Head-2-Head: Is the War in Iraq Valid?

Welcome to another round of Head-2-Head Political Debate!.

Participants

Pro: semperfortis
Con: TheBorg

Guidelines

1. Each member will post an opening statement, three rebuttals, and one closing statement.

2. Outside links are acceptable, with a maximum of three per post. (Note: Rule Change While using external links is acceptable, quoting external sites is not acceptable)

3. No pictures are permitted in any post.

4. Each reply must be within 48 hours of the previous. (Weekends Excluded)

5. Opening & Closing Statements have a 8,000 character restriction. Rebuttals have a 10,000 character restriction.

6. semperfortis will post first.

These are the guidelines agreed upon by both members. If either of you see an infraction, contact me via u2u to discuss the course of actions. REMEMBER: you can use external links in your replies, but you may not quote external sources. Use the links and put everything into your own words.

General Rules

The following General H2H Debate Rules (current at the time this debate started) apply:

1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.

2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.

3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.

4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.

5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.

6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.

7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.

8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.

9. Quoting external sources is strictly forbidden. Members are permitted to reference links as sources, but they are not permitted to quote external sources. The only quotes that should be used in these debates are that of their opponent's replies.

(New) 10. No emoticons are permitted in any Head-2-Head Debate post.

Good luck to both participants! Contact me via u2u when the debate has concluded.

Thanks.

The Validity of the War in Iraq

Opening Post by Semperfortis

Thank you TheBorg, for this opportunity to debate with you on this very controversial subject of most immediate concern to both ATS and America.

Thank you Chissler for all of your hard work in setting up and moderating these debates.

The War

The subject of the War in Iraq is one filled with controversy and emotion. Hated by some and supported by others, we all have an opinion and feelings on the subject. Popular opinion sways and shrinks as the death tolls rise and closer and closer we come to another Vietnam.

Here in this debate, I intend to illustrate the many reasons why this war is important for the United States. Why this war is important for democracy both in Iraq and here in the United States and equally important for the continuation of our way of life.

The war in Iraq has many facets, to include the global war on terror that many of us will never live to see the end of, our commitment to defend the fledgling democracy in Iraq and the United States as well as our very willingness to stand for what is good and right in this world.

The global war on terror is as real a war as our forefathers fought in WWI and WWII; the enemy as insidious, the combat as horrible, and the deaths as final. Yet this is nothing new as every single generation of Americans has fought a war or conflict. We have just never been exposed to the horrors in such graphic detail as our ever present news services now present to us. The very fact we are traumatized is direct indication of our need to continue fighting. For as traumatic as watching it on TV is, when we surrender and the terrorist have won; when they realize that we will not finish any fight and they come to our shores with car bombs and IEDs, then the real trauma begins.

I have lived overseas and watched as armed soldiers patrolled by my table as I enjoyed a cup of tea. I have felt the fear on going to a market and hearing some child scream, wondering if an explosion was next, only to find the child had lost a ball.
If we fail to fight, and to win this war, our country will soon experience such everyday fear.

This war is not about WMD’s, that inconvenient alibi so often misused by the detractors is far too easily exposed. It is also not about the United Nations Sanctions, though violated those sanctions were, that useless organization has served its purpose and is currently a waste of real estate.

This war is about commitment.

In Korea we failed to act with enough firepower, firepower available to us, and as a result the Korean Peninsula remains in a state of war.
In Vietnam we again had the firepower, the strength to win that conflict; we simply did not have the internal fortitude and communism won.
Now do we again surrender and allow our enemies to once again defeat us, not on the field of battle, but in the court of public opinion?
Do we walk away from the brave men and women in Iraq that yearn to live free and control their own destiny?
We can not allow our own prejudice, our fear and lack of commitment, destroy that which is so young and has so much promise.
We can not allow those brave soldiers that have given their life in what they and I consider being an honorable endeavor, to have died in vain.

If we will not stand, then who?

There comes a time in every single person’s life when they must decide to either stand for their beliefs, or back down and avoid any consequences. For the consequences of standing up for your beliefs are often dire and disastrous. Yet what do we become when we abandon our principles because the “going got tough”? What are those consequences?

This is exactly what we as a nation face now, right this very minute. We either choose to stand and be principled, or surrender and slink away once again in shame. Most often standing for one’s beliefs is the far more difficult and unpopular road, however to not do so is the end of all that this nation was founded on.

In many ways this war is a test, a test of this nation’s fortitude during difficult times; a test of our ability to not only talk the talk, but to also walk the walk. Talk is ever so easy and always the cheapest of commodities.

This war is also the last best hope for the future of democracy.

The last best hope for the future of the United States and her Representative Republic.

During this debate I will speak often and extensively about the War. I do not speak solely about Iraq for in all actuality the war in Iraq ended with the capture of Hussein. What we are currently engaged in there, is a struggle to cement the establishment of a new democracy and assist them in defeating the insurgents that will stop at nothing to prevent that very democracy from being formed.
The “war” for the United States is quite simply a war against terrorist, a war against those that would destroy the bringers of democracy and a war to ensure that our very way of life does not pass from this planet.

We fight for freedom, the Iraqi freedom and our own. We fight so that the rest of the world will know that we DO value freedom, we value it enough to die for it. As our forefathers did.

So many times I have heard others say that if the Iraqi’s want freedom, they should stand up for it. Perhaps this is true, but we do not fight because the Iraqi people will not, we do not fight because they will, we fight because it is the right thing to do. We fight because others can not or will not. We fight because we have the strength, the strength of commitment and internal fortitude.

There comes a time when all good men and women must stand and say in a loud, clear voice.

ENOUGH

Thank you for your time..

Semper

A look into the mind of TheBorg – Against the War in Iraq (Phase 1)

Thank you Semperfortis and chissler for allowing this debate to be able to happen. Without you guys, this wouldn’t have become a reality. Let’s hope this debate sheds some light on the truth of the matter.

I ask at this time that all that read these words, and any forthcoming from either myself or semperfortis, please use your own judgments to determine whether these are good ideas, and come to your own conclusions on what’s true. I only aim to show my side, and to support it with the facts that are presented to me. Through these facts, I aim to show that the War in Iraq is not a valid one. Please see this debate for what it is, a look at the mindset of the people at this time.

…

As of today, according to CNN, two more US soldiers were killed in Iraq, bringing the total killed since the start of operations there to 3447. To me, this is an unacceptable loss, as it serves no purpose. Some say that this war is all about preserving our freedoms, and making the world a better place for the US. Yet at the same time, no one seems able to make a convincing argument as to what exactly justifies our presence there.

Several arguments have been passed around, from WMD’s to terrorist insurgents, and ties to Al-Qaeda. These excuses for invading a country don’t seem to hold up when presented with the facts of the case, as I’m about to show.

Lets take the WMD argument for starters. During operations there after the initial invasion, the US forces scoured the entire area that Saddam Hussein could have had any caches of weapons. No where did they find a single chemical weapon or WMD. All that they found were the remnants of the very weapons that the US provided Iraq with back in the 1980s when Hussein was trying to secure his country from attack by Iran. It’s here that we began to see the reality of the situation. Only after the US forces finished scouring the country did we really understand that he didn’t have any WMD’s there. The US government then came out and said that they thought that the weapons may have gone over the border to Syria. While this is a possibility, it’s not a very good one, as there’s no intelligence to suggest such an incident occurred. There’s no proof for any of those claims, and none of the trucks, nor the materials in them, have been found to date.

This leads me to one natural conclusion; that the WMD’s never existed. So my logical question is: Why go there at all if we had bad intelligence? Probable cause does not give us the right and ability to just declare war on a country, even though we may suspect them of something. We need to catch them at it, and we failed to do so.

Next are the terrorist insurgents in Iraq and their inexplicably convenient ties to Al-Qaeda. These “terrorist insurgents” seemed to follow right in the footsteps of the realization that there were no WMD’s in Iraq, yet I’m sure they were there all along. My contention with all of this is that these men were probably in fact just Iraqi citizens that felt like they had a patriotic duty to protect their own country from invasion by an outside force, not terrorists.

To illustrate, let me use an example. Lets say Canada invaded the United States by force. Shouldn’t the American People be expected to take up arms and stop them? The same could be said for the Iraqis. True, they may have been misled, but they were reacting, not thinking. Now, however, the game has changed. It’s now a game of drawing all of the terrorists into one location, to keep the heat off of the rest of the world, namely the US. And we're drawing terrorists to Iraq every day, killing a lot of the Iraqis there, while also sticking our necks out where they shouldn't be in the first place.

