Justification for War in Iraq

[jimnyc]

Our first debate. Typomaniac and Sir Evil will debate as to whether they feel there was proper justification for the War in Iraq.

** Reminder - this is to remain just between these two. Nobody else should be replying in this thread. Any replies outside of these 2 will be deleted and the offender will be banned from this section of the board. **

For our first round, we will start with Typomaniac. After his initial reply and opening argument, Sir Evil can reply to his post and enter his opening argument. We will go back and forth until both have had an opportunity to make 10 replies apiece.

Typo - Please explain why you feel the War in Iraq was not justified.

[typomaniac]

There are many reasons that the war in Iraq was unjustified, and I’ll discuss the most important ones in this reply. However, most of the reasons are based in a single factor: that Saddam Hussein, as tyrannical as he was, did not represent a clear and present danger to the United States in 2003. In fact, there was no evidence to indicate that he might become one in the foreseeable future.

But before I go on, I’d like to thank you, Jim, for setting up this formal debate area, and for giving me the opportunity to participate in this first of what I hope will be many such debates. They are one of the best ways to reach the substance of an issue without the bickering we so often see in other kinds of discussions.

As most of us remember, the argument that the White House emphasized the most in its case for war was that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In the September 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group, composed of military and civilian WMD experts from the US, the UK, and Australia, it turned out that these experts found no evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, and that in fact Iraq had destroyed all its major stockpiles in 1991. In the UN and IAEA inspections in the months before the invasion of Iraq, neither organization found evidence of a weapons program (refer to http://www.unmovic.org and http://www.iaea.org). Unfortunately, these groups were never able to complete their inspections. Even today there is still controversy over whether the invasion was a violation of international law, and whether the UN Security Council in fact authorized the invasion.

After the WMD argument, the next most significant rationale for war, which is still being used by the White House today, is the role played by Iraq as part of the broader “war on terror.” Before the invasion, many administration officials were attempting to tie Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda. Again, though, a postmortem study by the CIA (http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf) that there had never been any “operational or collaborative relationship” between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Also, as has been widely reported now, most experts believe that the invasion resulted in an increase in global terrorism. Al-Qaeda uses Iraq as a training ground today.

Another argument that supporters of the war have occasionally advanced is that Saddam’s long and brutal record of human rights violations justified war. However, even Human Rights Watch claimed that “the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention.” (http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm) Moreover, according to a group of Christian ethicists (many from very conservative universities) a pre-emptive war, and the Iraq war in particular, is “morally unjustifiable.” (http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/09/2002092302n.htm)

I want to close this response with a quote to address the issue of bringing democracy to Iraq, which has been another selling point for the war. According to one of the security analysts who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
Anthony Cordesman
The US is not the political, economic, and social model for every culture and every political system ... In most cases, economic and physical security; dealing with the educational and job problems created by demographic change, and creating basic human rights will be far more important than trying to rush towards 'democracy' in nations with no history of pluralism, no or weak moderate political parties, and deep religious and ethnic divisions ... The idea that the US can suddenly create examples of the kind of new political, economic, and social systems it wants in ways that will transform regions or cultures has always been little more than intellectual infantilism, and Iraq provides all the proof the US can ever afford to acquire. (May 2004)

[Sir Evil]

First I have to say that the opening to this debate was very well written by Typomaniac, to my surprise there is still some intelligent members with the skills of proper dabte. Congrats Typo, you appear to be a worthy adversary. :D

Now I would like to say that over the years the subject of debate here has brought out very much of the same argument, and time & time again there is typically the same responses coming from both sides. I have never been one to go to the search engines to seek links to explain my opinions but obviously there is a time to require these to show where ones opinion has a credible source the opposite opinion usually has a credible source as well.

Before I move on to linked sources to answer your opinions directly, there are a few things I want to point out. First, just because one backs the decision to invade Iraq they are not always a warmonger, neocon, Bush supporter, etc..
Some of us just agree that the so called working diplomacy with Iraq was nothing more than a tool to avoid the inevitable. I often ask people to check the timline of Iraq's failures, and defiance through the years, and often wonder if diplomacy is to be seen as never ending.

Also I think many have forgotten that Bush gave the ultimatum to Saddam to leave the country with his sons to avoid war altogether. This was not an empty offer, Saddam knew it but like always defiance played it's part.
Heres a few links:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520559.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/17/ultimatum030317.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.speech/index.html
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2003/03/18/bush.gives.saddam.48.hour.exile.ultimatum.(2nd.upd ate.1.10.pm).html

Another topic within this debate that most always comes up is terrorism itself, and I can't even begin to explain how sad it is when many jump to Saddams side with theories of how he would never harbor terrorists of a said kind because they hate each other, and all the other mumbo jumbo that goes along with it. Saddam hated the US, and would of went to bed with his arch enemy if that meant causing us harm. Here is a quickie of a link to dispell the theory of that one:
February 13, 1999
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.

However, in recent weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the Taliban to expel bin Laden.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/


Ok, onward to your points:






There are many reasons that the war in Iraq was unjustified, and
I’ll discuss the most important ones in this reply. However, most of the
reasons are based in a single factor: that Saddam Hussein, as tyrannical
as he was, did not represent a clear and present danger to the United
States in 2003. In fact, there was no evidence to indicate that he might
become one in the foreseeable future.

Some people feel that Iraq needed to be a danger directly to the USA in
order for the war to be justified and I disagree with that. The USA also
has a responsibility to look out for our allies in the time of need and
to ensure countries ran by dictators don't get their hands on weapons
that can be used to destroy our allies or massive amounts of people.
Many also feel that it's not our place to police the world, but if not
the USA, who is going to protect our allies and who will step up to the
plate to stop these dictators from committing unspeakable acts against
humanity? I feel that the many resolutions, specifically resolutions 687
and 1441 gave us proper justification for invading Iraq and I'll go into
that further as we proceed.


As most of us remember, the argument that the White House
emphasized the most in its case for war was that Saddam was developing
weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In the September 2004 report by the
Iraq Survey Group, composed of military and civilian WMD experts from
the US, the UK, and Australia, it turned out that these experts found no
evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, and that in fact Iraq had
destroyed all its major stockpiles in 1991. In the UN and IAEA
inspections in the months before the invasion of Iraq, neither
organization found evidence of a weapons program (refer to
http://www.unmovic.org and http://www.iaea.org). Unfortunately, these
groups were never able to complete their inspections. Even today there
is still controversy over whether the invasion was a violation of
international law, and whether the UN Security Council in fact
authorized the invasion.

The argument that Iraq had or was trying to develop WMD's started long
before this administration. The prior administration and a long list of
democrats felt the same way. Many spoke out against his possession or
desire to possess them and quite a few stated they needed to be stopped.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

While no major stockpiles have been found, there has been bits and
pieces that were unaccounted for found hidden in various places.
Furthermore, there were thousands of containers of deadly chemicals
accounted for by official inspectors in 1998. Upon their return in 2002
these chemicals were nowhere to be found. Iraq was ordered to produce
these stockpiles or account for their destruction. Not only did they not
produce them or account for them, they outright ignored this order from
the official inspectors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2590265.stm
http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

Let's not forget that Saddam himself was more or less bragging about his
possession of WMD's and that he would use them if necessary. I don't
think we can just ignore statements like that. And given his lack of
cooperation (he remained in material breach of resolution until the very
end) we needed to stop him and ensure that he didn't use them, or didn't
in fact possess them.


After the WMD argument, the next most significant rationale for
war, which is still being used by the White House today, is the role
played by Iraq as part of the broader “war on terror.” Before the
invasion, many administration officials were attempting to tie Saddam
Hussein with Al-Qaeda. Again, though, a postmortem study by the CIA
(http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf)
that there had never been any “operational or collaborative
relationship” between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Also, as has been widely
reported now, most experts believe that the invasion resulted in an
increase in global terrorism. Al-Qaeda uses Iraq as a training ground
today.

I think what's important is Iraq's (Saddam) ties to terrorism.
Pre-invasion, Iraq provided bases & training camps to terror groups.
There was a clear link to them supporting Palestinian terror groups,
Iranian terror groups, Kurdistan, Abu Nidal Organization, Hamas,
Palestine Liberation Front, Arab liberation Front. They gave freedom to
wanted terrorists in violation of international law.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7702


Another argument that supporters of the war have occasionally
advanced is that Saddam’s long and brutal record of human rights
violations justified war. However, even Human Rights Watch claimed that
“the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that
would justify such intervention.” (http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm) Moreover,
according to a group of Christian ethicists (many from very conservative
universities) a pre-emptive war, and the Iraq war in particular, is
“morally unjustifiable.”
(http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/09/2002092302n.htm)

The resolutions specifically outlined that Iraq cease immediately the
repression of it's own citizens, and this never stopped for over a
decade after the resolutions were drawn up. Right after the gulf war,
Iraq had it's republican guard go after citizens who rose up against the
repression. Records estimate between 30,000 - 300,000 died as a result.

lol, "not of the exceptional nature"?


