Arguments for and against the war

in General Discussion edited January 2014
Hey everyone. I am writing a column on the ongoing arguments over the war and the arguments supporting and opposing it. I do NOT want this to be an bickering forum. If you are support actions in Iraq, give a few reasons why. If you oppose actions in Iraq, give a few reasons why. I figure the best way to get broad opinion is by posting on this and several other forums where people from around the world chime in. This is NOT to turn into a debate...state your piece and be at peace, in other attacking anyone else's arugments. I will read through any links posted as support for evidence. Thanks in advance!


  • Reply 1 of 8
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    agianst the war: international law
  • Reply 2 of 8
    I'll try to list as many arguements as possible. I've tried to express my entire view and it has more depth than "war is bad". SO I'll give all dimensions of my view:


    -Gain control over any WOMDs

    -Releive sanctions that kill thousands every year

    -Get rid of Saddam Hussein >> Free people

    - Install democracy >> Free people? (Maybe)

    -More stable access to oil export

    -Spread American influence ensuring safer homeland

    -Give Iraqis option to break back up into their repsective tribes before Mesopotamia was bundled together by Brits

    -Open diplomatic doors to other middleeastern countries

    -Lines the pocket of Lockheed Martin ($3 000 000 000 worth of cruise missiles already) which had major positive economic impacts


    -Upset region

    -Confirm regions beleif that america wants to gain control over oil and region

    -Hurries terrorist threat

    -Destruction of attractive architecture

    -Wastes a LOT of money

    -takes the US away from full productivity

    -Wastes life

    -Also Shuts diplomatic doors in region

    -Costly rebuilding of infrastructure

    And both lists run on.

    So, in the end the reasons why I am anti-war is because all the Pros could be attained (except for the lockheed deal) through more organised, spy, undercover efforts...I am quite sure the US has a strong enough elite-force to infiltrate the Iraqi government when they have more thoroughly infiltrated the media there (which is the causes of such massive Saddam-loving)

    Droppingthose leaflets without war would have been very useful to help infiltrate Saddams control over public ignorance to the outside world. Lifting sanctions would have then been very productive...greater livlihood would have been felt and due to (what would have been a much larger) coalition propaganda comapign, the livlihood would have been attributed to the outside.

    One last big big thing. The best thing I think to epxlain my anti-war is that it would have been EXTREMELY productive to have installed more compatible ambassadors to each country and try harder to work with their conerns.

    No attack or rebuttle will be answered due to filmmakers instruction.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Against the war:

    - It sets a precedent that the US will make preemptive attacks on countries that we suspect have WOMD. I completely agree with war if it's to prevent an enemy from using WOMD that we know for a fact they have, but it's not good to get in the habit of attacking other nations wantonly.

    - It will kill many civilians (but see my pro-war points below).

    - The true motives behind the war may be more for the personal well-being of the interested parties (like Bush, Cheney, Blair) rather than as a humanitarian goal. I figure that if they're going to promote the war as having a humanitarian goal, then we must hold our leaders to very high standards to make sure they fulfill that portion. If they end up saving thousands or even millions of people from death at the hands of Saddam Hussein, I can somewhat put it behind me that the reason for the war was self-gain. Unfortunately, we never really can know the real reasons behind the war, but I think it's safe to assume that it's a combo-platter of personal gain, humanitarian aid to the oppressed Iraqi people, and the stamping out of a possible threat to the US or its allies.

    For the war:

    - We'll save lots of civilians from Saddam Hussein's cruel treatment. Yeah, we'll kill some in the process, that is completely unavoidable even if Saddam DIDN'T station troops next to civilians. So that is a double-edged sword. And I have no idea if it'll end up being better or worse in the long run, but I think a few hundred or thousand dead civilians will far outweigh the thousands upon thousands that would have died should Saddam stay in power for another 12 years.

    - Our economy will grow. The US economy is in the toilet but it'll do much better once the war is over. It's already doing better with the anticipation of a quick victory.

    - It will depose a horrible dictator. That's my main hope is that Saddam is pushed out. If we could only take him out behind his palace and shoot him, it would be all over with. But we can't. Whether war is justified to bring this man to justice is up to you to decide.

    I hope these were pretty good.
  • Reply 4 of 8
    Sounds good guys...keep em comin. I appreciate your respecting my guidelines, especially DMB. Thanks!
  • Reply 5 of 8
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    my friend wrote this:


    et's get one thing straight: I'm no hawk._ By hawk, I mean someone who actively supports bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age because they're bad and Bush is right about everything._ On top of that, I'm very much still a big-government, bail-me-out-Uncle-Sam liberal, and I remain, as ever, harshly critical of the Bush administration's right-wing politics.

    But I'm also a thinking human being, and that's why I have to support this war effort._ To put it succinctly, I support this war because Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who is a threat to regional and global stability, is armed with weapons of mass destruction, and does not listen to reason -- he must be disarmed and removed, and the only way to do this is with force.

    As far as being a dictator, Saddam rose first to prominence as a young revolutionary who staged a coup against the government in 1968, then took over the reins of power in 1979._ During that period, he created a secret police with which he cracked down on dissidents and removed his enemies systematically._ Within days of his assuming power, he had executed twenty of his political enemies and imposed strict restrictions on the Iraqi people.

