Login/Sign Up




THBT the US-Iraq war was justified
Fights

rndvs
Aug 26, 2009
3 votes
8 debaters
7
5
2
2
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

0
Yes it was


watchman81
Aug 27, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

You made some interesting points in your post, so I thought I'd respond.

"Instead of invading Pakistan, as the theory of preemptive military intervention against proliferation would suggest, the US made Pakistan its ally in rooting out Al Qaeda.

Now I personally think that's a better option than war. Embrace and subvert. So why didn't they do that with Iraq?"

The US allied with Pakistan because we had a common problem: Al Qaeda. This alliance was made possible because Musharraf was a proponent of a secular Pakistani government, and Al Qaeda poses a threat to this idea. Musharraf also didn't have a history of conflict with the United States as Hussein did.

"Embrace and Subvert" would not have worked with Hussein as it did with Musharraf. Hussein had a deep seated hatred for America and Israel. While Hussein and Al Qaeda may not have worked closely together, they both had a common purpose: the destruction of America and Israel. Musharraf had no such goal in mind, which made him a far better ally than Hussein would ever have been.

"Before you answer "because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy", I ask you to consider that Pervez Musharraf is/was just about as bad. It's just that he's not as hostile to the US as was Saddam."


Are you sure about that? As far as I know, Pervez Musharraf never gassed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Musharraf never set up rape and torture chambers in Pakistan. I'm sure Musharraf isn't an angel, but equating him with Hussein is patently ridiculous.

"All GWB had to say was, "Saddam's a bad guy, hostile to the US. He's a lunatic in control of major oil resources. He may not have nukes now, but we can be pretty sure he'd like to have them. Strategically, it makes sense to depose him and install a government friendly to the US."

I actually agree with this. These are some of the reasons Bush wanted to invade, but he never communicated them very effectively.

"I've now made your case for you. Say thank you. But stop trying to evade the reality that you were hoodwinked by the previous administration. The war was never about nukes."

I'm not really sure why you keep going on about nukes. Bush never said Iraq was a nuclear power. Obviously, Hussein would have liked to have nuclear weapons at his disposal, but he didn't. Everyone knows that. Bush's justification for invading Iraq had to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction (not nuclear), Hussein's repeated violations of UN Security Council resolutions, his refusal to allow weapons inspectors in, and the fact that he was an enemy of the US. Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons.



 
apathetic
Aug 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

1. I haven't invaded North Korea because they are considered within China's sphere of influence and an outright war with N. Korea would be a war with China in the end.

2. I think Bush considered invading N. Korea in the middle of his first term.

3. Nuclear non-poliferation, if you agree with the theory, would be a justifcation for war since the alternative is nuclear war (in the theory.) Unfourtunately, yes we have to judge the people based on what they believe to be true and not what is actually true. If the intellegence community was wrong that's a diffrent problem then the White House making a bad decision. This morning I got up at 8:00 because I thought I had a class at 9:00 but I found out it was cancelled. That doesn't mean that my getting up at 8:00 was a bad idea, it just means I should have checked my email last night.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rodmcfeely Show

You have to remember that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was never meant to be a multi-year occupation of Iraq. The goal was to take out Saddam (which we did) and set up an Iraqi Democracy (which we did). We hit some serious snags on the way though. I dont think my government anticipated the level of fighting it would take to make Iraq a stable place and set up the very VERY strategic Military Base in the Middle East that would have been huge in fighting the "War on Terror".

As far as economics goes, many wars are based on economics. True, its not the most righteous reason to go to war, but it can be a legitimate one.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

"All GWB had to say was, "Saddam's a bad guy, hostile to the US. He's a lunatic in control of major oil resources. He may not have nukes now, but we can be pretty sure he'd like to have them. Strategically, it makes sense to depose him and install a government friendly to the US." I would have supported the war if it were justified in those terms"

Why? Doesn't that contradict your earlier posts? You did say that the posession of nuclear weaponry wasn't really justification for going to war. And you did say that Pervez Musharraf was a bad guy as well.

You lost me as soon as you said "I would have supported the war..." and you were doing so good before that! The war in Iraq wasn't justifiable because the reasons for going to war were applicable to dozens of other nations.

There are PLENTY of other nations in our world that are ran by tyrants who physically and economically abuse their people. There are PLENTY of nations that have nuclear weapons with "intent" (i cant emphazise that quote-unquote thing enough) to use them on the free world. Unfortunatley for him, Saddam fit both parts of this criteria, and he was last seeing hanging from a rafter with his eyes bulging out of his skull. Point is, if the US is to go to war with anyone who fits Saddam's mold, we'd be at war all day every day so Iraq was totally unjustifiable.

 
rndvs
Aug 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The Iraqi's were building weapons of mass destruction, the USA had no choice but to stop them.
In fact, the US gave ample warning to Saddam Hussein before invading Iraq.

 
apathetic
Aug 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
1. It’s impossible for us to know whether or not the white house believed there were WMDs in Iraq if it did (for sufficient reason) then that alone would make it justified even through there were not any in the country.