What bothers me about this is why did we go there? Who was hurting us over there before we went in? Why allow hundreds of thousands of seemingly innocent men, women, children, and nearly 3500 of my brothers and sisters die for something as vague as a suspicion?

There are some that claim the aforementioned excuses are the answers to these questions. “We claim that we’re doing it for freedom, for the ability of a country to experience Democracy for the first time.” But who are we to say if Democracy is right for them? Is that what the PEOPLE there really want? Do they believe in the concept of having a voice? If so, then why aren’t more standing up to fight? Why does it take the US keeping a force there to insure that the country stays in tact? If the People really want to be free, they will have to stand up and fill in the gaps that my brothers and sisters will leave when they finally get out. I use our own history as the perfect example of what will happen when the People really want change. I believe in my heart, that if they want freedom, that they will act on it when/if they want it. No sooner, no later.

This thinking, however, leads me to ask the following questions:

Why haven’t we left? Are we there to further some other goal, like Middle-Eastern dominance? Are those in possession of the corporations in the area forcing us to stay there so that they can continue to make money off of the occupation? Or is there something else that’s at work here?

As for their ties to Al-Qaeda, it’s a funny thing that they find themselves in Iraq. They too were a US ally once, back during the 1980s as well. According to the BBC, Bin Laden was funded by the US while he fought against Russia during the 1980’s. Shortly after the war ended, Bin Laden turned on the US, with his eyes set on the destruction of the West.

This minor link to 9-11-01 is all that the Bush administration holds onto when they speak about the reasons for our being in Iraq, when they had a perfectly good excuse a long time ago. After the first Gulf War ended, Bush 1 and Hussein both signed a Treaty that would allow weapons inspectors in periodically to keep tabs on them, amongst other things. Hussein, being the person that he was, began to turn them down. He broke the treaty on a number of occasions, and forced the UN out altogether. If this would’ve been the reason for invasion, then I would have supported it, but it wasn’t. It was a series of halfhearted accusations, based on bad intelligence and raging suspicion.

To close this up, I’d like to make one last point. This whole mess could have been avoided had Bush 2 made the statement going in that this was in response to the list of breaches of the UN treaty that they signed. Had he done that, this whole war would most likely have turned out differently, but it didn’t. There’s a reason for that, but that’s a topic for another debate entirely. Suffice it to say that this War in Iraq has served no greater purpose than to divide two groups of people, the Iraqi and US citizens.

It is hereby my contention that this war is based on a lie perpetrated by the current Bush administration, to serve some as yet undetermined purpose. Time will tell what that purpose is.

Thank you for listening semper, and everyone else that watches. U2U comments are welcomed, but please keep them brief.

For Truth,
TheBorg

Semperfortis 1st Rebuttal
Debate: Is the Iraq War Valid

TheBorg,
Thank you for that wonderful and insightful opening argument on our debate.

In my opening statement I touched on the weapons of mass destruction issue and it’s relevance to the current war in Iraq. The issue of WMD’s, in my opinion, will remain a minor issue in regards to the war we are now engaged in.

My opponent however, is apparently determined to debate this minor issue, so I feel I must oblige him.

Reading all of my opponent’s information on WMD’s, it would appear that his opinion is accurately summed up with this quote.

This leads me to one natural conclusion; that the WMD’s never existed

There are several issues with this “natural” conclusion.

First and foremost it is a simple matter of historical record that Hussein used Chemical Weapons (WMD’S) in the war with Iran.
It is also historically factual that Hussein used Chemical Weapons (WMD’S) against the Kurds in his own country.
It is a fact that UN Weapons Inspectors Duelfer and Kay both reported that a clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses were discovered that contained Uranium Enrichment Equipment and materials for the production of Chemical and Biological Weapons.
Our very own soldiers discovered massive stockpiles of “Organophosphate” and other equally significant chemicals reported by the Iraqi’s to be for “Insecticide” use.
Organophosphate is the “Grandfather” of all Nerve Agents as well as a mass produced insecticide. Nerve Agents and Industrial Grade Insecticides contain virtually the same chemicals.
These stock piles were all discovered in camouflaged bunkers, near other stock piles of Surface to Surface and Surface to Air missiles, Gas Masks and even a Mobile Laboratory designed to convert the chemicals into the necessary components to deliver via the missiles.
So unless one is to surmise that Hussein was worried about a massive “BUG” problem in and around his military bunkers, the existence of WMD’s has been established.

In all reality the WMD issue is simple in that the Press Corp and the Presidents detractors had and have no desire to discover WMD’s; in fact they ignored all of the information leading the experts to conclude WMD’s were in fact discovered. Short of a large pile of Nuclear Missiles with a flashing neon sign, the American Public was never going to get the truth.

In summation, the existence of WMD’s has been established to the scientific community to a solid, factual, evidentiary degree. It is only the Press and the Presidents opponents that have yet to be convinced.


The next issue my opponent addresses, is that of the Insurgents in Iraq.

Next are the terrorist insurgents in Iraq and their inexplicably convenient ties to Al-Qaeda. These “terrorist insurgents” seemed to follow right in the footsteps of the realization that there were no WMD’s in Iraq, yet I’m sure they were there all along. My contention with all of this is that these men were probably in fact just Iraqi citizens that felt like they had a patriotic duty to protect their own country from invasion by an outside force, not terrorists.

My opponent is “sure” that “they” were there all along.

Perhaps not:

During the time period of April, 2005 to October, 2005, a study of captured insurgents was conducted by Alan Krueger of Princeton University.
In that time span, 311 foreign insurgents were captured. These insurgent’s countries of origin were all confirmed and ranged from Egypt, Syria, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. There was also a significant cross section of Palestinians.

These terrorists were NOT there all along.

To see the error in my opponents thought process, one need only examine his comparison of terrorist insurgents and patriotic citizens.

While acts of violence perpetrated within ones own country during times of strife may in fact be the actions of patriots, the strapping of explosives to innocent children and the indiscriminate killing of the innocent citizens of any country, are simply acts of a terrorist.
Patriots do not take the heads of noncombatants or kill children. Not for any cause, righteous or not.

It’s now a game of drawing all of the terrorists into one location, to keep the heat off of the rest of the world, namely the US. And we're drawing terrorists to Iraq every day

Next my opponent says that “we” are drawing the terrorists there.
First, are they terrorists, or are they patriots? You can not have it both ways.
Second, I would enjoy hearing your explanation of why foreign individuals would find it compelling to enter another country, not their own, then behead noncombatants and kill women and children all because that “other” country, again not their own, was involved in a conflict with a foreign country?
What possible motivation other then that which I espoused in my opening; that the Insurgents are simply and completely determined to destroy our way of life and deny Democracy to any and all peoples, fits this scenario?

What bothers me about this is why did we go there? Who was hurting us over there before we went in?

Hitler was not “hurting” us either, but by the time we moved to stop that world threat, MANY innocent men, women and children died needlessly. We could have saved many lives had we acted sooner as England requested.
With a nuclear world, the luxury of waiting until a foe attacks us on our homeland, is folly to the extreme.

My opponent next addresses the often mentioned issue of the validity of democracy in Iraq and the desire by the Iraqi people for that very form of government.

He even utilizes the politically correct surmise that the Iraqi people should be fighting for freedom themselves.

They are.

At present we are fighting to allow them the time and ability to build a security force capable of defending their own country. This is not an easy task as we have to combat terrorists that take the heads of our contractors and kill children to obtain their goals. The building of a national security force from the ground up is a daunting enough task without the insurgents. We are currently accomplishing that goal and will continue unless the terrorists have their way and once more, as in Vietnam, subvert the will of the American People with their propaganda and the brave men and women are forced to surrender.

At present we have assisted in the formation of numerous battalions that have effectively begun the takeover of security responsibilities for several sectors. We have aided in the formation of a National Police Force that is, at this current time, standing beside us and learning to effectively combat the criminal actions being perpetrated against their citizens.

Yes, they are fighting and volunteering in mass numbers regardless of the insurgents.

Or perhaps my opponent was referring to the other politically correct statement of:

“Why the Iraqi people did not rebel on their own.”

Unlike the revolution that the United States accomplished in the 1700’s, modern weapons and tactics effectively preclude a civilian populace from exerting any form of control over their government, especially if that government is dedicated to the suppression of any and all civil liberties. That, combined with a country only slightly larger than our state of California, and the fact that Iraqis were kept in a state of constant poverty and the complete domination of Hussein; no, they did not rise on their own, and I for one can understand why.

My opponent asks if “Democracy is right for them?”

