The war in Iraq is a highly debated issue; people are going to be voicing their opinions about it even well after it’s over. I support the war in Iraq, despite what others may say. There are some downsides, but the good outweighs the bad. I mean look at what we’ve done so far, we’ve taken down one of the most brutal tyrants, Saddam Hussein. Saddam has been known to torture anyone that came in the way of his tyranny. He has been known to torture kids in front of their family and torture others through starvation, mutilation, and rape. If we have reason to believe that this sick and twisted man has connections to weapons of mass destruction why should we wait around until we’re all incinerated? Or let any other terrorist for that matter come close to these weapons? We should be thankful that our soldiers are in the Middle East and were able to take some of the fear out of the hearts of many.
Another major reason why this war is a must is because of the horror that was inflicted in America on September 11th. There is no doubt that the hardworking Americans in those towers were strategically and brutally killed by Al Qaeda. People were forced to commit suicide to avoid burning alive, families lost beloved family members, and the whole country was turned upside down. We were personally attacked; why wouldn’t we go to the Middle East and find those who hurt us so we can prevent it happening again? How can America and the UN sit back and allow these horrid acts to happen? We would go against the purpose of the UN and turn it, along with America, into a bunch of people with empty words. If that were to happen, then no other terrorists would hesitate to attack us if they knew no consequences were to occur.
Another major reason why we’re there is because of oil. We need to be involved overseas so that we can obtain oil from the Middle East for many years to come. They have majority of the world’s oil, and if we don’t fight, they’re going to have control on the production and prices for who knows how long. If we get out of this war on top, then we can bring more jobs and money to America through oil. Also, we can further help overseas by being that push towards democracy and teach the country how to help themselves. If we can protect our country and help a country in dire need of organization, why wouldn’t we do it?
Yes people will be killed, and yes it may be expensive, but do we dare leave the situation alone and see if more innocent people get killed through terrorist attacks & Hussein’s terror? Of course not, that’s why we’re there now. And even though we didn’t find Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction we still took down a tyrant that shouldn’t even be considered human for the horrible things he has done to innocent people. Another opposition to the war is that taking down Hussein is allowing the rebel terrorist groups to run free, and there is some truth in that, but that’s why we’re there. We’re not going to leave when it’s messy; we’re there to protect ourselves and the innocent people overseas from further attacks through organization & intimidation. So the next time you think the war was a bad choice, look into the eyes of a soldier that fought for your freedom; look into the eyes of a son who lost his father on 9/11; look into the eyes of the people who were tortured by Saddam for years, and then tell me that this war isn’t worth fighting.
The war in Iraq no doubt one of the most controversial wars America has faced. There are many people that support this war and believe that our troops should be in Iraq. I, for one, believe that we should not be there. Saddam Hussein was a dictator in Iraq. It is said that he did a lot of horrible things to the people of Iraq. There is no proof that he did any of those things to anyone. The only thing we know is that he established control. He ran his country for years and his method worked and people were happy with it until the United States got involved.
A reason that pro-war supports might bring up when arguing for the war is Iraq’s possible relation to al-Qaeda. First and foremost, this has never been proven. Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, had tried and reached out to Iraq from 1991-1994. He wanted to set up training camps in the area and needed assistance getting weapons. Iraq never responded to any of these messages. There have been talks that after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan there was contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Two senior Bin Laden associates have denied any ties that existed between al-Qaeda. There is no credible evidence supporting the fact that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated with each other on the September 11 attached against the United States.
The reason that was given as to why we were in Iraq in the first place was because of suspicion of weapons of mass destruction. We invaded Iraq and we searched everywhere for these weapons. None have been found, and it’s been eight years. I’m sure if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction we would have found them early on. These weapons are not small. They require a lot of space and nothing even remotely close to these have been found in Iraq.
Democracy is a system of government that we have here in America. It works for us. What may work for us, may not work for other countries. America invaded Iraq, took down their leader and established democracy. The U.S. is not the political or economical model for every culture or every political system. Hussein was doing a perfectly fine job running the country. It worked and kept his people safe.
Oil was a reason that was brought up as to why we still occupy Iraq. If you look at the consequences from the war, Iraq is actually producing less oil. It has led to disruptions in the market. Nine months after we invaded Iraq, it was producing less than two-thirds of what is produced before the war. Imagine now, eight years later, it is producing even less than that. Oil is not a reason to still be in Iraq.
