Iraw War Arguments

[jordanz]

Regarding Iran:

1. It has not been proven that they are trying to build weapons

2. Even if they did they have no way to deliver those weapons.

3. Israel would not let them do it.

4. Their leader is not as insane as Fox News makes him out to be

5. Where are they funding terrorism against the US? I think you a thinking about Saudi Arabia, our oil buddy.

6. When you say allies, you mean Israel. Israel can take care of itself.

1. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that they are trying to build a nuclear bomb. My reading of the news suggests that most governments in the world believe this too.

2. I don't believe it will be a problem for them to get a delivery vehicle given enough time and money.

3. Thank Goodness for Israel

4. Ahmadinejad is insane in the same way that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al were insane. I've come to this conclusion by reading what he said, not from what any news source has said.

5. In Iraq.

6. I don't know that Israel can take care of itself. In any event, why should it have too?

[jordanz]

Saddam had no WMD's, no viable army and was not working with terrorist.

Firstly, we didn't know this until we invaded Iraq. I've seen some reporting that suggests that Saddam incorrectly thought he had WMDs (his generals were lying to him). In any event, he objectively had them in the recent past (Iran, the Kurds, etc.).

[jordanz]

Another reason is that Iraq was "doable".

So are supporting Imperialism? The idea that we should kick around who ever we want because we can.

We are not taking over Iraq. Removing Saddam was clearly in our national interest and it was doable.

[jordanz]

Once again please explain how a primitive third world country who is not working with al-qeada is a threat to us.

I take them at their word.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We are not taking over Iraq. Removing Saddam was clearly in our national interest and it was doable.

Jordan,

By this standard, we are done. We should leave and see if the Iraqis will want The Oil Act without our presence.

Heh. I would love to see that.

But I know this is complicated because Iran and others are now funding rebels and terrorists there. I am merely going on the logic of the argument.

Michael

[jordanz]

We are not taking over Iraq. Removing Saddam was clearly in our national interest and it was doable.

By this standard, we are done. We should leave and see if the Iraqis will want The Oil Act without our presence.

I don't think that follows from what I wrote. In any event, it wasn't what I meant. Removing Saddam has implications. Ensuring a stable, US friendly government in Iraq is also in our national interest.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jordan,

Does that include control of the oil fields by American companies? That is what is being promoted in broad daylight with The Oil Act. If not, is there a reason to ignore this fact?

I don't argue passionately for or against the war. I argue for looking at all the facts, regardless of where they fall.

I am probably going to regret mentioning this, but there is a fact that needs to be examined. I just read an article by Lew Rockwell entitled "None Dare Call It Genocide." I do not like Rockwell's anti-American stance or his use of blanket words like "murder" for all deaths, but he presents some compelling figures regarding over a million conflict-related deaths of Iraqi citizens since 2003, with almost half dying from gunshot wounds.

This is a fact he claims that is ignored in the press, which focuses on car bombs and overhead bombardment. If this is true, then it should be in the news. There is no justification for that many deaths in an occupied country, anyway. Does anyone have any comments about Rockwell's sources? I didn't see a breakdown of "killed by Americans" and "killed by insurgents" or something like that.

At any rate, a million killed people makes for a lot of pissed-off relatives. We should make sure they are not pissed off at us to the extent possible.

Michael

[jordanz]

Does that include control of the oil fields by American companies? That is what is being promoted in broad daylight with The Oil Act. If not, is there a reason to ignore this fact?

Here is the text of the law, BTW: http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2...illaw021507.pdf

My answer to this is: as opposed to whom? I have no problem with giving American Company's an interest in Iraqi oil. They've done most of the work. They'll do a lot better than the criminal who controlled them previously. What is your objection in moral terms?

[jordanz]

I am probably going to regret mentioning this, but there is a fact that needs to be examined. I just read an article by Lew Rockwell entitled "None Dare Call It Genocide." I do not like Rockwell's anti-American stance or his use of blanket words like "murder" for all deaths, but he presents some compelling figures regarding over a million conflict-related deaths of Iraqi citizens since 2003, with almost half dying from gunshot wounds.

This is a fact he claims that is ignored in the press, which focuses on car bombs and overhead bombardment. If this is true, then it should be in the news. There is no justification for that many deaths in an occupied country, anyway. Does anyone have any comments about Rockwell's sources? I didn't see a breakdown of "killed by Americans" and "killed by insurgents" or something like that.

Lew Rockwell is not someone I care to read. I will say, though, that these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have no problem with giving American Company's an interest in Iraqi oil. They've done most of the work. They'll do a lot better than the criminal who controlled them previously. What is your objection in moral terms?

Jordan,

Sending American soldiers to war knowing some will get killed to get them. Sacrifice of American citizens for profit. That's my moral objection.

Michael

[jordanz]

Sending American soldiers to war knowing some will get killed to get them. Sacrifice of American citizens for profit. That's my moral objection.

Michael

You're making an equivocation that hasn't been proven (see the other thread).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jordan,

You asked for my moral objection. There it is.

Setting aside disagreements on the perception of motives, do you believe that sacrificing the lives of Americans for profit is morally proper? I can't possibly believe that you do.

