HELP! How to argue against "Iraq Collapse"?

[kmforpaul]

My fellow Patriots,

I have been working very hard on my peers and teachers about Ron Paul and his true conservative/libertarian policies. Whenever I argue his forte, leaving Iraq and non-interventionism, my audience asks a question that is difficult for me to answer: "What about the moral obligation we have in Iraq / wouldn't Iraq fall apart?"

Does anyone have an effective way to work an answer that not only makes them understand non-interventionism, but instill faith in Dr. Paul as well?

[ross11988]

I get the same question. I would also like a good response

[apc3161]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8SULV8O0

Read that article...

Another good thing you can mention is this:

Under Saddam, there was no violence because he just wouldn't permit it. When you look at the south where the British are leaving, private militias are beginning to restore order. For instance Al-Sadr and his militia (enemy of the US) has actually stabilized the south even without the british there.

Right now these people think they are being occupied (which they are). When we leave, their main enemy will also be gone, and they will work on restoring order. Look at whats happening in the south now that the british are backing out.

Read this:

"We call on all Sadrists to observe self-restraint, to help security forces control the situation and arrest the perpetrators and sedition mongers, and urge them to end all forms of armament in the sacred city," said the statement, referring to the August 28 clashes in Karbala. Asked if the unexpected order meant no attacks on American troops, as well as a ban on Shia infighting, a senior al-Sadr aide said: "All kinds of armed actions are to be frozen, without exception." [33]

And when he said he wanted all violence to end, it pretty much did. The Iraqi government is a corrupt useless piece of crap, but the people and militias can take care of themselves. When we leave, some of them might duke it out for awhile, but at the end of the day, we are the main target. If we leave, it will be fine.

Oh one last point, this is great evidence against the idea that the surge is "working". The only reason the surge is working is because the militias have temporarily created a ceasefire. However you don't hear to much about that on the news. As long as we are there, this peace is only temporary.

[RoyalShock]

I think RP in his answer during one of the debates said that areas where we've basically pulled out appear to be doing just fine from a violence standpoint. The leadership in those areas may not be what Bush wants, but that shouldn't be the issue.

Or, you could turn the tables and ask them what their evidence is that chaos would ensue. That can get some people to re-evaluate their assumptions, but for others it may not play so well.

[Steve4RP]

I would say that the area is less stable because we are there. While the 'surge' is seeing some results it is likely only temporary as our presence in Iraq alone give terrorist a recruiting call.

[noztnac]

We have a moral obligation to leave now. Our staying does more harm than good. Eventually they will have to make their own way forward. We are only postponing the inevitible by staying.

[nunaem]

I like when Ron Paul says that the neo-cons predicting a collapse if we leave have been wrong on every other prediction made. WMD's, cake-walk, greeted as liberators, the war paid for by oil revenues all have been predictions that turned out wrong.

[kevinblack]

How about we ask the Iraquis what they want?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
"A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, "

The only Iraquis that want us there are the ones that are fleecing Bush silly:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129489,00.html

"A soon-to-be-released audit will show that at least $8.8 billion in Iraqi money that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for,"

[Andrew-Austin]

1. Who cares we have better things to worry about at home
2. Vietnam stabled out just fine after we left

[jrcasey]

I'm actually writing my final paper in Ethics about the Iraq "obligation".

I'm approaching the question from the standpoint of Ayn Rand, who has a lot of the same philosophy as Paul. I'm going to set up a foundation of moral principles (ration egoism and Objectivism)--actions that benefit the self and promote life are good, actions which either primarily benefit others or hinder life are evil.

Then I will reference Bin Laden and Michael Scheuer who talk about why the violence in Iraq is occurring and why terrorism will remain even if we stay in Iraq. The point is made that our national security is actually compromised and in danger because of our Middle Eastern foreign policy and lack of border control.

Then the question is raised as to who benefits from us being in Iraq. We are there to protect American lives, but the contrary is true. We are risking lives, not only soldiers. If the Iraqis benefit, then we are practicing altruism, which Rand argues is immoral.

From here I could make a point that we are receiving "saving face" reputation, and according to Rand, reputation is a second-handers value (The Fountainhead) and should not be a primary value. Thus staying in Iraq is amoral.

Or I can say that no values greater than or equal to the actual and potential loss of life are to be gained by remaining in Iraq. Rand claims that a sacrifice is the act of giving up a value or a lesser or no value, therefore contradicts human life (the choice to obtain values), and is thus immoral.

