The Instigator
ReaganConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
70 Points
The Contender
midgetjoe
Con (against)
Winning
78 Points

The Iraq War was necessary

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  
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: 12/12/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,256 times Debate No: 272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (46)

 

ReaganConservative

Pro

To deny Saddam Hussein was not "part of the war on terror" would be to deny his past terrorist actions. Hussein was a well-known terrorist who used WMD and poison gas against his own people, killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the 1980's and burying them in mass graves. He routinely tortured his own citizens with electric shock and castration. He raped women and killed them in front of their families. Hussein long harbored one of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. He had already attempted to assasinate a sitting U.S. president (Bush, 41) in 1993 and many intelligence agencies around the world believed he actively pursued enriched uranium (yellowcake) for his WMD program.

While it is true there were no actual facilities found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, there were many smaller scale clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services which were engaged in small scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified agents. Moreover, these laboratories were analyzing whether various poisons would alter the texture, smell and appearance of foodstuffs.

Did these findings not constitute an imminent threat? Should we have waited for these chemical and biological weapons to be smuggled into the country and used against our domestic population to murder millions of citizens before we considered these weapons an "imminent threat?"

The report also noted Iraqi Intelligence Service M-16--Saddam's Directorate of Criminology which conducted "special substances" research and development--"had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe. The ISG was told "ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol" in various munitions. "Such development was not just for assassination," wrote Richard Spertzel, head of the biological weapons section of UNSCOM from 1994 to 1999 and a member for the ISG. "If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for a terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD."

Documentation from the Duelfer Report indicated Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Park--training Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese in terrorist techniques, including assassination and homicide bombings.

Since our invasion, there has not been ONE attack on U.S. soil.

As a result of this war:
-Afghanistan had its first free election in history
-First time in their history, Iraq and Afghanistan have a chance to control their own destiny
-Iraq now has government that controls its own military, passes its own laws, and exercises all the power provided by their constitution.
-50 million people have been liberated from Saddam's rule
-Saddam Hussein is out of power and dead
-Uday and Qusay Hussein, his two terrorist sons who ran the rape rooms and torture chambers, have been killed
-American, British and coalition troops have captured 85% of al Qaeda leaders
-In 2003, Muammar Qaddafi of Libya gave up weapons of mass destruction in response to force used in Iraq
-Democratically held elections and the seeds of democracy have been planted in Afghanistan and Iraq

Since Saddam was removed, the country has seen free elections; restoration of sovereignty; formation of a new government; ratification of a constitution; introduction of a sound currency; revival of oil production; newly established stock market; surge of new businesses; training of new police and military; rebuilding of roads; opening of schools; new fire stations; an improved computer network; and the increased availability of clean water. Per capita income has doubled since 2003. There are now more than 100 independent newspapers and TV stations in the country.
midgetjoe

Con

1. Yes Saddam was a bad guy...that's not the question, the question is, WAS HE A CURRENT THREAT TO THE US...that is the ONLY justification for going to war. And if he was the president has to go through Congress not declare himself king. A true conservative would know this.

2. The evidence before the war was all faulty or ignored, he had no WMD's as many people tried to tell the president and as everyone found out. and even if he did, he would have to be a LOT stupider to use them on us....it would mean the end of his reign, we would have kicked his butt so fast.

3. you ased if these were an iminent threat, i would say no....first of all he didn't have them, second we should have waited for an ATTEMPT to smuggle them in, besides like i said i'd have to be a total moron to use them, yes he was a butcher, but you have to give it to the guy, he wasn't stupid.

4. You mentioned that their hadn't been an attack on US soil, that is wrong...there have been plenty (I believe 2000+ on Allied soil, i'm not sure the number on US) but don't forget the airbort attempt, and the fort in texas (or florida or whereever it was). there have been plenty of attacks none of them succeeded.....just like before 9/11, ussually they fail, every now and then they get lucky, the invasion hasn't changed that, it just made several hundred thousand arabs angry enough to want to attempt it, good going....

5. "Afghanistan had its first free election in history"
This has nothing to do with the Iraq war, the afganistan conflict was perfectly justified...

6. "First time in their history, Iraq and Afghanistan have a chance to control their own destiny"
Not a reason to go to war, we hardly have that here.

