Question to you Pro War People.

[Yogi]

All right, all I have heard is that the reason to invade Iraq is because the regime is evil. Even the finding of WMDs is not even a good enough reason to appease good chunks of the pro-war crowd. So, in that case, let me ask these two questions.

1) If the USA decides to go home after it's done with Iraq, will you be violently protesting the fact that the US is not going to another country with a evil dictator (and for you moderate Pro-war people out there, WMDs)? Remember, if you're not supporting the military going in and crushing the dictatorship, you're supporting the regime, and you wouldn't want to support North Korea (for example) would you?

2) Were you supporting the US going into random countries and kicking out dictators before, say September 11, 2001? If not, why were you supporting the Taliban (for example) regieme before that date?

Of course, it could be possible for someone to not support a regime, but think that it is not the US's job to go around eliminating evil dictators, just like it's not really a good thing to go into random fundie families, kill the parents, destroy all religous material, then instiall pro-athiest parents in their place. These people are called peacenicks and they support anything that they aren't actively fighting against.

[Joe]

All right, all I have heard is that the reason to invade Iraq is because the regime is evil. Even the finding of WMDs is not even a good enough reason to appease good chunks of the pro-war crowd. So, in that case, let me ask these two questions.

1) If the USA decides to go home after it's done with Iraq, will you be violently protesting the fact that the US is not going to another country with a evil dictator (and for you moderate Pro-war people out there, WMDs)? Remember, if you're not supporting the military going in and crushing the dictatorship, you're supporting the regime, and you wouldn't want to support North Korea (for example) would you?

2) Were you supporting the US going into random countries and kicking out dictators before, say September 11, 2001? If not, why were you supporting the Taliban (for example) regieme before that date?

Of course, it could be possible for someone to not support a regime, but think that it is not the US's job to go around eliminating evil dictators, just like it's not really a good thing to go into random fundie families, kill the parents, destroy all religous material, then instiall pro-athiest parents in their place. These people are called peacenicks and they support anything that they aren't actively fighting against.

1) Not when we can deal with N. Korea diplomatically (without the nuclear annihilation of Seoul, no less).

2) I never supported the Taliban. That money was UN famine relief, if my memory serves me. And Iraq is not a random country, by the way; U.S. foreign policy has been moving towards this war for years now.

[Queeb Salaron]

1) If the USA decides to go home after it's done with Iraq, will you be violently protesting the fact that the US is not going to another country with a evil dictator (and for you moderate Pro-war people out there, WMDs)? Remember, if you're not supporting the military going in and crushing the dictatorship, you're supporting the regime, and you wouldn't want to support North Korea (for example) would you?

Come on, now... Now you sound like one of the pro-warsies. It almost sounds like the argument made on one of those other threads, that because we anti-warsies don't support the war, we support Sadaam. Bullshit. Just because we don't invade a country doesn't mean we support what's going on there. Hell, most politicians scoff at the idea of Democratic Socialism, and yet we're not going to invade France. We're not going to invade the Congo, and we REALLY don't approve of what's going on down there. And there are thousands of countries like that. Brazil comes readily to mind.

2) Were you supporting the US going into random countries and kicking out dictators before, say September 11, 2001? If not, why were you supporting the Taliban (for example) regieme before that date?[/quote]
First of all, normal citizens DID NOT support the Taliban. Maybe the government did, but that was without the knowledge of the ordinary citizen. So go ahead and personally blame a whole bunch of people who had never even HEARD of the Taliban before Sept. 11th. Real fucking good.

Second, I find it funny that you have to resort to nitpicking on pro-war advocates. Who cares what they were doing prior to Sept. 11th? Chances are that yes, they were ok with the idea of kicking out dictators prior to 9/11. But what does that matter? You're grasping at straws here. If you have a point to make, I suggest you make it and be done with it. You most certainly do not need to attack the integrity of the pro-war members of this board, and it's insane that you would go so far as to blame them for things like the US support of the Taliban. Come on, now... Let's grow up a bit.

[Queeb Salaron]

EDIT: Second non-quoted paragraph should be quoted. If a mod could fix that, it'd be great. If not, beh, whatever.

[Skelron]

quote]
Come on, now... Now you sound like one of the pro-warsies. It almost sounds like the argument made on one of those other threads, that because we anti-warsies don't support the war, we support Sadaam. Bullshit. Just because we don't invade a country doesn't mean we support what's going on there. Hell, most politicians scoff at the idea of Democratic Socialism, and yet we're not going to invade France. We're not going to invade the Congo, and we REALLY don't approve of what's going on down there. And there are thousands of countries like that. Brazil comes readily to mind.

I kinda think thats his point, reversing the argument on the Pro-war people who constantly say if your anti-war your pro-saddam, it read as sarcastic to me, saying using that argument if your not Pro-War else where then your Pro-that Government.

