Arguing with antiwar

[Zoink]

Point out that pacifism for the sake of pacifism is stupid and self righteous.

Sure, I can agree with this. It doesn't justify war, but it counters a point that a "peacenik" might make.

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.

So to not go off topic: When did Saddam punch the U.S. in the head? We're talking about punch vs punch. For your analogy to be true, Saddam must have invaded and bombed the U.S. some time recently?

[Mr Bean]

When did Saddam punch the U.S. in the head? We're talking about punch vs punch. For your analogy to be true, Saddam must have invaded and bombed the U.S. some time recently?

How about all those wonderful reasons I proivded and you never answeared, Stop the Wall of Ignorance Zoink
1. Saddam has conducted two wars of Agression, One aginst Allies of ours
2. He was spared on the condition that he would give up the pursuit of WMD, he broke his word
3.He contiunes to provide training and bases for a varity of Terriost Groups, Inculding building complete mock-ups of comercial Air-liners to help Terriost pratice high-jackings
4. He has funded a varity of groups assoisated with Terroism at the expensive of his own people, Oil For Food has been a complete faluire to the point in the late 90s it was openly flaunted as Saddamns way of keeping his army equiped with arms delivered to him from France, and Russia for oil

[Zoink]

I do NOT justfiy a War with Iraq via Partriotism thats pure bullshit... 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

Welcome to the Logic and Morality forum.

If you are using logical falacies to counter his arguement then that is the root of the disagreement. I don't advise people to use illogic to win arguments... because you didn't really win. If your goal is to make him angry... that's another matter.

It is hard not to confuse the issues. The problem is that when dealing with a "peacenik", you are trying to justify war. Are we simply showing the "peaceniks" doesn't have an argument, or that he is wrong (ie War with Iraq is justified)?


While you are problable peeved by the illogic of peaceniks. Personally, I am inundated with warmonger rhetoric:

Saying that someone who is against the war is a "peacenik" and such people are not patriotic or are traitors, cowards, or fools; you are committing a "Appeal to <whatever>" and I will point it out.

If you attempt to justify war with Iraq because of some abstract concept of "Patriotism" then that is a red herring.

---------

I will clearly state my stance:

Saddam Hussein is a problem, much like many countries are a problem. However unlike the U.S. gov't I am in disagreement about the threat posed by this individual. I see alternate methods (other than war) for solving this problem.

I believe that the U.S. should act through the U.N. because IMHO the U.S. has not made a case that it is in any danger of attack from Saddam Hussein.

If the U.S. has issues with Iraq's compliance with *UN* resolution, then the U.S. should make its case to the UN. If the U.S. is not acting unilaterally, and if Mr. Bush's case is solid, then he will be able to convince the UN to act.

In such a case (the UN declaring war), I will gladly support such action.

[Zoink]

Stop the Wall of Ignorance Zoink

You have to make a valid logical argument for me to have a wall of ignorance.

1. Saddam has conducted two wars of Agression, One aginst Allies of ours

A U.S. supported war with Iran. An invasion of Kuwait.

You stated a fact, now where is the reason? How does this mean the U.S. should act without UN approval? You are calling for war the burden of proof lies with you.

2. He was spared on the condition that he would give up the pursuit of WMD, he broke his word

ditto

3.He contiunes to provide training and bases for a varity of Terriost Groups, Inculding building complete mock-ups of comercial Air-liners to help Terriost pratice high-jackings
4. He has funded a varity of groups assoisated with Terroism at the expensive of his own people, Oil For Food has been a complete faluire to the point in the late 90s it was openly flaunted as Saddamns way of keeping his army equiped with arms delivered to him from France, and Russia for oil

And the U.S. trained Osamo Bin Laden...

So is Iraq planning terrorist attacks against the U.S.? This would be a good argument if this could be shown.

