Rebuttal assistance needed on War in Iraq

[Austin]

i'd probably still shoot you for supporting ron paul.
just kidding i'm not that anti-ron paul.
but really, why would i vote for someone who proposes to irresponsibally pull us out of iraq.

i hate the iraq war but seeing as we've already invested billions of tax dollars in the supposed war for terrorism, it would be a complete waste of that money and the lives lost overseas to just pull out as a cheap political crowd-pleaser statement.

First, I'd like to mention that Ron Paul has not chosen his stance on regarding Iraq to be a crowd pleaser. He voted against the war before we even invaded the country, so that claim is invalid. In addition, why should we continue to waste billions of dollars and thousands of lives? At this point, we are only trying to save face. It has been made apparent that do not have anything near a complete understanding of how politics work in the Middle East. Even Ronald Reagan stressed the fact that attempting to grasp their ideals was pointless.

anyone who is proposing that has no sense of reality and is simply making a wuss-out statement to get votes from the ignorant masses of people who are blindly shouting for an instant removal of u.s. troops that would only destabilize the area further.

Once again, I would like to state that Ron Paul is in no way, wussing out. He has a very consistent voting record regarding the invasion of Iraq. He was in Congress when Clinton was in office, and even then he voted against any proposal regarding the bombing and invasion of Iraq. Therefor, his stance is not a some gimmick to garner supporters, it is his personal stance on the issue, and has been for nearly a decade, or even longer if you look in to his stance on foreign policy as a whole. Still, I would like to know what you propose the benefits of staying in Iraq are? With that, I might be able to provide a better answer.

OK guys, how is my rebuttal? What should I change/add/take away?

Or is all hope lost for this guy?

[torchbearer]

You can't save them all.... it is his responsibility to take in the info you are giving him, and think about it openly. IF he does not, which he probably won't... i don't think word smithing will matter much.

[sugaki]

Well I'm still on the fence as far as withdrawing from the area, but one thing I'd point out is that opposing the war was unpopular only 3-4 years ago. It's only recently that opposing the war was the "cool thing" to do for politicians. Aka Hillary Clinton.

So Ron Paul hasn't been selling out. He's been clear and honest, even when it was the unpopular thing to do.

[Austin]

So I'm assuming what I've said is sufficient, but if he still wants to make arguments that hold no weight, I should let him go and focus on another person?

[micahnelson]

We can't afford the war in Iraq, let alone any other middle eastern wars. Please look at our economic standings.

We are going to lose our empire, we can either do a controlled demolition or a collapse.

[beerista]

It's a good start. He really didn't give you much to work with. He just made a couple of unqualified statements. So far, his argument is just that he wants to throw good money (and other people's blood) after bad for some ill-defined reason. Once you find out what that reason is, you'll have the better answers all around.
Your approach is good: answer what he's given you and ask him to back up his position. Hopefully, this is someone you can have an exchange with and you can answer him further if he has anything further to add.
Keep us updated on the conversation. The next exchange should be interesting.

[DaronWestbrooke]

The war is just a way to enrich corporations. It is bogus.

[bbachtung]

Your friend has all of the classic signs of a compulsive gambler.

He insists on throwing good money (and lives) after bad because he's "invested" so much already and doesn't want to "waste" that investment.

He thinks that he is just one more hand away from recouping his losses.

He won't listen to reason.

Ask him if he had a stock that he'd bought for $100 per share and news broke that the company was a mess and would likely be bankrupt within the year whether he would sell that stock as quickly as he could to cut his losses or whether he'd stubbornly hold on until the bitter end to avoid losing money.

[beerista]

Your friend has all of the classic signs of a compulsive gambler.

Interesting observation. I like that.

[Zarxrax]

We cant stop the crime on our own streets, so how can we possibly hope to stop it in a foreign country where its far worse?

[pcosmar]

Well I'm still on the fence as far as withdrawing from the area, but one thing I'd point out is that opposing the war was unpopular only 3-4 years ago. It's only recently that opposing the war was the "cool thing" to do for politicians. Aka Hillary Clinton.

So Ron Paul hasn't been selling out. He's been clear and honest, even when it was the unpopular thing to do.

Yes , he opposed the war even before Bush was elected.
It was planed that far back.
It has nothing to do with being popular, It has to do with right and wrong.

[Austin]

Alright, I talked to him in person some more today. He now realizes that Ron Paul is not opposing the war as a gimmick to gain supporters. I think by explaining this it also helped plant the seed of his consistent voting record. Once again, he stated that he was against the war in Iraq, but he sees it all as a waste if we leave now.

I asked him what the benefit of us staying is, and he said democracy. I said that we will never understand Middle Eastern politics, and that we will not be able to force democracy. Another friend backed me up on that. He also stated that if we "just leave" we are going to leave the country in a state of anarchy. I said that it would have to work itself out, because, like I said before, it will be impossible for us to force our views on them. Also, when he brought up the suicide bombers and whatnot, I came back with the fact that us being over there is half of the reason why Al-Qaeda is doing the things they are doing. I really think that the things I have said are beginning to sink in, because he is a bit more civil about it now. I think with just a bit more talking and fact-stating he will be converted.

Do you guys have anything else I can say to combat the "just leaving would result in anarchy" statement?

On a good note, I was able to convert another person today. I talked about how Dr. Paul was against subsidizing and what his thoughts are concerning the economy. His response to the subsidizing issue was "Wow, I'll probably vote for him just for that."

+1, up to 7 now.