Basically the whole points he was making was to expose, (in my eyes anyway could be WAY of base here) the point that that entire line of attack of on those board members who are anti-war is stupid. (see threads such as the one whose title basically says that Anti-War people are Supporter's of saddams regime as one example)

[Yogi]

I personally don't beleive that if you're not working against something, you're supporting it. However, the pro-war people do, so I'm seeing if their philosophy is actually hypocritical or not.

[Hamel]

Basically the whole points he was making was to expose, (in my eyes anyway could be WAY of base here) the point that that entire line of attack of on those board members who are anti-war is stupid. (see threads such as the one whose title basically says that Anti-War people are Supporter's of saddams regime as one example)

It's a blatant black/white fallacy, and sometimes goes lowers itself to an outright strawman argument. Unfortunately, that's the preferred way of debating the issue with people who don't support the war. Hell, even libertarians on freerepublic are victims of this bullshit

[Yogi]

1) Not when we can deal with N. Korea diplomatically (without the nuclear annihilation of Seoul, no less).

So you think you can "diplomatically" convince Kim Jong-il to step down from office and have the country convert to democracy?
Riiiiiiight. You're starting to sound like a peacenik.

2) I never supported the Taliban.

Good for you! So even before 9/11 you were supporting US troops to go and cleanse Afghanistan?

That money was UN famine relief, if my memory serves me. And Iraq is not a random country, by the way; U.S. foreign policy has been moving towards this war for years now.

And this changes things, how?

[Yogi]

Basically the whole points he was making was to expose, (in my eyes anyway could be WAY of base here) the point that that entire line of attack of on those board members who are anti-war is stupid. (see threads such as the one whose title basically says that Anti-War people are Supporter's of saddams regime as one example)

This is also the extention of my "Universial Applications of Principles Currently in Use" thread, meaning that the reasons we want to oust Saddam can also be applied to lots of other countries we AREN'T taking over. So therefore wither

1) Pro-war people are hypocritical
2) Pro-war people need to find better reasons

[Joe]

So you think you can "diplomatically" convince Kim Jong-il to step down from office and have the country convert to democracy?
Riiiiiiight. You're starting to sound like a peacenik.

We can't remove him from power. This is reality. We can, however, work with the countries surrounding North Korea to deal with it diplomatically. In fact, this is exactly what the Bush administration has indicated it intends to do.

Good for you! So even before 9/11 you were supporting US troops to go and cleanse Afghanistan?

Quit putting words in my mouth.

And this changes things, how?

Because we have a history there; we got the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then we totally fucked them over. We're uniquely responsible for Iraq.

[Queeb Salaron]

::Growls:: You know, Yogi, there ARE some relatively level-minded pro-warsies on this board that probably wouldn't appreciate your attempt at making fun of them. Here, as long as we're humiliating people, I have a question for YOU, one that hasn't been answered by any anti-warsie that I've ever listened to.

What does keeping Sadaam Hussein in power do for the general security of the world?

[Master of Ossus]

1) If the USA decides to go home after it's done with Iraq, will you be violently protesting the fact that the US is not going to another country with a evil dictator (and for you moderate Pro-war people out there, WMDs)? Remember, if you're not supporting the military going in and crushing the dictatorship, you're supporting the regime, and you wouldn't want to support North Korea (for example) would you?

It depends on which country. I actually do not believe that North Korea is as large a problem to the United States as many people will have you believe. The next country on my personal list is Sudan.

2) Were you supporting the US going into random countries and kicking out dictators before, say September 11, 2001? If not, why were you supporting the Taliban (for example) regieme before that date?

I was not supporting the Taliban. I thought that Clinton did a crappy job of dealing with the problems in the Middle East and the Arab world, and wrote about that in my newspaper consistently in editorial comments.

Frankly, I thought that it would eventually come down to the United States against the Taliban. I did not know whether Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, or Pakistan would come first, but I knew that eventually the United States was going to have to confront the Taliban, and probably the rest of the governments on that list. I wrote my editorial comments about all of those countries frequently, and encouraged local congressmen to become involved in the issues affecting those nations, as well as our own.

[Yogi]

We can't remove him from power. This is reality. We can, however, work with the countries surrounding North Korea to deal with it diplomatically. In fact, this is exactly what the Bush administration has indicated it intends to do.

We sure didn't have any problem removing Iraq from power, did we? Besides, after liberating all those Iraq citizens, shouldn't we give the North Koreans the same opprotunity?

Quit putting words in my mouth.

1) If you're not against a regime, you're for a regime.
2)If you don't support going into a regime and destroying it, you're for that regime.
3) http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=17201 see your own posts.
4) You don't support the Taliban.