7. "Iraq now has government that controls its own military, passes its own laws, and exercises all the power provided by their constitution."
They don't have a military to speak of, their government is a puppet one set up by the US who is too scared to do anything we don't like, and laws are useless in a civil war. and again, not a reason to go to war.

8. 50 million people have been liberated from Saddam's rule
who are now killing each other..... Learn the politics, there are three factions who hate each other.....at least saddam was brutal enough to keep them from doing anything about it, but now that we got rid of their problem all hell is breaking loose.

9. "Saddam Hussein is out of power and dead"
I don't miss him, but not a reason to go to war.

10. "Uday and Qusay Hussein, his two terrorist sons who ran the rape rooms and torture chambers, have been killed"
see #9

11. "American, British and coalition troops have captured 85% of al Qaeda leaders"
The Iraq war didn't have a whole lot to do with this, and Al Qaeda is back to full strength.....way to forget about them Mr. President and distract us with a nice shiny war.

12. "In 2003, Muammar Qaddafi of Libya gave up weapons of mass destruction in response to force used in Iraq"
no big deal, the guy's a bully, we so much as look his direction and he caves. that's why the world pretty much ignores him.

13. "Democratically held elections and the seeds of democracy have been planted in Afghanistan and Iraq"
Maybe, but democracy is not a great form of government, democracy is mob rule, they ALWAYS end up in a dictatorship, this country succeeds because it's a republic.

14. the last paragraph on your argumant is not backed up by evidence, please show it. Also the majority of Iraq we do not control.... there is a tribal war going on, thousands are dying every day, our troops are getting killed, and for what?

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "we don't understand mideast politics". your username is Reaganconservative, i would argue taht it should be BushConservative, Reagan was to smart to invade the mideast, if Bush had been president hewould have nuked Russia.....they had WMD's afterall and could posisbly use them on us......isn't taht your reasoning?
Debate Round No. 1
ReaganConservative

Pro

Wow, I'm sorry you believe the things that you do. We should have waited for them to smuggle the weapons in? Saddam Hussein wasn't a reason to go to war? In all honesty, what's wrong with you?

Referring back to your comment that the President has to go through Congress before going to war...it's called the War Powers Act of 1967. The President has 60 days to go to war on his own and when 60 days is up, Congress has the power to either remove the troops or declare war. Guess what, Bush got approval from Congress.

The United Nations weapons inspectors were given 12 years to find weapons of mass destruction. During that time, Saddam Hussein violated 16 UN Security Council Resolutions. Saddam failed to prove he had disarmed during that 12 year inspection period. Only the threatened use of force by the United States and the "coalition of the willing" made Saddam destroy a handful of illegal missiles he denied ever having. Inspectors also discovered Saddam had drone airplanes which could have been used for distributing poison gas or biological agents.

President Bush made it clear to the world after the United States was attacked on 9/11 that our country's next response would be a counterattack against any nation which sponsored or harbored terrorists. Intelligence from our agencies and other countries indicated Saddam Hussein--who had already used WMD on his own people, as well as other nations and was in the process of developing his own WMD programs--posed a potential imminent threat to the United States. When Hussein himself failed to comply with UN resolutions numbers 1441 and 1442 and numerous attempts were made to disarm him through the UN, it was necessary for Bush and the U.S. to act preemptively with--as John Kerry called it--the "Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed" to disarm Saddam and liberate Iraq from his rule.

Saddam's son in law, Lietuenant General Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, defected to Jordan in 1995, then provided information to UNSCOM, IAEA and foreign intelligence agencies about Iraq's WMD programs. Saddam had both Kamel and his brother executed a year later.

Iraqi officials later admitted they had hidden more than 100,000 gallons of botulinum toxin, more than 22,000 gallons of anthrax, more than 500 gallons of aflatoxin, four metric tons of VX nerve gas and 2.7 gallons of ricin.

Even prominent Democrats, along with American, British and Russian intelligence agencies and the UN shared the Bush administration's view that Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to America's security. All knew sanctions and resolutions weren't working. Force was necessary to disarm and remove Saddam from power.

Here is some of the acts of terror performed by Saddam Hussein:
-Provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups. In 1991, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities
-Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist
-A camp in Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq, trained terrorists in the use of chemical weapons
-Senior Iraqi and al Qaeda leaders had met 8 times since the early 1990's
-He aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a separatist group fighting the Turkish government
-He supported Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers
-Saddam supported secular terrorist groups
-In the 1980's Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi troops used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials have also accused Iraq of dropping mustard-gas against the Kurds. Saddam's forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons in March, 1988.

