The war in iraq debate- help me out!

S

SevenRoundMags

New member
This week we are having a debate in my high school politics club about the war in iraq (I know, way to beat a dead horse by now...) and was just wondering what some good points are to support the war. I do not believe in blind patriotism, but I do believe this war has its positives and would like to know what some of them are incase I can't remember. Also what points have you heard from the leftist side and what are some good counters?

Thanks!
 
lol well good points to consider..

you own shares in Haliburton?
you work for Exxon?
you own shares in a defense contractor company?
 
one strong point for the war

Well the goverment did find barrels of chemicals that when mixed together become a nerve gas.so the argument that iraq had wmds holds water.It would only take about ten minutes to mix them up to acheive the nerve gas.
 
144......
if they were in barrels in Iraq how were they a threat to the US? Terrorists going to sneak through customs with 55 gal drums under each arm? The weapons Bush was talking about were stategic not tactical in nature.
 
The fact that there were terrorist training camps (Salman Pak) in Iraq, that Saddam gave quite generous rewards to the families of suicide bombers, and that he fired on American military aircraft on an almost daily basis for ten years are a few.
 
hmmm chemical weapons...


the same could be said for most everybodies houses..

recipe for wmd!

1. 1 part Bleach
2. 1 part Saniflush toilet bowl cleaner..or any strong acid based product will do....

Hmm mix in bucket..you got instant wmd

I would strongly advise you not to attempt this..as even partial chlorine gas can serioulsy burn your lungs and eyes..

but chemical weapons are relative..and not are all that exotic
 
But thats not why we went to war with Iraq.....

Syria has training camps, Iraq donates to terrorists and is actively developing WMDs that will be a threat to the U.S., gives money to terrorists, ect, Why didnt we attack Iran instead of Iraq?

We went to war because Iraq had WMDs that were an immediate threat to the U.S.. These have never been found.
 
SevenRound:

Be aware that nothing you can glean from the internet will have any persuasive value in a debate unless you can link it to a SOURCE that is considered reliable. If you wish to use any point mentioned here, you will need to verify that it is supported by at least one and preferably more than one respected source for such reporting.

Posters who actually wish to help this kid will take this into consideration and offer not only assertions, but links to verifiable published accounts of those assertions.
 
The barrels of chemicals was found stored next to missles. So you take the missles with the chemicals and load them on a tanker and set sail for new york harbor.Can we figure out what happens next? A very happy terrorist has a field day firing them into the air. To check out the story on the chemicals and missles go to Neil boortz web page. boortz.com He also has the link to the original story on there
 
Last edited:
lol Rapier..what your proposing is total paranoia....

One of the biggest drawbacks to chemical weapons is their delivery method..most such as mustard gas, chlorine gas etc..require useage of artillery or aerial bombardment...

Did you really think Sadamn was gonna park a tugboat off NY and shell Manhattan?
 
We have a simple responsibility to leave the place and the people we invaded in no worse condition than when we got there. Anything less is simple aggression.
 
that still does not constitute an immediate threat...nor a big WMD. Depending on the persistence of the nerve agent. Aum Shinriko used sarin gas in the subway and only killed a total of eight people.

Nerve Agent would be more of a area denial weapon than a WMD. Once you leave the area there would be no threat.

Problems with Nerve Gas

1. Must be delivered in sufficient quantity to kill (high concentrations)
2. must be delivered at an optimum temperature, too cold and it will freeze, to hot and it dissapates.
3. wind thins it out
4.being vapors and particles they seek out low lying areas such as ditches and basements.

In other word its going to take a lot of military grade nerve gas to get the concentration high enough to kill a lot of people. not the best choice for a terrorist.

The weapon of choice if I was a terrorist would be dirty bombs......
 
yeah...also the Iraqi military was not a bunch of terrorists but uniformed troops.

I must have missed when they attacked or invaded the US? They posed no immediate threat that justified an invasion.

Unfortunately there has been such a campaign of disinformation perpetuated by the current administration that even after their faked evidence was refuted..people still accept it as fact.
 
459

No not sadamn i said terrorist i don't think he would have had a problem selling or giving it away.as for paranoia a few years back if you suggested a terrorists would hijack 3 jet liners simultaneously and fly them into the pentagon, two world trade centers you would have been called paranoid. Never underestimate the enemy. general custer did that and he had a bad day when that happened
 
so what you are trying to say is that you equate ALQueda with Iraq? With Saddam working hand in hand with Bin Laden as justification for invasion?
 
The purpose of terrorism is to terrify. What do you think would happen in new york city if the missles was fired into the city it wouldn't matter if the gas was full strength or not it would cause a panic like you never saw before. not to mention what it would do to the stock market
 
What I'm saying is the fact that if draw a line in the sand you better be ready to back it up you can't keep backing the line up every time he calls your bluff. The fact that he hated the usa was justification for him to help Bin laden if bin laden came up with a viable plan to hurt the usa. The enemy of my enemy is my friend
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top