Michael

[jordanz]

Setting aside disagreements on the perception of motives, do you believe that sacrificing the lives of Americans for profit is morally proper? I can't possibly believe that you do.

I'll be more basic than that - sacrificing any lives is immoral, whether for profit or otherwise.

The claim that this is what's happening in Iraq is extraordinary and requires extraordinary proof.

[Martin Radwin]

I am probably going to regret mentioning this, but there is a fact that needs to be examined. I just read an article by Lew Rockwell entitled "None Dare Call It Genocide." I do not like Rockwell's anti-American stance or his use of blanket words like "murder" for all deaths, but he presents some compelling figures regarding over a million conflict-related deaths of Iraqi citizens since 2003, with almost half dying from gunshot wounds.

This is a fact he claims that is ignored in the press, which focuses on car bombs and overhead bombardment. If this is true, then it should be in the news. There is no justification for that many deaths in an occupied country, anyway. Does anyone have any comments about Rockwell's sources? I didn't see a breakdown of "killed by Americans" and "killed by insurgents" or something like that.

Lew Rockwell is not someone I care to read. I will say, though, that these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.

Since you are arguing as a moral principle that it is okay to start a war and subsequent occupation that leads to the death of a million people, the creation of several million refugees, and the near total destruction of the country's infrastructure, based on the sins of the country's leader, a leader who, incidentally, the US government supported in a war against Iran which led to the death of about a million Iranians, I'm sure you'd also agree that it is also okay to kill millions of Americans based on the sins of their leader. So, just as "these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.", the American deaths on 9/11 can only be blamed on George W. Bush. And if, in the future, an Iraqi or Iranian terrorist group launches an attack on American soil killing thousands or millions of Americans in retaliation for the American attacks against their countries, these deaths can also only be blamed on George W. Bush. Right?

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

I am probably going to regret mentioning this, but there is a fact that needs to be examined. I just read an article by Lew Rockwell entitled "None Dare Call It Genocide." I do not like Rockwell's anti-American stance or his use of blanket words like "murder" for all deaths, but he presents some compelling figures regarding over a million conflict-related deaths of Iraqi citizens since 2003, with almost half dying from gunshot wounds.

This is a fact he claims that is ignored in the press, which focuses on car bombs and overhead bombardment. If this is true, then it should be in the news. There is no justification for that many deaths in an occupied country, anyway. Does anyone have any comments about Rockwell's sources? I didn't see a breakdown of "killed by Americans" and "killed by insurgents" or something like that.

Lew Rockwell is not someone I care to read. I will say, though, that these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.

Since you are arguing as a moral principle that it is okay to start a war and subsequent occupation that leads to the death of a million people, the creation of several million refugees, and the near total destruction of the country's infrastructure, based on the sins of the country's leader, a leader who, incidentally, the US government supported in a war against Iran which led to the death of about a million Iranians, I'm sure you'd also agree that it is also okay to kill millions of Americans based on the sins of their leader. So, just as "these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.", the American deaths on 9/11 can only be blamed on George W. Bush. And if, in the future, an Iraqi or Iranian terrorist group launches an attack on American soil killing thousands or millions of Americans in retaliation for the American attacks against their countries, these deaths can also only be blamed on George W. Bush. Right?

Martin

A million Iranians? Is that a fact? I'd believe 100,000 or so without a reference. That was a horrible war. Iran sent its youth against defensive positions in mass suicide attacks.

--Brant

[Martin Radwin]

I am probably going to regret mentioning this, but there is a fact that needs to be examined. I just read an article by Lew Rockwell entitled "None Dare Call It Genocide." I do not like Rockwell's anti-American stance or his use of blanket words like "murder" for all deaths, but he presents some compelling figures regarding over a million conflict-related deaths of Iraqi citizens since 2003, with almost half dying from gunshot wounds.

This is a fact he claims that is ignored in the press, which focuses on car bombs and overhead bombardment. If this is true, then it should be in the news. There is no justification for that many deaths in an occupied country, anyway. Does anyone have any comments about Rockwell's sources? I didn't see a breakdown of "killed by Americans" and "killed by insurgents" or something like that.

Lew Rockwell is not someone I care to read. I will say, though, that these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.

Since you are arguing as a moral principle that it is okay to start a war and subsequent occupation that leads to the death of a million people, the creation of several million refugees, and the near total destruction of the country's infrastructure, based on the sins of the country's leader, a leader who, incidentally, the US government supported in a war against Iran which led to the death of about a million Iranians, I'm sure you'd also agree that it is also okay to kill millions of Americans based on the sins of their leader. So, just as "these deaths can only be blamed on Saddam, Iran, et al.", the American deaths on 9/11 can only be blamed on George W. Bush. And if, in the future, an Iraqi or Iranian terrorist group launches an attack on American soil killing thousands or millions of Americans in retaliation for the American attacks against their countries, these deaths can also only be blamed on George W. Bush. Right?

Martin

A million Iranians? Is that a fact? I'd believe 100,000 or so without a reference. That was a horrible war. Iran sent its youth against defensive positions in mass suicide attacks.

--Brant

A million Iranian casualties is a pretty good estimate. See the wikipedia entry under Iran - Iraq war for references.

Martin