Iraq's WMD Development:
-A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing chemical and biological weapons research
-A prison lab complex possibly used in human testing biological weapons agents, which Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN
-Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons
-New research on biological weapons-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin aflatoxin were not declared to the UN
-Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation
-a line of unmanned aerial vehicles not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAV's out toa range of 500 km
-continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001, and which cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told not to conceal from the UN
-Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km
-clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles, 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment

Saddam's regime was clearly in pursuit of a WMD program and posed as a significant threat to neighboring countries, the United States, and the rest of the world.

Nobody enjoys having to resort to using military force. However, history has clearly demonstrated that the only way to preserve peace on earth is through the use of military force, to combat those who have no regard for human life. When all other means of peaceful negotiation fail, it's sometimes necessary to use force as a way to defeat militant forces bent on destruction and annihilation of their enemies.

Reagan's philosophy of "peace through strength" has been the most effective way to protect American citizens. Belligerent organizations such as al Qaeda can only be defeated with force. Any show of pacifism only creates the perception of weakness. There is no negotiating with murderous homicidal maniacs who seek to destroy the United States and Western Civilization in general. They can only be defeated by aggressively destroying their networks and bringing them to justice.

While we may never rid the world completely of all terrorists, destroying as many terrorist cells around the world and planting the seeds of democracy in terrorist hotbes is the best way to combat Islamic terrorism worldwide and export Western values of free markets, rule of law and democracy.
midgetjoe

Con

1. "the War Powers Act of 1967"

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, technically Bush's invasion of Iraq was in coordination with this resolution, however this resolution itself is unconstitutional, so is the war.

2. "The United Nations weapons inspectors were given 12 years to find weapons of mass destruction..... Only the threatened use of force by the United States.... Inspectors also discovered Saddam had drone airplanes"

a. None of the those resolutions dealt with his so called WMD's programs
b. Is that why former UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus head of UNSCOM in a recent interview said that Iraq was complying with Resolution 687 of their disarming and Ekeus was getting read to sign off on their cooperation until US officials obstructed this? read the interview here: http://www.wsws.org...
c. Hussein after 9/11 invited UN weapons inspectors back in again, and he provided to the IAEA a 12,000 page report of every weapon Iraq had in its aresenal. Hans Blix who was the head of the IAEA at the time state himself that Iraq was cooperating with UN weapons inspectors. Where did you get your data from? it's wrong. The drones were used for reconnassance as later found out, they had nothing to do with Saddam's so called WMD program which no longer existed anyway.

3. "President Bush made it clear......our country's next response would be a counterattack against any nation which sponsored or harbored terrorists..... indicated Saddam Hussein....was in the process of developing his own WMD programs...posed a potential imminent threat to the United States.....Hussein failed to comply with UN resolutions numbers 1441 and 1442 and numerous attempts were made to disarm him.....it was necessary for Bush and the U.S. to act preemptively

Hussein complied with both of those UN resolutions and this is from testimony of Hanx Blix and Muhammad ElBaradei, again where did you get your data?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Besides the fact that the Security Council did not approve force against Iraq.

And yes it is the Coalition of the Coerced, many of the nations were just small, third world countries that the US threatened to cut off aid to if they didn't join their coalition.

4. "Saddam's son in law, Lietuenant General Hussein Kamel,.. defected....then provided information about Iraq's WMD programs. Saddam had both Kamel and his brother executed a year later."

Yes, and what did Hussein Kamal say? what did he say? go back and read what he said... He explicitly said that HE was responsible for the complete destruction of ALL WMD's Iraq had after the first Gulf War.. He wasn't killed for spilling the beans on Iraq's so called WMD's, he was killed because he refused to comply with some of Saddams orders regarding his personal life.

5. "Iraqi officials later admitted they had hidden more than 100,000 gallons of botulinum toxin, more than 22,000 gallons of anthrax, more than 500 gallons of aflatoxin, four metric tons of VX nerve gas and 2.7 gallons of ricin."

I don't recall reading about this anywhere, I'd like to see a source...

6. "Even prominent Democrats, along with American, British and Russian....."

Russia? Yea, right except Russia vetoed any resolution in the Security Council authorizing force to remove Hussein... Who are you trying to fool?
And yes prominent Dems did support the war in Iraq, so what? Forign wars for no reason are a specialty of the democrats.

7. "acts of terror performed by Saddam Hussein:
-Provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups. In 1991, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities"

You mean during the Gulf war? WELL DUH!, he was just supposed to sit there and watch his country being destroyed by American planes... sheeesh

-"Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist"

This claim has been debunked numerous times, Saddam Hussein had arrested a few of Zarqawis aides and kept them in his prisons and he issued a decree calling upon Zarqawis arrest.

-"A camp in Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq, trained terrorists in the use of chemical weapons"

Key word, LAWLESS, what does that mean? A part of Iraq not under Husseins control, meaning he had no authorization over them..

"-Senior Iraqi and al Qaeda leaders had met 8 times since the early 1990's"

This doesn't mean ANYTHING at all, people meet all the time, that doesn't mean there was a connection, and besides none of those meetings took place after 1997, because Bin Laden attempted to meet Iraqi agents in 98' and was told to go away, Hussein was no interested in talking with them.

-"He aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a separatist group fighting the Turkish government"

The US aids the MEK right now in Iraq, what is your point? And I'd like to see a source besides CFR indicating he supported the PKK, that's a hilarious claim right there.

-"He supported Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers"

Ye he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers, notice key word FAMILIES.. Usually because Israel tracks down the families of any suicide bombers and bulldozes their homes..

-"Saddam supported secular terrorist groups"

Source??

-In the 1980's Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi troops used poison gas,....."

Yes, we know and the US helped him by providing intelligence through reconassiance missions on where Iranian troops were located, and by fudging up UN reports on his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds..... and again....it was IN THE 80's!!!

8. "Iraq's WMD Development:"

It appears to me that your using pre war intelligence to try and prove something that's already been proven wrong.. Not only are you not providing evidence of your claims, but your using outdated evidence.

"Saddam's....clearly in pursuit of a WMD program and posed as a significant threat...., the United States.

No they were not in pursuit of WMD's, they stopped their WMD's program after the First Gulf War, and complied with all binding UN resolutions...

"history has clearly demonstrated that the only way to preserve peace on earth is through the use of military force, to combat those who have no regard for human life. When....peaceful negotiation fail.... use force as a way to defeat militant forces bent on destruction..."

Maybe private armies....but it's not the job of the US government, we just make more enemies that way.

"Reagan's philosophy of "peace through strength" has been the most effective way to protect American citizens."

Reagan not anywhere near a great president, he watched as the Kurds were being gassed by Hussein and vetoed a resolution that came from the Senate demanding the US stop aiding Saddam Hussein. Don't use that mans words when it comes to the Iraq war..

"While we may never rid the world completely of all terrorists"
So basically we're fighting an endless war by borrowing money...against people in every country on the planet......... only bush would be stupid enough to think that one up.
Debate Round No. 2
ReaganConservative

Pro

It is extremely exhausting to debate with people like yourself who wish to denigrate the United States and its efforts in any way, shape, or form. Since you insist on using arguments from other works and people, I shall do the same to appease your interest.

President Clinton, addressing the nation on December 16, 1998 after ordering a strike on military and security targets in Iraq, said "The mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. The purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and indeed the interests of the people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.

He also said "What if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction...if we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Al Gore on that very same day said "If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with these weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. The man has no compunction about killing lots of people. So the U.S. bombing is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world."

Senator Tom Daschle said in 1998 that a use of force resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." He then went on to further defend Clinton's decision to use force sayingm, "We have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have to force them to comply and we are doing so militarily."

Senator John Kerry on February 23, 1998 said "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the UN resolution for inspections and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press the case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights...Saddam Hussein has already used weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is the threat to the stability of the Middle East."

Richard Butler, who headed the team investigating Iraq's weapons programs said "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to WMD."

