I teach at a private high school in an affluent suburb that is staunchly republican and I live 15 miles away in a lower middle class suburb that is just as staunchly democratic.

I was faced with informed (12th grade) questions about my opinion of this war. I am against the war and I will share my views but I do not want to foist them on classes in the guise of a discussion. (truth be told, I would rather keep the debate in the faculty offices but when you teach 20th century history late in the year . . . it is topical and on the topic)

Here is essentially the position I believe in.

The war is justifiable but not just.
Iraq has broken its agreements and we can rightfully make them aware of the consequences of this breach of conduct. However I believe we pushed into war too quickly and contrary to the words of the president, we have not exhausted all reasonable options for peace.

In this I think it is the case of the school boy who deserves to get his butt kicked to learn a lesson, but that does not make the person who brings the can a whoop-butt to the punk right for having done so.

This conclusion is linked to the idea that Iraq, while a rogue nation, is not an immediate threat to the United States. It has and has had WMDs and it has willfully defied a process that demands that it not have WMDs. The urgency in this situation was created by the US government which has some legitimate concerns. There was room for a better track of diplomacy that had the promise of force behind it. This was a simple do everything you agreed to 12 years ago and prove it ultimatum that looked like it was designed to create a war from the outset.

Our aggressive foreign policy has severely taxed our allies ability to keep up with our foreign policy. But in laying our credibility on the line for near-immediate action we put ourselves in the position of having our credibility get diminished or having UN credibility get diminished. Either result makes the world a worse place.

We set a bad example. Generally it is in our best interest to discourage aggressive military behavior. It will be very difficult for us to stop future wars if our allies adopt our logic in preemptive strikes.

We acted before we set a good foreign policy for the 21st century. 9-11 was as momentous of an occasion as the lowering of the iron curtain. We followed the lowering of the iron curtain with a clear statement of foreign policy that let other nations know when and why we would act abroad in the name of our national security.

9-11 has created the demand for a new policy toward rogue nations that have the ability to supply WMDs to terrorists or have an internal environment that allows terrorists to use said countries. We need to formulate some guidelines for the world to know when and why we will act to protect American citizens from terror and we need the support of world public opinion.

If we had allowed for a more slowly developing timeline in regards to the issue of Iraq it would have created a more opportunities to find a way around this war. Our allies and other interested countries around the world would be more at ease with our policies and our motives in that case.

What are the arguments out there to refute these points that the coming war is justifiable but not the right thing to do?

I take issue with the assertion that all reasonable non-violent option were not given a chance. It seems the me that the choice given was as follows:
Continue an inspections process where it was clear Iraq had no intention of complying with disarmament of WMD.

Full text: Blix briefing

This quote I believe is the most telling regarding Iraq's recent cooperation. Inspectors believe Iraq can clear up questions about unaccounted for weapons but have refused to do so for twelve years. Iraq has continued to follow this path even until now.

OR

Disarming Iraq through Force.

If one intends on disarming Iraq even if it means force(and civilian casualties). If inspectors cannot verify weapons destruction without Iraqi cooperation. Well, Iraq has not cooperated and the US has chosen the second option. I do not see that as unjust. It is merely solving the problem of Iraq's WMD the only way they can.
This, of course, all depends on what we are willing to pay to disarm Iraq.

Turnea said

I did not say that all reasonable non-violent options were not given a chance.

I said

I do not believe that we exhausted our diplomatic options while keeping our national security in mind. Sure Hussein has not complied, but we could have worked more to avoid taking it to war and war did not have to come this quickly. We did not get to the point were we were at our last reasonable resort. To say that we exhausted all options is more than saying that we gave the options a chance. For us to claim that we exhausted all reasonable non-violent options is either disingenuous or it is propaganda.

George Bush has laid down the policy: if you possess WMDs (which are illegal in most countries via treaty), use WMDs as a valid tactic/weapon, are aggressive towards your neighbors, flout the will of the international community (for 12 years), refuse to cooperate with the terms of a cease fire, torture and murder your own people (or anyone else for that matter)...then you might be a target of war.

I think it's pretty clear, you just need to open your eyes a little.

What Saddam has done over the years, I liken to a child who refuses to behave. You (as a parent) tell the child : don't do that or I will spank you. Don't do it again...Don't do it...I WILL spank you...Don't do it...(how many times was that, not enough)...over and over and over. If you do not step in actually do what you have threatened the child with...you lose all credibility and ability to get them to do anything they are supposed to do...

Call my example simplistic, but I think the relationships hold...

You're right about the follow-through part. But I think your analogy can be appropriate in showing the case against war as well. A better parent than the one in your example would know that spanking children really isn't necessary. Instead, the better parent would threaten a punishment like loss of privileges or extra chores. Thus the child is not only punished, but learns responsibility and productivity as well. Spanking send one lesson only: the reason you may not disobey me is because I am physically larger and stronger than you, and your disobedience will be met with violence.

