Debate Table

[Ender 8]

Chozen, I was joking. Chill the hell out.

[chozen 1]

I am chilled.. 'Cause I always am. I just love making you look bad.

(j/k)

[Ender 8]

Yeah, right... :p

[GI_Admiral 2]

GI that's a flame. Watch it

Haha guys...first of all in Chozens speech he aid for us to say that so it isn't a flame, it's just answering to a request, I was just too lazy to put a at the end.

Just let it be a fair trial so no one can criticize anyone for it, because believe me they will.

Who's gonna be the jury Chozen? Everyone in the world has heard of the war with Iraq by now...there is no way that the jury will be impartial. It won't be a fair trial, it will be a room with people not worrying if he's innocent or guilty...but if they're gonna kill him immedietly or wait until he dies of old age.

That's your opinion but you never read what I said carefully enough.. You just skimmed through it. If you read it properly you would have known that I said/implying: Saddam probably did do it, but it's not anyone but the court's decision to convict and decide.

You can all call him a murderer until your blue in the face but if the court finds him innocent then it matters very little.

Ah, maybe you should read yours more carefully...you told me to. Also like I said, not even OJ SImpsons lawyers could get Saddam off. Any jury will be impartial. Besides...in the RAREST OF RARE chance they do find him innocent. Zip off to another country for war crimes.

An un-biased international court is the only free way to do so.

No such thing...all the countries want saddam out, they just dont agree on how they should have gotten him out.

THere is no unbiased they're all for getting Saddam out.

You need to hear all the sides of the story before you can make a fair 'open minded' decision.

Chozen, have you heard all sides?

[chozen 1]

Who's gonna be the jury Chozen?  Everyone in the world has heard of the war with Iraq by now...there is no way that the jury will be impartial.

Well hopefully the jury will consist of people from all over the world.. Teh majority from Iraq.

Zip off to another country for war crimes.

Like he'd get the chance.. The minute he steps out onto the streets of Iraq. He's dead.

Any jury will be impartial.

Bull.. Have you heard of the trial that happened recently? The holly and Jessica trial? The judge had to constantly tell the jury to be impartial and not read the newspapers for fear that the trial would be corrupt. Thankfully they got him, too late in my opinion.

No such thing...all the countries want saddam out

Sadly that is very true.

Chozen, have you heard all sides?

Of course not. It's not like I can ask him can I? And I don't trust the media at all.

[GI_Admiral 2]

Well hopefully the jury will consist of people from all over the world.. Teh majority from Iraq.

Everyone will want him out...even the Iraqis, you even said the iraqis want him dead.

Like he'd get the chance.. The minute he steps out onto the streets of Iraq. He's dead.

WHen will he get the chance to be on the streets?

Bull.. Have you heard of the trial that happened recently? The holly and Jessica trial? The judge had to constantly tell the jury to be impartial and not read the newspapers for fear that the trial would be corrupt. Thankfully they got him, too late in my opinion.

Thats my bad...i meant partial...

[chozen 1]

Everyone will want him out...even the Iraqis, you even said the iraqis want him dead.

Yes.. that's why you have to get impartial people.. Or at least people least effected by the events. Which will be damn hard to find

WHen will he get the chance to be on the streets?

You know I meant if he gets out.. That's a very unlikely if.

[Ender 8]

All right, I've been listening to this crap everywhere, and now I have something to say. This has to do with what I like to call the Fantasy Versions of the Iraq War.

There are two fantasy versions of the history of the campaign in Iraq.

One fantasy version is: We invaded Iraq because they sponsored Al-Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Center.

Some people are making much of the fact that most of the Americans who believe this absolutely false statement (which was never made by the administration) are vastly overrepresented among people who get most of their news from Fox's cable news channel.

I watched the war mostly on Fox, and no one -- no one -- ever stated, while I was listening, that Iraq was linked to 9/11.

People don't believe this because they watch Fox News; maybe they watch Fox News because they're folks who used to not watch any news at all, but finally have found a news station they can stand to watch.

But the fact remains that neither the Bush administration nor Fox News ever made the claim that Iraq was directly linked to 9/11. They have made the claim -- correctly -- that Saddam's Iraq was a state that openly rewarded suicide bombers in Israel, and secretly sheltered, funded, and supplied international terrorist groups.

So the only people who actually care about the distinction (i.e., Saddam aided terrorists but not that particular group of terrorists) are those who think we are going to war to punish people for 9/11; and those who think that the only legitimate target of our campaign is Al-Qaeda and no other terrorist group.

Personally, I believe that terrorism is a terrible evil -- and always was, even when it was IRA terrorists, funded by Irish-Americans, who were thus complicitous in the murder of Ulster and English civilians.

