Pharaohrock
March 6th, 2003, 04:40 PM
Some of the best:
- it could potentially, POTENTIALLY, have a positive ripple effect on the Middle East if democracy was successfully (and lastingly) implemented.
- it could be demoralizing to Islamic fundamentalists if a western- style democracy became functional and well-liked. It could shift the dynamic of the conflict to being more an internal Arab conflict rather than being Arabs vs. the outside world.
- OPEC has too much power, the Saudis can no longer be trusted and if the U.S. is to perpetuate its foreign oil dependency (read: its present way of life.) and military presence in the Middle East, it would make sense to establish a more viable parasitic relationship elsewhere than Saudi Arabia. If we're strictly pragmatic, this argument makes a lot of sense....and let's face it, oil ain't going away any time soon, no matter what the best intentions of alternative energy folks may be. Neither is the need for some military presence in the region if only because of the need of someone, anyone, to moderate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (not that I agree with how we do this, but still....)
Some of the worst:
- Saddam is an evil dictator who murders his own people. He may be evil, but there have been plenty worse that we didn't lay a finger on- hell, that we even supported. Also, he technically didn't murder his own people because Iraq is a very ethnically fragmented nation and Saddam's regime represents the Sunnis. If Saddam murders Sunnis, then he's murdering his own people. If he murders Kurds, well- that's really no different from colonists murdering Native Americans back in the day.
- Iraq poses an immediate threat to the U.S. Not buying it....I trust what George Tenet tells me more so than what the agenda-driven Bush cabinet says. Also, people conveniently ignore the fact that Iraq has a stated policy written into its constitution of not attacking the U.S. (perhaps because Saddam does not wish to invite nuclear genocide onto his country and if Iraq attacked the U.S. this would likely be the end result??)
- Saddam and Bin Laden are in toto, conspiring together. Puh-leeze. The evidence offered for this has been so pathetic as to not even merit suggesting it as a possible reason to attack. It's not inconceivable, but then again- neither is the idea that Bush may be conspiring with oil executives both in and out of his cabinet, is it??
- Pre-emptory attack, never contemplated (at least openly) in the past, is valid in this circumstance because the U.S. cannot allow another unspeakable attack on its own people like 9/11. This is the worst argument in my mind because- first of all, pre-emptory attack is something no one in this country or anywhere in the world for that matter, should take lightly. It's a serious abridgement of both international law and the ideals (if not the actual behavior) of this nation. We are a defender not an aggressor. That "liberator" talk is a convenient way to escape the fact that what this boils down to is an attack by the U.S. Those who despise the UN or question the relevance of international law should consider that the precedent the U.S. sets in pre-emptory attack may not only erode the authority of the United Nations in enforcing international law, but encourage many nations otherwise inhibited by it to go ahead and attack their neighbor. In short, while pre-emptory attack could potentially serve the U.S.'s particular interests, long-term it could be a precedent which breeds an epidemic of invasions and undeclared wars. Also, IMHO 9/11 is largely irrelevant to Iraq, but those who are either paranoid of being attacked by anybody Arab or who believe the Bush admin. is being completely sincere about using the war to "protect our freedom" aren't likely to think this.
Food for thought. Let's hear what other folks in the jazz family feel are the good and bad arguments for war. In the interest of critical thinking and ensuring a tolerant environment, no matter whether you're for or against the war, try to provide an example of both a GOOD and a BAD argument for going to war.
Peace (well, at least in this forum.. lol.)
- it could potentially, POTENTIALLY, have a positive ripple effect on the Middle East if democracy was successfully (and lastingly) implemented.
- it could be demoralizing to Islamic fundamentalists if a western- style democracy became functional and well-liked. It could shift the dynamic of the conflict to being more an internal Arab conflict rather than being Arabs vs. the outside world.
- OPEC has too much power, the Saudis can no longer be trusted and if the U.S. is to perpetuate its foreign oil dependency (read: its present way of life.) and military presence in the Middle East, it would make sense to establish a more viable parasitic relationship elsewhere than Saudi Arabia. If we're strictly pragmatic, this argument makes a lot of sense....and let's face it, oil ain't going away any time soon, no matter what the best intentions of alternative energy folks may be. Neither is the need for some military presence in the region if only because of the need of someone, anyone, to moderate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (not that I agree with how we do this, but still....)
Some of the worst:
- Saddam is an evil dictator who murders his own people. He may be evil, but there have been plenty worse that we didn't lay a finger on- hell, that we even supported. Also, he technically didn't murder his own people because Iraq is a very ethnically fragmented nation and Saddam's regime represents the Sunnis. If Saddam murders Sunnis, then he's murdering his own people. If he murders Kurds, well- that's really no different from colonists murdering Native Americans back in the day.
- Iraq poses an immediate threat to the U.S. Not buying it....I trust what George Tenet tells me more so than what the agenda-driven Bush cabinet says. Also, people conveniently ignore the fact that Iraq has a stated policy written into its constitution of not attacking the U.S. (perhaps because Saddam does not wish to invite nuclear genocide onto his country and if Iraq attacked the U.S. this would likely be the end result??)
- Saddam and Bin Laden are in toto, conspiring together. Puh-leeze. The evidence offered for this has been so pathetic as to not even merit suggesting it as a possible reason to attack. It's not inconceivable, but then again- neither is the idea that Bush may be conspiring with oil executives both in and out of his cabinet, is it??
- Pre-emptory attack, never contemplated (at least openly) in the past, is valid in this circumstance because the U.S. cannot allow another unspeakable attack on its own people like 9/11. This is the worst argument in my mind because- first of all, pre-emptory attack is something no one in this country or anywhere in the world for that matter, should take lightly. It's a serious abridgement of both international law and the ideals (if not the actual behavior) of this nation. We are a defender not an aggressor. That "liberator" talk is a convenient way to escape the fact that what this boils down to is an attack by the U.S. Those who despise the UN or question the relevance of international law should consider that the precedent the U.S. sets in pre-emptory attack may not only erode the authority of the United Nations in enforcing international law, but encourage many nations otherwise inhibited by it to go ahead and attack their neighbor. In short, while pre-emptory attack could potentially serve the U.S.'s particular interests, long-term it could be a precedent which breeds an epidemic of invasions and undeclared wars. Also, IMHO 9/11 is largely irrelevant to Iraq, but those who are either paranoid of being attacked by anybody Arab or who believe the Bush admin. is being completely sincere about using the war to "protect our freedom" aren't likely to think this.
Food for thought. Let's hear what other folks in the jazz family feel are the good and bad arguments for war. In the interest of critical thinking and ensuring a tolerant environment, no matter whether you're for or against the war, try to provide an example of both a GOOD and a BAD argument for going to war.
Peace (well, at least in this forum.. lol.)