2.The white house did seem to believe that going into Iraq would strengthen the US economy and potentially give us a strategic advantage against other potential threats in the Middle East, specifically Iran.

3.While the United States not only failed to achieve its goals but actually made the situation worse this should not weigh into whether starting the war was justified.

In short,
A for effort.
F for execution.


 
apathetic
Aug 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rodmcfeely Show

1. I agree that war should be avoided but we are talking justified. Maybe...certainly their response wasn't the best but that doesn't mean that it wasn't justified.

As far as intellegence goes...I don't see how the people utillizing that intellegance thinking that we are sheep is any less "scary." Honestly though, I tend to think that WMDs were used to garner further support and not necessarily known to be there. I just don't know that and don't want to assume it.

2. War does strengthen the economy when it secures Oil. Now we F'ed that senario up royally but we all know that the Iraq war was in some way fueled by oil.

As far as strategic advantage goes. Listen to the axis of evil speech again. This argument is in there. I won't say however that you have to believe that this is valid jusfication for war but I think it is Iran scares me at times.




 
watchman81
Aug 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

Although I disagree that most of the public perceived the Iraqi threat as nuclear, I'm inclined to concede that it may be splitting hairs a bit. The bottom line is that Bush believed Hussein was more of a threat than he actually turned out to be.

I guess one of the things that has always vexed me is how so many different intelligence agencies could have been so insanely wrong on the exact same issue. The intelligence agencies of the US, France, Russia, Germany, England, Israel, and even Jordan all believed that Hussein had WMD's, and yet they were not there when we invaded. Now, I'm not a big proponent of wacky conspiracy theories, but I do wonder if it's possible that Hussein DID ship the WMD's to Syria as many suspect.

 
dkturner
Aug 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

The House Believes That. Oxford debating terminology.

 
apathetic
Aug 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

In all fairness, hundreds of thousands of people didn't die becuase we went into Iraq....probably only tens of thousands of people...ok fine you get a convince.

 
watchman81
Aug 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Van,


I've looked for information to support what you say, but I can't find it. Every source I've looked up so far has stated that these countries' intelligence agencies all believed Hussein had WMD's, so I'm inclined to believe that they actually did. I can't find any proof that these intelligence agencies were told to "change their story". Where are you getting this from? And also, WHO told these intelligence agencies to change their statements, and why would they listen to this person? We both know France and Russia believed Hussein had WMD's and we both know that both of these countries were against the United States' invasion, so why would they have changed their story? To me, it seems that your argument isn't supported by facts and is nonsensical. Enlighten me.

 
watchman81
Aug 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

I went over the links you had (except for that looooong 107 page one) and at most, they address MI6's take on things which were obviously more exaggerated. There is nothing about the intelligence agencies of France, Jordan, Russia, Germany, and Israel and there certainly isn't anything to indicate that these agencies believed Hussein didn't have WMD's and then suddenly changed their mind because some mystery person asked them to. Still doesn't make sense.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Thales, you're the best.

THBBBBBBBBBBBBBBT!

: )

 
+ Add Argument

3
No it wasn't


frankiej4189
Aug 27, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: apathetic Show

In all fairness man, hundreds of thousands of people dont die just because you didn't have class.

 
dkturner
Aug 27, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: apathetic Show

So apparently if the White House "believes" that a country has nuclear weapons, that's enough justification for war?

THEN WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY INVADED NORTH KOREA?!

 
dkturner
Aug 27, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: apathetic Show

Your points are fair, but now I turn to my Pakistan/India example.

Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers. Pakistan threatens India with its nukes. The US outsources plenty of business to India. Therefore US interests are threatened by Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Instead of invading Pakistan, as the theory of preemptive military intervention against proliferation would suggest, the US made Pakistan its ally in rooting out Al Qaeda.

Now I personally think that's a better option than war. Embrace and subvert. So why didn't they do that with Iraq?

Before you answer "because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy", I ask you to consider that Pervez Musharraf is/was just about as bad. It's just that he's not as hostile to the US as was Saddam.

The conclusions I draw are as follows: The US invaded Iraq because of the irredeemable hostility of its leader. The nuclear justification was based on unsound evidence (as most of the rest of the world thought when it was presented). Same goes for the Iraq-supported-Al-Qaeda justification. But certainly Iraq threatened US interests, particularly as a major oil producer.

