War against Iraq: Balancing the pros and cons
There seem to be a lot of very strident pro-war and anti-was opinions around here. The way I see it, however, it's not like anyone anywhere has a clear-cut information with which to justify any stridency. Whether any of you would admit it or not, you're all just guessing. I think a little more recognition that the other guy, rather than simply being a left-or-right wing dupe, might have a valid point or two.
A few pros and cons that come to mind, that balance out in a completely unclear way:
Pro: The UN needs to show it has some relevance. What's the sense in passing resolutions to take "serious action" if the only serious action they'll ever take is passing more resolutions?
Con: The UN exists mainly to prevent wars, and making the right decision with current information is more important that putting on a tough-guy act.
Pro: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, and nearly everyone would be happy to see him out of power.
Con: Who knows who would replace Hussein? Someone more brutal? Some religious fanatic? As much of a nut case as Hussein is, he's certainly more moderate than some Islamic leaders. Women don't have to wear veils and be escorted by males in public in Iraq. You can go to a night club and dance and drink in Iraq. Hussein seems to be all about his own personal power and glory -- dangerous enough, but not as dangerous as someone with a Mission from God who fervently believes everyone in the entire world should be converted to Islam or die.
Pro: Hussein is a destablizing force in the Middle East.
Con: A war against Iraq would be a destablizing force in the Middle East.
Pro: Iraq supports terrorism, and we need to fight terrorism.
Con: Going to war against Iraq will only serve to recruit more terrorists, and whip of the frenzy of existing terrorists.
Pro: We need to stop Iraq from producing, and eventually using, weapons of mass destruction.
Con: A war might be the very thing that unleashes existing weapons of mass destruction, or encourages future terrorists to use such weapons against us as soon as they get a chance.
Question: If war is "the last resort", how the hell do you know when you've reached the last resort?
Pro: You can be damn sure that if Iraq dropped a nuke on Tel Aviv, that up until the very last moment, there'd have been a whole lot of people certain that the "last resort" hadn't be reached yet.
Con: Many people still legitimately see more room for sanctions and diplomacy to work, or, as annoying as it might be, consider the endless game of cat-and-mouse with Saddam a better solution than war, and will settle for that until very clear signs arise that the game is about to break down in a definitive way.
Question: Who's got the definitive calculation on death and suffering?
Pro: Attacking Iraq now will save more lives, and relieve more suffering, than it will cause.
Con: Attacking Iraq now will cost more lives, and cause more suffering, than it will avert.
Pro: Despite any bitching now, the world will thank the US for taking care of this mess for them.
Con: The view that many already have of the US as a imperialist nation bent on world domination will only be strengthened.
So, do any of you strongly opinionated hawks or doves really think you can show definitively how all of the pros and cons balance out to such a clear choice that you have a right to be annoyed at the supposed stupidity of those who don't see your own obvious rightness?
A few pros and cons that come to mind, that balance out in a completely unclear way:
Pro: The UN needs to show it has some relevance. What's the sense in passing resolutions to take "serious action" if the only serious action they'll ever take is passing more resolutions?
Con: The UN exists mainly to prevent wars, and making the right decision with current information is more important that putting on a tough-guy act.
Pro: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, and nearly everyone would be happy to see him out of power.
Con: Who knows who would replace Hussein? Someone more brutal? Some religious fanatic? As much of a nut case as Hussein is, he's certainly more moderate than some Islamic leaders. Women don't have to wear veils and be escorted by males in public in Iraq. You can go to a night club and dance and drink in Iraq. Hussein seems to be all about his own personal power and glory -- dangerous enough, but not as dangerous as someone with a Mission from God who fervently believes everyone in the entire world should be converted to Islam or die.
Pro: Hussein is a destablizing force in the Middle East.
Con: A war against Iraq would be a destablizing force in the Middle East.
Pro: Iraq supports terrorism, and we need to fight terrorism.
Con: Going to war against Iraq will only serve to recruit more terrorists, and whip of the frenzy of existing terrorists.
Pro: We need to stop Iraq from producing, and eventually using, weapons of mass destruction.
Con: A war might be the very thing that unleashes existing weapons of mass destruction, or encourages future terrorists to use such weapons against us as soon as they get a chance.
