Top Ten Bogus Justifications for the Iraqi War
- Thread starter caley
- Start date
the first "bogus" reason stated on the website as
" War on Iraq will make the world safer from terrorism"
Seems to assume the reasons for terrorism. the article states our attack on Iraq will turn millions of muslims against the United States. Why is this simply assumed as obvious?
Are millions of Germans and Japanese against us for World War Two? It seems to me from history that the places where we still have enemies are places we fought and pulled out with incomplete victory.However, in places like post world war two europe where we rebuilt things it ended up actually being pro-american( the recent political debates notwithstanding)
The thing this first point ignores is that we are already at war. Attacking and defeating those who are already our enemies doesn't make them your enemies since they already were before the attack. What it does is put us in a position to have a chance at changing the next generation in that country. And if I believe many reports many Iraq citizens will be happy to be out form under saddam and sanctions and under a more economically stable occupation by us.
This assumption that muslims will be anti-american is not valid in my opinion. I think we will have an opportunity to show the arab world what Democracy and American values can bring to them in post war Iraq.
" War on Iraq will make the world safer from terrorism"
Seems to assume the reasons for terrorism. the article states our attack on Iraq will turn millions of muslims against the United States. Why is this simply assumed as obvious?
Are millions of Germans and Japanese against us for World War Two? It seems to me from history that the places where we still have enemies are places we fought and pulled out with incomplete victory.However, in places like post world war two europe where we rebuilt things it ended up actually being pro-american( the recent political debates notwithstanding)
The thing this first point ignores is that we are already at war. Attacking and defeating those who are already our enemies doesn't make them your enemies since they already were before the attack. What it does is put us in a position to have a chance at changing the next generation in that country. And if I believe many reports many Iraq citizens will be happy to be out form under saddam and sanctions and under a more economically stable occupation by us.
This assumption that muslims will be anti-american is not valid in my opinion. I think we will have an opportunity to show the arab world what Democracy and American values can bring to them in post war Iraq.
Upvote
0
This article handles that issue. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul49.html
From the preceding link:
"The process by which wefve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congressf abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
"Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution."
Upvote
0
panterapat
Praise God in all things!
1. War on Iraq Will Make the World Safer From Terrorism
Rebuttal- They struck us first, many times. Twin Towers 1993, USS Cole, two embassies in Africa, U.S. army base in Saudi Arabia, 9-11 etc.
We either fight back or roll over and play dead. Yea, it might be tough for awhile, but it is us or them.
2. Saddam Hussein the Biggest Threat to American National Security
Rebuttal- No, not yet. Would you rather wait until he has nuclear weapons?
3. Overthrowing Saddam Will Stabilize the Region
Rebuttal- This one is a toss up. Nobody knows what will happen. However, the people of Afganistan (especially the women) are more free and happier today than under the Taliban.
4. A War Will Save the US Economy.
Rebuttal- I've never heard this even used as a reason for the war. However, France and Germany are using their economies as reasons for blocking us. France has billions of $$$ in contracts with Saddam for oil, and Germany is providing Saddam with much technology.
5. War Will Bring Democracy to the Arabs.
Rebuttal- It just might. Look what has happened in Eastern Europe after our victory in the Cold War.
6. Because We're Already There
Rebuttal- Come on! Give us "war mongers" more credit than that.
7. Because George W. Bush is a Moral Man
Rebuttal- This is certainly not used as a justificatioin for war. BUT- this is a good reason to trust our president.
8. War: The American People Want It
Rebuttal- While polls show that majority of Ameicans support President Bush in the pending war, this is not, nor proported to be a reason for war. President Bush is actually taking a chance of becoming very unpopular through his actions with Iraq. But that is the cost of true leadership.
9. Because We're Supported by an 'Alliance of the Willing'
Rebuttal- Actually President Bush wanted to go this alone but Colin Powell convinced him to go through the U.N. Bush will act according to his conscience no matter what our the U.N. decides. Its called conviction.
10. Because Empire's Duty Demands Noble Sacrifice
Rebuttal- You're darn tootin' The noble sacrifices of the United States of America has saved Europe twice from Germany and once from the Soviet Union. We are the only country that will defeate a country in war, set that country free and rebuild that country, The Marshall Plan rebuild war torn Europe. Japan was rebuilt. Where the United States goes, those countries prosper.
In Christ, Patrick
Rebuttal- They struck us first, many times. Twin Towers 1993, USS Cole, two embassies in Africa, U.S. army base in Saudi Arabia, 9-11 etc.