Notice anything strange? They're all Democrats. The same people who called President Bush a "liar" and said this is "Bush's War." The hypocrisy is astounding. Why do you insist on defending a man like Saddam Hussein? Why do you oppose the United States action to remove the man from power and give the Middle Eastern people a future? Why do you insist on denying the new democratic government as success? Why do you insist on leaving Saddam in power only to murder thousands more? Why do you prefer the United States to remain out of their affairs, but complain Reagan didn't do anything to help the Kurds in the 1980's? Why do you insist on believing that all of the Iraqi people don't want us there when the truth is that less than 2% of the population, the insurgency, are the only ones who don't want us there? This is all very confusing to me. It seems strange to know that there are Americans in this country who don't want to see the United States succeed in protecting the future of the people of the Middle East as well as protecting our own country. It seems strange to know that people like you despise everything the United States does, when in actuality, without military action, you would not have the right to speak out against the government. I suggest you start appreciating what you have because you have been truly blessed to be a part of this nation. You may not realize it now, which is sad, but once you start to realize just how good you have it here, then you will appreciate the efforts of our best and brightest who put their lives on the line daily to give you the right to denigrate them and the cause they are fighting for, as well as President Bush. I conclude my end of the debate.
midgetjoe

Con

"It is extremely exhausting to debate with people like yourself who wish to denigrate the United States and its efforts in any way, shape, or form."

I am a VERY proud American and believe in the true meaning of freedom and the principles upon which this country was founded. THAT is America, just because some politicians have hijacked this country and are using it's resources to create a hated empire like the British does NOT mean they are acting in America's interest, or that they are "America's efforts", America is NOT a person, it's country. If it were a person tahtn fine, go fight for rights and liberty for other countries, but since it's a country it's duty is to the citzens of this country not others. That's the whole reason it exists, it's NOT a charity organization. Had we been attaked by iraq i would be all for wiping the earth with their puny little country, but the truth is, they didn't 19 thugs in a plane did, none of them came from Iraq....

"President Clinton, addressing the nation on December 16, 1998 after ordering a strike on military and security targets in Iraq, said "....."

EXACTLY my point, random war for no reason is a LIBERAL position....Democrats LOVE to use our money and go on a killing spree for "human rights", taht does NOT make it right.

He also said "....."

Again it's Clinton (a proven lier), and it's 10 years ago, IDK what you're getting at....

"Al Gore on that very same day said "....""

So because a politician said it's right, it becomes right?? I thought you were a consevative, but you appear to be more of a liberal war hawk, pretending to be conservative like our president.

Senator Tom Daschle said "...."

sigh....He WAS complying with international law, he did NOT have WMD's, he was NOT a threat to America..especially when we should have been focused on Bin Ladin..... No matter how amny times you keep repeating yourself it does not change facts.

Senator John Kerry on February 23, 1998

these are all quotes from democrats, from 10 years ago (when Bush was advocating a defensive, noninterventionist forign policy. Wow he came over to the democrats side nicely)

"The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to WMD."

Nobody said he's a good guy....

"Notice anything strange? They're all Democrats."

I agree with you there.....democrats are hypocrites, It's the conservatives who werea gainst the war from the begining (Ron Paul comes to mind), who actually are the ones deserving respect. The democrats just came out antiwar for political gain.

"Why do you insist on defending a man like Saddam Hussein?"

I don't, i would have liked nothing better if he had dropped over dead, but that does not give us the authority or the moral right for an invasion.

"Why do you oppose the United States action to remove the man from power and give the Middle Eastern people a future?"

Well first of all it's the middle eastern people who overwhelmingly want us out of there.... Second the federal government has NO authority to invade to help people, that is the role of private organizations, and fasict european regimes. Yes it would be nice to do that, but the only thing that happens is we build up our future enemies by giving them weopons to fight our enemies of today, we make more enemies, we waste taxpayer dollars, and we get into a hopeless mess that we can't get out of. The ONLY reason the US governemtn is authorized to go to war is if we have been directly attacked, A government has declared war on us, or we know of an attack on it's way. Just because we don't like someone and he might be getting a cool new toy is nto a reason to attack...would you advocate nuking russia as well? isn't that the same situation?

"Why do you insist on denying the new democratic government as success?"

because it's not, we set it up, and they have no authority without our backing.

"Why do you insist on leaving Saddam in power only to murder thousands more?"

it would be great if he wasn't, but it's not our place to do it. Besides we gave him the weopons in the first place becasue then iran was our enemy....i'd bet 20 years from no our mideast allies of today will be brutal dictators using the weapons we gave tehm to fight saddam to kill thousands....it's an endless cycle and the only way to end it is to stop attacking them.

"Why do you prefer the United States to remain out of their affairs, but complain Reagan didn't do anything to help the Kurds in the 1980's?"

I'm glad reagan didn't do anything....but didn't he give them the weopons? (i could be wrong on that) my point was he was not a great president.

"Why do you....Iraqi people don't want us...truth is that less than 2% of the population.....don't want us there?"

