The Instigator
Jamesothy
Pro (for)
Losing
94 Points
The Contender
gusgusthegreat
Con (against)
Winning
213 Points

Bush did the right thing when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+23
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,215 times Debate No: 5382
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (46)

 

Jamesothy

Pro

The only problem with George Bush is that he doesn't stand up for himself. We did the right thing.
Do you remember this? Please- do everyone a favor and just watch this video before accepting my challenge.
gusgusthegreat

Con

Definitions:

By "we went into" I shall assume my opponent means when Bush deployed US forces into and declared war upon the nation of Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Right-in conformance with justice or law or morality
Justice - concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity

Observations:

1. According to this topic, my opponent will have to prove that Bush did the "right" thing in the said actions, or, as by the above definition, that he performed actions in accordance with morality, law, and justice. Conversely, I must prove that Bush did not perform the "right" thing in the said actions.

Rebuttal:

The War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan occurred at different times and were caused by different events and therefore cannot both be supported by the cited video, showing footage of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States. Only the War in Afghanistan can be supported by the said video, which was launched on October 7th, 2001, and waged in retaliation to the attacks. The war in Iraq was, in fact, launched on March 20th, 2003 and waged on document intelligence suggesting the existence of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Let us first go over the War in Afghanistan.

Arguments:

The War in Afghanistan:

The war in Afghanistan was declared in direct correlation with the attacks of September 11th. The said goals were:

1. Capture Osama bin Laden.
2. Destroy al-Qaeda.
3. Remove the Taliban regime which had offered safety and support to al-Qaeda.

While the first two said goals may have been justifiable, the third cannot be. Or, for the clarity of this debate, defined as not "right". This is because, regardless of any beliefs or regime the Taliban held that contradict the U.S.'s own, there was no evidence to indicate that the Taliban had in any way advocated the attacks. On September 21, 2001, the Taliban stated that they would provide the United States with bin Laden if they could provide them with the proof of bin Laden's guilt, which the Taliban did not have. They also said that bin Laden was a guest in their country. Pashtun and Taliban codes of behavior require that guests be granted hospitality and asylum.

Ignoring this, on October 7th, 2001, the United States initiated military action in Afghanistan citing the reasons above AND "to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over�Osama bin Laden�for his alleged involvement in the September 11 attacks!"

Clearly, the United States did not even attempt a diplomatic solution to earn captivity of bin Laden, but instead professed the Taliban's stated proposal to be a refusal to hand him over!

Therefore, in this instance, the United States and Bush go directly against two necessities for something to be "right" as in the previous definition:

1. This action is not moral, as in order for Bush to achieve his own goals, he is lying to the people of America in stating that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden.
2. Attacking the Taliban does not meet the standard of "justice" because it is not ethical to proclaim an entity something they are not and proceed to take action against them for it.

Therefore, with one of the War in Afghanistan's cited goals not meeting the standard for it to be "right", we can effectively come to the conclusion that its entire concept is "not right", just as we cannot state an apple to be fresh if part of it is rotten.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001–present)

The War in Iraq:

Reason: Iraq has a nuclear program and is harboring and constructing WMD.

1. As previously stated, the Iraqi War was launched on March 20th, 2003 and was based on intelligence in the form of documents that suggested Iraqi intent and action to construct and store WMD.

According to Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary, friend and close associate of President Bush, and author of What Happened, and the cited sources, these documents were concluded to be forged and an investigation of the WMD was conducted returning no results, by March 7th, 2003, by the UN's nuclear inspection head. Yet, even after this was disproved and made clear to the president, Bush and his supporters continued to cite the documents as a source for his reasons on going to war and, thirteen days later, we did. Based on what was proven to be falsified documents.

And, again, in this instance, Bush is going against two necessary traits for something to be "right":

1. Bush continued to cite sources which were proven false and support them, which is equivalent to lying, an immoral action.
2. Justice is not met because A) lying is immoral and B) even if Bush still believed that there were WMD in Iraq, it is irrational to do so after the initial source of this belief is vanquished.

Finally, even if there were WMD in Iraq, which may have posed a threat, if there were no evidence supporting the intention of Iraq to use them on another nation unless in defense, it would not be "right" to invade. This is because the United States does not have the right to prevent other nations from developing or, in other words, deciding that the United States could have WMD but not other nations.

