It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 1. KrazyJethro V deeprivergal: Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Debate 1

The topic for this debate is "The invasion of Iraq by the US-led 'Coalition of the Willing' was justified."

KrazyJethro will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
deeprivergal will argue against this proposition.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debater posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image may be included in each post. No more than 5 references can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Thanks to all those participating, judging, reading, and learning as result of these debates. It is truly a blessing to be able to speak freely and openly with people all over the world.

Technology has shortened the distance between countries and people. Whether it is media, government, or religion, there are myriad sources with regard to global influence.

Economies and fates, especially the American's, are tied together in a web of tremulous strings. The US dollar is the standard world reserve currency. US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars. (1), so separating economic influence and political influence can sometimes be difficult.

Humans will always yearn to be free, as we in this country should well understand. Aside from gross misuse of power, Saddam Hussein has a track record of murder, rape, and torture on a grand scale since his rise to power. While we sat by and watched the failure of the uprising following the first Gulf War, we did nothing. Even when we had support and justification then. But the allied army went home, clearing the way for Saddam to regain control. It is estimated that 30,000 Iraqis perished in the ensuing bloodbath. (2) as told by ones who lived in hiding for months for fear for their lives.

The War in Iraq is still hot and steaming, close to the front of many peoples tongues and on their TVs. But are the justifications for the war prudent, accurate, and in the best interests of the world, not just the United States of America? I can say with some ease, that despite the execution, logistically, economically, and strategically, and the stated grounds presented by the Bush Administration, that this war is indeed justified, although not always for the reasons most prominent in the news.

(1) FEASTA (The Foundation for Economics of Stability) www.feasta.org... - The IMF (International Monitary Fund) is, in their own words, an organization of 184 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty.

(2) ABC News, Barbara Walters Interview abcnews.go.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 06:43 AM
link   
The invasion of Iraq by the US-led "Coalition of the Willing" was definitely not justified.

United States citizens as well as the rest of the members of the Coalition were misled on reasons we invaded Iraq. Iraq was supposedly in possession of weapons of mass destruction. It has been more than a year since the United States invaded Iraq, and still no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

According to ABCNews the invasion of Iraq was not based on weapons of mass destruction, or even an imminent threat by the President, Saddam Hussein. In fact it states that they used these claims to get legal justification for the invasion. Washington officials report that September 11, 2001 was the true reason for the invasion of Iraq. Attacking Iraq on the premise that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction gave President Bush easier acceptance from the UN, American citizens, and other leaders of the world.

President Bush falsely led American troops and foreign troops into a war that wasnt ours to fight. We cannot solve the problems of the world. Our leader intends to bring democracy to Iraq, when in fact, it isnt our decision to do that. Our soldiers are paying for it with their lives as well as many innocent civilians.

Statistically speaking, Iraq is worse off now than it was before the US-led invasion. When school reopened after the invasion it was discovered that classes were half empty, because parents of young girls had to choose between the safety of their girls and their education. Crime against women is worse now than when Hussein was in power. The US didn't liberate these women, the US made it worse.

So how was this war justified? It wasn't. The invasion of Iraq by the US-led "Coalition of the Willing," turned a situation from bad to worse. Led to a war under false pretenses where a country is blown apart, men, women, and children are killed, and crime is still just as bad as it was before, Iraq is now worse off than it was under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.

ABCNews
PBS.org
socialistalternative.org



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   
After the largest currency swap in history, the Euro has the potential, given enough steam or fuel, to overtake the US dollar with regard to global economic influence. The following is a very telling speech by the Head of the Petroleum Market Analysis Department of OPEC in Spain Feb. 2003.

The question that comes to mind is whether the euro will establish itself in world financial markets, thus challenging the supremacy of the US dollar, and consequently trigger a change in the dollars dominance in oil markets. As we all know, the mighty dollar has reigned supreme since 1945, and in the last few years has even gained more ground with the economic dominance of the United States, a situation that may not change in the near future. By the late 90s, more than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions, and half of all world exports, were denominated in dollars. In addition, the US currency accounts for about two thirds of all official exchange reserves. The worlds dependency on US dollars to pay for trade has seen countries bound to dollar reserves, which are disproportionally higher than Americas share in global output. The share of the dollar in the denomination of world trade is also much higher than the share of the US in world trade.

Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the euro is not at such a disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative sizes of the economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans. Moreover, the Euro-zone has a bigger share of global trade than the US and while the US has a huge current account deficit, the euro area has a more, or balanced, external accounts position. One of the more compelling arguments for keeping oil pricing and payments in dollars has been that the US remains a large importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude producer itself. However, looking at the statistics of crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is an even larger importer of oil and petroleum products than the US.

