Posted by Phoebus Apollo on 4/1/2003, 6:37 pm, in reply to "part two... *sigh*" You seem to have twisted your own points. If claiming that the declared alliance to aid a party at declared war with the U.S. is somehow supporting YOUR argument that Iraq is a threat we must pre-emptively strike, then my points are as twisted as a twizzler. However, Iraq is not in this situation. So your thought that this concession somehow helps your argument is wrong. It aids my argument by giving the example that no, Iraq is NOT a comparable threat to the U.S. that Nazi Germany was, it's LITERALLY a different situation. Your assumption that allies are only good in times of war is preposterous. Your assertion that starting two wars over a span of 12 years, increasing international terrorism, making unfriendly foes in the Middle East, stationing military in places that cost us excessive billions of dollars (nearing trillions), is somehow a "good situation" compared to what would've happened if we merely maintained diplomatic relationships with Kuwait and Iraq and stayed out of their fighting is equally preposterous. It's wars like these ones that CAUSE oil embargoes to be placed on the U.S., not PREVENTS them. You must be kidding. Oil is vital to our current economy And throwing away billions of dollars in bloody warfare is necessary to defending it? In a worst case scenario, if Iraq took over Kuwait (and Kuwait had commissioned plenty of local allies to make it possible that it could've defended itself), and assumed it's oil fields as a result of us not intervening, this would've affected our trade for oil how? Well, let's see. By staying out of the conflict, Iraq would have absolutely no reason to engage in a anti-U.S. oil embargo or increase trade tariffs unmanageably high, at least, no moreso than what they're at already. Military force was necessary to defend these assets in the 1960-70's had we cared enough to stop stopped nationalization of foreign oil investment in the Middle East oil industry in the first place. Hence my primary gripe. We aren't going to war for the right reasons. We never do. That's why, despite protests in multiple countries, the Arab governments have not been overly anti-war. I believe their agreement to the war is more an example of the bad terms they are on with Iraq, not the good terms they are on with us. Now, if you are saying, 'I don't think that a nation should ever tell another nation what to do', then that's your opinion. And what we are talking about is the opinion of whether or not the war SHOULD be occuring. A statement like should is indictive of a moral condition, one SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do something. Since this conjecture is always opinion, you did nothing but state the obvious. Likewise, your assertion that we SHOULD go to war is also opinion. Sitting around and pointing out opinion is ancillary to the argument. The only thing that such policies gaurantee is a softness in diplomacy and peacetime military readiness and training. Nothing good can come from a country taking the position of "Just do this whenever you want to. I've got time to wait. I'll be right here." I am scared to death and can't sleep at night for fear of what the Iraqis will do to our great civilization, since we are so militarily unprepared for their spurious and lightfooted military advancements on us, and I agree with you now, that we are threatened by the Iraqis to topple us like Greece, Rome, Persia, and countless Chinese dynasties. If left unabated, we may someday be flying the Iraqi flag. (sarcasm is a particular form of wit, to be adopted sometimes in civil conversation to make a point) Heck, England and France would sometimes start wars in Europe or elsewhere just because. Do I agree with it? No, not really. You don't agree with arbitrary warfare, yet you support us going to war for openly arbitrary reasons? I'm saying as well, "no, not really" with regards to THIS war, for similar reasons you are saying it with regards to THOSE wars. I'm trying to illustrate that point. The UN is only in existence because we allow it to be. I draw into question why we allow it to be, not that it is, or that similar confederations have not happened before. The U.N. is a league of nations that attempts to resolve matters as democratically as possible. By conscribing a international military to forcefully enact "peacekeeping" U.N. sanctions by force. It's a good idea and is intended to avert wars (much like it could have averted this war). U.N. resolutions are called justifications for this war, not methods of aversion. You pull out a gun, hold it to someone else's head to order them around, and call that a legitimate "method of adverting" a conflict between the two of you. As far as Iraqi opposition goes, do you really think Saddam would let such opposition exist if it weren't for the UN stopping him? ... the German offense went no farther than Stalingrad. Do you think that without aid from the U.S. that Russia would've pushed all the way to the German eastern border? Stalingrad to Easter Germany - that's a lot of ground to cover when your enemy is not divided. Iraq remains as weak as it is today because of UN sanctions and U.S. politics. That's a fact. So, as I see it, this is LESS of a reason to go to war now. Right? For the most part, I'm playing devil's advocate with you, Phoebe I'm Phoebus, that's a male name, not Phoebe. That's the female version of that name. I'm sorry, did I say 'rised'? I have a bad habit of using quotes when I merely intend to place emphasis. It's a war that should have been fought a long time ago. Over 30 years ago for reasons I see no one but myself advocating. More than anything, I wish that Saddam would have been removed a long time ago (and we would have stopped toying with all these coups and revolts) and the economic sanctions dropped, so the Iraqi people could be much better off today. If we did that in the Gulf War I wouldn't have been so irritated by it. If we don't do that this time, then I'm going to be downright pissed. It's the least we can do if we are going to deploy military, it make a decisive and swift end to this ultimately unnecessary war. It's like, "Enough with this messing around. Let's just take out this administration so the region can become more stabilized." I'd be fine with that if we didn't wait decades between events to act. 12 years is too long to be starting a new war with Iraq. The economy is almost always strengthened by war, especially post war. [...] Our economy will be fine. Don't take it from me. Go ask an economics professor or something. Throwing away tax dollars does not help the economy. Signing government war contracts infuses money into the economy, bouncy speculations from investors does too. However, what war does do is meddle with the equity of the economy. Value of labor is further misplaced in the market by increasing taxes to fund the wartime efforts, government contracts that go into the market funded by inequitable tax assumption from the market, and while war is good for investors willing to make a series of current investments based on war certainties, it's bad because it makes government larger and higher taxes to account for misplaced war funds and long-term reconstruction/stationing of military, which in the end hurts the economy more than you can imagine. War is nothing short of throwing money away so investors can make quick decisions based on war outcome. This only has been known to create a short-term gain, not a long-term one. Our economy will be fine because it can handle it, however, it is not "better off" just because the stock market jumps when Bush declares war. That's a false perception of what's really happening to our money. ---- Okay, I'm running low on time I can dedicate to even writing this post. I'm going to overlook some stuff and speed to the conclusion, and in the end I cut down the size of my post sigificantly so I could post it in one piece. I'm not exactly being idealist when I simply request the pro-war group give a legitimate reason to attack Iraq besides oil. I do appreciate you bringing up points of contention though, putting out this much content would make for a great article on my new political website (due for launch in the next month or so) called the New American Myth ( www.namyth.com ) And I officially still do not agree with this war, or the Gulf War, but since I believe war should've been waged 30 years or so ago when Iraq nationalized it's oil industry, I don't really mind if our currently deployed military takes over oil plants and kills Saddam. One less terrible dictator I guess should be the LEAST of the advantages we get from wasting this money on the war. We and Saudi Arabia have supported numerous coups and revolts. The point is it's not OUR right or responsibility to support coups and revolts. Taken from the precepts that guided the formation of our nation. Like I said earlier, I believe it's mostly a political mask, but removing Saddam's regime is a step towards a better Middle East, not just for the U.S. That's true, which is why I mainly support the U.S. troops now that they actually are deployed. Any predictions as to how long the conflict will last? Well, I was a optimist, and thought it would've been over by now. But the lacklazy nature of the events could have it going for another month. Of course, the reconstruction and putting in of a new authority as well as the stationing of the troops and dealing with rooting out resistance could last for years. I'll just sit back and see.
12.231.181.132
Then I had to cut out half of it for it to fit in this post. Goodness, this thread is getting big. 
.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread