Military Intervention in Iraq

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
WinePusher

Military Intervention in Iraq

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

Motion for debate: Was United States Military Intervention in Iraq Justified?

I, WinePusher, affirm the motion and will argue that American intervention in Iraq was justified. Darias will reject the motion, and will argue that American intervention in Iraq was not justified. The format for our debate is as follows:

Round 1: WinePusher's argument

Post 1: WinePusher's initial argument
Post 2: Darias' rebuttal
Post 3: WinePusher's rebuttal
Post 4: Darias' rebuttal
Post 5: WinePusher's rebuttal

Round 2: Darias' argument

Post 6: Darias' initial argument
Post 7: WinPusher's rebuttal
Post 8: Darias' rebuttal
Post 9: WinePusher's rebuttal
Post 10: Darias' rebuttal

Round 3: Conclusions

Post 11: WinePusher's concluding statement
Post 12: Darias' concluding statement

There will be no time limit and both Darias and I will post in this thread whenever we have the time to do so.

WinePusher

Post #2

Post by WinePusher »

Round 1, Post 1: WinePusher's initial argument

Introduction
In this debate, I will be arguing that the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the right course of action for President Bush and NATO to take. As apart of this debate, I will also be arguing that the general beliefs of non-interventionism are untenable, and that many of the national security measures taken by the Bush administration (such as the Patriot Act, the use of enhanced interrogation methods and the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay prison) were necessary and justified.

Background Knowledge of the Iraq War

Whenever discussing the Iraq war it seems that many people often forget and ignore how dangerous and awful the Saddam Hussein dictatorship was. Imagine that you yourself were the President of the United States and were tasked with protecting the American people and maintaining national security. Two planes suddenly fly into two major American buildings in a major American city causing thousands of people to die. How is it reasonable, under these circumstances, to continue following a policy of noninterventionism? How is it illegitimate to want to protect the country by taking the fight over to the Middle East instead of allowing organized, state sponsored terrorists to bring the conflict over to our soil. So, whenever discussing the Iraq war, it's important to keep in mind the following facts:

1. Saddam Hussein violated over a dozen United Nations security resolutions
2. Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex a membership state of the UN, that being Kuwait.
3. Saddam Hussein used WMD's on his own people
4. Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing and developing weapons of mass destruction
5. Saddam Hussein constantly engaged in acts of military aggression by shooting at NATO aircraft.
6. The Saddam Hussein regime sponsored and endorsed terrorists that were responsible for 9/11.

As the leader of a country who was attacked by Islamic terrorists, how is it even possible to consider sitting idly by allowing the Saddam Hussein regime to continue to acts in whatever it wants. How is it illegitimate to unilaterally decide to invade Iraq with strong intelligence that suggests the unstable, apocalyptic, aggressive, genocidal Iraqi government has stockpiles of WMD's? Any leader who would have chosen NOT to invade Iraq in light of all these facts would have been completely foolish and irresponsible.

Implications of the Iraq War

Despite the many lies being circulated around by the anti war crowd, the United States was greeted with joy and happiness by those people in Iraq that had suffered under the brutality of the Hussein regime. The United States forces were seen as liberators by many factions and sects of the Iraqi people, including the Kurds most importantly.

What would have happened if the United States hadn't overthrown Saddam Hussein?

I would like to know what Darias' thinks would have happened if Saddam Hussein wasn't overthrown. As stated above, my contention is that the Middle East would be far more volatile than it is today if Iraqi was still in the hands of Islamofacists, and that's really saying something. There would also be an arms race for WMD's between two competing nations (Iraq and Iran) which would destabilize the region even further. Additionally, the Iraqi people would still be suffering greatly at the hands of a brutal dictator. The Iraqi government would have succeeded in annexing Kuwait and would unlikely still be expanding it's border, which would only cause more chaos in the Middle East. By any objective measure, the Iraq was has resulted in greater benefits that have exceeded the costs of it.

The Fallacy of Non-Interventionism

I've had many debates with Darias in the past and from what I can tell he seems to be an ardent non-interventionist. So, I would like to know if there are any conditions or circumstances where Darias would support military intervention and warfare. Historically speaking, the policy of non interventionism has been an abject failure where ever it's been put into practice. Non-interventionist principles were initially tried during the first and second world war and by any measure, both of these world wars would have ended quicker if the United States had intervened right at the outset instead of trying to remain uninvolved and neutral. Also, one must wonder whether the United States would even exist today if non interventionist policies were followed by the rest of the world. While the American revolution was ultimately won by the 13 colonies, it would have been seemingly impossible to have achieved victory without French military intervention. Had the French followed Darias' non interventionist doctrines there would likely be no America as the colonies would have lost.

