Bush did the right thing when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Definitions: By "we went into" I shall assume my opponent means when Bush deployed US forces into and declared war upon the nation of Iraq and in Afghanistan. Right-in conformance with justice or law or morality Justice - concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity Observations: 1. According to this topic, my opponent will have to prove that Bush did the "right" thing in the said actions, or, as by the above definition, that he performed actions in accordance with morality, law, and justice. Conversely, I must prove that Bush did not perform the "right" thing in the said actions. Rebuttal: The War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan occurred at different times and were caused by different events and therefore cannot both be supported by the cited video, showing footage of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States. Only the War in Afghanistan can be supported by the said video, which was launched on October 7th, 2001, and waged in retaliation to the attacks. The war in Iraq was, in fact, launched on March 20th, 2003 and waged on document intelligence suggesting the existence of WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Let us first go over the War in Afghanistan. Arguments: The War in Afghanistan: The war in Afghanistan was declared in direct correlation with the attacks of September 11th. The said goals were: 1. Capture Osama bin Laden. 2. Destroy al-Qaeda. 3. Remove the Taliban regime which had offered safety and support to al-Qaeda. While the first two said goals may have been justifiable, the third cannot be. Or, for the clarity of this debate, defined as not "right". This is because, regardless of any beliefs or regime the Taliban held that contradict the U.S.'s own, there was no evidence to indicate that the Taliban had in any way advocated the attacks. On September 21, 2001, the Taliban stated that they would provide the United States with bin Laden if they could provide them with the proof of bin Laden's guilt, which the Taliban did not have. They also said that bin Laden was a guest in their country. Pashtun and Taliban codes of behavior require that guests be granted hospitality and asylum. Ignoring this, on October 7th, 2001, the United States initiated military action in Afghanistan citing the reasons above AND "to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand overï¿½Osama bin Ladenï¿½for his alleged involvement in the September 11 attacks!" Clearly, the United States did not even attempt a diplomatic solution to earn captivity of bin Laden, but instead professed the Taliban's stated proposal to be a refusal to hand him over! Therefore, in this instance, the United States and Bush go directly against two necessities for something to be "right" as in the previous definition: 1. This action is not moral, as in order for Bush to achieve his own goals, he is lying to the people of America in stating that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. 2. Attacking the Taliban does not meet the standard of "justice" because it is not ethical to proclaim an entity something they are not and proceed to take action against them for it. Therefore, with one of the War in Afghanistan's cited goals not meeting the standard for it to be "right", we can effectively come to the conclusion that its entire concept is "not right", just as we cannot state an apple to be fresh if part of it is rotten. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001–present) The War in Iraq: Reason: Iraq has a nuclear program and is harboring and constructing WMD. 1. As previously stated, the Iraqi War was launched on March 20th, 2003 and was based on intelligence in the form of documents that suggested Iraqi intent and action to construct and store WMD. According to Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary, friend and close associate of President Bush, and author of What Happened, and the cited sources, these documents were concluded to be forged and an investigation of the WMD was conducted returning no results, by March 7th, 2003, by the UN's nuclear inspection head. Yet, even after this was disproved and made clear to the president, Bush and his supporters continued to cite the documents as a source for his reasons on going to war and, thirteen days later, we did. Based on what was proven to be falsified documents. And, again, in this instance, Bush is going against two necessary traits for something to be "right": 1. Bush continued to cite sources which were proven false and support them, which is equivalent to lying, an immoral action. 2. Justice is not met because A) lying is immoral and B) even if Bush still believed that there were WMD in Iraq, it is irrational to do so after the initial source of this belief is vanquished. Finally, even if there were WMD in Iraq, which may have posed a threat, if there were no evidence supporting the intention of Iraq to use them on another nation unless in defense, it would not be "right" to invade. This is because the United States does not have the right to prevent other nations from developing or, in other words, deciding that the United States could have WMD but not other nations. 1. "Right"-ness requires "justice". 2. "Justice" requires fairness and equity, and, were the United States to prevent Iraq from having WMD, not only would it by hypocritical, this policy would fail to have either fairness or equity, and thus, "right"-ness. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... What Happened, by Scott McClellan (Reference Link: http://en.wikipedia.org...) I shall conclude by wishing my opponent the best of luck in his reply. Thank you.