The Instigator
Watchman81
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Bush Lied, People Died?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
rangersfootballclub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,204 times Debate No: 6902
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)

 

Watchman81

Con

In this debate, I am arguing that President Bush did NOT lie in order to justify the United State's invasion of Iraq. Whether or not the United State's invasion of Iraq was justifiable or not is irrelevant to this debate. I am arguing against the popular belief that Bush used deception in order to justify the US' invasion of Iraq.

The reason we went to war was because President Bush as well as many others sincerely believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Not only that, Saddam Hussein was in violation of past agreements with the UN and has never indicated that he wanted to comply with the rest of the world.

The intelligence that the US had led
Bush to believe Saddam Hussein DID have Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US, along with England, France, Russia, and Jordan had all come to the
same conclusion. If my opponent believes that Bush lied, then he must also believe that the rest of these nations lied also. My argument was the
Bush may have been WRONG about the WMD's, but this report is NOT evidence of intentional deception.

On top of all this, all of the Democrats who voted FOR the war had the exact same intelligence President Bush and the leaders of the other countries went on. If the President was lying, one would also have to argue that Congress was
lying as well, since they saw everything that Bush saw.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

right lets get to the truth , the mans an idiot.

it doesnt take a genuis to know the country never had any weapons of mass destruction and if they did the U.S.A would no exactly were they were .

eveybody knows the weapons of mass destruction storey is a cover up.
bush had many reasons for wanting to invade iraq , 9/11 , oil , terrorism.

if the weaposn fo mass destruction was the case then why havent they left now ?? they have been there for around 9 years. They admitted there was no weapons of mass destruction.Say there was though , why did the usa have to wait till 9/11 to invade ? why not go in before that iuf they were so damn sure.
Debate Round No. 1
Watchman81

Con

Watchman81 forfeited this round.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

Well as much as all off you hate me for my blog style rants. I am afraid as hard to believe its the truth ... I am not checking my spelling or even bothering to anything else other than this because well , I know from the start anybody taking a side against America here will lose , its a bad mentality you people have , I have seen it in almost all anti-American debates etc.

also I will wait for my opponent to post his debate is he does not then there's no much more I can do is there ?
Debate Round No. 2
Watchman81

Con

First of all, sorry I didn't respond in the last round. I got way busy and ran out of time! Now, on to my argument.

It's a little difficult to argue against my opponents "points" because he doesn't really make a solid argument, but I'll try.

"it doesnt take a genuis to know the country never had any weapons of mass destruction and if they did the U.S.A would no exactly were they were ."

This argument is not only incredibly silly, but completely ignorant. Based on what we knew before the invasion, it was reasonable to believe that Saddam Hussein did have WMD's. This is why Jordan, Russia, France, England, and Germany all believed the exact same thing. Most of the intelligence pointed to it.

"eveybody knows the weapons of mass destruction storey is a cover up.
bush had many reasons for wanting to invade iraq , 9/11 , oil , terrorism."

I'll address each of these reasons separately.

9/11 was a reason for the US invading Iraq and Bush never said it wasn't. When 9/11 happened, it changed our focus on Islamic Terrorism. Since Saddam Hussein DID have ties to terrorists, obviously this would put Hussein on our radar.

Oil is NOT a reason we invaded Iraq. There is absolutely no evidence of this. We haven't really even touched Iraq's oil. Iraq now sells its own oil to whomever it wants to sell it to. We have not raided any stashes of their oil. As a matter of fact, our soldier put their lives on the line to protect Iraq's oil reserves from terrorists who wanted to destroy them.

"if the weaposn fo mass destruction was the case then why havent they left now ?? they have been there for around 9 years. They admitted there was no weapons of mass destruction.Say there was though , why did the usa have to wait till 9/11 to invade ? why not go in before that iuf they were so damn sure."

This is yet another ignorant argument. My opponent is implying that we should have invaded, found that there were no WMD's, and then retreated right after, thereby leaving millions of Iraqis to perish at the hands of Islamic Terrorists and warlords. This also would have given Iran far more influence in the region which is something most of the rest of the world does not want. We are still in Iraq to maintain peace and to ensure that Iraq will be able to stand on its own and defend itself against its enemies. As for my opponent's question as to why the US did not invade Iraq before 9/11, it is clearly because we were still trying to work with the UN to disarm Saddam. Obviously 9/11 changed the dynamic and Bush felt that we needed to act on Saddam's violation of UN resolutions since the UN was clearly impotent in this matter.

My opponent has yet to give a single intelligent or convincing argument in this debate. So far, it is clear that Bush did NOT use deception to invade Iraq.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

look if you dont want to debate with me anymore be my guess , stop trating me like a child.