[Goldwater Conservative]

British troops pulled out of Basra (Iraq's second largest city) a few months back and violence dropped by 90%. Why? They had been the target all along.

The same people who talk about Iraq collapsing are those who said it would be cheap, easy, quick, and with few lives lost. Now it's been over 20 times as expensive as initially predicted (and growing), taken almost 5 years with still no end in sight (even the Dems are saying it'll take at least 5 more years), and we've lost nearly 4000 soldiers with thousands more severely injured.

The same people who talk about Iraq collapsing are those who changed the mission from finding WMDs, to humanitarianism (despite there being far worse humanitarian crises elsewhere in the world), to democratization, to fighting terrorists (despite there being far more terrorists now than there were before, and far fewer terrorists then than there were within the borders of our allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan), to ensuring a certain balance of power in the region (despite having been stable before the occupation).

The same people who talk about Iraq collapsing are those who now tell us Iran is a threat because they're building nuclear weapons, despite their own intelligence (which they swore on just a few years earlier when invading Iraq) saying the exact opposite, which they knew even as they very publicly rattled the saber and which they're spinning 180 degrees to support their argument (and you know they would have said "told you so" had it actually fit their preferred policy).

Yeah, let's keep trusting these people.

[partypooper]

a collective can not have a moral obligation. bush & co. and whoever else feels like they are guilty might have a moral obligation to iraqi people and they are free to go there and help them with whatever. the american people, as a collective, do not have and cannot have something as a 'moral obligation' towards anything.

[Spirit of '76]

Just today an interview with Dick Cheney came out in which he said that Iraq will be self-suficient and ready to defend itself by January of 2009.

That means that by the time Ron Paul takes office we will have no reason to be in Iraq.

[benhaskins]

ron paul's response is that more can be achieved in peace than in war.

[Shellshock1918]

My fellow Patriots,

I have been working very hard on my peers and teachers about Ron Paul and his true conservative/libertarian policies. Whenever I argue his forte, leaving Iraq and non-interventionism, my audience asks a question that is difficult for me to answer: "What about the moral obligation we have in Iraq / wouldn't Iraq fall apart?"


It would not have fallen apart if we had not have gone there. That responsibility lies with the idiots that took us there, not on Americans and soldiers.

Also-WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!! This military adventurism is bankrupting us. It has got to stop.

[apc3161]

Just today an interview with Dick Cheney came out in which he said that Iraq will be self-suficient and ready to defend itself by January of 2009.

That means that by the time Ron Paul takes office we will have no reason to be in Iraq.

He said that in 2004...Remember the Bush vs. Kerry election?

[hasan]

My fellow Patriots,

I have been working very hard on my peers and teachers about Ron Paul and his true conservative/libertarian policies. Whenever I argue his forte, leaving Iraq and non-interventionism, my audience asks a question that is difficult for me to answer: "What about the moral obligation we have in Iraq / wouldn't Iraq fall apart?"

Does anyone have an effective way to work an answer that not only makes them understand non-interventionism, but instill faith in Dr. Paul as well?

Moral obligation?? What could be more immoral than whats going on right now? People dying by the dozens everyday as a direct result of the US intervention. It's arrogant to assume that the US is keeping peace in Iraq because violence has risen only after the US occupied Iraq. Iraq would not fall apart at all and I would site Vietnam as I am sure Ron Paul would as an example. Vietnam now has one of the strongest economies in South East Asia. I am sure the US prolonged its stay in VIetnam thinking that it would fall apart otherwise and is making the same mistake even now. The US has no moral obligation other than getting out of Iraq which it had entered illegally. I am sure my argument is harsh but it is the truth. If you want a softer argument than cite the Vietnam war as mentioned above.

[michaelwise]

My fellow Patriots,

I have been working very hard on my peers and teachers about Ron Paul and his true conservative/libertarian policies. Whenever I argue his forte, leaving Iraq and non-interventionism, my audience asks a question that is difficult for me to answer: "What about the moral obligation we have in Iraq / wouldn't Iraq fall apart?"

Does anyone have an effective way to work an answer that not only makes them understand non-interventionism, but instill faith in Dr. Paul as well?When the British troops left Basra in Iraq, violence went down 90%. In Angola, the murderous Islamic radicals were driven out by a sane population. The same thing will happen when we leave Iraq.

