War in Iraq

"N: Iraq wants to hurt the Western nations." RDJORD: You could have said the exact same thing about Iran, Syria, China, and the former USSR. Saddam may have been a paranoid egomanic, but he was not stupid. He could have foreseen what would become of him and his regime if he would have tried to attack the US with WMDs. Following your logic, the USSR wanted to hurt the West, so why didn't they launch nuclear weapons at the US, West Germany, France, and Britain? "N: Intelligence says that they have nukes. One bomb could be catastrophic to the American people. Why would we risj it? You cant answer that question. Why would we risk having ourselves bombed?" RDJORD: Intelligence SAID they had WMDs. We have yet to find any evidence of chemical or biological munitions or the "mobile factory labs" that were allegedly produced between 94-03. Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and they were not poised to attack the US with WMDs. "N: Sadaam was in hiding and could not use the weapons and the government was leaderless. If we did not go into Iraq, we would all be dead. Nuclear wars cause other nations to nuke other nations and radiation. More people die than intended." RDJORD: Saddam could have easily ordered his army or his henchmen to gas invading forces, even while he was in hiding. What you're saying makes no sense. "Saddam hated the US and wanted to attack us with WMDs the first chance he got."…."Well how about when we invaded Iraq to dispose of his regime"…"well, he was in hiding and couldn't order an attack." Furthermore, as far as I am aware, a nuclear war is a war fought primarily by nuclear weapons with optional ground forces. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, and they certainly didn't have hundreds of nuclear weapons. So saying that "If we did not go into Iraq, we would all be dead," is just fear mongering. "N: They would have used them b/c we invaded their nation and they are an irresponsible nation. logic is not present in theirinternartional decision making." RDJORD: What? You just said above why Saddam didn't use the WMDs when the US invaded Iraq…it sounds like you are confusing Saddam era with post-Saddam era. "N: America is saving Iraq and you are allowing it. You conceeded that he was a dictator and was also brutal." RDJORD: Conceding that he was a dictator and he was brutal does not help your argument. "N: Iraq harbors terrorists. We need to find those terrorists, Al Qaeda or not." RDJORD: I don't know how I can make this clearer. Al Qaeda attacked us…Al-Qaeda was not actively operating in Iraq under Saddam. "+ He conceeds that without the Iraq War, terrorists would be emboldened" RDJORD: It is quite clear what I meant. Any country with a power vacuum would obviously embolden terrorists and increase danger to the American people. What is your point? That in no way implies that without the Iraq War, terrorists would be emboldened. "N: You are saying that we should have let Iraq nuke us and then fite. This is fooolish. Terrorist organizations must be isolated that are being harbored in Iraq." RDJORD: All of your arguments say the exact same thing. "N: I rather it be those countries than a nuke in Washington." RDJORD: Nice way to dodge the question. So essentially you favor attacking the entire Middle East. "N: The War in Iraq could have had a good outcome means it was a good idea meaning should be there. You cant spin your words." RDJORD: Your logic is completely and utterly wrong. Good outcome does not equal good idea. My position is quite clear, and your "counter argument" is virtually non-existent. "+ We need to get rid of the terrorists at any cost. Sometimes plans change. Besides choose a side you go from war bad to war good idea to war good and must continue to an extent. i cant debate all three." RDJORD: What are you talking about? I thought the war was a mistake from the onset because it had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and because it diverted resources away from our real enemy. Saying that Iraq could have become a stable country, but was squandered through mismanagement does not contradict my original position. Saying that an Iraq in anarchy will be detrimental to US interests does not contradict my original position. "+ Are you saying the war is good but needs a new manager now?" RDJORD: No, I'm saying that the war both a mistake and was badly mismanaged. "N: This is completely irrelevant. How does this prove the war is good or bad?" RDJORD: So you are saying that gross incompetence doesn't play a factor in the outcome of a war? Sure. "It has but it has diverted them to other terrorist groups including Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan." RDJORD: That statement makes no sense. "We must be in Iraq or they will bomb us or allow a new dictator to show up who will inturn bbomb us and possibly be worse that Hussein. We need to be there." RDJORD: Now that we are stuck in Iraq, we need to try and stabilize Iraq to the point where an Iraqi government can handle themselves. That does not translate into an open ended commitment of US soldiers for open ended length of time. "And we should have gone there because we have stop stop terrorists and stop ethnic cleansing, abuse and rape." RDJORD: No, not until we stabilized Afghanistan and crippled the terrorist organization which attacked us in the first place.