Why US should STOP funding War in Iraq

[Viva Fidel]

Comrades, I understand the illegality of the imperialist war the US is carrying out in Iraq.

However, with the recent veto of Congress' bill to stop funding the war, and the overall unpopularity of the war, there are still many out there who insist on funding the war.

Simplistic responses such as "it's an imperialist war, women and children are being killed, etc" will not help in debating a cappie who "knows his/her" stuff. How can we, in a professional, but effective way, debate the war? In other words, what arguments will we make and what statistics do we provide to argue that "Congress should stop funding the Iraq War?"

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Viva [email protected] 30, 2007 11:06 pm
Comrades, I understand the illegality of the imperialist war the US is carrying out in Iraq.

However, with the recent veto of Congress' bill to stop funding the war, and the overall unpopularity of the war, there are still many out there who insist on funding the war.

Simplistic responses such as "it's an imperialist war, women and children are being killed, etc" will not help in debating a cappie who "knows his/her" stuff. How can we, in a professional, but effective way, debate the war? In other words, what arguments will we make and what statistics do we provide to argue that "Congress should stop funding the Iraq War?"
Let me answer as someone who disagrees with your argument, but is willing to tell you what someone like me would be open to hearing. First, you must assume that your opponent will put self-preservation above all else. You must first convince them that the war is not important to self-preservation or you will get nowhere. Then talk about costs and benefits. Lay out your argument in economic terms. Explain why the war is ineffecient. If you can, use game theory or other economic principles to make your point. Always argue from the position that fighting the war is not wrong, but not fighting it would be better. Finally, if you are going to appeal to morality, appeal to the following values, in order:
- Honor
- Justice or fairness
- Freedom
- Mercy

Do not at any point mention the opinions of others, international institutions, human rights or entitlement programs, past mistakes, or why anything bad is only America's fault. Any of those=instant loss. Don't mention specific politicians or parties, or they will just assume you are a partisan shill. If possible, bash both parties and all politicians.

[colonelguppy]

first of all, it isn't an imperialist war. imperialism implies some sort of desire to stay and maintain control. this won't happen. we will leave within 3 years, at the longest.

second of all, women and children are dying regardless of US presence. the military leaving will probably only make this worse.

however, that is kind besides the point of the thread. simply cutting funding via congressional act is probably the worst way to end the war ever, as it leaves US troops vulnerable due to lack of support. it would be easiest just to wait untill an anti-war president is inevitably elected in 2008 so they can be more cleanly withdrawn.

[Publius]

first of all, it isn't an imperialist war. imperialism implies some sort of desire to stay and maintain control. this won't happen. we will leave within 3 years, at the longest.

Well, you're probably right there.



second of all, women and children are dying regardless of US presence. the military leaving will probably only make this worse.

What a classic situation.

We go in there, destabilize the situation so badly that people die in masses on a daily basis and then, and then, and then of all the fucking reasons to justify our war, we say, "Shit, we can't leave or else people would die."

It would be absolutely rich if it weren't so fucking sad...

And tell me, what makes you think the situation would, or even could, get much worse?



however, that is kind besides the point of the thread. simply cutting funding via congressional act is probably the worst way to end the war ever, as it leaves US troops vulnerable due to lack of support. it would be easiest just to wait untill an anti-war president is inevitably elected in 2008 so they can be more cleanly withdrawn.

Withdraw funding, whatever, just end it. It's that simple. Leave.

There needs to be no finesse here it's just get out.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 30, 2007 11:35 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 30, 2007 11:35 pm)first of all, it isn't an imperialist war. imperialism implies some sort of desire to stay and maintain control. this won't happen. we will leave within 3 years, at the longest.[/b]

First of all you have no idea of what you're talking about. It is an imperialist war, and the US is an imperialist country. What is imperialism? The first definition is:

the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

See that third "or" in there colonelguppy? It's saying it's the policy of extending AUTHORITY of a NATION over FOREIGN COUNTRIES, OR of HOLDING COLONIES.

By that standard (definition) the Untied States is an imperialist country when it uses its force to construct the world as it wants it to be. Some example of this might be the Truman Doctrine, which put down the anti-fascist, anti-Nazi resistance in Greece and Turkey and prevented the Greeks from establishing a system they wanted. Even the Marshall Plan aid could be seen as somewhat imperialist because the US wanted to reconstruct Europe for US benefit -- while it might be arguable whether this is "imperialism," it's clear that it wasn't done out of the benign and selfless interests of the United States. The same thing with Japan, where the Untied States controlled 70% of its oil imports even into the 1980s, which gave the US automatic "veto" power over the Japanese in any issue.

The US actually has a long record of imperialism, annexing and colonizing other countries, intervening to construct countries to US interests, coloneldummy, that goes back to the founding period of the United States.

