Op:Iraqi Freedom

[RoBBo]

i have to do an oral presentation to my english class on why i think the war was justified. now i have done some research but i was also interested as to any facts/figures you guys have that i could use in my argument. any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Vance]

I think it was justified. Because even if we dont find any WMD's, taking that barbaric dictator out of power and setting the Iraqis free is just enough.

[Sulph8]

I agree, we should not underestimate the importance of freeing the Iraqi people. I also believe that if you want to eventually defeat terrorism, you have to deal with the countries that support them, thats why terrorism is such a problem anyway, its not because there is a group of people that hate the west, there always has been people like that and there probably always will be. The problem is that countries like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc are running these groups and giving them money, weapons, training, protection, haven and manpower. So it doesnt matter how many individual terrorists you kill because there will always be another 10 to take their places. If no countries supported these groups with the things i mentioned, then they would always be on the run without any real power and wouldent be able to pull off any significant attacks. Anyway back to the point. By the U.S taking over Iraq, it has effectively placed itself in a position to deal with these countries. For example, Iran now has US forces on about three or four of its borders and Syria has US forces on about two of its borders and Israeli forces on another border. So this means that the US is now in a position to properly deal with them.

[Beowulf]

Why don't you tell us what you're thinking about saying, or what you have so far and we can add to it or critique it....or make fun of you mercilessly, just kidding

[DarkAngel]

Hi roBBo
Lemme just try playin devils advocate here...just so ull be prepared for what other students might throw at u...
First off, u HAVE to believe yrself tt e war was justified; cos somethin as controversial as a WAR shd not be argued for unless u really believe it, and its really FAR easier to oppose ANY war, not just this one

1) Ok, if u say tt e purpose of e war was to free e iraqi ppl, i cd challenge tt stand and say tt there r other places w FAR worse human-rights records...and these places r NOT attacked by the US...case in point wd be oh, a whole lot of African states. Many of the other Arab states, erstwhile allies of the US do not have very impressive human-rights records either...but these r over-looked. Besides, do u REALLY think e US INVADED a SOVEREIGN state so as to "liberate" its people?

2)WMD...hmm, no real proof...yet. Yes, I know its a BIG "yet" and e whole world is waiting w baited breath for some sign of WMDs, but UNTIL REAL EVIDENCE is found, no amount of "discovered secret documents" and "admissions by top flunky no.9 or no.11 or wtf" is gonna sway world opinion. And tt of yr classmates who disapprove of e war. So ull HAVE to come up w a REALLY connvincing argument if u wanna use e WMD line. Notice how e White House has been tryin to downplay the WMD line lately...perhaps u wont wanna mention it yrself, except in passing.

3)Terror. Ooh, this is a BIG one. But I cd challenge e stand too. What terror gps were actually DESTROYED by e invasion? Ansar-al-Islam, which posed a threat to...oh Iran and MAYBE Turkey, and, haha, the former Iraqi gvt. Nothin else CONCRETE. Yes, u cut off funding to ALOT of SUSPECTED terror gps...this is impt, i guess u better do alot of research on this pt, cos its the strongest in e whole "terror" argument...cuttin of of support. But i cd also challenge e whole anti-terror stand by showin how e US has supported ALOT of insurgent (aka terror, but perhaps we shd not say it out so loud, huh?) gps during its fight against communism. The contras were really a gang of thugs, worse n those ey fought against. The US- and Israeli-backed Phalangist militia in Lebanon were really another wacked out lot. E US really had to disavow emselves from em after e Sabra and Shatilla massacres...leavin e Israelis lookin like e sole bad guys. So we're not totally anti-terror...just those gps tt attack OUR ppl. As in ppl tt matter to our interests. Terror gps tt work for us are fine. Provided tt they continue to support us.

4)Another pt on terror. This is controversial, but id like to argue tt terror is not born overnight. Similarly, u cant just "destroy" terror. 9/11 was e EXPRESSION of hatred tt e terrorists felt towards the US, but it wasn't born overnight. I cant psycho-analyse a tango, but u dont go blow yrself up together w a whole bunch of other ppl over some minor grudge. Certainly more n just resentment over US deployment in Saudi Arabia; the reason given for Osama's hatred. There was a poll recently on Slate i think...and majority of e ppl in e US felt tt ey wd be safer from terror now tt Iraq has been defeated. Id like to offer a diff argument. TTt people suffering from e recent invasion wd HATE e US pasionately, while ppl who feel grateful (e majority, we sincerely hope) wd slowly be more and more alienated e longer e US continues to shoot civvies caught in a x-fire w militia. Tt e militia is hidin among e civvies really doesnt matter cos here, we have to see from e civvies pt of view...tt e US is to blame for shootin eir son/daughter/wife. How do u explain to someone tt u REALLY DID NOT INTEND to shoot an innocent? And make him forgive and forget? Its impossible. Id argue, tt this invasion has bred ALOT more hatred for e US. Hopefully, it wont erupt into 9/11 no.2 ten years from now, at a time we'd think tt e Iraqis shd have forgiven us for destroyin their families. Hopefully, we'll really do a good job rebuildin e place, so SOME of tt bitterness will be removed. But i dont think u can make everyone happy.