[Col. Crackpot]

I will clearly state my stance:

Saddam Hussein is a problem, much like many countries are a problem. However unlike the U.S. gov't I am in disagreement about the threat posed by this individual. I see alternate methods (other than war) for solving this problem.

I believe that the U.S. should act through the U.N. because IMHO the U.S. has not made a case that it is in any danger of attack from Saddam Hussein.

If the U.S. has issues with Iraq's compliance with *UN* resolution, then the U.S. should make its case to the UN. If the U.S. is not acting unilaterally, and if Mr. Bush's case is solid, then he will be able to convince the UN to act.

In such a case (the UN declaring war), I will gladly support such action.

my friend your stance is dependant on the assumption that the United Nations will act in the best interests of the parties threatened by Iraq's illicit weapons and human rights violations. The UN's very credibility in these matters is suspect considering the following:

• The nation that currently holds the rotating chair on the UN High commision on disarmament is Iraq.
• The nation that currently holds the rotating chair on the Human Rights Commision is Libya.

These are prime exapmles of nations that have violated the principles and laws that govern the UN commsions they currently lead. The fact that the UN has a framework in place that allows such a thing shows that it is completely unable to make decisions regading both human rights and disarmament, nevermind being objective in determining whether or not a war to disarm a human rights violator is justified.

[Zoink]

my friend your stance is dependant on the assumption that the United Nations will act in the best interests of the parties threatened by Iraq's illicit weapons and human rights violations. The UN's very credibility in these matters is suspect considering the following:

You have a point. It is dependant on this.

However I have the same concern about the U.S.... acting on its own best interest rather than ALL nations concerned, *including* Iraq.

Personally, I place greater trust in the UN.

[Mr Bean]

One more post before I'm off for my run

You have to make a valid logical argument for me to have a wall of ignorance.

I'm sorry but what part of "That Bullshit won't fly here" don't you understand, You can't completly ignore my arugment and claim it was not valid unless you can provided some facts and evidance WHY its in-valid, Waving your hand does not work here

A U.S. supported war with Iran. An invasion of Kuwait.

You stated a fact, now where is the reason? How does this mean the U.S. should act without UN approval? You are calling for war the burden of proof lies with you.

What in bobs name are you talking about? I mentioned the fact he started two wars(One of which we supported him Materialy in to take down the at the time much worse Iran regiem)
We have two big enemies, Both of which we don't like, setting them aginst each other was pretty smart idea don't you think? He started the war without our support and we supported him after the fact

And the last part
You are calling for war the burden of proof lies with you
Which I have provided and you have not countered, Do you not understand how burden of proof works? Once you've proven your case its up the other side to disprove it not demand them to reprove it

ditto

Ditto? In refence to what? A little explination would help here. Is it another refence to "Prove it? LMAO! How many diffrent thousands of ways do you wish me to prove it over and over agian?

And the U.S. trained Osamo Bin Laden...

Enemy of my enemey is my friend
He was our friend, he turned on us we stoped supporting him
Do you not understand this?

So is Iraq planning terrorist attacks against the U.S.? This would be a good argument if this could be shown.

If I give you the bomb and the money for a plane-ticket your just as responsible for planting it in that school-yard

[Mr Bean]

However I have the same concern about the U.S.... acting on its own best interest rather than ALL nations concerned, *including* Iraq.

All nations?
What about those nations who want to take over the world?
Those nations who wish everyone but them is dead?

Its impossible to act in everyone's intrest in real life though you have a pretty dream

[Peregrin Toker]

Actually, one could consider following:

Perhaps the USA will not replace Saddam with a democratically elected regime, but with another dictator. After all, the USA once overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile and replaced it with a military dictatorship, because the elected president happened to be a communist.

[Darth Wong]

In the past, the US has gleefully adopted the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy and befriended dictators, butchers, etc. Saddam was one of them. Have they learned their lesson? Maybe, maybe not. They are strengthening ties with Libya as we speak, because Libya is willing to help them against other enemies. Maybe they don't learn from their own mistakes.