As long as we continue to make geopolitical statements with a fiery sword, it is indeed by the fiery sword that our nation will be relegated to the history books.

The problem with your analogy is that we spent 12 years 'sparing the rod'.

That is not a policy, this is an option for action.

You might be a target for war is not a policy. My eyes feel open and I still don't see a policy.

And if the child ignores those threats? And gasses his siblings? And kills the neighbor's kids? Just so he can have all the cookies?

At some point, spanking IS REALLY NECESSARY. Not only as a deterrent, but as actual PUNISHMENT.

As both MFTM and amlord point out, threats, backed up by just MORE threats, become EMPTY threats.

Permit me to carry the child/parent analogy a little farther.

You take this kid under your wing and provide him (assume all kids in this analogy are hims; I'm in no mood for PC talk) with firearms. You do this because another kid down the block has taken your brother as a hostage.

That's because you supported this kid's abusive parent, but that's another story.

Your child attacks the hostage holder, and you hope mutual destruction occurs. You figure out that your brother is never going to be released, so you make a deal to give more firearms to the kid down the street who holds your brother hostage.

You get your brother back. The two kids continue to fight but don't destroy each other.

Another kid from an entirely different neighborhood comes along and blows up your house because, well, you are an excrement evacuation location.

You blame the kid you took under your wing. He must go.

The cops knock on your door and take you to the funny farm.

So the question turns to, who will be the cops?

- Edited for punctuation and to praise the automatic substitution of acceptable words for my original gutter language--Good Job, Mike! -

"SPANK EM' ALL!.......Let D.C.F.S. sort em' out!

Let's keep the debate constructive, please

Quarkhead,
I am curious, as to how well this approach has worked for you?

It has been my experience with my children and dealings with people in my own life that they will push you as far as you let them, seems to be human nature.

Constant threats and no action will make you seem like a dog that is all bark and no bite.

I have friends that are like this, both in their family life and in the outside world. They are the ones that are constantly yelling at their kids in restaurants and stores, telling them to stop that or telling them I am going to count to 3, or yelling at people at work to no avail.

Kind sounds like the UN doesn't it?

Sometimes you have to say enough is enough.

His spanking analogy didn't have anything to do with spanking itself. Feel free to substitute loss of privledges or extra chores in for spanking and the analogy still works:

"Knock it off or your gonna do the dishes tonight.... stop it or you won't watch any tv tomorrow.... do that again and you'll be grounded for a week.... " etc etc. A threat that is not followed through, is called an "empty threat". Which is what the UN is doing to Iraq.

The UN has slapped sanctions on Iraq... (loss of privledges) and what has that gotten us? Nothing. People like France and Russia side-step them or ignore them altogether, Saddam uses the money he collects for the "oil for food" deal, to build more palaces for himself. 12 years of "loss of privledges" hasn't gotten us anywhere

Time to bring out the wooden spoon and spank this mis-behaving child.

--cheers

Actually, I forgot to add that you already tried loss of priveledges (this would equate to the economic sanctions that Iraq has had for the past decade or so).

Talking to them didn't work.
Loss of priveledges didn't work.
Yelling at them didn't work.
Threatening them didn't work.

Time to take action.

Could you elaborate? What reasonable options were not exhausted?

Lessee...possess WMDs.....check...
Use WMD's as a tactical weapon - Hiroshima, Nagasaki....check...
Are aggressive towards your neighbors...invading Iraq based on possibilities...check...
Flout the will of the international community...the UN is against this war...check...
Refuse to cooperate with the terms of a cease fire...N/A
Torture and murder your own people...abortion,capital punishment...check...


Gee, looks like America fits that criteria...

A more appropriate question would be what reasonable methods were exhausted. Dubya started the negotiations in August with disarm completely or else. Started with an ultimatum.

Other policies. Compile a list of documentable violations of the agreements from the Gulf War and declare that Iraq will have to come into compliance with said items. Deal with the issues one at a time and get them fixed.

Declare that Iraq has made some progress and that it is possible that they were going to get to the point of destroying their WMDs. Move the line back indefinitely or twelve months and begin pushing for specific points of compliance.

Institute a Sunshine policy in Iraq of sorts by offering rewards for good behavior. I.e. you kick out Hussein we give you the revenues from Disney.

Identify incidents of terrorism and propose penalties.

Work with the United Nations and our allies on a program more major players can accept in order to "fix" Iraq. Again a clear policy against rogue nations would be helpful in this case.

Identify any proof that Iraq, which has had the capability and incentive to wage a terrorist attack for years, has changed its tune and has supported an attack or seems to be supporting impending attacks on the United States of the WMD variety.

I think it is folly to try to claim that this war was declared (or as it is again the case not declared) only as a last resort.

While angering one major country does not concern me for an incident such as this, the opposition of France, Germany, Russia, and China speaks to this point to a degree.

Public dissent in the United States, Great Britain, and Spain also speaks to this point.