From 1992-1995, the regime waged a military and environmental
campaign against the ancient region of the southern marshes, draining
the waters, burning villages, killing and arresting civilian
inhabitants. As many as 300,000 marsh Arabs are believed to have been
driven away from their homes. Many thousands were forced to flee to
Iran, where they live in refugee camps. The regime continues to wage war
on the inhabitants of the region surrounding the marshes: villages have
been razed, inhabitants have been killed in shelling and men have been
jailed.

Since 1992, the Iraqi regime has conducted a campaign of ethnic
cleansing against Kurds and Turkomans in the Karkuk province (Ta'mim).
Several thousand families have been evicted from their homes, stripped
of their identification cards (and their ration cards), lost their
property and possessions, and told to leave the area.

Human rights abuses by the state are practiced daily in Iraq, against
all sectors of the population indiscriminately. The prisons are
overflowing, and the regime periodically conducts "prison-cleaning":
mass executions to reduce the population of inmates. Officers and
officials are executed regularly for their alleged involvement in
conspiracies. Families are thrown out of their homes, stripped of their
assets and forcibly deported to other parts of the country.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html

[typomaniac]

Before I address my opponent’s opening arguments and rebuttals to my own opening, I would like to point out something interesting. At the beginning of my case, I stated two things: (1) that Saddam Hussein did not present a clear and present danger to the United States, and (2) there was no indication that he would become one in the foreseeable future. These two claims are undisputed. I encourage you to keep that in mind as we go forward with this debate.

My opponent has stated, quite accurately, that “just because one backs the decision to invade Iraq they are not always a warmonger, neocon, Bush supporter, etc.” Of course, it does not follow from this fact that the war itself is justified. A person of good will can, and often does, support an action without considering the whole picture. The practice of debate is itself meant to reveal more of that picture, as the proponents of each side engage in a search for the truth.

As far as diplomacy goes, our culture generally acknowledges that war represents a failure of diplomacy. So, if my opponent wonders whether diplomacy is supposed to be never-ending, I would answer him with an emphatic “Yes!”

Now let’s look at the argument that Mr. Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to leave the country. I don’t dispute the fact itself, but I do dispute the claim that it was not an empty offer. Saddam had stated explicitly in his last interview with a US journalist that he was born in Iraq and that he expected to die in Iraq. (For links, refer to Dan Rather’s interview on CBS news.) Also, by then the UN had been instructed to leave with its mission incomplete, and were already gone. Clearly the White House was expecting the ultimatum to be refused.


Another topic within this debate that most always comes up is terrorism itself, and I can't even begin to explain how sad it is when many jump to Saddams side with theories of how he would never harbor terrorists of a said kind because they hate each other, and all the other mumbo jumbo that goes along with it. Saddam hated the US, and would of went to bed with his arch enemy if that meant causing us harm. Here is a quickie of a link to dispell the theory of that one:
February 13, 1999
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

What my opponent fails to mention about this story is that the sentence about asylum is an unconfirmed allegation by an unnamed source. The Manchester Guardian does somewhat better (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html), stating that Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey led a mission to discuss asylum, but even they say only that the offer “may have” been made. Nor does anyone seem to know whether Mr. bin Laden accepted the offer. Considering, as I said in the opening, that our own CIA could not establish a direct link between the two, I am more inclined to believe them on this issue than to believe CNN.

On to Sir Evil’s rebuttals.


Some people feel that Iraq needed to be a danger directly to the USA in
order for the war to be justified and I disagree with that. The USA also
has a responsibility to look out for our allies in the time of need and
to ensure countries ran by dictators don't get their hands on weapons
that can be used to destroy our allies or massive amounts of people. Many also feel that it's not our place to police the world, but if not
the USA, who is going to protect our allies and who will step up to the
plate to stop these dictators from committing unspeakable acts against
humanity?

True, the US has many responsibilities to its allies, and the scope of these responsibilities are fairly well defined in the various treaties that Congress has ratified with other nations. I am not aware of any agreement with a US ally that could be interpreted to conclude that the US had to invade Iraq when it did. So what’s the solution to answer my opponent’s question? In an increasingly globalized world, the best way for the US to fulfill its responsibilities to its own allies is to act with as much backing as possible from the community of nations. Had the UN inspectors been allowed to complete their jobs, our alliances would be in far better shape than they are today.


I feel that the many resolutions, specifically resolutions 687
and 1441 gave us proper justification for invading Iraq and I'll go into
that further as we proceed.

Actually, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 called on Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with UN inspectors, but did not include an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. In this Resolution, the Security Council indicated that it would remain 'seized' of the matter, meaning that it continued to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force against Iraq. When the US went back to the Security Council for a second and follow-up resolution to 1441, this one to provide authorization to proceed to war against Iraq, the Security Council refused to comply. Resolution 687, which imposed the terms of the cease fire of the Gulf War of 1991, did not make any mention of a removal of Saddam or his government from Iraq if he failed to comply with its terms.


While no major stockpiles have been found, there has been bits and
pieces that were unaccounted for found hidden in various places.
Furthermore, there were thousands of containers of deadly chemicals
accounted for by official inspectors in 1998. Upon their return in 2002
these chemicals were nowhere to be found. Iraq was ordered to produce
these stockpiles or account for their destruction. Not only did they not
produce them or account for them, they outright ignored this order from
the official inspectors.

The chemicals that my opponent is referring to, of course, did not fall under the terms of Resolution 1441 (which was passed in 2002) in 1998. Afterwards, it is entirely likely that the Iraqi bureaucracy simply lost the records pertaining to those chemicals. Would they have been properly accounted for if Mr. Bush had permitted the official inspectors to finish their work? It’s now impossible to know.


Let's not forget that Saddam himself was more or less bragging about his
possession of WMD's and that he would use them if necessary. I don't
think we can just ignore statements like that.

True enough: unfortunately my opponent seems to be neglecting the old adage that “actions speak louder than words.” There have been extensive CIA and DIA analyses of Saddam and his behavior, and all have concluded that he was never suicidal. He was also sophisticated enough to realize that launching WMDs against a nuclear power or one of its allies would be tantamount to suicide.


I think what's important is Iraq's (Saddam) ties to terrorism.
Pre-invasion, Iraq provided bases & training camps to terror groups.
There was a clear link to them supporting Palestinian terror groups,
Iranian terror groups, Kurdistan, Abu Nidal Organization, Hamas,
Palestine Liberation Front, Arab liberation Front. They gave freedom to
wanted terrorists in violation of international law.

There is some credible evidence that Saddam funneled small amounts of money to the families of suicide bombers who acted on behalf of other organizations such as Hamas. Consider, though, that the White House never tried to emphasize these relationships as part of its justification for war. Could the reason have been that these transactions would be seen as too insignificant?


Right after the gulf war,
Iraq had it's republican guard go after citizens who rose up against the
repression. Records estimate between 30,000 - 300,000 died as a result.

lol, "not of the exceptional nature"?

I don’t claim to speak on behalf of Human Rights Watch, so I can’t profess to know what they consider to be an “exceptional nature.” The other thing that needs to be considered, however, is the large scale of human suffering (beyond just death) which would be inevitable as a result of any invasion. Have more than 300,000 Iraqis died, starved, or been injured or sickened as part of the invasion and its aftermath, including all the sectarian fighting? There is no official toll as yet. Until there is, it’s probably too soon to laugh.

[Sir Evil]

Another fine piece of work Typo! :clap:

Ok, just wanted to clear the air on the “just because one backs the decision to invade Iraq they are not always a warmonger, neocon, Bush supporter, etc.” comment, it was not inteded to be directed at anyone specific, more or less a starting point to describe my own mindset before entering this debate.

Onward to the topics at hand:


Before I address my opponent’s opening arguments and rebuttals to my own opening, I would like to point out something interesting. At the beginning of my case, I stated two things: (1) that Saddam Hussein did not present a clear and present danger to the United States, and (2) there was no indication that he would become one in the foreseeable future. These two claims are undisputed. I encourage you to keep that in mind as we go forward with this debate.

Iraq need not have been an immediate danger to the USA for the invasion to be justified. The US has been involved in many wars over the years where our shores were never in danger. We do what is in the best interest of our allies, and the whole world collectively.


As far as diplomacy goes, our culture generally acknowledges that war represents a failure of diplomacy. So, if my opponent wonders whether diplomacy is supposed to be never-ending, I would answer him with an emphatic “Yes!”

If there was a guarantee of "never-ending" I would agree. But at some point you have to take the dangers seriously and take pre-emptive action. 12 years of diplomacy got us nothing more than a full fledged cat and mouse game from Saddam and Iraq. He toyed on and off with the US and our planes in the no-fly zones, and toyed back and forth with inspectors as well. The only time he gave the appearance of full cooperation was when he knew war was on his doorstep, but even then he remained in material breach of the resolutions.


Now let’s look at the argument that Mr. Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to leave the country. I don’t dispute the fact itself, but I do dispute the claim that it was not an empty offer. Saddam had stated explicitly in his last interview with a US journalist that he was born in Iraq and that he expected to die in Iraq. (For links, refer to Dan Rather’s interview on CBS news.) Also, by then the UN had been instructed to leave with its mission incomplete, and were already gone. Clearly the White House was expecting the ultimatum to be refused.

