The Instigator
BeatTheDevil89
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
RedEye
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The United States had no right to invade Iraq.

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: 6/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,367 times Debate No: 4396
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (13)

 

BeatTheDevil89

Pro

I would contend that the United States legally, morally, and without just cause invade Iraq's territory to reasons other than those proposed to congress and the American people. Whatever the intentions may have truly been, they are not the ones used to justify the war and they not those of the American people. I would also contend that the justifications for the war put forth by the administration were based on false evidence, half-truths and pure lies, and propoganda. Furthermore I intend to prove that the Bush administration did this knowingly, with no regard to the consequences of their actions or in some cases acted in full knowing of the possible consequances but recklessly began a war it could not finish. In this debate, the true intentions are unknown since onlt Bush and Cheney truly know, although most speculate that it was for political and buisness reasons. While these are most likely the true reasons, I do not want to debate them. Instead I wish to debate on the truth (or more specifically the lack thereof) in the original justifications presented by the Bush administration being

1. WMD's that threatened the safety of the U.S. and its allies
2. To bring democracy in Iraq
3. To bring down Saddam, a supposed harborer and supporter of terrorists including Osama Bin Laden.
4. To bring an example of democracy that all middle eastern countries could follow (domino theory in reverse) and create stability throughout the region.

All of the reasons above are were based of lies and the Bush administration knew it, which I intend to prove.
RedEye

Con

Ok, my opponent barley put any burden on me, so ill put my own negation burden: All I have to do is prove a justified entrance, using international law as my basis.

Case:

I. The United States had clear authority under international law to use force against Iraq under the past circumstances.

The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441."

II. The point is that this document [UNMOVIC March 2003 Report] conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons, that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture not only chemical but biological weapons, and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles. Also, British intelligence reports claimed that Iraq was buliding nucelar weapons. Furthermore, the justification of nuclear weapons wasn't that they HAD them, it was the POTENTIAL to have them.

III. It is fashionable to sneer at the moral case for liberating an Iraqi people long brutalized by Saddam's rule. Critics insist mere oppression was not sufficient reason for war, and in any case that it was not Bush's reason. In fact, of course, it was one of Bush's reasons, and the moral and humanitarian purpose provided a compelling reason for a war to remove Saddam... For the people of Iraq, the war put an end to three decades of terror and suffering. The mass graves uncovered since the end of the war are alone sufficient justification for it. more then 100,000 Kurds were found dead because of gas chambers. Ok, this violates the genocide clause of the UN, i.e. a member country of the Security Council has right to use force to end genocide, since it violates international law.

IV. The fact is that Iraq's weapons did pose a grave threat to international peace and security. It was in recognition of their singular menace, that the United Nations security council unanimously passed Security Council Resolution 1441. We also have to differentiate between the threat posed by Iraq and other would-be proliferators. No other country shares Iraq's history of deploying chemical weapons in a war of aggression against a neighbor, or against innocent civilians as part of a genocidal campaign.

V. If Iraq were to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction it could threaten regional stability and deter any potential military action against Iraq. Hussein and his government believe that it was their possession of chemical and biological weapons that deterred the Coalition Forces from invading Iraq during Desert Storm. A WMD capable Iraq would become a regional hegemony.

VI.A democratic Iraqi government would help with the Middle East peace process. Moderate Iraqi regime would discourage militants and boost the credibility of moderate Palestinians who are interested in peace. Iraq financially supports the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, a change of regime could bring an end to this practice.

Stat: Sectarian Violence has decreased 70%.
Debate Round No. 1
BeatTheDevil89

Pro

O ur good, this is gonna be fun

"I. The United States had clear authority under international law to use force against Iraq under the past circumstances under UNSCR 1441"

Didn't authorize use of force, but to conduct searches operated by UNMOVIC and the IAEA who had sole authority.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said "If Iraq's defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities", He said, "This is a time of trial -– for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world. The goal is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in compliance with Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people."

Nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.

Source: http://www.un.org...