5)A pre-emptive strike. Devil's advocate aside, I personally think this is a darn flimsy reason. Iraq does NOT pose a threat to the US now. We all know tt. Wd Iraq have posed a threat to the US ten years from now? Possibly. But then, so wd China. So wd N.Korea. In fact, China is OFFICIALLY a "strategic competitor", not a "strategic partner" like in Clinton's time. BUt really, if u wanna push e pre-emptive strike line yr evidence has to be solid. And so far, nothin has convinced me.

Im not gonna mention blood for oil, civvie casualties, lootin, war crimes(!) etc. These anti-war arguments really get u tied in knots. So concentrate on a GOOD SOLID reason, and use e weaker reasons as "support". Im sure ull find, like I do, tt some reasons r just implausible, so dont push these too hard...ppl wd just poke holes in yr argument. Find one u can really back up, and go for it.

Good luck, hope I helped.

[OzMan]

Good God. I get into this debate every day at school. This war was probably one of the smartest things Bush has done during his time here. Now some of the things he's doing now to pump up his image are unnecessary, but that's irrellevant.

Like it's been said, maybe we didn't find the weapons, but we removed the guy who would have used them if he had them (and personally, there is no doubt that they have them).

I mean this is a guy who sent 4 guys to London in 1980 to pose as Iranians, and took hostages at the Iranian Embassy. Of course, we all know how that turned out (Operation Nimrod, 22 SAS). He has invaded two countries (Iran, Kuwait), killed over a million people in the Iran-Iraq war, used chemical weapons on his own people, killing over 5,000 Kurds in a single day, been the biggest liar the Middle East has ever known, supported terrorists, has killed over a million of his own people over the years, taken hostages, broken the Geneva convention, and he has over 40 gold-lined palaces while his people are drinking ****ty water from a pot. He fired SCUDs at Israel, fired them at Kuwait at the beginning of this war (when he "didn't have them"), and started an environmental disaster by lighting his own oil wells at the end of Desert Storm. And he was in the process of developing nuclear weapons.

And he promotes people like his spineless Information minister. And he completely pirated the media in Iraq. It just goes on, and on, and on, and on. Last week I came within an inch of breaking some libertarian's neck because he kept saying, "No blood for oil, we're exterminating Iraqis, the Patriot Act is unnecessary..." and all that crap. There is no doubt in my mind that this war was not only justified, but necessary.

And don't even start with the whole, "no one supports this war" bs. We have the support of over 45 nations, which makes it the second largest coalition in history. I mean right off the bat, we have the support of the British, Australian, Spanish, Polish, and so on. They say, "Oh, the EU, the UN, and NATO don't support this war..." That's because it's a unanimous vote, there. One country (France) could screw that up for everyone. So all of these countries supported us independently.

Or the whole, "This war is against Muslims". Saddam Hussein has killed more Muslims than anyone in modern history.

Sorry for the rant, but it's getting a little late in the day, and I've got five hours worth of stress already built up.

[Beowulf]

Don't forget that he has been violating terms of a cease-fire for the past twelve years. Iraq has for all intents and purposes been engaged in a shooting war with our aviators for most of that time as well.

-You may want to look at a book called "The Greatest Threat" written by Richard Butler. He was the head of the UN special commission in charge of disarming Iraq. Good book, he really hammers the Iraqi regime.
Good luck, I'm taking classes at a pretty conservative school, but I still had to defend the war as "just" multiple times.

[ScopeScene]

Leave the academics out of this forum. We're not interested in your english clss!

[Zach R.]

My history teacher had me do the same thing.Unfortunately he is very liberal,and very anti-war,anti-liberation,pro-dictatorship.All but 3 of us got Fs.The 3 that actually got A+s were against the war and said that the Iraqi people were better off starving and dieing.And that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power,with or without WMDs.They also said that they wished Saddam would use a nuke on New York and kill 2,000,000 people.Several parents have complained to the Super intendent of the school and are working to get the teacher fired.

[Sulph8]

Your very own classroom dictatorship, i hate people like that! Damn
anti-war-whores!

[FallenAngel]

lol

Hey Zach...you should have stood up after getting those grades and said something like...

"So Mr So-and-so....I guess you think Hitler had a good thing goin' by sluaghtering Jews, cripples, Russians and gypsies huh? Thank God you'll never be in charge of anything bigger than this classroom"

'course...you could have always just bitch-slapped the man. :backhand: :slap:

[Sulph8]

lol! I agree with the bitch-slapping idea, with or without a UN resolution.

[Zach R.]

School year is almost over anyway.But I'll put that on my to do list.
1.Stand up to history teacher for supporting evil dictators.
2.Bitch slap the bastard.
3.Knee em' in the nuts.
4.Grab a bat.
5.Let gravity do the rest.