National Security Policies of the Bush Administration

Many well intentioned people have criticized President Bush's national security policies as being unconstitutional and too invasive. I agree with this sentiment to a certain extent, however I would like to remind Darias that the most fundamental role of the federal government is to provide for the protection and security of the United States. Additionally, I am more than willing to sacrifice part of my liberties and freedoms in order to protect human life. In other words, I disagree with Benjamin Franklin's assertion that, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Darias seems to be very focused on preserving our freedoms and liberties, but he fails to recognize that there is a clear tradeoff between liberty and life. We can either choose to increase our national security in order to prevent more terrorist attacks, or we can focus on maintaining out civil liberties at the loss of more human life due to terrorism. Now, I will agree with Darias that the following provisions are clearly unconstitutional:

1) Guantanamo Bay
2) The Patriot Act
3) Waterboarding Techniques

But, these three policies have clearly made the country safer in light of this new threat of religious terrorism. The evidence for the success of the Patriot act is overwhelming (Source 1, Source 2) The same is true for waterboarding since the usage of waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden. The only policy that remains is racial and religious profiling, which I also endorse wholeheartedly. The threat of terrorism comes from one single group that is clearly identifiable, so it only seems logical that we would single out people in this group for additional screening at airports.

The Causes of Terrorism
This topic is only tangential to our debate, but I think it is important for Darias and I to highlight our differences on this. I believe that terrorism is driven by a radical interpretation of Islam, meaning that the cause of terrorism is religious, not political. The United States could withdraw it's presence from the Middle East today and this would not cause terrorism to end. The Middle East is largely an uncivilized society that still needs to undergo decades of social evolution before it can assimilate in with the rest of the globalized/civilized world, and we would be doing ourselves a huge dis-service if we were to simply turn a blind eye to this region of the world as Darias would like us to do.

Concluding remarks

Throughout my post I've made references to Darias' positions and opinions even though he has yet to post in this thread. I've debated him many times in the past so I feel that I'm well acquainted with his ideas enough to say these things, however if you feel that I've mis-represented you in any way please feel free to correct me. Also, I'm willing to change the rules in order to allow for more rebuttals if you agree. The reason why I wanted to limit the number of posts was to prevent the debate from degenerating into an infinite amount of rebuttals over frivolous details which is what we see in many other head to head debates. However, we can make room for more rebuttals and responses if you want.

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #3

Post by Darias »

Round 1, Post 2: Darias' rebuttal



I)
WinePusher wrote: Round 1, Post 1: WinePusher's initial argument

Introduction
In this debate, I will be arguing that the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the right course of action for President Bush and NATO to take. As apart of this debate, I will also be arguing that the general beliefs of non-interventionism are untenable, and that many of the national security measures taken by the Bush administration (such as the Patriot Act, the use of enhanced interrogation methods and the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay prison) were necessary and justified.
Good luck.


II)
WinePusher wrote:Background Knowledge of the Iraq War

Whenever discussing the Iraq war it seems that many people often forget and ignore how dangerous and awful the Saddam Hussein dictatorship was. Imagine that you yourself were the President of the United States and were tasked with protecting the American people and maintaining national security. Two planes suddenly fly into two major American buildings in a major American city causing thousands of people to die. How is it reasonable, under these circumstances, to continue following a policy of noninterventionism? How is it illegitimate to want to protect the country by taking the fight over to the Middle East instead of allowing organized, state sponsored terrorists to bring the conflict over to our soil. So, whenever discussing the Iraq war, it's important to keep in mind the following facts:

1. Saddam Hussein violated over a dozen United Nations security resolutions
2. Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex a membership state of the UN, that being Kuwait.
3. Saddam Hussein used WMD's on his own people
4. Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing and developing weapons of mass destruction
5. Saddam Hussein constantly engaged in acts of military aggression by shooting at NATO aircraft.
6. The Saddam Hussein regime sponsored and endorsed terrorists that were responsible for 9/11.