U.S. troops have occupied Iraq since 2003. Since then many U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. These civilians were killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because they decided to walk a certain route does not mean they should have died. The soldiers that fight for us have families, husbands, wives, children, mothers, and fathers that they have left behind. Many soldiers miss witnessing the birth of their children, important milestones that they can never get back. They went off to fight for their country when there is no real reason to be there in the first place. These brave men and women belong at home, with their families and people they care about. Not in a foreign country where we do not belong in.
During a war, not everyone is going to be 100% okay with it. There are many people in Iraq that don't want our interference, but there are even more people that were grateful we were there to take down Saddam Hussein. There are numerous accounts and videos of Saddam's cruelty; mass graves have been found and evidence has traced back to him. The people of Iraq were constantly in a state of fear; fear of Saddam and terrorist groups.
The only peace Saddam kept was keeping rebels from taking over Iraq and stealing his hold on the country. Can you say that installing fear and agony in the hearts of your people are good leadership skills? I think not. Under Saddam's rule, one man was put into jail for 22 days for saying "hi" to someone, professors/reporters were arrested and stripped of jobs for their ideas, and the list goes on and on.
As far as al-Quaeda goes, there has been substantial evidence of their activity in Iraq dating back to the mid 1990's and has been increasing since 1998. Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, said that they had "very reliable reporting of senior level contacts...And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al-Qaeda." The government has been collecting evidence for years and with Iraq under the rule of Saddam and other martyr terrorist groups, Iraq was definitely a threat.
Even though we didn't find the weapons that we were seeking, our presence is going to hinder al-Quaeda from obtaining the resources for such weapons. It’s not just nuclear weapons that we should fear, but simple bombs that can be made easily, even in the most desolate places in the Middle East. A simple bomb can be made and strapped to an extremist, set off in a crowded place, and kill hundreds of people all in a matter of hours. Our military forces can prevent these things from happening by finding the leaders of these operations. Without our presence in the Middle East, we won’t be able to put a stop on terrorism.
Yes, not everyone agrees that America trying to set up a democracy overseas is a good idea but we took out Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s leader. We can’t just get rid of a dictator and let the extremists take over; if democracy work for us, then why wouldn’t it work for them? If we have a system that allows for the people to be active and finally have some rights (especially after being oppressed for years), why wouldn’t we teach it to them and give them a better quality of life?
As far as oil goes, it’s a touchy subject and people need to realize it’s not the main reason we’re overseas. Yes, prices are high right now, but it’ll pay off in the long run when the production of oil doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.
Yes many troops were killed and missed out on events back home, but it’s not like they were drafted. They believed in the cause enough to risk their lives for it, and for that we should all be thankful. Yes innocent civilians have been killed, but they were being killed from extremists even before our presence. Ask any soldier that has been overseas what they’ve seen, and I’m sure they’ll have a story that involves twisted terrorists using children as suicide bombers, cars being blow up, and the list goes on. This war is needed to protect the civilians of America and the Middle East from the terror that has been going on for way too long.
Whenever there is a war, usually the country has a legitimate reason to invade another country. When we invaded Iraq, everyone was confused as to why we were invading in the first place. We invaded Iraq in March of 2003; we captured Saddam Hussein in December of that same year. It is now 2011 and our troops are still in Iraq. If Iraq and Hussein were such a big threat than why are we still there even after all this time.
Saddam Hussein might have been bad. We do not know exactly what kind of person he was. What we do know is that he ran the country of Iraq for a long time and for that time it was fine. Even if he installed fear, he ran the country well. He kept the extremists from taking over Iraq. The extremists would be horrible to the people of Iraq. He installed fear and they haven’t tried taking over.
According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States “There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." There is no evidence that al Qaeda members were ever in Iraq.
A reason that the government gives as to why we still occupy Iraq is that it would cause trouble when we leave. U.S troops being in Iraq cause more chaos than us not being there. Now they have rebellions and protest to us being there. If we leave, they can carry on with their lives and not live in constant fear of being attacked.