Whether the White House expected him to refuse or not is inconsequential. He still could have avoided the war by taking up the offer of asylum. His preference to die in Iraq, while remaining in breach of resolutions, only goes further to show what kind of maniacal man was being dealt with.


What my opponent fails to mention about this story is that the sentence about asylum is an unconfirmed allegation by an unnamed source. The Manchester Guardian does somewhat better, stating that Iraq’s
ambassador to Turkey led a mission to discuss asylum, but even they say only that the offer “may have” been made. Nor does anyone seem to know whether Mr. bin Laden accepted the offer. Considering, as I said in the
opening, that our own CIA could not establish a direct link between the two, I am more inclined to believe them on this issue than to believe CNN.

Once would be a mystery, twice leads me to believe there was a fair amount of proof and truth to it. "Where there is smoke there is usually fire"


The Karachi newspaper "Ummat" of 22 November carries an article saying that Saddam Husseyn has offered asylum to the top Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership, including Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. In this
regard, a delegation led by a senior official in the Iraqi government. Taha Husseyn, met with Mavlana Jalal ud-Din Haqqani in Kandahar and conveyed Saddam's offer to him. If the report is true, then it is at least the second time that Saddam has offered bin Laden asylum. Faruq Hijazi, the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey until his recent recall,
contacted bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 1999 and offered asylum to him and some of his lieutenants (see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 8 January 1999).

Taliban sources told "Ummat" that Saddam had also offered to provide financial support, military training, military advisers and arms to the Taliban and had sent the message that Iraq would stand by the Afghan
people in the all-out war against the United States.

The sources said that the Iraqi delegation had been asked to wait for an answer to their message. Both Mullah Omar and bin Laden are said to have conferred with their aides. According to the sources, there is little
chance of Omar leaving Afghanistan, but he might consider sending members of his Shura and non-combatant aides.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2001/39-301101.html


True, the US has many responsibilities to its allies, and the scope of these responsibilities are fairly well defined in the various treaties that Congress has ratified with other nations. I am not aware of any agreement with a US ally that could be interpreted to conclude that the US had to invade Iraq when it did. So what’s the solution to answer my opponent’s question? In an increasingly globalized world, the best way for the US to fulfill its responsibilities to its own allies is to act with as much backing as possible from the community of nations.
Had the UN inspectors been allowed to complete their jobs, our alliances would be in far better shape than they are today.

Actually, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 called on Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with UN inspectors, but did not include an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. In
this Resolution, the Security Council indicated that it would remain 'seized' of the matter, meaning that it continued to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force against Iraq. When the US went back to the Security Council for a second and follow-up resolution to 1441, this one to provide authorization to
proceed to war against Iraq, the Security Council refused to comply. Resolution 687, which imposed the terms of the cease fire of the Gulf War of 1991, did not make any mention of a removal of Saddam or his government from Iraq if he failed to comply with its terms.

Iraq was warned of "severest consequences" if they did not comply with the resolutions in their entirety. Resolution 660 from 1990 also authorized states cooperating in multinational coalition in the Gulf to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660" This was agreed upon by all parties within the UN. Why they refused to backup their own words years later when Iraq continually remained in material breach of the resolutions is quite a mystery.


The chemicals that my opponent is referring to, of course, did not fall under the terms of Resolution 1441 (which was passed in 2002) in 1998. Afterwards, it is entirely likely that the Iraqi bureaucracy simply lost the records pertaining to those chemicals. Would they have been properly accounted for if Mr. Bush had permitted the official inspectors to finish their work? It’s now impossible to know.

If it was possibly just a clerical error then why did Iraq fail to even reply to repeated requests for information about the missing chemicals? They outright ignored these requests through repeated attempts from the inspectors. Rather than risk the whereabouts of these chemicals, and whether Saddam would have an opportunity to use them, we had no alternative but to answer that for ourselves since he refused to comply. Besides, it's not like he never used them before, or threatened to use them again?


True enough: unfortunately my opponent seems to be neglecting the old adage that “actions speak louder than words.” There have been extensive CIA and DIA analyses of Saddam and his behavior, and all have
concluded that he was never suicidal. He was also sophisticated enough to realize that launching WMDs against a nuclear power or one of its allies would be tantamount to suicide.

Maybe not against the US or our allies, but perhaps his own people once again? And considering he knew war was on his doorstep, and he proclaimed he would rather die in Iraq than seek asylum and save his nation from war, I would say it's safe to say he was a bit suicidal.


There is some credible evidence that Saddam funneled small amounts of money to the families of suicide bombers who acted on behalf of other organizations such as Hamas. Consider, though, that the White
House never tried to emphasize these relationships as part of its justification for war. Could the reason have been that these transactions would be seen as too insignificant?

The White House made Saddam's terror ties quite clear over and over to the entire nation. That's why this information is so readily available on the internet, because it was widely known at the time as to what
support he gave to terrorist organizations.


I don’t claim to speak on behalf of Human Rights Watch, so I can’t profess to know what they consider to be an “exceptional nature.” The other thing that needs to be considered, however, is the large scale of human suffering (beyond just death) which would be inevitable as a result of any invasion. Have more than 300,000 Iraqis died, starved, or been injured or sickened as part of the invasion and its aftermath, including all the sectarian fighting? There is no official toll as yet. Until there is, it’s probably too soon to laugh.

People have died as a result of the war and will likely continue to do so. This is an unfortunate circumstance with war. The US takes great measures to ensure the safety of civilians when engaging the enemy. But yes, sometimes people die during a war. But there's a big difference between accidental civilian deaths while our soldiers are being attacked and civilian deaths as result of systematic murder and torture by the hands of Saddam and his regime.

[typomaniac]

Iraq need not have been an immediate danger to the USA for the invasion to be justified. The US has been involved in many wars over the years where our shores were never in danger. We do what is in the best interest of our allies, and the whole world collectively.
Actually, nearly all the wars the US has been involved in that did not threaten its own territory took place after World War II. And unlike previous wars, historians now agree that a number of these adventures were mistakes. Now it’s true that the US needs to set its foreign and defense policies to benefit its allies, but at no time in history have we ever put their interests, much less those of the whole world collectively, above our own.

The bottom line is that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of US foreign policy or defense policy goals, which is enough in my view to make it unjustified.


If there was a guarantee of "never-ending" I would agree. But at some point you have to take the dangers seriously and take pre-emptive action. 12 years of diplomacy got us nothing more than a full fledged cat and mouse game from Saddam and Iraq. He toyed on and off with the US and our planes in the no-fly zones, and toyed back and forth with inspectors as well. The only time he gave the appearance of full cooperation was when he knew war was on his doorstep, but even then he remained in material breach of the resolutions.

The former Soviet Union rarely cooperated with the US (even on treaty agreements) during the Cold War period. Would their behavior have been justification for pre-emptive action? Often the UN acted as a mediator in these disputes, and it could have done so again in Iraq, if the weapons inspectors had been allowed to finish their task.


Whether the White House expected him to refuse or not is inconsequential. He still could have avoided the war by taking up the offer of asylum. His preference to die in Iraq, while remaining in breach of resolutions, only goes further to show what kind of maniacal man was being dealt with.
Aside from the fact that there appears to be no new argument here, that’s quite a conclusion my opponent is jumping to about Saddam. I was born in the United States, and whenever I should happen to die, I have no reason to think that it will be anywhere besides in the United States. I suspect that most native-born Americans would make a similar statement. Does this make us all maniacal?

Once [offering bin Laden asylum] would be a mystery, twice leads me to believe there was a fair amount of proof and truth to it. "Where there is smoke there is usually fire"
The link that my opponent supplies that discusses the second incident is not from the Karachi newspaper reporting the incident, but only second-hand information, so I would consider it to be highly dubious. I would definitely want to see the entire story so that its merits could be considered fairly. (And I will be happy to revisit the story if he can find it archived on www.ummat.com.pk.)

Iraq was warned of "severest consequences" if they did not comply with the resolutions in their entirety. Resolution 660 from 1990 also authorized states cooperating in multinational coalition in the Gulf to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660" This was agreed upon by all parties within the UN. Why they refused to backup their own words years later when Iraq continually remained in material breach of the resolutions is quite a mystery.
It seems to me that there is very little mystery here: the UN had established a procedure to confirm how much Saddam was in breach of their resolutions, after which the Security Council would decide what the consequences to him would be. The problem was that the Security Council never had the opportunity to complete its work before the US military (for all intents and purposes unilaterally) invaded the country.

If it was possibly just a clerical error then why did Iraq fail to even reply to repeated requests for information about the missing chemicals?
Someone who would ask that question non-rhetorically is unaware of how large organizations, and especially governments, operate. The old practice of CYA (cover your anatomy) was undoubtedly at work here: no bureaucrat worth his salt would come right out and say “I don’t know” before trying every reasonable and unreasonable stall tactic available.