However, while the euro has the potential to be a viable competitor and possible alternative to the dollar in international financial and commodity markets in the medium to long term... (1)

Why is the trade currency so important?

Since so many foreign-owned dollars are not spent on American goods and services, the US is able to run a huge trade deficit year after year without apparently any major economic consequences. The most recently published figures, for example, show that in November of last year US imports were worth 48% more than US exports. No other country can run such a large trade deficit with impunity. (2)

Considering Oil is by far the most important commodity traded internationally (2), its not difficult to understand the need to stabilize and maintain geo-strategic control of an unpredictable region. Iraqi leader Suddam Hussein, along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves (3), has proven himself destructive (i.e. the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields) and the primary reason for the US fight to maintain economic sanctions against Iraq.
The Euro is too new at this point to risk global economic loss should Iraq, and Venezuela lead by Chavez has been showing signs of disloyalty to the US, initiate a switch to the Euro. The United States economy depends on global economy, but it is much the same as the global economys dependency upon the US. In essence, should we go down, they all go down.

Any change due to the switch to the Euro, would release us from the trade deficit impunity we now enjoy. This would certainly burst the Stock Market bubble we have been riding, and our over inflated economy would collapse causing depression worldwide.

For the simple economic security (which is one important aspect of National Security), the war was justified when thinking of the untold deaths and misery caused by economic instability on the Global Market.


(1) Speech The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill
Mr. Javad Yarjani, Head, Petroleum Market Analysis Dept.
April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain
The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spains Presidency of the EU) Source

(2) Feasta (Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability) Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq
Mr. Ciln Nunan
Source

(3) - Original Essay January 2003, Revised March 2003, Post-war Commentary January 2004
Revisited The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
Mr. William Clark
Source



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The Iraq war could cause catasrophy for the United States in the long run. Without even the mention of terrorists wanting to "get even" with America, we could be dealing with financial devastation that could last at least 10 years. Economist James Galbraith believes that although the United States may be experiences good spending now, that the long term effects could bring us expanded trade deficit and high inflation.

We need to act now to prevent future U.S. financial catastrophy before it begins. The Iraq war did not improve our economy, it made it more unstable.

Oil is a reason for war? In 2002 it was believed that oil prices would rise to between $35 and $40 a barrel, if war broke out in Iraq. It was also believed that prices would fall back after the invasion began. Now, in 2004, barrels of crude have reached an all time high of $50. The global market is becoming nervous.

The United States has HUGE strategic oil reserves in Africa and Latin America. Experts believed that Britain and the Middle East would be most affected by the oil crisis, not the United States. This is not the case. The invasion of Iraq, for oil, or whatever other reasons the Coalition decided to go to war, the entire globe is feeling the effects of this war. It is feared that the effects will be felt worldwide for perhaps decades.

The United States has spent more than $150 billion on the war in Iraq. This is the monetary cost of war. This does not include the value of lives lost. The journalists that have been killed, the soldiers, the civilians. These lives add up to an even greater amount. The cost of this war is far more than money alone. It's lives, and lives are far more valuable than oil.

Many believe that President Bush is trying to settle a vendetta for his father, former President Bush. Bringing back issue of the 1991 Gulf War. Is this a the price the entire world should have to pay?

news.bbc.co.uk
strategic-road.com
nationalpriorities.org



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
1) Again, the justification for this war comes not from its execution, or even the justification as stated by the Bush Administration. The concrete reasons are not diminished by the mistakes and shortcomings as well. There only need be enough reason to take action, which there is plenty of below.

2) This war is not, however much many organizations may shout it, about oil, but about oil futures, peak oil, global economy, and oil currency (which is very different). We can not look to the oil prices as the sole indicator of economic cause, as this war has been greatly oversimplified already.


The Right to Life is the most basic and fundamental right we have, being that all other rights extend from it. There have been, are, and will continue to be leaders and governments who rule through murder, fear, and oppression.

The following is a brief edited fact sheet (1)of the atrocities committed under Saddam Hussein.

According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."

Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003)

Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions:
-4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984
-3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998
-2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign"
-122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000
-At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001

Al-Suwaij is witness to the imprisonment of young girls for very minor offenses. Al-Suwaij says she had a 16-year-old cousin who was beaten and tortured with electrical shocks for having written something against the government in her school notebook.
Any man who writes a letter, makes a joke, or is seen as a dissident, authorities would rape his wife or female relatives in front of him.

