Straw Man #1 (as in, Marlowe is arguing against MARLOWE's OWN POSITION and NOT that of any anti-war protesters): "It's America's fault for having supported Saddam in the first place!"

The Real Argument: The specific individuals (Rumsfeld, Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) who lead the call to war by citing Saddam's evil actions are the same individuals who actively and physically supported the same evil actions (and this support was protested against by the same left liberal peaceniks protesting the current war). We now know that this support extended further than was believed: 60 United States agents were on the ground in the Iran-Iraq war and in the Iraqi planning rooms directing Iraqi chemical weapons fire against Iranian cities. It is hypocritical for the same evil people who encouraged and personally participated in Saddam's evilness to later condemn Saddam's actions without admitting their own part in it. Since they are not willing to make this admission and instead actively lie about their past by suggesting it never happened, their new claims about Iraq are probably not trustworthy. Further, since they have no problem with evil dictators and have given little suggestion of the make-up of a new Iraqi government, there is reason to doubt their commitment to Iraqi democracy and their ability to quickly end hostilities by creating a new government accepted by the people. Since Mission Accomplished, we've seen a banning of all municipal elections and there's still no government.

So, specific issues:
* These bastards can't be trusted, so they might be lying about Iraq's WMD - Winner: Doves
* They don't really support democracy - Winner: Doves
* They're too dumb to set up a government and finish the war in <2mo - Winner: Doves


Issue: "We should have let the UN handle it!"
Since the UN's establishment, the traditionally accepted (that is, conservative) state of affairs is for the UN to mediate international affairs. This is especially true as regards a treaty where the UN is one party, a country is the second party, and another country wanting to invade that country is no party to the treaty.
The oil-for-food program turned into an unregulated free-for-all, with every country (including the United States) subverting it to lap up as much cheap oil as possible and not caring how many of the profits went to Saddam's military. This was known by both hawks and doves; generally, the hawk solution was to cut off the oil and food while the dove solution was to end the blockade on food and medicine and to donate food.
Inspectors were sent into Iraq and given about a month and a half and no intelligence to search the county. The United States actively hampered the search by throwing up diplomatic roadblocks, giving bad intelligence, and witholding claimed good intelligence (which it now turns out the US never had). The inspectors came back, after destroying lots of conventional missiles, saying that Iraq was holding stuff back from them and they'd find it with more time. Instead, the United States invaded and found out that Iraq did not actually have any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or production programs.

Specific issues:
* The 1991 treaty needs to be enforced - Winner: Hawks
* The oil-for-food program is funding Iraq's military - Winner: Both
* The UN inspectors would sufficiently restrict Iraq's WMD capabilities without the need for an invasion - Winner: Doves

Marlowe Claim: It's Not About The Oil

Marlowe cites himself for this, making it another case of Marlowe versus Reality. Marlowe's piece cites Operation Desert Storm and concludes that if you invade another country to seize its oil, you will incur a high cost as the US invades you in response and places you under an embargo; thereforce, another nation whose power exceedes the US's by the factor which the US's exceeded Iraq's in 1991 has by now invaded the United States, destroyed its armed forces, bombed its larger cities, and put an embargo in place.

In reality we see US forces in Iraq rush to seize the oil fields while ignoring suspected WMD sites, known WMD scientists, etc. We see Iraq's top nuclear scientist lobby US officials for a month before they consider investigating him. We also see huge contracts being granted, without bidding, to Bush's largest campaign contributors, leaving three likely choices: It Was All About Oil, It Was All About Getting Bush Elected in 2004, or a little of both.


Straw Man #2: "Saddam didn't support terrorism!"

The Real Argument: "Saddam didn't support al Qaeda!". Given that Iraq and al Qaeda were at war and OBL had a hell of a time figuring out which side he hated more before deciding on bloodlines and telling his terrorists to fight against the United States first and overthrow the Baathists when they were done, this is a valid argument. Meanwhile, terrorists linked to al Qaeda are fighting against Fatah in Lebanon.

Specific issues:
* We need to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere - Winner: Doves
* There is no connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks - Winner: Doves
* If Ansar is a threat we can blow 'em up without touching Saddam - Winner: Doves

Issue: "The Iraqi people hate us as foreign invaders!"

US forces are getting shot at every day, so somebody hates them. Chances are they're people, and given the location, they're probably Iraqi. Rumsfeld is on record saying that this is all random acts of violence committed by former prisoners released from Saddam's dungeons and killing random people because they're, well, they're just plain evil or else Saddam would never have thrown them in jail.

There are three major tribal/political groups in Iraq. The Shiites generally like the US for getting rid of Saddam, but are concerned about the delay of democracy (which would grant them a dictatorship). The Sunnis were favoured by Saddam and most of his loyalists are from/in this group. The Kurds love the US for holding to their word this time and getting rid of Saddam and Ansar.

Specific issues:
* There will be a temporary armed resistance we should prepare for - Winner: Doves
* We need to quickly establish services so the people don't get uppity - Winner: Indeterminate
* All Iraqis love the invasion! - Winner: Doves
* Nobody's shooting at US forces - Winner: Doves


Marlowe Claim: Rachel Corrie has anything to do with Iraq

Reality: No she doesn't.