[RealUltimatePower]

Man I know exactly what you mean. I'm a high school student and a Army reservist. And the bull my teachers and fellow students try to feed me everyday is getting annoying.

Of course I feel it was justified to invade em. Any nation which gives all the power to one person is just asking for it. Tyranny is just a wrong form of government no matter where you come from. Especially when it has to murder its own people to stay in power. Of course people will ask well what about these other places like North Korea, Syria or Cuba? Just respond with "they'll get their turn". But seriously perhaps in some of those cases we can negotiate with them. Because we can't treat ALL of them the exact same way. Iraq had broken agreements and could not be negotiated with after 12 years of trying so you should respond to their rebuttle with "Don't get off topic were talking about Iraq here. Whywould you think that we should treat every scenario the same way around the world?"

People who were against the war will also probably ask "What gives us the right to invade them and disarm them when we armed them in the first place?" What you have to try to make them understand is that Iraq getting its weapons was not as simple as US gives Iraq weapons. Because for one that was back when Iran was the bigger threat and the enemy of my enemy is m friend. And it wasn't only American CORPORATIONS which helped Iraqi SHELL CORPS(companies which cannot be traced back to their proper nation of origin and act as intermediaries), it was also mainly German companies and French companies. goto http://chembio.janes.com/ to read a bit into how Iraq was actually armed.

Then of course people will say how they don't see how dropping bombs on children will help Iraq. Then answer with "I don't see how leaving Saddam in power to do that on a larger scale will help Iraq."

but anyways that's all I have to say. hope it helps.

[papabear]

http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2003-05-10T162214Z_01_LON903_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ.jpg


Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim (C), leader of Iraq's biggest Shi'ite Muslim group, is surrounded by security personnel after crossing the border from Iran to a jubilant welcome near the southern city of Basra, May 10, 2003. Thousands of Iraqis thronged near Basra on Saturday to welcome the senior cleric back from exile, hours after the United States introduced a U.N. resolution to end sanctions and give Washington and its allies control over Iraq. *******/******* TV

http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2003-05-10T190426Z_01_DSI03D_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ-LEADER.jpg

http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2003-05-10T180705Z_01_DSI05D_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ-HAKIM.jpg

http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2003-05-10T180855Z_01_DSI04D_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ-LEADER.jpg

http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2003-05-10T180251Z_01_DSI02D_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ-HAKIM.jpg


Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim (L), leader of Iraq's biggest Shi'ite Muslim group, waves to supporters as he arrives in the Iraqi southern city of Basra under heavy security, May 10, 2003. Hakim, leader of the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), returned from exile on Saturday and told thousands of supporters that Iraqis should work for an independent government and not one imposed by foreigners. *******/Damir Sagolj

No doubt the U.S. government is keeping a close eye on him...

[Sabre]

Good for you robbo. I like to see people back themselves up with fact and not rhetoric. It's good that you want to find out actual reasons for invasion and support them.

I have to say I was not convinced about the idea of this war initially. I am pro war in a general sense in that I believe it is necessary. I am somewhat nearer the pro-iraq-war group than the anti-war group, and I am not a pacifist by any means.

What really annoyed me was the rhetoric and political BS that preceded the conflict. But you can't really escape that. As a member of the armed forces it is your job to put up with that crap (a hell of a lot of it) and get on with the task at hand.

I just felt that it insulted my intelligence to have our leaders dishing out cliche after cliche. It would have been much better if they had said:

'Look, yes we supported him before, many people did. But the time has come now to to do the decent thing and sort this mess out.'

He is/was a nasty piece of work and responsible for millions of deaths and I am glad he has gone. But there was no need for this WMD crap. His actions prove it:

-> 5,000 of his own people killed by gas
-> 300,000 killed by conventional weapons in the failed Basra rebellion

Just say, Mr. Blair and Mr. President, that the lads were pulled out too soon last time and now you are going to fix it. Don't over-egg the pudding.

(The main reason the first gulf war ended was due to negative coverage of the 'road to basra' incident. The powers that be decided they could call it a day without losing face and also keep a lid on the incident. That was a great mistake in my books. A military mind would have said, it's happend, it's unfortunate, but lets accept it and press on. It was one of those situations where determination is really tested. However, generals don't have to be re-elected, politicians do; though as it happens they weren't. Had Coalition forces been allowed to have done so then we would have seen a similar affort up to Bagdad as we have seen of recent days, with twice as many troops and the added bonus of Arab/world support and very popular uprising amongst the people of Iraq.)

I happen to know that this view is shared by many other fine members of the armed forces who are very skilled and very down to earth people. Perhaps it is due to the 'no ****' attitude that is necessary to operate in some of their units.

That's my tuppence'orth (two cents worth). Perhaps try to convince people with that as an alternative view if you like.

[cut]

watch this (http://crew.tweakers.net/JvS/zooi/realhussein.swf)

oh and can anyone make out what soldier it is at the end?