War in Iraq

PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS! PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS! PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS! I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I AM PERSONALLY AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ BUT WILL PWN HIM ANYWAY!!! let's watch... + Iraq has WMDs (http://www.foxnews.com...) they could use those WMDs any second if they USA does not continue to intervene. If we did not intervene when we did, then Iraq would have used those WMDs on us. The many soldiers who have sacrificed their honored lives are a small (valuable but small) proportion to the billions that would die globally from a nuke attack. + Even if they do/did not have nukes they would have gotten them and used them if we were not in Iraq. + America has the ability under international law to help Iraq. The legal authority to use force to address Iraq's material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441." + What type of monster will allow the women of Iraq to continue to get raped, beaten, etc. The children of Iraq turned into soldiers, brainwashed, murdered, raped, etc. The tribes of Iraq to be ethnically cleansed? + "Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad...And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda. The reports of these contacts have been increasing since 1998. We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities... -- Donald Rumsfeld + There is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground in Iraq. + The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. - It has cost us four hundred and seventy billion dollars (to date), the lives of four thousand U.S. servicemen, and nearly forty thousand casualties. + Wars cost money, especially necessary wars. These terrorists will be after ourchildren's children's children and the line stops there only because we are in Iraq now killing terrorists and decapitating regimes. -In addition, it has damaged our international prestige, critically weakened our armed forces, and strengthened our enemies in the region (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda). + This was inevitable. If we did not attack when we did, then we would have to attack later after we were nuked and the international prestige would be lowered then. - Let me be clear, I am not "morally" against the Iraq war…I was not one of those naï¿½ve people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 (specifically, the scene with the kids flying kites and playing on swings in Hussein's Iraq) and believed it was an accurate depiction. + Thanks for the personal information. I think we all know you better now. - Saddam was brutal dictator that should have eventually been dealt with… just not until the US and our Allies had properly stabilized Afghanistan and eliminated the threat of Al-Qaeda (ambiguous I know, but you get the idea) + We cannot eliminate Al Qaeda without going into their home and finding them. We don't have magical levitation powers to lift them out. We had to find them and that is what we are doing in Iraq and we are/ have getting rid of/ gotten rid of terrorists and terrorist regimes. - I was also slightly disturbed by the constant hinting of a connection between Iraq, 9/11, WMDs, and Al-Qaeda. There was no direct connection between the four. As much as I hated Saddam Hussein, he was not nearly as urgent of a threat as Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. + Iraq has WMDs (http://www.foxnews.com...). The terrorists came from Islamic nations and those Islamic nations have terrorists that we can find to take out. + If not Al Qaeda, other terrorist organizations are based in Iraq. - Despite my problems with the war at the onset, I still believed that a good outcome was possible. + He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win. - Despite my problems with the war at the onset, I still believed that a good outcome was possible. + He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win. - Despite my problems with the war at the onset, I still believed that a good outcome was possible. + He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win. - The counterinsurgency doctrine states that to effectively occupy a country, you need one soldier for every forty or fifty civilians (480,000 soldiers in Iraq). Currently, the U.S. has one solider in Iraq for every one hundred and forty civilians. (approx) + This is old information. If you want all of our hard American work to go down the toilet then half do the job but if you want us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible then we need to stay in Iraq and tke out the insurgency with as much force as necessary. - In my opinion, the looting was a key stage in the "shift" to Shiite militias. During the looting, billions of dollars worth of equipment was stolen. The Iraqi National Archive, was set ablaze destroying virtually everything inside (even documents that were seven thousand years old.) I have heard reports of looters going to construction sites and using cranes to completely dismantle construction projects. Furthermore (continuing with the theme of toppling Saddam and leaving in August), U.S. soldiers were not ordered to stop the looting because they did not want to get deeply entangled in peacekeeping operations. This led many communities to turn to Shiite militias for protection against looters, and increased militia power in Iraq. + This is irrelevant. War in Iraq is still necessary. - Disbanding the Iraqi army was also a mistake. The Iraqi army could have been a critical part of the occupation effort. The large majority of the Iraqi army was not distinctly loyal to the Baathist party, and it made no sense to completely disband it. Furthermore, any civilian indirectly associated with the Baathist party would be unable to find jobs in the new government. This left the former members of the Iraqi army unemployed and unable to find steady employment for the foreseeable future. To make this situation even worse, U.S. did not have enough manpower to secure the cities, catch high level Baathists, and guard all of the old Iraqi army depots at once. I remember seeing reports where Iraqi's were walking out of old army depots with AK-47s, mortars, and machine guns virtually unopposed. + The Iraqi army was not loyal to the Baathist Party. They were lower to their own tribes, gangs and familes. This created a corrupt militia. Anyway, the Iraq War is still necessary. Stay on topic. PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS! PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS! PLEASE VOTE ON MY DEBATE PERFORMANCE AND NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS!