Fucking Politics.

[Armin]

So I've been thinking about it lately, and there's a lot of people who are against the war because "Bush is an idiot", or are for the war for reasons just as stupid. Then, there's the people who are against the war for uneducated reasons that don't make sense, or vice-versa. Now, I made this thread because I want to discuss, totally without any bias, every possible reason we could be in Iraq for, including things that it could solve in the long run, and a list of every negative thing that has happened and will happen for going to war with Iraq. This way, people who are mature enough and like to think without any bias at all, could use this thread to help guide them into whether or not they think this war is right. If they think the benefits make up for the losses, then they're for the war. If they think the benefits do not make up for the losses, then they're against the war. This way, the person deciding won't have to deal with all of the bias and bullshit we hear about fucking politics.

Now, let's start with the losses. I'll come up with a loss, 1 at a time, and we'll do as much research on it as we can, then we'll get a conclusion for it that will go under the "Losses" catergory.

Deaths of innocent of people. I'll start doing research on this now, to get the exact current numbers of the amount of citizens dead, and the amount of people dead from soldiers of each side of the war. Other people should help out with this.

[igimo1]

Something like 2300(*) American death counts so far, and around 35,000(?) civilian deaths total on the Iraqi side.

Losses:
    Lack of respect, and oftentimes, bleak hatred overseas
    Huge government spending
    Many thousands out of jobs
    American losses
    Failure to find WMD

Pluses:
    Ended murderous regime of Saddam Hussein
    Removing (many) terrorists
    Ended sanctions to Iraq, delivered needed supplies to the Iraqi people
    Secured Iraq's oil fields for the Iraqi people, formerly monopolized by certain individuals
    Helped Iraqi people create a form of self-government
    Minimal losses in initial invasion

(?) --> http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
(*) --> http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

[Armin]

Total Losses of Forces as of 3/17/06 (subject to change):

• American: 2,314
  
• Coalition: 2,519
  
• Other: 202

Source: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Total Losses of Citizens as of 3/17/06 (subject to change):

• Citizens: 33,679

Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Total Casualties: 38,714

I can trust the number of deaths given by CNN, but to make sure, could somebody grab another source for the amount of deaths of citizens? I can't really trust a site that's titled "Anti-War" to be too accurate.

[Armin]

Losses:
    Many thousands out of jobs

I don't see exactly how you can relate this to the war, so we'll discuss it at the end of the "Cons" section.

    American losses

Not just American losses, but the loss of lives total.

    Failure to find WMD

This really isn't a con, it's just not a positive thing.

Pluses:
    Minimal losses in initial invasion

Not sure if this would fit either.

Next discussion: Lack of respect/loss of allies. The previous topics are still discussible.

[igimo1]

Losses:
    Many thousands out of jobs

I don't see exactly how you can relate this to the war, so we'll discuss it at the end of the "Cons" section.

As a direct result of defensive and offensive war spending, which is rather huge (200$ billion)(^)

    American losses

Not just American losses, but the loss of lives total.

Not sure about you, but Iraqi deaths are lesser in value than American deaths to me.

    Failure to find WMD

This really isn't a con, it's just not a positive thing.

It's a con, because we failed to do this when it was one of the major objectives of this war (or so Bush led America to believe).

Pluses:
    Minimal losses in initial invasion

Not sure if this would fit either.

Remember the Vietnam War? It only took something like three weeks to overtake their cities in Iraq, and I don't think we succeeded in Vietnam at all.

(^) --> http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/

[Berzerker]

    Failure to find WMD

This really isn't a con, it's just not a positive thing.

Lol, then what is it?

Next discussion: Lack of respect/loss of allies. The previous topics are still discussible.

I belive the only ally we actually lost was France. Everyone else is sending a minimal amonut of troups in our aid. Jacque Chiraque (however you spell his name) just didn't like Bush's reaction to Saddam Hussein having WMD's. He probably isn't the kind of person who jumps to conclusions, and he didn't like Bush for doing what he hated, but that's just my POV. On a positive note, I think that this actually strengthened our relationship with Britain and Tony Blair. Our affairs with Britain are becoming more and more frequent and this might prove to be a good thing in the years to come.

[Armin]

    American losses

Not just American losses, but the loss of lives total.

Not sure about you, but Iraqi deaths are lesser in value than American deaths to me.

The majority of the people who are anti-war usually care mostly about the people on the other side. We'll have specific numbers for both, like the figures I've already posted.

    Failure to find WMD

This really isn't a con, it's just not a positive thing.

It's a con, because we failed to do this when it was one of the major objectives of this war (or so Bush led America to believe).

It's not a con, because this isn't an actual byproduct of the war. It's just fucking politics, and politics are bullshit. This is supposed to just be straight pros and cons.

Pluses:
    Minimal losses in initial invasion

Not sure if this would fit either.

Remember the Vietnam War? It only took something like three weeks to overtake their cities in Iraq, and I don't think we succeeded in Vietnam at all.

(^) --> http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/

We are not comparing this war to other wars. This is nice and everything, but is basically said in the numbers given for the amount of deaths. Sure, less deaths, but death is still death.

[iago]

My major problem is that there is now a lot of evidence that they knew that their intelligence was faulty looking for WMDs, but afterwards they backpedalled by saying "well, it was an oppressive dictatorship so it was good anyways."  It's the honesty I have a problem with. 

In addition, in my opinion, if a leader of a country is making life suck for the people who live there, it is the responsibility of the people to revolt and overthrow the government, establishing their own system.  It just doesn't seem right for another country, who is infinitely more powerful, to come in and bully everything. 

Note that both points there are opinions and cannot really be contested.  So there. :P

[Armin]

The first one, is completely about politics. This thread is supposed to help people decided whether the war is right, or wrong. No politics allowed. Nothing of what leaders promised, etc.

As for your second point, we can discuss the facts that your opinion is based off of a bit more. On a side note, this thread wasn't for you to post your opinions, but to discuss every bad thing that will and has come out of this war, and every good thing.

[iago]

Well, I'm making points for an against, but I have to explain them a bit. 

Bad -- I think that the decision to go to war was bad.  That was a political thing, but in a discussion like this you can't really escape politics.  Sorry.  But the decision was made on faulty intelligence, and people were convinced that terrorists were coming from Iraq (like 9/11), which is completely untrue.  So I think that the decision to go to war was bad. 

Good -- I'm reasonably sure that the war has made life in Iraq a better place for many (and a worse place for some...).  From a purely utilitarian standpoint, that's a good thing. 

Bad -- However, in the coming years, I'm not entirely convinced that the country is going to hold up.  If the US withdraws, I think that there's a pretty good chance that the puppet government they've established will fall, and another dictator will emerge.  As I said in my first post, I think that the only way to solve problems like that is for the people who live there to rise up and overthrow their government, and for them to establish a government of the people (democracy, communism, whatever, it doesn't matter).  Only then will the people be strong enough and enough in control to hold a government.  So in that sense, I would say that the war is bad because it's a crutch. 

I'm not so worried about things like deaths.  War is war, and people will get killed on matter what type of a war it is.  But I don't think anybody should have stuck their noses in it.

[CrAz3D]

I don't think the war itself counts as being bad that came from the war...it doesn't work that way.


Bad: the innocent casualities.
Bad: the new people being recruited to blow themselves up
Bad: the fear of suicide bombers
Bad: it has cost US alot

Good: the bad casualties
Good: the old people being killed before they blow themselves up
Good: the better infrastructure being built
Good: the better quality of life
Good: women have rights
Good: no more state sponsored genocide
Good: no more extreme state bias

[TeHFoOoL]

Well, I'm making points for an against, but I have to explain them a bit. 

Bad -- I think that the decision to go to war was bad.  That was a political thing, but in a discussion like this you can't really escape politics.  Sorry.  But the decision was made on faulty intelligence, and people were convinced that terrorists were coming from Iraq (like 9/11), which is completely untrue.  So I think that the decision to go to war was bad. 

( Side note, I agree completely on all the other bullets )

But.. This one I don't. We don't -know- that they weren't going to have any more bombs launched into our cities. There's no way to find out. Asking around definitely won't yield results. Who'd admit to something like that?

Or am I misinterpreting you and not noticing that you mean IRAQ, not the Middle-East in general?

If so, then I agree with you again. >_>

[igimo1]

Well, I'm making points for an against, but I have to explain them a bit. 

Bad -- I think that the decision to go to war was bad.  That was a political thing, but in a discussion like this you can't really escape politics.  Sorry.  But the decision was made on faulty intelligence, and people were convinced that terrorists were coming from Iraq (like 9/11), which is completely untrue.  So I think that the decision to go to war was bad. 

Good -- I'm reasonably sure that the war has made life in Iraq a better place for many (and a worse place for some...).  From a purely utilitarian standpoint, that's a good thing. 