"Rape is used as a tool to humiliate the woman, but to also bring men into submission," Hussain said. To compound the humiliation, authorities would videotape the torture and rape and send the tape to family members.

Inside Iraqi prisons, there were machines and murder devices that astound the human mind. Al-Suwaij was shown human meat grinders in which people were shredded and disposed of in a septic tank, and chemical baths in which people were literally dissolved.

Compassion is one of the greatest attributes humans contain; compassion for pain and suffering, and the anger to fuel the effort of change. And although the transition will always be rough, the fight for human life is always a worthy cause.

Again, the fight for human life is always a worthy cause.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) - White House -www.whitehouse.gov...

(2) - ABC - abcnews.go.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
You bring up very good points. I would like to address a few of them.


Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions:
-4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984
-3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998
-2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign"
-122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000
-At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001


A total of 9,752 prisoners executed under the rule of Hussein. An atrocious number, but let me give you a number, 13,802. That is the number of civilian casualties since the invasion of the US and it's "Coalition of the Willing." 13,802 civilian deaths since March of 2003. That is more than the total number of Hussein's executions since 1984. I find that a sad fact.

Let me give you another number, 1,110. That is the number of soldier deaths, including 979 of those that were Americans. More senseless deaths. These figures do not include the number of soldiers that have been injured during this war. As of August 14, 2004 the Department of Defense estimates that more than 6,000 soldiers have suffered severe injuries in this war.

You also mentioned rape and violence on women:


"Rape is used as a tool to humiliate the woman, but to also bring men into submission," Hussain said. To compound the humiliation, authorities would videotape the torture and rape and send the tape to family members.


I would like to refer to my opening post, and elaborate a bit on what women are experiencing now, after the invasion and take-over of Iraq.

According to a December 2003 report, women, since the invasion, have been experiencing violence, unemployment, as well as other crises. Women are concerned about security issues, or rather the lack of them. They are afraid to go outside.

I would like to quote an Iraqi woman over 50 years old:

"I am against war, since war means destruction, hurt and ruin. Nobody should like war especially when all the great powers of the world gang up against one country in an unequal war and try to destroy all signs of progress and make the country go back to the middle ages. People are starving to death and inflation is murder. Missiles and bombs do not think, they hit and explode-whether you are military or civilian, sick or well, old or young, men or women, you die. Where do you go to hide?"


Yanar Mohammed, co-found of Organization of Women's Freedom, believes that women are far worse off since the U.S. occupation, stating that women are now being kidnapped by organized gangs. They are now subject to rape, and they are even being sold. Fear of sexual violence and abduction are keeping parents from sending their young daughters to school. How is this helpful to rebuilding their country? How is this helpful to making sure that women recieve educations?

I absolutely agree with your statement, that the fight for human life is always a worthy cause. However, the fight for human life does no good when you are taking human life in return. Even one civilian death by any member of the Coalition is too many. Again, these people haven't been liberated, they are now prisoners is their own home, in their own country.






ibiblio.org
icasualties.org
iraqbodycount.net
cnn.com
occupationwatch.org



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   


A total of 9,752 prisoners executed under the rule of Hussein. An atrocious number, but let me give you a number, 13,802. That is the number of civilian casualties since the invasion of the US and it's "Coalition of the Willing." 13,802 civilian deaths since March of 2003. That is more than the total number of Hussein's executions since 1984.


Apples and oranges. Executions and number killed are not the same, as Executions is but a subset of the amount of murder. Just in the past 5 years of Saddams reign, 400,000 Iraqi children died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (1). Thats just around 80,000 per year, and that only speaks to children under 5 years old. That might be a more pertinent stat.

Its also interesting, that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings. The callous murder and harsh conditions created much more impact, driving around 900,000 Iraqis into refugee camps" reports Refugees International (1)



Let me give you another number, 1,110. That is the number of soldier deaths, including 979 of those that were Americans

As of August 14, 2004 the Department of Defense estimates that more than 6,000 soldiers have suffered severe injuries in this war.
.

When speaking of war, its good to look at the effect Saddam had on war, namely the war with Iran. On September 22, Iraq further escalated the conflict, launching the full-scale invasion of Iran that initiated eight years of warfare. In those 8 years, its estimated that The total number of people killed almost certainly exceeds 300,000. As a minimum number, that still accounts for 37,500 deaths a year. Wounded and captured soldiers push the casualty totals over one million, and some estimates of total casualties exceed two million. Taking the conservative estimate of one million, that leaves 125,000 people wounded, killed, or captured (which of course leads again the torture using human meat grinders, electric drills, and electric shock, to name a few). (2)

Because both Iran and Iraq used irregular military units, attacked civilian populations, and played down their own losses while playing up those of their opponents, reliable casualty figures do not exist. (2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should be of no question, that those that aid or commit terrorism, need to be annexed the world over, although it can not be done overnight.