1. "Right"-ness requires "justice".
2. "Justice" requires fairness and equity, and, were the United States to prevent Iraq from having WMD, not only would it by hypocritical, this policy would fail to have either fairness or equity, and thus, "right"-ness.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
What Happened, by Scott McClellan (Reference Link: http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I shall conclude by wishing my opponent the best of luck in his reply.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Jamesothy

Pro

When I meant see the video, I meant be reminded why we got involved in the Middle East's problems in the first place.
I do intend to prove that Bush did the "right" thing so don't think you got me by picking at my words.

Afghanistan-
The goals in the war here were and still are "right" and "just". How can you destroy a terrorist group without getting rid of a government (if you can call the Taliban that) that harbours them? Osama bin Laden is an evil person, there is no other way to say it. We do know he and many of his men just under him did help plan and execute 9/11.
By the way, never use Wikipedia for it only tells you what you want to say- the United States DID attempt diplomatic relations as you mentioned two paragraphs above.

1. Bush did not lie to the people of America, the Taliban, if friendly to us, would have handed him over instantly. Instead, they did not.
2. Attacking the Taliban was justice as all TRUE Americans agreed and still do. They harbored a terrorist group and you are saying it was "not ethical" to go in and get rid of them? That is wrong.

The (very successful) War in Iraq-
You claim that the United States went in to Iraq because of "intelligence in the form of documents that suggested Iraqi intent and action to construct and store WMD".

Let me put it this way- If someone walked up to your mother, put a gun to her head, and said, "Give me all of your jewellery." the gun wouldn't have to be loaded for that person to be tried for armed robbery.

Right? Right.

Now, Saddam Hussein said to the world, "I have Weapons of Mass Destruction and I will use them." Even if he didn't, shouldn't he still be treated the same? However, he used them on his own people, we know that.

Anyway, that's not the point because, oh yeah, we DID find yellow cake and there is proof.
http://www.nytimes.com...
gusgusthegreat

Con

I would like to congratulate the affirmative on compiling an intelligent response. However, his arguments fail on several key accounts.

1. First, let me explain why his discrediting of my sources is not to be trusted.

"never use Wikipedia for it only tells you what you want to say"

This statement cannot at all be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

At this link are listed many, many references as to where this article's information comes from. Out of those references, we find people such as John McCain, and even the president in question--George W. Bush. If we are to conclude that the information in this article "only tells [us] what [we] want to say" then we must also conclude that those whose information and knowledge was compiled to form this article must be equally invalid. Since this includes the subject of the debate, George W. Bush, we can furthermore say that George W. Bush only tells this nation what he wants us to hear, making him a manipulative man, which does not coincide with our previous definition of "right". If Bush is not himself a "just" or "right" man, then his actions can not be considered so either--thus, declaring war in these circumstances can be thrown into question. If we do not accept this conclusion, then the sources must be considered valid.

Also, the changes made to articles of this importance is strictly monitored. This is so because, were it not, we would suddenly see mentions of the 9/11 conspiracy theory and other rumors pop up. Because there is not an abundance of ludicrous information listed, we can assume there are people who ensure the quality of the information listed.

2."the United States DID attempt diplomatic relations"

As I said in my last argument:

"On September 21, 2001, the Taliban stated that they would provide the United States with bin Laden if they could provide them with the proof of bin Laden's guilt, which the Taliban did not have. They also said that bin Laden was a guest in their country. Pashtun and Taliban codes of behavior require that guests be granted hospitality and asylum."

Essentially, the United States' only attempt at diplomacy was to say "Gimme," over Osama bin Laden. Stated above, the Taliban asked for evidence of his involvement in 9/11, which the United States did not provide, considering the Taliban's reasonable reply to be a refusal. They ALSO said that they couldn't simply hand him over because they were required to follow certain cultural and local customs that dictated the Taliban give Osama bin Laden hospitality and asylum.

So, again as I've said, on October 7th, 2001, the United States initiated military action against Afghanistan "to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over�Osama bin Laden�for his alleged involvement in the September 11 attacks!"

