Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I've been picked to debate the pro-side of the War

Discussion in 'Legal' started by AZRickD, May 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    A local Phoenix talk radio show host, Ernest Hancock has scheduled a debate on the pros and cons of the Iraqi War. He will have two radio hosts from his station, the 50,000 watt blow torch, 1100 AM arguing the anti-war side (conservative Charles Goyette, who was fired by Clear Channel for being anti-war; and liberal Mike Newcomb, who ran for governor a few years ago).

    He had planned to have two hosts arguing the pro-war side but he couldn't find any that would "go on the record." So, the producer of the Bob Mohan show will be arguing the pro side. That leaves one spot open... uh, likely to be filled by me.

    Problem is, I'm uncharacteristically squishy on this issue (my "conservo-libertarianism" clashing with itself, I guess), so I would like your help to point me to some pro-arguments.

    These would cover the chronology from the original Gulf War, to the first UN Declarations, to the inspections to the attacks on US planes in the No-Fly-Zone, The World Trade Center attacks, Afghanistan, "Axis of Evil," weapons of mass destruction, or not, to the recent UN Declarations, to the votes by Congressmen, flip-flopping, to the running of the war, (semi-unilaterally to quasi-ununilaterally), to the current status of the war, nation-building, to the exit strategy, to the definition of winning... etc, etc.

    Thanks for your help.

    Rick
    Fence Sitter Debat-guy
     
  2. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
  3. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    That's a good start.

    Anybody want to tackle the issue of "preemptive strike?"

    WMD?

    Torture chambers vs US interrogators?

    Rick
     
  4. atek3

    atek3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    SW CT
    Don't forget how Iraq was behind 9/11, at least that's what the majority of americans surveyed believe :fire:

    atek3
     
  5. ThreadKiller

    ThreadKiller Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Hmmm.... I never once believed that Iraq was directly tied to 9/11. I don't remember the Bush Admin asserting that to be true. I do remember Iraq being named alongwith Iran and Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil." We were told the WOT would long, difficult and would range all over the globe. We were told it was a "new kind of war."

    Pre-emptive strikes? I'm all for 'em. In this day and age where one man armed with an all too available nucwep, we as a country have to be willing to fight this new threat. A little 1K device detonated in downtown Chicago, LA, San Fran, Seattle, Denver would devastate the US economy, mainly because the sheep would panic and tear themselves apart.

    I still believe the Admin has access to much more intel than any of our armchair generals will ever have.

    Until 2003, even John Kerry publicly believed there were WMD's in Iraq. So did many of his DNC counterparts. Now of course, they're singing a different song.

    Saddam had a 707 up north in Salmon Pak for terrorist training purposes. He gave families of suicide bombers $25K. He was aiding and abetting terrorists. He had to go.

    One of many that will go.

    Tim
     
  6. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    From Media Research Center www.mrc.org

    http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040510.asp#2
     
  7. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,010
    Why would you want to do such a thing?
    :confused:
     
  8. boofus

    boofus Guest

    While I don't agree with the timing of the Iraq war something did need to be done. Iraq was a loose end that needed dealing with. American and British pilots were still patrolling the Kurdish areas and Saddam's force would still take potshots at our planes with AA and surface-air missiles. Every time he defied the cease-fire he proved he could not be trusted. He played games with the UN for 12 years and squirreled away his arsenal including missiles and Mig-25 aircraft, so why wouldn't he be able to do the same with chemical or biological weapons. Also the terms of his surrender were for him to obey the UN resolutions for disarmament and inspections. By not abiding by those terms the war never ended. He broke his end of the contract.

    UN sanctions WERE NOT working. They were bleeding the ordinary people dry while Saddam lined his pockets and those of various Europeans in the oil for food program. Hell he still had gold plated MP5s and Steyr AUGs and 13 or so palaces. Does that seem like someone that is being crippled economically?

    What would the UN rather do? Starve all of the ordinary citizens of Iraq to death with more and more economic sanctions while Saddam lives up his life of luxury in those 13 mansions? The old way of dealing with Saddam was NOT working. It was time to try something else and that's exactly what Bush did. (though he should have waited til Bin Laden's head was on a stake before closing the Iraq loophole)
     
  9. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    No offense dude, but you are going to get clobbered (If the other guy is not brain dead).


    better do some research on the dead horse you are going to be riding, you already have the fundamental point wrong: Bush did indeed say Iraq was a supporter of Al Qaeda and linked them to 9/11 on numerous occasions, the most notorious being his "victory" speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Both he and Cheney reversed themselves on that position with public statements a few months back and it made headlines on the nightly news.

