What's Really Going on In IraqFollow

Indeed, ya fu[i][/i]cking hypocrite!

I have never once said someone was wrong simply because of their political affiliation or broad political stance. While I might refer to someone as a <insert party/stance/whatever>-nutball, I always make an attempt to explain *why* I disagree with that person, and what specifically I'm in disagreement with.


Smash has on many occasions argued by way of assuming that anyone who is not a card carrying hardline member of the Democratic party is either a horrible, greedy person with "evil" (as in Dr. Evil it seems) plans toward the entire nation, or some poor sap who's been sucked into their evil plans. Once that assumption is made, he simply continues to argue that if you disagree with his party and his beliefs, you simply must be wrong. As though no one else in the universe can possibly have a countering opinion.


Oddly, he'll dismiss the fact that there are just as many experts on any given topic who agree with the other position as with his. After all, they don't agree with him, so those experts aren't really experts after all.



My objective here is not to "win" an argument. I'm simply trying to inject an opposing viewpoint. If someone posts something accusatory about something, I'll do some research and present the opposing view. And honestly, it's not strickly about dem vs rep that I care about. Smash does, and many of his topics are about bashing reps, so many topics come out that way. But I've done the same thing in topics about religion, and drug legalization, and abortion. I'm just trying to get people to see that the world is not full of absolutes, and that there are almost always two sides to every argument. The first method of attack by those with an agenda is to convince you that there is an absolute "right" position. Once they do that, they just have to convince you that their position is the right one.

I've become more and more concerned over the last decade or so (it's really become obvious with the rise of the internet and boards like this one) with a growing trend of polarization in debates. It's rarely about arguing nuances and ideas and the "real" differences between two positions. Instead, it's simply about yelling out your side as loudly as possible and attempting to debunk the other, usually via some equivalent of mudslinging rather then actual argument. Just looking at the first page of thise forum provides plenty of examples of innane arguments. Instead of seeing exactly how few differences the two "sides" to an argument have, we first focus on making them seem like night and day, with no common ground in between. Then we argue our side like we're at a football game, and there's always one winner and one loser.


The reality is that there are a lot of shades of grey. There were legitimate reasons for going to war with Iraq. There were legitimate reasons for *not* going to war with Iraq. A reasonable person should be able to see that. In this case, our government decided that the reasons for going to war outweighed those for not going. Agree or disagree, it was still a balance of causes and consequences, and they chose a course of action. However, the polarists will make it seem as though if there is any single legitimate reason for not going to war, then we shouldn't have gone. That's simply not true. You can find other nations with WMD, and that may provide a reason not to go to war with Iraq, but that's not the only reason being considered. You can find other nations that support terrorism, but that also is not the only consideration. You cannot simply find a reason or two that we should't have gone to Iraq, crow about it loudly, and proclaim the the war was unjustified based purely on that. It simply doesn't wash: "We didn't find WMD", isn't the whole reason, and isn't by itself an overwhelming argument against the war.

Again. It's about weighed probablity, actions, and consequences. There's no 100% right or wrong here guys. Anyone who tries to convince you of that is selling something. On the one hand, we have the damage to our international relations, and potential increase in terrorism and general hatred towards us in the region. On the other hand, we have the ability to remove a leader of dubious qualities, who has made threats against us, and has promoted terrorist actions and groups, and has harbored terrorists, and has thumbed his nose at both us and the UN, and has built WMD in the past, and has used those weapons in the past, and will have the ability to use them again in the future. With that information we have to weigh the cost of action against the cost of inaction, and provide a probability to the possible results. What are the odds that if we do nothing in Iraq, that we wont end up fighting him in 5-10 years anyway when he inevitably invades Kuwait? During that time, what are the odds that he starts up production of WMD again? If so, what are the odds that he uses them in some way? If so, what are the odds that he uses them against us, using one of any of a number of current and potential future terrorist connections as a delivery system?


The point is that we don't have a crystal ball here. We can't see the future, and we can't always make perfect choices. Um. We also can't see what would have happened if we'd made different choices. We will *never* know if our choice in Iraq was the right one or not. No amount of finding or not finding WMD, or finding or not finding plots to do harm to us will ever change that. We will never know. I'll say it again: Anyone who's arguing that the choice was 100% right, or 100% wrong is trying to sell you something. It's just not that clear cut, and I'll argue against that person every time (yes, even if someone says that attacking Iraq was definately the right thing I'd argue with them and present the opposing view).


As to my personal "bias" on this issue? I happen to believe that our government probably made the right choice. Again. That's just my [i]opinion. I can't know if they did. But when I look at the possiblities and probable consequences of both attacking or not attacking Iraq, I tend towards the idea that attacking Iraq will help us in the long run. Intially, we'll stir up a hornets nest (which we've done). However, in the long run, we will have gotten the nations on board with the idea of stopping terrorism. Every measure I've seen of international terrorism has shown a steady increase in both numbers of actions, violences of actions, and body count over the last 40 years. There is no reason to expect that simply continuing as we have been would do anything to stem that. Since the one thing that has made terrorism into a global problem is the ability of these groups to hide in sovereign territory without fear of attack, it seems logical to me to remove that protection. Once you do that, you can handle terrorism using normal diplomatic methods. Until you do that, diplomacy doesn't work (and hasn't been, or the Taliban wouldn't have protected Al-queda, and we'd have a couple more tall buildings in NYC today).