Setting up a democracy takes a lot of time. Our soldiers would be there for a very long time if they continue setting up a democracy. We do not even know if the democracy would work in Iraq. Just because it works here in the United States doesn’t mean it works everywhere. Setting up a democracy would also take a lot of money. Money that we currently do not have. The United States is in debt as it is. We spend a lot of money to supply our troops in Iraq. We could use some of that money for education and other purposes if we cut down that budget. The allies would also have to help pay to start up the democracy. All the countries have their own budgets and there are always arguments on how much each thing should get. I’m sure no other country would want to cut down their budget to help Iraq.
There are many other places in the world that are going through more difficult things. For example there are genocides going on in Africa. Our troops should be there protecting innocent people from being killed rather than a place where we do not need to be. The soldiers could also be at home with their families. We invaded Iraq with the intention of protecting the people. Now that we’ve been there for eight years and we’ve done our job, I think it’s time to bring our troops home. They need to be home with their loved ones.
To begin, there were some things that I found that could have been supported better on Dhara’s side. Dhara made some points about Saddam Hussein being a leader and that there is no proof of the horrible acts we hear about, and that his methods worked and people were happy with it. But most people would disagree, there is definitely footage out there showing Hussein’s horrible acts, and if people were actually happy about the way Hussein ran his country, then why did civilians tear down his statue after he was captured? With statement’s like this, people might question Dhara’s credibility. People might begin to not trust Dhara’s ability to bring true evidence to the table. Moreover, I feel that Jane made good use of logos. There were some comments where I felt like saying “Wow, that makes so much sense.” For example, when Dhara talked about how soldiers are missing out on important events back at home like births, Jane's rebuttal was saying “Yes many troops were killed and missed out on events back home, but it’s not like they were drafted.” I totally agree with this, these soldiers chose to be there, they wanted to fight for their country, they knew what they were giving up.
War in Iraq In response to Jane’s first post I saw multiple things that stood out to me as positive arguments for being involved in the Iraq war. The first thing I noticed that Jane does in her first post is a heavy usage of pathos in her argument. Jane uses words like “brutal tyrant” to describe Saddam Hussein and references the September 11th attacks by using phrases like “lost beloved family members” in order to appeal to all the American citizens that were affected by the terrorist attacks. Also in Jane’s first post I do disagree with her usage of oil as an argument to fight in the war. The war in Iraq if anything has caused strain on our allied relationship with the world’s oils leader in Saudi Arabia. All together in Jane’s post arguing the positives of the war in Iraq her highlights was the usage of pathos in order to appeal to the emotions of people. In Response to Dhaara’s first post I think she did a good job on implementing facts into her arguments. Dhaara addressed the often misconception that al-Qaeda had alliances or operated with Saddam’s regime. That usage of facts compared to the mostly pathos argument of Jane’s first post gives Dhaara credibility. Dhaara also goes on to address the oil argument proposed by Jane in the first post by using statistics to refute her argument, this is a good job of separating facts from hearsay. I also like how Dhaara ended the post with a little of Pathos of her own by describing the lives of lost soldiers and civilians who innocently lost her lives. In Jane’s second post I was happy to see that she stayed away from a pure pathos argument by backing up some of the claims she used in the first post. I like the way she established Logos in using the Donald Rumsfeld quote referring to al-Queada’s involvement in Iraq. By using Donald Rumsfeld, Jane established that voice of credibility that was lacking in the first post. I also like Jane’s argument of there not being a draft, and that the military personal that are overseas are there by choice and have signed up to fight for their country regardless of the motives of the war. It is a good point to bring up in response to Dhaara’s point about soldiers losing their lives. In Dhaara’s final post, she finally brought out the argument that I thought I would read much earlier. Dhaara refutes the argument of the United States wanting to set up a democracy in Iraq. She argues that who is the United States to say what government should rule a country and in what way. “Just because (democracy) works here doesn’t mean it would work everywhere.” This is a good point because there are other types of government in the world and some like China and their dictatorship have been proven to work. In conclusion I think both writers did a good job on not using too much of one argument and both of them used pathos and logos well. There were also no eye-catching fallacies that I noticed and that is also a good thing when trying to peruse someone.