Rather than risk the whereabouts of these chemicals, and whether Saddam would have an opportunity to use them, we had no alternative but to answer that for ourselves since he refused to comply. … Maybe not [using WMDs] against the US or our allies, but perhaps his own people once again?
My opponent seems to be implying that the US was forced to take military action on the risk that Saddam might again use deadly chemicals against his own people. This line of reasoning does not at all square with long-standing US foreign policy. We have never seriously discussed invading Sudan over the Darfur conflict, or invading Burma because of its exceptional violations of its people’s human rights. There had to be other reasons that were also a threat to the US’ own interests.

The White House made Saddam's terror ties quite clear over and over to the entire nation. That's why this information is so readily available on the internet, because it was widely known at the time as to what support he gave to terrorist organizations.
In the months leading up to the invasion, the White House frequently discussed Saddam’s alleged ties to Al-Qaeda, but I am not aware of any major statements from them during that time about Saddam’s ties to other terror groups. If I’m mistaken, I’d encourage my opponent to supply some outside sources regarding this.

People have died as a result of the war and will likely continue to do so. This is an unfortunate circumstance with war. The US takes great measures to ensure the safety of civilians when engaging the enemy. But yes, sometimes people die during a war. But there's a big difference between accidental civilian deaths while our soldiers are being attacked and civilian deaths as result of systematic murder and torture by the hands of Saddam and his regime.
But my opponent fails to address my original point about deaths: were MORE Iraqis killed or maimed as a result of the war and the subsequent sectarian fighting than the number of Iraqis who would have died under Saddam’s systematic practices of murder and torture? If the answer is yes, that presents a strong ethical argument against the justification of having gone to war there.

[Sir Evil]

Actually, nearly all the wars the US has been involved in that did not threaten its own territory took place after World War II. And unlike previous wars, historians now agree that a number of these adventures were mistakes. Now it’s true that the US needs to set its foreign and defense policies to benefit its allies, but at no time in history have we ever put their interests, much less those of the whole world collectively, above our own.

The bottom line is that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of US foreign policy or defense policy goals, which is enough in my view to make it unjustified.

1945-1952 - Allied powers led by the United States occupied Japan. This was the first time Japan was occupied by a foreign power.

1945-1946 - Temporary occupation of the Phillipines in preparation for independence

1945-1949 - Occupation of South Korea to defeat a leftist insurgency

1946 - Trieste, Italy - Troops occupied territory and reinforcement Air Forces sent in after unarmed US transport plane shot down.

1945-1947 - US Marines entered China to oversee the removal of Soviet and Japanese forces.

1950-1953 - Korean War - North Korea invaded South Korea and the USA sent in excess of 300,000 troops to protect South Korea and uphold UN resolutions.

1958 - Lebanon - The US Marines went to Lebanon to help protect from an insurrection.

1962 - Thailand - Marines go there to protect the country against the threat of communism.

1962-1975 - Laos - United States plays important role in military support of anti-communist forces

1959-1975 - Vietnam - Peak of 543,000 US soldiers

1965 - Dominican Republic - 20,000 troops sent to protect them during a revolt.

1970 - Cambodia - US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries

1982 - 1983 - Lebanon - President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty.

1983 - Grenada - US invades Grenada to squelch a "coup d'etat" and alignment with the Soviet Union and Cuba.

1986 - Libya - US Air and Naval forces strike Libya terror facilities and military installations.

1989-1990 - US invades Panama to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area."

This brings us to Iraq and the Gulf War in 1991. As you can see outlined, there have been many occasions where the US has put the interest of our allies and other countries ahead of our own to assist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars


The former Soviet Union rarely cooperated with the US (even on treaty agreements) during the Cold War period. Would their behavior have been justification for pre-emptive action? Often the UN acted as a mediator in these disputes, and it could have done so again in Iraq, if the weapons inspectors had been allowed to finish their task.

I believe pre-emptive action against the Soviet Union at the time would have been justified, yes.

The UN "acted as a mediator" and worked with Iraq for over 12 years. There were also 17 UN resolutions drawn up against Iraq during this time. None of this worked and Iraq remained in material breach of resolutions even after 12 years and 17 resolutions.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm


Aside from the fact that there appears to be no new argument here, that’s quite a conclusion my opponent is jumping to about Saddam. I was born in the United States, and whenever I should happen to die, I have no reason to think that it will be anywhere besides in the United States. I suspect that most native-born Americans would make a similar statement. Does this make us all maniacal?

If you were in the US, and you stood accused of genocide and an entire list of crimes, and the government offered you an opportunity to leave the country and save your outlying area from "war" and to save lives, and you outright refused - yes, I would conclude that you would be a bit of a maniac.


The link that my opponent supplies that discusses the second incident is not from the Karachi newspaper reporting the incident, but only second-hand information, so I would consider it to be highly dubious. I would definitely want to see the entire story so that its merits could be considered fairly. (And I will be happy to revisit the story if he can find it archived on www.ummat.com.pk (http://www.ummat.com.pk).)

For now I will offer some more credible links in my opinion as your request is a bit hard to follow as the archive at Ummat is only available for this year.

Richard Clarke, chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council during Bill Clinton's term as President of the USA, even wrote to the Deputy National Security Advisor that he had reliable sources that Iraqi officials met with Bin Laden and may have offered him asylum. This is included in the 9/11 Commission report, along with his words that if we invaded Afghanistan that it was possible Osama would "boogie to Baghdad".

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/29/opinion/main705154_page3.shtml


It seems to me that there is very little mystery here: the UN had established a procedure to confirm how much Saddam was in breach of their resolutions, after which the Security Council would decide what the consequences to him would be. The problem was that the Security Council never had the opportunity to complete its work before the US military (for all intents and purposes unilaterally) invaded the country.

Certain members of the UN vowed to veto any resolution drawn up that would allow force to be used in Iraq. Odd that a UN member would vow to veto a resolution they haven't even read yet. Let's look at a few possibilities for their motives:

UN Oil for Food Scandal:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1205resign.htm

Who could have possibly benefited from Saddam remaining in power? Coincidentally, some of those who vowed to veto those resolutions. France, Germany, Russia, China.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm217.cfm


Someone who would ask that question non-rhetorically is unaware of how large organizations, and especially governments, operate. The old practice of CYA (cover your anatomy) was undoubtedly at work here: no
bureaucrat worth his salt would come right out and say “I don’t know” before trying every reasonable and unreasonable stall tactic available.

"Tactics" shouldn't be being used when they are supposed to be complying with UN inspectors unequivocally as per the resolutions.


My opponent seems to be implying that the US was forced to take military action on the risk that Saddam might again use deadly chemicals against his own people. This line of reasoning does not at all square with long-standing US foreign policy. We have never seriously discussed invading Sudan over the Darfur conflict, or invading Burma because of its exceptional violations of its people’s human rights. There had to be other reasons that were also a threat to the US’ own interests.

Again, I don't feel there needs to be a threat to the US or our interests to justify wanting to prevent the use or increase of WMD's. While I personally find the actions taking place in Sudan and Burma reprehensible, these countries are not avoiding UN implemented resolutions for 12 years and they are not building up WMD's. Inaction
elsewhere certainly shouldn't preclude us from doing the right thing in other places where diplomacy has been exhausted.


In the months leading up to the invasion, the White House frequently discussed Saddam’s alleged ties to Al-Qaeda, but I am not aware of any major statements from them during that time about Saddam’s ties to other terror groups. If I’m mistaken, I’d encourage my opponent to supply some outside sources regarding this.

President Bush address to Nation on Iraq: "And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." - While not in depth, he does in fact mention it on the eve of war.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/18789.htm

Passages from Colin Powell's address to the UN:


Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region.

After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.

And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999 and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel.

This senior al-Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan. His information comes firsthand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al-Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased al-Qaida leader Muhammad Atif, did not believe that al-Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help.

Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq. The support that this detainee describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abdallah al-Iraqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in
acquiring poisons and gasses. Abdallah al-Iraqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name, and this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

The Secretary of State further designated Iraq as a state sponsor of international terrorism, citing the links I mentioned earlier.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html


But my opponent fails to address my original point about deaths: were MORE Iraqis killed or maimed as a result of the war and the subsequent sectarian fighting than the number of Iraqis who would have died under Saddam’s systematic practices of murder and torture? If the answer is yes, that presents a strong ethical argument against the justification of having gone to war there.

If the terrorists weren't engaging our military and hiding and using civilians as cover, the loss of life to innocent civilians would be drastically less. The majority of deaths in Iraq are as a result of continued suicide bombings, not the US military forces. We'll never know the level of death and destruction that might have ensued had Saddam
been left unchecked. But I do think it's better that the Iraqi people have a say in their future and an opportunity to embrace democracy and take back control of their country from a brutal dictator.

[typomaniac]

Before I continue with the rebuttals, I’d like to recap my opponent’s position on why the Iraq war was justified, as I understand it so far. Let me emphasize that I am not making any effort to misrepresent any of Sir Evil’s arguments, and I hope that if I have done so he’ll correct me.