LOL HAHA, did Bush give you those numbers? Every Arab i've ever talked to or heard, or read has wanted us out of there.... check arabic websites...I AM part arabic so i talk to quite a few....what you ehard is known as "propaganda" It was used quite well by Hitler and Bush is now doing a pretty good job with it....if you ehar something often enough you begin to believe it's true.....next time check your facts.

"This is all very confusing to me."

obviously

"It seems strange to know that there are Americans in this country who don't want to see the United States succeed in protecting the future of the people of the Middle East"

Are you even READING what you're writing?? America has NO BUSINESS protecting the entire world.....go join the Democratic party if you advocate that....

"as well as protecting our own country."

we're making us less safe....

"It seems strange to know that people like you despise everything the United States does"

personal attacks now? I LOVE this country, just because I believe the government is doing the wrong thing i'm suddenly anti-American? you would have done quite well in Nazi germany......"you hate germany if you don't support the third reich...."

"when in actuality, without military action, you would not have the right to speak out against the government."

True, except bush has taken that right away.....or is your head to wrapped up in the flag to notice that? It's nto jsut military action taht protects our rights and it's not ALL military action either, just because we're killing someone does not mean it's rpotecting our rights. The American governemnt is NOT infallible, in fact it's ussually wrong....they behave like a king of this coutnry when in fact it should be "we the people" who run our country..and our lives.

"I suggest you start appreciating what you have because you have been truly blessed to be a part of this nation."

I aprecciate it. do you? because your president is taking it away....or do you not know that you can now be taken to Gitmo and tortured without a lawyer or a trial? or that the government can declare martial law, and effectivly say "no more elections, bush is king" but i'll bet you didn't know your president did that?

"You may not realize it now, which is sad, but."

you don't know anything about what's actually going on. you haven't sited ONE fact, I gave you tons of links, and proved all your arguments to be wrong....you didn't even bother to counter me, you merely replied with "boohoo you don't agree with me so you hate America", it's not America i hate, it's the people in it who don't know anything about it other than "soldier die, America good", you never bother to ask "why did he die?" "what was he fighting for?" "what started the war?" "was it right?". You need to stop believing the US government is God and start getting the TRUTH whether it proves you right or wrong...America WAS great, we're ruining it because people think America is great just because it's America, people like you who don't realize there's a REASON we're great, and it's a principle, not a battle won.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jh64487 9 years ago
jh64487
i'm not really sure what to say here, the iraq war was clearly illegal. the kurds want us there or turkey would wipe them out. the shia's want us there because we've given them the power to exact retribution (militia violence). Even the sunnis want us there because we are protecting them from the shia's and we have basically given power to tribal leaders in each province. however, the central government has little power, has come to few agreements, and honestly despises each other. it will dissolve when we leave. we haven't really met any of our goals, all we've done is FINALLY settled what could have (and still probably will be as soon as we leave) a full scale civil war. what will be interesting to see will be how other nations react. will saudi arabia, jordan, syria, and egypt send in forces when we withdrawal to help quell the numerically superior shia's? will iran back the shia's and go to war? based off the chaos this would cause I expect there will be massive arms shipments and it will be up to the sects to settle it on their own (cold war style).

regardless, midgetoe debunked most of reagans "facts". a debate means engaging the others points and refuting them logically, in this reagan does a rather poor job and seems to repeat himself frequently whereas midgetoe quite accurately refutes his logic. also, as the instigator it seems to me that it is on reagan to defend his position and for the contender to refute it, not for both sides to defend their positions equally.
Posted by jh64487 9 years ago
jh64487
i'm not really sure what to say here, the iraq war was clearly illegal. the kurds want us there or turkey would wipe them out. the shia's want us there because we've given them the power to exact retribution (militia violence). Even the sunnis want us there because we are protecting them from the shia's and we have basically given power to tribal leaders in each province. however, the central government has little power, has come to few agreements, and honestly despises each other. it will dissolve when we leave. we haven't really met any of our goals, all we've done is FINALLY settled what could have (and still probably will be as soon as we leave) a full scale civil war. what will be interesting to see will be how other nations react. will saudi arabia, jordan, syria, and egypt send in forces when we withdrawal to help quell the numerically superior shia's? will iran back the shia's and go to war? based off the chaos this would cause I expect there will be massive arms shipments and it will be up to the sects to settle it on their own (cold war style).

regardless, midgetoe refuted all of reagans "facts". a debate means engaging the others points and refuting them logically, in this reagan does a rather poor job and seems to repeat himself frequently whereas midgetoe quite accurately refutes his reasoning. also, as the instigator it seems to me that it is on reagan to defend his position and for the contender to refute it, not for both sides to defend their positions equally.
Posted by Aziar44 9 years ago
Aziar44
Thegreats is right,

There is a clear debate winner here and that person is not who I agree with politically necessarily. I'm still voting for that person though. Put beliefs aside, this is supposed to be unbiased. Vote based on whose argument was better. Period.

