Iraq war

Okay, it looks like there"s a possibility that my opponent is going to forfeit the next round too, but I will continue regardless. So this round, I want to rebut basically every single claim made by Pro in Round One. For the third round I will made a case on why the Iraq war was a disaster in terms of human life as well as the focus, energy, and financial resources of the US for almost a decade. In addition, the effects continue now, where the people that thought the war was worth it then, now see the veterans coming home and their healthcare as frivolous spending. I"m sure almost everyone remember after 9/11 and in the first years of the Iraq invasion, half the country had those "Support your troops" ribbons on their bumpers. I find it nauseating and frankly obscene that those hard-core supporters of the invasions and said it would be a slam-dunk are right now members of the House of Representatives and have no interest in passing or taking a vote on the bipartisan VA legislation passed in the Senate. Personally, I would not find it criminal for any veteran to shot any politician execution-style, specifically anyone that fed the lies that lead to war and who are currently unable to justify on fiscal ground the need the health of those that lost limbs, scarred bodies, and those psychologically broken. But let"s get to the meat of Round Two which I am dedicating to claims made in by Pro in Round One. First, Pro contends the Bush administration possessed good evidence; evidence that led them to believe weapons of mass destruction existed. However, due to Iraqi defiance and were unwillingness to comply with UN inspectors this proved difficult to ascertain. Pro then characterizes the world reaction to the absence of weapons as "surprising." The WMD issue doesn"t even merit acknowledgment. Unless Pro reappears and want to build a case specifically for WMDs, then I won"t waste time rehashing the issue because the wealth of material dedicated to this blunder is vast and history"s verdict has already render judgment: it was failure, and epic failure. However, let me tackle a related issue. My opponent says: "The United Nations asked Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors and verify their possession of cruise missiles and other weapons, but the nation's officials were noncompliant." This sentence lacks something very important: facts. The United Nation passed the Security Council Resolution 1441, which allowed inspectors to examine suspected chemical facilities and other purported sites that hid chemical agents or enriched uranium but UN inspectors found nothing. Swedish diplomat and Hans Blix who lead the UN"s inspection noted that while Iraq was while process slow and would likely take many months to resolve, the Iraqi government met their obligation as defined by Resolution 1441. Iraq did disagree about how to resolve issues over disarmament. The Bush administration found the 1441 unsatisfactory and argued that Iraq was in violation of the resolution. Soon after, the US attempt to pass a joint resolution to use force through the Security Council but it failed. However, the US and a coalition of other countries invaded the country, on the rationale that Iraq was duping the UN and was aggressively pursuing weapons programs and because Saddam Hussein and Iraqi officials were directly responsible for aiding and abetting the attacks on the United States on 9/11. While Pro"s first series of arguments rested on debunked and total false premises, one missing element in his argument is the context before the UN inspection and before the invasion. This is important because even though everything is factually untrue about Pro"s case thus far it also fails to mention the false postulates that even us there: 9/11 and the regime of Saddam Hussein were connected. Pro soon after makes a transition that says the mission changed once the original premise that behind the war turned out to be a falsehood. This then leads to a""" Okay, I just realized this is going to get lengthy if I continue at this pace. So basic on an assumption that Round Three will result in a forfeit for my opponent, I will address and provide the rest at that point. However, let me attempt as quickly summarize Pro"s Round One argument: While every rationale given for invading proved false but one thing is very, very important in assessing the war: good intentions. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and public statements about doing great things is a metric in support. Then the rest includes statements that illustrate that the war has had profound consequences, notably lives. Therefore, the war was a net positive? No. Anyway, already stated, everything else will be argued in Round Three.