    He also said Iraq was supplying WMD to Al Qaeda (another total lie). Wear kevlar man, you are in for it. Stick to the argument that "Saddam just needed killing", because it's the only one the admin has put forth that hasn't been completely disproven.... and the rednecks always love it because they wanted somebody to pay for 9/11.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2627-2003May1

    Bush Speech Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln

    FDCH E-Media
    Thursday, May 1, 2003; 9:43 PM


    Excerpts From President Bush's speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

    /////We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got. (APPLAUSE)

    ////// The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America. By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (APPLAUSE)

    ////// From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down Al Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of Al Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed. (APPLAUSE) The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
     
  10. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    I wondered too, but was afraid to ask.
     
  11. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,010
    :D Sometimes, one has to just go for it :)

    MR
     
  12. telomerase

    telomerase Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    The bear-infested hills of Grafton NH
    Hooray for pre-pre-pre-emptive war!

    Good things about the war:

    1. It has killed fewer Iraqis than the previous policy of blockading Iraq's civil economy while giving billions in Iraq's oil money directly to Saddam (well, with a cut for those UN bureaucrats).

    2. It has ended the feuding between Sunni and Shiite sects (now they both want to see all Americans dead).

    You're going to have some trouble with other issues, so practice on these:

    1. The war is estimated to cost as much as terraforming Mars, and probably ten times as much as finding a cure for cancer. (Whereas normally we can choose the name of a nation's dictator for a mere couple of billion).

    2. The war was never declared by Congress (Jefferson would have had a problem with this).

    3. There were no WMDs, which is the only reason the US could build up a WWII-style army in concentrated bases in Kuwait. The war serves as a deadly warning to every government: get WMDs or be invaded.

    4. The US is now seen as a mass torturer worldwide, even by our allies (technically, we have more than one: Scotland, Wales, and Airstrip One).

    5. Whether or not there was a massive global anti-American terrorist movement before, there will be now.

    Gotta admire your pluck in taking the pro side! (Maybe you'll get a Kerry "send in the Peace Corps and put the UN in charge of the world" guy as an opponent, and they'll make the war look reasonable as an alternative...)
     
  13. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    Because debating is fun. Of course, usually I take the side upon that which I agree.

    But I was asked by the radio host and moderator of this 4-way debate to fill the slot. Since all the pro-war people were in hiding, it would have made the debate four against one (sorta like "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher") and hence, really, really boring...certainly something that *I* wouldn't want to be in the audience for.

    He agreed and said that he wanted me to moderate so that he could take on the pro-war side (he is Big-L Libertarian and opposes the Iraq war), but I convinced him that it would be better if I took the role.

    A few months earlier at a debate, gun law writer
    Alan Korwin was to debate an anti-gun professor at Arizona State University. The professor found out who Alan was and refused to go on leaving Alan alone and left only to do a monologue about his new book Supreme Court Gun Cases . About 30 minutes before the show was to start, I asked the moderator to let me assume the anti-gun argument. I went table to table trying to collect and write down all the likely anti-gun arguments and techniques such a person might employ, "sensible gun laws," "we don't want to ban guns," "nobody needs an AK to hunt deer...".

    It worked out well. I attempted to do, with a straight face, the anti-gun side. I was so convincing that a group of senior citizens in the front row, who didn't know who I was, were glaring at me for the whole hour+. One person in the middle of the group attempted to catch me in hypocracy by demanding to know what was in my fanny pack. I told him that it contained "cosmetics and toiletries." He glared at me.

    The gig was up when I exceeded my ability to keep a straight face. One questioner wanted to know why I said, "guns are not the answer to our problems." I responded, quite reverently, and in the softest, tofu-slurping voice, "Sir,...in a post-Columbine world..." I lost it with a Danny Thomas spit-take. I had to bury my head in a linen napkin, I was laughing so hard. I eventually composed myself and continued, but it became a free-for-all after that.

    And, Bounty Hunter, when you wrote, " No offense dude, but you are going to get clobbered (If the other guy is not brain dead)..." you are aware that it was ThreadKiller who wrote that, not me? Anyway, I have little problem with his point.

    Rick
     
  14. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
  15. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    My bad.
     