Marlowe Claim: Since one of the BBC's witnesses is mistaken about whether blanks were used in PFC Lynch's rescue, everything the Pentagon said about Lynch was fully accurate.

Reality: From numerous reports, Lynch's wounds and those of the other passengers in her vehicle are consistent with what would be received from a bad traffic accident, say from being forced off the road or swerving to avoid fire. Lynch was not shot. Lynch was not stabbed. Lynch did not empty her gun's magazine into oncoming forces after receiving half an armoury to the gut. All this proves is that the Pentagon is a bunch of liars, which is not earth-shattering but should not be tolerated.


Marlowe Claim: An Article Which Does Not Cite The BBC Automatically Proves All BBC Reporting False

Reality: There was good reporting and bad reporting in Iraq, mostly the latter kind. Some of the most atrocious reporting was from Americans who needlessly praised the troops and administration as if they were themselves a part of the invasion. Every organization had good and bad reports and reporters, and you had to take them one at a time.


Marlowe Claim: There Are No Humanitarian Problems In Iraq And Never Were

Reality: Quick work by USAID, USMil, and NGOs fixed many things. The power grid is still shaky, sewer systems are out in a few places, and there are regions wwhere food and/or water are scarce. The US was going into a place that already was a humanitarian disaster. It is not going to be fixed instantly or even after a few months, but will require long-term commitment.


Marlowe Claim: Since Hospitals Are Now Well Supplied By NGOs, There Never Was Any Need For Outside Organizations Like NGOs To Supply Them

I can't explain this one.


Issue: The Museum Looting

Facts so far:
* Initial reports were extremely exaggerated
* Current reports count 6,000 items missing, many returned items damaged
* The Iraqi National Library was totally destroyed



Marlowe Claim: Since Few Civilians Were Killed In One Battle, Fewer Than 1,000 Civilians Were Killed In The Whole War

Reality: Conservative estimates are about 3,000 civilian and 8,000 military dead for the war. Liberal estimates start at about 8,000 civilian dead. In any case, it was a non-zero number.


Marlowe Claim: Bush Didn't Lie Because.... Hey, Look Over There!

Reality: Bush said he didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. Cheney said that Iraq HAD nukes already. Bush said that an IAEA report said that Iraq would have nukes within six months from last September, and the IAEA said he was lying. Bush said in his State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger, citing a document that the Vice President's office had known was a forgery for over a year. Rumsfeld said we know exactly where the weapons are. Now this last Wednesday, Bush personally admitted that the United States had NO INTELLIGENCE WHATSOEVER on Iraq's NBC/WMD programs that did not predate Operation Desert Fox, the 1998 bombing of all of Iraq's suspected NBC/WMD facilities. Instead, the Office of Special Plans took the worst-case scenario from this previous information, assumed that nothing was disrupted in 1998, and then assumed that Iraq was running full production for the past five years, and then exaggerated that since it wasn't shocking enough.


Marlowe Claim: Some People Who Didn't Support the 1998 Bombing Are Dumbasses, Therefore All People Who Don't Support The Invasion Are Dumbasses

Reality: Marlowe is a dumbass.


Marlowe Claim: Pwhysall Is A Dumbass, Therefore The Invasion Is Correct

Reality: UNR1441 does not allow any third party to go off and invade Iraq, but threatens to hold a meeting in which the UN may decide to invade. Such a meeting never happened. The United States promised to abide by the resolution. The US lied.


Marlowe Claim: We Won The War

Okay, then, bring the troops home.

[link|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/02/national1203EDT0568.DTL|Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat. Such a threat that my predecessor, using the same intelligence in 1998, ordered a bombing of Iraq. I mean, so -- he was a threat.]

- George Walker Bush, July 2, 2003

And [link|http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/6232524.htm|here's some evidence to back up Bush's statement], and [link|http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_062603B.shtml|a CIA vet's statements on the intelligence breakdown].

You suck. Pttttthb! =P


Now back to my own style, how about you admitting that:

• Terrorists who are not members of al Qaeda are not members of the al Qaeda organization


• Other people's positions are not necessarily my own


• Bush claimed Saddam was building nukes, Cheney said Saddam had already "reconstituted" nukes, and we have so far found no evidence of nuke production or ownership in Iraq


• The "war on terror" is not truly a war against terrorism or else Bush would have gone after the low-hanging fruit of Kahanists in Brooklyn and the IRA supporters in Boston, not to mention have had his father strung up and shot on the first day, and would not have sucked up to Yasser Arafat for the first year and a half of the "war on terror" or protected Qaeda-allied Chechen terrorists in Georgia


• If the war in Iraq has nothing to do with WMDs and is just about Saddam being an evil dictator who massacred his own people, Bush should be removed from office for gross incompetence and mismanagement of military resources in occupying such a large part of the army in a campaign that only minimally effects the US's strategic interests while North Korea is building nukes for use against the United States and its allies