|
Anon coward - you seem to have a problem. It doesn't appear that you understand the very basis of the war debate. The debate is about whether the benefits exceed the costs. You think you've scored a 'hit' by quoting John Howard asserting (without even a structured argument, let alone evidence) that the benefits will exceed the costs. Let me clarify for you - an assertion is not an argument. Here's Howard several assertions: "Now, in the case of Iraq, the potential cost of doing nothing is clearly much greater than the cost of doing something." "In other words doing nothing about Iraq, potentially, is much more costly than using force" "The cost of doing nothing is infinitely greater than the cost of acting." Despite Howard's confusion as to how certain the net benefit is (potentially, clearly or infinitely greater), he doesn't back up his statements with much. He uses the humanitarian argument that Saddam treats his people badly (and will continue to). He mentions the possibility that Saddam will attack other countries. He says that if Iraq gets away with WMDs then other countries will try to also. Finally, he says it will increase the liklihood of terrorists getting the weapons (to be fair, he states this part of his argument very appropriately and honestly - kudos to him). Each of these arguments are old and I've already addressed them. Instead of re-quoting old arguments, why don't you try to catch up with the debate? My answers are, respectively: I don't believe it's the role of my government to be the world's moral enforcer (you can feel free to pay to do this yourself if you want to); Saddam is not going to invade Australia; by bombing Iraq and not Iran & Nth Korea (who actually have nuclear programs, this campaign may _encourage_ (not discourage) rougue states to get nucs; and finally - I cede the last point as true. However, I don't believe this benefit exceeds the costs. Further, I see little evidence for the need for this to be done now. Just like Kyoto, we lose very little by waiting a bit longer and checking our facts. Howard's argument does not consider costs except to admit that there is a "potential cost" and "military action will involve casualties". Giving more details about potential benefits and largely ignoring costs is an obvious arguing style used to convince the likes of 'anon coward' who want to be convinced - but it's not actually productive. Howard goes on to talk about the credability of the UN. Three things. First - I don't care. Scrap the UN. They're a joke. Secondly, the UN credability is shot if they simply do whatever the US tells them under the threat of the US ignoring them. Third, countries around the world have ignored the UN for years. Israel is the most obvious example (they are in violation of many resolutions currently). I miss it when smart pro-war people used to put forward their arguments. Tex? Strawman? Stephen Dawson? Alex Robson? Macfarlane? Please - somebody jump in and help 'anon coward' coz they certainly need it...
| 
