Iraq - Part 1

The following is a transcript of a debate I got involved with regarding the US invasion of Iraq. I'd love to get some of your opinions on the subject. For the record, Matt is my friend but I don't know the other two people. The first post was his status update and all the other posts are in chronological order. I know it's kinda long but I really would appreciate some feedback. Just know that a simple Facebook status could easily evolve into this!:



Matthew Beimford:
Yea... we are in the war for no reason, nothing is happening except troops are dieing, 9/11 was an inside job... biggest bs in the world. Cry me a river people.


Kelsey Ramirez-Raub:
Well...I am still waiting to see those weapons of mass destruction we were all sold on as our reason to go to war. Oh wait...there weren't any.


Matthew Beimford:
There weren't any that the public was told about. And we went to "war", I use quotes because we are not really at war, because we were attacked. Most of the time, we go somewhere in combat for the best of reasons. The public doesn't know about alot because it would throw us into a panic.


Kelsey Ramirez-Raub:
But, Iraq didn't attack us.


Matthew Beimford:
Terrorists and Jihadists are not tied to a country, they are tied to a religion. We followed them into Iraq, and then Afghanistan. The Cold War, which started with Korea and Kennedy basically made us the world police unfortunately.


Kelsey Ramirez-Raub:
And...as I said in my above post...pretty much EVERYONE supported the war because we were told there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq. Having just been attacked (again, not by those in Iraq)...we wanted to protect our country from the WMD's.


Matthew Beimford:
And lets be honest, just because we didn't find any, doesn't mean they weren't there. Every industrialized nation has them. It's absurd to assume that they don't. We found the facilities that parts were made and chemicals were mixed, we just didn't find the end product.


Kelsey Ramirez-Raub:
Actually, we were in Afghanistan prior to being in Iraq. But, regardless, not telling the public why we are at war because we can't handle the truth is just plain wrong. That is what makes this country great is the fact that we, as Mr. Average citizen, have a right to know and question the why's our leaders do what they do!

As someone who lived through 10 years of Vietnam...which resulted in nothing but loss of lives...I don't want to see the same thing happen in Iraq.


Matthew Beimford:
Kennedy didn't get the picture with putting troops into Vietnam and Johnson only made things worse. Obama's still putting troops which could be bad or good. And no, public knowledge on some issues are not good. There are just simply things that the government doesn't tell the public for our benefit. Mass panic and other results like that will ensue.


Kelsey Ramirez-Raub:
This is where you and I disagree. The government does NOT need to protect us. There was not mass panic in 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked, there wasn't mass panic when Kennedy was assassinated, and there wasn't mass panic in 2001 when the Trade Center, Pentagon, etc. were attacked. If anything, this country has proved that in times of crisis...we pull together.


Matthew Beimford:
Here's the thing though. All of those events were public knowledge to begin with. Two were televised live as they happened, one was a direct attack on a territory. You can't hide that. All of these events occurred on our soil where our people lived. Events that the public shouldn't know are things that happen over seas. Like how many times a nuke was pointed at us, which is always. I have friends that are in the military, they aren't allowed to say things, but they say that there is stuff out there that would throw the state into a panic.


Adrian Haurat:
Matt,

I'd like to ask what form of government you support? Democracy is based (at least in part) on the principles of decisions made by an informed public and majority rule. If you don't like that idea, it's fine but I just want to make sure we're calling a spade a spade. Then we could have a conversation about whether democracy is the best form of government or not. However, if you're in favor of an oligarchy where a few people (or even one person) make decisions that affect our entire nation I just want to clarify.

Of course, I don't think the CIA should tell us everything they know but we (or at least congress) has the right to know why we want to invade a country or start a war and then make a decision. If the president alone, because he has "all the information" can declare war or invade a nation by himself then that's not a democracy. And if anyone in government tells us (and the whole world) that we are invading a country for a particular reason and that reason is a lie, then they are definitely accountable!