Saddam has been paying the families of suicide bombers for their sacrifice in the war with Israel. The $500,000 doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago. (3)

$25,000 to suicide bombers and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $10,000 each. Even at 25,000, that breaks down to roughly 400 families. Obviously this is a huge bump in the Road Map to peace in the Middle East.

If we truly desire to stifle terrorism, that is reason enough. According to the U.S. Government, its reported that Iraq also engaged in the following activities (4):

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) U.S. Whitehouse - Fact Sheet Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime
www.whitehouse.gov...

(2) MSN Encarta Iran-Iraq Warencarta.msn.com...

(3) Fox News - Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers - Ken Layne, March 26, 2002 www.foxnews.com...

(4) U.S. Whitehouse Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Yes, you copied me very good points on your post. 400,000 children dying from malnutrition in Iraq is a horrifying number. An even more horrifying number is the 4 million in sub-Saharan Africa of malnutrition, and that number is out of 11 million children that die world wide. Yes the death of children in Iraq is heartbreaking, but it is not a just reason for invading, unless we plan on invading every third world country where the children are dying. And these are the figures for children 5 and under.

Once again the US had spent over 150 billion dollars on the war with Iraq. 150 billion dollars would definately feed alot of hungry children and get them the vaccinations that they need so they don't have to die of small pox or measles and it would definately help the children in the Sudan who are dying of malnutrition.


Children die everyday and it is a sad fact of life. There are children dying of AIDS, luekemia, malaria, measles and those are among the few reasons. Lack of nutrition is always a very large cause infant deaths. In 2001, 770,000 children died of the measles, a disease that have available vaccinations. In some countries they don't have healthcare, they don't have available doctors to give vaccines, and they don't have the vaccines. The money being invested in the unjustifiable war could be used to help these children. Here are some other statistics on disease around the world:


  • Tetanus - 200,000
  • Whooping Cough - 300,000
  • Influenza Type B - 450,000
  • Yellow Fever - 30,000
  • Malaria - 1,000,000
  • Malnutrition - 11,000,000


You can't justify an invasion on a country based solely on deaths of children otherwise we would be fighting the entire world. This fight wasn't about the deaths of children though, it was about weapons of mass destruction, right?

Child Mortality Fact Sheet
Sudanese children dying of hunger
UNICEF.org



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
In war, many things remain unclear until historians judge the long range aftermath, and that is subjective as well. Currently, people are divided because of what the media chooses to air, or not to air. As the C.E.O. of Westinghouse put it (Advertising Age, 2/3/97), We are here to serve advertisers. That is our raison d'etre.. If their whole purpose, or reason to exist, is for money, then can we really rely on them?

Many governments have been looking out strictly for themselves rather than global interests or the interests of the people who suffer. Few media sources have gone into depth about the international Oil for Food scandal including oil payoffs from Saddam.

The US is the most prominent country when it comes to Official Development Assistance (ODA) (1). In 2003 alone, the U.S. government gave $15,791,000,000, roughly 15.8 billion, in ODA. Private companies and organizations also gave around 34 billion.

But what are we really talking about in this debate, which mirrors the debates of most if not all wars? We need to take a look at the origin, for this is where this debate lies.

There still remains my three simple reasons to have gone to war (past tense as this debate was formatted), which are all Im allowed for the purpose of this debate, although not in reality.

1) Economic Security not only for America, but for the global economy that depends on a strong US dollar before we run the risk of placing an untested currency on the world market. Not only was Saddam attempting to buy support against war, but with strengthening Iran thrown in, the region was, and has been, unstable.

2) Atrocities committed by Saddam Needless to say, something had to be done about the obscene treatment, torture, murder, and refugee situation in Iraq. That is of no contest regardless of affiliation.

3) Support of Terrorism In the war against Terror, there is no argument that it needs to be fought. When a country defies the UN repeatedly, supports terrorism and the murder of innocent lives, unilateral action must be taken.

But does the execution affect the justifications for war. Quite simply, no. The justifications are in fact just causes, and I would agree that the execution of this war has not been as efficient or prudent, but they are separate like cause and effect.