Today there is an interconnected network of terrorists -- Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and many others -- who are linked by their belief that Islam gives them the right and duty to kill Jews and Americans wherever they find them. All of these terrorist groups have declared war against America, and many of them have killed Americans. The insistence that we either should or can go after only one of these groups is a specious one.

I'm especially amused when presidential candidates claim that President Bush "lost his focus" and should have kept after Al-Qaeda.

Whenever you hear such a claim you are listening to a dolt or a deceiver, because he either should know or does know that there was and is no possibility of dismantling Al-Qaeda without removing the governments that eagerly support terrorists and giving a little spine to the governments that are too frightened not to shelter them.

The second fantasy version is: We invaded Iraq because we were told that they had or were about to have extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction, and now that all turns out to be lies.

First, no one has introduced any evidence of lies. There have been some pieces of seeming evidence that turned out not to be reliable, but the conclusion that Saddam had WMDs was universally held. At no point in the discussion in the U.N. did anyone raise the serious possibility that Saddam did not have at least some of the weapons, and programs to acquire the others. Our failure (so far) to find them surprised everybody.

You do have embarrassed or disgruntled people in the intelligence community claiming now that they tried to tell the government that Saddam might not have had imminently deployable WMDs.

But think about how this works inside the intelligence bureaucracy. Theguys who have long careers in the intel biz are the ones who know how to hedge their bets. They always include paragraphs in their reports that warn of the possibility of a conclusion opposite to the one they're actually propounding.

Then, if their main point turns out to be wrong, they can always point to that "warning" they gave. "We tried to tell them that this stuff was unreliable, but the Bush administration was determined not to listen."

Well, some of them might well have tried to warn about the lack of WMDs -- though what I've read suggests that nobody actually thought we'd find the near-nothing that we've found to date.

But the preponderance of what the Bush administration was hearing -- from American and British sources, and from all the refugees from Iraq who were in a position to know anything -- was that Saddam's illegal programs were going full-bore.

What no one could have known was the degree to which Iraqi scientists, like German scientists under the Nazis half a century before, had deliberately slowed down their work to keep these weapons out of Saddam's hands.

Nor does anyone know what happened to the chemical-weapon stockpiles that we know Saddam had -- since he did order their deployment and authorize their use in combat against us, which means he thought he had them. Even these have not been found, and it strains credulity to think they never existed.

But all of this is Monday-morning quarterbacking. If we suddenly do find a huge cache of these weapons, or learn they were "exported" to Syria shortly before or during the invasion, then we'll find that the same intel officers "always" knew said that they probably had these weapons.

The real reason why that second fantasy is a fantasy is that America's reason for invading Iraq was never just the WMDs, nor even mainly the WMDs.

Remember that in the aftermath of the invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush administration had overwhelming support for an immediate invasion of Iraq. Everyone expected it, and I've heard from sources I trust that in the winter of 2002 our ships were already on their way to Kuwait in preparation for an immediate invasion of Iraq. If the invasion had happened at that moment, here's what the justification would have been:

1. Saddam had never kept a single one of his commitments in the ceasefire agreement, which meant that the 1991 Persian Gulf War was not over.

2. Saddam was waging a genocidal campaign against the Shi'ites in the south -- the so-called "swamp Arabs" -- and was only prevented from slaughtering more Kurds in the north by American planes and Kurdish fighters using American arms. Since the mere threat of genocide was the justification for Clinton's non-U.N.-sanctioned intervention in Kosovo, clearly it would have been justification enough in this case, where the genocide was an ongoing effort.

3. Saddam was firing on American planes several times a week and had been for many years, ample cause and legal justification for invasion at any time.

4. Saddam was a known financer, harborer, trainer, rewarder, and protector of terrorists, including terrorist groups that had declared war against all Americans, as well as terrorist groups that were actively murdering civilians in Israel and Jews in other countries.

In summary, we would be invading Iraq because we were still at war with Iraq and it seemed (to the Bush administration) the most obviously justified campaign in the War on Terrorism after the one in Afghanistan.

Then Ariel Sharon invaded the West Bank, and our essential Arab allies in the Persian Gulf, without whom no invasion of Iraq was possible, insisted that we wait for a while, lest our campaign in Iraq seem linked to the hated Israeli campaign in the West Bank.

We waited.

Then the anti-American propaganda mill in Europe -- i.e., the universities, intellectuals, and Leftist parties -- and, one must add, the same group in America as well -- began to pound out an anti-war message. (Which they don't mean; they were merely against a war in which America defended itself. They had no serious problem with the terror campaign against Israel and still seem to think it's not worth a moment's protest. They don't mind the slaughter of civilians, as long as Jews and Americans do the dying).