There is a very simple and completely effective way to establish this.

8 million people in a country of 26 million turned out to cast their ballot and the overwhelming result was …. DEMOCRACY.

That is just under 30 percent turn out. Compare that to the numbers of an election here in the United States, add the threat of death or dismemberment and what happened there on that Election Day really becomes spectacular.

There is no need for me to answer if the Iraqi’s wanted democracy, they have answered in a way far superior to mine.

I use our own history as the perfect example of what will happen when the People really want change. I believe in my heart, that if they want freedom, that they will act on it when/if they want it

I must again point out that as terrible as taxation without representation was, England’s control over the colonies did not include Mass Genocide, Public Political Raping of women, Dismemberment and Beheadings. The comparison of our revolution to the plight of the Iraqis is completely without merit.
The one documented assassination attempt on Hussein resulted in the systematic destruction of whole villages.
No comparison.

They too were a US ally once, back during the 1980s

As for Al-Qaeda being one of our allies, so was Germany and Japan prior to WWII. Political situations change and the reviewing of historical alliances in any attempt to justify hostilities is useless as the political climate of most countries, organizations and entities can and does change year to year.

It is hereby my contention that this war is based on a lie perpetrated by the current Bush administration, to serve some as yet undetermined purpose. Time will tell what that purpose is

What lie I must ask?
I would also like to know what you are referring to as the “undetermined purpose?”

Speculation without merit, based on indefinable ideas is never conducive to the truth. One can as easily speculate that we went to war with Germany to get their Knockwurst.
It makes an equal amount of sense.

Finally, we are there because a people were being subjugated by a tyrant. An entire culture was systematically being destroyed by a single individual. A country was crying out for freedom and the help needed to obtain that lofty goal. The leader of an entire country was dedicated to the destruction of our way of life and those of our allies.

So we stepped up.
We said, ENOUGH!

I am proud of my President, my Country and what we are doing in Iraq.

Semper

A Look into the mind of TheBorg: Iraq Justification – 1st Rebuttal.

Semper,
What can I say? That was a stellar response. I think that this is proving more profitable for the both of us than I had planned it to be. Now, onto the response.

The issue of WMD’s, in my opinion, will remain a minor issue in regards to the war we are now engaged in.

The reason I use this argument for the introduction is because it’s the one that was used to get the People behind it. Without this argument, we never would have invaded. Well, if we had, it would have been against the will of the People. If, like I suggested in my introduction, President Bush had came out and said that we were going there in response to UN Treaty violations, we wouldn’t be having this debate right now, as the whole thing would have been justified. To me, and a majority of the American Population, this excuse has single-handedly ruined any proper justification for our presence there.

Does this mean that I think that we can’t win the war? Not at all. I remember a podcast of your’s where you said that you were sick and tired of people saying that they supported their troops, but didn’t support the war. You said that they can’t do both. Well, I have been a staunch supporter of my troops my whole life. I want them to succeed in everything that they do, even if I disagree with our reasons for doing it. I can justify doing both, as anyone can. I know you can’t be blinded by all of the propaganda that the Bush Administration has thrown out at us over the past three years to keep us invested in this war. Again, I ask you, what purpose does this war serve?

To continue with the debate over the existence of WMD’s, you stated:

It is a fact that UN Weapons Inspectors Duelfer and Kay both reported that a clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses were discovered that contained Uranium Enrichment Equipment and materials for the production of Chemical and Biological Weapons.

Well, according to CNN, as of June 26th, 2003, the only things found were the components of some Uranium Enrichment equipment. I haven’t heard anything about any grand underground network of Nuclear facilities that were in the process of making Nuclear Weapons. If you could provide any evidence to this, I would be very interested.

However, I should clarify that when I stated that they didn’t find any WMD’s in Iraq, I was referring to any that were under construction at the time of the Operation Iraqi Freedom. The above site makes it clear that the components recovered at that site were buried there over twelve years ago under orders from the Hussein brothers. That means that they were buried there just before the first Gulf War, which means that any progress on WMD’s most likely stopped at that point. I don’t believe that any newly made WMD’s have been discovered in the area since our occupation began.

Next, you pointed out that not only was Saddam preparing nuclear weapons, but he was also preparing chemical weapons for “insecticide”:

Our very own soldiers discovered massive stockpiles of “Organophosphate” and other equally significant chemicals reported by the Iraqi’s to be for “Insecticide” use.

The problem with this is that, while there may have been a stash of chemicals there, they were first of all in separate components, and secondly, they were also made prior to the invasion in 2003. What’s even more interesting is that most of these chemicals were given to the Iraqi government by the US during their confrontation with Iran. If they made more, it was because we trained them to. The main excuse for entering Iraq in ’03 was that WMD manufacturing was in progress, and that if it wasn’t stopped, we’d be faced with a tyrannical regime with the means to hit targets around the globe, including the US. According to GlobalSecurity , there were no active WMD facilities at the time of invasion. Were they all shut down in preparation for our arrival? Or were they still shut down from the first Gulf War? I want to press this “minor point” again because it’s the one that was so heavily used for justification of our invasion.

Even more damning evidence has come from the Pentagon in relation to this discovery. According to the Pentagon, there have been discoveries of some 500 weapons munitions which have been classified as chemical weapons. These were all made before 1991, and they are all near inert now, according to the Pentagon official. This leads one to ask the very real question: Do we classify these as WMD’s still, even though they are harmless?

Next, we take the debate onto the subject of the insurgents and their affiliations with Al-Qaeda. When I said that the people attacking the US forces when we first arrived in Iraq may have been simple citizens responding to the invasion, I never meant to affiliate them with the terrorists. My point of contention was that the first ones to respond may have been the people of Iraq, and that the insurgents came in later, as they saw an opportunity to force the American military into a protracted war that they felt they would win. The terrorists seem to have paid very close attention to the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War. They have figured out what works best in their environment, and they are using it to try to force us out. The way they prefer to beat us is by turning public opinion against the US military, in the hopes that either the US will withdraw, or that the world will force the US to withdraw.

Do I think that withdrawing is a good idea? Yes, but not under these terms. Earlier in this post, I mentioned how I can both support my troops, and not support the war. Here’s where I do so. I believe that to best help the situation, that we don’t “cut and run”, but we enact a series of steps that MUST be followed in a timely manner, to insure the stability of the region, and give the country back to those we took it from. To do this, we need to withdraw at least 40% of our troops, and make the Iraqis take more of a front-line position on policing their own country, since we’re not going to be there to baby them from now on. We have to ween them off of our presence, and quickly. The way the current occupation is going, there seems to be no end in sight for a complete withdrawal from the region. If it doesn’t take the US more than a year to train our troops to work effectively in combat, it shouldn’t take any longer than that in Iraq with the Iraqi people.

With that in mind, we should have been out of there at least a year ago. How much time should we give them to come to grips with the new reality of freedom? We can’t stay there forever. I feel as though we’ve forced ourselves into a situation where we’ve become the surrogate parents of another nation. And that line of thinking leads me to a subject for another debate, imperialism.

My astute opponent next questions my reasons for stating that the terrorists are being drawn to Iraq:

Second, I would enjoy hearing your explanation of why foreign individuals would find it compelling to enter another country, not their own, then behead noncombatants and kill women and children all because that “other” country, again not their own, was involved in a conflict with a foreign country?

This is because the “terrorists” want to disrupt any and all chances that the Americans might have to expand their influence outside of their own country. At this time, I’d like to point out another interesting facet to this conflict. There’s been a recent justification going around that this war is going on to protect our freedoms. If that’s so, then why aren’t we doing the same types of things to our Southern Border, where we’re being invaded every day by hundreds of people that don’t belong here. Any number of these people could be “terrorists”, with intentions of destroying American interests from inside our own country. To claim such haughty reasons for doing something elsewhere, while neglecting one’s own back door is a terrible thing. If we want to preserve our freedoms, we need to do so by protecting the ones most important to the longevity of this country, our own people. To deny the People of this country the very same basic protections that are being offered to a foreign country just shows how interested in our protection our government is.

One question that comes to mind immediately is who’s more important here? The US homeland, which they claim to be protecting with this war, or the country that we invaded, which should be able to sustain itself by now? I would have no problem with stationing a few troops there, but not the 100,000+ that are there now. That’s entirely too many. We need to seriously scale back the numbers, and make the Iraqis move into more of an administrative role. It’s time for them to take over, so we can all go home.

