War in Iraq

"+ Iraq has WMDs 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." RDJORD: I don't know where to start. First of all, why would Iraq have used nuclear or chemical weapons on the United States? It would have sealed the fate of Iraq both by the US and the international community. Second, that link to "Fair and Balanced" Fox New says virtually nothing. The munitions that they found were "degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents." Iraq had WMDs in the 80s and early 90s, everyone knew that. Again, I refer you to the CIA's final report in Iraq, which stated that there were no potent WMDs in Iraq (which has been published in several news sources http://www.msnbc.msn.com...). We haven't found any of these "huge" stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. Third, "billions that would die from a nuke attack?" Iraq didn't have thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at us….I believe that was called the Cold War. Finally, if Iraq was such a immediate threat and had WMDs, then why didn't Saddam use them against the invading American forces in 2003? "+ Even if they do/did not have nukes they would have gotten them and used them if we were not in Iraq." RDJORD: Again, how do you know they would have used them? It would have been virtual suicide to attack the US with WMDs. Also, using this logic, I'm assuming you're in favor of attacking North Korea, Iran and Syria also? "+ 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?" RDJORD: Note how I said that Saddam was a brutal dictator in the beginning of my first statement. Also, one could make the argument that during the sectarian phase, these exact same actions happened. "Since we began after September 11th, we do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members…(break)…help them acquire weapon of -- weapons of mass destruction capabilities... -- Donald Rumsfeld" RDJORD: This is exactly what I'm talking about, statements like these which try to tie Iraq with Al-Qaeda. There is NO credible evidence of Iraq being tied to 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. All the news agencies say it, CIA reports say it, the 9\11 commission reports says it…Again, I'm not going to waste my time finding all the different articles and quotes that contradict Donald Rumsfeld…Here is a quote from the former director of the CIA, George Tenet, which sums up all of them. "The Bush Administration could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." Also, if Saddam and Al-Qaeda were allies, then why did Osama Bin Laden offer his "services" to the Saudi government after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was a secular Islamic country and Al-Qaeda wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate throughout the region. They were not ideological allies. "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." RDJORD: I don't disagree with this. I said something similar in my opening statement. What is your point? This has nothing to do with whether invading Iraq was a good idea or if the war was mismanaged. "+ 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." RDJORD: Again, that is Afganistan and Al-Qaeda, not Iraq. You have yet to offer a distinct connection between the two. Wars that are NECESSARY (like the one in Afganistan) cost money and lives, this war was not necessary. "-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." RDJORD: Again, pre-emptive strike doctrines are useless unless the nation in question is an IMMEDIATE threat, which Hussein wasn't and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were. Also, you are mistaken about international prestige…if Iraq had nuclear weapons and did attack the US, we would have both international support and a casus bellus to attack Iraq. "+ 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." RDJORD: Iraq is not Afghanistan. Hussein was not Osama Bin Laden. "+ 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." RDJORD: I already addressed that article. Are you advocating going to war with Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Omar, Yemen, and Pakistan? Each has groups and people in their countries which were classified as terrorist organization. Al-Qaeda attacked us, Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. "He conceeds that the War in Iraq is good. I win." RDJORD: Cherry picking my quote doesn't support you at all. I said the war could have a good outcome, not it was at a good time or was "good." Note my previous three paragraphs and the rest of what I said. "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." RDJORD: What? Your comment makes no sense. I was arguing that there needed to be more than 140,000 soldiers in Iraq at the onset…I also argued that there should be a troop increase accompanied with a time table for withdrawal…the counterinsurgency doctrine is "old information" from Bosnia in the 90s, which makes it all the more amazing that people would ignore it. "+ This is irrelevant. War in Iraq is still necessary." RDJORD: Iraq war was mismanaged, this fact is not irrelevant. It was part of my argument at the onset, if you didn't want to argue against it, you shouldn't have entered the challenge. "+ 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. RDJORD: The Iraqi army was not directly loyal to the Baathist party, which was why it was a mistake to disband it. The militias were created in the power vacuum left after Saddam Hussein was deposed. Why are you telling me to stay on topic? I created the debate. To sum up your argument against...basically, the US had to go into Iraq because Saddam may or may not have had WMDs and may or may not have attacked the US through relations with Al-Qaeda, which he may or may not have had...strong argument. So, you don't think that the War in Iraq has diverted resources for the actual hunt for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?