1. The WMDs we possess are not illegal, and we do not hide them.
2. The last use of a nuke by the US was 58 years ago. Its use saved (arguably) millions of lives. (I won't debate this here, obviously).
3. We are being defensive. We have clearly stated our reasons and objectives for this war and given Saddam ample chances to avoid it. He chose not to.
4. We are enforcing international mandates, not flouting them.
5. Why N/A? so thats one we don't fit....this is one of the key elements, by the way, on top of the others. Iraq AGREED to get rid of certain weapons and not develop them again. It is clear he violated the terms of the cease fire. That ALONE gives us justification for resuming the battle.
6. Weak argument, and I think you know that...I believe that abortion is murder, as well, but I don't blame the state for endorsing it or using it against people's will. Capital punishment is not murder, it's punishment, notice that punishment is in the name...(I also will not argue these points here).

Eeyore...



Resolution 1441, read it.



The Bush administration showed signs that it would move back its March 17 deadline, but France threatened to veto ANY resolution that set ANY deadline. You can't work around that. An indefinite deadline isn't a deadline, is it? And that is just what Saddam has had for 12 years.



How droll...if someone could have kicked out Saddam from within, they would have...its been tried and the leaders and their families were executed (not necessarily in that order). Any potential leaders no longer count on outside help, so they have given up trying to rebel.



We gave clear notice to Saddam that hostilities would resume. We even gave him the exact hour. (As a side note, this WAS authorized by Congress)



Certainly other means could have been tried. But it was obvious after 12 years of trying to get this regime to diarm that it was not working...Iraq bargained in bad faith, so how can we trust them to live up to ANY agreement? Negotiation did not start with George W. Bush, it started with his father in 1991. It was continued by the Clinton administration (who wanted to go to war with Iraq in 1998). The farse of negotiation ended with an ultimatum, which Saddam chose to ignore...that's where we are now.

AM

There is nothing in the above post that convinces me that war became a last option. Creative and determined diplomacy could have taken us many more steps before leading us to war. Each additional step would have provided additional chances to get through this situation without having to wage war.

To argue that France made us forego using a later deadline is quite unconvincing.

my stance is that i dont agree with this war, here is why.

if the u.s does what it wants as a super power in spite of the u.n, then any other country can go and do as it wants.

Why is it that the u.s seems to only hold high interest in middle east nations that have oil.


Why when the u.n speaks against isreal as it does against iraq, only iraq gets bombed.

And i hope that the u.s will find wmds in iraq to justify our actions a bit better, i know for sure that they will one way or another but it would be bad if they did not.

when democracy is made in iraq will it be controlled on who can enter the race, what if another "evil tyrant" comes into power will we free them from democracy.

There just seems to be multiple double standards on this, and the free press is really bad these days, and it seems that freedom of speech involves handcuffs.

You mean like France and Russia having trade agreements with Iraq, inspite of UN Sanctions?



most, not all, but most terrorism comes from the middle east. And it's the most unstable region in the world (arguably)



For the same reason we won't bomb Russia for selling weapons to Iraq. Their an ally....duh



Agreed

--cheers

Since this seems to be part of your objection to the anti-war movement, perhaps you could explain what you mean here. It has been my understanding that the French and Russian trade agreements didn't violate the sanctions against Iraq at all. If you know otherwise, please let me know...

That was in response to the U.S. having interest in those Arab nations with oil... we're invading Iraq while neglecting the terrorist ties to Saudi Arabiaan alleged ally. And as far as the stability goes, didn't almost all the experts agree that an invasion of Iraq would serve to further destabilize the region rather than bring it stability...? I thought that was what the CIA told Congress about the same time they stated such actino would lead to increased terrorism.

Yet, when the U.N. and France spoke out against Iraq we deemed them "irrelevant" and went so far as to say France was no longer an ally (Richard Perle). Meanwhile, the U.S. has vetoed unanimous opposition to Israeli violations for the last 30 years. Beyond that, Russia didn't sell weapons to Iraq... thus far we've only alleged that a Russian company has sold weapons to them. American companies engage in the same practice without direct oversight of the government.

It seems as though many of the weapons presently used by the Iraqi's have been developed by foriegn countries since the gulf war. This is FUNNY.......I thought Iraq was supposed to be DISARMING.

They have mysteriously developed a SUMER type mine (a mine that counts ship hulls passing overhead). They didn't have this technology during the gulf war.

They have developed a anti-tank missile capable of destroying an M1A1 Abrams. They didn't have this capability during the gulf war.

Let's say I am a country that had provided Iraq with weapons technology even though there were sanctions in place. Let's say I this even though Iraq is supposed to be DISARMING.

What if someone found these weapons with a big "MADE IN _______" sticker on them?

An invasion of Iraq would be bad ju-ju for me wouldn't it? Swaying world opinion against anyone trying to would be good wouldn't it?

Does anyone smell anything fishy at the U.N. besides me?