But that's just my opinion. I don't make any assumption that I'm "right". However, I arrived at that opinion, not because I read it off some website, or was told it by someone else, but because I've looked at the information, and the facts, and made up my mind about the decision to attack. I did so not based on which party was in power (I would have come to the same conclusion if Gore had won the election in 2000 and had taken the same actions), but based on what I think is more likely to work in the long term.


I just wonder how many of you currently arguing this issue would hold completely opposite views if the Dems were in power right now and Gore had made the decision to attack Iraq instead of Bush? Again, it's just my opinion, but based on my observations on human nature (and of the personalities on this board), I'd bet that those who argue the most vehemently on this issue would be the most likely to completely flop their position if the parties involved were reversed.


Unfortunately, that's also something we can never know for sure...

I just wonder how many of you currently arguing this issue would hold completely opposite views if the Dems were in power right now and Gore had made the decision to attack Iraq instead of Bush? Again, it's just my opinion, but based on my observations on human nature (and of the personalities on this board), I'd bet that those who argue the most vehemently on this issue would be the most likely to completely flop their position if the parties involved were reversed.


Well, we know for certain you'd be against it.

I imagine everyone else would have about the same positions they have now.

No one else on this board has ever shown a blind adherance to dogma that I can think of off hand.

Of course Gore wouldn't have made any decision to go to war against Iraq. What reason would he have? Saddam didn't try to kill Gore's father; Gore isn't part of the oil baron monarchy; he actually served in the military; and he can pronounce "nuclear".
If, in some bizarre alternate universe, Gore did go to war with the same false/faulty info, we'd be decrying the same things - inadequate planning, poor execution, lack of compelling justification. Immorality is not a specifically Republican trait.

The whole Iraq mess is just another politically-economically-personally motivated farce. What's the American M.O. - roll in, topple the regime, set up a puppet government, and roll out? Correct me if I'm wrong (which I often am) but isn't that how Saddam got into power int he first place? And the Taliban? Let's see how well things are going. Government officials being assassinated. Military and police volunteers/recruits were just blown up - again. Humanitarian aid workers being kidnapped and executed. Foreign insurgents running loose. 1000 US soldiers dead? Not bad for only being at war for a year. Er - what's that - we *haven't* been "at war" for *over a year*. Iraqi citizens may be glad that Saddam is no longer in power, but they don't have much else to be thankful for. Not yet, at least, and we aren't doing much good for them right now. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks this is progress, left or right, is a fool.

Edited, Wed Jul 28 10:43:11 2004 by Debalic

Varruss you moron, read the enitre paragraph.

What is the Asylum coming to? Is this is vitrolic as it gets? I've seen worse flamewars on alt.gardening I haven't even seen people calling each other ****'s yet.

Anyhow, you can read who these people are, quoteth the website:

We support a free, democratic and pluralistic Iraq that is at peace with the world. IAFA will provide Americans with a fuller picture of Iraq by giving voice to Iraqis who are grateful for their newfound freedom and working to secure democracy in their country.

Nowhere does it say we give equal time to those who think the American's are royally ******** up. Or, in fact, those who think they *are* working to ensure democracy by *not* being at peace, at this moment.

They say "fuller" picture, not The Entire Picture - and for that I applaud them. And I think people should see both sides. Clearly we were lead to war on false premises. Clearly the UN weapons inspectors were right. Clearly Iraq is far, far less stable then it used to be. But clearly some really good things are happening, too.

I can't comment on this being the "untold" side of the Iraq story because I don't get my news where Joe Average American does. Maybe if you watch, I don't know what is a good left wing media outlet? CNN - they used to be considered right... MS-NBC? CBS? Anyhow, I'm sure there could exist some media outlet which runs only stories about the insurgency in Iraq and not the heartfelt "look, our noble troops are building a school" stories.

Where I get my news this is about half the story. Whether it should be 1/25th the story or 24/25ths the story I'd really have to be in Iraq to tell you.

yes he did say it, on the Tonight show while discussing the earlier misquote. so, it still counts!

Happy now? Poor PP just got provoked to say the meanest, most horrible and uncivil thing ever uttered by a politican's wife.

Shield your children, folks. There's no telling where this will lead.

Not sure it was a while ago and I saw it on tv but you are probably right.

As if that'd ever happen. That's like non-alcoholic Scotch.

Or, for that matter, non-alcoholic Scotsmen.

A scott isn't drunk as long as he can hold on to a blade of grass to keep himself from falling off the face of the earth.

The irony is that had the war been justified, i.e. Iraq was a genuine threat and really did have WMD, then the 1000 figure would have been much much higher.

How do you justify that? I'd be curious as to what those with a military background think.

From what I understand, we did an exceptional job of cutting the command and control out from under the Iraqis, and we never suspected they had developed nuclear weapons, merely that they were developing them, so that leaves C&B weapons.

If they had C&B weapons, our troops were properly prepared (those of the UK were not), but the decision to use those weapons would have been in the hands of Generals and Colonels scattered over Iraq. The possibility remains that couriers could have gotten through, but I think ultimately the decision would have rested with those Generals and Colonels, and I don't think many would have employed them given the option, whether use was the failsafe or not. Hell, half the forces just abandoned the fight.

The guerilla war poses a threat, but street to street fighting within the cities would have been far worse. Luckily, that didn't happen by and large either.

What we do now will determine whether the guerilla/terrorist tactics abate or intensify. We need to make Iraq better than the country was before, or the blood spilled will have been for nothing. We'll just have to go do the whole thing over again in a decade or two.