the iraq war

[seal!]

i am taking part in a debate about the Iraq war and i have been chosen to argue for it. i am finding it hard to come up with some good reasons for it, if anyone knows of any links (or reasons for it) it would be much appreciated.

[abfandango]

There was a UN resolution that said Iraq must cooperate fully with weapons inspectors. They did not cooperate fully. US had 'intelligence' to suggest that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, and it was already known from Saddam's actions versus the Kurds, etc, that he was prepared to use them.

[geofbob]

The removal of Saddam Hussein - a tyrant in his own country and a regional threat - should have been a goal of the international community (ie the UN), but they wouln't act so the US, UK etc had to. It was the failure of the international community in the 1930s to deal with a similar dictator, Hitler, that resulted in WWII and the Holocaust.

[dave_in_cw]

I don't know Geofbob, unless the audience comprises toddlers, I don't think that argument would carry much weight. I would go for the weapons of mass destruction theory. OK, that too is ridiculous (and a lie obviously) but Blair argued it quite convincingly. Go with the threat of harm to the West deployable within 45 minutes. That got many people backing the invasion at the time.

[Quizmonster]

If Blair - and Bush - lied about Iraqi WMD, then so did Chirac, Putin and the Presidents of the other 11 members of the UN Security Council. Why? Because they all signed up to Resolution 1441 that categorically stated that these weapons - as well as the rockets required to deliver them - did indeed exist. This resolution was passed at the UN in November 2002, two clear months after the supposedly "sexed-up" dossier in Britain! Other UN resolutions dating back a decade said much the same thing and Saddam had consistently given weapons inspectors the run-around for the same length of time. In addition, of course, he'd actually used the wretched things against Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as his own people!

Every one of the major countries on the Security Council has its own intelligence services, so it's not very likely that they all just thought: "Well, if Tony tells us they're there, these WMD, then they must be!" It is clearly arrant nonsense to believe any such thing.

Also, does anyone seriously imagine that - if he really knew there were no WMD - Blair didn't see this vast elephant-trap lying in the path ahead of him? I refer to what he thought he would say when, after the inevitable military victory, no such weapons were found. Do you suppose he clapped his little hand over his mouth, saying: "Oops! What am I going to tell everybody now?"

It is perfectly plain that the whole WMD fiasco was a failure on the part of many different national intelligence services and not a lie by Blair or anyone else.

The main question that needs to be put to the anti-war brigade - if one can use such a military word for them - is this: "Would you like to see Saddam back in power?" If the answer is "No", then ask: "So how would the wonderful result of his downfall have been achieved if not by the military means by which it actually was achieved?"

[dave_in_cw]

OK, but did the other members of the UN not want Hans Blix to continue his inspections to determine the scale of a potential weapons threat before an attack was launched? Also, you speak of the wonderful result of Saddam's downfall. Could you elaborate on that?

[Quizmonster]

France, Russia and China certainly wanted the plainly-futile charade of weapons inspections to continue 'cos...guess which three countries had been Saddam's major military and industrial suppliers for the previous two decades. The USA in particular had simply become tired of the utter fecklessness of the UN talking-shop. For ten+ years the UN had ordered Saddam to sort things out and for ten+ years he'd stuck two fingers up in reply. Somebody eventually had to do something and thank heavens somebody eventually did.

As an elaboration on the "wonderful result of his downfall" I think I need only suggest the absence henceforth of mass graves filled with many thousands of the corpses of his own people. The man himself was a 'weapon of mass destruction', for goodness' sake! And we found him!

Yes, alliance personnel and Iraqis are still dying...that's pretty much what happens in any post-war territory. Things will eventually settle and the Iraqis will have been freed from tyranny. If they decide to misuse the opportunity afforded them, that's their lookout. The problem is that the media show us nothing but burning wreckage; what we rarely see are the hospitals reopening, the school-children returning to classes and so forth. There's no capital in 'good' news, you see.

[dave_in_cw]

QM, you have educated me in this debate. I had no idea that France, China and Russia were the major industrial and weapons suppliers to Iraq. Thanks for pointing that out. As for Blix's inspection being 'futile' though, I have to disagree. If the justification for war was WMD and this man, Blix, and his entourage could perhaps indicate that there were no WMD in Iraq (especially none that could affect the West in 45 minutes) then surely his work was (potentially) not futile. I suppose if you're going to launch an onslaught against the country regardless of what a UN inspector says, then his work was rather futile. As for your elaboration, I am quite disappointed! Saddam was a brutal pig, of that there is little doubt. But the graves he was responsible for filling, are now being filled by the mighty US and UK apparently. As for the thousands of Kurdish corpses, don't you think that was a direct result of the Kurdish uprising at the end of Desert Storm, when the those poor Kurds were led to believe that the US and UK were going to help them defeat Saddam? Well, they certainly were given a firm assurance by Blair this time round. 'This time, we will not let you down'.' Ring any bells? And I find your comment regarding the Iraqis possible waste of opportunity in freeing themselves from tyranny incredibly short sighted and arrogant. My mother has a client who was in the UN headquarters in Baghdad when the truck bomb exploded. I shall email her today to get his views on how the Iraqis should embrace the wonderful opportunity Messrs Blair and Bush have afforded them. Maybe he can provide some valuable input. As for your comment regarding the media, you should try some time to see what the media OUTSIDE of the UK has to say about the Iraq debacle. Try to give CNN a skip while you're about it.