Wait, isnt international support important? Yes, and Ill agree that the timing and internationally political maneuvering was not handled properly by the Bush administration, but the children are still dead, the people were still gassed, countless are still maimed or disfigured, and the list goes on. The USs timing and logistical operation is quite a separate debate.

The future can only tell if we did right by the Iraqi people in our execution of the war and the creation of a free democratic Iraq.

The cause may be just, but we still have the power to fail in our attempt to do right by them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Extra! - November/December 1997, "The Global Media Giants - The nine firms that dominate the world", Robert W. McChesney
Source

(2) Global Issues - Sustainable Development, "The US and Foreign Aid Assistance", Anup Shah
Source



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   
There were many reasons why I disagree with the invasion of Iraq. The lies told by the Bush administration are one of my main reasons. President Bush lied to the UN to get permission to invade Iraq. He claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destructions. He does not have these weapons that our President claimed that he had. It was false information used to get legal justification for the invasion.

KrazyJethro, you stated "many things remain unclear until historians judge the long range aftermath, and that is subjective as well"

That statement right there says it all. Long term effects of this war will be felt worldwide. Financially, this war is costing the world billions of dollars. Tension is thick between the United States and other countries due to this war. So many countries disagree with this war, why? Because it isn't justified.

If it was truly thought that Saddam was a threat to the United States then there were other LEGAL ways to get approval from the UN. It's like the boy who cried wolf. How many times is the United States going to cry wolf before it is too late?

These are political issues, but in the world that we live in, the policies must be obeyed. You cannot just attack a country because you want to.


Economic Security not only for America, but for the global economy that depends on a strong US dollar before we run the risk of placing an untested currency on the world market. Not only was Saddam attempting to buy support against war, but with strengthening Iran thrown in, the region was, and has been, unstable


Again, economists are still stating that we may be worse off financially because of this war. It could cause catasrophe for millions globally


Atrocities committed by Saddam Needless to say, something had to be done about the obscene treatment, torture, murder, and refugee situation in Iraq. That is of no contest regardless of affiliation.


Yes, atrocities. Yes Saddam should be punished for what he did and allowed to happen to his people. It is not, however, the job of the United States to police Iraq. The Iraqi people did not come to the United States asking for help. We lied to gain legal justification, period. For that reason alone, this war in unjustified because we were led under false information.


Support of Terrorism In the war against Terror, there is no argument that it needs to be fought. When a country defies the UN repeatedly, supports terrorism and the murder of innocent lives, unilateral action must be taken.


Yes action needs to be taken in the war on terror, however, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any part in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center or Pentagon. Where's Bin Laden? He's the terrorist we are supposed to be arresting. You cannot justify one war because of another.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The Judges have been fired out of their cannons, and should land on the safety net in a day or so with the results.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Results are in, the winner of this debate by a margin of 6-1 is KrazyJethro. Thankyou to deeprivergal for taking part in this tournament and we hope to see you again in future tournaments.

Judges Comments:

I found this debate quite entertaining and enlightening. I congratulate both participants on doing a great job presenting their arguments. Despite my own personal beliefs and opinions on this particualr matter, I voted for deeprivergal for presenting a more persuasive argument/stance.


Very close and heated. KJ in my opnion is the winner, he provided alot of data and did a great job answering DRG's questions. DRG did well but she compared to KJ had less data to support her cause. Very close one.


deeprivergal scored some very palpable hits, but on balance KrazyJethro was able to parry and hit his points home. KrazyJethro gets my vote on this tough, "Ripped from the Headlines" topic. Very good work on both sides.


Although I don't agree with the politics of KJ's arguments his debating style was by far the best, and so my vote goes to him on general merit although it pains me to do so.


KJ was deft and in control of the entire debate. Around the 3 rd post, rivergal started to break up: " This fight wasn't about the deaths of children though, it was about weapons of mass destruction, right? " She shifts focus on death and to weapons of mass destruction. However, she focused on the death and horror women must go through as a reason the war is not justified.

She also fails to seperate the ongoing from the previous; the basis for any justification always lies in the past, not the present. KJ has pointed this out.

Rivergal made some good points but failed to address KJ's stance. For that reason she was chopped down and dismissed. The winner is KJ.


I enjoyed reading this one. deeprivergal made a good case, highlighting important facts and responding well to her opponent. However, Jethro gets my vote on this one. Although he took the view opposite of my own, I felt that he researched it very well and presented an organized and well structured argument.


This was a though one to gauge, both KrazyJethro and deeprivergal did an exellent job for their respective sides. It came down to the economic point and I thought that KrazyJethro addressed this better. Very good debate.

Best of luck to KrazyJethro in round 2.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join