I'm ambivalent on war with Iraq:

• The moral justifications about how his mistreats his people ring hollow in light of the fact that places like Rwanda are ignored.
• The WMD argument is dicey; he might have some, he might not, but it's not the strongest basis for an invasion, and the world has quite a few radical, dangerous nations with nukes already, so why the panic?
• The "he's been shooting at our planes" argument is not all that powerful either; those planes are overflying his country, he may not have the legal right to shoot at them because of the treaty he signed at gunpoint, but it's not as heinous as some make it sound. To hear some talk, he's been lobbing Scuds into Iowa.
• And finally, appealing to treaty stipulations is a descent into legalism as a justification for war, which is no stronger.

However, while each reason is individually weak, they do add up, so I find the war in Iraq understandable, even if it's not exactly something to cheer wildly about.

[Col. Crackpot]

Actually, one could consider following:

Perhaps the USA will not replace Saddam with a democratically elected regime, but with another dictator. After all, the USA once overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile and replaced it with a military dictatorship, because the elected president happened to be a communist.

a 'democratically elected communist regime'? did they eat jumbo shrimp and park in the driveway? puh-lease

[Knife]

Point out that pacifism for the sake of pacifism is stupid and self righteous.

Sure, I can agree with this. It doesn't justify war, but it counters a point that a "peacenik" might make.

Which is what I was making a point on.

Quote:

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.



So to not go off topic: When did Saddam punch the U.S. in the head? We're talking about punch vs punch. For your analogy to be true, Saddam must have invaded and bombed the U.S. some time recently?

Where have you been living for the last decade?

I will clearly state my stance:

Saddam Hussein is a problem, much like many countries are a problem. However unlike the U.S. gov't I am in disagreement about the threat posed by this individual. I see alternate methods (other than war) for solving this problem

Ok, and those solutions are?

believe that the U.S. should act through the U.N. because IMHO the U.S. has not made a case that it is in any danger of attack from Saddam Hussein

We have worked threw the UN and holding your hands to your ears saying "na na na na" won't stop that fact. We have recently gotten a resolution from the UN that allows us to do what everyone expects us to do.

If the U.S. has issues with Iraq's compliance with *UN* resolution, then the U.S. should make its case to the UN. If the U.S. is not acting unilaterally, and if Mr. Bush's case is solid, then he will be able to convince the UN to act.

Have you even read or at least skimmed through the resolution, perhaps saw a couple of bullets of it on the news? Any signatory of the resolution can enforce the resolution. The UN does not have military forces to act on broken resolutions. Member nations need to act to enforce UN resolutions, and it says it in the resolution.

In such a case (the UN declaring war), I will gladly support such action.

Personally, I place greater trust in the UN.

This says it all.

[Zoink]

...I'm sorry but what part of "That Bullshit won't fly here" don't you understand, You can't completly ignore my arugment and claim it was not valid unless you can provided some facts and evidance WHY its in-valid, Waving your hand does not work here
....What in bobs name are you talking about? I mentioned the fact he started two wars

You stated a fact.

Saying this fact means the U.S. can invade Iraq is a value judgement.

Iraq starting two war doesn't mean the U.S. can attack Iraq. It might mean that we do nothing, let the UN fix it, let the mid-east fix it... it can mean a lot of things. The U.S. can attack Iraq because it started two wars isn't an logical argument because you haven't linked the two.

That is why I ask:

How does Iraq starting two wars mean that the U.S. is justified in acting alone, without going through the U.N. ?

The only answer I can think of, and you have yet to provide others, is that the U.S. is in threat of being attacked by Saddam Hussein... of which there is no evidence.

You could add things like: Because the U.S. is the worlds policeman, screw the UN, or whatever... which I wouldn't agree with.

I am against a US war against Iraq. I am not against UN intervention in Iraq... if this escalates to war, then so be it.

