Why Liberals are wrong about Iraq Part: 1
I think I've found several good examples with which to compare the war in Iraq to. These are great arguing points for the attack into Iraq, which, although not for National Security, was justified by every means possible.I would like to make an addressment of arguments against going to Iraq, so that I can prove my train of thought point by point.
"Bush is just going there because he's an oil texan fiend." - This is the most common one I hear from liberals whom I'm discussing the war in Iraq. There are about a million reasons this is not correct. 1) We would've just lifted the sanctions off of Iraq, France and Russia were already doing the same 2) We would not be planning on handing the nation back to the Iraqi's 3) We just would've encouraged private companies to go to Iraq and again lift the embargo. 4) If we really wanted oil, Saudi Arabia is a much better target. 5) We know that attacking a country will only have destabilizing effects on the oil production. 6) There are many better areas for better oil, such as Nigeria or the Alaskan oil wells.
"Bush wants to follow his father and complete his job." - This one is hardly worth addressing. 1) Bush is not a dumbass, he did go to Yale. 2) His father chose to stop before taking over Iraq. 3) Bush would not undermine an election just to follow his father.
"Killed innocent Iraqi's/it's destabilizing the country." - This is the argument with the most merit. I will not list points but it is useful to point out how many millions of Iraqis, Iranis, and Kurds were killed by Sudam Hussein. Also, we're only saving lives caused by possible attacks and WMD use in the future. He also loved to torture people, as did his sons, who presumably would've taken control of Iraq should their father fall to age. Uday in particular was pretty nasty, his favorite torture involved holding people's feet up and hitting them with bats for long periods of time, not fun. The fact is no matter how unstable it is now, it is eventually, and most likely in the next decade or so, going to be a very good democracy that will prosper.
"Building a democracy is impossible in an area like Iraq." - This is another compelling, yet flawed, argument. For instance, that's like saying we should not have instituted a democracy in Japan, which had NEVER had one, Russia, which again never had one and was a Communist Totalitarian government for 80 years, and Germany, where a democratic nation had just turned into an angry dictatorship. The fact is, even a flawed democracy, much like modern day Russia, will be 100 times better than the previous rule by fear doctrine. It's worth noting the Sudam Hussein studied a lot about Stalin and liked him quite a bit, and was willing to kill millions of his own people as Stalin did in order to keep power.
These are the most common areas from which I hear arguments against the Iraqi war. Soon I will write a follow up post with more analysis of other arguments against it and explaining the arguments in favor of the war. There are other good points against it like 1000 Americans killed, a large 140 Billion dollar flood into our deficit, and the fact that it almost got Kerry elected (the worst one of all!).
Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.
posted by DaMassPhilosopher @ 9:50 PM Link to this Post
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home