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

"Second- Yes. The US did attempt diplomatic relations. If the Taliban were our allies, they would have handed him over without a comment. The Taliban DID refuse to hand him over so the US (and virtually everybody in it) supported the war. If you can remeber, think back to 2001, when we saw 2,974 people die in the terrorist attacks. If you hadn't supported the war from the beginning, you were (and in my mind still are) unpatriotic." I don't see a source for this, ladies and gentlemen. Without a source, claims mean nothing. Wikipedia is better than no source at all. Aside from that, I've already proven these claims to be false WITH sources and logic. Please refer to my Round 2 post. ""So, if the United States is to have friends, they must obey are every command and give us every suspected criminal in their boundary?" No and how dare you suggest such a thing. If Germany had had a terrorist attack and the US was harboring the criminal, the entire world would be up in arms about how evil the US is and how they don't help their allies. And you know that would happen because you are one of the ones who would be saying it." A) The entire world wasn't up in arms over Afghanistan or Iraq. B) If the United States had religious laws (like Afghanistan and the Taliban did) that dictated they must grant hospitality and asylum to the terrorists (Osama bin Laden in our case) the world should be understanding and meet the agreement that the country put forth. The Taliban wanted proof before they'd hand him over, which, according to the affirmative, was obvious. If it was entirely proved that bin Laden was guilty, then why didn't the United States give the evidence and take bin Laden? Instead, they ignored this diplomatic solution to the relations and declared a refusal of terms, which the Taliban did not do--they proposed that they needed evidence to override the laws of hospitality and asylum in force over their guest, Osama bin Laden. If the evidence wasn't readily available, then the president did not tell the truth about the attacks, which is immoral and not "right". If they did have the evidence, they avoided the Taliban's request for evidence in order to satisfy a personal agenda and ended up lying about a "refusal". This, too, is immoral, and thus, not "right". ""Justice", which by the way seems to be your new favorite word, is subjective. If a criminal kills someone, maybe he thinks that justice. I don't." "Justice" is subjective to the belief of the world, not the individual, and is reflected in the law. If a criminal kills someone, even if he thinks it's justice, it's not, because "justice" requires obedience to the law. Just as lying is both immoral, and, in the president's case, against the law. That does not change because of your perspective. President Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, which was against the law. I don't see how Bush's lies suddenly become okay. They are against the law, and no one, not even the president, is above the law. "Justice" is based on law, as set forth by the definition provided earlier. Therefore, disobedience of the law eliminates justice from the criterion needed for Bush to be "right" in his actions. "The guy who claimed that the "documents were forged" was: a) looking for 15 minutes of fame b) how would he know if the documents were forged? c) what would the point be of forging documents?" The "guy" is not, in fact, an individual. Although, Scott McClellan has repeated the claim, it is a claim set forth by the United Nations and various intelligence agencies. The point of forging documents would be to achieve a personal agenda. If it was the Bush administration or not, we don't know, but, regardless, Bush supported the documents, which were proven to be forged a year before he cited them as reasoning to invade Iraq. Also, Scott McClellan's What Happened which retells this information, is one of the bestselling books currently. I hardly call that 15 minutes of fame. Sources: http://www.newyorker.com... http://www.time.com... ""The scenario of armed robbery is not pertinent to this situation because Iraq never made any threats against the United States and was proven to have no yellow cake when the United Nations nuclear inspection team investigated" Someone doesn't know their history because when I said "Iraq" I meant it's evil dictator. You know, the one who's regime we successfully overthrew. I'm sorry for the confusion. (Duh!)" Uh-huh. Well, the War in Iraq's goals were not to save it's people from an evil dictator, but to prevent attack from WMD which were never found. So he's a dictator--he never made threats against the United States. He never imported yellow cake from Niger that could be made into WMD. The point is, whatever Bush's true intentions were, he said otherwise in lies, and therefore was not "right" in his actions. "Yellow cake is yellowcake- the point is that he had it and you were not correct. It doesn't have to be "the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed". It is yellow cake." Except yellow cake Bush talked about could be used in WMD. This yellow cake is impossible to enrich enough for WMD. We didn't go in for "yellowcake". We went in because the yellowcake inferred and supported the claims of WMD. Bush claimed that the yellowcake was for WMD, but the documents inferring such had been disproved a year before, and a decisive investigation conducted by the IAEA that proved no yellowcake was present. "I have another question for you- If the UK had had a cruel dictator, would we have done the same thing? Yes, absolutely." We would've forged documents inferring their possession of yellow cake to sidestep true intentions? Well, I guess we wouldn't be "right" in those actions either. "PS- I am not going to try anymore. You libs have closed minds (for the most part) and I have no doubt that you will never listen." This is a debate, not necessarily a reflection of my beliefs. A debate should leave out my political standings. And the definition of liberal includes the term "open-minded" for the record. :P Conclusion: 1. The War in Afghanistan was started on a refusal that didn't exist and in essence declared the superiority of the United States to other cultures. Bush's morality and thus, "right"-ness fails to present itself here. 2. The War in Iraq was started on forged information that Bush knew to be false almost 2 WEEKS before the deployment of the military. Again, Bush's morality and thus, "right"-ness fails to present itself. I have sources for these facts, wheras the affirmative has only presented hearsay. Facts mean nothing unless backed up. The affirmative has made unsound claims. George Bush's actions concerning Afghanistan and Iraq were unlawful, unjust, and thus, not "right", the crux of this debate. The negative has been proven correct. Vote for the truth. Vote negative. General Sources: Provided in Previous Posts