Optional

Gah. I've started this post and deleted it four times now. There are so very many different things debator10 is wrong about that I dunno if its even possible to straighten him using the limited medium of words on a screen.

Just one thing, I guess, one thing that I can maybe say without having to write a freaking dissertation:

Anything that President Bill Clinton may or may not have done is completely irrelevant when it comes to discussing the actions of President George Bush. The two are simply not connected.

That is all.

-me

debater10

He knew that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors to the necessary degree. Also that Iraq had the necessary materials. There has also been (as was listed at the beginning of this post) evidence of those weapons.
The Salman Park training facility, operated by Saddam's regime, was used to train Al-Qaeda agents.
See above.
No, he got it from Germany. You'll have to forgive him for that error.
There were people in the streets cheering at the entrance at the soldiers. Given that you are NOT an Iraqi, I'm afraid I will just have to take their opinion on the issue over yours.
As I stated earlier, the US is giving the Iraqis power over who get sthe oil contracts. This statement is just a plain lie.

Ion

I focus you again.

Bush is a bigger joke than UN, by lying about:

1) WMDs;

2) September 11 link;

3) al-Qaeda link;

4) Niger link;

5) 'liberating' Iraq.

If a solution doesn't come from UN, US as a signatory of UN that stands for respecting the international community of countries, has to work within UN.

Working outside UN, makes Bush a joke bigger than UN:

Bush wanted to pull a fast one by lying and looting Iraq.

Ion

Long live idiocy from Lynchburg:
So, because Bush knew "...that Iraq was not cooperating with UN...", then Bush doesn't cooperate with UN, and wars outside UN.

Conclusion:

Hussein

and

Bush

didn't cooperate with UN.

I focus on Bush now:

Bush didn't cooperate with UN, kills Iraqis and loots.

Ion

No.

I don't forgive.

C.I.A. told Bush it was wrong.

Bush lied.
Their opinion is small compared to the guerilla war in Iraq.

Go there and fight it.
I state here that you are lying:

Exxon, Bechtel, BP, and Halliburton profit from Iraqi oil, now.

Vorkosigan

Gentlepeople, please stop referring to debater10 as an idiot or his arguments as idiotic. It is quite easy to shred Administration propaganda without using provocative adjectives that may derail the conversation.

Vorkosigan
Moderator

Let us look at some of his claims:

(1)
debater10 wrote:
The Salman Park training facility, operated by Saddam's regime, was used to train Al-Qaeda agents.

The US claimed this: State Department Nfor on Hussein prior to our aggression against Iraq

Those of you who know the right-wing news site NewsMax may have noticed this article there:
CIA says no evidence of Al Qaeda training at Salman Pak

A minor nit, debater10, the word is "Pak" not "Park".

In other words, the Al Qaeda link is maintained by the usual defectors who are coached or paid to say whatever the Administration wants, as we saw with the WMD claims. CIA types whose job it is to analyze this information say it is false.

(2)debater10 wrote:
He knew that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors to the necessary degree. Also that Iraq had the necessary materials. There has also been (as was listed at the beginning of this post) evidence of those weapons.

There are multiple errors here. Iraq had no nuke program. And there was no evidence of any WMDs present in Iraq. This was disinformation from Chalabi and his crowd

There were people in the streets cheering at the entrance at the soldiers. Given that you are NOT an Iraqi, I'm afraid I will just have to take their opinion on the issue over yours.

Alas, as www.thememoryhole.org and other sites have demonstrated, these pictures were fakes. There were no cheering crowds. And since there are about 12-15 attacks a day now on US soldiers, I would agree that the Iraqis have spoken.

Vorkosigan

S2Focus

Two questions for debater10:

1) Over the past few years, tribal warfare in the Congo has resulted in the greatest loss of life since WWII. Do you believe that Bush should continue to allow the Congo predators to continue that slaughter, or do you believe that he has a moral mandate to send troops in to stop it?

2) Can you identify a single pre-war claim made by the Bush administration (regarding Iraq's WMD's or connections to terrorism) to justify the invasion of Iraq that has been substantiated by postwar evidence?

(edited to fix a grammatical boo-boo or two...)

debater10

The Bottom Line

The war was not done for oil. Of the six companies that got the Iraqi oil contracts, only 1 of them was a US company. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Business/story_47793.asp

To say that he lied about the knowledge of WMD's is an exaggeration. Not even the head weapons inspector is willing to say that. Is there suspicion that he may have exaggerated the evidence? Yes. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...220629273.html

The population of Iraq is celbrating their new-found promise of freedom. http://www.lastsuperpower.net/Member...older_contents

That takes care of Ion's strawmen.

Vorkosigan:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...questid=150520

http://www.prairie.ca/~thewatchman/000038.html

More evidence of the 9/11 link above.

I did some research into "The Evidence Hole"... Russ Kick is not the kind of reliable source you should trust. Passing around urban myths as legends... not good for serious political discussion. Refer to the link (it's a bit further up the post) to the photos of the Iraqi people.

And true, Iraq had no nuclear weapon program. The articles listed at the beginning of this thread describe transports that were most likely used for biological and chemical weapons.


Also, it is critical to note that neither of you have denied the existence of rampant human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam's regime. You tell me that the United States should have respoected the decision of the UNSC and not acted, but it was the very members of the UNSC who threatened to veto, thereby allowing countless innocents to die every day just so they could keep their oil contracts. If that is the type of organization that the US should feel embarased about ignoring, then I am sorry. I just do not feel sorry that our action to affirm basic human rights cost the French some money in oil debt.

debater10

Should we have stoppped the genocide of the Jews? Yes. Should we have gone into action to end the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda? Yes. Should we have intervened to put an end to Pol Pot's murderous regime? Yes. Why? Because it is a dictator who places his people at a sub-human level. I am unfamiliar with the conflict in the congo, but there is a noticable difference between stopping human rights abuses and intervening to stop a war.

It was not Bush's comments about WMDs or terrorism that convinced me that we were doing the right thing. it was the fact that countless people were dying every day because of the oppresive and abusive regine. Evidence has been shown for both terrorists and WMD's, as I mentioned in the last post, but that is secondary to my opinion on the issue. It is not a question of morality or money or oil. It is a question of whether or not we are willing to stand up against a violent dictator, or whether we will assume camplacency because there are those with secondary motives who migth oppose us.

Germany was opposed to us invading them to take down Hitler's rule... I'm still glad we did it. Oddly enough, so were the French and the Russians.

Ion

The bottom line debater10:

1.) The San Diego Union Tribune from Saturday June 7, 2003, states:

"The collapse of talks this week between an Exxon Mobil-led consortium and Saudi Arabia over a $45 billion gas project, shifts the spotlight to Iraq as the best for U.S. firms to have a share of the Middle East energy riches, analysts told Reuters."

You got the reason for Bush's U.S. skinning Iraq, right here, in this newspaper quote.

2.) Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, because he claimed he knew them and he knew they were imminent and requiring an emergency war.

So, he lied, because today it turns out he didn't know about WMDs in Iraq.