[beerista]

Alright, I talked to him in person some more today. He now realizes that Ron Paul is not opposing the war as a gimmick to gain supporters. I think by explaining this it also helped plant the seed of his consistent voting record. Once again, he stated that he was against the war in Iraq, but he sees it all as a waste if we leave now.

I asked him what the benefit of us staying is, and he said democracy. I said that we will never understand Middle Eastern politics, and that we will not be able to force democracy. Another friend backed me up on that. He also stated that if we "just leave" we are going to leave the country in a state of anarchy. I said that it would have to work itself out, because, like I said before, it will be impossible for us to force our views on them. Also, when he brought up the suicide bombers and whatnot, I came back with the fact that us being over there is half of the reason why Al-Qaeda is doing the things they are doing. I really think that the things I have said are beginning to sink in, because he is a bit more civil about it now. I think with just a bit more talking and fact-stating he will be converted.

Do you guys have anything else I can say to combat the "just leaving would result in anarchy" statement?

On a good note, I was able to convert another person today. I talked about how Dr. Paul was against subsidizing and what his thoughts are concerning the economy. His response to the subsidizing issue was "Wow, I'll probably vote for him just for that."

+1, up to 7 now.

I admit that it's a bit of a semantic argument but, as for anarchy, we can just call that our parting gift to them. Anarchy is a lack of a governing structure. Compare this to the brutal dictatorship they lived under before. Certainly, if there is a driving passion in that land to live under a democratic system, it will be easier for them to achieve starting with anarchy than with Saddam. You're welcome, Iraq. Good night.

The argument about democracy is a strange (but common) one. If we are to define democracy as the exercise of the will of the people and if we are to pretend that we actually respect democracy, then we have to leave. They overwhelmingly want us gone. By what twisted logic do we claim to want to install a democracy in Iraq and then refuse to leave when asked?

This attitude that many Americans have about Iraq was understandable in 2002 when most didn't know where it was (even though we'd just fought a war there a decade previously) and when most thought our dealings with the country began in the first Gulf War. It shouldn't take a whole lot of research into our dealings in the region spanning 50 years or so to figure out that we've created a lot of our own problems. To quote Einstein (generally considered a pretty bright guy), "You can't solve a problem with the same thinking that caused it." So, once someone realizes how blowback is generated, to call for more of the same is not the height of reason.

[pcosmar]

We would not be leaving them in Anarchy. They have a Tribal rule government. We have tried to promote "democracy", which they have no concept of.
They had a strong man rule, they will go back to a strong man rule. The warlords will battle between themselves, (they are now) and one or two will come out on top. Thats how they have done things for a thousand years. We won't change it by giving them our "democracy" and our leaders.
They will work it out themselves.

[ShowMeLiberty]

I've recently used these arguments:

1) Can we realistically expect to enforce peach and goodwill with bombs and occupation? How would you feel if some other country were doing it to us? Think about that - honestly. Would you, your friends, your neighbors, quietly submit or do you think there would be shouts of "live free or die!" echoing through the night?

2) I don't believe you can separate domestic and foreign policy. It's a package deal. Let's look at it in terms of money (a subject on which Ron Paul has very clear, well-reasoned views).

According to the Washington Post ...
Even if a gradual troop withdrawal begins this year, war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to rise by an additional $371 billion during the phaseout, the report said, citing a Congressional Budget Office study. When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War.

We're already going broke. The Associated Press just reported that the Fed pumped $41 Billion new dollars into US Financial System - all printed out of thin air of course, thereby decreasing the real value of each of those dollars.

Investor Warren Buffett is just one of many who no longer feel safe investing in the US Dollar. "Charles Merrill Fears Market Crash" was just reported last week.

Also from about a week ago: Dollar Hits New Low on Fed Speculation.

If this continues, it won't matter what our foreign policy is because we won't have the money to do anything. Not to feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, care for the sick, educate our children - much less go invading other countries. We're borrowing money from China, among other nations, to keep funding this madness. And they are all too happy to go on lending because that gives them leverage they would never get otherwise.

[Austin]

Alright, thanks for the responses guys. After the discussion we had earlier today and the transaction of emails.. this is his latest response.


the simple, hard truth is this:
we're IN iraq.
it doesn't matter who voted against it or for it, cause it happened anyways.
doesn't matter whether you support the war or completely protest it.
the war isn't going to be won.
your right, we don't understand middle eastern politics and we're bullshitting ourselves silly if we think we can just run into a foreign land with a totally different culture and make our systems and ideals work for it.
what needs to happen is called damage control.
we have to figure out a way to end our unwanted interference in the middle east that won't hurt the iraqi's (and other middle eastern countries affected) more than we did when we ran in there the first time.

so basically what i'm looking for from a presidential candidate is someone whose solution isn't just duck and run.
we need to slowly withdraw AFTER we've put some form of government- be it democracy, military rule, communism, i don't care- in place.
otherwise the country will just dissolve into a terror state run by people like muqtada al-sadr.

For his second comment, I can refer to pcosmar's post, which states that they already have a tribal government. However, we would probably state back that we cannot guarantee that this will happen, and then go back to the fact that we need to leave them in good shape. Help. xD

I still think that he is on the fence, and teaching him will convince him to make a jump to our side. Any other assistance would be deeply appreciated!

[Zarxrax]

I can certainly see the argument that since we went in, we have some kind of responsibility to fix what we broke.

But look at the facts. Most of the Iraqi people said they want us out! The people who were elected to government in Iraq have said they want us out!

The only logical way to help them, is to get out!