The Instigator
SPF
Pro (for)
Tied
28 Points
The Contender
Klashbash
Con (against)
Tied
28 Points

The Iraq war was started by greed, and connections.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,690 times Debate No: 4670
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (16)

 

SPF

Pro

My argument is simple,the Iraq war was started by greed, and connections.

GREED:

1.One issue about Iraq is Oil.

2.Bush is well CONNECTED to Big Oil. (Daddy Bush has lots of money in Big Oil, and for Bush junior, theres allways the Oil Lobby.)

3.Haliburton is a corporation that makes weapons for wars. Cheney was Haliburton's CEO, and has enormous amounts of stocks in Haliburton.

4. Many contracts have been made to Haliburton durring the Iraq War, making Haliburton, and Cheney(who has lots of stocks in Haliburton) richer.

CONNECTIONS:

1.Bush is well connected to Big Oil.
2. Bush senior's failure to get Sadam Hussien has made that Bush Junior's holy mission.

3. Cheney and Haliburton.

FILLING IN THE GAPS:

The Bush administration lied to the US Congress and to the American people about two things:

A) That Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queda.
B) That Saddam Hussien had Nuclear Weapons.

So, it is fair to assert that this administration started the war in Iraq.

The reasons I listed above show causes of connections and greed for this war.
Klashbash

Con

NOTE: I firmly believe that George W. Bush is perhaps one of our worst presidents. However, I could not resist in debating SPF as his arguments are too shaky to ignore. I ask the judges to please vote for whoever was the better arguer.

Let us proceed then shall we?

"GREED: 1.One issue about Iraq is Oil."

Yes… and?

"2.Bush is well CONNECTED to Big Oil. (Daddy Bush has lots of money in Big Oil, and for Bush junior, theres allways the Oil Lobby.)
3.Haliburton is a corporation that makes weapons for wars. Cheney was Haliburton's CEO, and has enormous amounts of stocks in Haliburton.
4. Many contracts have been made to Haliburton durring the Iraq War, making Haliburton, and Cheney(who has lots of stocks in Haliburton) richer."

Guilty by mere association is not a legitimate argument.

"CONNECTIONS: 1.Bush is well connected to Big Oil."

You're repeating yourself. You've already presented this premise in #2 of "Greed." Once again, guilty by association is a logical fallacy that assumes mere association substitutes for evidence of conspiracy.

"2. Bush senior's failure to get Sadam Hussien has made that Bush Junior's holy mission."

This is an unsupported assertion. Prove it.

"3. Cheney and Haliburton."

This is guilty by association yet again. Give it a rest.

"The Bush administration lied to the US Congress and to the American people about two things: A) That Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queda.
B) That Saddam Hussien had Nuclear Weapons."

These are unsupported assertions. The burden of proof is on you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misinformed the American people. The fact that his administration may have said one thing, but it turned out to be false, does not prove it was a lie. There are other plausible explanations such as being mistaken. Since you asserted that the Bush administration purposely distorted the truth then I'll ask you to back it up with evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
SPF

Pro

First of all I would like to thank Klashbash for accepting this challenge.

I apologize for not providing proof that the Bush administration lied about:

a) Sadam Hussien's connection to Al Queda.

b) Sadam Hussien having nuclear weapons.

First of all,a few years ago Bush admitted that his administration had no evidence that Saddam Hussien had any connection to Al Queda.

In terms of the nukes, the evidence the Bush administration had about them was in a fake letter, called "the yellow letter." We now know it is fake because it had lots of false names and dates. The Bush admiatstration could have spent a few minutes on Google to check it's legitamacy, and find out all the evidence was false.

My argument about Daddy Bush's holy mission doesn't apply to my thesis, so I'll drop it.

I appologizethat in round 1 my arguements weren't crystal clear. Here is my abrieviated logic:

1. The Bush administration lied to us about Iraq, so they must have had there own reasons to start the Iraq War.(proven).

Reasons:

1. Vice President Cheney has lots of stocks in a company that makes weapons for wars,Haliburton, got richer because of this war.

Cheney is one of themost powerfull Vice Presidents in U.S. history, and very pro war.

This is why Cheney was a big factor in the starting of the Iraq War. His getting richer off of Haliburton stocks would have been an obviose factor in his position.

2. One of the reasons that Hussein was a threat to Bush's self interests was his greed for Oil.

Bush who has money and connections in big oil, wanted his share of the oil in Iraq.

