Arguing with antiwar

[HemlockGrey]

I have a friend who's family is ardently anti-war. His arguments hinge upon two things:

1) Appeal to emotion(What would YOU feel like if YOU were there?)

2) No blood for oil!

I pointed out Iraq's numerous violations, Saddam's maliciousness, the problems with the 'blood for oil' theory, the fact that a state of war still exists, the warheads found in Iraq, the uncooperativeness of Iraq with the inspectors, etc. etc. but he keeps going back to the same damn appeal to emotion. How do I defeat it?

[weemadando]

I have a friend who's family is ardently anti-war. His arguments hinge upon two things:

1) Appeal to emotion(What would YOU feel like if YOU were there?)

2) No blood for oil!

I pointed out Iraq's numerous violations, Saddam's maliciousness, the problems with the 'blood for oil' theory, the fact that a state of war still exists, the warheads found in Iraq, the uncooperativeness of Iraq with the inspectors, etc. etc. but he keeps going back to the same damn appeal to emotion. How do I defeat it?

I'm antiwar but I like to think that I can construct a better arguement that that hatfucker.

OK, if you really want to mess him up: Ask him what he thinks of those who are going there to fight. Some people are being complete arseholes on this topic. Then ask him exactly why he is opposed to the war. If he repeats the appeal to emotion/slogan ask him again, and again and again. If he doesn't answer properly make it clear to him that he is even more stupid than Shrub and should probably go and act as a human shield.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Maybe you can counter by asking, "How would you feel if you were living under the control of an asshole like Saddam? You don't mind? Okay then, off you go to Iraq."

The Nice Guy

[Arrow]

Show him the picture of one of the children killed by Saddam's chemical weapons. Ask him how he would feel if that was his child.

[salm]

Maybe you can counter by asking, "How would you feel if you were living under the control of an asshole like Saddam? You don't mind? Okay then, off you go to Iraq."

The Nice Guy

i dont think that argument is so good. the irakis might not want to be "freed", at least not by going through another war.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Oh, like how we heard the Afghans don't want to be free by the peaceniks?

Sure, I'll admit a war might not be the best way for regime change, but in the lack of other feasible alternatives, it's the only one the US has.

And the peace movement has yet to come up with a single bright idea to deal with Saddam.

The Crazed Guy

[Col. Crackpot]

some of these people have the thought capacity of an 'if and or' loop. and they are easily manipulatied by people with concurrent agendas. there are 4 types of people, IMHO, that are against the war.

• Peaceniks: genuine pacifists who oppose all violence as a course of action because of religious or philisophical reasons.
• Rebels:radical leftists who have a burning hatred of (the US / capitalism / western civilization)
• Bystanders: people who go to protests to have fun breaking stuff or are longing for a place to belong.
• Lemmings: (sadly the largest group) those manipulated by 'rebels' to carry their banner.

[Zoink]

Show him the picture of one of the children killed by Saddam's chemical weapons. Ask him how he would feel if that was his child.

Well if this is how you're going to win the argument, why not add a picture of Mr Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein (www.Fauldhouse.com)

Add: who was providing military aid to Iraq durring the imfamous gas attacks. Who gave Saddam money before during and after these attacks. Who was supporting Saddam against human wave attacks from Iran...

So, IMHO, I wouldn't use the picture.

---------

For my own thoughts:

While the U.S. is about to spend 100 billion dollars to eliminate the *potential* threat of Saddam, they are spending less than 1% of that do deal with the thousands of nuclear bombs, tens of thousands of tons of nerve gas, bio-agents, that are sitting in the former U.S.S.R... poorly gaurded and some already unaccounted for. Yet, I don't hear about this on CNN, only on the BBC?

---------

Now, IMHO, Iraq should be dealt with, but through the UN. Not unilateral action by the United States. The U.S. has yet to show that Saddam Hussein is a threat to Americans or American National security.

If the goal of the U.S. is to disarm Iraq. Then, why can't the UN in conjunction with an international military force, "encourage" Iraq to disarm. Send in hundreds of UN inspections teams to search every facility. Search all those that would be searched by U.S. military personnel. Use force as necessary to to ensure compliance. If Saddam doesn't let inspectors into a site.. bomb it to bits... sure it might have nerve gas but it would probably be bombed anyway in an Iraqi war.

Why go to this trouble? Because it is LESS trouble. It means less money spent (with more comming from the UN parteners). It means fewer American deaths. It means fewer Iraqi civilian deaths.

[Montcalm]

[quote="The_Nice_Guy"]And the peace movement has yet to come up with a single bright idea to deal with Saddam.

Maybe they should go to Iraq and sing in front of Saddam: Give peace a chance

[Zoink]

there are 4 types of people, IMHO, that are against the war.

So all war is good? You failed to include those that are against unjust war... so I can only assume you think all war is just?

[Mr Bean]

Tell him this.
War is a dirty business but it is a nessary one, I would be glad to die for my Country if asked and so would every single one of the memebers of the US Armed Force. We trade our sweat and our blood to protect the Freedom we hold so dear

Then start hitting him with why has he not joined up, If your yourself are not a memeber of the armed services(Which this speech works so much better if you do) find a condition that would disquilfy you and tell him thats why your not a memeber of the amred services if he says oh yeah about it

Or
They take only the best of the best, I tried, I wanted to sign up, But, I simply did not pass, I was not good enough, But I rest content in the knowledge that if I can't defend my country on the front lines, then I can do so in other ways.