There is a clear need for americans on this site to justify what has happended in iraq , dont say you dont because you do . America cant afford to admit ithas made a mistake . It is to late for america to pull back now and therefore thy are pulling excuses out a hat.

ok i will admit oil was not the only reason america invaded iraq there was many others which i have explained but you are unwilling to listen to and claim they are pretty much a load of nonsnese.

let me ask you something now ?? you say this and that you claim this and that . But do you have any proof of what the govermet say ? half of the tihngs you cliam have never been said by the goverment everybody pressumes they have .

now my opponent has only done 2 things better than me spelling , puncuation and conducting himself in a slighlty better manner than me however he has hinted towards a general hate for the things i say in a suttle manner.
Debate Round No. 3
Watchman81

Con

Watchman81 forfeited this round.
rangersfootballclub

Pro

well surly if my opponent has failed to post an argument twice , then I must be the winner ? none the less I release how unpopular my comments were , or just how naive some people are ... so go on bomb away even though I am the winner as my opponent has failed to provide a full argument.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro won conduct due to con forfeits. Con won arguments since Pro never made an affirmative case, giving no evidence that Bush lied about anything. Pro only asserted his feelings.
Posted by Watchman81 8 years ago
Watchman81
Sorry I didn't really participate much in this debate, but in reality it wasn't much of a debate in the first place. I gave good well-though out arguments and my opponent only gave half-baked opinions that did nothing to counter what I was saying. I'll just have to retry this one and hope I get a better opponent.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Tatarize, The story was broken by journalist Robert Novak based on the information from Armitage. The Administration was not involved. Before Armitage was outed, Congress appointed a special prosecutor to confirm their assumption that the Administration was responsible. the charges were proven false, as they quickly discovered Armitage was responsible. It was investigated as thoroughly as anything could be investigated, and there was nothing found to substantiate your claim.

Of course Blix wanted to stay and look more. Note that long after the fall of Saddam, five MIGS were found buried in the desert with their rudders sticking above the surface. It speaks to how much sand there is to search. There was not the slightest chance that Blix would have found a WMD cache solely by searching the terrain. The search depended entirely upon Saddam cooperating by providing witnesses and a paper trail, which Saddam did not do.

The issue was whether Bush had good reason to believe that Saddam had WMDs. That Blix thought Saddam probably did supports the case that thinking Saddam had them was reasonable. You previously argued that your unnamed sources convinced you Saddam did not have WMDs. The question then is whether Bush should have relied upon your unnamed sources or upon the CIA, the French, Germans, et al. Saddam had obligations from the 1991 ceasefire agreement to account for poison gas stocks; an obligation which had gone unfulfilled. So while Blix was there for a shorter time, the issue was on the table for 12 years. We now know that Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMDs, so it shouldn't be a surprise that people reasonably concluded he did.

Obama was on record as believing that Saddam had WMDs. Obama, like Blix, believed the US should not intervene until they were used.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
No the weapons inspectors were never going to find them because there were no weapons. Armitage did out Plame but the with the confirmation and the reasons why the memos were flying around with her name on them and her relationship it does seem largely political.

If given the choice Blix wanted to stay and look more. In the end it wouldn't have mattered if there were weapons or not, the inspectors were on the ground either would have found them if they existed or confirmed the reports that it was all a bluff. Staying there and looking more was clearly the path to take, whereas the administration got impatient after they didn't find anything after a little bit and decided to invade anyway.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
1) It takes skill to doom the world.
2) 2000.
Posted by Demosthenes 8 years ago
Demosthenes
Ok NOW you've pissed me off RBC.

I have one response to both of your points.

1. Global Economic meltdown wouldn't be happening if the rest of the world stopped buying shitty products from China and had stopped allowing American jobs to be sent overseas.

2. I'm not even going to adddress your point on George Bush, it's not worth the time. the leader of our country can't do ANYTHING without Congress, so your point is moot and useless. Learn about how government of the people works, dump your monarch and then come talk to me.

Oh, and take a hint from some people who actually SUCCEEDED in their revolution - the Brits aren't that tough, they walk straight at you. hide behind trees and stuff, it helps.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
RBC, Proof is required when you make an assertion. To prove "Bush lied" you need to prove (a) Bush claimed some specific thing, (b) that what he claimed was false, and (c) that he knew it was false at the time he made the claim. If you cannot prove all three, you cannot prove all three then you are perfectly free to be suspicious and try to collect evidence, but your assertion is in the quasi-religious class of truth revealed only to you. To take another example, Tatarize challenged my belief that Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame, so I provided a link to an interview in which Armitage confessed to having done so. The way it works is that the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you claim that magical garden fairies exist, it's not the job of the rest of us to prove you wrong, and otherwise your claim is valid.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
I have one response to Americans being stupid no wait two .

1) global economic meltdown
2) George bush being elected more than once ....

no like i said answer the question , my oppenent has posted several claims not backed by evidence yet you accuse me of it only .
Posted by Demosthenes 8 years ago
Demosthenes
Ummm....
What are you talking about RBC?
Seriously, do you even read your posts before you submit them?

If you're going to make claims, YOU NEED EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM UP. On a debating site you're not supposed to make random claims but then refuse to post reasonable, solid evidence to back up what you say.

If you say that all Americans are stupid, you have to prove it somehow. That's basic debating, go read a book about it and then come back.

And shove your bigotry somewhere warm and safe, so you can pull it out when you know what you're talking about.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
everybody says when people make these "outragous" anti-american claims that we have no evidence and should refer to facts etc etc .. let me ask all you amerians something , were is the proof that it doesnt happen , were is your evidence ??
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Watchman81rangersfootballclubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Watchman81rangersfootballclubTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41