Either we invaded Iraq for a good reason that we all don't know because the president and his advisers decided we can't handle the information without panicking (which may be defensible but isn't democracy), or they went in for reasons that they knew people didn't agree with and came up with an excuse (WMD's) to convince everyone to go along with it. If you're arguing that "they know more than us so let them make the decisions", then at least acknowledge that isn't an idea rooted in democracy. Or you could argue that you agree with the reasons they really went into Iraq (which are 1.strategic advantages in the middle east and 2.access to Iraq's resources). Then we could at least have a real debate about whether we should overthrow leaders we don't like because it benefits us or just because we don't like them.

Bottom line: Iraq was not a threat. No WMD's. No threat. Don't think that just because they were an "industrialized" nation they had WMD's that could reach us from across the Atlantic. They were, at best, a fledgling industrialized nation and were not far enough along in their development to have weapons of that nature. If there were really weapons in Iraq there would be every reason for the press, government, or whoever to reveal that they were found. The government would WANT to reveal them to justify our presence in Iraq; not only to us in the US but also to the world so they don't think we're just being imperialistic (which they do, and we are). It's not like they're keeping the discovery of WMD's from us to avoid causing panic. People would be happy to hear it and they'd be happy to tell us, but unfortunately it's not the reality.

I've talked to a lot of people who think going into Iraq was okay because it benefited our nation and because we could. While I don't agree, I at least respect that they're honest about their reasoning.

Also, why does the fact that we were attacked mean that we are not at war? Don't wars start when people attack other people? You're right that we're not at war with another "nation" per se (we INVADED Iraq and Afghanistan but their governments are not at war with us), however our claim is that we are at war with terror(ists) right? Do you believe this claim? I don't understand your logic. Or maybe we just have different definitions of war.

On a lighter note I don't think that 9-11 was an inside job so at least we agree on one point.


Matthew Beimford:
When I mean we aren't at war, I mean we are fighting, but we have not declared war. Somewhere, the government has troops out there past the 90 day mark without declarng war. With WMD's, they may have them, we just didn't find them. And unfortunately, we are not a 100% democracy, no nation that calls themselves one is. I'm not saying we are in Afghanistan for secret reasons, even though, it could be an easy wayto get out of the recession we are in, but thats not the greatest idea. I think we still have held a grudge since Iraq captured and burnned Kuwaits iol fields which we used. Unless the current administration has alterior motives, I'm pretty sure that what they tell us is all we need to know right now.


Kelsey Ramirez-Raub:
Matt, only the incredibly naive don't believe that there are nuclear weapons aimed at our country. This country has been on the verge of nuclear attack on several occasions. I believe that we have the means to counter such an attack...although obviously I don't have details. I was a navy wife for 5 years and am quite aware of the 'things' the military knows which the public doesn't. That doesn't make it right.


Adrian Haurat:
When you say "unfortunately" we're not 100% a democracy, it sounds like you'd prefer a pure democracy. But your previous comment implied that we don't need to be informed or involved in decision making (and you're okay with that). Which is it?

If you think we're in Iraq because of a grudge then why do you seem to strongly support the fact that we went there for good reasons? or the fact that there actually were WMDs?

Lastly, isn't it a bit insensitive to flippantly use the phrase "cry me a river" in the same sentence as troops dying? Not only have thousands of our troops died, countless Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our invasion and I don't think it's right to mock people who are concerned that all of these deaths may have been in vain (or at least the result of an invasion with false pretenses). Nothing should offend us as Americans more than our troops and innocent people being killed needlessly! Honestly, Beimford!


Kelsey Ramirez-Raub:
Adrian, I don't know you but I like how you think.

And, back to the WMD...even GWB has said that he was misled into believing their existence. There is no evidence that they existed. Could they have been built in the future...quite possible. But, going to war because of a 'maybe' and then defending that decision because there is no proof that they didn't exist...well...that is the same as saying Santa might exist. (Well...maybe not exactly the same, but you get my point.)

But...regardless...no one is going to change anyone's mind here.


Matthew Beimford:
The phrase "cry me a river" refers to a conversation with an old friend I was talking to earlier. he was unable to come up with any positive things to say, and since I finished the status with 9/11 being an inside job, he was trying to convince me how bad the governemt is in that way.People dieing is never a good thing, but we aren't killing civilians for sport, in fact, we're not the ones doing most of civilian killing. All the car and bus bombs that are going off kill civilians. Even if we weren't there, those things would still happen. they were before we were there, they will happen afterwards. The bombings are a religious thing on behalf of the Muslims, they don't like anybody thats not Muslims. And since we're not just going there to kill people, people aren't innocently dieing in vain. Tell that to a soldier who has a kid walk up to him, hand him a flower, then blow himself up.