II. Reports about WMDs.

Curveball: German intelligence detained an informant code-named curveball. The Germans didn't believe his claims but handed him over to the CIA anyway. Then the CIA after questioning him about mobile nuclear and bio weapons factories also thought he was only telling them what they wanted to hear. President Bush still presented Curveball's information to Congress without any corroboration and Colin Powel used Curveball as his sole source when presenting his case to the U.N. – including the security council mentioned above.

Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister: Both the French and the CIA questioned him about Saddam and his ability to acquire a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year" to which we responded that Saddam could not build it that fast. He also testified that Saddam buried a 500-ton cache of nerve gas and other weapons after the Iraq Iran war, which turned out to be inaccurate. Only small amounts of degraded canisters were found and he also made no mention of a connection between Osama and Saddam.

U.K "Downing Street Memos" : To quote "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

Italian Forgeries: In late 2001, Italian Intelligence received documents that show Saddam Hussein's government was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium from the country of Niger. These documents were handed over to the CIA and to Great Britain. By early 2002 both CIA and the State Department discovered the documents were forgeries.

Former Iraq Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent by senior officials in the US Government to look into the documents claims. Joe Wilson found no evidence that Saddam had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium. After informing the Bush Administration of the fact that the documents were forgeries and Joe Wilson found no evidence of any sale of yellow cake uranium, the George Bush said in his state of the union address "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed in the NY Times entitled "What I didn't find in Niger" refuting the Presidents statements. Shortly there after his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, had her covert identity of a CIA officer blown in a column by Robert Novak.

Terrorism link: Bush repeatedly linked Saddam with Osama and Al Qaeda before and shortly after the war. Extensive reports and investigations by the CIA and the Pentagon found no link whatsoever. Bush later admitted "I've seen no evidence that Saddam Hussien was involved with the September 11th." But that was only after it was to late.

Sources:
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com...
Associated Press:
http://www.pr-inside.com...
MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com...
MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
NY TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com...
FOX News:
http://www.foxnews.com...
Times UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Telegraph co.UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com...
CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com...
ABC News:
http://blogs.abcnews.com...
MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

So as shown any authorization given to the Bush administration was built on fabrications purposefully made to justify the Iraqi invasion.

III. It is fashionable to sneer at the moral case for liberating an Iraqi people long brutalized by Saddam's rule, the moral and humanitarian purpose provided a compelling reason for a war to remove Saddam.

If this is a justifiable excuse, then why haven't we done anything about the Congo, Darfur, Northern Ireland, many other Middle Eastern countries, China, or North Korea. Answer: Because there was no incentive. Lets just face the fact that we invaded Iraq for reasons other than humanitarian causes.

Even if I were to accept such an argument, then any other nation would be perfectly justified to invade us between the use of torture by our own soldiers, denying Americans due process in Guantanamo Bay (were they are also tortured), or even overthrowing Maliki's government under Iraq's new "democracy" were many of Saddam's torture chambers and prisoners are still fully operational.

Sources:
http://www.forbes.com...

Regional Stability:
I won't say anything about this but just let my friend Dick Cheney instead. In this video he talks about how invading Iraq would be a "quagmire" and promote instability.

Peace: This is domino theory in reverse, didn't work once won't work again.
Question, how is sectarian violence down in Iraq when they're in the middle of a civil war? They made that number based on from non-U.S. backed militias victims. Wonder what would happen if they counted our militias were we pay Sunni's to kill Shiites, the number would increase.

http://www.antiwar.com...

Stat: Over 90% of sunnis say it is o.k. to attack U.S. soldiers.
RedEye

Con

Your right, this will be fun =)

Ladies and Gentleman my opponent makes a convincing argument, with lots of sources, however it is only the top layer.

Rebuttal:

1st Off, my opponent responds to my UN charter point; he says that the force was unauthorized. He says the inspectors had sole authority. I agree this is true, BUT SADDAM VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT BY FORCING THE INSPECTORS OUT. Suspicious? Of course. Iraq violated a UN agreement, therefore a member of the Security Council, namely the US, had the right to use force.

2nd, he didn't attack my point as I provided it. I never mentioned German Intelligence, I mentioned UN intelligence and British Intelligence; you can extend this point.

