The Iraq War

WMD"s 1)The article that you yourself cite questions the validity of this potential transaction: "According to Kay, Saddam was growing increasingly frustrated with Pyongyang, which repeatedly fell behind schedule in delivering the promised missiles. Said Kay, "Saddam actually paid money, but the North Koreans kept on delaying and asking for more money until Saddam cut them off." While the POTENTIAL for this purchase was undoubtably there, its is still highly questionable. And the point stands, why are/were we not invading and forcibly disarming nations that pose/posed a clear threat? Iraq, even if the purchases would have happen, likely wouldn"t have had a functional device, while other nations hostile to the U.S did/still do have functional devices. 2)Yes they do! So by your logic, the United States should most definitely be fighting a war in the name of WMD"s and Human rights there! North Korea actually does pose a potential threat to our security! 3)Possible. That conjecture depends a lot on assumptions. Functional Nuclear technology is tremendously expensive and complex to develop or purchase and to maintain. This being said it is my opinion that any nation that possesses a Nuclear device is a threat to humanity, the United States included. We really have very little ground to stand on and judge the rest of the world. The United States is the only nation to ever actually use a Nuclear Device, and it was largely on a civilian population. In the same war the U.S used Napalm on a civilian population in Japan. (1) We dumped millions of gallons of chemical weapons in Vietnam, which are still effecting hundreds of thousands of people today. (2) We used white phosphorus during the invasion of Iraq ironically enough, and is reported to have caused civilian deaths in Fallujah. (2,3) AND!, one of the biggest hypocrisies is that you miss, is that in 1988, the CIA warned the Iraqi government about an Iranian troop movement that could have potentially ended the war and Saddam"s Regime. Our satellite imagery and intelligence allowed him to accurately use mustard and sarin gas against Iranian troops.(4,5) Iraq was not prosecuted, and the U.S was rumored to know Saddam"s intent. did not vote to The Iraqi government also received large amounts of Special Ops training, financing and armaments from the U.S at this time. Iraq also purchased numerous strains of viruses from the U.S that were later weaponized. (6) (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.theguardian.com... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.foreignpolicy.com... (5)http://en.wikipedia.org... (6)http://en.wikipedia.org... LEGALITY OF THE IRAQ WAR Your four methods are quoted from Wiki answers, and not linked to any legitimate source, so I question their credibility. And as I said before, I am not a credible International Law expert. It is a very tricky field. That being said, if we assume that your four guidelines are accurate, let"s make a list of other countries that have forfeited state sovereignty, by invading another country, and violating the NPT. Iran(NPT), Russia(Invasion of Georgia), North Korea(NPT), America(Invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.), Israel(NPT and Invasion of Gaza and Lebanon) all stand out in recent memory. (1) (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... MY QUOTES Again, the severity of Saddam"s crimes is not the issue. There"s nothing to me respond to you stating facts. As for my analogy analyzing your logic, I found it totally accurate. You yourself confirmed that you consider U.S the "police chief" of the world! We are NOT! We are a citizen of the world. We are the "police chief" of our own country. SO, my analogy was very effective. You say, Not North Korea or Iran. Too powerful. I find that hypocritical. If these wars are in the interest of global security(WMDS) or human rights, shouldn"t we go after the biggest threats? The nations that could potentially supply countries like Iraq with nuclear arms? In this short paragraph you bring up one of your logic"s weak points. Where is the line? How do you objectively weigh the pros and cons? What is the "red line" that warrants the help of the American military? "Our tax dollars financed the deaths of countless Iraqi citizens" No. I will not retract this. It is perfectly logical. Our tax dollars bought the bullets and bombs, fed the soldiers and supplied the use of the weapons that killed civilians in Iraq. So yes, our tax dollars funded the deaths of Iraqi citizens. POST WAR RAMIFICATIONS III I don"t know. I"m sure women are still being raped and beaten though, just like they are in the U.S. I"m sorry but after research I cannot find any cases of this being true. Although they are banned in multiple places. The only executable offenses I found evidence for were theft, corruption, military desertion and.. Currency speculation?(1,2,) Definitely didn"t see anything along these lines.(1,2) If they had them, I"m sure they would be used. Couldn"t tell you. Wouldn"t be surprised if it still happens though. The government is FAR to crippled to wage war. Who knows what they would do. Couldn"t tell you! But the regime is young and poor. Again. The regime is young and poor. We used to think Saddam was a great guy. He was made an honorary citizen of Detroit back in the day. As I have said before multiple times. I understand the severity of Iraq under Saddam. And yes, there is a respite from this brutality. But as you conveniently did not address, there is a very real chance that it will not last. I repeat, Iraq is a failed state. The United States left Iraq dysfunctional, in ruins and under the reigns of a leader that is already showing preliminary signs of authoritarianism. I will also remind you that before Saddam, the region was notorious for being similarly brutal and violent, and much less documented than Saddam. (3) There was/is a culture of violence in that nation. I think that is undeniable. It"s also understandable given their history of being invaded and occupied. (1)http://image.guardian.co.uk... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org... A SUMMATION OF POINTS At the moment, yes, the Iraqi people are better off. But, again, they now live in a failed state that does not provide a majority of the population with the most basic of services. A failed economy, decimated infrastructure, systemic violence and instability and a bleak future, and thousands of dead civilians as a direct result of the American Military itself. Low casualties? Seriously? Ask the Iraqi citizens if they think this was a "low casualty" war. AGAIN, the American military DOES NOT exist to protect our oil resources. That is an DISGUSTING reason for war. American soldiers and countless innocents should NEVER die to protect our oil. Iraq NEVER posed a threat to American security. Even with nuclear technology, it would be virtually impossible for them to have the U.S in range. You are justifying Desert Storm. Not Operation Iraqi Freedom, the war we are discussing. DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS No. After countless atrocities and losses for the Iraqi people at the hands of America, the nation is left hobbled and dysfunctional. The 8 year occupation of the nation was an ugly, incredibly destructive and unproductive effort that cost America billions of dollars. Nearly 30,000 wounded and 4000 Americans dead and countless more psychologically disturbed have done nothing but increase anti-American sentiments in the Middle East. There are some Iraqis that would have rather never had the U.S incursion. (1) I find this one of the most critical aspects of looking at the success of this operation. We talk about these people dying and suffering, but what do they think? What do they want? It"s obvious that much of the population was not happy with U.S intervention, and that sentiment grew as the occupation continued. (2) (1)http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... CONCLUDING POINTS It"s interesting that you criticize me for arguing "things might get worse" when the vast majority of your argument hinges on "mights". Saddam "might" have gotten WMD"s. Things "might" not have changed without American militarism. So by your own logic, neither one of your key points "is an argument". Your entire justification is based on assumption, so you have no grounds to criticize me. Voters, please note that while my opponent proclaims things are better in Iraq, he continually ignores many of my points. I did my best to address all of his. He notes that "So far, things are going well enough in Iraq" without substantiation or proof. I have noted multiple sources proving the abysmal state of Iraq and it"s questionable leadership. Also, I do not in any way condone or deny the horrific nature of Saddam"s rule. I did my best to stay on topic, I did not wish to discuss the acts of any other sadistic rulers, as It was not pertinent in my opinion. I also did not think that my opponents continued emphasis on Saddams crimes was necessary, so I did not address much of it. I congratulate my opponent on providing an intelligent and logical argument, and thank him for his efforts!