Scott Hounsell:
hmm....where do i start....
Adrian...Sorry to break it to you, but we arent a democracy, we are a Republic. This crap about being an "informed" people is just ridiculous. If you consider the media here in the U.S. as a good source to "inform" the people then you have something else coming. Perhaps its this same media that "informed" you that we are a democracy.

Kelsey...as for the "not found" WMDs...here ya go:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/07/iraq-040707-usia01.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=qw1088701741389U262&click_id=2813&set_id=1

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_iraq_070704,00.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/17/acd.00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Okay....so to tie this all together...maybe...just maybe if we were more "informed" about the reality of WMDs and their existence, perhaps we would be able to elect representatives for our REPUBLIC.

and.....(mic drop)


Adrian Haurat:
Hi Scott.

I appreciate your comment but I realize we are a Democratic Republic and I don't believe I stated or implied anything to the contrary. Your ability to take a legitimate argument about issues and make it personal by insulting me is commendable but I think I'll stick with the topics being addressed.

I asked Matt to clarify his preference in terms of government because of the obvious contradiction between saying he's okay with a few informed people making decisions and saying that he wishes the US was a pure democracy. If he at least admits what he’s truly endorsing then we can “agree to disagree” on whether America should be any kind of democracy.

I skimmed some of your links (though alas, I could not bring myself to read the one from Fox News). Funny that two of the links were discussing the same instance, in which material was discovered that:

"would not trigger a nuclear explosion, but would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive debris. While few people would probably be killed or seriously affected by the radiation, such an explosion could cause panic, make a section of a city uninhabitable for some time and require cumbersome and expensive cleanup. "

(quoted from the military.com article)

Essentially, the materials could be used to make a "dirty bomb". Slightly more annoying than a regular bomb, but clearly not a Weapon of Mass Destruction and definitely not something that was an imminent threat to American soil. The Anderson Cooper link was also talking about materials for nerve gas. We're not talking about long range missiles or nuclear weapons here.

It's true that they also had low-enriched uranium (not able to be used in nuclear weapons), but so do many other countries that don't like us. Here’s what it really comes down to: What is a good reason to invade a country? Unless you believe it's a good idea to invade every country that has any materials which could be used for any kind of bomb or chemical weapon your argument just doesn't hold water. Of COURSE Iraq (like every other nation) was trying to create the most potent weapons they could. They're a nation interested in self preservation just like every other. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam would have loved to send WMDs our way. However, I believe on principle that we as Americans do not have the right to attack or invade a country (or overthrow a government) that has not directly done anything to us! Period. Sure Saddam and the Iraqi's may not have liked America, but we simply had no right or reason to invade. The WMDs were an excuse and were by no means the primary reason we went to Iraq. If a country not liking us and having powerful weapons were reasons enough to invade a country, then we’d have invaded Iran and North Korea by now.

Meanwhile, we completely dropped the ball on capturing Bin Laden and executing calculated attacks on Al Q’aeda. The unbelievable time, money, and resources that have been put into the Iraq war should have been focused on those goals (let alone domestic purposes).

Regarding the press, I don’t pretend to believe the press does a good job of informing everyone of everything nor did I even mention our press being reliable. TV Network news is a joke; Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson get more coverage than truly pressing issues in our country and the world. However, I don’t understand your argument either. Are you saying that we shouldn’t be informed? Or that we can’t be informed for some reason? Do you agree that an informed public is central to any kind of democracy or do we have different definitions of democracy? Or is it that you simply don’t think democracy is the best system? It sounds like you would consider yourself an informed person, right? Matt didn’t answer my questions but maybe you will.

Especially after quoting Fox news, America’s last hope in the media against the tyranny of communism, you must feel strongly that the PEOPLE of America should be in control and not just a few leaders in our government. I honestly do not understand why we as a nation can’t just acknowledge that Iraq was a mistake and just do what we can to make the best of it. Why is it a partisan issue? Aside from defending the previous administration I don’t see any reason why conservatives should not be outraged that we were lied to (or at the very least that our leaders were incompetent and we went into horrific debt to fight a needless battle). The whole defense of the Iraq war is just politics. If Obama declared that Argentina had acquired weapons of mass destruction and intended to attack us, then we spent a trillion dollars invading the country, and then it turns out there wasn’t really anything there, wouldn’t conservatives (and everyone) be outraged?