(I have offset the argument as a quote, but I acknowledge that it is only a paraphrasing and not a verbatim quote.)



Opposing argument
The Iraq war was justified, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein did not pose any immediate (or likely long-term) threat to the US. It was enough that Saddam posed a threat to US allies (although which specific allies remains undiscussed). There were clear indications that Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions passed after the Kuwait conflict, therefore the US had to act to enforce those resolutions even if it meant bypassing the UN itself and acting unilaterally. War was also justified because of Saddam’s ties to various terror groups, even though these ties apparently did not pose a threat to the US. In addition, war with Iraq was justified not only because Saddam was a brutal dictator, but Iraq was also chosen specifically out of all the other brutal dictatorships because Saddam, unlike the regimes of Sudan or Burma, was developing WMDs to use on his own people. [This final claim has been debunked by CIA and DIA sources mentioned earlier in this thread.]

I wonder how many of my fellow Americans would choose to put so many of our young people in harm’s way, based only on the arguments above. What would the United States have to gain by doing so? And would it be worth the lives and resources that our nation would surely lose?

Of course, a great many people argued that the obvious gain would be access to oil. Looking at the long term, there is definitely something to be said for this viewpoint: of all the oil-rich nations in the Persian Gulf region, pre-invasion Iraq was one of only very few that exercised a government monopoly on the country’s oil resources. Nearly all the other such nations allow private, mainly Western, oil companies to handle the extraction and export of crude. In the short term, of course, Iraq is now producing less oil, so that it’s likely to take a great many years before the tax revenue (if any) from US interests involved in Iraq can recoup the billions of dollars per month that the military presence is now costing our government.

On to the rebuttals:


1945-1952 - Allied powers led by the United States occupied Japan… 1989-1990 - US invades Panama to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area."
None of these examples counters my original point that most US military action overseas took place after World War II (in fact it confirms it), nor does it address my other point that historians now consider many of these examples, in particular the Vietnam War, to have been mistakes.

The next point is definitely the one that I find most disturbing, however, which was when I cited examples of Soviet non-cooperation in the Cold War. When I asked if military pre-emptive intervention would have been advisable, my opponent says:


I believe pre-emptive action against the Soviet Union at the time would have been justified, yes.

Personally, I think it was the opposite answer that prevented global thermonuclear war.


The UN "acted as a mediator" and worked with Iraq for over 12 years. There were also 17 UN resolutions drawn up against Iraq during this time. None of this worked and Iraq remained in material breach of resolutions even after 12 years and 17 resolutions.

It’s a mistake to presume that just because diplomacy has not succeeded in the past that it will always fail in the future. Unlike in many other cases, diplomacy can work where it has failed before, because humans aren’t robots and they’re aware of changing conditions.


Richard Clarke, chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council during Bill Clinton's term as President of the USA, even wrote to the Deputy National Security Advisor that he had reliable sources that Iraqi officials met with Bin Laden and may have offered him asylum. This is included in the 9/11 Commission report, along with his words that if we invaded Afghanistan that it was possible Osama would "boogie to Baghdad".

So far, no “reliable source” has surfaced in my opponent’s quotes that can be in any way confirmed. And even so, Clarke went only so far as to speculate that Osama might “boogie to Baghdad,” not that any "boogying" was guaranteed.

The bottom line is that any credible link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda absolutely must be based on more than speculation and conjecture.


Certain members of the UN vowed to veto any resolution drawn up that would allow force to be used in Iraq. Odd that a UN member would vow to veto a resolution they haven't even read yet. Let's look at a few possibilities for their motives:

UN Oil for Food Scandal:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1205resign.htm

Who could have possibly benefited from Saddam remaining in power? Coincidentally, some of those who vowed to veto those resolutions. France, Germany, Russia, China.

This goes back to my previous observation about diplomacy: in this case, just because a council member vows to veto a resolution today does not necessarily mean that he or she would veto it tomorrow. A great many back-room talks can (and do) go on in the UN, and it would have been possible, and probably much more practical than a rush to war, to use various carrot-and-stick offers to bring the other council members around.


"Tactics" shouldn't be being used when they are supposed to be complying with UN inspectors unequivocally as per the resolutions.

I agree. Unfortunately, many things in this world that should not happen still happen.


Again, I don't feel there needs to be a threat to the US or our interests to justify wanting to prevent the use or increase of WMD's. While I personally find the actions taking place in Sudan and Burma reprehensible, these countries are not avoiding UN implemented resolutions for 12 years and they are not building up WMD's. Inaction elsewhere certainly shouldn't preclude us from doing the right thing in other places where diplomacy has been exhausted.

First, what would the US gain by preventing possible further use or stockpiling of WMDs, compared to what it would cost? Would the benefit be worth the cost? Why? When stakes are this high, you need clear and compelling answers to these questions.

Second, is my opponent willing to stand by the statement that countries like Sudan and Burma are NOT avoiding UN resolutions?! :eek: It’s quite obvious from these regimes’ behavior what they think of the UN.


President Bush address to Nation on Iraq: "And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." - While not in depth, he does in fact mention it on the eve of war.

He also mentioned nuclear material from Niger, which turned out to be nonexistent.


Passages from Colin Powell's address to the UN:

Powell later expressed regret about this address and called it misleading.



Colin Powell
When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. … But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/


The majority of deaths in Iraq are as a result of continued suicide bombings, not the US military forces. We'll never know the level of death and destruction that might have ensued had Saddam been left unchecked. But I do think it's better that the Iraqi people have a say in their future and an opportunity to embrace democracy and take back control of their country from a brutal dictator.

I’ll go back to the quote about democracy from my opening post. Iraq doesn’t have any history of pluralism, or of strong moderate political parties. Also, the religious and ethnic divisions there run very deep. I suspect it will take generations (at least) before the Iraqi people can have a genuine democratic government.

[Sir Evil]

Before I continue with the rebuttals, I’d like to recap my opponent’s position on why the Iraq war was justified, as I understand it so far. Let me emphasize that I am not making any effort to misrepresent any of Sir Evil’s arguments, and I hope that if I have done so he’ll correct me.

(I have offset the argument as a quote, but I acknowledge that it is only a paraphrasing and not a verbatim quote.)

Might I remind everyone that this "recap" is not my words but a set of sentences outlining my justification in a manner to shed it in a different light. I'll allow my own words to speak for themselves and deliver my own recap at the finalization of this debate.


I wonder how many of my fellow Americans would choose to put so many of our young people in harm’s way, based only on the arguments above. What would the United States have to gain by doing so? And would
it be worth the lives and resources that our nation would surely lose?

Of course, a great many people argued that the obvious gain would be access to oil. Looking at the long term, there is definitely something to be said for this viewpoint: of all the oil-rich nations in the Persian Gulf region, pre-invasion Iraq was one of only very few that exercised a government monopoly on the country’s oil resources. Nearly all the other such nations allow private, mainly Western, oil companies to handle the extraction and export of crude. In the short term, of course, Iraq is now producing less oil, so that it’s likely to take a great many years before the tax revenue (if any) from US interests involved in Iraq can recoup the billions of dollars per month that the military presence is now costing our government.

I think if many young Americans chose to seek out the full and complete facts about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, they would be proud to be a part of his removal and bringing democracy to the Middle East. Unfortunately,
too many people rely on their "facts" from snippets of news from all the wrong sources and don't have the complete picture of Saddam's history.

Iraq has an abundance of oil and prior to the removal of Saddam it was used primarily for himself and his regime to live a life of luxury while his citizens suffered and didn't see any relief at all as a result of the money Iraq made from their oil. The USA is actively involved in rebuilding pipelines and refineries and rightfully so should be paid for
their efforts. Iraq, and more importantly it's citizens, will benefit more so than ever from their oil production in the future than they ever did under Saddam Hussein.


None of these examples counters my original point that most US military action overseas took place after World War II (in fact it confirms it), nor does it address my other point that historians now consider many of these examples, in particular the Vietnam War, to have been mistakes.

But it does counter your original point that America didn't involve itself in wars without it's own interests and putting others interests above our own, which this long list clearly showed was false.


The next point is definitely the one that I find most disturbing, however, which was when I cited examples of Soviet non-cooperation in the Cold War. When I asked if military pre-emptive intervention would have been advisable, my opponent says:

Personally, I think it was the opposite answer that prevented global thermonuclear war.

And it did, no doubt. But the question was whether or not I thought invasion would have been justified at the time, not whether it would have turned out to be the right decision or not. And I still stand by my words that the US would have been justified at the time.


It’s a mistake to presume that just because diplomacy has not succeeded in the past that it will always fail in the future. Unlike in many other cases, diplomacy can work where it has failed before, because humans aren’t robots and they’re aware of changing conditions.

And how would the American people feel, or Kuwaiti's, or Israeli's should we have continued down a failed policy of diplomacy with Iraq and Saddam had used the time to develop nuclear weapons and used them against his neighbors? Or had Saddam used the tons of chemical weapons he possessed against his own people once again? A strong nation must know when to use diplomacy but must also have the courage to stand up and do the right thing when diplomacy obviously fails.


