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

I would like to congratulate the affirmative on compiling an intelligent response. However, his arguments fail on several key accounts. 1. First, let me explain why his discrediting of my sources is not to be trusted. "never use Wikipedia for it only tells you what you want to say" This statement cannot at all be true. http://en.wikipedia.org... At this link are listed many, many references as to where this article's information comes from. Out of those references, we find people such as John McCain, and even the president in question--George W. Bush. If we are to conclude that the information in this article "only tells [us] what [we] want to say" then we must also conclude that those whose information and knowledge was compiled to form this article must be equally invalid. Since this includes the subject of the debate, George W. Bush, we can furthermore say that George W. Bush only tells this nation what he wants us to hear, making him a manipulative man, which does not coincide with our previous definition of "right". If Bush is not himself a "just" or "right" man, then his actions can not be considered so either--thus, declaring war in these circumstances can be thrown into question. If we do not accept this conclusion, then the sources must be considered valid. Also, the changes made to articles of this importance is strictly monitored. This is so because, were it not, we would suddenly see mentions of the 9/11 conspiracy theory and other rumors pop up. Because there is not an abundance of ludicrous information listed, we can assume there are people who ensure the quality of the information listed. 2."the United States DID attempt diplomatic relations" As I said in my last argument: "On September 21, 2001, the Taliban stated that they would provide the United States with bin Laden if they could provide them with the proof of bin Laden's guilt, which the Taliban did not have. They also said that bin Laden was a guest in their country. Pashtun and Taliban codes of behavior require that guests be granted hospitality and asylum." Essentially, the United States' only attempt at diplomacy was to say "Gimme," over Osama bin Laden. Stated above, the Taliban asked for evidence of his involvement in 9/11, which the United States did not provide, considering the Taliban's reasonable reply to be a refusal. They ALSO said that they couldn't simply hand him over because they were required to follow certain cultural and local customs that dictated the Taliban give Osama bin Laden hospitality and asylum. So, again as I've said, on October 7th, 2001, the United States initiated military action against Afghanistan "to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand overï¿½Osama bin Ladenï¿½for his alleged involvement in the September 11 attacks!" Did the Taliban refuse to hand him over? No. They required evidence of his guilt beforehand. The United States , and I quote the affirmative, "[knew] he and many of his men just under him did help plan and execute 9/11." If this was so, why didn't the United States present the evidence and take bin Laden? Instead of continuing the diplomatic relations with the Taliban, they declared war on Afghanistan, saying the Taliban refused, which the did NOT do. I hardly say that the United States was at all diplomatic, "just" or "right" in saying "Gimme!" to the Taliban and then proceeding to lie about the refusal that never occurred. Thus, the United States and President Bush did not tell the truth to the people and cited untrue reasons for war with Afghanistan. This goes against being "right" because such a quality requires morality, and lying does not fit the qualities of morality. The affirmative has stated: "1. Bush did not lie to the people of America, the Taliban, if friendly to us, would have handed him over instantly. Instead, they did not." So, if the United States is to have friends, they must obey are every command and give us every suspected criminal in their boundary? The Taliban did not have proof of his guiltiness. Friends should be treated as equals, not as servants ready to do our bidding on a whim. "2. [The Taliban] harbored a terrorist group and you are saying it was "not ethical" to go in and get rid of them? That is wrong." They harbored a terrorist group according to their law and custom pertaining to guests. Again, should friends be servants? Bush thought of himself and the United States as so high and mighty that they should be allowed to force the people of other nations to break the laws that are near sacred to them. In other words, he thought us superior to Afghanistan and its people. "Justice" is a necessity of "right". Justice itself requires equity. The United States did not acknowledge the equality of other nations or peoples under Bush, and, thus, was not just. Without this "justice", Bush and the US cannot have been "right" in these actions. The War in Iraq: "You claim that the United States went in to Iraq because of ‘intelligence in the form of documents that suggested Iraqi intent and action to construct and store WMD'." Not only do I claim it, but the guy who worked with Bush claims it. Also, if you missed this part, the documents were PROVEN TO BE FORGED. The claims made in these documents were investigated, proven untrue, AND the documents themselves were proven to be forged. Bush knew it. 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. Therefore, the "robber" never made a threat or ever have a "gun" to make a threat. The affirmative has stated: "However, he used them on his own people, we know that." I assume you are referring to WMD. It was proven he didn't have them. How could he use something that he didn't have? However, even if you are referring to his rather immoral behavior of killing his own people with simple guns, the Bush did not declare war stating this as a reason and is not pertinent to our determination of whether or not Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was "right". Furthermore, even if he had stated this as a reason, it almost surely would have been voted down. Congress voted for the war because Bush told them Iraq had possession of WMD, which, by March 7th, had been proven false, and Bush knew it. Next, the affirmative has stated: "…we DID find yellow cake and there is proof. http://www.nytimes.com... " The above article it clearly states: "The yellowcake removed from Iraq — which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003ï¿½State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa — is used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing does it become low-enriched uranium, which can fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs." Bush took the false intelligence and stated that Iraq had WMD. Not only did he use information which he knew to be false, but the yellow cake which was found as an afterthought (this article was published on July 7th, 2008) can't even be used to make WMD! Thus, we come to the following two conclusions: 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. The affirmative's argument is unsound in its claims.