As the leader of a country who was attacked by Islamic terrorists, how is it even possible to consider sitting idly by allowing the Saddam Hussein regime to continue to acts in whatever it wants. How is it illegitimate to unilaterally decide to invade Iraq with strong intelligence that suggests the unstable, apocalyptic, aggressive, genocidal Iraqi government has stockpiles of WMD's? Any leader who would have chosen NOT to invade Iraq in light of all these facts would have been completely foolish and irresponsible.


III)
WinePusher wrote: Implications of the Iraq War

Despite the many lies being circulated around by the anti war crowd, the United States was greeted with joy and happiness by those people in Iraq that had suffered under the brutality of the Hussein regime. The United States forces were seen as liberators by many factions and sects of the Iraqi people, including the Kurds most importantly.




IV)
WinePusher wrote:What would have happened if the United States hadn't overthrown Saddam Hussein?

I would like to know what Darias' thinks would have happened if Saddam Hussein wasn't overthrown. As stated above, my contention is that the Middle East would be far more volatile than it is today if Iraqi was still in the hands of Islamofacists, and that's really saying something. There would also be an arms race for WMD's between two competing nations (Iraq and Iran) which would destabilize the region even further. Additionally, the Iraqi people would still be suffering greatly at the hands of a brutal dictator. The Iraqi government would have succeeded in annexing Kuwait and would unlikely still be expanding it's border, which would only cause more chaos in the Middle East. By any objective measure, the Iraq was has resulted in greater benefits that have exceeded the costs of it.


V)
WinePusher wrote:The Fallacy of Non-Interventionism
Non-interventionism isn't actually a fallacy just because you wish to label it so. However, ad consequentiam certainly is.* Those who attempt to preemptively assume (or retroactively rescue) something positive from these nightmarish conflicts, in order to justify their future launch (or past occurrence) as "right," are indeed guilty of committing said fallacy.

I am only utilizing utilitarian arguments for the sake of argument, because this is how you seem to be making your case. Even on utilitarian grounds, I believe you will find that your position on this conflict is untenable.


WinePusher wrote:I've had many debates with Darias in the past and from what I can tell he seems to be an ardent non-interventionist. So, I would like to know if there are any conditions or circumstances where Darias would support military intervention and warfare.

No, I oppose preemptive war on deontological grounds. War is mass murder on an incredible scale, and it cannot be justified with positive outcomes, even if the benefits could outweigh the costs on rare occasion -- and they never do.

Self-defense from tyrannical or criminal invaders can only be justified where the defending security forces are voluntary and their funding is voluntary. All else is conscription and murder based on the state's interests, rather than society's best interests.

You can't really have war without governments, at least not on the massive scales they tend to be famous for. Part of the reason wars are difficult to wage without states is because you can't instill love of country into children on an industrial scale without compulsory education. I have demonstrated this recently; see the quotes I have provided near the end of this post.* I also found a video summarizing the point:

[center][yt][/yt][/center]


WinePusher wrote:Historically speaking, the policy of non interventionism has been an abject failure where ever it's been put into practice. Non-interventionist principles were initially tried during the first and second world war and by any measure, both of these world wars would have ended quicker if the United States had intervened right at the outset instead of trying to remain uninvolved and neutral.
I can't say I recall a single instance in American history where the rulers have been responsive to any trend in non-interventionism, apart from failing to launch a campaign in Syria, but even then -- the US was heavily involved. For example, Congress approved sending guns and anti-tank rockets to Syrians, many of which ended up in the hands of radical factions.* Over a billion dollars were sent in the name of humanitarianism.* Yet, boots and bombs were avoided at least. All in all, it wasn't really a non-interventionist victory by any means.

So I cannot say it has been actually put into practice; and this is obvious to anyone who's read a history book. If you can count, then you know that the US has been involved in quite a few conflicts since WWI.

And just because a government doesn't refrain from invading and embargoing doesn't mean non-interventionism doesn't work. When Hitler invaded Poland, we don't say of the German non-interventionists at the time that their views were invalid.

And finally, WWI would have come to a complete stalemate without US involvement, which tipped the scales for the allies, who in turn saddled the German people with crippling war debt with the Treaty of Versailles; poverty and public disdain for this treaty was how the Nazi Party came to power in the first place. Had the US not funneled fresh meat into the trenches of WWI, there wouldn't have even been a Holocaust.