We either fight back or roll over and play dead. Yea, it might be tough for awhile, but it is us or them.
2. Saddam Hussein the Biggest Threat to American National Security
Rebuttal- No, not yet. Would you rather wait until he has nuclear weapons?
3. Overthrowing Saddam Will Stabilize the Region
Rebuttal- This one is a toss up. Nobody knows what will happen. However, the people of Afganistan (especially the women) are more free and happier today than under the Taliban.
4. A War Will Save the US Economy.
Rebuttal- I've never heard this even used as a reason for the war. However, France and Germany are using their economies as reasons for blocking us. France has billions of $$$ in contracts with Saddam for oil, and Germany is providing Saddam with much technology.
5. War Will Bring Democracy to the Arabs.
Rebuttal- It just might. Look what has happened in Eastern Europe after our victory in the Cold War.
6. Because We're Already There
Rebuttal- Come on! Give us "war mongers" more credit than that.
7. Because George W. Bush is a Moral Man
Rebuttal- This is certainly not used as a justificatioin for war. BUT- this is a good reason to trust our president.
8. War: The American People Want It
Rebuttal- While polls show that majority of Ameicans support President Bush in the pending war, this is not, nor proported to be a reason for war. President Bush is actually taking a chance of becoming very unpopular through his actions with Iraq. But that is the cost of true leadership.
9. Because We're Supported by an 'Alliance of the Willing'
Rebuttal- Actually President Bush wanted to go this alone but Colin Powell convinced him to go through the U.N. Bush will act according to his conscience no matter what our the U.N. decides. Its called conviction.
10. Because Empire's Duty Demands Noble Sacrifice
Rebuttal- You're darn tootin' The noble sacrifices of the United States of America has saved Europe twice from Germany and once from the Soviet Union. We are the only country that will defeate a country in war, set that country free and rebuild that country, The Marshall Plan rebuild war torn Europe. Japan was rebuilt. Where the United States goes, those countries prosper.
In Christ, Patrick
Upvote
0
rebuttal of the Rebuttal
1.
Iraqi officials have no confirmed ties to the organisation, that actually did those things.
2.
Well N. Korea already has nuclear bombs in clear violation of treaties.
Additionally Russia and the other countries, that made up the USSR still have a large arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Some of them are even Muslim countries. For consistency´s sake the US will have to attack them, too. As well as China and paksitan. Those nations have nuclear weapons, too and are Anti US. (In case of Pakistan the citizens are but not the dictatorial government).
3.
What makes you sure, that people will get more free? What will prevent the installation of a religious dictatorship?
4.
France and Germany have contracts wit the current government. Will the possible new government grant very favorous contracts to the US? IF that happens, what´s the difference between the US and France?
5.
In Eastern Europe the parties of the ex communists are/were very strong. Add to the fact, that the Eastern European nations were not really rich and the people were upset about that. Therefore they wanted actively change their environment. The oil rich Arab nations are very rich. People are largely taken care of, eliminating the envy of the "Rich neighbours. Why should the people demand active change?
6.
Well of course because the US is already there. N. Korea is far more pressing, but it takes a lot of time to move the fleet around again.
7.
Bush is not so moral as he seems. He has shown to exhibit behavior to indicate unresponsibility. A moral man woudl actually present evidence for reason of war to the niternational community. Of course, there were grumbles about the military action in afghanistan. But wit the proof brought to the light, the international community was on the side of the US. With enough ptroof or evidence, the international community would be on the side of the US in this again.
8.
I guess, the US people as a whole are divided, the impensding war polarizes.
9.
There is the whole thing of precedence. International law is now clear. War of agression gets you outside of the international community. So with Bush ignoring laws and procedures, every nation, which feels the same way, may do the same. China can now try to invade Taiwan, because Taiwan may develop WMD´s or pose another sort of threat to China. India can now try to take over pakistan, because Pakistan poses a possibel threat to India. and all nations having nuclear weapons pose a threat to each other...
10.
First of, the Allies were pretty much winning in first world war anyways, without the US help. It would have taken longer, that´s true, but teh US was not essential. The US had no other choice to rebuild Europe and Japan. With mainland CHina going communistic, it needed a strong industrialized ally in the region. The US needed Europe. An industrialized nation needs other industrilaized nations to trade with. Since Africa and South america were at best developed countries at brink to industrialation, that didn´t leave much. Additionally would the US not have rebuilt the nations, they would have gone communistic.