All GWB had to say was, "Saddam's a bad guy, hostile to the US. He's a lunatic in control of major oil resources. He may not have nukes now, but we can be pretty sure he'd like to have them. Strategically, it makes sense to depose him and install a government friendly to the US."

I would have supported the war if it were justified in those terms. But it wasn't. Instead the White House tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda (which was perversely wrong - Al Qaeda was a threat to Saddam, not an ally). It tried to sell the idea that Iraq was a nuclear power (it clearly wasn't). At no point were the real motivations to go to war expressed.

That's called dishonesty. Dishonesty, bravado and an extremely weak grasp of realpolitik is why I intensely disliked GWB.

I've now made your case for you. Say thank you. But stop trying to evade the reality that you were hoodwinked by the previous administration. The war was never about nukes.


 
thales
Aug 28, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

I prefer to think of it as the sound of the letters: like someone blowing a raspberry. Thbt! It's like issuing a challenge to debate if we were all on the playground still. Love it. :-)

 
dkturner
Aug 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rndvs Show

Oh balls. You're not seriously deluded enough to still believe in the "WMDs", are you?

Besides which, if WMDs were really the issue, then what about North Korea? What about Iran? What about Pakistan and India, for God's sake?

That justification for the war has no basis whatsoever. Try again.

 
rodmcfeely
Aug 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: apathetic Show

1. Alright lets assume they thought there were WMD's (although assuming they werent sure gives us a much scarier scenario) there were far better ways to get stop them. UN anyone? Continue inspector searches? War should always always always be last last last option. When nothing else is on the table then you begin to possible consider the possibility of maybe thinking about war. I cannot emphasize this point enough.

And if our intelligence was really that bad that leaves us in a very scary place. Our intelligence agencies know nothing, are worth nothing. I find that hard to believe but if you are to believe the White House made the decision based on this intelligence the conclusion that our intelligence is worthless logically follows.

Personally I believe the White House correctly assumed the American people are sheep. We'd go along with anything they told us with or without factual information. We just werent quite sheepish enough to buy this war.

2. War to strengthen the economy? WTF? War is not an economic tool. That definitely doesnt count as justification. I cant even begin to think about that. Want to boost your countries economy? Start a war! Oh makes me sick thinking about that.

Strategic advantage I can buy. Makes sense to me. Still no reason to start a war. We're long past Real Politic logic here. Again I shudder to think that was the reason we started the war.

3. While the US failed to achieve its goals and made the situation worse this should not weigh on whether or not sttarting the war was justifiable. Totally true. We could have won the war outright and it still would have been unjustified.

F for execution
Something well below F for effort

 
dkturner
Aug 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Frankie, I agree with you. But I don't believe I contradicted myself: I said the nuclear argument was a poor excuse for starting the war, because the evidence wasn't there. I also pointed out, as you do, that there are other nations to invade, with better justification.

I for one would like to see Robert Mugabe deposed.

But the fact that there are plenty of nations that need a little slapping around doesn't mean that one *can't* justify invading one or other of them. I would have accepted the justifications I gave for invading Iraq, because I think they're valid. That doesn't necessarily mean I think it was the best place to start.

Nor does it mean that I think war is the best option - as with Pakistan, embrace and subvert works much better (who reads Iain M Banks? :-)).


 
dkturner
Aug 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Good post. Convince. Your analysis of the difference between Pakistan and Iraq is spot-on.

I think saying that the White House wasn't talking about nukes but about WMDs is splitting hairs a bit. Bush's "mushroom cloud" allusion comes to mind. The threat perceived by the public was nuclear.

 
vancam
Aug 28, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Sorry to jump in but the intelligence agencies didn't believe that Hussein had WMD's. In fact, most agencies emphatically said that they didn't believe he had WMD's until they were told to change their story. Which is what led to the September Dossier, the final basis and justification given for going to war.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Yeah but didn't WMD realistically imply "Nuclear Weapons"? Isn't that what the weapons insepctors were looking for when they went into Iraq?

Nonetheless, good points as usual. Convince

 
frankiej4189
Aug 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Anyone wanna tell me what "THBT" stands for? I know i'll regret asking when i find out the answer, but its been bugging me for a day now.

 
vancam
Aug 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

Here's the bits and pieces I managed to find after a few minutes searching. Obviously the government has refused to confirm that the September Dossier was "sexed up" but most of the press (right and left) seem to feel it to be the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/09/Iraqandthemedia.bbc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/ukiraq0703.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3141669.stm

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23551715-details/article.do?ito=newsnow&

 
frankiej4189
Aug 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

Thank you kind sir

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

battle chuck norris click on this death fight fight, amazing, cool, funny Fights Frankie samurai superman Vancam vs War