I stand ready for the next round.
Klashbash

Con

"First of all,a few years ago Bush admitted that his administration had no evidence that Saddam Hussien had any connection to Al Queda."

There are a number of issues with this particular statement.

#1. You have provided no evidence from a reputable news source that George W. Bush said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaida.

#2. For that matter, you have not provided proof that George W. Bush said there was indeed evidence of ties between the two parties.

#3. You want to prove he lied correct? If you are able to accomplish the above tasks then there's another obstacle. George W. Bush could have believed there was evidence of an Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein connection. What's possible after that is he came to the conclusion that the evidence was faulty, and admitted to the public that there is no evidence. You must eliminate the possibility that he was mistaken to sufficiently prove that he deliberately mislead the people.

You have dug your own grave. It is almost impossible to prove that someone lied. You could make the argument that this mishap makes the war unjustified. Yet this is not what you contended and by succumbing to it you would be forfeiting this debate. If you cannot prove that George W. Bush lied then your argument that it was started over greed is hopeless. Your other premise about connections is equally a losing battle because it relies on mere associations rather than evidence of conspiracy. You could have made a compelling case about whether the war was justified or not like I said. You chose instead to start a debate with flimsy speculations and this will be your downfall.

"In terms of the nukes, the evidence the Bush administration had about them was in a fake letter, called "the yellow letter." We now know it is fake because it had lots of false names and dates. The Bush admiatstration could have spent a few minutes on Google to check it's legitamacy, and find out all the evidence was false."

What's best out of all of this is even if you were right it does not prove greed. What it does is demonstrate an incompetent man at the most. I could not find "the yellow letter" on Google. I also find it distressing that you have completely missed the ball park on George W. Bush's arguments. For this debate let us focus on the arguments he gave in his declaration of war. That would make sense right? These arguments can be found in his State of the Union 2003 address.

http://www.whitehouse.gov...

You'll have to skim to the second half to reach his arguments. George W. Bush's primary argument about WMD was that Saddam Hussein did not comply with ceasefire resolutions which is an act of war. It was up to Saddam Hussein to prove that he destroyed his WMD which we knew he had after the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein voluntarily agreed to this condition in the terms of his surrender. For his failure to hold up his end it means the ceasefire has been broken. This is without a doubt an act of war.

It was never up to the United States to prove that Saddam Hussein still harbored WMD. The ball was in the court of Saddam Hussein because he had to be the one to demonstrate that he got rid of his WMD by the terms of surrender. You'll notice the arguments of George W. Bush are often distorted because people would rather listen to his sound bites or outright lies about him than listen to his speeches.

Wouldn't you agree this is sad? The man has ruined our country and there are people that are purposely lying about him as if telling the rest of us that he is an innocent man. Nobody has to lie to make him look like a bad guy. He makes himself a bad guy. I would like to remind the audience that I am defending logic by taking up this debate and not George W. Bush.

I noticed your profile says you're in support of John Edwards. Was he a liar too when it came to WMD?

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

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades Saddam has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons." - John Edwards, October 10, 2002

"He's [Hussein] not disarmed, the evidence is overwhelming." -- February 6, 2003 on Hardball with Chris Matthews

From the same link can we also say that Al Gore, Edward Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton and many others of the Democratic leadership were liars as well?

"I appologizethat in round 1 my arguements weren't crystal clear. Here is my abrieviated logic:
1. The Bush administration lied to us about Iraq, so they must have had there own reasons to start the Iraq War.(proven). Reasons: 1. Vice President Cheney has lots of stocks in a company that makes weapons for wars,Haliburton, got richer because of this war. Cheney is one of themost powerfull Vice Presidents in U.S. history, and very pro war. This is why Cheney was a big factor in the starting of the Iraq War. His getting richer off of Haliburton stocks would have been an obviose factor in his position.
2. One of the reasons that Hussein was a threat to Bush's self interests was his greed for Oil
Bush who has money and connections in big oil, wanted his share of the oil in Iraq."

Correlation does not imply causation.

For example:

Premise #1: Bill has Wal-mart stock.
Premise #2: Bill shops at Wal-mart.
Fallacious conclusion: Therefore, Bill shops at Wal-mart because he has Wal-mart stock.

This is an error in reasoning because Bill could be shopping at Wal-mart for no other reason than its low prices regardless of the stock invested. You are jumping to conclusions just like this.
Debate Round No. 2
SPF

Pro

" From that same link you can say that Al Gore, Edward Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and many others in the Democratic Leadership were liars as well?"