[Spirit of '76]

He said that in 2004...Remember the Bush vs. Kerry election?

Yeah, but here he is saying it now...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7227.html

One would think that would silence those who say Iraq will fall apart if we elect Ron Paul.

Of course, they'll just say we'll still need to stay on the offensive in the War on Turr.

[hasan]

When the British troops left Basra in Iraq, violence went down 90%. In Angola, the murderous Islamic radicals were driven out by a sane population. The same thing will happen when we leave Iraq.

Site your sources michaelwise. its no good to spread baseless opinions like that. the muslims themselves are a very small minority in angola. the civil war in angola was caused by several factions and none of the large ones had any islamist agendas. i agree with your observation that violence in iraq went down when the british troops left but as for the second sentence it is simply not true

[Pharoah]

If the Chinese invaded and occupied the USA and were debating whether leaving would lead to a collapse, what would Americans say to the Chinese? Now ask yourselves what Iraqis would say to Americans.

[manny]

They said the same thing about Vietnam and the spread of socialism. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

Most of all it comes down to neo-cons not understanding nationhood. There is nothing rational about nationhood, it is an emotional part of our make-up. It doesn't matter if American troops turn Iraq into a utopia with law, roads, hospitals and a stable democracy; unfortunately to the Iraqis the US soldiers are considered to be invaders. It matters not how much good the soldiers do - and many are making a heroic effort, it is their presence there that causes the problem.

And when people talk of collapse - well that's what will happen to America if war-fuelled debts continue to rise as they are doing and, often because the guys who should be watching the border are now in Iraq, huge parts of the USA are to be turned into Mexican areas. The first duty of elected politicians is to guard against preventable evils: These are the evils facing America - and for politicans to waste American lives in Iraq means they will be allowing a very real collapse in the USA.

[hambone1982]

Most people that use that excuse won't agree with you no matter what you tell them. My advise is to work on them with other issues that you know they might agree with.

I had a very good friend at work that felt the same way. He was also 100% convinced that every Muslim in the Arab world desired the death of every infidel-American on earth.

I didn't convince him to support Ron Paul by attacking the Iraq War or the War on Terror. I convinced him to support Ron Paul by talking about how the Republican party has become the party of Big Government while the Democrats have graduated to the level of HUGE Government. I went attacked the "lessor of two evils" approach and convinced him that it is the duty of Republicans to vote in the Primaries for the best Republican candidate that will significantly reduce the size of the federal government. This should be the first goal of all conservatives. There is no arguing with Dr. Paul's conservative record.

The key is to get them to agree with you and Dr. Paul on several other issues first - then attack the issues in which they disagree with Dr. Paul.

When I say "attack the issues" I mean use logic to support Dr. Paul's position - don't be mean to them ;-).

[Lacrosseus]

We have a moral obligation to leave now. Our staying does more harm than good. Eventually they will have to make their own way forward. We are only postponing the inevitible by staying.
The current lull in violence was well planned by the Bush Administration. They sold out to Al Sadr -- by giving his militia control of big chunks of Iraq, and discontinuing their attempts to arrest/kill him. In return he instituted a 6 month halt to his militia activity in Baghdad and other parts of the country not controlled by his groups.

With that said, there is still a lot of violence -- still a lot of Americans being killed and wounded. The press is just not covering it.

Dr. Paul started to talk about this in the last debate and then stopped almost mid-sentence. If I were him, I would have played the administrations game and used it to make a point. Dr. Paul says if congress declares war, as President he would make the commitment necessary to WIN. I have not heard him mention the Powell doctrine, of overwhelming force, but I would tend to believe that is close to his position.

If all it took were 30,000 more troops to bring calm to Iraq -- why didn't this administration do this 4 years ago? 3,000 American lives -- 10,000's wounded, many permanent. 100.000's of Iraqis killed. Trillions spent... and most of this could have been avoided by simply increasing troop strength by 30,000 -- or 20%

I would be pounding McCain and the other war mongers with their total incompetence over the last four years....

[JordanL]

1. Who cares we have better things to worry about at home
2. Vietnam stabled out just fine after we left

That's not the way I would phrase it. I dated a Vietnamese girl for two years... Vietnam didn't "stable out just fine" for the people there.

That was an entirely different situation.