I don´t see much rebuilding going on in Afghanistan, though. More like the Afghan leader having to come to US to ask them for help.
1.
Iraqi officials have no confirmed ties to the organisation, that actually did those things.
2.
Well N. Korea already has nuclear bombs in clear violation of treaties.
Additionally Russia and the other countries, that made up the USSR still have a large arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Some of them are even Muslim countries. For consistency´s sake the US will have to attack them, too. As well as China and paksitan. Those nations have nuclear weapons, too and are Anti US. (In case of Pakistan the citizens are but not the dictatorial government).
3.
What makes you sure, that people will get more free? What will prevent the installation of a religious dictatorship?
4.
France and Germany have contracts wit the current government. Will the possible new government grant very favorous contracts to the US? IF that happens, what´s the difference between the US and France?
5.
In Eastern Europe the parties of the ex communists are/were very strong. Add to the fact, that the Eastern European nations were not really rich and the people were upset about that. Therefore they wanted actively change their environment. The oil rich Arab nations are very rich. People are largely taken care of, eliminating the envy of the "Rich neighbours. Why should the people demand active change?
6.
Well of course because the US is already there. N. Korea is far more pressing, but it takes a lot of time to move the fleet around again.
7.
Bush is not so moral as he seems. He has shown to exhibit behavior to indicate unresponsibility. A moral man woudl actually present evidence for reason of war to the niternational community. Of course, there were grumbles about the military action in afghanistan. But wit the proof brought to the light, the international community was on the side of the US. With enough ptroof or evidence, the international community would be on the side of the US in this again.
8.
I guess, the US people as a whole are divided, the impensding war polarizes.
9.
There is the whole thing of precedence. International law is now clear. War of agression gets you outside of the international community. So with Bush ignoring laws and procedures, every nation, which feels the same way, may do the same. China can now try to invade Taiwan, because Taiwan may develop WMD´s or pose another sort of threat to China. India can now try to take over pakistan, because Pakistan poses a possibel threat to India. and all nations having nuclear weapons pose a threat to each other...
10.
First of, the Allies were pretty much winning in first world war anyways, without the US help. It would have taken longer, that´s true, but teh US was not essential. The US had no other choice to rebuild Europe and Japan. With mainland CHina going communistic, it needed a strong industrialized ally in the region. The US needed Europe. An industrialized nation needs other industrilaized nations to trade with. Since Africa and South america were at best developed countries at brink to industrialation, that didn´t leave much. Additionally would the US not have rebuilt the nations, they would have gone communistic.
I don´t see much rebuilding going on in Afghanistan, though. More like the Afghan leader having to come to US to ask them for help.
Upvote
0
panterapat
Praise God in all things!
It all comes down to this:
After 9-11 the rules have changed. And we can thank God that America, a Christian nation, is the one with the power to promote freedom.
We can't deal with China, Russia and N. Korea as we have with Afganistan and are about to with Iraq BECAUSE the priors have nukes and the latter does not. Shall we wait for this madman to possess such weapons. Then President Bush could mimic Neville Chamberlin and proclaim "Peace in our time." And like Neville, allow a dictator (Hitler/Saddam) to gain the power to launch another world war.
Saddam has given rewards to the families of Palistanian sucide bombers. He has killed 9% of the Iraqi population. He tortures his people by such methods as dipping them in acid, shooting in the head, applying cattle prods to the groin areas, poking red hot rods up the anus, cutting out tongues, etc. etc. etc. ad neuseum.
The world will be a better place without Saddam. Edmund Burke has told us: "The only thing needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Thank God we have a good man in the White House!
In Christ, Patrick
After 9-11 the rules have changed. And we can thank God that America, a Christian nation, is the one with the power to promote freedom.
We can't deal with China, Russia and N. Korea as we have with Afganistan and are about to with Iraq BECAUSE the priors have nukes and the latter does not. Shall we wait for this madman to possess such weapons. Then President Bush could mimic Neville Chamberlin and proclaim "Peace in our time." And like Neville, allow a dictator (Hitler/Saddam) to gain the power to launch another world war.
Saddam has given rewards to the families of Palistanian sucide bombers. He has killed 9% of the Iraqi population. He tortures his people by such methods as dipping them in acid, shooting in the head, applying cattle prods to the groin areas, poking red hot rods up the anus, cutting out tongues, etc. etc. etc. ad neuseum.
