh at the time, I find it disingenous for people of today to constantly attack their choices. As someone said: Iraq is like a fly to the US's elephant. Germany was bigger than France or the UK, and not that much smaller than them combined. historical comparisons and lessons are cheap things, easily spouted, almost impossible to coherently defend. Stick to the here and now.

[Spiffor]

After having explained how ill-motivated the war is, you might hear : "But now that the war has started, the Iraqis will finally be liberated from Saddam. They just want that, and hoped for the Americans all along".

Sure, we should all hope the war will be swift, and that Saddam and his regime will quickly collapse with manimal casualties. However, if things turn uglier than the army would want, the following could very much occur :

- humanitarian crisis : for people stuck in Saddam-controlled cities, the shortages in food and medicine will become absolutely terrible, given how harsh they were in peace time. Plus, the Iraqi military would take all the few food for itself, and will use their guns to pilfer food reserves the Civilians could have made in preparation to the war. When you starve, you use whatever mean necessary not to starve anymore.
Also, there are many refugees, who live in very precarious environment. If the war lasts, and these refugees don't have access to aid, they will be targets of epidemics and starvation.

- harsh battle in Baghdad, resulting in many casualties from all sides : Iraqi civilians, US/UK soldiers, Iraqi soldiers. The Iraqis have shown a bigger resistance than expected already, and it is possible the best troops are guarding Baghdad, which is most probably boobytrapped to the bone.
Urban warfare is the place where technological advantage is the lowest. While the US tries to avoid civilian deaths very much, it also MUST avoid massive losses within the US military. Having heavy casualties in the war would be a major backlash for Bush at home, as many people would have lost a son, a brother or a father in this war. If the Battle of Baghdad gets ugly, the military might go for massive bombings pretty much everywhere in the city, that would kill civilians by the thousands.
Such a massacre of Civilians didn't occur in the past, because there was no ground invasion staged against Iraq. The stakes are different now.

- Diplomatic and military turmoil within the factions of Iraq. The Shias or Kurds might seize the opportunity to punish the Sunnis which have been favored by Saddam's regime. The Turkish military might create some serious trouble in the North. Chaos is not to rule out, if the war lasts longer than expected, and if the situation gets out of hand somewhere.

- Last but not least, a very likely consequence of this war in Iraq will be an even higher hate towards the Americans in the Middle East. Violent demonstrations have already been seen, and the hate towards the US seems to be rising already.
The hate towards the US fuels terrorism (both with money and manpower) big time. It significantly raises the terrorist threat against the US (and the West), which this very war was supposed to lower.

You can tell it is too soon to say if this war will be a failure or a success. But there are many elements that second the idea this war could get much more ugly than the army pompously claims.

[Urban Ranger]

The Iraqi troops have harassed the supply line from cities bypassed by the US forces. This can be a constant source of trouble. Or rather, will be.

[Daz]

UR, spot on! As usual.

It is quite naive to believe the reason for INVADING Iraq is the fact that Saddam is evil and the US want to "liberate" the Iraqi people. The USofA have supported one too many bloody regime in the world that this could be true.

The "weapons of mass destruction" reason is even more naive. You folks read too much Clancy....

Saddam/Iraq is a threat to the US. First of all, I cannot see any proof. There's been a lot of talk about connections to Al-Qaida but absolutely NO PROOF. Right. Lets invade....

Truth is that Saddam is a bloody dictator and a threat to the NEIGHBOURING countries. But that is their problem. If they decide to give the USofA a share of their oil to help them, thats just fine...

Lets turn this thing around:
I say, the USA is EVIL. There is much proof for this (The native american Indians, Mexico, Vietnam, Salvador, supporting Bin Laden, Saddam.... lots more). They have chemical and biological weapons. Nuclear too. When in war, they are using weapons which are considered illegal (by the geneva convention?) such as cluster bombs. Hell, they are the only nation that used the Atomic bomb on a civilian target. I SAY THIS IS PROOF ENOUGH!

[johncmcleod]

Sorry for bumping the thread, but Naz, could you list some more evil things the US did? I sort of try that approach, but I haven't been able to come up with enough. I just don't think some of the things you listed where something to hold the US against.

The native american Indians

And the Europeans didn't do the same thing? Everytime a western nation discovers a nation less advanced then them, they call them savage and destroy them. The British did this to the Native Americans long before America existed along with the Italians and Spanish. The European nations did the same thing to Africans and the British did it to the Indians (from India), Burmese, Aboriginese, etc. What the US did was doing what was acceptable at the time, even if it was wrong.

Mexico

I hate it when people call this a war of aggression. It was a border dispute. We thought the border was at the Rio Grande, they didn't. Whether we were right or not, considering what we thought our border was our border is not to bad. It couldn't have been a war of conquest. Our troops got Mexico City, which was way south. If it was conquest, we would've put the border right there. But we gave the land back to them, and set the border at where we thought it was in the first place.

supporting Bin Laden, Saddam

Everytime I bring that up they say, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. They were fighting for independence of their land just like we did 226 years ago.

Hell, they are the only nation that used the Atomic bomb on a civilian target.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because of the large military bases there. They were definitely not even close to the biggest cities of Japan. If we were trying to kill as many innocents as possible, we would've gone for Tokyo or another big Japanese city. Think of how many more lives would've been lost with a land invasion. Even with a blockade going, the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered.

Some claim that this is because we wouldn't let off their leaders from war crimes. This is classic anti-American bs. If anyone knows anything about Japanese culture at the time, they'd know it was false. They were warriors, and surrendering was worse then death. That is why many Japanese officers and soldiers would commit suicide if they had to surrender. That is why their were Banzai charges and Kamikazes.

Another main argument they have is, "We must take out Saddam. He is our biggest threat that can be easily taken out. He is an evil dictator with WoMD that hates Americans with a passion. We can't wait for him to become a bigger problem."

Also, how come Saddam din't get in trouble with the UN for his human rights violations?

Those who claim we should take him out for these violations though are wrong. It's the UN's job to be the police not us. If one nation tries to be the world police, it's abuse of power. If there's one nation that's a police force they pretty much dictate the world at their own will. They could then do almost whatever they want and justify it by calling it a 'police action' or 'preemptive strike'. Would it be fair for one wingle country to dictate how another country a half world away operates without the little guy having any say about it?