Adrian Haurat:
Oh and Matt,

I got caught up with Scott and forgot to reply to you.

You're right, we're not killing civilians for sport, but isn't incidentally killing civilians just as bad? When we bombed the hell out of Baghdad to start the war, I assure you we were not just killing terrorists or soldiers, and for that we are accountable. Not only when we started the attack, but throughout the occupation, there have been countless instances of us being forced to kill "the good with the bad" in order to complete our strategic objectives. There are lots of estimates but a ballpark of 80-100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by military action since 2003. To say that deaths were occurring before we got to Iraq doesn't change anything. We were not responsible for deaths that occurred before we arrived. However, now we are responsible for the deaths that we have caused. If the US went into Uganda and began abducting children into the army, it wouldn't be okay because the LRA was already doing that before we arrived.

Our fundamental disagreement stems from the belief that there are acceptable civilian casualties when trying to obtain a noble goal. I presume that's what you are saying but please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I'd agree with that if the US had a noble goal, but if our motive was wrong from the outset (which it was), then those deaths really were in vain.

Obviously what's done is done and we have to make the best of it. Since we did invade Iraq we are now responsible for ensuring a safe and responsible withdrawal and attempting to give the Iraqi people the best possible future. I am not diminishing the amazing work of our troops and civilian workers in Iraq. I'm also not one of those people who says we never should have invaded so therefore let's bring all our troops home tomorrow. However, I first acknowledge that we should never have invaded in the first place.


Scott Hounsell:
The fact of the matter is that the US is barely a democracy. Do we get to vote on Healthcare? Do we get to vote on the War? Do we get to vote on Foreign Policy decisions or Ambassadors? WE ARE A REPUBLIC!

Now, with you suggesting that the public cannot be adequately informed by the media especially with your close minded response about not reading Fox News (even though I had ONE fox news and FIVE from other sources) what makes you think that Americans can make an informed decision (especially when they only read leftist and liberal sources)? Additionally, you say that conservatives should be outraged about being "lied" to, even when I provided you with sources showing we weren't lied to (in fact, the leftist media lied to us). So much for "informed." I'm not saying we shouldn't be informed. I am saying that we need to diversify our sources and not just listen to what Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity has to say. Your mind set is EXACTLY what I am referring to. You, instead of doing the research yourself to find out exactly what was found, rely on Keith Olbermann and Katie Couric to give you your "facts" that NO (AKA ZERO, NONE, ZIP, NADA) weapons were found at all. While you would never admit it, I would offer a large wager that you knew nothing about the weapons before my post.


Now that you have no way of denying that weapons were found, I love how you say that because any weapon wouldn't necessarily cause a full blown nuclear explosion that it doesn't count as a weapon of mass destruction. In debate, we call this a "case shift." Basically, that means that because you saw your position had virtually no defense you changed to another position. In the interest of being argumentative, I will bite on this argument. Honestly, while buildings may remain standing and few might die from the actual explosion, rendering a square mile of any major city's downtown as useless would count as "mass destruction" in my book. Im sure that any other American would agree that a dirty bomb is a weapon of mass destruction. Lets see what the Council on Foreign Relations has to say on the matter:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9548/

Well now that we have resolved that, any other points you want to be "informed" on?


Scott Hounsell:
So...if we are now shifting AGAIN to talk about the "murder" of innocents lets talk about the Hussein regime. Lets give you your figure of 100,000 killed in 7 years.

Lets be even more generous and say that 15,000 a year have been killed because of military action. Okay....15,000 a year....tragic.... I'm not discounting those lives lost at all...