    In regards to weapons of mass destruction, in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, Saddam Hussein turned chemical weapons first on his enemies in Iran, and then on his own people._ Most commentators agree that Saddam regards chemical and biological agents as the most valued parts of his arsenal, and that he would be loath to give them up.

    And does he have them?_ Beyond a doubt._ President Bush makes a compelling case that Saddam has not disarmed._ Twelve resolutions have been passed in as many years condemning Iraq's possession of and use of weapons of mass destruction, most notably U.N. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441._ Saddam Hussein's regime failed to disclose new information in their official report to the U.N., conveniently "forgot" to include weapons systems including long-range missiles (God only knows what ELSE he "forgot" to include), and weapons inspectors have discovered evidence that he does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to chemical weapons-equipped warheads (a clear violation of U.N. Resolution 687).

    All of these show that Saddam has repeatedly failed to listen to international pressures to disarm; the only way he will do so is by force._ He is a tyrant armed with weapons of mass destruction and having a clear history of using them._ He represents a threat to regional and global stability, and must be removed._ The only way to do so is with military action.

    Make no mistake, I do think we've made some serious diplomatic mistakes along the way: I remain of the opinion, "What would it have hurt to leave weapons inspectors in for a few more months?"_ I believe that if we had left them in, we would have found additional evidence -- but not the actual weapons -- of weapons of mass destruction._ This would have satisfied the international community that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons, and we could have formed a broad international coalition with a true global mandate for force.

    Let me digress for a moment to dispel a few popular myths that my detractors have forwarded against my position.

    Myth 1: Americans are setting out to carpet-bomb Iraq._ As of today, hundreds of munitions have been dropped and all of them have been against high-profile Iraqi military and regime targets; we have used precision weapons against clearly identified targets and have purposely avoided civilian areas._ Our war is not against the people of Iraq, but rather the regime that oppresses them and threatens us.

    Myth 2: American weapons systems are grossly inaccurate and will lead to mass civilian casualties._ The last generation of Paveway II laser-guided weapons systems achived at LEAST a 78% hit rate in Operation Desert Storm, with some variants of the munition achieving better than an 88% hit rate._ The single well-publicized incident where a civilian target was hit involved a weapon (the GBU-28 Bunker-buster, for those of you interested) of which exactly TWO were employed in all of Desert STorm._ The 50% hit rate is a farce._ The civilian target was in fact hit by a different type of weapon, and resulted not from inaccurate targeting, but bad intelligence: a bunker was misidentified as a shelter for military leaders, when in fact it was a shelter for the wives and children of major officials._ Newer weapons systems being employed, such as the GBU-29 JDAM, are guided by GPS satellite, and are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to function equally effectively in night and adverse weather conditions.

    Myth 3: We intend to "shock and awe" the Iraqi populace into surrender._ The primary example: MOAB, or the "mother of all bombs," a huge bomb that weighs as much as six Volkswagen Beetles and has to be dropped from a cargo plane._ But news releases clealry stated that such large-scale weapons of intimidation are to be used only against military troops far from urban areas, and that they are intended not to cause mass destruction, but to frighten Iraqis into surrendering with a minimal loss of life.

    There is not much more to be said for my position, as I feel I have pretty clearly explained why I believe what I believe._ Let us now stand united behind our troops in uniform, whether we personally believe they fight for right or wrong -- or whether we abstain from choosing sides at all._ Let us say a prayer for them to the powers that be, and for their safe and expedient return, and for a short and bloodless war.

    A moment of silence for those who defend all we hold dear.

  • Reply 6 of 8
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    For the war:

    Just get this entire episode over with as fast as possible. Its not helping the world economy with all those talks and debates. War may not be the most ideal solution, but its probably the best long term solution.
  • Reply 7 of 8

    - Much greater range of freedoms for Iraqis.

    - Elimination of one potential, loosely-controlled source of chemical and biological weapons.

    - Removal of economic sanctions.

    - Economic and humanitarian opportunities for countries involved in rebuilding, as well as their Iraqi partners.

    - Potential redistribution of power and boundaries more closely reflecting Iraq's ethnic and religious groups (this could be a con too).

    - Democratic movements may spread in the Middle East.

    - We might feel safer when this is over.

    Cons (mostly hypothetical):

    - US estrangement from allies.

    - Needless accidental civilian deaths.

    - Potential for a biological or chemical attack in an area such as Baghdad and hundreds of thousands of resultant deaths in Saddam's grand finale, assuming he actually has the requisite agents.

    - Potential exploitation of Iraqis by unscrupulous industries and ensuing disillusionment with what appear to be Western principles.

    - Potential negligence in US dealings with a fragile Iraq leading to an overall worse state of affairs.

    - Great potential for a weak, limited democracy in Iraq with limited popular support and continual coup attempts requiring long term 'coalition' or UN intervention.

    - With a successful war Ã* la PNAC, the potential wider acceptance of an exaggerated view of US ability and duty, leading to an influential though increasingly paranoid, constricted and threatened America.

    Viewing this in a consequentialist manner, I am not so much against the war in and of itself as I am against the war as a means to an unclear end. It would be assuming some false privilege to say that this war is wrong based on something that hasn't happened yet, but I do believe anyone involved in Iraq's rebuilding has a tremendous responsibility and I'm not totally confident in the American government's disposition for living up to that.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    anyone else?
Sign In or Register to comment.