Question: If war is "the last resort", how the hell do you know when you've reached the last resort?
Pro: You can be damn sure that if Iraq dropped a nuke on Tel Aviv, that up until the very last moment, there'd have been a whole lot of people certain that the "last resort" hadn't be reached yet.
Con: Many people still legitimately see more room for sanctions and diplomacy to work, or, as annoying as it might be, consider the endless game of cat-and-mouse with Saddam a better solution than war, and will settle for that until very clear signs arise that the game is about to break down in a definitive way.
Question: Who's got the definitive calculation on death and suffering?
Pro: Attacking Iraq now will save more lives, and relieve more suffering, than it will cause.
Con: Attacking Iraq now will cost more lives, and cause more suffering, than it will avert.
Pro: Despite any bitching now, the world will thank the US for taking care of this mess for them.
Con: The view that many already have of the US as a imperialist nation bent on world domination will only be strengthened.
So, do any of you strongly opinionated hawks or doves really think you can show definitively how all of the pros and cons balance out to such a clear choice that you have a right to be annoyed at the supposed stupidity of those who don't see your own obvious rightness?
Comments
[quote]Originally posted by shetline:
<strong>
Con: The UN exists mainly to prevent wars, and making the right decision with current information is more important that putting on a tough-guy act.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One mustn't ignore the scenario where the right decision is to put on the tough-guy act.
<strong> [quote]Con: Who knows who would replace Hussein? Someone more brutal? Some religious fanatic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I feel the installation of a temporary government should prevent that scenario. Relinquishing of said goverment can be considered when an "appropriate" native government can be ensured. "Bright ideas" from certain people such as assassination, OTOH... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong> [quote]
Con: A war against Iraq would be a destablizing force in the Middle East.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was latent instability to begin with either way. It is logistically valid to flush out pre-existing instabilities in hopes of instigating new stability.
<strong> [quote]Con: Going to war against Iraq will only serve to recruit more terrorists, and whip of the frenzy of existing terrorists.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US will, by then, have a permanent base there to target such terrorists. Where will the terrorists run to? Neighboring countries? Then it will become a political leverage to discourage the harboring of terrorists or risk the "consequences". At the least, the promise of consequences will hit closer to home when it is coming from your neighboring sovereignity than from half-way across the planet, and none of this Turkey BS.
<strong> [quote]Con: A war might be the very thing that unleashes existing weapons of mass destruction, or encourages future terrorists to use such weapons against us as soon as they get a chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Potentially WMD's could get into the wrong hands even more likely w/o a war that removes a regime that is habitually sloppy-handed and not altogether honest with regard to the handling of WMD's.
<strong> [quote]Question: If war is "the last resort", how the hell do you know when you've reached the last resort?</strong><hr></blockquote>
"last resort" is a logical paradigm when taken literally (which I don't believe was the intent). Perhaps it should be replaced with "the most effective, but hopefully it comes as a latter considered (not necessarily the last possible) gesture".
<strong> [quote]Con: Many people still legitimately see more room for sanctions and diplomacy to work, or, as annoying as it might be, consider the endless game of cat-and-mouse with Saddam a better solution than war, and will settle for that until very clear signs arise that the game is about to break down in a definitive way.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The "more room for sanctions and diplomacy" pill would be more easily took if those parties weren't so entrenched in vested interests, but hey, things are never ideal. Some people will unconditionally see more room. It's also natural that others will see room to a point before an end-game is a necessary consideration.
<strong> [quote]Question: Who's got the definitive calculation on death and suffering?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It can be argued that neither side has chosen their direction based on death and suffering. So the question is somewhat irrelevant, unfortunately.
<strong> [quote]Con: Attacking Iraq now will cost more lives, and cause more suffering, than it will avert.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Arguably not when integrated over long term.
