Ok, so the debate is on going, and the so called phase 2 has 5 questions for each participant, depending on the side they take. I, of course, will do the anti war side of things. I have listed the questions below, for those without the time or energy to go read them, and my answers can be found in the bold text after them. I find all of these questions quite rigorous, and requiring a great deal of thought before answering, so thank you to whoever wrote them up. I also want to qualify, being Canadian, that when I say The US, I mean it's leadership, as I am confident that a good percentage of it's people disagree with the war.
The Questions for the Anti-War Side:
1. If you were President of the United States, what would be your policy toward Iraq over the next year? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in your proposed policies versus the current path being pursued by the Bush administration? To let the UN and the weapons inspector's do their jobs and find the weapons, or real proof that there are weapons, then you can actually have a reason to go in other than oil.
2. Is there any circumstance that you can conceive of where the United States would be justified in using military force without the support of the UN Security Council --- or does the UN always have a veto against US military action for whatever reason? Only if the US wants to earn the disgust of a large percentage of the world's population, not only the muslim's and the terrorists, will they go against the UN. Do they have veto? No, but the US's slander and name calling will get them no where. There is no reason to be justified in using military force without the UN. I am confident that if they have a good enough reason for force, there is no reason for the UN to now support them. If is the qualifier.
3. American and British military force has allowed Northern Iraq to develop a society which, while imperfect, is clearly a freer and more open society than existed under Saddam Hussein's direct rule. Do you agree that the no-fly zones have been beneficial to Northern Iraq --- and if so, why should this concept not be extended to remove Hussein's regime entirely and spread those freedoms to all Iraqis?Because that would only be second to invasion. you cannot force peace on a nation by removal of threat, all they would do then is use troops to enforce their laws. As well, they used the Norther Alliance of Afghanistan to 'bring peace' and now that nation is back under just as much oppression, just not supporting terrorists. The US leaders have not helped the citizens, only themselves.
4. Do you believe an inspection and sanctions regime is sufficient and capable of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the Hussein regime --- and should this be a goal of U.S. policy? In what way is an inspection/containment/sanctions regime preferable to invasion? Civilian casualties? Expense? Geopolitical outcome? I think that that such regime has not been given a true chance, and the US is only going through dynamic changes of opinion when their previous statements can be used against their goal. For instance, they were happy to stand behind Hans Blick when he was going in as a weapons inspector, but when he came back and said Iraq was cooperating, all of a sudden he is wrong and bad. Clearly they are willing to change their opinions of even high profile worker's as needed to achieve their goal of dominating Iraqi oil and raising the price per barrel.
5. What, in your opinion, is the source of national sovereignty? If you believe it to be the consent of the governed, should liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime be U.S. policy? If so, how do you propose to accomplish this goal absent military action? (And if in your view the sovereignty of a state does not derive from the consent of the governed, then what is the source of sovereignty?)Liberate them by showing them how a free society works, but stay the hell out of there. Eventually the weak will rise up, take control, and when that happens we can provide aid, but invasion, unless there is a clear, provable to the citizens of the world danger, is not a credible option. When the US forces the elimination of weapons in countries like North Korea, China,and other nations, then I will believe they are not in a war for the oil of a oil rich nation.
Leave a comment