  16. bountyhunter

    bountyhunter member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Fascist-Fornia
    It also brought together two groups I would have never though could possibly be within a mile of each other without bloodshed: the Sunnis (who formely supported Saddam) and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda (to wit, Bin Laden) and Saddam were mortal enemies because OBL had bragged he was going to dump Hussein's regime and install an Islamic theocracy. needless to say, Al Qaeda was persona non gratis in Iraq while Hussein was there. And as long as there was a chance Hussein might come back, the Sunni (Saddam Loyalists) were obliged to stay at a distance from Al Qaeda. Now that Saddam is toast, all the Sunni's are free agents and are going to fight for whichever side:

    1) pays the best

    2) kills the most Americans.

    hence, Al Qaeda.
     
  17. junyo

    junyo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    719
    1. It has killed fewer Iraqis than the previous policy of blockading Iraq's civil economy while giving billions in Iraq's oil money directly to Saddam (well, with a cut for those UN bureaucrats).

    Yep, we forced Saddam to steal money specifically allocated for humanitarian goals. Too bad we didn't consult with someone (like the Security Council) before those sanctions went into place, or didn't think of putting say, UN administrators in charge of the program to watch out for impropriety.

    2. It has ended the feuding between Sunni and Shiite sects (now they both want to see all Americans dead).

    Yeah, they just loved us before. All those videos they're always showing of them kissing American flags in the Middle East.

    You're going to have some trouble with other issues, so practice on these:

    1. The war is estimated to cost as much as terraforming Mars, and probably ten times as much as finding a cure for cancer. (Whereas normally we can choose the name of a nation's dictator for a mere couple of billion).

    I'm assuming you have an itemized reciept for the cost of terraforming Mars? Because otherwise you'd just be throwing out a nonsense figure that sounded good, but meant nothing. Like 'larger than some US states' when the person actually means 'larger than Rhode Island' i.e. 'smaller than the average yard in Texas'. I've seen cost estimates for terraforming Mars from $450 bil (which seems like a lot of money) down to $10 bill (which the government probably spends on giveaway knicknacks for Airforce One). Comparisions are useless without a valid basis.

    2. The war was never declared by Congress (Jefferson would have had a problem with this).

    And no president since Reagan, Clinton included, has let that stop him from sending troops into combat. At least this president got specific authorization from Congress to do so.

    3. There were no WMDs, which is the only reason the US could build up a WWII-style army in concentrated bases in Kuwait. The war serves as a deadly warning to every government: get WMDs or be invaded.

    Um, no. Iraq had an obligation not just to not have WMDs, but to verify that it didn't have them. A convict's not allowed to have weapons; does his parole officer take him at his word when he says he's not carrying, despite the suspect bulge in his pocket? Could be a roll of quarters, could be a gun. Does he pat him down? And if the convict refuses to be patted down, does the parole officer say 'Okay, nothing I can do'? Or does the convict find himself over the hood of a car getting cuffed? The convict lost he right to refuse that search when he commited a crime. Iraq lost it's right to say what inspectors could or couldn't look at when they lost DS1. Therefore the warning should be, "If we even think you're holding, we reserve the right to look. BTW, we might break some stuff on the way in."

    4. The US is now seen as a mass torturer worldwide, even by our allies (technically, we have more than one: Scotland, Wales, and Airstrip One).

    France has openly done 'hard' interrogations for years. Police abuse doesn't contaminate evidence in most Western countries the way it does in the uS, so the police have a much freer hand to 'persuade' prisoners. If the world sees the US as torturers now, then that makes us much more 'Continental'.

    5. Whether or not there was a massive global anti-American terrorist movement before, there will be now.

    Whether or not? The first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole, 9/11... Isolated incidents huh?
     
  18. telomerase

    telomerase Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    The bear-infested hills of Grafton NH
    Real terrorists don't hijack planes

    All trivial. One guy with some ANFO and a bass boat could kill 100,000 Californians by knocking out one dam in California. Several biological agents could be deployed to kill millions for only a little more money. If there were really a worldwide terrorist organization with hundreds of millions of dollars (as claimed about Bin Laden), it wouldn't make a couple of piddling attacks and then do nothing for two years.

    Either the "terrorists" are about as funded and organized as the KKK, or the terrorists are being manipulated and used by ambitious men as Spartacus was. Either way, the main threat to you and I is still the same one that killed 200 million people in the 20th century in "peacetime"... and that ain't a few raggedy men.

    PS You do remember who paid for the first World Trade Center bomb, right?
     