Did the Taliban refuse to hand him over? No. They required evidence of his guilt beforehand. The United States , and I quote the affirmative, "[knew] he and many of his men just under him did help plan and execute 9/11." If this was so, why didn't the United States present the evidence and take bin Laden? Instead of continuing the diplomatic relations with the Taliban, they declared war on Afghanistan, saying the Taliban refused, which the did NOT do.

I hardly say that the United States was at all diplomatic, "just" or "right" in saying "Gimme!" to the Taliban and then proceeding to lie about the refusal that never occurred.

Thus, the United States and President Bush did not tell the truth to the people and cited untrue reasons for war with Afghanistan. This goes against being "right" because such a quality requires morality, and lying does not fit the qualities of morality.

The affirmative has stated:

"1. Bush did not lie to the people of America, the Taliban, if friendly to us, would have handed him over instantly. Instead, they did not."

So, if the United States is to have friends, they must obey are every command and give us every suspected criminal in their boundary? The Taliban did not have proof of his guiltiness. Friends should be treated as equals, not as servants ready to do our bidding on a whim.

"2. [The Taliban] harbored a terrorist group and you are saying it was "not ethical" to go in and get rid of them? That is wrong."

They harbored a terrorist group according to their law and custom pertaining to guests. Again, should friends be servants? Bush thought of himself and the United States as so high and mighty that they should be allowed to force the people of other nations to break the laws that are near sacred to them. In other words, he thought us superior to Afghanistan and its people. "Justice" is a necessity of "right". Justice itself requires equity. The United States did not acknowledge the equality of other nations or peoples under Bush, and, thus, was not just. Without this "justice", Bush and the US cannot have been "right" in these actions.

The War in Iraq:

"You claim that the United States went in to Iraq because of ‘intelligence in the form of documents that suggested Iraqi intent and action to construct and store WMD'."

Not only do I claim it, but the guy who worked with Bush claims it. Also, if you missed this part, the documents were PROVEN TO BE FORGED. The claims made in these documents were investigated, proven untrue, AND the documents themselves were proven to be forged. Bush knew it.

The scenario of armed robbery is not pertinent to this situation because Iraq never made any threats against the United States and was proven to have no yellow cake when the United Nations nuclear inspection team investigated. Therefore, the "robber" never made a threat or ever have a "gun" to make a threat.

The affirmative has stated:

"However, he used them on his own people, we know that."

I assume you are referring to WMD. It was proven he didn't have them. How could he use something that he didn't have? However, even if you are referring to his rather immoral behavior of killing his own people with simple guns, the Bush did not declare war stating this as a reason and is not pertinent to our determination of whether or not Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was "right". Furthermore, even if he had stated this as a reason, it almost surely would have been voted down. Congress voted for the war because Bush told them Iraq had possession of WMD, which, by March 7th, had been proven false, and Bush knew it.

Next, the affirmative has stated:

"…we DID find yellow cake and there is proof.
http://www.nytimes.com... "

The above article it clearly states:

"The yellowcake removed from Iraq — which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003�State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa — is used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing does it become low-enriched uranium, which can fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs."

Bush took the false intelligence and stated that Iraq had WMD. Not only did he use information which he knew to be false, but the yellow cake which was found as an afterthought (this article was published on July 7th, 2008) can't even be used to make WMD!

Thus, we come to the following two conclusions:

1. The War in Afghanistan was started on a refusal that didn't exist and in essence declared the superiority of the United States to other cultures. Bush's morality and thus, "right"-ness fails to present itself here.
2. The War in Iraq was started on forged information that Bush knew to be false almost 2 WEEKS before the deployment of the military. Again, Bush's morality and thus, "right"-ness fails to present itself.

The affirmative's argument is unsound in its claims.
Debate Round No. 2
Jamesothy

Pro

I'm not even going to start on Wikipedia- the fact that you can edit almost anything into or out of the articles.

Second- Yes. The US did attempt diplomatic relations. If the Taliban were our allies, they would have handed him over without a comment. The Taliban DID refuse to hand him over so the US (and virtually everybody in it) supported the war. If you can remeber, think back to 2001, when we saw 2,974 people die in the terrorist attacks. If you hadn't supported the war from the beginning, you were (and in my mind still are) unpatriotic.