Which I have provided and you have not countered, Do you not understand how burden of proof works? Once you've proven your case its up the other side to disprove it not demand them to reprove it

Yes I know how it works, but say:

Um,... the U.S. can't attack Iraq because my cat is black. Prove my cat is not black. I have to give you more, right? My cat being black has no relation to the Iraqi conflict unless I show it.

I have addressed the issues you gave. None show that the U.S. is in threat from Saddam Hussein.

[Malecoda]

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

A better argument is simply that these PEOPLE--not their leaders--are not evil, they've done nothing to us, they are not a unified front headed for world domination, and they think Saddam is nuts. Not just in Iraq but everywhere over there--I've been there and asked, and while a couple of people isn't a million, it's bigger than zero, which was the number of people I spoke to who DIDN'T think Saddam was evil. I used this argument on Strafe, and you, HG, piped up "go get him, Strafe" bec he had some vague points. [Edit: I think this may have been Stravo] Well, way to go "get me", you chumps. you didn't have a good case then, and you don't now, even if you move it to another thread. What is the case for war? "Oh no, they have warheads!" Well, so does NK, and we're not making such a show out of them now, are we? Besides, we are not giving the UN its due, the inspectors are over there for just that reason, but we rush them and conceal evidence from them. This is abt oil and land and positioning. Duh. We take them over by force to accomplish the same things we've done ever since we kicked the Brits out, but more peacefully. Name one thing we would accomplish that we couldn't accomplish with a pro-American puppet, besides killing a bunch of people who DON'T HATE US!
Again, I am not saying you CAN'T be in favor of the war. I told you in that other thread too, I don't mind one little bit that we're the big fish in the pond and we're breaching. If it puts us in a good position wrt the rest of Asia, then hooray. Democracy will follow eventually. But here we're talking abt nation-building in an OPEC nation, and you blindly ignore the implications and swallow that shit abt "oh, their civil rights record, boo hoo". I think you are in favor of war bec "war is cool". If I'm wrong, then show me something different. Who gives a shit if they have some warheads? EVERYBODY has warheads! They've had an embargo against them since you were in diapers. Before you compare them with Truce-era Germany, or me with the Pacifists who let Germany re-arm, just sit down and think a little more critically abt what Germany had done and was trying to accomplish, then think abt what Iraq has done and what they're trying to accomplish. It's just not in the same league. Else let's wage war with Korea.

[Zoink]

Where have you been living for the last decade?

Right here. When did Saddam "punch" the U.S.?

Ok, and those solutions are?

I gave a solution in a previous post.

Have you even read or at least skimmed through the resolution, perhaps saw a couple of bullets of it on the news? Any signatory of the resolution can enforce the resolution.

Your point? The U.S. can nuke anybody right now. What the U.S. can do is different then what it should do. I never said the U.S. can't attack Iraq.

Personally, I place greater trust in the UN.

This says it all.

What does it say? That I am not an American?

[Malecoda]

Oh, and BTW, it looks like I'm addressing something to Hemlock while responding to nice_Guy. that would be bec I am, it doesn't mean I think they're the same person.

[Stravo]

In the past, the US has gleefully adopted the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy and befriended dictators, butchers, etc. Saddam was one of them. Have they learned their lesson? Maybe, maybe not. They are strengthening ties with Libya as we speak, because Libya is willing to help them against other enemies. Maybe they don't learn from their own mistakes.


A policy used by all the great powers throughout history to help solve short term goals. This is not a US invention. Not neccasarily a great policy but it works.

I'm ambivalent on war with Iraq:

• The moral justifications about how his mistreats his people ring hollow in light of the fact that places like Rwanda are ignored.
  