Bad -- However, in the coming years, I'm not entirely convinced that the country is going to hold up.  If the US withdraws, I think that there's a pretty good chance that the puppet government they've established will fall, and another dictator will emerge.  As I said in my first post, I think that the only way to solve problems like that is for the people who live there to rise up and overthrow their government, and for them to establish a government of the people (democracy, communism, whatever, it doesn't matter).  Only then will the people be strong enough and enough in control to hold a government.  So in that sense, I would say that the war is bad because it's a crutch. 

I'm not so worried about things like deaths.  War is war, and people will get killed on matter what type of a war it is.  But I don't think anybody should have stuck their noses in it.

There are signs of WMD facilities in Iraq, and it's very possible that he moved them to a neighboring country (such as Iran) before our ultimatum expired.


I'd say its impossible to rebel, since Saddam executes by the dozen - remember the big fuss over his killing of the Sunnis? They tried to assassinate him, and Saddam claims they were tried in a court, found guilty, and executed for regicide. Beside that, they have a relatively sized army, and an elite private force known as the Iraqi National Guard.

Just because the Americans were able to kick the British out doesn't mean every people are capable of doing so.

[zorm]

A couple of points first off:

Before the war no one doubted the fact that Iraq likely had WMD. iago if you can find one article/interview/whatever from before the war that even suggests Iraq doesn't have WMD I'll be incredibly surprised. There were a lot of reasons for not going to war being tossed around, a lack of WMD in Iraq wasn't one of them.

Part of this can probably be blamed on an Iraqi deception, the Iraqi bases and such we took in the early weeks of the war were equipped with new chemical protection suits and drugs to counter the effects of nerve agents. You can't possibly believe they excepted the Americans to use chemical or biological weapons against them so the only logical conclusion is that they were for protection from their own weapons.

Also note that an artillery shell full of sarin nerve gas was found as part of an IED in Baghdad. Whether it was left over from the first Gulf War or not(I'm not entirely sure they ever found out) is irrelavant because Saddam swore that they destroyed ALL chemical weapons. So clearly Iraq still had WMD and quite possibly still does.


iago hit the nail on the head with his one good statement. If you'll recall after the reconstruction started people were complaining about a lack of power in the intense summer heat and such. However, from what I've read now more people have power than before the war so clearly life in Iraq is improving. The progress however is slow and the people clearly want more faster but oh well.


On the subject of hatred over seas, I think this is entirely false. The governments may publically be unsupportive of America and such but thats simply politics and going with the wind. If you look closely you'll see that America has the largest coalition in history working to stop the terrorists in Afghanistan. So the hatred is only skin deep and the governments are still working together.

[Armin]

Bad -- I think that the decision to go to war was bad.  That was a political thing, but in a discussion like this you can't really escape politics.  Sorry.  But the decision was made on faulty intelligence, and people were convinced that terrorists were coming from Iraq (like 9/11), which is completely untrue.  So I think that the decision to go to war was bad.

The "excuse" to go to war is completely politics, and if you think the war is not sucessful just because somebody said there were going to be WMD and there weren't, there's something horribly wrong with your opinion, no offense. This is simply the point I'm trying to get across that the discussion of WMD shouldn't be in this thread.

Good -- I'm reasonably sure that the war has made life in Iraq a better place for many (and a worse place for some...).  From a purely utilitarian standpoint, that's a good thing. 

Bad -- However, in the coming years, I'm not entirely convinced that the country is going to hold up.  If the US withdraws, I think that there's a pretty good chance that the puppet government they've established will fall, and another dictator will emerge.  As I said in my first post, I think that the only way to solve problems like that is for the people who live there to rise up and overthrow their government, and for them to establish a government of the people (democracy, communism, whatever, it doesn't matter).  Only then will the people be strong enough and enough in control to hold a government.  So in that sense, I would say that the war is bad because it's a crutch.

We'll discuss these issues later, I'm trying to get us to research 1 topic at a time, because if everybody throws out random ideas and their opinions on them, we won't get anywhere.

I'm not so worried about things like deaths.  War is war, and people will get killed on matter what type of a war it is.  But I don't think anybody should have stuck their noses in it.

For some people, death is the only reason they're against war, so it's staying in.

Since this is my thread, and this is not the discussion I wanted in it, could somebody trash this post and on for me? Then, hopefully, we can get back on topic and discuss on issue at a time, and making sure the issue matches this topic.