So far, no “reliable source” has surfaced in my opponent’s quotes that can be in any way confirmed. And even so, Clarke went only so far as to speculate that Osama might “boogie to Baghdad,” not that any "boogying" was guaranteed.

The bottom line is that any credible link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda absolutely must be based on more than speculation and conjecture.

Clarke didn't only speculate about what Osama would do, he also stated that reliable sources confided that the offer took place. As far as the link between Saddam an Al Qaeda, I refer you to "Zarqawi", which was
outlined clearly in my prior post. I believe he turned out to be quite a problem as a leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq during this war before he was killed, and was proven to have been within Iraq years before.


This goes back to my previous observation about diplomacy: in this case, just because a council member vows to veto a resolution today does not necessarily mean that he or she would veto it tomorrow. A great
many back-room talks can (and do) go on in the UN, and it would have been possible, and probably much more practical than a rush to war, to use various carrot-and-stick offers to bring the other council members around.

I'm not sure that I would call 12 years of diplomatic efforts and 17 resolutions to be a "rush to war". It seems obvious to me that other members were getting their "carrot and stick" offers from Iraq and their lucrative contracts that would cease if Saddam was removed from power.


I agree. Unfortunately, many things in this world that should not happen still happen.

But it's of utmost importance that they do happen when you're under strict UN resolutions outlining the "severest of consequences" if you fail to comply.


First, what would the US gain by preventing possible further use or stockpiling of WMDs, compared to what it would cost? Would the benefit be worth the cost? Why? When stakes are this high, you need clear and compelling answers to these questions.

Second, is my opponent willing to stand by the statement that countries like Sudan and Burma are NOT avoiding UN resolutions?! It’s quite obvious from these regimes’ behavior what they think of the UN.

What would the US gain? The saving of lives is more important than any amount of money spent.

The earliest resolution against Sudan is from 2005. Resolutions against Burma do in fact go back quite a few years in regards to human rights violations. What separates these 2 from the situation with Iraq is the complexity and what was included in these resolutions. Neither country is developing or possessing nuclear or chemical weapons. There were far too many factors that went into the Iraq situation than just human rights violations. I do believe the world collectively should in fact step in regardless and stop the deaths should these issues continue to be ignored via diplomacy through an inordinate amount of time.


He also mentioned nuclear material from Niger, which turned out to be nonexistent.

Powell later expressed regret about this address and called it misleading.

While these statements are true, they have nothing to do with Iraq's ties to terror organizations. The regret was about the bad intelligence as related to stockpiles of WMD.

Allow me to go a step further to address just how long the US knew about Iraq's ties to terror organizations, and how the public has been informed for many, many years. Here is a clip from C-Span showing Al Gore speaking of Iraq's many ties to terrorist organizations all the way back in 1992. Now if not mistaken this is the same Al Gore that ran against Bush, and was representing the democratic party. Let's dim the lights, and enjoy a little movie time.

<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WDitSbkQKIs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>


I’ll go back to the quote about democracy from my opening post. Iraq doesn’t have any history of pluralism, or of strong moderate political parties. Also, the religious and ethnic divisions there run very deep. I suspect it will take generations (at least) before the Iraqi people can have a genuine democratic government.

Without a doubt it will be a long road and a lot of work before Iraq reaches a full stable government and a proper working democracy. I can't speak for the amount of time this will take but I will say that it's outstanding that they how have it within their grasp to be able to do so. The mere thought of "Iraq and Democracy" just a few short years ago with Saddam in power would have sounded ridiculous and unreachable by many.

[typomaniac]

Might I remind everyone that this "recap" is not my words but a set of sentences outlining my justification in a manner to shed it in a different light. I'll allow my own words to speak for themselves and deliver my own recap at the finalization of this debate.

As I explicitly indicated in my last post, the recap I wrote was not a verbatim quote, only a summary. In the same post, I also gave my opponent the opportunity to correct any misconception that I might have had about his position. Because Sir Evil hasn’t done this, we have to assume that my recap was fair and accurate.


I think if many young Americans chose to seek out the full and complete facts about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, they would be proud to be a part of his removal and bringing democracy to the Middle East.

I have no doubt that many young Americans would put their lives on the line to defend the United States itself. But without so much as even some examples, I would be reluctant to agree that young people would choose to put their lives at risk when the only substantial benefit is for a people who live halfway around the world. I think we would see many more people joining the Peace Corps and religious missions if we were that altruistic.


Iraq has an abundance of oil and prior to the removal of Saddam it was used primarily for himself and his regime to live a life of luxury while his citizens suffered and didn't see any relief at all as a result of the money Iraq made from their oil. The USA is actively involved in rebuilding pipelines and refineries and rightfully so should be paid for their efforts.

I don’t see any logical difference between that argument and the one used by Spain as an excuse to plunder the Aztec and Inca treasures in the 14th century. The comments above seem like an attempt by my opponent to shed a softer light on raw greed as a motivation for Iraq’s invasion.

I am not implying that Americans, or even the Americans who run the government and make policy decisions, should rid themselves of all greed. Greed is very basic to human nature. It’s when people start to achieve their objectives at the expense of others (in this case, those who fought and still fight in Iraq) that greed gets too far out of control.


But it [the list of wars from post #7] does counter your original point that America didn't involve itself in wars without it's own interests and putting others interests above our own, which this long list clearly showed was false.

I disagree: just to take a few examples, many of the wars listed were entered into with the goal of preventing the spread of communism. Let’s assume that’s accurate, and that there were no ulterior motives on the US’ part. Even in cases like these, containing communism was at that time considered (rightly or wrongly) to be very much within America’s best interest. I do not know of any war in this list from which victory would have been no benefit to the United States at all.


…the question was whether or not I thought invasion would have been justified at the time, not whether it would have turned out to be the right decision or not. And I still stand by my words that the US would have been justified at the time.

I’m afraid my opponent is very much mistaken here. The original question placed no constraint at all on the question of whether the invasion was justified. Let’s be clear on this: Jim did not say “based on the information that was available at the time” or anything of the kind.

Now the saying that hindsight is 20/20 is true enough. So if we base the justification question on all the information that’s available today, this debate is pretty much over. But, because my opponent and I still have quite a few posts left, I’ll continue from the perspective of 2003.


And how would the American people feel, or Kuwaiti's, or Israeli's should we have continued down a failed policy of diplomacy with Iraq and Saddam had used the time to develop nuclear weapons and used them against his neighbors?

I very much doubt that Saddam’s weapons program would have gone that far even with no US action or diplomacy. Recall that Israel’s air force destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, and no doubt they would have done something similar.


A strong nation must know when to use diplomacy but must also have the courage to stand up and do the right thing when diplomacy obviously fails.

Doing something unilaterally just because you have the brute force to do it takes no “courage” at all. Nor are you likely to be doing the “right thing” when much of the rest of the world is opposed to you.


Clarke didn't only speculate about what Osama would do, he also stated that reliable sources confided that the offer took place.

Clarke neither named these sources nor stated how (or if) he confirmed their reports. So how reliable could they have been? We simply do not know.


As far as the link between Saddam an Al Qaeda, I refer you to "Zarqawi", which was outlined clearly in my prior post.

That outline was from Colin Powell’s UN address, which I later demonstrated that he regretted, because it was based on inaccurate information.


It seems obvious to me that other members were getting their "carrot and stick" offers from Iraq and their lucrative contracts that would cease if Saddam was removed from power.

You’re not implying that the Iraqis were better negotiators than the Americans could have been, are you? If so, I simply don’t buy it. They had far less to negotiate with.


What would the US gain? The saving of lives is more important than any amount of money spent.

If you’re referring to American lives, I might be persuaded to agree. But you seem to be talking about Iraqi lives here. Isn’t it doing the American people a great disservice if this country spends money ever deeper into the deficit hole, to the point of damaging its own economy just to save the lives of enough people to be equivalent to only about 2% of America’s own population? Where is the logic in that?


Allow me to go a step further to address just how long the US knew about Iraq's ties to terror organizations, and how the public has been informed for many, many years. Here is a clip from C-Span showing Al Gore speaking of Iraq's many ties to terrorist organizations all the way back in 1992. Now if not mistaken this is the same Al Gore that ran against Bush, and was representing the democratic party.

First, I never once claimed that the key figures in the Democratic party were unaware of or unconcerned about Saddam’s activities. Second, I find it interesting that not once in the video did Mr. Gore mention Al-Qaeda or even Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. And in fact, the only terror groups that anyone has ever confirmed that Saddam did business with were all secular in nature, such as Palestinian nationalists.


Without a doubt it will be a long road and a lot of work before Iraq reaches a full stable government and a proper working democracy. I can't speak for the amount of time this will take but I will say that it's outstanding that they how have it within their grasp to be able to do so.

Perhaps. The uppermost question in my mind, however, as well as in the minds of many of my fellow Americans is: “Was it worth it?”