When the United States disregards all relevant international law and invades nations and regions merely because of the fact that they don't like their government or policies, that is a clear cut case of imperialism, especially when the United States has been involved in that region (the middle-east) for five decades. The US has had a hand in every single middle-eastern country and did not just up and decide to invade -- Saddam, originally an ally of course, merely was become out of control, in much the same way the drug trafficking Noreiga, also originally an ally, became too "nationalist" for US interests.

The US always does this, initiating coups, clandestine operations, assassinations, funding death squads etc. to construct the world as the US wants it. What else do you call it? What else do you call it when the US has hundreds of military bases around the world and hundreds of thousands of troops staining them? Not to mention bombing ranges and so on that are hazardous to the people in the third world.

Do you see France or Sweden doing this? Maybe once against Algeria or something, but not much anymore.

So yes, the US is imperialist (although hegemony is probably a better word), and yes, your ideology of capitalism encourages it.



[email protected] 30, 2007 11:35 pm
second of all, women and children are dying regardless of US presence. the military leaving will probably only make this worse.

Says which foreign policy or geopolitical expert? You? You couldn't tell a Policy Planing Statement or a National Security Council Report from your ass. You're out of your element here, as usual.

Obviously all the US is doing is fueling the fire over there.

[IcarusAngel]

This forum is at Protest-Warrior levels of ignorance.


Originally posted by Viva Fidel+May 30, 2007 11:06 pm--> (Viva Fidel @ May 30, 2007 11:06 pm)Comrades, I understand the illegality of the imperialist war the US is carrying out in Iraq.

However, with the recent veto of Congress' bill to stop funding the war, and the overall unpopularity of the war, there are still many out there who insist on funding the war.[/b]

What are you talking about? The original bill the Democrats passed provided 124 billion in war funds but with attached conditions and benchmarks for the troops to start withdrawing (in a year, or so). This was opposed by Republicans (and a few democrats) and was vetoed by King George.

The democrats then turned tail and allowed a $120 billion war funding measure to go through (supported mostly by republicans) that contains weak benchmarks and little in consequences should the Iraqi government fail to live up to their duties.

So the war continues without any checks and balances.

The congress authorizes the war funding: The only way the Democrats could cut off funding is by preventing war funding from ever reaching the house floor, but that would be political suicide. Their other option for ending the war would be introducing a bill that would require the troops to start withdrawing. The problem here is that this is mathematically impossible because they simple don't have the votes: a large portion of democrats oppose a legislative withdrawal and so the bill would never make it to the president.

What Pelosi (that's the leader of the house) should have done is this: She should have offered a bill forcing a withdrawal within a year, instead of one that provides continued funding. Then, after it got voted down, she could have said "most democrats oppose this war, but we don't have the votes to stop it" and the Republicans introduce an appropriations bill for the war with the demos trying to attach certain benchmarks etc.

That way, she could have said "this war belongs to the republicans" and her MoveOn base wouldn't be so pissed because at least they _tried_ to cut funding for the war.

That's smart politics. Instead the democrats tried to do the "please everybody" and "bipartisan" route and got humiliated.


Viva [email protected] 30, 2007 11:06 pm
Simplistic responses such as "it's an imperialist war, women and children are being killed, etc" will not help in debating a cappie who "knows his/her" stuff. How can we, in a professional, but effective way, debate the war? In other words, what arguments will we make and what statistics do we provide to argue that "Congress should stop funding the Iraq War?"

Yes, indeed.

And if you haven't "figured out" whats wrong with this war by now, you probably aren't the best spokesman for the anti-war position.

In fact, anti-war protesters and leftists most likely inadvertently encourage wars by the simple fact that most Americans don't want to associate themselves with socialists, anarchists, etc. If they were smart, they'd let other people make their case for them and shut-up while the "political base" of the two parties forces them to end the war (as in Vietnam).

For example, if your analysis of the war includes not facts and statistics but a Marxist "theoretical" analysis, and words like "cappie," "bourgeois" and so on, you probably shouldn't be discussing the war in your work place/at school because you're end up just making people support it more.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:35 pm
first of all, it isn't an imperialist war. imperialism implies some sort of desire to stay and maintain control. this won't happen. we will leave within 3 years, at the longest.

second of all, women and children are dying regardless of US presence. the military leaving will probably only make this worse.

however, that is kind besides the point of the thread. simply cutting funding via congressional act is probably the worst way to end the war ever, as it leaves US troops vulnerable due to lack of support. it would be easiest just to wait untill an anti-war president is inevitably elected in 2008 so they can be more cleanly withdrawn.
For Colonel Gumpy:


first of all, it isn't an imperialist war.