3rd, he only attacks my third contention by brining up other examples of genocide. My response is simple, because people have hated the Bush Administration for the invasion of Iraq, what will the people think if he wants to invade Darfur? Its people like BeattheDevil that prohibits any action against right violators.

I think that these attacks were the most warranted, however I have shown how they are misleading.

Nutshell Case --

Generally, Hussein is a proven threat to international security, he is interested in developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and has shown a willingness to use such weapons on Iraq's neighbors but also against Iraq's Kurdish population. Iraq has to be removed as a threat now before it has the ability to lash out at Israel, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait or US troops stationed in the region.

Alternatives to invasion won't solve the problem. UN inspectors were unable to certify that Iraq had disarmed its WMD programs due to Iraqi obstructions. Since the inspectors left Iraq in 1998 Hussein has had considerable time to rebuild his WMD program and to improve his ability to hide critical facilities.

If Iraq were to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction it could threaten regional stability and deter any potential military action against Iraq. Hussein and his gorvenment believe that it was their possession of chemical and biological weapons that deterred the Coalition Forces from invading Iraq during Desert Storm. A WMD capable Iraq would become a regional hegemony.

Video: If my reasons didn't convince you, then watch this. I used to be against the Iraq Invasion until I saw this: http://video.google.com...=#
Debate Round No. 2
BeatTheDevil89

Pro

Ok now here is were I rip your rebuttal apart:

I. "1st Off, my opponent responds to my UN charter point; he says that the force was unauthorized. He says the inspectors had sole authority. I agree this is true, BUT SADDAM VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT BY FORCING THE INSPECTORS OUT. Suspicious? Of course. Iraq violated a UN agreement, therefore a member of the Security Council, namely the US, had the right to use force. "

Redeye needs to check his date, because this was true during the first gulf war (papa Bush) but did not happen during this Bush's administration. Bush kicked the U.S. inspectors out. He was going to bomb Iraq so we got all humanitarian workers out of there before he did. They weren't kicked out they were evacuated.

"U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war." CBS News

Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com...

"U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq" USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com...

"Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler has ordered all non-essential staff out of Iraq as a precautionary measure in case of U.S. military action." CNN

http://www.cnn.com...

Saddam never kicked them out, was he a little non-compliant with his reports – yes. But we let the weapons inspectors do their job.

Second – "…he didn't attack my point as I provided it. I never mentioned German Intelligence, I mentioned UN intelligence and British Intelligence; you can extend this point."

Maybe you need to read my points a little better. I mentioned German and French intelligence and how they gave suspects to the CIA. Then I mention the CIA intelligence and what they discovered, namely that the information was useless. Curveball was considered useless, Naji Sabri was considered useless, but Bush and his cronies used them as the basis of their investigations and eventually the war. This was the basis for the U.N. intelligence, this along with the incomplete searches of weapons inspectors. Second I also mentioned British Downing Street Memos, were (and I am repeating myself) it was stated that
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." and

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."

Third – "…he only attacks my third contention by brining up other examples of genocide. My response is simple, because people have hated the Bush Administration for the invasion of Iraq, what will the people think if he wants to invade Darfur? Its people like BeattheDevil that prohibits any action against right violators."

Need I remind you that this war had the overwhelming support of the American people and congress, at least until it become clear that the justifications for the war were finally discovered to be false and the real reasons were not in alignment with congress and the American people?

Congress voted for it including most Democrats, polls showed Americans were in favor of it, and Bush's approval rating was sky high.

Sources:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...

http://www.cnn.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org... – Wiki shows the best time progression.

The problem is that American are still in favor of doing something about the violence in the Congo and Darfur, and as shown they were in favor of doing something about it in Iraq. But once it become clear that we were in Iraq for reasons other than humanitarian reasons, then it lost support.

Now for the rest of his Nutshell Case.