[center][yt][/yt][/center]


WinePusher wrote:Also, one must wonder whether the United States would even exist today if non interventionist policies were followed by the rest of the world. While the American revolution was ultimately won by the 13 colonies, it would have been seemingly impossible to have achieved victory without French military intervention. Had the French followed Darias' non interventionist doctrines there would likely be no America as the colonies would have lost.
Irregular, guerrilla warfare always wins wars of attrition, with or without the assistance of superpowers. To say the revolution could not have been won at all without France is a bit of a stretch, and to suggest there would never have been a United States without the revolution is also doubtful, as Canada and Australia won their independence without bloodshed. Had the US government never been created, slavery would have been abolished in 1833 without a Civil War.

We're all paying more in taxes now and have less freedom than freemen did at the time, so whether or not red white and blue colors would have been rearranged on the pole makes no difference to me.



VI)
WinePusher wrote:National Security Policies of the Bush Administration

Many well intentioned people have criticized President Bush's national security policies as being unconstitutional and too invasive. I agree with this sentiment to a certain extent. . . .
Well I'm glad you agree because clearly they are, and it saves me time from having to demonstrate the obvious.


WinePusher wrote:[H]owever I would like to remind Darias that the most fundamental role of the federal government is to provide for the protection and security of the United States.
This is a claim that most people accept, regardless of the body politic in question. I, as an anarchist, do not accept the priori assumption that a state should have a monopoly on force, nor do I take seriously the claim that a government can protect people more efficiently than the market, especially if its policies are counterproductive to that end -- which I will argue is most definitely the case, as it is easily demonstrated.


WinePusher wrote:Additionally, I am more than willing to sacrifice part of my liberties and freedoms in order to protect human life. In other words, I disagree with Benjamin Franklin's assertion that, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Darias seems to be very focused on preserving our freedoms and liberties, but he fails to recognize that there is a clear tradeoff between liberty and life. We can either choose to increase our national security in order to prevent more terrorist attacks, or we can focus on maintaining out civil liberties at the loss of more human life due to terrorism.
Of all the things to fear in life, terrorism doesn't really seem to be the most rational. Your average American is 9 times more likely to be killed by the criminal negligence and excessive use of force of law enforcement, than a terrorist. Heatstroke has a 6 times greater chance of killing you than a terrorist.

[center]Image[/center]

The reason why you don't see terrorist attack as a cause of death on this chart, provided by the National Safety Council, is because you're 14 times more likely to die from a fireworks accident.*, * Your actual chances of getting killed by a terrorist is 1 in 20 million.* The chance of being killed by a terrorist everywhere else around the world would most likely be far lower than it is as a result of US foreign policy, but we'll get to that later.

To advocate all of these resources being spent and blood spilled, and to gloss over the number of innocents killed, tortured, and imprisoned, and to welcome the wholesale destruction of liberties for Americans and others around the world to prevent remote events from happening seems, quite frankly, retarded.

Now, as much as I oppose the state, I do not think that the people in charge are mentally deficient in any way, at least not usually. The reason so much effort and treasure is invested into these counter productive wars on drugs and radicals is because it empowers the state and employs more people.

And you can't sit there with a straight face and suggest that the people in charge care about American safety when they were willing to engage in terrorism themselves against innocent American people, in order to advance their goals in Cuba.* Call me a pessimist, but I highly doubt there has been a radically positive transformation in Washington, at least as far as principles and ethics are concerned, just over the past few decades. That said, that doesn't mean I think everyone in office is some sort of Dr. Evil-like villain, but let's not be naive in thinking the government just wants to protect us, when its policies demonstrably endanger us and violate our privacy at the same time.


WinePusher wrote:Now, I will agree with Darias that the following provisions are clearly unconstitutional:

1) Guantanamo Bay
2) The Patriot Act
3) Waterboarding Techniques
Not to mention they violate international law, which by the way only seems to matter when other states transgress.


WinePusher wrote:But, these three policies have clearly made the country safer in light of this new threat of religious terrorism.
The subjects of King John I had more legal protections promised to them nearly 800 years ago under the Magna Carta, than what is guaranteed to Americans today. The NDAA act of 2012 means the government can treat anyone they want like a prisoner at GITMO, even assassinate them and their children -- this time under the "legitimacy" of the law.

These new laws have bred a police state that corrals human beings by the droves into jails because of plants. And, if the Bundy ranch standoff has taught us anything, it's that the dream of America is over; it was never real, and it's time to wake up now.