That is why, for example, that in the recently passed Iraq War Supplemental Bill,
one of the requirements includes the privatization of Iraq's oil, which will basically open it for utilization by foreign firms; more specifically, multinationals from Britain, France, and the United States. That is why, for example, all of the original accusations against Iraq to go to war, from supposible nuclear and biological weapons, to financial and military links to terrorist organizations, have been proven has falsified evidence that was "bad intelligence", according to George Tenet. That is why, for example, in 2001, Dick Cheney's Energy Policy Development Group commissioned a report on 'energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, which recommended that we militarily intervene into Iraq in order have access to their vast reserves of oil supplies. Paul Wolfowitz, the former Deputy Security of Defense, when asked why we didn't invade North Korea instead of Iraq, said that:


Paul Wolfowitz:
"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Ron Paul, the upcoming congressman from Texas, also alleged that the reason for the war was to maintain "dollar hegemony", considering that Iraq was preparing to switch it's requirements for petroleum sales to Euros, instead of the dollar. It seems that, as Ron Paul presumed, that his assessment of the roots of the invasion were overwhelmingly correct, since we have forcefully returned the transaction of pretroleum back to the "petrodollar". Face it, facts honestly slap this ridiculous assumption in the face.


imperialism implies some sort of desire to stay and maintain control. this won't happen.

Where did you find that definition of imperialism? I think a simple coup d'etat, or even an assasination, displays the effects of imperialism.


second of all, women and children are dying regardless of US presence. the military leaving will probably only make this worse.

Yeah, who would of known that over 50,000 children would die after we pressed the blockade, invasion, and occupation on Iraq. It&#39;s a mythical mass murder that was obviously not brought on by these events. <_<


. simply cutting funding via congressional act is probably the worst way to end the war ever, as it leaves US troops vulnerable due to lack of support.

By cutting funding, the war is effectively over.


t would be easiest just to wait untill an anti-war president is inevitably elected in 2008 so they can be more cleanly withdrawn.

I would like to see them stop the killing as soon as possible.

[IcarusAngel]

Good points. And Ron Paul is right when he talks about "dollar hegemony" or "dollar imperialism" here is a good article on that:
http://www.hermes-press.com/dollar_imperialism.htm

Imperialism is when a country will disregard all relevant international communities and try and construct the world in its image and its benefit. It&#39;s such a loaded term and has existed in so many terms that the word "hegemony" is probably more accurate and more precise.

Paul is also correct when he notes this idea of building and maintaining "democracies" around the world is not a "conservative" position, but goes back to Wilsonian Idealism. (Although he is wrong when he describes it as being "left-wing" or "socialist," socialists opposed the "liberal" Wilson.)

Finally, to be accurate the democrats have no where near the votes to cut off funding in a certain time period (right now the president has enough funds to keep the war going for a while). That was a measure that was rejected by the senate, not vetoed.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:35 pm
first of all, it isn&#39;t an imperialist war. imperialism implies some sort of desire to stay and maintain control. this won&#39;t happen. we will leave within 3 years, at the longest.


Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but didnt they say the prescise same thing when they invaded?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:28 pm
Just as the worlds global oil reserves are begining to run out we just happen to invade an oil rich country. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH.
By what metric? At current prices, proven reserves are the highest they&#39;ve ever been.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by STJ+May 31, 2007 04:56 pm--> (STJ @ May 31, 2007 04:56 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 03:44 pm

[email protected] 31, 2007 03:28 pm
Just as the worlds global oil reserves are begining to run out we just happen to invade an oil rich country. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH.
By what metric? At current prices, proven reserves are the highest they&#39;ve ever been.
The last large oil field was found in Saudi Arabia in 1969 everything found since then has been much smaller. [/b]
Even if that is true, that doesn&#39;t speak to whether those fields are currently in the process of "running out."

[Ele'ill]

first of all, it isn&#39;t an imperialist war. imperialism implies some sort of desire to stay and maintain control. this won&#39;t happen. we will leave within 3 years, at the longest.

Disagree, our soldiers may leave in 3 years, but the presence of america&#39;s corporate assassins will be forever. They have fresh minds to prey upon. It all depends on what sect takes power in Iraq.


second of all, women and children are dying regardless of US presence. the military leaving will probably only make this worse.

Agree. We&#39;re there, we&#39;ve done &#39;stuff&#39; and if we pull out carelessly people will die and a new more despotic regime will take over....


however, that is kind besides the point of the thread. simply cutting funding via congressional act is probably the worst way to end the war ever, as it leaves US troops vulnerable due to lack of support. it would be easiest just to wait untill an anti-war president is inevitably elected in 2008 so they can be more cleanly withdrawn

...until another &#39;warhawk&#39; president takes power in the United States and we go back in.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+May 31, 2007 03:44 pm--> (pusher robot @ May 31, 2007 03:44 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 03:28 pm
Just as the worlds global oil reserves are begining to run out we just happen to invade an oil rich country. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHH.
By what metric? At current prices, proven reserves are the highest they&#39;ve ever been. [/b]
Do you mean post or pre 2003? If you mean by todays standards, your point doesnt really stand up.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

...ehhh...

We should pull out, not stop funding.

There&#39;s still soldiers over there, folks&#39;. They&#39;re people too. Fund it until we&#39;re out....then there&#39;s nothing to fund.