The war in Iraq is not a justified war.

I had hoped your speech would be much better.... Let me restate the resolution before I begin my final speech. "The war in Iraq is not a justified war." So my first voting issue for voters today is noticing the fact that my opponent never contradicts the resolution. He manages to insult me. He has agreed to the war being aggressive. He has cited the constitution as a reference to why the president can go to war at any time. Yet he does not in any way prove that war is justified. So now an argument on each point he brought up in his last speech. "Illegal by whose account? America doesn't need permission by the UN or some world court to react militarily to anything." --On the contrary. America agreed to be a part of the U.N and to abide by its rulings. It was your America that pushed for being a part of the U.N. Let me show you the disadvantage to us not following international law as put forth by the U.N. We break international law and we simply justify anyone else breaking international law. We are supposed to be the great and all powerful moral nation, but instead you are suggesting to me that we do not have to abide by the very law which we have helped create and have a great say in!? What kind of message does that send to every other country in the world? Plain and simple, "forget international law, we can do what we want, look at America." Which in turn leads to what? Plain and simple, "Hey! That nation has oil we need..... WAR!!!" More wars = more deaths = less justification. Also let us take a gander at the very last thing you said, "to react militarily to anything". Wait a minute..... I thought you said this was a war of aggression? Wasn't this your very first response to everything I said: "Yes. When you go to war you are aggressive. Dumb. Got better stuff numbness? " Yeah thats right. We weren't responding to anything. We attacked on our own accord despite the fact there was no proof of Iraq having anything that could threaten us. Next. "I'm not concerned with what president Bush says in this regard. The reason no WMDs were found is because they were removed prior to the invasion by Russian commandos and taken to Syria. Even if there were no WMDs, which was not the case, Iraq violated several other conditions, one being possession of tactical offensive missiles capable of reaching a distance greater than 300 miles (i.e. Israel). We know that because Iraq used one against us during the war. Saddam admitted to interrogators that he intended to develop WMDs after all this was over. Saddam admitted he did not believe the US would invade his country." --Regarding your first two sentences. Have an ounce of proof for that? I challenged you to bring me proof in your last round. You brought me none. As much as your opinion fascinates me it doesn't actually stand up in a debate round. I'm rather certain I hadn't quite heard our government mention WMDs being deported from Iraq to Syria via Russians. That would seem like a pretty important piece of information Mr. Bush forgot to inform me about..... --Then you go on to say Iraq violated other conditions. Even if you had some amazing piece of proof on this to give it credibility let me give you a similar scenario: I am charged with bringing a sub-machine gun to school. This isn't true, but later they find I actually had a knife. So first off they hold me on a charge that is false, justified? Secondly they basically destroy me (Iraq is looking pretty bad right now) because of the false charge only to find I carry a knife. Also justified? I think not. We didn't invade Iraq because it was carrying tactical offensive missiles. In fact prior to our invasion of Iraq we were giving them weapons and helping them develop weapons. http://www.fas.org... Oooo la la. Congressional record Sept 20, 2002 clearly states we have helped Saddam Hussein acquire biological weapons. So lastly you tell me that Saddam admitted to all of this before he died. I challenged you for a source. You have not brought me one. Even if you could bring me one I think three things: 1. What are the chances that our government may have lied in order to convince us that the war was justifiable in some way after all? 2. A guy who just had his entire country blown apart by the United States admits that after this was all done he was planning on building some WMDs. Thats weird..... Its almost like he hated us or something? 3. Similar scenario. Guy shows up at my doorstep, I beat him to a pulp, interrogate him and get him to admit that at some point in the future he may have had plans to develop something that would hurt me. I kill him, its the obvious solution. That was justified =) ! So lets go over a brief scenario of what has happened so far. Country with largest amount of WMDs invades a country on the pretense that they might be developing WMDs. The large country breaks international law while doing this, an international law they helped create. Country with most WMDs then finds out that the country they invaded doesn't actually have WMDs so they (possibly) accuse country of something else. This (possibly) being that the country they invaded has other weapons, which would seem very strange indeed considering that the country with WMDs gave them weapons. Thus country with many WMDs bombs them to the ground. Sounds..... hmmm, hypocritical? =) Next. "Are you debating me or your audience? The UN and the US congress all authorized the use of force against Iraq. Even if they didn't, our constitution gives the president, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the authority to use military force, any time, anywhere, for any reason to protect the security interests of the United State." --To clear up the small misunderstanding you are having with yourself at the start of sentence three, they didn't. Then you go on to say that the constitution gives the commander-in-chief the right to protect the security of the United States. So despite the whole international law issue, let me point out that Iraq was a POTENTIAL THREAT. They didn't pose a threat to us, and there is no hard evidence to suggest they did. We are not justified in destroying POTENTIAL THREATS, because guess what, every nation can be a POTENTIAL THREAT. This would be like me once again killing the guy who came to my door because I thought he might be a POTENTIAL THREAT. UNJUSTIFIED. Next. "No, first I explained why, then I insulted you for your lack of intelligence. Some people can't objectively judge their own arguments. They need others to point out their flaws. That's what I have been doing." --Objective: (adj) intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. You're right, objectively judging my own arguments is rather impossible because it is impossible for me, or you for that matter, to approach any circumstance with 0 bias. The rest of this speaks for itself. Last. "My speech has been more than adequate to counter your lame-brained talking points." --LOL Vote for Pro. War was not justified.