<strong> [quote]Con: The view that many already have of the US as a imperialist nation bent on world domination will only be strengthened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that were true, we would logically have taken over Canada and Mexico already (and working on South America). The "imperialist" theory is light-hearted consideration, at best. It's an easy bulletpoint if you are following the "why US suks" agenda. (not "you" personally, "you" in general if the profile suits you)
Well, that's my 2cts and a chicken bone. Hmmm, fried chicken...[wanders off]
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
but you are neither a hawk nor a right.......
ok
g
<strong>Here's my contribution...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The challenge of this thread is to make an honest effort to try to see things from another viewpoint. Please consider going back and trying to argue against all of the "pro" points, just like you did with the "con" points, or countering your own counterpoints.
Feel free to make it clear you're playing "devil's advocate", but then argue as honestly as you can, without creating a mere caricature of the opposition, against your previously stated opinions.
<strong>The challenge of this thread is to make an honest effort to try to see things from another viewpoint.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do yourself a dis-service in asserting that because I have chosen a direction, I must not have considered other viewpoints. You could endlessly argue that because I did not arrive at the "correct" side, that I need to go over the points again. You may well feel your challenge to argue both sides is clever, but for me to bother writing both sides is a waste of time to me. Sorry. So you can disregard my comments if you wish. They are still how I feel. It will be interesting if people can argue both sides. I suspect that they would inevitably provide weaker pros or weaker cons to subliminally support their chosen view, anyway. I won't make any pretenses of unerring objectivity in my approach. You know where I stand.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Sorry. So you can disregard my comments if you wish. They are still how I feel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Know one cares about how you or anyone else really feels in this thread. It's about giving credit to the other side of the argument. If you can't do it, it's because you haven't thought it through very clearly, thus, diminishing the value of your own beliefs in the eyes of other readers.
Those are some of the best 'hawk' arguments I can think of.
you started your post with that....i just got a chuckle out of it that's all...it's a good thing when a randycat post makes me laugh...
as for the rest....i think shetline said it well.... [quote] The challenge of this thread is to make an honest effort to try to see things from another viewpoint. <hr></blockquote>
if you couldn't do that, why post what we have heard from you before???
i am a dove and a left, happy to admit it....but i can see and address both sides...i am fine with a one shot to the head of saddam...i am less fine, but will go with, UN action if the UN says GO, i am not fine with USA action without UN approval...we can't logically use the fact that saddam is ignoring UN resolutions to attack iraq if the UN is saying we must wait...
i also see the virtue of nation building in the middle east...but we must discuss it, what it entails, what it will cost, how long it will take, how far will it go...and those things are just now being discussed...we need more communication and openness from this administration if we are to send american boys and girls to go and kill and die for our "cause"... so i can see reasons to wait...i can see reasons to go...maybe i understand what shetline is trying to do with this thread...
is saddam bad...yes
is bush bad....no
does saddam need to go...yes
are there actions we need to take to make this happen...yes
is war the only way....no
is war the best way...it might be, but wouldn't it be sweet if our government actually discussed other options?
g
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
So if anyone thinks that getting rid of Saddam will be the hard part and that everything will get better when he is gone is living in a dream world. The different ethnic and Muslim sects downright hate each other. The initial battle may only be a few weeks, but the war will most likely go on much longer than even Afganistan.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>You do yourself a dis-service in asserting that because I have chosen a direction, I must not have considered other viewpoints.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And where did I make this assertion? I asked you to try to counter your own viewpoint, which is not at all the same thing as saying that you hadn't considered other viewpoints.
[quote]<strong>You could endlessly argue that because I did not arrive at the "correct" side, that I need to go over the points again. You may well feel your challenge to argue both sides is clever, but for me to bother writing both sides is a waste of time to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, if you don't want to play along, that's your choice. It was an invitation, not a demand.
[quote]<strong>Sorry. So you can disregard my comments if you wish. They are still how I feel. It will be interesting if people can argue both sides. I suspect that they would inevitably provide weaker pros or weaker cons to subliminally support their chosen view, anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Back when I was in college, taking a political science class, we had to do some debates in class. We were put together in teams of two, and assigned not only a topic, but a viewpoint that we had to take. The topic I got was abortion, and the viewpoint I was assigned was pro life.
Not to toot my own horn too much, but I trounced the other side, with little help from my partner. I had a little bit of public speaking experience, and I put it to good use, while the other side, and my partner, were all mumbling into their index cards. That's the way all of the debates on the other topics with the other teams went too.