  For Rawanda you must balance the facts that Rawanda had no strategic, tacical, regional importance in US policy. We would be deploying troops and putting them in harm's way for a purely humanatrian purpose...you saw Black Hawk Down, you tell me why those boys had to die in Somalia.
  Secondly, WHERE would US troops deploy from, its a landlocked nation, therefore our naval strength is out, there are no other natioons that we could gain access fro that could provide forward bases and such. The US does not magically transport and deploy troops. it takes time and a very impressive logistics train to get US troops in place. The Rawanda crisis was over before we could have delpoyed a single division.
  
  As to other humanatarian causes as I said, what are you going to tell the American people when putting troops in harm's way:
  
  "We're doing this because its the right thing to do." (can you point out any instances that any power in the world undertook because it was the right thing to do absent ANY other strategic neccessities??)
  
  "We're doing this because this dictator has been thumbing his nose at the international community and the UN, has been firing on our troops for ten years, in some instances only a year after signing a treaty after he lost decisively. (By gun point huh? Then I guess every peace treaty ever signed by a vanquished nation has been by gunpoint) He has been devloping WMD even after the UN resolved that Iraq must rid itself of WMD. Has actively deceived UN inspectors and has ties to terrrorist organizations throughout the world, organizations that could get their hands on one of these WMD. Can destablizie a region that is strategically vital to us. Oh...and its the right thing to do to liberate an oppressed people." I have a feeling which one would go over better with the people..
• The WMD argument is dicey; he might have some, he might not, but it's not the strongest basis for an invasion, and the world has quite a few radical, dangerous nations with nukes already, so why the panic?
  
  I'm getting sick and tired of the NK Iraq comparisons because people don't get the strategic differences. NK can do an ENORMOUS amount of damage before we could disarm them in a war. They can lay waste to most of SK by the time we got there. Seoul would be a sea of flames in a day or two (it is within artillery range of the DMZ) There are ballistic missiles that can reach Japan, missiles that can be modidfied to carry nukes.
  
  Are you seriously advocating we go in and watch MILLIONS of SK's and tens of thousands of japanese die just so that we can say we treat all dictatorships equally?
  
  What pisses me off more is that the peaceniks (not you Mike) don't recognize the lesson being taught here (or intentionally ignore it) NK is what Iraq COULD become if we let them go on with their weapons development. Why else do you think there's this mad dash to complete these weapons?? Do you really think that Sadaam would put up with all this BS and risk his own life and power if not because he was seeking the same domination of the region and immunity to wanton US strikes that the NK's have?
  
  WMD provide power, power and security. If you can threaten your neighbors you WILL be treated differently than if you were some third rate power still sporting aging Soviet equipment.
  
  Does anyone want to see what's happening in NK continue in Iraq, because thats the road we're on if we contonue with the failing containemtn policy. Oh and containment only works as well as the allies that go with it. France has 11% of its oil imports coming from Iraq THAT's ILLEGAL BY THE WAY. Nice allies we have there, personally maybe we should have let Germany keep France. .
• The "he's been shooting at our planes" argument is not all that powerful either; those planes are overflying his country, he may not have the legal right to shoot at them because of the treaty he signed at gunpoint, but it's not as heinous as some make it sound. To hear some talk, he's been lobbing Scuds into Iowa.
  
  US pilots lives are valued. Some may not think so but I certainly do..
• And finally, appealing to treaty stipulations is a descent into legalism as a justification for war, which is no stronger.

However, while each reason is individually weak, they do add up, so I find the war in Iraq understandable, even if it's not exactly something to cheer wildly about.

Personally I don't think that the supporters of the war are cheering wildly about it on this board (well except maybe for Shep) but otherwise we all treat it as the solemn neccessity it is if we are to defend our nation. Facts are that no one has US interests at heart as much as the US does. Only we will go the 110% it will take to portect ourselves.

[DocHorror]

. Facts are that no one has US interests at heart as much as the US does.

Yes but what are these US interests?

[Mr Bean]

Saying this fact means the U.S. can invade Iraq is a value judgement .