There are two differences between all the people you listed and George W. Bush. In round 1 I said President Bush lied to the U.S. Congress and the American People. All the people you mentioned were given misinformation by the Bush Administration. John Edwards falls into that category as well.

Another is that all the people you mentioned are currently against the war.

Out of curriosity, I wonder if my opponent can provide proof that Haliburton has lower prices than all other companies that make weapons. If Klashbash cannot, then he doesn't have any real argument to my logic.

In that case, it's an obvious Pro ballot.

There is a reason why "Bill and Walmart" doesn't apply to Cheney and Haliburton:

Cheney has LOTS of stock in Haliburton, and he is Haliburton's former CEO. Many contracts have been made to Haliburton which makes Cheney rich for two reasons:

reason a) Cheney's stock is worth more.
reason b) his tax money doesn't pay for these contracts, China does.

My evidence about Bush lied about nuclear weapons was to fullfill the burden of proving that Bush lied about two things, not his greed. That is a burden that Klashbash reminded me that I had. That is why his rebuttal that my evidence about the lie about the nukes not applying to my argument that greed and connections didn't apply.

My source for saying that at the time the war started that he didn't have evidence of Saddam Hussien being connected to Al Queda is actually from a documentary, called "Why we fight."

My source for the yellow letter was from a CNN report made either several months ago or a year ago.

In this debate I had arguments and my opponent tried to counter them with his logic. It should be noted that he stopped using his counter argument of fallacies and so he failed to counter in round 1. I have successfully rebuted most his counter arguments from round 2, leaving my arument with a lot more beef to it than his. For this reason it is an obvious Pro ballot. If my opponent doesn't give evidence that Haliburton is the cheapest weapon making company than there would be no reason to vote Con.

Once again, thank you, Klashbash, for accepting my challenge.This was one of the funnest debates I was in.
Klashbash

Con

Klashbash forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro had the burden of proof to establish that the war was started "by greed." He gave no evidence whatsoever, so therefore he would have lost the debate if Con said nothing. Con correctly pointed out the burden of proof. It would have taken evidence along the lines of testimony from someone at a secret meeting, or some kind of document.

Halliburton does not make weapons and never has. They provide oil field services, and another division provided troop support -- providing meals to soldiers and such. The business of troop support took heavy losses, and they then sold off that division. The losses came from their having underestimated employee insurance costs in the period after Saddam was toppled.
Posted by VaLoR 8 years ago
VaLoR
SPF:

In defense of klashbash, I have had that happen to me before so I chose to include his rebuttal as part of the debate. The timing system is slightly off for some reason. I had a good half hour or more left in a debate when I SUBMITTED a rebuttal (I know this because I had a separate window that I frequently refreshed to make sure I finished in time) and it said I was out of time after hitting the submit button.
Posted by SPF 8 years ago
SPF
I think it's ironic that Klashbash made his rebutals after the debate.

Next time make them durring the debate so the rebuttals count with the judges.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I am voting CON because he had better arguments.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
Pro's position is complete nonsense.

To start with, Cheney divested himself of all interest in Haliburton before running for VP. And if you are going to claim a leader of our country pushed for a war for personal gain, you damn sure better have some actual EVIDENCE of such. You don't. You have far left talking points, nothing more.

More importantly, in order to claim Bush "lied" about Saddam Hussein you have to first posit that Bill Clinton started said lie. See, Clinton made deposing Saddam the official policy of the United States by executive order for the VERY REASONS you claim Bush lied about. Bill also attacked Iraq on two separate occasions, justified by his supposedly having WMD, or perhaps you forgot that? Every single intelligence agency on earth believed Iraq possessed WMD..and why wouldn't they? They PROVED they did possess them by USING them and their repeated refusal to allow a full inspection proving they didn't still possess them was reason enough for invasion. That none of substance were found isn't evidence of any lie.

On the nuclear issue there WAS evidence that Iraq at least intended a nuke program, found. Turns out they were way behind what Saddam intimated, but there is no question they hoped to continue in that direction to building nuclear weapons just as there currently is with Iran who appears to be even further along.