In closing, I just wish that others could see the importance of a quick resolution to this conflict, so that we might bring our troops home. We’re not doing that. We’re staying for far too long, and there’s no good reason why. It’s only serving to harm us in the long run. I only hope we can survive long enough to realize this.

For Freedom,
TheBorg

Semperfortis rebuttal #2

First and foremost allow me to thank my opponent, TheBorg for his understanding of my responsibilities and for affording me the time to properly address this debate.

I would also like to extend a heartfelt thank you to Chissler for the same consideration.

Now on to the debate.

TheBorg,

We have a fundamental disagreement in what precipitated the American People in “getting behind” the Congress and the President in our war with Iraq. You said:

The reason I use this argument for the introduction is because it’s the one that was used to get the People behind it. Without this argument, we never would have invaded. Well, if we had, it would have been against the will of the People.

I remember a time shortly after 9-11 when the American public was “behind” any and all actions that related either directly or indirectly, to engaging an unseen enemy anywhere except here in the states.
I remember cheers in the common room I was in when I heard the Presidents speech, cheers of motivation and support for the destruction of the enemy on any and all battlefields.

To believe that Saddam was NOT supporting the terrorists is ridiculous and not worthy of any further comment. I routinely do not even comment on the threads where some uninformed or prejudice person makes the statement that Saddam was not supporting, training or assisting terrorists. One can not argue with statements such as these, so lacking in real life truths.

One of the first major “wins” for us in Iraq was the taking of the “Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq” and still there are those that argue that Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq. Funny.

As for supporting the troops and not the war, well the soldiers that have been interviewed over there have said it far better than I ever could, but I will attempt to reiterate here.

Supporting the troops, but not supporting what they are doing, or accomplishing, is comparable to supporting your favorite football team, but not wanting them to win the game; equally comparable to supporting them and not being proud of their record, or that they made the playoffs.
Knowing and corresponding with MANY of the troops over there, I can tell you factually that they are disgusted with the attitude of the people that say such drivel. They are not stupid and are fully aware of what happened in Vietnam and can see the same thing happening here.
They do not just want you to support them; they want and need the support for what they do. How silly is it to think otherwise.

Again, I ask you, what purpose does this war serve?

Simple.

That we are not going to just roll over and allow our country to be dominated by a religious cult of extremists. That we value our freedoms and the rights we enjoy and that we will fight to preserve them.
Equally as important is that we are not wimps and that we will stand for those that can not stand for themselves. That we do not just talk the talk, but we walk the walk. That freedom is important and necessary and that we will battle to ensure that freedom is representative and available to all peoples that desire it. The voting record of the Iraqi’s is indicative of that desire.

Well, according to CNN, as of June 26th, 2003, the only things found were the components of some Uranium Enrichment equipment. I haven’t heard anything about any grand underground network of Nuclear facilities that were in the process of making Nuclear Weapons. If you could provide any evidence to this, I would be very interested.

I am not fond of links on a debate, but as you requested them I will provide one here.

WMD’s Found

If one moves away from the liberal mainstream media outlets, such as CNN, one finds a lot of information on such subjects that CNN, MSNBC and other liberal news outlets routinely “decide” the public does not need to know.
Remember, there were many inspectors over there, Hans was not the only person inspecting and his liberal, anti-bush, sentiments are well documented.

The problem with this is that, while there may have been a stash of chemicals there, they were first of all in separate components, and secondly, they were also made prior to the invasion in 2003.

We currently have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in use made in the 1960’s, are they less deadly for their manufacture date? I think not.
The simple fact is that he was stockpiling and preparing Chemical and Biological weapons and even proceeding with refining nuclear components.
Every possible dispersion has been tossed on the proof our soldiers uncovered, but the truth is there if one cares to see and listen to the soldiers that were there and that found the materials.

Even more damning evidence has come from the Pentagon in relation to this discovery. According to the Pentagon, there have been discoveries of some 500 weapons munitions which have been classified as chemical weapons. These were all made before 1991, and they are all near inert now, according to the Pentagon official. This leads one to ask the very real question: Do we classify these as WMD’s still, even though they are harmless?

Given the massive quantities of precursor materials discovered in Iraq, “I” could have produced a chemical weapon in a matter of hours. What do you think the experts like “Chemical Ali” could have done?
Why was there a “Chemical Ali” if Saddam was not involved in Chemical Weapons? Was he simply responsible for cleaning the palace toilets?

Next, we take the debate onto the subject of the insurgents and their affiliations with Al-Qaeda. When I said that the people attacking the US forces when we first arrived in Iraq may have been simple citizens responding to the invasion, I never meant to affiliate them with the terrorists. My point of contention was that the first ones to respond may have been the people of Iraq, and that the insurgents came in later, as they saw an opportunity to force the American military into a protracted war that they felt they would win. The terrorists seem to have paid very close attention to the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War. They have figured out what works best in their environment, and they are using it to try to force us out. The way they prefer to beat us is by turning public opinion against the US military, in the hopes that either the US will withdraw, or that the world will force the US to withdraw.

Well that actually establishes my point as succinctly as I ever could.

Yes, of course the original combatants we faced were the Iraqi army, that being comprised of Iraqi citizens. Once the Islamic Extremists saw that their little puppet, Saddam, was not going to be able to keep us from freeing the Iraqi’s, of course that is when the extremists came. If their “partner” Saddam would have prevailed, there would have been no need to blow up women and children, except of course to occasionally keep the populace in line.

give the country back to those we took it from.

Last time I checked, the country was in the control of the “Democratically Elected Government of Iraq.” It has been as of the election.

With that in mind, we should have been out of there at least a year ago. How much time should we give them to come to grips with the new reality of freedom? We can’t stay there forever. I feel as though we’ve forced ourselves into a situation where we’ve become the surrogate parents of another nation. And that line of thinking leads me to a subject for another debate, imperialism.

We remain in Germany, Korea and Japan. That being in excess of 50 years. Not only do THEY not cry the liberal power term, “imperialism” they are adamant about keeping us there. Go figure huh?

I will not address the Illegal Immigration issue here as that is an entirely different subject for another debate. Suffice it to say it was not Mexicans that flew planes into our buildings in an unprovoked and cowardly act. It was Muslim, Islamic Extremists.

I would have no problem with stationing a few troops there, but not the 100,000+

There are and always have been in excess of 100K troops in Korea and Japan. Why do you feel Iraq deserves less?

The “WAR” in Iraq has been concluded. We won in case any out there are not sure. What we are doing there now is simple and necessary. We are there assisting in maintaining the peace, combating foreign terrorist extremists, to allow the new and wonderful Democratic Government in Iraq to fully come into power; to train their security forces and military to finally and completely take control of their own destiny.


What we are doing is showing the rest of the world that we do not just “talk” about freedom and democracy; we actually do something about it. That the freedom of ALL peoples around the world is important. That our power and our strength can be used for the good of all mankind all over the world and that we will depose and combat against tyranny no matter where we find it.

Remember: “With great power, comes great responsibility.”

Do you not think it is strange that the same type of people that accuse and rail against us not being a part of the world community are also those loudest about us staying out of the affairs of Iraq? They want it both ways as usual.

This is a war; in a war people die. Usually that means the youngest, best and brightest and that is horrible to the extreme. Until such time as we discover some alternative to combat the evil that infects this world, war and other violent forms of combat are the tools we must use. No sane person likes this, yet it is currently the world that we find ourselves in. Our very power and strength gives us the responsibility for standing up for those that can not; the responsibility to fight tyranny and despotism where ever it lives.

If we will not stand, then who?

Thank you for your time.

Semper

A look into the mind of TheBorg: Iraq Justification – 2nd Rebuttal

Let me just start by saying that I’m glad to see that everything worked out okay for you semper, and that you’re back to continue this fine debate. So, without further adieu, onto the debate.

Semper,

I’m pleased to admit that we might be closer in thinking than I had originally thought. We just seem to take different angles on the same issue. This post will illustrate this point.

I remember a time shortly after 9-11 when the American public was “behind” any and all actions that related either directly or indirectly, to engaging an unseen enemy anywhere except here in the states. I remember cheers in the common room I was in when I heard the Presidents speech, cheers of motivation and support for the destruction of the enemy on any and all battlefields.

While the American public may have been behind anything and everything the President wanted to do, that would’ve been a poor justification, even then, for invading Iraq. The reasons have already been outlined for this, namely the fact that our entry to the country was based on bad intelligence. I was also one of those that cheered when the President made his speech post 9-11. If I would’ve known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have cheered, nor do I think anyone else would have. The American public was pulled into a protracted war, with no idea how long it would last.