By the time we had the go-ahead from our Persian Gulf allies, Tony Blair, our one staunch European ally -- well, England is near Europe, anyway -- needed to show his own people that this was an international effort with U.N. sanction, or that at least we had tried.

It was in the campaign to win over the U.N., and only then, that the WMD situation became the main plank in the pro-war platform, and that was only because this was the only violation of U.N. resolutions that the Security Council veto-holders and the largest NATO powers seemed even remotely interested in considering.

In other words, it was not us, but France, Germany, Russia, and China that decided that the only place worth focusing our efforts was the question of WMDs.

But if you give it even a moment's thought, the behavior of the U.N. is not an argument against the legitimacy of the American war against terrorism, it's an argument against the legitimacy of the United Nations as the arbiter of which wars are permissible.

I can promise you right now that if China ever invades Taiwan, the Security Council, in which China holds a veto, will not sanction American military intervention to save our ally from being swallowed up by imperialist China as ruthlessly as they swallowed Tibet.

Would that make it "wrong" for us to take military action against naked aggression by the Chinese dictatorship against a people who have made it clear they do not wish to be a part of the Chinese Communist empire?

No. This myth that we need U.N. approval or a war is "illegal" is only a temporary club designed to beat the Bush administration with.

It is certainly true that in trying to persuade the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese to vote with us on a resolution supporting military action in Iraq, the Bush administration pulled out all the evidence they could find to support the only argument that seemed to have a hope of working with that hostile, anti-American audience: WMDs.

But it did not work with them, and EVERYONE in the world, U.S., Canada, Britain, whoever, even those who hate Bush worse than the devil, should have the honesty to remember that WMDs were never the only or even the most important reason for the U.S. to topple Saddam's government.

And when we listen to American presidential candidates, the clearest test of either their judgment or their honesty is what they say now about the need and justification for the war in Iraq. We already had one Democratic President who spent two terms downgrading and misusing the American military while the war that the terrorists declared on us was effectively ignored.

End lecture. *Sits back and waits for torrents of argument*

[Pandora 77]

I already told you why I don't think you'll get much argument, lol.

Here's what really disturbs me, with the WMDs.

YES, we thought/think they're there. The UN believed/believes they're there, even France, Germany, and Russia (even though neither of them would have admitted to supplying the regime with anything....). So if the WHOLE WORLD believed there are/were WMDs in Iraq--and you believe in majority's rule and right-- then where the hell did the WMDs GO?!?

What ticks me off the MOST is this:

"WE should have tried more diplomacy, Bush is an impulsive cowboy that doesn't care about innocent lives."etc etc etc. I believe it was Lybia (correct me if I'm wrong, Janson, i know you know this) voluntarily declared their weapons. Negotians with them lasted nine months. NINE MONTHS. Peace talks with Iraq lasted twelve years. TWELVE YEARS. I think we waited long enough.

"Oh, but Saddam never attacked us, so why should we attack him? I thought America never shot first!" etc. On the BATTLEFIELD we don't shoot first, especially in unconventional warfare like this where anyone could be an enemy. But I'd much rather defeat a country on their OWN turf than mine. War isn't like football. In football, you have the advantage playing on your home field, because you're more comfortable there. In war, playing on your own field means more of your own are getting killed. MOre is getting destroyed. In Baghdad, we fought in the city. Would you like a bloodbath to break out in the middle of one of OUR cities? I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't want to be at the mall one day and have some extremist jump out from behind the water fountain and fill me up with bullets. War is all about getting them before they get you. Waiting for an attack is STUPID.

Now I gotta talk about Mr. Kerry. His claims of Bush being a "deserter...." Bush was given an honorary discharge, and released the records to prove it. Kerry has yet to do such thing, as far as I know.

Oh, btw, Kerry is also the man who said he KNEW Bush at Yale. Kerry was two years behind Bush. When asked to verify this, Bush's answer was, "*chuckle* nope."

[Princess 35]

So gaps in Bush's service record mean nothing then?

[Pandora 77]

Find the record, show me the gaps.

[Alexander 0]

How can evidence be presented? It's still under investigation.

[GI_Admiral 2]

Haha Lybia in 9 months!! That is a lie...the US and the world had sanctions against Libya for around 20 years! After they saw US doing pre-emptive strikes did the libyan leader step down and exile himself.

Pod- Their thought was right. America used to NEVER shoot first. I dunno if you've heard of the term neutrality, but that's what America has been TRYING to do. As in, don't abuse the power, wait until you're asked or you're forced to. Sure we never kept perfect neutrality, In the WW we were shipping to the UK and allies, but we never fired a shot until we had to. Your reasoning the "Lets get them before our own towns are attacked "can be abused so easily.. if you watched Bush on Meet the press you would see that he's starting to use it a bit to freely.