[center]Image[/center]

You want to know who else isn't safe because of these policies? U.S. soldiers. Now, they're not being endangered by terrorists; I have already demonstrated the minuteness of that threat.

By the most conservative numbers, 22 soldiers die every single day. This is not due to an ongoing insurgency. This is all because of suicide.* These figures do not count the homeless veterans and are probably even higher.* Now, unless you would have me believe the uniforms made in China contain harmful chemicals that affect cognition, I would imagine the daily pile of bodies has something to do with multiple tours of duty and unending military conflicts. "[T]he greatest enemy of the US soldier, could be argued, is the civilian leadership that repeatedly deploys them in these rather useless wars."*


WinePusher wrote:The evidence for the success of the Patriot act is overwhelming (Source 1, Source 2)

To the contrary, these sources are particularly underwhelming.

Your second source is out of date to say the least. It was written prior to the NDAA Act of 2012 by Nathan Sales, who, by the way, helped author the Patriot Act. He hasn't been involved in the intelligence community for over a decade now.

It doesn't really matter much that it was written in The New York Times because the source itself isn't objective, and it's old. In fact, everything he wrote was as false then as it is now:
  • "America needs the Patriot Act because it helps prevent terrorism while posing little risk to civil liberties. The law simply lets counterterrorism agents use tools that police officers have used for decades. And it contains elaborate safeguards against abuse."
:P We're off to a great start so far. The Onion should give this man a job.*

[center]Image[/center]


I'm sorry but this article isn't worth taking the time to critique.

How about a more recent quote? This is from the principle author of the Patriot Act, Congressman Sensenbrenner, who was also responsible for getting the original bill through swiftly:
  • "As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation. While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses. The Bureau’s broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American."*
It's too late now, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Pandora's box is now open thanks to your efforts.

Is it really all that surprising that leaders change their tune when their policies negatively affect even them? People like Dianne Feinstein, who once actively apologized for PRISM, up and pulled a Ron Paul rant when the CIA started looking into her files and the files of her colleagues.*


WinePusher wrote:The same is true for waterboarding since the usage of waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden.

False. The film Zero Dark Thirty strongly suggested that bin Laden's capture was directly the result of these "techniques," but this was not in fact the reality.* Many people have been critical of the film for misleading the public, but perhaps you would most appreciate the criticism of politicians and officials, rather than journalists. Everyone from Senator McCain, to Michael Morell, to Rumsfeld have criticized the film for its inaccuracy. *, *

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and did not give up any information.* It would even be a stretch for you to suggest that his continued refusal to surrender information in 2002 was key in leading to the discovery of bin Laden. As the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, confirmed in 2011, the "intel" extracted this way wasn't integral to the capture of bin Laden; the effectiveness of torture was, in his opinion, debatable at best.* In 2013, he said in an interview on Meet the Press, "I think we could have gotten bin Laden without that."*

Bin Laden was found via other methods entirely. The US discovered the real name of the courier during Operation Cannonball, which began in 2006. From there they monitored communiques and uncovered bin Laden's compound through surveillance. This was all years after the unsuccessful 'enhanced interrogation methods' used on KSM.


WinePusher wrote:The only policy that remains is racial and religious profiling, which I also endorse wholeheartedly. The threat of terrorism comes from one single group that is clearly identifiable, so it only seems logical that we would single out people in this group for additional screening at airports.
Racial profiling makes no sense because Islamic militants have been everything from Caucasian (both White and Middle Eastern), to African American, to Asian.

And the majority of Muslims around the world are non-violent. Screening brown people who might be religious is no different than giving every black male a pat down before allowing him entry into a store. Around 0.1% of the world's Muslims are terrorists, but 2,697,539 African Americans were arrested and charged with various crimes in the US in 2011 alone.* You would be disgusted if even one innocent African American was treated like a criminal on the street or in a place of business, yet you proudly promote discrimination in screening of Muslims and foreign looking persons if they seem Islamic in any way shape and form.

As CNN's Fareed Zakaria pointed out, if you were to assume that every Islamic inspired terrorist attack which took place in 2010 required at least 100 persons per attack (whereas in reality most involved a few radicals at best) that would only mean just over a million Islamic militants world over in that year, including the deceased ones. Furthermore, opposing or criticizing governments does not make one a terrorist; and most states do not officially define terrorism in this way.*

Most terrorists aren't even Islamic at all, according to this study by researchers from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University.*



VII)
WinePusher wrote:The Causes of Terrorism

This topic is only tangential to our debate, but I think it is important for Darias and I to highlight our differences on this.
I would argue that this topic is very closely related to the main discussion and simply cannot be overlooked moving forward. How one views terrorism determines what they think about foreign policy, which determines how they might attempt to justify or oppose wars and various 'interventions.'


