The Way to Debate Iraq

The Futurist ^ | 2-10-07 | Unknown

[TruthFactor]

This is an article I could have written a long time ago. I refrained in order to let fatigue diminish the visibility of the vicious anti-US fifth column (8-10% of the US population), which to a large extent, has happened. Applying true Sun-Tzu tactics, their exhausted state is the perfect time for a counterattack.

If you don't believe that an anti-US fifth column exists in America, read these voluntarily written articles from some very well-known blogs :

Daily Kos, The Left Coaster, Daily Kos again, and the comments here.

There is a significant percentage of the US population that does not want the US to win in Iraq (and will deny the existence of victory when we achieve it by 2008). Some because they have always hated America (fifth-columnists), others simply because they hate President Bush so much that they want to discredit him even if it means harming America (Bush Derangement Syndrome), and yet others because it is a socially fashionable opinion to hold, and they need to conform to the groupthink of their clique (fashion sheep).

You can win debates against all of them easily, by debating them on principle, which they are usually not confronted on, and observing their willingness to offer constructive ideas.

Here are some examples of common one-liners (in italics) and possible responses you could wield (in bold) :

[ClaireSolt]

I am tired of the same old same old. Let's just arrest them and detain them, instead.

[TheRobb7]

How to Debate Iraq:

1. Kill the enemy

2. Win the War

3. Then, and only then, bring our troops home.

4. End of debate :)

[dynoman]

It's uncanny, I've used nearly all of your arguments, been there done that, it will work only if the person you are arguing with is honest.

The lack of honesty is the fatal flaw of many leftists. It is a fatal flaw because one needs honesty to diagnose dishonesty.

See my homepage.

I've argued those exact points with a highly educated Brits with a 150+ IQ. That guy was the WORST for being dishonest and blindered to anything but his own opinion.

One argument I did make some headway with was the one that faults the US for violating Iraq's sovereignty.

I asked;

Can a dictatorship hold a valid moral claim on state sovereignty?

Doesn’t a dictatorship’s violation of individual sovereignty render any claim of state sovereignty a moral farce?

Then I quoted Kofi Annan;

"State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples, and not vice versa. At the same time individual sovereignty by which I mean the fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the charter of the UN and subsequent international treaties has been enhanced by a renewed and spreading consciousness of individual rights. When we read the charter today, we are more than ever conscious that its aim is to protect individual human beings, not to protect those who abuse them."

Mr. 150+IQ didn't like that too much and quoted the dictionary definition of sovereignty.

My counter to that was that those who paralyze themselves with the notion a dictatorships have any moral claim to state sovereignty apparently want to stick with the traditional, conservative, way sovereignty has been defined, one that allows a band of thieves to make a whole country their personal killing field, and in the process claim "state sovereignty". Further, these people blinder themselves to the fact these totalitarian dictatorships utterly violate the concept of individual sovereignty and instead offer up the idea of individual sovereignty on the twisted altar of immoral state sovereignty. I argued true “progressives” and "liberals" would do well to consider Kofi’s further comments;

"Any such evolution in our understanding of state sovereignty and individual sovereignty will, in some quarters, be met with distrust, skepticism, even hostility. But it is an evolution that we should welcome. Why? Because, despite its limitations and imperfections, it is testimony to a humanity that cares more - not less - for the suffering in its midst; and a humanity that will do more - and not less - to end it."

I knew these quotes coming from Kofi Annan would "be met with distrust, skepticism, even hostility" and boy were they ever.