For you to say that we are only responsible for the deaths that occured AFTER we arrived is a falacy. We don't only count the murders of innocent Jews in Eurpoe AFTER we entered the war do we? Or does the international community accept that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis? We weren't responsible for the 100,000 Kuwaitis killed in the Gulf War yet we got involved anyway. Now that we established that we must recognize the deaths before our involvement:... See More

Lets examine Saddam's rule. "Approaching 2 million" as quoted by :

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Hussein took control of Iraq in 1968 and ruled for 45 years until 2003. 2,000,000 murders/45 years = Approximately 45,000 deaths a year. Hmmm sounds like the US did some really bad things there in Iraq by lowering murder by 30,000 a year. But yeah...you're right...we shouldnt concern ourselves with the deaths of 2,000,000 individuals at the hands of a ruthless dictator. Silly me....we can only count the deaths in the country AFTER we got involved.... Doesn't matter that Saddam would have murdered 315,000 people during the same time had the US not been involved.

Now that I have given you two reason for invasion (both that they did have weapons of mass destruction and the fact that the country was in the control of a murderous dictator) will you ever admit that the US was justified in military action?


Adrian Haurat:
Scott, I see that you've already made a second post but I'll have to address your first post and then respond to the second when I get the chance.

I asked what kind of government you support and you restated what we are a REPUBLIC. So much for addressing my questions. I’ll address yours:

1. I didn’t say the public can’t be adequately informed by “the media”.

2. I addressed all of the sources you posted and they did not show that we were not lied to. The weapons that were found were not a direct threat to the US.

3. I said that EVEYONE should be outraged (conservatives included)

4. I don’t have a subscription to cable and have never watched any of the people you mentioned. I listen to various sources of news, but primarily NPR news which does not have opinion based shows like either Fox, CNBC or any of the other ridiculously biased cable and television channels. I’m not saying NPR is completely free of bias, because nothing is, but at least they don’t have opinion based programs with the likes of Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, or Couric.

5. I will continue to support what I said, which is that the weapons that were found were not the kinds of WMDs that were a serious threat to the US. “Mass destruction” is a relative term. Explosives made with household products can destroy a building. Is that “mass destruction”? Maybe, but every country with materials available to make explosives is an immediate threat to the US. Particularly when that country is on the other side of the world.

6. I confess that I haven’t studied debate and am not familiar with terms like “case shift” but I also know that isn’t what I did. You haven’t disproved a single one of my arguments and I haven’t changed my position. You did successfully accuse me of things that have no basis like being liberal and watching cable television. I’m doing my best not to make any assumptions about who you are and simply state my opinion on the topics at hand which I’m pretty sure is the idea of debate. In a juried debate I don’t think one gets very far making personal accusations and not addressing the questions that have been asked.

7. I see you’ve already made another post so I’ll get to it when I can.


Adrian Haurat:
Regarding your post about Saddam:

I should clarify that I did not mean we are responsible for every death that occurred in Iraq after our arrival; only the deaths that we caused. I wouldn’t classify all of them as “murders”, and I never used that term so I don’t know why you have it in quotes. If we drop a bomb on a building and there are civilian casualties, who is at fault if not us? Are you basically saying, “Well, if we hadn’t dropped that bomb Saddam would have killed them anyways so it’s okay.” THAT is a fallacy.

I don’t deny that Saddam murdered a lot of people. However, that was not the reason we invaded Iraq. The reason we were given was that Iraq had WMDs that posed a threat to our security. If the president had told the public, congress, or anybody that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam is murdering thousands of people, what would have been different? We can only guess, but I suspect America (right or wrong) would NOT have supported an invasion for that reason. It’s possible that calculated attacks might have been conducted to assassinate Saddam and his regime instead of a full-fledged invasion. I personally (to answer your question) would definitely have been in favor of that kind of military action. Generally speaking, overthrowing a ruthless dictator is a noble cause but that’s not why we went to Iraq. Or at least that’s not what we were told.

So in conclusion I don’t agree that possession of the weapons they had was cause to invade. And while I agree that Saddam was a murderous dictator, my opinion is that invasion was not the appropriate response. More importantly, I will add that regardless of what I alone think is an appropriate response, the situation should have truthfully been presented to the American people so that the decision could have been made by more than a small handful of individuals. You brought up the idea that we are a Republic, which I’m not opposed to when we the people can at least voice our opinions to our elected representatives based on all of the available information.

(**EDIT: Be sure to read "Iraq - Part 2" for the next series of posts)