  19. telomerase

    telomerase Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    The bear-infested hills of Grafton NH
    You mean since FDR. Damn, now you made me say something good about FDR; I feel so dirty.
     
  20. telomerase

    telomerase Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    The bear-infested hills of Grafton NH
    Absolutely true. And that is good because...?
     
  21. telomerase

    telomerase Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    The bear-infested hills of Grafton NH
    OK, I admit that the US government couldn't terraform Mars for the cost of the Iraq war. But private owners could; the technology to move asteroids around has been around since the '60s:

    http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/neil_armstrong.htm
     
  22. charby

    charby Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    Middle of IO-WAY
    Mass Genocide (kurds and marsh arabs, others), miss approproations of Oil for Food, Raping women, supporting suicide bombers, death treats made to Bush Sr(1st gulf war), etc. Saddam, sons and loyal Baath party members were tyranical a-holes.
     
  23. CaesarI

    CaesarI Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    408
    Location:
    KS
    Assistance

    Short story: Saddam Hussein demonstrated a history of violent aggression against his neighbors. Given his predilictions towards the construction of not so nice weapons (poison gas among them), it is reasonable to assume that he would continue this pursuit. Striking him while he was weaker, serves two purposes:
    1. Easier to hit him now w/o the weapons.
    2. Sends a deliberate message to the Islamo-fascists who have been eyeing us for signs of weakness. It supports Bush's previous statements that we would make war on "those nations that harbor and support terrorism". For examples of Saddam's support of terrorism:
    a. $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
    b. In 1998 several terrorists were sent out from Iraq IIRC 30 teams, they were all caught, but they were still sent out.

    Addtionally, Saddam surrendered unconditionally in 1991, we have maintained continous operations against him since then, he has violated the peace agreement, thus, we were in our rights to strike.

    Lastly, it is argued that our motivations here were impure, that our "liberation" is inconsistent with previous actions. OK, so our record ain't spotless, does this mean we can't act to remove him now when it might be in our collective security self-interest? The guy's "evil" personally, I want all evil rulers removed from power. This would include N.Korea

    If anyone even *starts* to say smack about "it's all about oil" call'em a moron and ask'em why we didn't invade Venezuela, from whom we get a larger share of our oil, when Venezuela's oil supplies dried up a little before the war due to political upheavals. Or why don't we invade Mexico? Or why didn't we just keep the oil wells in 1991 in the first place? This assertion is so bogus it isn't even funny, there are plenty of other countries we could have hit that had oil. There are not plenty of other openly hostile muslim nations that we could hit.

    Actually, from a strategy standpoint, hope and pray they talk about oil. If they do, you can beat'em everywhich way to Sunday. And they'll look like TOTAL idiots.

    WMD?
    The best evidence available indicated that there was a good probability that Saddam had or would soon have WMDs. Presuming Bush et al. used cost-benefit analysis, what odds would be acceptable before it would be worth our striking? If there were a 10% chance Saddam had them, and might give them to hostile parties, would it be worth sending troops in?

    Further, if Bush were right, and we waited, and we were hit with WMD's *first* what would the situation look like? More Americans dead, and Iraq would be radioactive. Does that sound good? Didn't think so.

    Finally, if he did have WMDs how pre-emptive would you want Bush to be? The whole point of WMD's is that the very threat of their existence justifies pre-emption because the costs of waiting for a first-strike with WMD's are so terribly high. Do you think there wouldn't be martial law in 5 minutes after a WMD strike on US soil?

    Torture chambers vs US interrogators?
    The WSJ is doing an excellent job covering this issue.
    I did a nice summary of their relevent remarks here:
    http://www.thementalmilitia.org/clairefiles/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=1099&st=15

    1. We've condemned the actions.
    2. A lot of Marines are very upset about the whole thing, on account of the negative effects its going to have.
    3. People do weird, messed up things when they are put in positions of power, witness the Stanford Prison Experiment .
    4. There's a lot of BS propoganda:
    http://aztlan.net/castrate.htm <--- this is a porno picture
    http://aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm <--- more porno (note the hair color of the girl in question, and the color of the camo)
    5. In sum, building off of 4, there is a complete and total absence of any rationality of skepticism on the part of people condemning US actions now.

    -Morgan
     
  24. telomerase

    telomerase Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,218
    Location:
    The bear-infested hills of Grafton NH
  25. AZRickD

    AZRickD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,684
    Y'all have been very helpful with both sides.

    I'll have to lock myself into the den for the next two nights, study up, and take notes.

    This should be fun.

    Rick
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page