[Sir Evil]

As I explicitly indicated in my last post, the recap I wrote was not a verbatim quote, only a summary. In the same post, I also gave my opponent the opportunity to correct any misconception that I might have had about his position. Because Sir Evil hasn’t done this, we have to assume that my recap was fair and accurate.



Might I remind everyone that this "recap" is not my words but a set of sentences outlining my justification in a manner to shed a different light.
I explained I would provide my own recap and also showed clearly what I thought you were trying to do with your recap. I neither attempted to try to provide my own recap at this point nor chose to clear up your misconceptions.


I have no doubt that many young Americans would put their lives on the line to defend the United States itself. But without so much as even some examples, I would be reluctant to agree that young people would choose to put their lives at risk when the only substantial benefit is for a people who live halfway around the world. I think we would see many more people joining the Peace Corps and religious missions if we were that altruistic.

So you're contention is that the men and women of the USA don't want to,
or are reluctant to join the military to assist other countries?


I don’t see any logical difference between that argument and the one used by Spain as an excuse to plunder the Aztec and Inca treasures in the 14th century. The comments above seem like an attempt by my opponent to shed a softer light on raw greed as a motivation for Iraq’s invasion.
I am not implying that Americans, or even the Americans who run the government and make policy decisions, should rid themselves of all greed. Greed is very basic to human nature. It’s when people start to achieve their objectives at the expense of others (in this case, those who fought and still fight in Iraq) that greed gets too far out of
control.

But there hasn't been any proof provided by you that the USA's motivation was in fact motivated by greed. I just stated that the situation benefits the Iraqi's like never before and that the USA would be getting paid deservedly for the work being done.


I disagree: just to take a few examples, many of the wars listed were entered into with the goal of preventing the spread of communism. Let’s assume that’s accurate, and that there were no ulterior motives on the US’ part. Even in cases like these, containing communism was at that time considered (rightly or wrongly) to be very much within America’s best interest. I do not know of any war in this list from which victory would have been no benefit to the United States at all.

If you twist it in that manner you can take ANY goal of the USA to assist others and show it to be in our benefit, as well as the rest of the world. Simply saving lives would could be considered to be beneficial to us and others by ridding the world of those killing them.


I’m afraid my opponent is very much mistaken here. The original question placed no constraint at all on the question of whether the invasion was justified. Let’s be clear on this: Jim did not say “based on the information that was available at the time” or anything of the kind.

That's because you tried to twist it and actually asked in 2 different manners in subsequent posts:

1- The former Soviet Union rarely cooperated with the US (even on treaty agreements) during the Cold War period. Would their behavior have been justification for pre-emptive action?

2- When I asked if military pre-emptive intervention would have been advisable

First you ask if I thought it would be "justified", then you ask if it would have been "advisable". That's 2 entirely different questions.

BTW - it might be advisable to remember who your opponent is in a debate, this is Sir Evil and not Jim!


I very much doubt that Saddam’s weapons program would have gone that far even with no US action or diplomacy. Recall that Israel’s air force destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, and no doubt they would have done something similar.

Having doubt when speaking of WMD just isn't enough. That's why we have weapons inspectors, to remove all doubt. Even those weapon inspectors
stated Saddam had started building towards nuclear reinstatement and development of other WMD and concealing them. What would he have done with no intervention and no diplomacy?


The present leader of Iraq has demonstrated that he has ambitions for his country reaching far outside the borders of Iraq. These grand designs of extended influence presuppose access to weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/threat.htm


The subsequent, highly intrusive inspections mandated by the Security Council and carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team in cooperation with the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) exposed and destroyed vast amounts of nuclear equipment and materials. In the process, the inspections uncovered a long-standing and determined clandestine nuclear weapons program, despite Iraqi denials until 1995 that such a program existed.

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/act1298.html


Doing something unilaterally just because you have the brute force to do it takes no “courage” at all. Nor are you likely to be doing the “right thing” when much of the rest of the world is opposed to you.

54 countries joined the "coalition of the willing" in 2003. I would hardly call that unilateral, and it pretty much shows that "much of the rest of the world" wasn't opposed.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm225.cfm


Clarke neither named these sources nor stated how (or if) he confirmed their reports. So how reliable could they have been? We simply do not know.

True enough, I cannot give direct and irrefutable evidence of this offer. Although I think it's highly likely, I will concede that I cannot provide the proof necessary to make it fact.


That outline was from Colin Powell’s UN address, which I later demonstrated that he regretted, because it was based on inaccurate information.

He never specifically regretted stating Zarqawi was in Iraq. And considering he was later found and killed in Iraq I think that leaves little doubt as to the truth.


You’re not implying that the Iraqis were better negotiators than the Americans could have been, are you? If so, I simply don’t buy it. They had far less to negotiate with.

Billions of dollars in contracts that would cease if Saddam was removed from power. Negotiation without words.


If you’re referring to American lives, I might be persuaded to agree. But you seem to be talking about Iraqi lives here. Isn’t it doing the American people a great disservice if this country spends money ever deeper into the deficit hole, to the point of damaging its own economy just to save the lives of enough people to be equivalent to only about 2% of America’s own population? Where is the logic in that?

I think it's quite logical to save lives at any cost anywhere in the world. The USA doesn't have the corner marketed on the desire to prolong human life, but we do have a larger ability than others to prevent the loss.


First, I never once claimed that the key figures in the Democratic party were unaware of or unconcerned about Saddam’s activities. Second, I find it interesting that not once in the video did Mr. Gore mention Al-Qaeda or even Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. And in fact, the only terror groups that anyone has ever confirmed that Saddam did business with were all secular in nature, such as Palestinian nationalists.

A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their motives. Their common motive is to kill and "terrorize". Here's additional proof of what was known about Saddam and his ties to terror organizations long before the invasion.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/war.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html


Perhaps. The uppermost question in my mind, however, as well as in the minds of many of my fellow Americans is: “Was it worth it?”

This debate is about whether or not the US was justified in invading Iraq. Of course we all would love to see things happen without loss of life but none of this changes whether justification existed or not. “Was it worth it?” is an interesting question at this time. While the war is still far from over I think it would be better left to revisit such a question.

[typomaniac]

Might I remind everyone that this "recap" is not my words but a set of sentences outlining my justification in a manner to shed a different light. … I neither attempted to try to provide my own recap at this point nor chose to clear up your misconceptions.

As I already tried to make clear, my outline of my opponent’s justification is only an attempt at a summary: nothing more or less. My opponent is stating that I have misconceptions about his positions, but he refuses to clear them up. In the context of a formal debate, this kind of accusation is universally considered to be dishonest. So I hope that he will reconsider, allow us to resolve this issue, and move forward.


So you're contention is that the men and women of the USA don't want to,
or are reluctant to join the military to assist other countries?

My contention is that most American men and women who join the military out of principle (meaning, not just to get money for college) choose to join based on their desire to protect and help the United States. I suspect that the vast majority of them don’t wish any harm to the people of other countries, but don’t care very much about those people’s welfare, either.


But there hasn't been any proof provided by you that the USA's motivation was in fact motivated by greed.

I agree, because it’s nearly impossible to “prove” that someone is motivated by greed, any more than it is to “prove” that they are motivated by anger, excitement, or grief. It’s not at all farfetched, however, to say that the $5 trillion worth of oil that Iraq is sitting on appeals to many people’s sense of greed.


I just stated that the situation benefits the Iraqi's like never before and that the USA would be getting paid deservedly for the work being done.

What makes you use the word “deservedly?” Who would determine whether the US is being overpaid or underpaid for its efforts?


If you twist it in that manner you can take ANY goal of the USA to assist others and show it to be in our benefit, as well as the rest of the world.

Considering how much money and how many lives a war always costs, I certainly HOPE the US would never choose to enter a war when there is absolutely no benefit to its own interests.


Simply saving lives would could be considered to be beneficial to us and others by ridding the world of those killing them.

Really? If that’s true, couldn’t we be saving lives more efficiently by giving much larger government subsidies to our own health care industry? And building more hospitals in poor countries?


That's because you tried to twist it and actually asked in 2 different manners in subsequent posts:

1- The former Soviet Union rarely cooperated with the US (even on treaty agreements) during the Cold War period. Would their behavior have been justification for pre-emptive action?

2- When I asked if military pre-emptive intervention would have been advisable

First you ask if I thought it would be "justified", then you ask if it would have been "advisable". That's 2 entirely different questions.

Are you claiming that the Iraq war was justified but not advisable? If this is not your position, your argument above is moot.


BTW - it might be advisable to remember who your opponent is in a debate, this is Sir Evil and not Jim!

In a formal debate, your opponent does not set the boundaries for the question. And he or she certainly doesn’t do it in the middle of the debate! That’s one of many reasons that a formal debate requires a third party, in this case Jim.


Having doubt when speaking of WMD just isn't enough. That's why we have weapons inspectors, to remove all doubt. Even those weapon inspectors
stated Saddam had started building towards nuclear reinstatement and development of other WMD and concealing them.

I’ve never been opposed to having weapons inspectors. My only concern was that they were effectively removed by the US before they could complete their jobs.