Basicly you get increably patrotic on him, The More the better as your avarage peacenick can't deal with that

[Zoink]

Basicly you get increably patrotic on him, The More the better as your avarage peacenick can't deal with that

To which I would counter that patriotism is a red herring. The nazis were very patriotic but their war was not justified.

[Mr Bean]

Hmm I smell bullshit time to deal with it

Well if this is how you're going to win the argument, why not add a picture of Mr Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein

Hell might as well add this picture

The enemy of our enemy is our friend, There is few things that are cut and dried with International Politics

While the U.S. is about to spend 100 billion dollars to eliminate the *potential* threat of Saddam,

POTENTIAL? The man who fucking devoled WMD after being told "If you do we take out out of power" launched TWO wars of agression and Conquest, Gassed his own fucking people, Personaly excuted people(During Gulf War and a year or two before that)
And he's only potentional?
How about the amount of Anthrax that he had in 94, Was ordered to Destroy, Enough to kill everyone within a two hundred Mile Radius of New York and has since not been accounted for is just a potential threat?

While the U.S. is about to spend 100 billion dollars to eliminate the *potential* threat of Saddam, they are spending less than 1% of that do deal with the thousands of nuclear bombs, tens of thousands of tons of nerve gas, bio-agents, that are sitting in the former U.S.S.R... poorly gaurded and some already unaccounted for. Yet, I don't hear about this on CNN, only on the BBC?

Poorly guarded is the term used by the Media, Not by US intellgence, Despite the number of Movies based on the Idea of Nukes being stolen or going on the Black Market and all these years when the've had such shitty security, not one Nuke is unaccounted for, Mostly because they still pratice shooting the bastards for crimes aginst the state who DO loose a cansiter of anything

Now, IMHO, Iraq should be dealt with, but through the UN. Not unilateral action by the United States. The U.S. has yet to show that Saddam Hussein is a threat to Americans or American National security.

Ahh yes the UN, Another idiot who thinks the UN is acutal helpful for anything except Cleanup after the fact and Peacekeeping Duties, When crused him the first time around all the UN did was whine and complain
Second of all "unilateral" is bullshit considering the only three Countrys standing aginst action would be
France, Germany, And Tom Dashal
Seriously besides the Democrats in the US who are opposed just because they have to be, Everyone else save China has oppenly pledged support INCULDING last week Russia!

So by your defintion of Unilateral action you must have absoutly everyone for it not to be unilateral eh?

By your defintion the Second World War was a Unilateral Action because France and Germany Opposed the Invasion of Normandy

If the goal of the U.S. is to disarm Iraq. Then, why can't the UN in conjunction with an international military force, "encourage" Iraq to disarm. Send in hundreds of UN inspections teams to search every facility. Search all those that would be searched by U.S. military personnel. Use force as necessary to to ensure compliance. If Saddam doesn't let inspectors into a site.. bomb it to bits... sure it might have nerve gas but it would probably be bombed anyway in an Iraqi war.

Incase you did not notice
THATS WHAT WE DID THE FIRST TIME AROUND
It did not work


Saddamn must be removed from power, It does not matter if we destroy every single WMD he will as he has in the past
Simply build more
FURTHERMORE you plan acutal costs MORE than any war would! Both in terms of Manpower and Casualties

[Col. Crackpot]

there are 4 types of people, IMHO, that are against the war.

So all war is good? You failed to include those that are against unjust war... so I can only assume you think all war is just?

i said there are 4 types of people, in my opinion against the war - meaning THIS war. I feel THIS WAR is a just war to disarm a madman with a history of invading (see: war of agression) his neighbors and a history of using chemical weapons (see: kurds of northern iraq, late 80's)
a desire to obtain nuclear technology AND a burning hatred of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel-the only democratic nation in the region. I agree that there are many UNJUST WARS: Vietnam comes to mind as do the ethnic cleansing wars in Serbia and Africa of recent times.

[Lord Pounder]

Reminds me of a report i saw on BBC news. Some women from Iraq was protesting against the war. The news reporter asked her why she had left her home if she was such a partiot and she replied "To escape saddam's oppresive state" WTF?

[Mr Bean]

To which I would counter that patriotism is a red herring. The nazis were very patriotic but their war was not justified.

Funny how you name what you logic error you comitt in the same sentance

Look Zoink, There are men and women will to die to defend your right to say whatever the hell you want to say and go where you wish to go, talk with who you wished to talk and do most of the things you want to do

The Nazi's where trying to take over the fucking world
THERE A FAINT DIFFRENCE BETWEEN THE TWO!

You avarage Peacenick would not touch a gun if Mexico and Canadia suddenly converted to Fasisim and invaded America
And that is a weakness

[Enricko]

Many times before, History (notice the big "H" here) demonstrated that the opposite of War isn't always Peace, it could also be Slavery and Tyranny...