That said, Reaganconservative's argument was better, clearly better, no offense to midgetjoe. Reagancon gave much more detailed information and facts and backed up his argument better. Midgetjoe had some good points but overall just picked on single lines here and there and did not provide enough evidence to the contrary of Reagancon's.

But well done both of you.
Posted by la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
"Why do you oppose the United States action to remove the man from power and give the Middle Eastern people a future?"

"It seems strange to know that there are Americans in this country who don't want to see the United States succeed in protecting the future of the people of the Middle East"

are you kidding me? get real - you're completely BSing yourself if you think that the US government ACTUALLY gives a sh*t about the people in the Middle East. we didn't help them before, then some Middle Eastern terrorists bomb us... THEN all the sudden we care soooo much about the Middle Eastern people and want to HLEP them......? i guess.

...........

my vote goes with midgetjoe because i do believe he argued this well... while reaganconservative's debates were well written, midgetjoe actually countered every point instead of merely retorting back at his opponent:

"It is extremely exhausting to debate with people like yourself..."
"...realize just how good you have it..."

lines like this do not make a strong argument. lines like this are just immature and have no place in this debate. YOU began the debate and he was merely engaging in that debate with you.

midgetjoe's last paragraph sums it all up very nicely.
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
It was a decent debate but I believe that ReaganConservative had the upper hand on the argument. i Believe your information was much more compelling! Good job keep up the good work.
Posted by thegreats 9 years ago
thegreats
Stop voting for the people you believe the same things as. Vote for who debated well, not if their aruements touch home with you. It ruins debate.
Posted by wheelhouse3 9 years ago
wheelhouse3
midgettoe you have no idea what you're talking about. Your sources are all Liberal propaganda sites that use people's fear to manipulate them. The *true* statements are the ones that the democratic party tries to cover up.
Posted by IamMe90 9 years ago
IamMe90
Con wins... Pro never really directly answers con's arguments but rather repeats himself over and over again, while con does an excellent line by line argument. Con also does a great job debunking the pro's stats - pro's arguments about wmd's are far outdated and were debunked by major US intelligence organizations themselves, and quoting any politicians from over a decade ago is almost never relevant. Also, the personal attacks from the pro are unneeded and make it hard to vote for him... so yeah.
Posted by MyTruckzLow 9 years ago
MyTruckzLow
Quoting politicians 10 years ago is completely irrelavent in my mind. Many other countries disagree with the way we do things in America. Other than China, we contribute to the majority of the worlds pollution, which can be considered a threat to other countries. Does this give these other countries justification to invade the United States? If every citizen of the United States went around acting like the country we live in,. we would all end up killing each other and trying to "conquer" those around us. Iraq is the next Vietnam. We are going to look back and realize that it was a complete waste of time, money, and life.
Posted by ReaganConservative 9 years ago
ReaganConservative
midgettoe is in his own little world. Maybe if you would do your research you would in fact know that it really is less than 2% of the Iraqi population, otherwise known as the insurgency, who want U.S. involvement to end. The Shia majority, which is 60% of the Iraqi population, and the Kurdish majority, which is 20% of the Iraqi population, support American involvement. The insurgency makes up about 20-30 thousand people. You claim "oh I've talked to arabs" oh ok so it's right to make a hasty generalization? A few arabs don't represent the opinion of the entire country buddy. I can't give you a direct source of all the information I presented because I've gained all this knowledge from the copious amount of books and articles I've read. Unlike you, I don't ask Wikipedia to solve all of my problems.
46 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Amveller 6 years ago
Amveller
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by master98 7 years ago
master98
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
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 cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
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 ChevySdyme99 9 years ago
ChevySdyme99
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MyMeteora81 9 years ago
MyMeteora81
ReaganConservativemidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03