To believe that Saddam was NOT supporting the terrorists is ridiculous and not worthy of any further comment.

I don’t believe that I said anywhere that he was or wasn’t supporting the terrorists. My contention is that we had no evidence at the time of invasion that he was doing any such of a thing. I’d like to know where this intelligence that proves this is. At the time shortly after 9-11, there were no direct links to Iraq that one could make anyway. Are we supposed to just take the President’s word on the intelligence presented to us without question?

If I’m to believe that, however, my next question is why haven’t we invaded all of the other countries that also support terrorism, like North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran? Am I to believe that they didn’t support the terrorist’s cause in 9-11? That would mean, to prevent us from seeming to discriminatory, we’d need to in turn invade all of these countries as well. The ties between these countries and terrorism are just as prevalent as with Iraq. To deny that would be a serious cause for concern. This leads me to believe that we are just tying up loose ends in Iraq from Bush Sr.’s reign, as well as making an example out of them to the rest of the world.

Supporting the troops, but not supporting what they are doing, or accomplishing, is comparable to supporting your favorite football team, but not wanting them to win the game; equally comparable to supporting them and not being proud of their record, or that they made the playoffs…
…They do not just want you to support them; they want and need the support for what they do. How silly is it to think otherwise.

This is one of those things I was speaking about in my opening statement. I think that we have a basic misunderstanding about the views on the war effort. I’m not against my troops or what they’re doing; I’m against why they’re doing it. I have the utmost admiration for what my troops do. They put themselves on the line so that I can sit here and debate this very issue with you. I think that they’d be proud that you and I are doing this, as it finally gives their plight some real, truthful airtime. If they ever read this, I hope they understand the reasons for why we’re doing this.

To say that I can’t support what their doing as well as supporting them at the same time would be silly. I’m only asking for a good reason as to why the administration lied to us prior to our entry to Iraq. Even after entering, they maintained that they had WMDs there, when in fact none of any considerable nature were ever found. To bank so heavily on a lie makes one question all aspects of the case surrounding the incident. Surely, you of all people must understand the nature of my quandary. But, to say that because I have an aversion to this war, that I also have an aversion to my troops would be incorrect. I cherish my troops, and I hope that they can understand that I don’t want anymore dying than have to.

To move onto the next topic of interest, you responded to my question of what purpose this war served.

That we are not going to just roll over and allow our country to be dominated by a religious cult of extremists. That we value our freedoms and the rights we enjoy and that we will fight to preserve them.

Is Iraq our country? I guess in some ways it should be, since we forcibly invaded it, killed their leader, and supplanted a Republic in his stead. Since we’ve made ourselves at home there, I guess we could call it ours. If we’re to use the above answer as a justification for our invasion, then why aren’t we invading Mexico and pushing all of the illegal immigrants, a la “insurgents” by definition, out of our country? I’m usually not one to put so much emphasis on single words, but that one brought the hackles up in me a bit. Maybe you mistyped. If so, I apologize.

However, if you meant that the way it was typed, then I must assume that you think that Iraq is our country. How do we go about reconciling the Iraq issue, while allowing free and open borders in our own country? Doesn’t that seem a little hypocritical to anyone but me?

Next, we move onto the media’s involvement in this. I had asked for some evidence of the supposed extensive nuclear facilities being operated in Iraq just before we invaded. To this end, a link was provided, but that link fails to show any solid evidence that any involved plan had actually been undertaken. There’s talk of attempts to get No Dong missiles and the like, but nothing that was actually followed through with. I’ve never said that the Iraqis weren’t trying to get anything going; I’ve been saying that they never got the chance to. No one provided them with anything because they knew they they’d then be in the sights of the US military.

If one moves away from the liberal mainstream media outlets, such as CNN, one finds a lot of information on such subjects that CNN, MSNBC and other liberal news outlets routinely “decide” the public does not need to know.

These news sites, however, are the ones that everyone knows, and watches routinely. Those in power know this. This sounds a little conspiratorial here, but are we to assume then that the powers that be want us to think these things are true, or do they think we’re that ignorant of the truth?

There is another answer to this though, and it’s the one that I prefer. It’s that the lesser known sites are using bits and pieces of stories and mashing them together with hearsay to make a story that seems, for all intents and purposes, to be true. WorldNetDaily hasn’t been the bastion of news coverage that most look for when it comes to the truth, but sometimes they hit the mark. Did they with this story? I think they made a solid try, but fell short when they said that WMDs have been confirmed, when the materials found aren’t considered dangerous enough to merit the WMD status that they used to have. However, this is neither the time nor the place to be doing an article review. Back to topic.

We currently have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in use made in the 1960’s, are they less deadly for their manufacture date? I think not.

No, because we took care of them. We found these components buried underground, in a place not conducive to preservation. They were trying to hide them in a vain attempt to keep the US from finding them. The point here still is that no facilities were being used to do anything prior to our invasion in 2003. All of the evidence that we’ve found shows that the chemicals were produced before the 1991 conflict. Again, where’s this evidence of continued weapons development? Maybe it’s in the acquisition of the components required to make a nuclear weapon. Well, they were just components. No actual centrifuges were recovered, nor were any actual Uranium Enrichment plants uncovered. When those are found, then maybe we can justify this whole thing. The questions that I’ve posed would still stand though. Why weren’t we informed sooner?

I will not address the Illegal Immigration issue here as that is an entirely different subject for another debate. Suffice it to say it was not Mexicans that flew planes into our buildings in an unprovoked and cowardly act. It was Muslim, Islamic Extremists.

Actually, it’s directly related if we’re to continue talking about our nation’s freedom. When we talk about this war, we always hear of the reasons for doing it; to protect the US freedoms and homeland. Yet we can’t seem to control our own borders. If we cannot keep terrorists from crossing our borders, then we stand no chance of ever getting away from terrorist attacks. Which begs a whole new question: Why aren’t the terrorists crossing the Southern border into the US to stage attacks against us. Oh wait, they already have: They're here! . How do we keep ourselves safe when we won’t take the simplest precautions to cover our own tails. If we want freedom in Iraq, we need it here, correct? Or what will our troops come home to? It will no longer be July 4th that we’ll be celebrating, it’ll be September 16th, Mexican Independence Day.

In closing, if my views seem harsh, it’s from having witnessed the hypocritical nature of a presidential administration gone awry. We claim to be fighting for our freedoms over in Iraq, when we can’t even keep the insurgents from invading from the southern border states.

For Freedom,
TheBorg

Semperfortis Rebuttal #3

Deeper and deeper we go.

Thank you TheBorg, for your professionalism and the challenge of your debate, and yes, we are close to our thinking with some fundamental differences. I will more completely address those differences in my closing.

The American public was pulled into a protracted war, with no idea how long it would last.

Actually, the American public was very clearly told that the war on terror would have many fronts and would be a “long and protracted conflict” that would include “many battlefields.” This was very clear to many, and I may suggest, most at the time. Now however, after the passage of time and the resultant “buffer” that time places on the horrors of terrorism in America, the anti-war zealots are conveniently forgetting the wording of the speeches and papers that were presented at the initiation of the conflict.

The age old adage is that “time heals all wounds.” How very dangerous that is. What the American public needs to be concentrating on is the far more accurate adage, “Those that do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

As far as your comment about Saddam not supporting terrorism, well, let’s examine some facts, shall we?

The senate intelligence committee findings report stated succinctly:

At the current rate of training and equipment development in Iraq, the Iraqi Government, with “foreign assistance in obtaining fissionable material” would have a “crude nuclear weapon within one year.”

The same reports states clearly that, “Saddam is contemplating the use of terrorism in and beyond the region” using sabotage, subversive activities and military strikes.

This information was available when congress voted almost unanimously to support the use of force in Iraq. As definitive and immediate as it was then, it remains now.

The often misconstrued and frequently misunderstood issue that many proponents of surrender use to illustrate their position is that Iraq was not connected to 9/11. The events of September 11, 2001 spurred this country into action to combat the horror of worldwide terror. The idea that a megalomaniacal leader, such as Saddam, would support acts of terror is not in any way a great leap. The facts are clear, Saddam consistently practiced genocide and mass murder on his own people. Saddam invaded other countries without provocation. Saddam used weapons of Mass Destruction on numerous occasions. Saddam ignored sanctions placed by the U.N. and the United States and continued to fire on the peace keeping forces and vehicles placed there to assist in his cooperation.

Let us remember that we went to Afghanistan to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11, we went to Iraq to combat world wide terror and to free an oppressed people.

as well as making an example out of them to the rest of the world.