"So, if the United States is to have friends, they must obey are every command and give us every suspected criminal in their boundary?"
No and how dare you suggest such a thing. If Germany had had a terrorist attack and the US was harboring the criminal, the entire world would be up in arms about how evil the US is and how they don't help their allies. And you know that would happen because you are one of the ones who would be saying it.

"Justice", which by the way seems to be your new favorite word, is subjective. If a criminal kills someone, maybe he thinks that justice. I don't.

The guy who claimed that the "documents were forged" was:
a) looking for 15 minutes of fame
b) how would he know if the documents were forged?
c) what would the point be of forging documents?

"The scenario of armed robbery is not pertinent to this situation because Iraq never made any threats against the United States and was proven to have no yellow cake when the United Nations nuclear inspection team investigated"
Someone doesn't know their history because when I said "Iraq" I meant it's evil dictator. You know, the one who's regime we successfully overthrew. I'm sorry for the confusion. (Duh!)

Yellow cake is yellowcake- the point is that he had it and you were not correct. It doesn't have to be "the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed". It is yellow cake.

I have another question for you- If the UK had had a cruel dictator, would we have done the same thing? Yes, absolutely.

PS- I am not going to try anymore. You libs have closed minds (for the most part) and I have no doubt that you will never listen.
gusgusthegreat

Con

"Second- Yes. The US did attempt diplomatic relations. If the Taliban were our allies, they would have handed him over without a comment. The Taliban DID refuse to hand him over so the US (and virtually everybody in it) supported the war. If you can remeber, think back to 2001, when we saw 2,974 people die in the terrorist attacks. If you hadn't supported the war from the beginning, you were (and in my mind still are) unpatriotic."

I don't see a source for this, ladies and gentlemen. Without a source, claims mean nothing. Wikipedia is better than no source at all.

Aside from that, I've already proven these claims to be false WITH sources and logic. Please refer to my Round 2 post.

""So, if the United States is to have friends, they must obey are every command and give us every suspected criminal in their boundary?" No and how dare you suggest such a thing. If Germany had had a terrorist attack and the US was harboring the criminal, the entire world would be up in arms about how evil the US is and how they don't help their allies. And you know that would happen because you are one of the ones who would be saying it."

A) The entire world wasn't up in arms over Afghanistan or Iraq.
B) If the United States had religious laws (like Afghanistan and the Taliban did) that dictated they must grant hospitality and asylum to the terrorists (Osama bin Laden in our case) the world should be understanding and meet the agreement that the country put forth. The Taliban wanted proof before they'd hand him over, which, according to the affirmative, was obvious. If it was entirely proved that bin Laden was guilty, then why didn't the United States give the evidence and take bin Laden? Instead, they ignored this diplomatic solution to the relations and declared a refusal of terms, which the Taliban did not do--they proposed that they needed evidence to override the laws of hospitality and asylum in force over their guest, Osama bin Laden. If the evidence wasn't readily available, then the president did not tell the truth about the attacks, which is immoral and not "right". If they did have the evidence, they avoided the Taliban's request for evidence in order to satisfy a personal agenda and ended up lying about a "refusal". This, too, is immoral, and thus, not "right".

""Justice", which by the way seems to be your new favorite word, is subjective. If a criminal kills someone, maybe he thinks that justice. I don't."

"Justice" is subjective to the belief of the world, not the individual, and is reflected in the law. If a criminal kills someone, even if he thinks it's justice, it's not, because "justice" requires obedience to the law. Just as lying is both immoral, and, in the president's case, against the law. That does not change because of your perspective.

President Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, which was against the law. I don't see how Bush's lies suddenly become okay. They are against the law, and no one, not even the president, is above the law. "Justice" is based on law, as set forth by the definition provided earlier. Therefore, disobedience of the law eliminates justice from the criterion needed for Bush to be "right" in his actions.

"The guy who claimed that the "documents were forged" was:
a) looking for 15 minutes of fame
b) how would he know if the documents were forged?
c) what would the point be of forging documents?"