1. Yes – Saddam wasn't that good of a guy, we wanted to do all sorts of bad stuff. But why doesn't the Bush Administration use this reason to invade N. Korea, Pakistan, and the rest of the dictators in the world, is it because we had non-humanitarian reasons to go to Iraq?
2. Inspectors never found weapons, there was no reason to invade, he may have had time but it wasn't used to build weapons. He had the intent but not the technology thanks to CentCom's trade blockades. We didn't need to invade because so far we have found no weapons.
3. Finally my opponent argues that if Iraq had WMD's that the region would be in turmoil. Well is what we have there now any better. All your points about stability and violence are well and good but how much worse could that be compared to what is happening now. Besides, evidence shows that Saddam had NO WMDs.

So here is the case in a nutshell:

Bush wanted to invade Iraq for unjust reasons as evidence by the Downing Street Memos, false intelligence that they presented to congress and the U.N. knowing that it was false because our CIA deemed it such before giving the administration the info. Then, before the weapons inspectors were able to complete their searches they were evacuated out of Iraq because Bush was going to bomb them. After we invaded we found NO WMDs. So to quote my opponent, "…therefore a member of the Security Council, namely the US, had the right to use force. " This force could only be used if Saddam violated the agreement, which he didn't. He provided reports and allowed the U.N. to inspect his country for WMDs. All evidence that supported the U.N. charter above has been proven to be lies knowingly used to the Bush administration's advantages. We had no right to invade.
RedEye

Con

Ok, I'll make this quick. I'll go through my opponent's "nut-shell" case, and the present my voting issues.

1) He agrees that Saddam wasn't a nice guy, then he says if humanitarian reasons was the reason to go in, why not do it now?

My Response: My opponent is using circular logic. If we invade one of those countries now, anti-bush people will bring up another reason that there was other motives. The point is; we stopped a genocide that killed more then 100,000 Kurds. If this isn't reason enough, then I don't know what it. Should we have let Hitler keep on killing Jews?

2) My opponent says the inspectors didn't find any weapons.

My Response: As I have pointed out, the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam Hussein. If the Inspectors truly found no weapons, then the UN would have establishes a resolution forbidding the attack. However, the UN never did such thing. Britain actually helped plan the attack. Also, he brings up German and French intelligence. And then he brings up a memo in Britain. He does NOT respond to my point about British Intelligence. The evidence was there. However if you don't believe me, look at the definition of WMD's. This includes nukes, bio weapons, and chemical weapons. Saddam has the biggest stash of CHEMICAL WEAPONS. They did not find nukes but they fund these.

3) My opponent says that we are in a worse situation now.

This is partially true, and partially false. Iraq is in a mess, but the REGION isn't. The middle east is actually in no turmoil, besides Iraq. Also, as I have shown before, in Iraq Sectarian violence has decreased 70%.
=======================================================================

Voting Issues:

1) Ending a genocide justifies the attack. According he the UN declaration on human rights and genocide. A Security Council member has the right to use force to end a genocide. Don't look to my opponent's point about Darfur etc. thats a non-unique argument. It doesn't matter if we invade Darfur; force was justified becaus we ended a genocide, period.

2) There was evidence of WMD's. British and CIA evidence shows this to be true. nd he also has Cehmical weapons,
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
First off I would like to say I think that the UN doesn't solve anything and has no real authority whatsoever. Going by that proposition any country has the right to invade any other country, it is the way it has been done for thousands of years and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
I agree...you two kinda got away from the really important issues.
Posted by tangerineman91 8 years ago
tangerineman91
Just an inquiry here. The title says the debate is about whether the U.S. had the right to invade Iraq. Shouldn't the arguments have been over (1)the U.N. policy that Security Council members have the right to end a genocide (2) whether a genocide was occuring? It seems like the arguments were over a different topic than the one presented in the title.
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
wow, when someone invites u to a debate, u guys really overdo it.

;D
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 Reacquire-truth 8 years ago
Reacquire-truth
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 SPF 8 years ago
SPF
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 tangerineman91 8 years ago
tangerineman91
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 ting912 8 years ago
ting912
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 Trismegistos 8 years ago
Trismegistos
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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 Ryana177 8 years ago
Ryana177
BeatTheDevil89RedEyeTied
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