Of course we were.
Our entry into and the freeing of the people of Iraq was a direct and inescapable message to the rest of the world. That the United States is not going to sit by while terrorist run amok; that the U. S. will combat oppression and tyrannical leaders wherever we find them. That Iraq is only the first step in a global war on terror that is necessary and a long time in coming.

The only question left is if the American public has the guts to finish what we started and continue on to the next terrorist stronghold.

I’m only asking for a good reason as to why the administration lied to us prior to our entry to Iraq. Even after entering, they maintained that they had WMDs there, when in fact none of any considerable nature were ever found.

Well first as the definition of a lie is a “false statement with deliberate intention to deceive.” I submit to you that it has never been proven that there was ever a lie. The entire congress was privy to the same intelligence as the President and as stated previously, voted almost unanimously in favor of the resolution. Supposedly faulty or incomplete intelligence does not equate to a lie and the use of that terminology may be impacting but erroneous and unqualified for an intellectual introspective such as this.

As far as the WMD’s, I suppose that shall remain an area of contention without resolve. Your definition of a considerable nature and mine differ immensely.

The fact that Saddam had at his disposal the necessary chemicals to create massive amounts of chemical weapons in a matter of hours is significant to me.

The fact that detractors claim they were stored for insecticide purpose, ludicrous.

The fact that he maintained portable laboratories next to the chemical precursors is to me, probable cause enough to act.

The fact that he did not have great quantities actually mixed is of little relevance to his ability to produce and use them.

The fact that he was procuring the necessary materials to produce a nuclear device, significant, combined with the intelligence community’s assessment of his ability to produce that weapon within a year, significant.

The fact that no ICBM’s were found in the place safe, irrelevant.

I support the troops and the many and varied reasons we are there.
However first and foremost in my support, is that all people deserve to be free; all people deserve to live unfettered lives without the very real and immediate fear that some tyrannical leader will snuff their lives out at his very whim. We have freed millions of innocent people and are fighting to help keep them free. There is no loftier or more honorable goal.

However, if you meant that the way it was typed, then I must assume that you think that Iraq is our country.

I am sorry my friend, but you missed my point entirely.

Beginning in 1938 England was attempting to keep the peace with a small European country that was dominating and invading their neighbors. After all, England herself had not been attacked. By the time that England understood her mistake, it was very nearly too late. Along the same time period, France considered herself to be safe and secure within her fortifications, she was in error.

Are we to sit by while Muslim extremists dominate country after country and those same countries kneel to morning prayers everyday because someone is telling them how to worship, what to wear and not to educate their women? How long before they control enough territory that we are no longer the power base and suddenly we find ourselves fighting for our existence? Or do we learn from history and reach out to help those oppressed by such tyrannical cults and in so doing show those that would oppress all peoples, that we will not stand by while tyrants oppress the innocent?

History has shown us that no country is so secure that they can ignore the enemy until they are knocking on the gate. If we are so foolish as to imagine ourselves untouchable by other countries or cults, then perhaps we do not deserve the heritage passed on to us by our forefathers.

As for your doubt as to the reports of weapons of mass destruction, perhaps it is that no manner or amount of proof will convince those that have made up their minds.

Fact: Saddam’s attempts to acquire and enhance their cadre of weapons experts along with increased activity at suspect nuclear sites convinced the intelligence community that Saddam’s nuclear program was on going.

Fact: The intelligence report from the international intelligence committee on Iraq, reported that “All key aspects of Iraq’s Biological and Chemical weapons productions" are active and larger and more advanced than prior to the first Gulf War.

Fact: Although the largest find of WMD’s discovered were “partially” inert weapons manufactured prior to the war, according to the National Ground Intelligence Center, the precursor chemicals, delivery systems and laboratories were all in place and would have allowed Saddam to resume his production of lethal weapons almost immediately.

Fact: The find of these weapons proves conclusively that Saddam was lying when he reported that ALL WMD’s had been destroyed.

Fact: Reference strains of specific biological weapons were found secreted under the sink of one of Saddam’s chief weapons scientists.

Fact: New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations were discovered.

It is a simple thing to relate that if someone draws his fist back to hit me, I do not need to wait until he actually hits me to either duck or block the punch.


I am not defending the Iraq war in anyway as it relates or does not relate to the Illegal Immigration issue. I am not happy with the current administration’s stand on the issue, but do not consider it related in anyway to the conflict in Iraq.

The simple fact is this.

We won the war in Iraq in a victory as complete and overwhelming as any in the history of our country. The war is over, what we are doing now, is supporting the democratically elected government in Iraq until such time as they are secure enough to support themselves. This is a good mission and honorable in all aspects.

If we are to uphold our values to ourselves, we must therefore uphold them to others, for such is the nature of Honor and Integrity. If we are to espouse the values of freedom, we must by default, support the efforts of others to be free.

Are we simply to leave the Iraqi people to the control of the extremists?

Is that the goal and intent of those that would have us surrender and run from Iraq?
Do we care so little about those that risked their lives to come out and vote for a democratic government?

I say no, I say we must support them in their efforts and stand with them in their time of need.

If not us, then who?

Semper

A look into the mind of TheBorg: Iraq Justification – 3rd Rebuttal

Semperfortis and Chissler, I do apologize for my extended absence in responding, and I thank you for your patience. Life has a way of surprising us. Needless to say I’m back now, and going straightaway with my final rebuttal. This time around Semper, I’m going to briefly touch on your points, as there are so many good ones to cover. So, if something seems improperly explained, please let me know in you’re closing statement, and I’ll clarify in mine. Now, onto the rebuttal.

…the anti-war zealots are conveniently forgetting the wording of the speeches and papers that were presented at the initiation of the conflict.

Well, as I’ve stated several times throughout the course of this debate, and we both agree on this, we entered this conflict in Iraq with incorrect intelligence. I believe that the conflict could have been avoided altogether by simply showing everyone what was really going on there, rather than invading and bombing the bejesus out of them. The fact that we allowed our military to do the job of diplomats was testament to the impatience of the current administration, and their lack of foreign relations.

At the current rate of training and equipment development in Iraq, the Iraqi Government, with “foreign assistance in obtaining fissionable material” would have a “crude nuclear weapon within one year.”

This may have been true, but we are putting too much stock in Saddam’s foreign relations abilities. He was being watched closely by the whole world, the UN, the US, amongst several others. There’s not much of a way for him to get anything either into or out of the country without someone seeing. At least I don’t think there was. True, he had some components to build a nuclear device, but he was no where near where he needed to be to get what he was seeking. It’s my contention that no one would let him have anything, as they knew that anything that they did could be tied directly back to them, and the US would then have reason to respond to them. They must have foreseen this.

The same reports states clearly that, “Saddam is contemplating the use of terrorism in and beyond the region” using sabotage, subversive activities and military strikes.

That same statement could be applied to a lot of other countries as well. What about North Korea? They perceive us as a threat, and are actively engaged in development of nuclear materials, and yet we only talk to them. Why wouldn’t this have worked in Iraq’s case? Or conversely, why aren’t we invading North Korea again right now.

It’s all about the viewpoint here. Our opponents in Iraq think of us as we think of them. We both view each other as the evildoers, and will do anything to see the other expunged. Such is our current position, and one that, quite frankly, doesn’t make much sense, unless we look at the bigger picture, which I think this debate has done quite well.

Let us remember that we went to Afghanistan to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11, we went to Iraq to combat world wide terror and to free an oppressed people.

So, are we all supposed to believe that we made the choice of where to fight this conflict? If so, why didn’t we also go to North Korea, Somalia, the Sudan, or even Venezuela? All of these countries either pose a significant threat to ours/other’s freedoms currently, or they will soon. Oppression doesn’t just happen in Iraq, it’s happening right now in North Korea, China, Mexico, Venezuela, amongst many other countries. We can’t pick a single country out of them all, and hold them above all others to declare them as the lucky winners for US occupation, at least not in my opinion anyway.

That the United States is not going to sit by while terrorist run amok; that the U. S. will combat oppression and tyrannical leaders wherever we find them. That Iraq is only the first step in a global war on terror that is necessary and a long time in coming.

Are you suggesting a global takeover here? Why is it the US’ job to police the entire planet? Since when did we get elected to represent Earth? Our actions do not illustrate the benevolent image that we portray ourselves as having. In fact, it sends a message to the rest of the world that we are no different than any other empire.

Also, how many more stops do we have before we’re done with this war? Honestly, this isn’t a war that can be won. There will always be dissenters that will stand up to the power that’s at the top, and attempt to topple them, so that they may be supplanted into the same position for a time. So long as evil’s allowed to exist, this war will never end. The simple act of declaring such a war is a commitment to never leave it. This brings a whole new meaning to the word “protracted”.

