War in Iraq

RDJORD: why would Iraq have used nuclear or chemical weapons on the United States? N: Iraq wants to hurt the Western nations. RDJORD: http://www.msnbc.msn.com......). We haven't found any of these "huge" stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. 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: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? 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: 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? 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: 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. N: America is saving Iraq and you are allowing it. You conceeded that he was a dictator and was also brutal. 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… N: Iraq harbors terrorists. We need to find those terrorists, Al Qaeda or not. "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.' + He conceeds that without the Iraq War, terrorists would be emboldened "-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. 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. "+ 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. N: Other organizations are in Iraq without a doubt or ese who would be shooting at us? "+ 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: Are you advocating going to war with Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Omar, Yemen, and Pakistan? N: I rather it be those countries than a nuke in Washington. "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. 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. "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. + 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. "+ 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. + Are you saying the war is good but needs a new manager now? "+ 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. N: This is completely irrelevant. How does this prove the war is good or bad? 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? + It has but it has diverted them to other terrorist groups including Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. 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. And we should have gone there because we have stop stop terrorists and stop ethnic cleansing, abuse and rape.