I'm no Bush apologist, but Pro's position attempts to turn history upside down and ignores FACTS. A lie is an intentional misstating of known truth. Absolutely nothing Bush has said can be called a lie.
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
I had to vote con. I don't necessarily disagree with pro, but con had a much stronger argument. Debating Klashbash will undoubtedly make SPF a stronger debater in the future.
Posted by Klashbash 8 years ago
Klashbash
"My source for saying that at the time the war started that he didn't have evidence of Saddam Hussien being connected to Al Queda is actually from a documentary, called "Why we fight."

This is not sufficient. When it comes to debates you can't just say to your opponent to watch an hour worth of documentary. You must provide a simple link or disengage from the position. We all have our time constraints and we should be as efficient as possible. This is the president of the United States we're talking about so finding a link if true shouldn't be too much of a demanding task.

"My source for the yellow letter was from a CNN report made either several months ago or a year ago."

So you're telling us to believe the words of an anonymous source about a CNN report? That's not good enough. Evidence would be actually showing us this CNN report.

"If my opponent doesn't give evidence that Haliburton is the cheapest weapon making company than there would be no reason to vote Con."

I never claimed Halliburton was the cheapest weapon making company. I was using the example of purchasing goods from Wal-Mart because they're cheap to show that correlation does not imply causation. Your only "evidence" so far has been mere connections. What I was trying to convey is there's a whole host of possible reasons that a correlation might be brought into existence. While it's certainly possible that it is indeed the connection it is nothing but speculation unless there is evidence to prove it.

"Once again, thank you, Klashbash, for accepting my challenge.This was one of the funnest debates I was in."

I had a fun time as well. Best of luck to you and I hope to see you around.
Posted by Klashbash 8 years ago
Klashbash
"Another is that all the people you mentioned are currently against the war."

They became against the war only when it was politically favorable to do so.

"Out of curriosity, I wonder if my opponent can provide proof that Haliburton has lower prices than all other companies that make weapons. If Klashbash cannot, then he doesn't have any real argument to my logic."

My example went right over your head didn't it? I'm simply demonstrating to you that you have been jumping to conclusions. You should quit claiming why someone did something unless you can prove it.

"In that case, it's an obvious Pro ballot."

Why don't we let the judges decide? Do you think it's alright to be as openly arrogant as you are being now?

"There is a reason why "Bill and Walmart" doesn't apply to Cheney and Haliburton:

Cheney has LOTS of stock in Haliburton, and he is Haliburton's former CEO. Many contracts have been made to Haliburton which makes Cheney rich for two reasons:

reason a) Cheney's stock is worth more.
reason b) his tax money doesn't pay for these contracts, China does."

You have done nothing to refute my inquiries. This does not constitute as evidence.

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

Just because someone has a possible motive doesn't therefore cause an action from it to spring into being from nowhere nor does it link events.

Example:
Premise #1. Bill hates Ted.
Premise #2. Ted is killed by someone.
Fallacious conclusion: Therefore, Bill must have killed Ted.

We can see why this is fallacious because we are putting a motive ahead of actual evidence. Bill may have a personal issue with Ted but it doesn't make him a killer by default.
Posted by Klashbash 8 years ago
Klashbash
"There are two differences between all the people you listed and George W. Bush. In round 1 I said President Bush lied to the U.S. Congress and the American People. All the people you mentioned were given misinformation by the Bush Administration. John Edwards falls into that category as well."

The Democrats had a responsibility to the people to do their own fact checking and you have yet to prove Bush has lied. Neither of us truly knows whether or not they completely relied on the Bush Administration (which seems dubious because what political party would rely on the opposing side's president?). What's even more interesting is what your party's candidate for 2004 said:

"Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm."

http://www.globalsecurity.org...

John Kerry has perhaps made the strongest case for the Iraq invasion even if you take the WMD aspect out of it.
Posted by Klashbash 8 years ago
Klashbash
WTF? I had twenty minutes left with the countdown. I did not forfeit. This is absolutely absurd. I'll post what I had.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SPF 8 years ago
SPF
SPFKlashbashTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
SPFKlashbashTied
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 B2BCHAOS 8 years ago
B2BCHAOS
SPFKlashbashTied
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 Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
SPFKlashbashTied
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 SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
SPFKlashbashTied
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 kato0291 8 years ago
kato0291
SPFKlashbashTied
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 NeoLiberal 8 years ago
NeoLiberal
SPFKlashbashTied
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 I_am_Einstein 8 years ago
I_am_Einstein
SPFKlashbashTied
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 Xera 8 years ago
Xera
SPFKlashbashTied
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 blondesrule502 8 years ago
blondesrule502
SPFKlashbashTied
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