The world will be a better place without Saddam. Edmund Burke has told us: "The only thing needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Thank God we have a good man in the White House!
In Christ, Patrick
Upvote
0
you really do believe that, don't you?
1. Remember Tibet? Where's your "promoting freedom" Or Turkish Kurdistan? Or the Chechens? Where's your "promoting freedom".
Christian nation - whatever happened to: "Love your enemies"? Bombing the ... out of them doesn't sound very "loving" to me. If you are engaging in this war out of your "Christian nation" virtues, that sounds like fundamentalism throwing back to the days of the Crusades and makes you no different from Islamic Jihad.
2. "the rules have changed" - your rules, maybe (sanctioned transfer of prisoners to where countries permit torture, arbitary detention without trial, extrajudicial executions). But well, the rest of us still would like to live under international law.
3. What makes you think that firstly, America is the one (not just any but the one) to promote freedom, and secondly, that it does? Do the people of Cuba enjoy economic freedom? No--because America is upset that Castro has outlasted any American leader.
4. "madman" - that is a clear violation of the rules of this forum. The administrators have cleared issued a warning that anyone who disses any president will be given an official warning.
5. wait -- so you don't want to pick on the "mighty" but on the weak. Doesn't that sound like the school yard bully who goes after the smallest kid and not those who can fight back? IF you are acting on principle, you will act on your convictions--whatever the cost, and not when it costs you nothing/very little. You don't have to nuke Russian and China. Simply stop trading with them. Prevent all US companies from investing with them until they clear up their human records. Why won't your country to do if you're so concerned about "human rights"
6. rewards or compensation-for-the-houses-that-Israel-destroys. Maybe Saddam does that, but since when is that the business of America--without the security council? Do you really think that America gives two hoots about evil dictators and the pain they inflict on their population? What about China, Russia, N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.?
7. the world will be a better place without Saddam -- that may very well be true. But there's no place for vigilante justice in this world either--which is what the US is about to embark on.
1. Remember Tibet? Where's your "promoting freedom" Or Turkish Kurdistan? Or the Chechens? Where's your "promoting freedom".
Christian nation - whatever happened to: "Love your enemies"? Bombing the ... out of them doesn't sound very "loving" to me. If you are engaging in this war out of your "Christian nation" virtues, that sounds like fundamentalism throwing back to the days of the Crusades and makes you no different from Islamic Jihad.
2. "the rules have changed" - your rules, maybe (sanctioned transfer of prisoners to where countries permit torture, arbitary detention without trial, extrajudicial executions). But well, the rest of us still would like to live under international law.
3. What makes you think that firstly, America is the one (not just any but the one) to promote freedom, and secondly, that it does? Do the people of Cuba enjoy economic freedom? No--because America is upset that Castro has outlasted any American leader.
4. "madman" - that is a clear violation of the rules of this forum. The administrators have cleared issued a warning that anyone who disses any president will be given an official warning.
5. wait -- so you don't want to pick on the "mighty" but on the weak. Doesn't that sound like the school yard bully who goes after the smallest kid and not those who can fight back? IF you are acting on principle, you will act on your convictions--whatever the cost, and not when it costs you nothing/very little. You don't have to nuke Russian and China. Simply stop trading with them. Prevent all US companies from investing with them until they clear up their human records. Why won't your country to do if you're so concerned about "human rights"
6. rewards or compensation-for-the-houses-that-Israel-destroys. Maybe Saddam does that, but since when is that the business of America--without the security council? Do you really think that America gives two hoots about evil dictators and the pain they inflict on their population? What about China, Russia, N Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.?
7. the world will be a better place without Saddam -- that may very well be true. But there's no place for vigilante justice in this world either--which is what the US is about to embark on.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
valorJ
Well-Known Member
- Mar 5, 2003
- 414
- 4
- 40
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Well Rae, perhaps you missed Bin Laden's latest communication with the world telling Iraq everything will be ok, and that they will beat America if they do what he says? I would say, that that in itself is evidence of the two being in league together.
Upvote
0
"hey valorJ, let's go rob Fort Knox! PS we'll split the gold 50-50"
gee, I guess that makes us "in league" together huh?
gee, I guess that makes us "in league" together huh?