The "guy" is not, in fact, an individual. Although, Scott McClellan has repeated the claim, it is a claim set forth by the United Nations and various intelligence agencies.
The point of forging documents would be to achieve a personal agenda. If it was the Bush administration or not, we don't know, but, regardless, Bush supported the documents, which were proven to be forged a year before he cited them as reasoning to invade Iraq. Also, Scott McClellan's What Happened which retells this information, is one of the bestselling books currently. I hardly call that 15 minutes of fame.

Sources:
http://www.newyorker.com...
http://www.time.com...

""The scenario of armed robbery is not pertinent to this situation because Iraq never made any threats against the United States and was proven to have no yellow cake when the United Nations nuclear inspection team investigated"
Someone doesn't know their history because when I said "Iraq" I meant it's evil dictator. You know, the one who's regime we successfully overthrew. I'm sorry for the confusion. (Duh!)"

Uh-huh. Well, the War in Iraq's goals were not to save it's people from an evil dictator, but to prevent attack from WMD which were never found. So he's a dictator--he never made threats against the United States. He never imported yellow cake from Niger that could be made into WMD. The point is, whatever Bush's true intentions were, he said otherwise in lies, and therefore was not "right" in his actions.

"Yellow cake is yellowcake- the point is that he had it and you were not correct. It doesn't have to be "the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed". It is yellow cake."

Except yellow cake Bush talked about could be used in WMD. This yellow cake is impossible to enrich enough for WMD. We didn't go in for "yellowcake". We went in because the yellowcake inferred and supported the claims of WMD. Bush claimed that the yellowcake was for WMD, but the documents inferring such had been disproved a year before, and a decisive investigation conducted by the IAEA that proved no yellowcake was present.

"I have another question for you- If the UK had had a cruel dictator, would we have done the same thing? Yes, absolutely."
We would've forged documents inferring their possession of yellow cake to sidestep true intentions? Well, I guess we wouldn't be "right" in those actions either.

"PS- I am not going to try anymore. You libs have closed minds (for the most part) and I have no doubt that you will never listen."

This is a debate, not necessarily a reflection of my beliefs. A debate should leave out my political standings. And the definition of liberal includes the term "open-minded" for the record. :P

Conclusion:

1. The War in Afghanistan was started on a refusal that didn't exist and in essence declared the superiority of the United States to other cultures. Bush's morality and thus, "right"-ness fails to present itself here.
2. The War in Iraq was started on forged information that Bush knew to be false almost 2 WEEKS before the deployment of the military. Again, Bush's morality and thus, "right"-ness fails to present itself.

I have sources for these facts, wheras the affirmative has only presented hearsay. Facts mean nothing unless backed up.

The affirmative has made unsound claims. George Bush's actions concerning Afghanistan and Iraq were unlawful, unjust, and thus, not "right", the crux of this debate. The negative has been proven correct.
Vote for the truth. Vote negative.

General Sources:
Provided in Previous Posts
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
@ George_Bush_Rocks, I would really, really, really like to see some sources and evidence for all the claims you just made. And unless you can see the future while the rest of us can't, I would suggest avoiding claims concerning preventing WWIII. Otherwise, I can say I prevented WWIV just by clipping my fingernails.
I'm not saying this to lift up or bash Bush in any way.