The war in Iraq is a touching subject for anyone who is a true American patortiat. This is a war that has been going on for years and does not seem like letting up any time soon. When reading the blog on the war in Iraq I feel that it was not enough to say this was a well developed argument on both sides. I feel that Jane more so focused on the aspect of Iraq and the things that went on over there instead of addressing the question that was giving. Which was should the United States embark on a war with Iraq, a lot of things such as Al’Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein she went in detail about more than focusing or stating the issue. So Dhaara had no choice but to only address the issues that were brought up. The person that states the argument has a lot of responsibility because if you have a poorly stated argument then the rebuttal is going to be the same. This is something I feel that they should keep in mind for the future. All in all it was a fair job and the argument started to pick up during the second post.
The blog about the War in Iraq is a pertinent issue at hand today, with various people sounding off on the legitimacy of the war. The beginning of the argument relating to whether the US should be at war with Iraq had some very sound points and as the posts go on, Jane continues to elaborate on why the US should be at war with Iraq. At the end of her first paragraph Jane uses questions to question how moral the war in Iraq is and how it relates to 9/11. It would have been cool to see the various statistics about the number of people who approve of the war through the years we have been in Iraq. Dhaara makes a good counter argument stating that although democracy works in the US, it may not work in other countries with different ideals, but then mentions that we should be fighting to stop the genocide in other countries. It has been seen and proven by various human rights groups that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons and fear to legitimize his rule on the country. On the flipside, Jane says that by getting rid of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein, Iraq is becoming a safe country and is not vulnerable to terrorist influences from Al-Qaida and that the people will no longer live in fear. I liked the fact that Jane addressed the opposing argument in order to legitimize her own argument. She also addresses the fact that the war on Iraq is not about oil, like many people who oppose the war argue it out to be.
Both sides managed to put up a valid argument. I liked how Jane brought good use logos in her debate. Jane brings up a good point that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that needed to be brought down. He has managed to imprison, torture thousands if not tens of thousands of people in his reign. At the same time Dhara uses a great use of pathos in her speech about how the war in bring us in death and how we made our stay in Iraq for too long. She admits that we needed to go to war because of what happened on 9/11 but we did not need to bring down Saddam. Saddam may have been striking fear into people but he was running the country efficiently and managed to keep down extremist. What I overall get from reading the debate is that the Iraq war is a war that we have been in for way too long and we need to start slowly pulling out of.
The war in Iraq is a highly debated issue; people are going to be voicing their opinions about it even well after it’s over. I support the war in Iraq, despite what others may say. There are some downsides, but the good outweighs the bad. I mean look at what we’ve done so far, we’ve taken down one of the most brutal tyrants, Saddam Hussein. Saddam has been known to torture anyone that came in the way of his tyranny. He has been known to torture kids in front of their family and torture others through starvation, mutilation, and rape. If we have reason to believe that this sick and twisted man has connections to weapons of mass destruction why should we wait around until we’re all incinerated? Or let any other terrorist for that matter come close to these weapons? We should be thankful that our soldiers are in the Middle East and were able to take some of the fear out of the hearts of many.
ReplyDeleteAnother major reason why this war is a must is because of the horror that was inflicted in America on September 11th. There is no doubt that the hardworking Americans in those towers were strategically and brutally killed by Al Qaeda. People were forced to commit suicide to avoid burning alive, families lost beloved family members, and the whole country was turned upside down. We were personally attacked; why wouldn’t we go to the Middle East and find those who hurt us so we can prevent it happening again? How can America and the UN sit back and allow these horrid acts to happen? We would go against the purpose of the UN and turn it, along with America, into a bunch of people with empty words. If that were to happen, then no other terrorists would hesitate to attack us if they knew no consequences were to occur.
Another major reason why we’re there is because of oil. We need to be involved overseas so that we can obtain oil from the Middle East for many years to come. They have majority of the world’s oil, and if we don’t fight, they’re going to have control on the production and prices for who knows how long. If we get out of this war on top, then we can bring more jobs and money to America through oil. Also, we can further help overseas by being that push towards democracy and teach the country how to help themselves. If we can protect our country and help a country in dire need of organization, why wouldn’t we do it?
Yes people will be killed, and yes it may be expensive, but do we dare leave the situation alone and see if more innocent people get killed through terrorist attacks & Hussein’s terror? Of course not, that’s why we’re there now. And even though we didn’t find Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction we still took down a tyrant that shouldn’t even be considered human for the horrible things he has done to innocent people. Another opposition to the war is that taking down Hussein is allowing the rebel terrorist groups to run free, and there is some truth in that, but that’s why we’re there. We’re not going to leave when it’s messy; we’re there to protect ourselves and the innocent people overseas from further attacks through organization & intimidation. So the next time you think the war was a bad choice, look into the eyes of a soldier that fought for your freedom; look into the eyes of a son who lost his father on 9/11; look into the eyes of the people who were tortured by Saddam for years, and then tell me that this war isn’t worth fighting.