Because we have a history there; we got the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then we totally fucked them over. We're uniquely responsible for Iraq.

Works for this conflict, but why did we get them to rebel in the FIRST place?

[Skelron]

This is also the extention of my "Universial Applications of Principles Currently in Use" thread, meaning that the reasons we want to oust Saddam can also be applied to lots of other countries we AREN'T taking over. So therefore wither

1) Pro-war people are hypocritical
2) Pro-war people need to find better reasons

Hmm makes sense, a Kant man I see. (his whole Moral philosphy was about universalising an action in your mind and examining the result afterall.) Hell I liked it simply for the sarcasm I saw in it, this just appears to be icing on the cake...

I hope other Iraq specfic reasons can be put forward, (Oh and by Iraq reaons I don't mean lies such as support for Al Quadi... we all know it's untrue)

[Yogi]

What does keeping Sadaam Hussein in power do for the general security of the world?

1) No nasty conflicts within the Security Council of the UN. Our allies generally stay allies.
2) USA sheds a bit of it's Cowboy image. Namely, it accepts the mandates of the UN even if they go against what they want. This puts it in a better position when it needs to ask the UN to do what it wants. If you're going to be part of a team, not everything can go your way.
3) The Arab world doesn't get angry. They don't like Saddam, but they like Western nations invading a fellow Muslim country even less.

[Joe]

We sure didn't have any problem removing Iraq from power, did we? Besides, after liberating all those Iraq citizens, shouldn't we give the North Koreans the same opprotunity?

That would be nice, wouldn't it? N. Korea has been ruined by Communism, and N. Korea is clearly a threat to its neighbor. However, I do not believe that we can attempt to forcefully remove him without the nuclear annihilation of Seoul.

1) If you're not against a regime, you're for a regime.
2)If you don't support going into a regime and destroying it, you're for that regime.
3) http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=17201 see your own posts.
4) You don't support the Taliban.

Wow, you must have been waiting for me specifically to come and respond to this. Why don't you read through the rest of my comments in that thread, and then come back and we can discuss this like adults, instead of you ignoring most of what I said.

Works for this conflict, but why did we get them to rebel in the FIRST place?

We were there, in Iraq, we had the capability to wipe out Saddam right then and there and aid the rebellion at a relatively low cost to ourselves. Why shouldn't we have done it? Oh, that's right, because the UN said we COULDN'T.

And BTW, I'm not a Kantian, I'm more of a utilitarian.

[Skelron]

Because we have a history there; we got the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then we totally fucked them over. We're uniquely responsible for Iraq.

And this is different from Day to day Western Diplomacy how, We have been placing dictator's in power for decades, during the Cold War it was the standard operating procedure of both sides. (A right wing Capitalist Dictator was good for the west, and Left wing Communist one for soviets. Both could be Brutual regimes, but where only bad if they where on the other side.) In one country for example we (and I mean we it was a CIA/UK Operation) got rid of the ruling Nationalist Leader, and replaced him with a Military Junta. Why because the Military guy would allow foreign companies in while the old guy wouldn't. during the coup and in the aftermath tyhe Military's leader got armed excorts by Gunships from the UK and the US, despite the fact he was going around massacering people. Half the dictatorships on this planet the west is probably responsible for, is bush going to go clean them all up? If he is great if not, this argument dosn't wash either.

[Master of Ossus]

3) The Arab world doesn't get angry. They don't like Saddam, but they like Western nations invading a fellow Muslim country even less.

Frankly, this is pretty laughable. The Arab world is ALREADY ANGRY. That's what EVERYONE is telling us. I guess it doesn't take anger to launch a suicide attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, just after bombings in Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, etc.

Moreover, I don't think that the Arabs are angry, anymore. I think they're stunned. It will be interesting to see whether they admit that they were incorrect regarding Saddam Hussein's talents as a leader, or whether they will employ cognitive dissonance to protect themselves from the unacceptable.

[Skelron]

And BTW, I'm not a Kantian, I'm more of a utilitarian.

Sorry that was aimed at Yogi the Kantian bit... (if I wasn't clear on this sorry.)

[Joe]

Because we have a history there; we got the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then we totally fucked them over. We're uniquely responsible for Iraq.

And this is different from Day to day Western Diplomacy how, We have been placing dictator's in power for decades, during the Cold War it was the standard operating procedure of both sides. (A right wing Capitalist Dictator was good for the west, and Left wing Communist one for soviets. Both could be Brutual regimes, but where only bad if they where on the other side.) In one country for example we (and I mean we it was a CIA/UK Operation) got rid of the ruling Nationalist Leader, and replaced him with a Military Junta. Why because the Military guy would allow foreign companies in while the old guy wouldn't. during the coup and in the aftermath tyhe Military's leader got armed excorts by Gunships from the UK and the US, despite the fact he was going around massacering people. Half the dictatorships on this planet the west is probably responsible for, is bush going to go clean them all up? If he is great if not, this argument dosn't wash either.