The entire congress was privy to the same intelligence as the President and as stated previously, voted almost unanimously in favor of the resolution.

I’m going to have to agree with this, as upon further inspection, that is indeed true. I will concede that point.

However, that doesn’t explain the lack of action when the intelligence was found out to be wrong. We should have done something immediately, instead of just continuing on our merry little way over there.

The fact that Saddam had at his disposal the necessary chemicals to create massive amounts of chemical weapons in a matter of hours is significant to me.

Please don’t misconstrue my views on this. This is very significant to me as well. Just because I disagree with the statement that Saddam had made recent WMDs in Iraq doesn’t mean that I disagree with the notion that he was actively seeking the components for such a thing. The “fact” that he had the ability to create chemical weapons within a couple of hours is as significant as is the very real fact that he didn’t do anything like that. The question now is why didn’t he?

The fact that he maintained portable laboratories next to the chemical precursors is to me, probable cause enough to act.

Again, what about North Korea, and their continued attempts at getting nuclear weapons? Is that not probable cause to act? What should we use as the gauge for when we invade?

The fact that he did not have great quantities actually mixed is of little relevance to his ability to produce and use them.

Of equal relevance is the very real fact that he didn’t make anymore chemical weapons, whether he had the proper materials or not. Relevance here rests in the fact that he didn’t do any of those things. It’s not that he didn’t have the time to, nor that he didn’t desire to, but that he didn’t do it. This single fact speaks far louder than anything else presented. What must we assume were his reasons for not making more than he had? All he had were 12+ year-old munitions, which, as has already been pointed out, were degraded to such a point as to having been made inert. He had 12 years to make more chemical weapons. The question I have is why didn’t he, if he truly desired such things?

The fact that he was procuring the necessary materials to produce a nuclear device, significant, combined with the intelligence community’s assessment of his ability to produce that weapon within a year, significant.

Agreed, if he would have had all of the parts. We have yet to find a working enrichment facility anywhere in Iraq, which leads me to question this assessment.

The fact that no ICBM’s were found in the place safe, irrelevant.

How might this be irrelevant exactly? This just goes to show that he hadn’t been able to acquire the necessary components to do anything with. This would lead one to the natural conclusion that he wasn’t as far along as the gathered intelligence has led the world to believe. In this case, the lack of evidence is as telling as the evidence itself. I’m sorry semper, but this is very relevant to the situation in Iraq. We’re busy trying to establish the validity of an invasion, based on bad intelligence, which states that WMDs are in Iraq. These WMDs are supposed to be of such a quality that they can be used against the US and it’s interests worldwide. Again, the evidence for this is nonexistent, which leads someone like me to question the reasons for the conflict in the first place. Again, if it was to free the People of Iraq, why wasn’t that used as the excuse, rather than the one we were given?

Are we to sit by while Muslim extremists dominate country after country and those same countries kneel to morning prayers everyday because someone is telling them how to worship, what to wear and not to educate their women?

This question gives me the feeling that the US perceives the rest of the world as being completely inept. I’m quite sure that the rest of the world can defend itself. Since when are we the only ones that can stand up and fight back? We are no greater than anyone else. We are all equal. If we forget this, then we are no better than those that we fight. Yes, we fight for people’s rights, but that doesn’t make us right all of the time. As I’ve said before, if the people won’t all stand up as one, then nothing will change. We can’t force democracy on people, and that’s what I see going on here. If they truly want it, they’ll handle it, just as every other democratic society has done in history, with us there or not.

I was wondering if you could provide me a source in relation to those facts that you present at the end of your post. I would be very interested in looking at this.

Are we simply to leave the Iraqi people to the control of the extremists?

No, we have trained them. Now, let’s let them do their jobs, so we can go home. At some point, we need to let them go on their own, as a parent lets go of their child. Now is that time.

Thank you for enduring this long post. I look forward to the last 2 posts. Anyone reading, feel free to send U2Us.

TheBorg

Semper’s Closing


All good things must come to an end.
That little quote could not be truer than here on this debate.

I have truly enjoyed the debate in many ways. I come away with many new thoughts and ideas on the subject of the conflict in Iraq. I also have new found respect for my opponent as an intellect and debater.

TheBorg, I want to thank you for the debate and your obvious passion and intellect in opposing me. This has truly been wonderful regardless of the outcome. There were many parts of your last rebuttal I would have enjoyed commenting on, alas however, this is a closing, so that will be saved for a future debate.


It has been and remains my contention that the “war” in Iraq has been over for sometime. The actual war was arguably the most successful military campaign in the history of this great nation.

The actions we are engaged in now are quite simply one of support. We are supporting the Iraqi Government in their time of need. We are there to ensure that the radical factions of Islam do not gain another foothold and enslave the Iraqi people. We are ensuring that the Iraqi people continue to have the opportunity to live in the democratic society they so bravely came out and choose on that Election Day that all of us should have etched forever in our minds.

I read one time a very poignant and enduring quote; “Honor is like an island with steep rocky sides; if one ever departs from it, one may never return.” We departed that island when we surrendered in Vietnam. Our nation has been given a very unique opportunity to regain lost honor, to stand for those that can not stand, to fight for the innocent and the weak and to show the world that we are not just hollow talk, but we will support freedom and defeat tyranny anywhere in the world.

However, we now stand on the precipice preparing to depart that island again. I fear that if we cowardly take that leap this time, it will be forever.

WMD’s, United Nations Resolutions and Human Rights Violations; take your pick. It matters not the specifics, what matters is that a people were being massacred, raped, mutilated and systematically exterminated at the hands of one man and his megalomaniacal regime. A dictator that supported terror, engaged in the production of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and used these weapons on his own people.

We stood up and in a loud clear voice for the entire world to hear, shouted, NO MORE.

Why Iraq? Why not North Korea, the Sudan, Iran or any of a dozen other places where such atrocities are taking place? There are a myriad of reasons, but what does it really matter where we started, we needed to start some place and Iraq was perhaps the deadliest of them all to segments of her population under Saddam.

Why must we be the world police? Simple.

Power.

We are not just the world super power; we are the world super power with a democratically elected government. We are the shining example to the rest of the world and we have a choice. We may sit idly by while the rest of the world suffers and dies under tyrants, smug in our superiority. (So we thought until 9/11) Never showing the rest of the world that we are more than the words we so eloquently spout. Or we can take a stand that clearly says, “Tyrants Beware, the United States will not suffer you for long!”


So now we have won the war and we are fighting bands of Islamic Extremists that have entered Iraq from other countries in order to defeat their fledgling democracy before it even has a chance. We freed them from one tyrannical dictator, are we to leave them to another? Are we to consign ourselves to the “safe” road and tucking our tails between our legs, run away and pretend the Iraqi people never trusted us?

To those that advocate surrender, I ask only this. Have you never known honor?

A very wise man once said; “A coward dies a thousand times, a brave man tastes of death but once.” How many times are we going to allow ourselves to “die” before we decide as a country that our commitments really mean something? That we will stand and fight for what we believe in? We have freed the Iraqi people and WE have told them that WE will fight to keep them free. How can anyone even consider surrender and still look in a mirror?
The Iraqi people have freely and completely chosen democracy. We must stand by them and ensure that democracy gets a chance.


Oh the talk goes on and on about American Imperialism and Global Domination or takeover. It defies the definition of the term to not only support, but to fight and die to ensure the livelihood of an elected government of the Iraqi peoples choosing. The twisting of the words, the anti-American propaganda and the weak willed calls for surrender will continue. The only question is if the American people have the will to finish what was started and stand for the weak and the innocent.

We fight our enemies there, or through our own weakness, we fight them here.

Brave men and women are dieing in Iraq. It is a horror of war that it is always the youngest, the best and the brightest that must proceed in harms way. This is necessary so that we do not take these things too lightly; that we always ensure that our conflicts are of an honorable and worthy cause. A cause such as freeing an oppressed people and removing a dictator that was an outspoken enemy of the United States; who planned and took actions that were detrimental to our nation. One who murdered without thought, raped without mercy and brutalized entire cultures.

So is/was the war in Iraq valid? Is the conflict in Iraq still valid?

More than valid, it is necessary and it is honorable.

There comes a time in every man’s life when he must choose to either stand for what he believes in, or in cowardice turn away.
Standing is always the hardest but the rewards are integrity and honor.

If not us, then who?

