WAR IN IRAQ

I am not taking a "knowing what we know now" point of view. I'm taking a 2003 pre-war perspective. My thesis is that deploying troops for battle in Iraq was justified. YOU SAID: "You say that protecting our allies is a just cause for war...We are not meant to police the world and enter into entangling alliances. Nothing the UN says or does should ever influence our policy on war. It is not our job to keep the world in order. Our duty is to ensure the freedoms and protect our own people. Hence the term "provide for the common defense"." In my opinion, protecting our allies was one of the several reasons for war, not carrying as much signficance as others but still very important. We are meant to police the world. We're the most powerful country in the world and it's not even close. We could take the world over in a few months. It is our responsibility to police and protect the world because we are by far the most potent and affluent country in the world. Look, we had 2 WORLD WARS in a span of 20 years in the beginning of the 20th century. After World War II, we had military and peace-keeping troops all over the world. We kept them and utilized them to help stabilize the world and basically keep countries rid of communism. And because of our policeman around the world, we haven't had a world war in 60 years. Though I think the UN is worthless and waste of time because they take forever to get things accomplishes, they still have a significant influence. It is well represented with countries all over the world. Our duty in the world is to ensure the freedoms and protect the people of the world from dictators and corrupt regimes. By doing this, we are greatly enhancing the freedoms of our people here in the United States. Hence the term "provide for the COMMON GOOD." YOU SAID: "You bring up something I neglected to mention and I thank you for that. The UN resolutions were not, and are not, foundations for a declaration of war. There was a reason that the first George Bush did not topple Saddam Hussein. He understood the enormous importance of maintaining stability in Iraq..." I never said the UN resolutions were foundations for a declaration of war. The point of my statement about the 17 resolutions with Iraq was show that Saddam Hussein was completely and utterly defiant. He ignored and rejected all of these resolutions. We tried deplomacy and it didn't work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. This sounds like the relationship between the UN and ignorant Iraq. I just flat out don't agree with your point and first Bush not toppling Saddam and find it pretty irrelevant relating to 2003 Bush. The fact is that from 1997-2003, terrorist camps sprinkled the map of Iraq. The country was a terrorist haven for groups all over the Middle East and they roamed free in protection under Saddam. HE OFFERED ASYLUM TO OSAMA BIN LADEN. Iraq is in the process of a new era of democracy. The fact that the words Iraq and democracy could be in the same sentence is unbelievable. These oppressed people now how have brighter future. YOU LINKED a CNN article about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection). It said: "The underlying intelligence simply did not support the administration's repeated assertions that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to al Qaeda," said Levin, also a member of the Intelligence Committee." First off, this is coming from the one and only Carl Levin, one of the prominent liberal loons in the Senate; this ad is also written by CNN, who has been obviously against the war in Iraq for several years now. This article is clearly liberal bias and even goes as far to ASSUME that the detainee was probably lying. I do not have specific links, but I know for fact the majority general consensus clearly showed a definitive link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda terrorist groups. This was no hidden fact. The New York Slimes and LA Times spits out completely biased and sometimes spurious articles. Research this if you want. You will find more than several credible sources that showed a direct nexus between Iraq and Al-Qaeda terrorist camps. YOU SAID: "By 2006 the entire region was already unstable. As we all know, it was after the fall of the Iraqi government that the various terror groups began to move into, and operate, in the area. So the claim "Zarqawi was in Iraq" is completely true and understandable, but we know that just about every terrorist organization was operating in Iraq to target American soldiers too. They are delighted that we are there, they can recruit much quicker and take advantage of a weakened government that cannot stop them if they wanted too." I don't know what new you're watching, but we're kicking Al-Qaeda a** right now. We are winning the war and disrupting and preventing terrorist activity all over the region. The surge is working; we are stabilizing city by city. By the way, this is again irrelevant to my thesis that going to war was justified back in 2003. YOU SAID: "Saddam Hussein bragged about his weapon capabilities to intimidate Iran, with whom tensions were on the rise. There was absolutely no proof that he had the capability to do anything." From observing Saddam's nefarious and maniacal behavior over the last few years, I would not doubt for a second that he would use lethal weapons in a second if he wanted. He did in the 90s against his own people. This man was a complete, insane lunatic. When he brags about his possession or capability of using lethal weapons, this shows that Saddam was a very serious threat. Whether or not he would've actually used them himself is debatable, but you can positively assure that he would at least help with the distribution of weapons of mass destruction between terrorist groups. YOU SAID: "The idea that we should go to war to protect against a potential danger to our allies is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. It is in the best interest of the united states to abstain from war altogether. It is economically destructive. The enormous cost of the war is part of the reason we are printing all this money to forward our debt to China. Future generations are going to suffer because of it." We abstained from war altogether for 12 whole years. We tried and tried to negotiate with Iraq but it was a completely failure. By policing around the world, we are helping countries all over the globe abstain from war. If and when Iraq is successful, this mission will be an amazing economical boom. Iraq has a rich supply of oil but Saddam and his regime controlled it completely and raked in all the wealth, leaving the Iraqi people destitute. Construction of Iraq's oil industry is already in the process. The Iraqi democracy will benefit enormously and the people of Iraq will finally be able to benefit from it's own rich resources. I personally believe the saving of thousands of lives is worth any amount of money. YOU SAID: "A. You truly believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States" Again, Saddam and Iraq didn't have to be an immediate danger to the United States for the invasion to be justified. The US was involved in many wars over the years where our country was never in danger. We do what is in the best interest of our allies, and the whole world collectively. Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorism, the people are living in fear as never before, between 79,000 and 86,000 civilians are now dead, in addition to the 3896 dead coalition troops. You cannot possibly tell me that this, in addition to the decades of instability to come, were worth it. I concluded this debate by reminding you again that the topic of this debate was about justification of the war, not if the war was worth it, because obviously we will not know that answer for years to come.