Jump to content

Iraq war pro's?

ZachariahDaMan

By ZachariahDaMan
in The Coffee House

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Snowguy716 Burg

Snowguy716

Posted
Posted

One thing you should stress is that what is done is done. We can't undo what has already been done, and with that in mind, you should say things like:

1) The removal of Saddam Hussein will be good for Iraq in the long term

2) Giving people the right to choose their leaders has given the people a voice, even if it has made things more dangerous.

3) While the presence of Al-Queda and terrorists in Iraq before the U.S invasion is unknown, they are there now. It simply shows that the terrorists will come whereever they see fit to fight us.

4) A democratic, stable Iraq will be very good for the middle east in the long term.

There a lot of other things, but I'm just very tired right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nowensone Burg

nowensone

Posted
Posted

I'd definitely go with the "long term" aspect Snowguy mentioned, in whatever form in which it is applicable, and I'd make sure I'd finish my argument with something like this:

"Many leaders are not visionaries until long after their eras, as are their policies, decisions, and actions, and I ask you this - would the man who might have killed Adolf Hitler in his late teens be lauded as a hero, or a base murderer?"

But don't go with something like "history is not determined by what doesn't happen". It has a zinger type ring to it, but can be twisted back on you by the irony that much of history that did not happen has been written to have happened, or something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pillsbury Burg

Pillsbury

Posted
Posted

I'm with Snowguy on this. I would stress the following:

1. People at least have a glimmer of hope without Saddam---true it's only a glimmer---and it's true they're in worse shape than they were under Saddam---but at least it's a glimmer of something, which is more than they ever had under Saddam;

2. The people may have a chance of participating in their government. They obviously want the opportunity and have proven so in the past. Can the zealots among them look beyond their collective differences? I'm not sure.

3. If we are successful and quashing the Civil War, putting down the insurgents, and establishing a safe and stable government there which is sympathetic to our needs, then the USA will benefit greatly from the alliance.

4. If we can pull this off, then maybe it will help with our image across the world.

I was never a supporter of this war, but I want us to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Worley Burg

Captain Worley

Posted
Posted

We won the war. We're not doing real well on controlling the borders so terrorists and arms don't get in and disrupt the nation (re)building.

I'd mention that in the long term, a democratic Iraq will be a good thing for the middle east. It isn't going to be easy, or come overnight, but once people get a taste of freedom, I think it'll get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Worley Burg

Captain Worley

Posted
Posted
True the declared war ended 42 month ago with GW Bush's photo op "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier.

Did we win. No. The reason for going into Iraq was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs. None were found. So reason #2 that was cooked up was to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. That hasn't happened. Instead 42 months later the place has descended into chaos where the most powerful players there now are Islamic clerics.

There won't be any victories for the USA in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Worley Burg

Captain Worley

Posted
Posted
Having lived though the latter parts of the Vietnam , and seeing people I know killed in that senseless war, I was not in agreement with the war when there were still diplomatic options available. You are assuming that I don't know what it means to go to war when you say "You've got to realize...." when I in fact do. We did not go off to war, we went off to a photo-op for the administration whose people said this would be a "cakewalk".

War means you provide the resources to fight it to its successful conclusion. The Bush administration is not doing this as there are not enough troops there, there isn't enough equipment there, and we have not made the commitment to "war" as you seem to think we have. You either are fighting a war and you go all out at it, or you get out. This was exactly the problem with Vietnam and is now the problem with Iraq.

We have now been fighting in Iraq longer than WWII. If the administration will not seriously fight this thing, then we need to get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted
I actually think we need to send more troops, more weapons, kick the journalists out, and start running a REAL operation to get the terrorists out.

But, yes or no, were you EVER for it? I was at the beginning and I am now.

Sadly, I think we're going to have to go into Iran and N. Korea too. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, because N Korea would be a real bloodbath....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dimebag1980 Metropolis

dimebag1980

Posted
Posted
Maybe you didn't notice that your posts were not the only ones deleted so you can drop the accusation that we are unfair here. Neither side of that debate had nothing to do with this topic. If you want to complain about N. Korea start a topic on it. It never ceases to amaze how much criticism we get for providing a forum free of charge. The only other advice that I can offer is if you don't like it here then go somewhere else. Else, don't restart something that we choose to delete. :angry:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

Both Republicans and Democrats are very upset that Rumsfield sent a memo to Bush the day before the election that basically called for the same plan the Democrats had been calling for as was being lambasted by Bush as "cut & run". It's interesting watching them backpeddle on that.

More to the point of this thread however the Secretary General in an interview with the BBC (which Americans as usual won't get to see) said that the situation in Iraq is far far worse now than it was under Saddam and he regrets he wasn't given more time by Bush to have tried to stop this war. If you guys remember Bush set a hard date for the war and once he did that, nothing else was going to matter. Americans were too lost in the war lust and were busy frying up "freedom fries" and pouring their French wine down the drain. "We will show them." Well I guess we did unfortunately.

I suppose it was a tough debate as I can't imagine that any good has come from it. Though I guess that really depends upon how informed your opponents might have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nowensone Burg

nowensone

Posted
Posted

You might be able to make a positive argument out of a negative - the war and our latest president in general may have put us in such a bind that real change begins to take place in this country, and perhaps in the world as well. The Iraq War, especially if the situation devolves into something much worse, may be the catalyst for a much stronger world order, the UN with teeth or something like that. Which is to say other nations, other than the US, will be forced to get involved for real, monetarily, diplomatically, politically. It is too early for there to be facts and figures for positive things coming out of this.

If in 50 years Iraq is some Middle Eastern utopia of high technology, human rights and scholarship, for example, someone then may give a nod to Bush for being a visionary, but here and now he should rightfully be demonized. You will have to take this approach. I imagine Lincoln could not have been popular for committing northern forces, and countless lives, to preserving the Union, which was nothing more than a concept really. Now a days we praise him for a variety of things that would not have happened but for the war, such as the ending of an institution that would otherwise have continued on in a new southern nation for much longer - slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZachariahDaMan Burg

ZachariahDaMan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I just did the debate earlier...what a disaster. It was us 2 against 1 person (because someone else bailed, they didn't like the topic we agreed on). We didn't even get through all of our points before our teacher told us to go right to the conclusion. I gave our conclusion then the guy against war looks at his paper and goes "oh sh*t". He didn't even know what to say because he can't read his writing. After one point I made he just goes uhhh trying to find something to use as a rebuttal.

Anyways, here were my points:

1. The war is losing support because of negative media. Many, many more died in WWII.

2. Saddam Hussein was key. He was a threat to country, committed genocide against his own people.

3. No weapons of mass destruction but there was labs for biological and chemical weapon production.

4. Our image will improve if we succeed in creating peace in Iraq.

Before you start disagreeing with my points remember that I didn't write them all and defending the war isn't the easiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.