My side easily won, getting plenty of votes even from pro choicers in the class. I had everyone convinced not only that I was staunchly pro-life, but thinking that I'd made plenty of good points.
When the debate was over, I had to beg the teacher to give me time to rebut myself, because I hated that I'd too effectively left the wrong impression, and I didn't want to let the flaws I knew were hiding in my pro-life arguments go unchallenged.
Believe it or not, arguing against your own viewpoint can be done effectively, and the better you can do it, the better position you are in to defend your real viewpoint -- or, heaven forbid, find reasons to moderate, or even reverse, your own opinions.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
I just post to express my viewpoints on the matter. If you agree, fine, if you don't, big deal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you should start your own thread then so you don't derail this one.
That's why we tend to choose the arguments we wanted to hear. It's difficult for us to consider the arguments who are opposed to our emotional answer, it ask us a great amount of honesty.
I respect your stance completely. You do a great job of articulating your viewpoints. It is not a crime to arrive at your viewpoint. Do not let pressure from others here get to you in any way. You know and stated what you arrived at and I agree with you by the way.
Again... BRAVO for your words.
Fellowship
My attempt:
Pro: Iraq is a good target to make an example to others who may have WMD.
It may have the knockon effect into states such as Israel and NK.
Con: If it doesn't stop at Iraq it could band the remaining ME states together against the waring Western World currently composed of US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria and Aus. More terror striles.
Pro: Result of War: Relief supplied afterward may develop the country into a strong democratic free thinking country (like West Germany).
Con: War is an outmoded activity best left in the past. We are at the start of a new millenium, surely we can find a better way. If we can't stop now then we never will.
Pro: Result of War: The assimilation of ME and western culture may broaden cultural understandings and help everyone get along better in the future.
Con: More McDonalds stores.
Pro: Will be bombing Windows Machines.
we never questioned that fact...just pondered why he felt the need to derail someones thread...
so, FSCiB, you can agree with randy's viewpoint, but you shouldn't agree with his posting incorrectly here....
so to follow shetlines guidelines....a pro-war opinion: if it is done right, perhaps we can find peace in the middle east...we can reshape the arab world somewhat, perhaps even to the point where we make a palestinan state...iran would have to be next for war and then perhaps saudi arabia...g
[quote] What's the incentive here? To be the uber internet guy? To gain approval (I'm sure there are some here, who's egos thrive on it)? It doesn't really matter to me what you think about me. I just post to express my viewpoints on the matter. If you agree, fine, if you don't, big deal <hr></blockquote>
the incentive here is to think and add to a thread and line of discussion...
don't want to do that? fine...no problems, don't post, move on to the next thread...
uber internet guy?? gain approval??? hell, we are all just posting here for fun, shits and giggles...
not completely reading a thread and mis-posting to that thread is common....all it takes is a, "oopppss, sorry, thought you were asking ------, so disregard my answer"...
everyone would say, "hey, no big deal, happens all the time"...
but instead nobody ever want to say that, instead they go off about how they can say what they want and how dare the thought police say otherwise....the internet would be a lot friendlier if more people just said "opps, sorry, ignore that" more often...
g
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
But 'we' must actively work to ensure the legitimacy of the democracy we institute afterwards. Iraqis must be able to elect socialists or Islamists if that's what they want. We've got to hope that western intelligence agencies stay the hell away from the Iraqi political scene. (Bad things coming else, for many years.)
Con: permanent US military bases in Iraq.
Why a 'con'? -Iran needs encouragement away from theocracy, not being branded 'evil' and then finding more US troops on its doorstep. US action against Iran right now would be a disaster for Iran and for the Middle East; Iran's just about the region's best hope. We've got to pray that western forces permanently stationed in Iraqi bases take their orders from a government with a long-term view of Middle Eastern politics.
(I believe that there will be bases. There are bases in Germany, Japan, Korea and most recently Panama, so there is a very strong precedent.)
<strong>The clerics will fall on their own in due time, US bases or not. It will take more than that. The only thing that can save them would be if we preemtively attacked Iran.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely.
Very well said that Colander.
Don't worry, only five more years and eleven months till he is gone.