The war in Iraq is not a justified war.

"The war in Iraq is not a justified war….So my first voting issue for voters today is noticing the fact that my opponent never contradicts the resolution." What "resolution" are you referring to? Your own? Who needs to approve a war to make it legal before it is justified? Both the United Nations and US Congress AUTHORIZED the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN conditions (there were many not complied with). "He has agreed to the war being aggressive. He has cited the constitution as a reference to why the president can go to war at any time. Yet he does not in any way prove that war is justified." How would you like the question answered that a social science major would understand? Whether Bush had the right to initial military action given UN resolutions? Or rights grated to the president in our own constitution? Or whether war was justified in your mind? I am not concerned if you agree to it or not. "--On the contrary. America agreed to be a part of the U.N and to abide by its rulings. It was your America that pushed for being a part of the U.N. Let me show you the disadvantage to us not following international law…" The UN's authorization of military force was incidental to Bush's action. The US should never recognize "International Law" when it conflicts with our own constitution or our own economic or security interests. "What kind of message does that send to every other country in the world?" Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us? We don't have to kiss anyone's sss. "Hey! That nation has oil we need..... WAR!!!" More wars = more deaths = less justification." For a guy who crows about his academic credentials, that was a really simple set of conclusions. We would be less dependent on oil if the fuzzy-head tree-hugging liberals in this country would allow domestic oil production. These freaks set us back 25 years with their 1970s anti-nuclear power campaigns. "Wait a minute..... I thought you said this was a war of aggression?" Yes. War is by its nature, aggression. Do you know how to win a passive war? "Yeah thats right. We weren't responding to anything. We attacked on our own accord despite the fact there was no proof of Iraq having anything that could threaten us." Saddam's regime, had it continued (and by Saddam's own accord), would have jeopardized world peace by developing WMDs and eventually using them. Saddam already killed over 100-thousand Iranians, invaded a sovereign country (Kuwait) and was poised to invade another (Saudi Arabia) when we stopped him with military force. "Then you go on to say Iraq violated other conditions. Even if you had some amazing piece of proof on this to give it credibility…." How about the wreckage of the offensive missile Saddam used against us? Military officials displayed the proof when it happened. Unlike you, I was paying attention. " let me give you a similar scenario: I am charged with bringing a sub-machine gun to school. This isn't true, but later they find I actually had a knife. So first off they hold me on a charge that is false, justified? Secondly they basically destroy me (Iraq is looking pretty bad right now) because of the false charge only to find I carry a knife. Also justified? I think not." Now you're a lawyer? You give these outlandish examples to prove your point. Find a more realistic scenario. You can not, and will not, be charged with bringing a machine gun to school if there is no credible evidence you either possess one or have demonstrated you‘ve used one in the past. Secondly, there is a big difference between a machine gun and a knife. A long-range offensive missile capable of delivering WMDs to Israel is a recipe for a retaliatory nuclear attack by Israel upon Iraq where millions of non-combatants would be killed. Lastly, the same rules that apply to our country regarding our security do not lend themselves to a courtroom. We don't have to give our enemy a fair trial. Our only objective should be to win, and do so without having to be hamstrung by rules dictated either by our enemy or disinterested third party countries that don't like us anyway (i.e. UN, world court). "We didn't invade Iraq because it was carrying tactical offensive missiles. In fact prior to our invasion of Iraq we were giving them weapons and helping them develop weapons." When is your self-proclaimed historical expertise going to kick in? I've been waiting for over a week. You well know that the US helped Iraq in its war against Iran. The US correctly presumed that either country would destabilize the region if either got too powerful. It is not uncommon for former allies to be in conflict at some future time. We backed communist Russia against Hitler even though subsequently the USSR turned into an evil empire. "Oooo la la. … I challenged you for a source. You have not brought me one. Even if you could bring me one I think three things…our government may have lied in order to convince us that the war was justifiable in some way after all?" Do you believe we landed a man on the moon in 1969? "A guy who just had his entire country blown apart by the United States" Quit using hyperbolizes. That's not historian-like. Iraq is up and running. Schools are open and new ones are being built. Power is back on line. Commerce is at pre-war levels. Iraqis can even vote for their own leaders. "Similar scenario. Guy shows up at my doorstep, I beat him to a pulp, interrogate him and get him to admit that at some point in the future he may have had plans to develop something that would hurt me. I kill him, its the obvious solution. That was justified =) !" More outlandish scenarios. Had you evidence that your friend was going to kill you and you took the initiative and kill him first to prevent yourself from being killed, then you should consider that to be a favorable outcome, whether it is justified or not. No? "So lets go over a brief scenario of what has happened so far. Country with largest amount of WMDs invades a country on the pretense that they might be developing WMDs…." Your premise is decidedly anti-American. Mad dictators and misfits like Saddam and Hitler are not entitled to the same things we are. "Then you go on to say that the constitution gives the commander-in-chief the right to protect the security of the United States. So despite the whole international law issue…" Absolutely yes. International law will never trump our own constitution. "let me point out that Iraq was a POTENTIAL THREAT. They didn't pose a threat to us…" Well, cancer is a potential threat, even if you don't die today. So let's leave it alone. "You're right, objectively judging my own arguments is rather impossible because it is impossible for me, or you for that matter, to approach any circumstance with 0 bias. " Zero bias is not necessary when deciding issues like war and peace. Because any decent American is always bias in favor of America. Being biased does not preclude making the right decision on America‘s behalf. It is sort of required to force it into the end zone. It's a question of intelligence and motive, and whose interests are involved. I must say that it was fun watching you stumble over your own self-worth. Try to put more emphasis on content and historical precedent next time.