WinePusher wrote:I believe that terrorism is driven by a radical interpretation of Islam, meaning that the cause of terrorism is religious, not political.
It does not matter what you or I believe; what matters is the reality. Sun Tzu once wrote:
  • "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."*
In this case, if you do not know the history or the present realities of US foreign policy, and if you don't know the motives of Islamic terrorism, then you can't solve the problem of terrorism.

I would invite you to read "bin Laden's Letter to America."* You cannot deny the political side of al-Qaida's goals. He gave a lot of excuses for why he and his group were at war with the US, many of them granted were rationalized with scripture, but most were grievances against US action in the Middle East (real, exaggerated, or false). In fact he specifically mentions several things that are wholly political. He does not begin the letter by saying, "You are all infidels and Allah has commanded that we destroy you." He says we are at war with you because "You attacked us."
  • "(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

    (i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

    (ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

    (iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

    (iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

    (v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

    (d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

    (e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

    (f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

    [. . . .]

    (f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs."

Now to maintain the claim that al-Qaida's motives aren't political whatsoever after reading this is simply willful ignorance. That said, no one can deny the religious elements and rationalizations involved in this type of violence, but you cannot say that US action in the Middle East did not provoke or enrage or provide an excuse for violence, when that is the very reason al-Qaida brought down the towers in the first place and why that letter resonated with others.

When the US invaded Iraq, that "proved" that bin Laden was "right" -- that the US was "at war with Islam." US support of dictators like Mubarak and others was once a rationalization for violence, and now it's drone strikes and Guantanamo.

You've got to understand that radicals can't wage a war by themselves; they have to convince others; and when the US wages war and kills everyone at weddings in a drone strike (more than once), that really helps to validate the propaganda of these fanatics.*, *, *, * In the end, more terrorists are created than what would otherwise exist.


WinePusher wrote:The United States could withdraw it's presence from the Middle East today and this would not cause terrorism to end.

Absolutely true; but then again, neither would another invasion, much less another drone strike. The important thing here is to define terrorism and find ways to mitigate it. The fact is that invasions, and assassinations, and drone strikes -- and all the collateral carnage that comes with those things -- provides a greater incentive for terror than what already exists. An Afghan poppy farmer may already hate America, perceiving it to be Satan incarnate, but that doesn't really translate into anything until after his home is destroyed and children killed in a random strike. Those who seek vengeance are more likely to be more susceptible to al-Qaida's propaganda, and this is precisely why the war on terror, like the war on drugs, is counterproductive.


WinePusher wrote:The Middle East is largely an uncivilized society that still needs to undergo decades of social evolution before it can assimilate in with the rest of the globalized/civilized world, and we would be doing ourselves a huge dis-service if we were to simply turn a blind eye to this region of the world as Darias would like us to do.
I agree with you, but trade, tourism, and discourse are not isolationism. The only way to mitigate the irrationalities of religion and regime in the region among the masses is via economic interaction and rational argumentation -- all else is counterproductive to that end. You can't 'win hearts and minds' with drone strikes; it only instills fear and provokes hatred.*



VIII)
WinePusher wrote:Concluding remarks

Throughout my post I've made references to Darias' positions and opinions even though he has yet to post in this thread. I've debated him many times in the past so I feel that I'm well acquainted with his ideas enough to say these things, however if you feel that I've mis-represented you in any way please feel free to correct me. Also, I'm willing to change the rules in order to allow for more rebuttals if you agree. The reason why I wanted to limit the number of posts was to prevent the debate from degenerating into an infinite amount of rebuttals over frivolous details which is what we see in many other head to head debates. However, we can make room for more rebuttals and responses if you want.
We've debated issues that touched this topic before, and I may even reference some posts from those old threads if need be. You are free to do the same. If either of us have revised our views since the time of posting, then that can be pointed out as well.

I am open to allowing more rebuttals as well. Let's see how this plays out and then we can decide whether there should be more posts or further discussion on important topics directly related to the main issue at hand.

Post Reply