And am I the only one who would laugh if the international law actually said something to the effect of "fooled around with weapons of mass destruction?" :D That would be the best law ever.
Posted by George_Bush_Rocks 6 years ago
George_Bush_Rocks
But I do agree with Conor, showing that video was probably one of the worst tactics you could have used to convince someone.
Posted by George_Bush_Rocks 6 years ago
George_Bush_Rocks
And your statement about George Bush and Hurricane Katrina, during Hurricane Katrina George Bush was currently passing the "Jobs of the 20th Century" bill, which put 3 million people back in jobs.
Posted by George_Bush_Rocks 6 years ago
George_Bush_Rocks
Miz_King: Your statement "The con is totaly correct.. George Bush has done nothing to help this contry..", is completely inaccurate. George W. Bush protected national and global security, and creating an astounding amount of jobs for the economy being in it's state. Iraq: Well we weren't going in there saying there were WMD's, but anyway China, Italy, France, and Australian secret services all told us there was a good chance Saddam had obtained nuclear and biological weaponry. So based on what we were given it was sensible and a good idea to send troops in. Ever heard of Wissam Al Zimbabwe? The diplomat from Niger? Niger has only two major exports: Oil, and yellow cake uranium. Considering Iraq definitely does not need oil, there is only one reason why Saddam would send someone down to Niger. Plus we heard of a "sale" of 500 pounds of yellow cake uranium from Niger, which is enough to create 25 nuclear weapons. And Saddam's regime was one that had shown least consideration to international law, he invaded neighboring countries, he armed and aided terrorist groups, and fooled around with weapons of mass destruction (there is a fourth I cannot recall). He broke international law on all 3 (4) major points. So in conclusion, by sending troops into Iraq, we achieved two major goals: 1. Millions of people in Iraq who had lived under Saddam's regime now live in freedom. 2. We prevented WW III. For number two...How? We were doing the world a favor by invading Iraq, if we let Saddam slip by with breaking international law, that was leaving an open ticket for other countries to break international law, which would ultimately lead to a war in the Middle East. So your statement:"The con is totaly correct.. George Bush has done nothing to help this contry..", is completely inaccurate.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
Although I agree we should have gone into Iraq, my desire to do so was not parallel to the Bush administrations. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, and as someone who saw the WTC topple before his own eyes, I'm frankly offended that you could try to emotionally convince someone of the justification of the Iraq War by showing that horrible video.
Posted by DayyTripper2o3 8 years ago
DayyTripper2o3
Why WE Fight

They say there is no meaning to this war,
That we have nothing worth fighting for.
That we're sacrificing lives of innocent men,
But I say there's some things they can't comprehend.
Like how we can lay our heads down at night,
And fall asleep without a fright.
How we can walk safely down the street,
Without fearing just who you might meet.
Now if you can, imagine this,
These are all the things that you would miss.
If we were not fighting in this war,
Would you be able to trust who lives next door?
How would you know what your day might hold,
For all you know, your life might explode.
You'd fear not getting to live another day,
But then again, you're the ones that have to pay,
For saying that the men who are over seas,
Should be back living safely in this country.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 8 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
Great debate. I agree 100% with Pro. Keep on keepin on brother.
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
I like the pro's claim that if you didnt support the war your instantly unpatriotic......im not patriotic at all but just if i was, because i dont support the imperialistic eradication of a third world countrys government so we can have more resources wouldnt make me unpatriotic, it'd make you unethical for saying thats justified or "right". I also love how people over emphasize 911 as well, more people dies from Hurricane Katrina then the 911 attacks, but people declare that as the worst moment in this nation's history......i'd actually like to think it was when we abandoned all thought, reason and moral value in world war 2 when we instituted internment camps, as well as the same ignorant stereotypes the U.S. promoted against people of middle eastern background after 911. I believe that's the great "wrong" that was done, 2000 people are killed and you claim the just thing to do is to invade a country sacrifice twice as many American lives than were originally taken on 911 and slaughter 1,297,997 innocent Iraqi's since? You define right or just as fair, where does any of that equate to fairness? Pacifism ftw!
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Miz_King, I wouldn't take it to that extreme of a stance, but, for the most part I agree.

Also, let me remind viewers that any viewpoints I have posted were part of a debate. A debate for the sake of debate does not necessarily have to represent my corresponding views in any way shape or form.
Posted by Miz_King 8 years ago
Miz_King
The con is totaly correct.. George Bush has done nothing to help this contry.. what he did was put us in a deficide.. as well as lose to many lives that shouldn't have been.. Kanye West was totaly correct when he said George Buch doesn't care about black people... Katrina was a perfect example.. they knew it was coming and no one did anything about it.. theres always an excuse that the people didn't want to leave but thats not true at all..
46 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by c.henkiel 6 years ago
c.henkiel
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by NorthernShooter 6 years ago
NorthernShooter
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by George_Bush_Rocks 6 years ago
George_Bush_Rocks
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Dingo7 7 years ago
Dingo7
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by gusgusthegreat 7 years ago
gusgusthegreat
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by 11rwegan 8 years ago
11rwegan
JamesothygusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07