The war in Iraq no doubt one of the most controversial wars America has faced. There are many people that support this war and believe that our troops should be in Iraq. I, for one, believe that we should not be there. Saddam Hussein was a dictator in Iraq. It is said that he did a lot of horrible things to the people of Iraq. There is no proof that he did any of those things to anyone. The only thing we know is that he established control. He ran his country for years and his method worked and people were happy with it until the United States got involved.
ReplyDeleteA reason that pro-war supports might bring up when arguing for the war is Iraq’s possible relation to al-Qaeda. First and foremost, this has never been proven. Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, had tried and reached out to Iraq from 1991-1994. He wanted to set up training camps in the area and needed assistance getting weapons. Iraq never responded to any of these messages. There have been talks that after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan there was contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Two senior Bin Laden associates have denied any ties that existed between al-Qaeda. There is no credible evidence supporting the fact that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated with each other on the September 11 attached against the United States.
The reason that was given as to why we were in Iraq in the first place was because of suspicion of weapons of mass destruction. We invaded Iraq and we searched everywhere for these weapons. None have been found, and it’s been eight years. I’m sure if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction we would have found them early on. These weapons are not small. They require a lot of space and nothing even remotely close to these have been found in Iraq.
Democracy is a system of government that we have here in America. It works for us. What may work for us, may not work for other countries. America invaded Iraq, took down their leader and established democracy. The U.S. is not the political or economical model for every culture or every political system. Hussein was doing a perfectly fine job running the country. It worked and kept his people safe.
Oil was a reason that was brought up as to why we still occupy Iraq. If you look at the consequences from the war, Iraq is actually producing less oil. It has led to disruptions in the market. Nine months after we invaded Iraq, it was producing less than two-thirds of what is produced before the war. Imagine now, eight years later, it is producing even less than that. Oil is not a reason to still be in Iraq.
U.S. troops have occupied Iraq since 2003. Since then many U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. These civilians were killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because they decided to walk a certain route does not mean they should have died. The soldiers that fight for us have families, husbands, wives, children, mothers, and fathers that they have left behind. Many soldiers miss witnessing the birth of their children, important milestones that they can never get back. They went off to fight for their country when there is no real reason to be there in the first place. These brave men and women belong at home, with their families and people they care about. Not in a foreign country where we do not belong in.
During a war, not everyone is going to be 100% okay with it. There are many people in Iraq that don't want our interference, but there are even more people that were grateful we were there to take down Saddam Hussein. There are numerous accounts and videos of Saddam's cruelty; mass graves have been found and evidence has traced back to him. The people of Iraq were constantly in a state of fear; fear of Saddam and terrorist groups.
ReplyDeleteThe only peace Saddam kept was keeping rebels from taking over Iraq and stealing his hold on the country. Can you say that installing fear and agony in the hearts of your people are good leadership skills? I think not. Under Saddam's rule, one man was put into jail for 22 days for saying "hi" to someone, professors/reporters were arrested and stripped of jobs for their ideas, and the list goes on and on.
As far as al-Quaeda goes, there has been substantial evidence of their activity in Iraq dating back to the mid 1990's and has been increasing since 1998. Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, said that they had "very reliable reporting of senior level contacts...And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al-Qaeda." The government has been collecting evidence for years and with Iraq under the rule of Saddam and other martyr terrorist groups, Iraq was definitely a threat.
Even though we didn't find the weapons that we were seeking, our presence is going to hinder al-Quaeda from obtaining the resources for such weapons. It’s not just nuclear weapons that we should fear, but simple bombs that can be made easily, even in the most desolate places in the Middle East. A simple bomb can be made and strapped to an extremist, set off in a crowded place, and kill hundreds of people all in a matter of hours. Our military forces can prevent these things from happening by finding the leaders of these operations. Without our presence in the Middle East, we won’t be able to put a stop on terrorism.