"Iraq had the CAPABILITIES to make WMDs"

Well yeah...them and most other countries...does that give you a right to attack them just cause they can make WMDs? Lets start with Spain and work our way up...no wait...Britain, their our biggest ally...if we attack them, they wouldnt suspect a thing!! Just cause they can produce WMDs

"I thought he would have them"

Wow...that's good to know...that doesn't prove that you had a justified reason to attack on that basis.

Janson- I know the war was not only based on WMDs, but bushs administration basically moved that to the front and so what they told the public was mostly about the WMDs and supporting terrorists. Well obviously there wasn't any WMDs so far...and their excuses for that are pretty weak. And every country holds terrorists...which brings us back to lets attack the world. Basically he decieved the public...he told them 2 things...both had a spin on them, and one turned out completely wrong.

Pod - It was admitted that Bush had strings pulled to get him in the guard...he could pull strings to get discharged without showing up for duty.

Janson - you call China Imperialists....US is basically doing the same thing, we invaded Iraq...and we're "letting" them build their own government. Behind the scenes we're basically telling them to make a democratic government...when Iraq has a democratic gov't, well they'll support the US a lot more than they would if they were...communist or a monarchy or something else.

[Tsl 7]

Omg....I agree with GI... I feel so.....dirty :p ;)

[GI_Admiral 2]

lol...Oh god! TSL Agreed with me...my world...its...collapsing!!!!!! :p

[Pandora 77]

Pod - It was admitted that Bush had strings pulled to get him in the guard...he could pull strings to get discharged without showing up for duty.

Oh, did you hear? They found the records covering the time Kerry says Bush was AWOL. No such luck, I'm afraid, Bush is clean. Now where are KERRY'S records, if they're supposed to be so fabulous?

[Ender 8]

Janson - you call China Imperialists....US is basically doing the same thing

That's bullsith and you know it. We went into Iraq to remove a ruthless dictator who was murdering his own people. He was a threat. We removed it. That's how the United States does things. You dont like it, tough sith.

And btw, the Chinese ARE Imperialists. I like to compare them with the Japanese during WWII. They invade and conquer, commit atrocities (*cough TIBET *cough, cough*) and basically have a thirst for domination. They're Communists. No different from the USSR or the Japanese or Germans. They may look friendly, but that's what we thought about Germany under Hitler in the 30's. Looks can be deceiving.

[Tsl 7]

Ohh...verbal violence... *slinks out of thread backwards, trips over the doorway and falls out*

[Bad furday 57]

*drags Tsl away, down the hallway to the Blue Oasis*

[GI_Admiral 2]

Pod - Go ahead Im sure Kerry's record is on public records. You dont ehar about it because it's clean.

Janson- Sure Saddam was a ruthless dictator, im not arguing that, im just saying...why waste 500 of your fellow soldiers in a fight that we shouldnt even have gone too.

Also, Just cause Saddam is down doesnt mean the threats over...you might take off the head but theres still the body that will start thrashing...hence the almost 1 death a day thing.

Haha USA is being rpetty imperialistic...you know just asserting their power over a country maing them change to a democracy....I like to compare them with the British a long time ago when they started their empire. They invade and conquer, force a change of government (*cough *THE WORLD ((For britian)) *cough cough*) and basically feel that if it's not their way then "tough sith" send the troops boys!!. I guess we could kind of say US is a late bloomer....UK and Europe did all their colony expansions and imperialistic moves waaay earlier than the US...and now the US wants to follow suit to the parent continents/country...what does that remind you of? Bush Sr....Bush Jr......hmmmm....

[Drake 53]

I didn't really want to join in on this argument since it's been beaten to death already...but I have to agree with GI about the Imperialism business. America claims to be anti-Imperialistic...ever since the Revolution...but, like every other Imperialist power that was, is and will be, they desire power. That means they'll attack and "occupy" another country and will justify it to the world by making nice little excuses, some of which may be true (ie. getting rid of Saddam) and some of them may be bullsith (ie. the WMD business).

Now maybe we're wrong and America is just trying to be nice for once by helping the people of Iraq. But it seems to me that they doing it to gain a nice foothold into the Middle East which, ever since the days of the British Empire, has proved impossible to reform and become democratic (save for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).

[GI_Admiral 2]

Haha I have the support of the Sith!! w00t!!1!!11!!!!! :p

[Drake 53]

What a suprise, eh? Hehe. :p

[chozen 1]

The reaction? Or the patheticness?

[Bad furday 57]

This is totally off topic (surprise surprise!), but I'd like to show this mediocre quality toilet paper with Bush's visage emblazoned on it that you can buy in China. I'm going to assume it's one ply...