Upvote
0
I don't see Bin Laden's statement as evidence that he and Hussein are in league together. I see it as an opportunistic (and predictable) use of Iraq's impending troubles as a rallying point for disaffected Muslims throughout the region. We in America won't likely see many television images of dead Iraqi civilians. People throughout the Middle East will, and it will undoubtedly stoke an already burning resentment toward us. From a recruiting standpoint, an American war with Iraq is Bin Laden's dream come true.
Upvote
0
Bin Laden's message was aimed at Iraqi citizens, not the regime. In another part of the same taped statement, he went off on a diatribe about how much he hates Saddam and hopes he dies and stuff.
Upvote
0
panterapat
Praise God in all things!
The American Civil War was fought for other reasons than slavery. However, the wonderful result of this war was freedom for slaves. This war is usually characterized as a war about slavery yet it wasn't.
This pending war with Iraq may not be about freeing the Iraqi citizens but hopefully this will be a wonderful result of the war.
People who have lived in Iraq are not those protesting in the streets. They have memories filled with fear and horror of Saddam's atrocities.
When this war is over and the Iraqi people are cheering the Americans, the truth will come to light. And we will give aid to these people and set them free to determine their own political destiny.
No other country in the history of the earth would defeat an enemy, build them back up, and set them free.
America is great!!!!!!!!!
This pending war with Iraq may not be about freeing the Iraqi citizens but hopefully this will be a wonderful result of the war.
People who have lived in Iraq are not those protesting in the streets. They have memories filled with fear and horror of Saddam's atrocities.
When this war is over and the Iraqi people are cheering the Americans, the truth will come to light. And we will give aid to these people and set them free to determine their own political destiny.
No other country in the history of the earth would defeat an enemy, build them back up, and set them free.
America is great!!!!!!!!!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Doctrine1st
Official nitwit
Hmmm....there's always has been this "what they want you to know, and what they don't want you to know."
Upvote
0
You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." - attributed to Abraham Lincoln
Upvote
0
Rae
Pro-Marriage. All marriage.
- Aug 31, 2002
- 7,793
- 408
- 51
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
Still no evidence that bin Laden, who said Hussein's an infidel and should be removed, has any connection to Saddam. Sorry.
Of course bin Laden will seize any opportunity to look like he's sympathetic to the Iraqi people in the hopes that they'll turn to him from their current secular regime. The Iraqi people are NOT Saddam either, BTW. They are people who happen to be governed by a despot. That doesn't make them despots.
Of course bin Laden will seize any opportunity to look like he's sympathetic to the Iraqi people in the hopes that they'll turn to him from their current secular regime. The Iraqi people are NOT Saddam either, BTW. They are people who happen to be governed by a despot. That doesn't make them despots.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Wether or not a site as bias towards one stance, it´s the arguments that count. The site can be biased strongly, if the argument is build on solid ground, it´s valid. TheBear, please point out the invalidty of the arguments instead of disregarding them summarily because you don´t agree with the opinion.
Panterapat, how about adressing my rebuttals instead of avoiding them?
Hussein is a dictator of the worst sort. Of course it would be better for the citizens, if he doesn´t govern Iraq anymore, no question.However before someone removes him, the following questions need to be taken into account:
Does an exile parliament exist, whoch is made up from ALL ethnic7religious groups in Iraq?
If yes, is this parliament guaranteed to stay secular?
Forcibly removing a government, because it´s a dictatorship in this casae must result in removing all governments, which are dictatorships, have WMD´s and commit human rights violations.
Setting a precedent to attack a nation based on a possible threat would give other nations the same right. (China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan, Russia/various ex USSR nations)
Attack without active participation of Muslim nations will be viewed as singling out Muslim nations, especially now that N. Korea is doing more than Iraq.
This only in addition to the earlier arguments.
Panterapat, how about adressing my rebuttals instead of avoiding them?
Hussein is a dictator of the worst sort. Of course it would be better for the citizens, if he doesn´t govern Iraq anymore, no question.However before someone removes him, the following questions need to be taken into account:
Does an exile parliament exist, whoch is made up from ALL ethnic7religious groups in Iraq?
If yes, is this parliament guaranteed to stay secular?
Forcibly removing a government, because it´s a dictatorship in this casae must result in removing all governments, which are dictatorships, have WMD´s and commit human rights violations.
Setting a precedent to attack a nation based on a possible threat would give other nations the same right. (China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan, Russia/various ex USSR nations)
Attack without active participation of Muslim nations will be viewed as singling out Muslim nations, especially now that N. Korea is doing more than Iraq.
This only in addition to the earlier arguments.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