Not quite
Fact:91 Treaty to end the war was CONDITONAL on Saddam destroying all his WMD's and not building more
If he broke that condition the Treaty was broken as well and a resuming of Hostilies IS CALLED FOR, That is fact, Thats just one base of the many that we can use to invade Iraq

How does Iraq starting two wars mean that the U.S. is justified in acting alone, without going through the U.N. ?

The only answer I can think of, and you have yet to provide others, is that the U.S. is in threat of being attacked by Saddam Hussein... of which there is no evidence.

THATS NOT THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION
Thats twice now Zoink your trying my paitence by contiuning to break up my aurgment when I list four or five examples, Answearing ONE of them and ignore the rest
Then claiming I only had one reason!
The Reasons I provided are very simple, lets see if you can remeber them all this time
1. Saddam has started wars of conquest before and has repeatly in the past demosrated a want and will to conquer the Middle East
2. Saddam has show himself not to be trustworthy in various ways from treaty breaking to breaking his word
3. According to the 91 Treaty if he fails to fufill any part of his end of the bargien his position is forfit and he is to be removed by force
4. Saddam has demostrated the ability to fool Weapons Inspectors on a regular basies
5. Saddam had weapons in '94 '95 '96 that where ordered destroyed, they never where and when we came back in 2002 they denied having.
6. Saddam also has been aquring new weapons since he kicked out the Inspectors in 98 that he deines having despite the fact that France, NK and Co admit having sold to him
7. Saddam is a crimal by his own admission have killed numors people BY HIS OWN HAND in the late 80s early 90s
8. Saddam has funneled money to various orginzations inculding HAMAS and has given money to the famailys of Sucided Bombers for "Thier Glorius Sacrifice"
9. Has repeatly used his own people in testing how Lethal certian Chemical and Biological weapons where incudling the Gas of the Kurds all those years ago

Let see if you can keep all those facts in mind this time around instead of just picking one and ignoring the rest

[Mr Bean]

Yes but what are these US interests?

Pretty close to everyone elses
1. Democracy everywhere
2. Freedom everywhere(Pretty much as defined in the Bill of Rights is how most people imagin it)
3. Being the best

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes but what are these US interests?

Pretty close to everyone elses
1. Democracy everywhere
2. Freedom everywhere(Pretty much as defined in the Bill of Rights is how most people imagin it)
3. Being the best

You seem to be failing number 3, sir.

[DocHorror]

Pretty close to everyone elses
1. Democracy everywhere
2. Freedom everywhere(Pretty much as defined in the Bill of Rights is how most people imagin it)
3. Being the best

Fair enough. I've been waiting for someone to actually bother to define what they are, as opposed to throwing around the phrase 'US interests' without acknowledging what they are...

My own personal opinion is that, basically, I don't care...I don't care what Saddam does or what Bush does. I just loath the hypocrasy in the politics.

Bush & Blair (and the rest) should just be honest and admit that they are going into Iraq because they don't like Saddam. They want to knock him from power & sieze his oil fields.

This whole WMD bullshit is just embarassing...

The US & UK are egging for a war, its that simple....






Please feel free to mock my knowledge of world politics...

[Mr Bean]

You seem to be failing number 3, sir.

BAH! in what way?

We currently are the best in
Technology!
Space Program(Even with the Columbia we are one of three Countrys who has one and were the only ones who got on the moon)
Music!
Culture!
Money!(BOYAH!)
Military!
Music!
Athletics!(Okey maybe not...(
Business!
Kung-Fu!(Since we hired away all your best Kung-Fu people! Ha ha ha!)
Loven!


So what is the US, NOT the best in?

[Stravo]

So what is the US, NOT the best in?

Surrendering...no one knows how to surrender quite like the French. Although Sadaam's boys did a good job of it when they surrendered to the following:

A Camera crew

An unmanned drone

An Apache Helicopter

[DocHorror]

So what is the US, NOT the best in?

Comedy
Sarcasm
Music!
Food
Understatement
Music!!
Film
Music!!!