[Zoink]

Funny how you name what you logic error you comitt in the same sentance

NO IT IS NOT A RED HERRING.

You are attempting to justify war with Iraq by "patriotism". That is a RED HERRING. I am pointing out that the red herring by showing not all patriots fight in just wars. I am NOT saying war with Iraq is bad because of the nazis.... see the difference?

A therefore B. I just have an example of an A not being B.

Look Zoink, There are men and women will to die to defend your right to say whatever the hell you want to say and go where you wish to go, talk with who you wished to talk and do most of the things you want to do

And Saddam is about to take this away from me?

You avarage Peacenick would not touch a gun if Mexico and Canadian suddenly converted to Fasisim and invaded America

And this justifies war with Iraq how?

[Sir Sirius]

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Now where have I just heard that?

[Zoink]

So by your defintion of Unilateral action you must have absoutly everyone for it not to be unilateral eh?

By your defintion the Second World War was a Unilateral Action because France and Germany Opposed the Invasion of Normandy

Red Herring. I didn't give my definition of unilateral. All I implied was "U.S. acting alone".

[Mr Bean]

Red Herring. I didn't give my definition of unilateral. All I implied was "U.S. acting alone".

Which is bullshit as I pointed out, Its has not acted Unilaterly on anything when it came to Iraq, We've gotten not one but two diffrent Declirations from our own Congress, Same with the UN and now both want a third, We've had everyone but France and Germany sign on with us, Its so far from fucking unilateral its not even funny

You are attempting to justify war with Iraq by "patriotism". That is a RED HERRING. I am pointing out that the red herring by showing not all patriots fight in just wars. I am NOT saying war with Iraq is bad because of the nazis.... see the difference?

I do NOT justfiy a War with Iraq via Partriotism thats pure bullshit, I was appplying it to a sitation where a ceritan somone was applying a Black Knight Method of denial to all logical aurgments, and when Logic fails to impressed/They ignore logic, met them on thier own terms and hit them with Patriotism, You and I are aurging about three seperate things here
First defintions of certian words like Unilaterial, And Patriotism
Second how best to deal with this Peacenick
And third if this war is justfied
Try not to confuse one with the other

And Saddam is about to take this away from me?

First of all, Maybe if you live in Umpa-Loomba Land then no, He probably will never be a threat to you, But those of us who live on the third rock from the Sun in the Sol system have to deal with him
He has taken it away from his own people and from others, Was Hilter threating our Peace and freedom?
Sure he tried to get Mexico to invade America but he never funded insurgancy groups nor provided them with basies to train in nor Mock Ups of Airplane Cockpits to practice Aircraft Highjackings
He funds and harbors our enemies and has repeatly in the past show he wants to take away Freedom away from others whenever possible

America stands for Demcoracy and the right to chose your own path in life, In many countrys thats not possible and that is where America goes.

And this justifies war with Iraq how?

Zoink Bullshit like quoting one line of a page long post to make it look like I made no aurgment won't fly here, Either adress the points I have brought up and stop bullshiting.

[Lagmonster]

Hemlock; the problem with you and your friend seems to be that you're arguing two seperate things. You're arguing that it is in the coutntry's best interest to go to war, for whatever political, human rights, and economic reasons you are presenting. He seems to be arguing against killing. Pick a topic, right?

[DocHorror]

America stands for Demcoracy and the right to chose your own path in life

Im sorry but Im just reminded of that great Bill Hicks line where he goes;

'Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, watch American Gladiators & get fat & stupid. Keep saying you are free, you are free...to do as we tell you. You are free to do as we tell you.'

[salm]

some of these people have the thought capacity of an 'if and or' loop. and they are easily manipulatied by people with concurrent agendas. there are 4 types of people, IMHO, that are against the war.

• Peaceniks: genuine pacifists who oppose all violence as a course of action because of religious or philisophical reasons.
• Rebels:radical leftists who have a burning hatred of (the US / capitalism / western civilization)
• Bystanders: people who go to protests to have fun breaking stuff or are longing for a place to belong.
• Lemmings: (sadly the largest group) those manipulated by 'rebels' to carry their banner.

you forgot to include the people who consider this war an unjust war (for whatever reasons) and are against it therefor.

[Knife]

I have a friend who's family is ardently anti-war. His arguments hinge upon two things:

1) Appeal to emotion(What would YOU feel like if YOU were there?)

2) No blood for oil!

I pointed out Iraq's numerous violations, Saddam's maliciousness, the problems with the 'blood for oil' theory, the fact that a state of war still exists, the warheads found in Iraq, the uncooperativeness of Iraq with the inspectors, etc. etc. but he keeps going back to the same damn appeal to emotion. How do I defeat it?

Point out that pacifism for the sake of pacifism is stupid and self righteous. Punch him in the head and if he trys to hit back, remind him that violence is BAD, and how would he feel if someone punched him in the head like he is about to do to you. No blood for revenge and all.

Failing in this and after your head stops hurting, start being selfrighteous on a unrelated topic and when he has had enough ask him "How do you like it, sucks right? Selfrighteous prick."

As for the central portion of the thread, I think Mr. Bean covered it pretty good.