54 countries joined the "coalition of the willing" in 2003. I would hardly call that unilateral, and it pretty much shows that "much of the rest of the world" wasn't opposed.

Our standards may differ, but I’m reluctant to call 13 people from Angola part of a credible multinational coalition. In addition, Russia and China alone are enough to account for “much of the rest of the world.”


He [Powell] never specifically regretted stating Zarqawi was in Iraq. And considering he was later found and killed in Iraq I think that leaves little doubt as to the truth.

Powell regretted having relied on bad intelligence. For all we know, Mr. Zarqawi could have entered Iraq after Saddam was out of power.


Billions of dollars in contracts that would cease if Saddam was removed from power. Negotiation without words.

Do you honestly think the US didn’t have the resources to offer better contracts in exchange for cooperation? Deals like these are struck every day.


I think it's quite logical to save lives at any cost anywhere in the world. The USA doesn't have the corner marketed on the desire to prolong human life, but we do have a larger ability than others to prevent the loss.

Well, again, why not build state-of-the-art hospitals in Indonesia instead? The US would be saving more lives at a lower cost.


A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of their motives. Their common motive is to kill and "terrorize".

But who’s paying them? Some of the organizations that pay them have fairly specific agendas and can be bargained with. Others, including religious fanatics, respond only to deadly force.


This debate is about whether or not the US was justified in invading Iraq. Of course we all would love to see things happen without loss of life but none of this changes whether justification existed or not. “Was it worth it?” is an interesting question at this time. While the war is still far from over I think it would be better left to revisit such a question.

I have to admit that I’m confused about my opponent’s distinction between what’s “justified” and what’s “worth it.” Perhaps he could explain.

[Sir Evil]

As I already tried to make clear, my outline of my opponent’s justification is only an attempt at a summary: nothing more or less. My opponent is stating that I have misconceptions about his positions, but he refuses to clear them up. In the context of a formal debate, this kind of accusation is universally considered to be dishonest. So I hope that he will reconsider, allow us to resolve this issue, and move forward.

In the context of a debate, one wouldn't try to give a misleading recap in the middle of the debate. Nothing dishonest, and I clealry stated that I would make my own recap at the closing of this debate.


My contention is that most American men and women who join the military out of principle (meaning, not just to get money for college) choose to join based on their desire to protect and help the United States. I suspect that the vast majority of them don’t wish any harm to the people of other countries, but don’t care very much about those people’s welfare, either.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While I do believe all join with the desire to serve and protect the USA, I also think most care about human beings across the world.


I agree, because it’s nearly impossible to “prove” that someone is motivated by greed, any more than it is to “prove” that they are motivated by anger, excitement, or grief. It’s not at all farfetched, however, to say that the $5 trillion worth of oil that Iraq is sitting on appeals to many people’s sense of greed.

My point being, if we went to war for oil there would likely be more proof of that, which at this point is no proof.


What makes you use the word “deservedly?” Who would determine whether the US is being overpaid or underpaid for its efforts?

Deservedly, as in when one works they get paid to do so. I'll leave it up to the growing Iraqi government as to whether contractors are getting paid fairly or not as things progress.


Considering how much money and how many lives a war always costs, I certainly HOPE the US would never choose to enter a war when there is absolutely no benefit to its own interests.

You don't think US spent money on the lives of humans in other countries, without any direct benefit to the USA, is money well spent?


Really? If that’s true, couldn’t we be saving lives more efficiently by giving much larger government subsidies to our own health care industry? And building more hospitals in poor countries?

That has nothing to do with war which is what we are discussing here. Building hospitals wouldn't help the underlying issue of the deaths.


Are you claiming that the Iraq war was justified but not advisable? If this is not your position, your argument above is moot.

Putting words into my mouth won't help you win this debate. My belief is that the Iraq war was both justifiable and advisable. That what I am claiming.


In a formal debate, your opponent does not set the boundaries for the question. And he or she certainly doesn’t do it in the middle of the debate! That’s one of many reasons that a formal debate requires a third party, in this case Jim.

You made a direct correlation between my quote and "Jim". I was clearing up the fact that it was I who made the comments and you misspoke. This is a messageboard, and not a nationally televised debate.


I’ve never been opposed to having weapons inspectors. My only concern was that they were effectively removed by the US before they could complete their jobs.

Nice twist, but we were discussing the comment you made that you didn't think Iraq would do anything, even without US action or diplomacy. I showed proof that they were in fact continuing to produce WMD as per the weapons inspectors.


Our standards may differ, but I’m reluctant to call 13 people from Angola part of a credible multinational coalition. In addition, Russia and China alone are enough to account for “much of the rest of the world.”

I'm glad you are able to throw away the efforts of 52 countries, I'm not. Russia, and China were also warning a veto as I have already mentioned, and why.


Powell regretted having relied on bad intelligence. For all we know, Mr. Zarqawi could have entered Iraq after Saddam was out of power.

Given the pre war intelligence coupled with the insurgency he led and subsequent death in Iraq, I'll stick with the belief that he was safely harbored within Iraq both before and after the invasion, regardless of he went elsewhere at times or not.


Do you honestly think the US didn’t have the resources to offer better contracts in exchange for cooperation? Deals like these are struck every day.

It's much easier to rely on existing contracts and income than worry about the prospect of losing contracts and income.


Well, again, why not build state-of-the-art hospitals in Indonesia instead? The US would be saving more lives at a lower cost.

We are speaking of WAR, and hospitals and humanitarian assistance alone might help but won't prevent the underlying issue.


But who’s paying them? Some of the organizations that pay them have fairly specific agendas and can be bargained with. Others, including religious fanatics, respond only to deadly force.

You're getting way off base here. The original point was that Iraq had many terror ties long before the US invaded, and this has been proven.


I have to admit that I’m confused about my opponent’s distinction between what’s “justified” and what’s “worth it.” Perhaps he could explain.

The invasion of Iraq was justified by the many reasons I have outlined in this debate so far. Whether it's worth it is in the eye of the person judging. But considering the effects of this war will be played out for decades to come I don't think it's fair to judge it's "worth" at this point. Again the topic is justification of war, we can leave the "was it worth it" debate for the proper time.

[jimnyc]

** Participants should not volunteer to enter a debate unless they are willing to commit to posting in said debate at least 2x daily, as this way it will keep each debate to a maximum of 5 days to completion. **

I am ending this debate at this point for a couple of reasons. First and foremost it is stretching out much farther than the originally planned 5 days. I'm not saying anyone should be judged differently based on how long it takes to respond, but I asked for the 2x per day to keep the board from losing interest in debates. It also appears that minimal "data" is being debated at this point and the same points are being spoken over and over. I think each party has had ample time to have their say.

I am now going to attach a poll to this debate and allow the board to vote for who they think laid out a better argument.

[jimnyc]

Who do you feel gave a better debate on the subject?

[jimnyc]

I again ask to leave the debate threads to responses only from the respondents, even if the debate is now complete. If you wish to discuss the debate or have any questions, please do so in the discussion section of the debate forum.

[typomaniac]

I am ending this debate at this point for a couple of reasons. First and foremost it is stretching out much farther than the originally planned 5 days. I'm not saying anyone should be judged differently based on how long it takes to respond, but I asked for the 2x per day to keep the board from losing interest in debates. It also appears that minimal "data" is being debated at this point and the same points are being spoken over and over. I think each party has had ample time to have their say.

I am now going to attach a poll to this debate and allow the board to vote for who they think laid out a better argument.

First, I have to confess that I completely missed the rule about making posts at least twice per day. Jim, please accept my apologies.

Thanks to both you and SE for being involved with this thread.

Cheers,
Typo

[jimnyc]

First, I have to confess that I completely missed the rule about making posts at least twice per day. Jim, please accept my apologies.

Thanks to both you and SE for being involved with this thread.

Cheers,
Typo

No need to apologize! I just want things to progress in a timely fashion and hopefully move on to other subjects and participants.

You put a lot of efforts into your replies and made this a great thread to read. All is cool and everyone reading benefits as a result!

Cheers! :beer:

[Sir Evil]

I agree, and great work Typo! :beer:

[typomaniac]

No need to apologize! I just want things to progress in a timely fashion and hopefully move on to other subjects and participants.

You put a lot of efforts into your replies and made this a great thread to read. All is cool and everyone reading benefits as a result!

Cheers! :beer:I can appreciate all that. But formal debate can be a difficult balancing act, if one of your goals is to keep things moving, because ideally both sides should make their arguments as thorough as possible.

I agree that the thread turned out pretty well, though. :clap:

[typomaniac]

Maybe as a separate thread. I'd like to see not only public responses, but also for each person who votes to explain why they believe one of us did better than the other. I think that would help not only SE and myself, but also serve as a tool for debaters here on future threads.

Just a suggestion, of course.

[darin]

Maybe as a separate thread. I'd like to see not only public responses, but also for each person who votes to explain why they believe one of us did better than the other. I think that would help not only SE and myself, but also serve as a tool for debaters here on future threads.

Just a suggestion, of course.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=7776