Yes, not everyone agrees that America trying to set up a democracy overseas is a good idea but we took out Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s leader. We can’t just get rid of a dictator and let the extremists take over; if democracy work for us, then why wouldn’t it work for them? If we have a system that allows for the people to be active and finally have some rights (especially after being oppressed for years), why wouldn’t we teach it to them and give them a better quality of life?
As far as oil goes, it’s a touchy subject and people need to realize it’s not the main reason we’re overseas. Yes, prices are high right now, but it’ll pay off in the long run when the production of oil doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.
Yes many troops were killed and missed out on events back home, but it’s not like they were drafted. They believed in the cause enough to risk their lives for it, and for that we should all be thankful. Yes innocent civilians have been killed, but they were being killed from extremists even before our presence. Ask any soldier that has been overseas what they’ve seen, and I’m sure they’ll have a story that involves twisted terrorists using children as suicide bombers, cars being blow up, and the list goes on. This war is needed to protect the civilians of America and the Middle East from the terror that has been going on for way too long.
Whenever there is a war, usually the country has a legitimate reason to invade another country. When we invaded Iraq, everyone was confused as to why we were invading in the first place. We invaded Iraq in March of 2003; we captured Saddam Hussein in December of that same year. It is now 2011 and our troops are still in Iraq. If Iraq and Hussein were such a big threat than why are we still there even after all this time.
ReplyDeleteSaddam Hussein might have been bad. We do not know exactly what kind of person he was. What we do know is that he ran the country of Iraq for a long time and for that time it was fine. Even if he installed fear, he ran the country well. He kept the extremists from taking over Iraq. The extremists would be horrible to the people of Iraq. He installed fear and they haven’t tried taking over.
According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States “There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." There is no evidence that al Qaeda members were ever in Iraq.
A reason that the government gives as to why we still occupy Iraq is that it would cause trouble when we leave. U.S troops being in Iraq cause more chaos than us not being there. Now they have rebellions and protest to us being there. If we leave, they can carry on with their lives and not live in constant fear of being attacked.
Setting up a democracy takes a lot of time. Our soldiers would be there for a very long time if they continue setting up a democracy. We do not even know if the democracy would work in Iraq. Just because it works here in the United States doesn’t mean it works everywhere. Setting up a democracy would also take a lot of money. Money that we currently do not have. The United States is in debt as it is. We spend a lot of money to supply our troops in Iraq. We could use some of that money for education and other purposes if we cut down that budget. The allies would also have to help pay to start up the democracy. All the countries have their own budgets and there are always arguments on how much each thing should get. I’m sure no other country would want to cut down their budget to help Iraq.
There are many other places in the world that are going through more difficult things. For example there are genocides going on in Africa. Our troops should be there protecting innocent people from being killed rather than a place where we do not need to be. The soldiers could also be at home with their families. We invaded Iraq with the intention of protecting the people. Now that we’ve been there for eight years and we’ve done our job, I think it’s time to bring our troops home. They need to be home with their loved ones.
To begin, there were some things that I found that could have been supported better on Dhara’s side. Dhara made some points about Saddam Hussein being a leader and that there is no proof of the horrible acts we hear about, and that his methods worked and people were happy with it. But most people would disagree, there is definitely footage out there showing Hussein’s horrible acts, and if people were actually happy about the way Hussein ran his country, then why did civilians tear down his statue after he was captured? With statement’s like this, people might question Dhara’s credibility. People might begin to not trust Dhara’s ability to bring true evidence to the table. Moreover, I feel that Jane made good use of logos. There were some comments where I felt like saying “Wow, that makes so much sense.” For example, when Dhara talked about how soldiers are missing out on important events back at home like births, Jane's rebuttal was saying “Yes many troops were killed and missed out on events back home, but it’s not like they were drafted.” I totally agree with this, these soldiers chose to be there, they wanted to fight for their country, they knew what they were giving up.