Semper

A Look into the Mind of TheBorg - Closing Statement

Well, it’s that time everyone. We’ve had a lot of fun doing this, and yet I feel like there is still yet a huge amount of information to cover. Since this is a closing, I’m not going to address any new material. I’m just here to say thank you to the two people that made all of this possible: Chissler and Semperfortis.

Semper, there’s no one better to debate a topic such as this with than yourself. I had a blast. You made some very valid points; even some that I’m still considering. For that, you’ve earned even more respect from me, if that’s even possible.

Chissler, what can I say man? This is one of the best ideas to hit ATS, and it’s one that truly inspires us to do the best that we can to prove our points, all the while denying ignorance. Your sir, get a huge 5 star from me.

Semper, as for the points that we’ve covered, I think that we both see eye to eye on what the other thinks. However, as you so eloquently put it, we have fundamental differences of opinion on what constitutes reasonable provocation to act. My contention was, and still is, that we entered the country under false pretenses, and in doing so, set ourselves up for the fall in public opinion that we seem to be undergoing currently. I believe I’ve done an adequate job of focusing on the finer points of our entry into Iraq, and I also believe that I’ve shown at least some small measure of reason to doubt those that said that we were entering for auspicious purposes.

Through my arguments, I believe I’ve shown proof that the intelligence that we had was poor, and that set the stage for the situation that we’re in right now. There were excuses that would have sufficed much better than the ones that the administration used, but they chose to use something that they knew would anger the public. To what end this was done is subject for another debate, one that I’d love to have at a later date.

The truth of the matter here semper is that I focused on the technical points of our entry, while you grappled the philosophical points. Both sides are very important, and that’s something that I will also take with me in my travels down this road that we call life.

All of that said, I believe wholeheartedly that I’ve proven my main contention: that we had no real reason for entering Iraq. In my opinion, the war was an invalid one because we based it on something that wasn’t true. By that very definition, we entered the country in error. Just because we don’t like someone doesn’t give us the right to invade them. If it did, how would we be any different than those we claim to be fighting against? We’d be the big bully that no one wants to deal with, but is forced to out of necessity. Even if we do it under the grandiose claims of “freedom for all”, it still doesn’t negate the inherent danger and poor image that we suffer as a result. As the old saying goes, “The ends don’t justify the means.” This is the perfect case for that statement. We have pushed the boundaries of what’s morally right for this country, and we may have pushed too far. Time will only tell.

To wrap all of this up, I again want to reiterate my truest appreciation to everyone that allowed this to happen. Semperfortis, for being the very best debate partner this side of the planet. Chissler, for without you, this wouldn’t even be here. Los Tres Amigos again, because I love this place. You’ve managed to hook me here. And finally, to all those that read through this: thank YOU too for the time that you took out of your days to endure this most important of debates. This was for you, after all.

One final note to all reading. Please, as we all walk away from this, please keep an open mind to anything that you read here. I may be wrong in anything that I say, as my counterpart in crime here or anyone else may be. Please consider what you read here, and make your own objective decisions based on the evidence presented, nothing more. While emotion serves to keep us grounded to reality, sometimes we get carried away. Such is the case with this and anything else.

To all ATSers, staff, Semperfortis, and Chissler: You have my undying respect. THANK YOU for this.

For Freedom,
TheBorg

Ding.. Ding.. Ding!

Another round of Head to Head Debate has concluded! Allow me to congratulate semperfortis and TheBorg on their efforts here. This has been quite the show down. I will now close this thread and turn it over to our team of judges. The results may be a few days, so I do ask for your patience.

As soon as I know, you'll know.

Good luck to the both of you.

Stay Tuned...

'Ereeee We Go!

I've been in contact with our judge(s) and have been issued their response. With all the hustle and bustle of real life lately, I've not had the opportunity to read this debate. I do intend to when I find the time, and for that I do apologize, but from what I've heard from our judges, it was quite the showing. Even though I have yet to read the debate, I do have to sincerely thank semperfortis & TheBorg for a hard fought debate.

Regardless of the outcome, you guys come back anytime you wish. The door is always open.



Note From The Judges

First, let me thank you for the opportunity to judge Head-2-Head: Is the War in Iraq Valid?. This was a very interesting and, for the most part, intelligent and well debated issue. semperfortis and TheBorg were both articulate, knowledgeable and passionate. Who could ask for more in a debate?

Next we must say that this was a very difficult debate to judge. Frankly, we don't know anyone who does not maintain an ardent opinion on this particular issue. We are no different. We also hold some strong opinions on this topic so impartiality was very important and, to this end, we did our very best. We made every effort to judge this "Head2Head" on the merits of the arguments as they were presented.

Both parties conducted themselves with proper decorum while arguing their perspective rather passionately at times. Both presented strong arguments and, likewise, both offered strong appeals for the "correctness" of their opinions. Frankly, given another opportunity to present their positions, this could have gone either way. However, only one could win this debate and in this case someone did prevail.

After careful deliberation, sincere soul-searching and a desire to maintain fairness, we have to declare SEMPERFORTIS as the WINNER!.

Incidentally, the deciding factor in this debate was what I considered to be a minor "slip" by TheBorg;

This whole mess could have been avoided had Bush 2 made the statement going in that this was in response to the list of breaches of the UN treaty that they signed. Had he done that, this whole war would most likely have turned out differently, but it didn’t.

When TheBorg made this statement, he inadvertently offered "supports" for the U.S. intervention in Iraq. TheBorg ,through this statement, expresses that the U.S did, indeed, have justifications for entering Iraq. TheBorg then went on to reiterate acceptable justifications for their Iraqi adventure by saying...

If, like I suggested in my introduction, President Bush had came out and said that we were going there in response to UN Treaty violations, we wouldn’t be having this debate right now, as the whole thing would have been justified. To me, and a majority of the American Population, this excuse has single-handedly ruined any proper justification for our presence there.

These two statements overshadowed everything else that TheBorg had to say. By saying that there were justifications, though not the one announced -- WMD -- he still managed to derail the strength of his argument. After all, WMD or not, there were justifications that would have established the validity of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.



There we have it. semperfortis wins... again. This guy is running quite the record here in the Head-2-Head debate. Again, my hats off to both of you on a great debate and I look forward to what you guys come up with next.

Both of you will be rewarded with 10,000 AP Points.

This debate is now open to comments from any "Fighter".


[edit on 22-6-2007 by chissler]

TheBorg,

Wonderful debate my friend!!!!!

It was challenging and I learned a lot from you....

Thank you for the opportunity and the Professionalism..

Semper

Very good debate guys.

Well, I must say that it was a pleasure to do this. I'm learning from what I did wrong here, and will adjust my debate strategy to further hone my side next time.

Semper,

Like I've said before, this was a great, and despite the subject matter, quite entertaining debate. I had a blast. I couldn't have asked for a better opponent. My hat's off to you sir.

To the judges,

I see where I erred, and have learned from it. TheBorg makes slips once in a while, as no one's perfect. However, don't expect that kind of an obvious slip again. I'm not in the habit of boobooing like that, hehe.

Last, but not least, to my fellow readers,

A bit on my mindset going into this:

I was driven by all of the negative feedback that I've seen from the Iraq War to do this piece, and I asked that we get the opportunity to debate it. Semper, being the brave soul that he was, took up the challenge, and held a steadfast position throughout his posts. Again, let me reiterate, as I did in my closing, that no matter what's decided here, the jury's still out on the validity of this whole thing. This debate right here is just what we at ATS think of the issue.

If the mods and admins would oblige me, I'd like to post a poll on the main page asking the general consensus of the ATS member base on this very issue. Let's see what they think of this overall. We could even link to this debate thread to give them some idea as to the nature of the question. This would both serve to give us a sense of what the world feels, as well as to drive more people to the Head-2-Head debate format for debating.

I stand by my previous assessment that the H2H concept is one that will make ATS one of the GO-TO places on the net for objective conversation and debate. Pitting two people together like this is very important, as it gives two juxtaposed viewpoints on the same issue, and allows the reader, no pleads the reader, to make their own decision.

So, to close this out, I just wanted to, yet again, thank each and every one of you for giving us this time, and for allowing us to get up on our soapboxes and scream like crazy. You don't know how much this has helped me to clear up my understanding of the war, and I don't suppose anyone ever will. Just rest assured that ATS has made one more person very happy.

THANK YOU ATS!!!

TheBorg

P.S. Ok, I know this is going to seem like a very stupid question, but what are AP points? Are they ATS Points?

[Edited for grammar and P.S. addition.]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by TheBorg]