True, and the U.S. ought to take ought every single dictator that it is responsible for to a great extent. But I can't think of any besides Saddam right now that are still in power - Mobotu's gone, Pinochet stepped down, and we dealt with Noreiga (who we had supported at one point, if I'm not mistaken).

[Joe]

3) The Arab world doesn't get angry. They don't like Saddam, but they like Western nations invading a fellow Muslim country even less.

Listen, if George Dubya fell to his knees, proclaimed his loyalty to Allah, and then slapped the shit out of his wife and put her in a burqa, the Arab world would still hate us. U.S. foreign policy should not be guided what the Arab world thinks of us.

[Skelron]

3) The Arab world doesn't get angry. They don't like Saddam, but they like Western nations invading a fellow Muslim country even less.

Frankly, this is pretty laughable. The Arab world is ALREADY ANGRY. That's what EVERYONE is telling us. I guess it doesn't take anger to launch a suicide attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, just after bombings in Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, etc.

Moreover, I don't think that the Arabs are angry, anymore. I think they're stunned. It will be interesting to see whether they admit that they were incorrect regarding Saddam Hussein's talents as a leader, or whether they will employ cognitive dissonance to protect themselves from the unacceptable.

Angrier then, It stops people from getting angrier gives less ammo to the the recruiter's of these suicide bombers. If we hadn't acted without UN backing it would have made the UK and the US look more resonable. Like we play by the rules, and thats worth more than all the bombs, as it would have cooled angers a little. As for not being angry anymore, well maybe not right now, but the embers will reignite, and we'll have to face more and more threats.

[Alex Moon]

We can't remove him from power. This is reality. We can, however, work with the countries surrounding North Korea to deal with it diplomatically. In fact, this is exactly what the Bush administration has indicated it intends to do.

We sure didn't have any problem removing Iraq from power, did we? Besides, after liberating all those Iraq citizens, shouldn't we give the North Koreans the same opprotunity?

The situation is different. N. Korea already had Nuclear weapons, and has been preparing for 50 years for a war against the U.S. Any war would be very costly. Not to mention that N. Korea is under the protection of China to an extent, and China likes good trade relations with the west. A war would put those in jepeordy. Thus, we can use China as a lever to get NK to change its position.

Furthermore, the region around N. Korea is much more stable than the middle east. Part of Iraq's danger is that the area it's in is very unstable, thus meaning that a rogue state with WMD could gain a lot of power, especially among the citizenry. In Asia, everyone is looking to prevent a war because they have too much at stake if the US and NK get into a fight.

Because we have a history there; we got the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then we totally fucked them over. We're uniquely responsible for Iraq.

Works for this conflict, but why did we get them to rebel in the FIRST place?[/quote][/quote]

Because we thought that they would be successful in removing Saddam from power after his failure during the Gulf War. Unfortunatly, we didn't support them like we should have then, so they were all killed or imprisoned.

[Master of Ossus]

3) The Arab world doesn't get angry. They don't like Saddam, but they like Western nations invading a fellow Muslim country even less.

That's what it's been like in the past, but the clear enthusiasm of the Iraqi people for the removal of Saddam Hussein may change that. It is not consistent with the past Arab actions, which is why I explained that they appeared "stunned," and pointed out how interesting their reaction may be.

[Alex Moon]

We can't remove him from power. This is reality. We can, however, work with the countries surrounding North Korea to deal with it diplomatically. In fact, this is exactly what the Bush administration has indicated it intends to do.

We sure didn't have any problem removing Iraq from power, did we? Besides, after liberating all those Iraq citizens, shouldn't we give the North Koreans the same opprotunity?

The situation is different. N. Korea already had Nuclear weapons, and has been preparing for 50 years for a war against the U.S. Any war would be very costly. Not to mention that N. Korea is under the protection of China to an extent, and China likes good trade relations with the west. A war would put those in jepeordy. Thus, we can use China as a lever to get NK to change its position.

Furthermore, the region around N. Korea is much more stable than the middle east. Part of Iraq's danger is that the area it's in is very unstable, thus meaning that a rogue state with WMD could gain a lot of power, especially among the citizenry. In Asia, everyone is looking to prevent a war because they have too much at stake if the US and NK get into a fight.

Because we have a history there; we got the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam Hussein and then we totally fucked them over. We're uniquely responsible for Iraq.

Works for this conflict, but why did we get them to rebel in the FIRST place?

Because we thought that they would be successful in removing Saddam from power after his failure during the Gulf War. Unfortunatly, we didn't support them like we should have then, so they were all killed or imprisoned.[/quote]