What are the best arguments "for" and "against" the war ?

[kentuck]

We can be assured that we haven't heard the best shot "for" the war from the Repubs yet. They are saving a few bullets for the upcoming election. However, the "good things" happening in Iraq will probably be a cornerstone. They are still hoping to find some "evidence" of WMDs or nuclear materials, so as to validate their claims. It doesn't matter if some of their previous claims were "unproven", the important thing is that we are fighting them on their own turf and Saddam Hussein is gone.

Already they are telling America, and few Democrats disagree, that Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein. They will operate from that premise. Gradually, they will attempt to tie Uday, Qusay, and Saddam to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. They will point out that Saddam paid rewards to those terrorists' families who killed Israelies or Americans. They will point out all the 'good things" that are happening and the possibilities for the future of a Middle East with a "democratic" Iraq. Their arguments will be very convincing to a lot of Americans, perhaps the majority?

The people "against" the war will point out that it was premised on "lies". The Administration, with media cooperation, was able to convince the majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to 9/11. Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to our nation. He had no nuclear materials or WMDs. The entire war was based on "lies". And now we are averaging 6 GIs per week killed and numerous more seriously wounded. At the present time, there are 25 separate attacks per day on Americans.

Whose argument will carry the day?

[davhill]

1. Re: Best arguments

Pro: That we need a power base in the Middle East to contain terrorism the way the Baghdad pact was supposed to contain communism.

Con: That we have created more terrorism by radicalizing thousands.


Cold warriors only know how to fight cold wars. Even though there was some terrorism associated with communism in the last century that was not the primary element.

[screaming_meme]

2. What I think

Best: Saddam was a horrendous monster we supported in the past and needed to purge.

Worst: Saddam was the next Hitler who could wuipe out America if in a minute if he wanted to.

[MrTriumph]

3. "Upcoming election"

Geo. H. W. Bush won his election by creating a false issue, the Pledge, and playing the race card with the Willy Horton ads.

Geo. W. Bush will create a sense of urgency over "gay rights". Look for the Republican convention to wrap W in the flag and suggest American school kids will be brainwashed to crave homosexual sex unless W is re-selected. (Did you think the choice of words, Leave No Child "Behind" was an accident?)

One advantage W has over his Dad's '92 race is W will stop at nothing to win as evidenced by his 2000 election theft.

Oh, and about the war, forget it. The Republicans will try repackage it as something different (one can only imagine what they will come up with) and the media will continue to give W a walk.

[kentuck]

4. You may be right, Mr T....

Especially if Dean is the candidate... :)

[quinnox]

5. There are many reasons

But a couple I think are important.

For: Bush basically connected the (phantom)dots from the 9/11 attack to Saddam Hussein in speeches (based on flimsy or non-existent evidence), so the war was a strong signal to terrorists that the U.S. will go after them with all the formidable power at its disposal. As proof this hardline strategy worked, Bush will point to the absence of further terror attacks on U.S. soil over two years now from the event.

Against: The U.S. had no business invading a sovereign country that did not attack first, pre-emption is a flawed strategy. The Iraq occupation is inflaming other would-be terrorists, causing a greater recruitment the longer the U.S. occupies the country. Also the U.S. is seen as doing Israel's bidding, further igniting bad feelings among Arabs in the volatile region.