ReplyDeleteWar in Iraq
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jane’s first post I saw multiple things that stood out to me as positive arguments for being involved in the Iraq war. The first thing I noticed that Jane does in her first post is a heavy usage of pathos in her argument. Jane uses words like “brutal tyrant” to describe Saddam Hussein and references the September 11th attacks by using phrases like “lost beloved family members” in order to appeal to all the American citizens that were affected by the terrorist attacks. Also in Jane’s first post I do disagree with her usage of oil as an argument to fight in the war. The war in Iraq if anything has caused strain on our allied relationship with the world’s oils leader in Saudi Arabia. All together in Jane’s post arguing the positives of the war in Iraq her highlights was the usage of pathos in order to appeal to the emotions of people. In Response to Dhaara’s first post I think she did a good job on implementing facts into her arguments. Dhaara addressed the often misconception that al-Qaeda had alliances or operated with Saddam’s regime. That usage of facts compared to the mostly pathos argument of Jane’s first post gives Dhaara credibility. Dhaara also goes on to address the oil argument proposed by Jane in the first post by using statistics to refute her argument, this is a good job of separating facts from hearsay. I also like how Dhaara ended the post with a little of Pathos of her own by describing the lives of lost soldiers and civilians who innocently lost her lives. In Jane’s second post I was happy to see that she stayed away from a pure pathos argument by backing up some of the claims she used in the first post. I like the way she established Logos in using the Donald Rumsfeld quote referring to al-Queada’s involvement in Iraq. By using Donald Rumsfeld, Jane established that voice of credibility that was lacking in the first post. I also like Jane’s argument of there not being a draft, and that the military personal that are overseas are there by choice and have signed up to fight for their country regardless of the motives of the war. It is a good point to bring up in response to Dhaara’s point about soldiers losing their lives. In Dhaara’s final post, she finally brought out the argument that I thought I would read much earlier. Dhaara refutes the argument of the United States wanting to set up a democracy in Iraq. She argues that who is the United States to say what government should rule a country and in what way. “Just because (democracy) works here doesn’t mean it would work everywhere.” This is a good point because there are other types of government in the world and some like China and their dictatorship have been proven to work. In conclusion I think both writers did a good job on not using too much of one argument and both of them used pathos and logos well. There were also no eye-catching fallacies that I noticed and that is also a good thing when trying to peruse someone.
The war in Iraq is a touching subject for anyone who is a true American patortiat. This is a war that has been going on for years and does not seem like letting up any time soon. When reading the blog on the war in Iraq I feel that it was not enough to say this was a well developed argument on both sides. I feel that Jane more so focused on the aspect of Iraq and the things that went on over there instead of addressing the question that was giving. Which was should the United States embark on a war with Iraq, a lot of things such as Al’Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein she went in detail about more than focusing or stating the issue. So Dhaara had no choice but to only address the issues that were brought up. The person that states the argument has a lot of responsibility because if you have a poorly stated argument then the rebuttal is going to be the same. This is something I feel that they should keep in mind for the future. All in all it was a fair job and the argument started to pick up during the second post.
ReplyDeleteThe blog about the War in Iraq is a pertinent issue at hand today, with various people sounding off on the legitimacy of the war. The beginning of the argument relating to whether the US should be at war with Iraq had some very sound points and as the posts go on, Jane continues to elaborate on why the US should be at war with Iraq. At the end of her first paragraph Jane uses questions to question how moral the war in Iraq is and how it relates to 9/11. It would have been cool to see the various statistics about the number of people who approve of the war through the years we have been in Iraq. Dhaara makes a good counter argument stating that although democracy works in the US, it may not work in other countries with different ideals, but then mentions that we should be fighting to stop the genocide in other countries. It has been seen and proven by various human rights groups that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons and fear to legitimize his rule on the country. On the flipside, Jane says that by getting rid of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein, Iraq is becoming a safe country and is not vulnerable to terrorist influences from Al-Qaida and that the people will no longer live in fear. I liked the fact that Jane addressed the opposing argument in order to legitimize her own argument. She also addresses the fact that the war on Iraq is not about oil, like many people who oppose the war argue it out to be.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides managed to put up a valid argument. I liked how Jane brought good use logos in her debate. Jane brings up a good point that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that needed to be brought down. He has managed to imprison, torture thousands if not tens of thousands of people in his reign. At the same time Dhara uses a great use of pathos in her speech about how the war in bring us in death and how we made our stay in Iraq for too long. She admits that we needed to go to war because of what happened on 9/11 but we did not need to bring down Saddam. Saddam may have been striking fear into people but he was running the country efficiently and managed to keep down extremist. What I overall get from reading the debate is that the Iraq war is a war that we have been in for way too long and we need to start slowly pulling out of.
ReplyDelete