Semperfortis 1st Rebuttal
Debate: Is the Iraq War Valid
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.
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
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
He even utilizes the politically correct surmise that the Iraqi people should be fighting for freedom themselves.
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
The one documented assassination attempt on Hussein resulted in the systematic destruction of whole villages.
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
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.