[eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq

[Scott M. Elliott]

Chris says: 1)  unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers 
I say: Doesn't this "turn" all of the other arguments opposing war in Iraq. Won't the problem just get worse? Kinda dumb to say they will use WMD on us--that's the whole point. Better to take them out when they have little WMD capability then when they have a big WMD capability and then cannot be stopped.

Chris says: 2)  unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida. I say NSA is doing pretty good. Money can buy anything, anyone, and any country's intelligence service. Not to mention that our friends that are most important for intelligence gathering already support the invasion of Iraq---namely England, many Arab countries (like the Saudi's and Jordanians really love Sadaam). 


Chris says: 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism

I say people motivated enough to kill Americans and to attack the U.S are already attacking us--I think this is call "not unique" in debate parlance. Sure, there will be a few protests in the streets. But, as usual, those people will back down. And, when those people see Iraqi's cheering in the streets at the "liberation" of Iraq, then all they can do is bitch about US Imperialism--like they are already doing. Last, many people and many nations only respect a good ol' fashoined ass whoopin'. 

Tell you what Chris, if you could demonstrate to me that NOT invading Iraq will somehow curb, reduce, or prevent terrorism in or against the US, then I will change my mind. I say, kill them before they kill us.

Scott
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Christopher Cooper 
  To: 'Duane Hyland' ; Scott M. Elliott ; edebate at ndtceda.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:59 PM
  Subject: RE: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq


  Duane and Scott:

  First, Scott...It's a little ridiculous to make an argument like you don't understand the relevance of the U.N. after I put out TWO very important questions regarding unilateral action:

  2)  A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region
  3)  A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat.

  (These are arguments, by the way, that Duane doesn't respond to either...)

  Now, Duane...

  There are a few substantial differences between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq.  

  1)  Saddam has not made any imperialist moves towards neighboring nations
  2)  Saddam is (and has been successfully) contained militarily.  It would be virtually impossible for him to launch an attack without us knowing and being in a position to stop it
  3)  We are defending (successfully again) protective zones in the north and the south that prevent Saddam from ethnically cleansing certain factions of Iraq.

  In many ways...what we are doing now is the IDEAL strategy....because it prevents Saddam from becoming Hitler without the bloodshed of war or the big argument that Duane and Scott have ignored:

  EVEN THE CIA says that the most likely scenario for Saddam's USE of WMD is when we unilaterally try to take him down.

  So...again....given the current situation (as dangerous as it might be)...why shouldn't we do something along the lines of sending in a concentrated unit of U.N. soldiers to enforce the disarmament of WMD instead of an all-out U.S. invasion of the country for regime change, especially when (to repeat):

  1)  unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers
  2)  unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida
  3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism

  ???

  COOP
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com]
    Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:19 PM
    To: Scott M. Elliott; edebate at ndtceda.com
    Subject: Re: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq


    HI, What Scott says is true, of course I also hear the doubts that Chris is expressing. And then I go back to History. 

    Churchill was warning of Germany's power in the 30's, nobody was listening. Bush is warning of Sadaam's power in the 00's, nobody is listening. HItler was an omipressent madman, bent on destroying his own people, weeding out all who didn't bend to his wishes, and had delusions of conquering the world. Sadaam is a madman who has destroyed segments of his own people, brutally supresses his own people, and has expressed desires in the past if not to conquer the world, at least to conqure the middle east.

    Scott is right, the same protests in regard to Iraq were being launched in the 30's against involvement against Germany. Heck, forget the 30's, the same protests against US involvement in a war against Germany were being voiced right up until 12 noon on December 7, 1941.

    So, when Chris asks "why now." I guess my answer is "because we'll have to sooner or later." 

    A few things should be apparent now: 1) Sadaam has the WMD, 2) He's fronting to inspectors, 3) The UN is allowing itself to be played like a two bit fiddle, 4) Eventually, he'll use the weapons against Israel (according to defectors he's said this on many occassions).

    If we can remove Sadaam in a quick war, it might be to our benefit to do so:

    1) I doubt, very seriously, that the Iraqi populace will rise up against any concerted US action. I think it will be more like the old joke about the Lone Ranger "Sadaam and the Iraqi people ride up to the ridge to check out what's happening, see 10,000 Americans coming over the rise, Sadaam says "looks like it's you and me, faithful, beloved people. And the Iraqis utter in mass "who's we, deadman." (I know I changed the joke a bit). My co-worker who was an LAV commander in Gulf War I said that the Iraqi troops he ran into were too busy tring to surrender, and to worried about the food they were gettting for surrendering, than fighting. And, after 10 years of sanctions i can't see the resolve being any stronger - despite what some would have us believe.

    2) I think after Powell's presentation only a hard bitten, left wing radical, would say that Sadaam is good for Iraq. he needs to go. I'm not sure that any middle eastern regime, save, perhaps, Israel, is up to the task of removal.

    3) Not removing Sadaam, out of fear that terrorists would strike here, is kind of a non-unique argument after 9/11. Terrorists will stike here again if we get rid of Sadaam, or if we bake him a cake every year.  Besides, not removing evil for the sake of fear is twisted, to my way of thinking.

    In the end, it might be better to strike now, and settle the situation instead of waiting and giving Sadaam more time to play his games and entrench. This is a winnable war, it should be a short war. Even if Sadaam deploys WMD in the field, the price of a liberated, Sadaam free Iraq, might be easier to pay than the price of an Iraq with Sadaam still there.

    As for the French...my Uncle Leroy fought in World War 2, from D-Day +2, to the end. He saw all war had to offer as a Tank Commander in Patton's 3rd Army. He's always said to this day "War is horrible, I would never willingly go to war again, unless it were against the French, then I'd go in a minute." I don't know what hte French did to Uncle Leroy, but I do know he wishes he could have his old Sherman back for a few hours to teach them a lesson, or two. When it comes to the French, and military matters I sort of ignore them. We're talking about a nation that hasn't had a good military since Bonepart was alive - they screwed up in both the big ones, got their asses kicked in Vietnam, and in Algeria - they are about as relevant to world military affairs today as the minie ball.

    So, in the end...Bush is on the right side of history for his views on Iraq. Not attacking now and settling the issue when the time is right will result in far worse circumstances down the line. An American effort at taking out Sadaam, followed by a rebuilding program on scale of the Marshall Plan might also show the Middle East that we aren't the bloodthirsty monsters that everyone makes us to be.




    "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson

    "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." 





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/056f6f96/attachment.html