The United States had no right to invade Iraq.

Ok now here is were I rip your rebuttal apart: I. "1st Off, my opponent responds to my UN charter point; he says that the force was unauthorized. He says the inspectors had sole authority. I agree this is true, BUT SADDAM VIOLATED THE AGREEMENT BY FORCING THE INSPECTORS OUT. Suspicious? Of course. Iraq violated a UN agreement, therefore a member of the Security Council, namely the US, had the right to use force. " Redeye needs to check his date, because this was true during the first gulf war (papa Bush) but did not happen during this Bush's administration. Bush kicked the U.S. inspectors out. He was going to bomb Iraq so we got all humanitarian workers out of there before he did. They weren't kicked out they were evacuated. "U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war." CBS News Source: http://www.cbsnews.com... "U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq" USA Today http://www.usatoday.com... "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler has ordered all non-essential staff out of Iraq as a precautionary measure in case of U.S. military action." CNN http://www.cnn.com... Saddam never kicked them out, was he a little non-compliant with his reports – yes. But we let the weapons inspectors do their job. Second – "…he didn't attack my point as I provided it. I never mentioned German Intelligence, I mentioned UN intelligence and British Intelligence; you can extend this point." Maybe you need to read my points a little better. I mentioned German and French intelligence and how they gave suspects to the CIA. Then I mention the CIA intelligence and what they discovered, namely that the information was useless. Curveball was considered useless, Naji Sabri was considered useless, but Bush and his cronies used them as the basis of their investigations and eventually the war. This was the basis for the U.N. intelligence, this along with the incomplete searches of weapons inspectors. Second I also mentioned British Downing Street Memos, were (and I am repeating myself) it was stated that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." and "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." Third – "…he only attacks my third contention by brining up other examples of genocide. My response is simple, because people have hated the Bush Administration for the invasion of Iraq, what will the people think if he wants to invade Darfur? Its people like BeattheDevil that prohibits any action against right violators." Need I remind you that this war had the overwhelming support of the American people and congress, at least until it become clear that the justifications for the war were finally discovered to be false and the real reasons were not in alignment with congress and the American people? Congress voted for it including most Democrats, polls showed Americans were in favor of it, and Bush's approval rating was sky high. Sources: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... – Wiki shows the best time progression. The problem is that American are still in favor of doing something about the violence in the Congo and Darfur, and as shown they were in favor of doing something about it in Iraq. But once it become clear that we were in Iraq for reasons other than humanitarian reasons, then it lost support. Now for the rest of his Nutshell Case. 1. Yes – Saddam wasn't that good of a guy, we wanted to do all sorts of bad stuff. But why doesn't the Bush Administration use this reason to invade N. Korea, Pakistan, and the rest of the dictators in the world, is it because we had non-humanitarian reasons to go to Iraq? 2. Inspectors never found weapons, there was no reason to invade, he may have had time but it wasn't used to build weapons. He had the intent but not the technology thanks to CentCom's trade blockades. We didn't need to invade because so far we have found no weapons. 3. Finally my opponent argues that if Iraq had WMD's that the region would be in turmoil. Well is what we have there now any better. All your points about stability and violence are well and good but how much worse could that be compared to what is happening now. Besides, evidence shows that Saddam had NO WMDs. So here is the case in a nutshell: Bush wanted to invade Iraq for unjust reasons as evidence by the Downing Street Memos, false intelligence that they presented to congress and the U.N. knowing that it was false because our CIA deemed it such before giving the administration the info. Then, before the weapons inspectors were able to complete their searches they were evacuated out of Iraq because Bush was going to bomb them. After we invaded we found NO WMDs. So to quote my opponent, "…therefore a member of the Security Council, namely the US, had the right to use force. " This force could only be used if Saddam violated the agreement, which he didn't. He provided reports and allowed the U.N. to inspect his country for WMDs. All evidence that supported the U.N. charter above has been proven to be lies knowingly used to the Bush administration's advantages. We had no right to invade.