[Quizmonster]

Seal, 1. You wanted debating points in favour of the Iraq war and the replies here from Abfandango, Geofbob and myself provide quite a few.

2. Don't forget, also, that one of the best debating-techniques is to work out what your opponent's key points will be and then show how those are wrong. For example, you may be sure that the supposedly "sexed-up" dossier will be mentioned as evidence of Tony Blair's 'lies'. You now know that that is nonsense because - weeks after it - the world's leaders were queuing up to sign Resolution 1441 which claimed the same thing! The failure to find WMD makes it look now as if their beliefs were unfounded but that doesn't make then 'liars'...just 'wrong'. All of them, not just Blair!

3. Here's a possible approach:-

String all the ideas mentioned in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above into a logical sequence and write them out like an essay. Read that through several times and then reduce the contents to a series of key headings. Have that in front of you when you stand up to speak at the debate. If your audience has been told - as they should have been - to vote according to the facts they hear and not according to some pre-ordained correct 'line' - you'll win hands down. Good luck!

PS One extra point worth making is that Dr David Kelly was apparently in favour of the military intervention!

[seal!]

thank you all for your valid points, i had the debate today, and i got a B

[dave_in_cw]

Congratulations, that is a good mark. Incidentally, Resolution 1441 DOES NOT say that there were WMD in Iraq. Here's a useful link: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/021108
03.htm

[Quizmonster]

Well done, Seal!

I don't understand what Dave_in_cw means in the response above by saying: "Resolution 1441 DOES NOT say that there were WMD in Iraq." If you click on his own link and scroll down to where it says: "Following is the text of the resolution", you will find these words in Paragraph 3...

"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace..."

"Iraq's...proliferation" means "Iraq's continuing growth, repeated production and multiplication of WMD", so - if that isn't a crystal-clear statement that Iraq was, indeed, believed to have WMD - I find it hard to imagine what would constitute such a statement.

Unless, of course, Dave imagines the Iraqi authorities were doing all these naughty things somewhere other than in Iraq itself and hiding the WMD in Syria, say! (Hey! Maybe that's why they haven't been found!) But it is beyond dispute that everybody at the UN Security Council believed they had WMD and were developing and spreading them!

[dave_in_cw]

That must be read within the context of the rest of the resolution, which in effect afforded Iraq another opportunity to comply with previous resolutions and allow unfettered access to inspectors ' to determine the true scale of WMD in Iraq. It is not a statement that confirms that Iraq had WMD (especially not any that supported the 45 minutes claim). By the way, large parts of the dossier supporting that claim were found to be plagiarised from a university student's thesis on the subject! According to the Cambridge dictionary, proliferate means 'to increase greatly or suddenly in number'. Does this imply existence of what is being increased? I think that might be open to interpretation. I have searched the document for 'continuing growth' (in case it might be a definition of proliferation) as you put it, and found no matches. The whole point of the resolution was achieved when the inspectors DID return to their inspections, and they could not find the evidence of WMD. In fact before the invasion, Mr Blix insisted that he required more time to find proper proof of WMD.

[Quizmonster]

Dave_in_cw, You seem to me to be getting more confused the further into this matter we go, so I'm going to make this the last of my contributions to the thread.

What the red-print material in my last response meant - just read it, for goodness's sake! - was that Iraqi WMD were believed-in unequivocally and by all concerned at the UNSC, not just Blair and Bush. The 45-minute claim and 'plagiarised' material had nothing whatever to do with Resolution 1441 or with the supposedly 'sexed-up' dossier, as you appear to imagine. (You should get back onto the Web and find out what it is that you are now referring to. It certainly ain't what we've supposedly been talking about!)

It's perfectly obvious that the word 'proliferate' must (quote): "imply the existence of what is being increased". You can't increase something that isn't there and you can multiply zero by as big a number as you like and still get absolutely zilch! At a job-interview, before salary had even been mentioned, could you ask for an increase?

You further quibble about my use of the phrase 'continuing growth' as an explanation of 'proliferation'. 'Chambers Thesaurus' lists 'increase' - which you seem to be happy with - as the very first alternative for 'growth'! And, since proliferation is clearly an on-going process, what can conceivably be wrong with calling it 'continuing growth'?

As I said above, 'here endeth the lesson', as far as I'm concerned, since you've drifted off in various directions but mainly - and wildly erroneously - into the field of semantics. Cheers

[dave_in_cw]

You made some very valid points, and I have learnt a lot from this - thanks.

[froggequene]

Didn't Britain & the US also supply weapons and sundry articles to Iraq at some point? Or doesn't it count because it's now pre-Gulf War 1 history? Most Western powers were complicit in creating that monster & keeping him where he is, it's such a shame they took so much time in tearing him down