I Need Help

[steelwheels]

Just keep this in mind when debating the war. 911. Like any wise person protecting his own you play the percentages. One less bad guy in the world means a safer America. Not to mention it gets the other bad guys attentions. W is a wise man.

[goodnesswins]

How many months/years were the inspectors looking for the WMD's???? And, they expect us to go on this little scavenger hunt for WMD's and be done in a couple of months? (That's one thought.) PLUS, the WMD's can be as small as a vial and the country of Iraq is as big as California....

[Pukin Dog]

(Like where are the Weapons of mass destruction, and why are Iraqi people discontent with the US presence)

To be successful at debate when you are short of available facts, one thing you can do is to attack the premise of the questions before you. To the WMD question, your response should be "Lets ask all the people who said they were there PRIOR to George Bush. Let them explain where they are" Remind your audience of Clinton's speech; find it and use quotes. Point out that if Bush is wrong, so was the entire UN, and the previous administration.

On the second question; argue that the polls are completely the reverse of the question; that a large majority of Iraqis want the US there. Find the polls and use them. Then, attack again the question by pointing out that it took McArthur 7 years to rebuild Japan, and that any measure of success at 90 days is a ridiculous exercise. Dont get trapped into accepting that the question before you has merit. Be aggressive in your attacks. Do not back down.

I debated in high school and college. Let me know how it turns out.

[Redcloak]

Finding WMDs is a red herring. They don't need to exist to justify our attack. (Though, as pointed out above, Clinton and the UN said that they existed in the past.) The fact that the Ba'athists had a keen interest in getting these weapons was enough. Those same Ba'athists also had a long history of associating with terrorists.

We are at war with an enemy that will not hesitate to attack civilians. Thus the old rules of war are gone. We must act early; before a threat matures. If we don't, we risk another 9-11. (Or worse, in all likelyhood.) Keeping a potential supplier of WMDs to terrorists from getting those weapons in the first place was a perfectly good reason to go into Iraq.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

2 tons of uranium should be enough for anybody. Today's news should help I think.

[hellinahandcart]

It would be REALLY FUNNY if we found some weapons tomorrow afternoon, wouldn't it?

Your opponents would have to pull an all-nighter.

[hellinahandcart]

Dont get trapped into accepting that the question before you has merit

Excellent advice.

[Libertina]

I would hit hard the years of UN decisions, what they said, and that there was evidence. We finally just took care of business. Also remember that it was Saddams responsibility to DECLARE the wepons, not our responsibility to seach them out. It would probably help to quote those resolutions exactly. The liberals all want us to follow the UN, so they should support the outsome of the resolutions. In addition, we actually had more allies in this military action than in the gulf war. (Be prepared to name them.) The libs like to put these allies down as not the "right" allies. To say that they are not the "important" countries smacks of inequality and "countryism" ... a type of racism against less important countries if you will. That should send the libs for a loop!

[ILBBACH]

Here are some websites to check out. Many of the articles are editorial but they may lead you to other sources.

National Review Online
Weekly Standard
Rush Limbaugh (if you're a member of Rush 24/7, you can access more primary source material).
Wall Street Journal Opinion Page
Townhall.com
Fox News Channel
Department of Defense
UN Resolution 1441

Also be sure to find Bill Clinton's 1998 comments about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. Hope this helps. Good luck!

[ArneFufkin]

Keep an eye on Real Clear Politics for helpful resources.

In particular this item by Byron York is a good refutation of the "missing WMDs" argument, and this piece by Mark Steyn is an honest portrayal of life in Iraq post liberation.

Don't fear liberals, you have the facts and intellectual honesty on your side. Just get your facts and arguments together, and work hard to anticipate their disingenuous rhetorical tricks. Kick their arses, they're all punks who unravel at first challenge!

[patriciaruth]

Click here to see Clinton's own words on WMD

[OREALLY]

It's wonderful to have young people involved in politics and asking questions...God bless them !
It is also very nice how freepers are so willing to help this young man...

[flutters]

Good luck in your debate! You've already figured out their strongest point...so make sure you have 1 or 2 come-back sayings plus an extra 'tid-bit' for each one they throw out. Let us know how you do.

[patriciaruth]

Do to this being a WP article, I have just posted a few excerpts. Don't have time to justify margins.

All Along, Most Iraqi Relics Were 'Safe and Sound'

By William Booth and Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 9, 2003; Page A12

BAGHDAD, June 8 -- The world
was appalled. One archaeologist
described the looting of Iraq's
National Museum of Antiquities as
"a rape of civilization."
The museum was indeed heavily
looted, but its Iraqi directors
confirmed today that the losses at
the institute did not number 170,000 artifacts as originally reported in news
accounts.

Actually, about 33 priceless vases, statues and jewels were missing.

"I said there were 170,000 pieces in the entire museum collection," said
Donny George as he stood with beads of sweat glistening on his forehead in
his barren office at the museum. "Not 170,000 pieces stolen."

[GmbyMan]

You are a very brave young man!

Ok, as to whether this has been a success. Consider this: There is now one less dictator in the world who hates America and whom everyone knew had WMD. After 9/11, it became clear that President Bush had an obligation to pursue threats everywhere he could find them. Along with being possibly able himself to hurt the United States with his WMD's, Saddam Hussein has been one of the greatest supporters of terrorism in the world. Ending his reign in Iraq makes things safer not only in the U.S. but in other law abiding nations in the world. It is also true that we never really ended the first Gulf War. This war was waged in part to finish the job started by President Bush I, Norman Schwarzkopk and Colin Powell. Had Saddam Hussein come clean immedietely after that war, there would have been no need to finish the job. He just needed to do what he was told. Instead, he misbehaved and misbehaved and misbehaved to the point that the United Nations issued some 20+ (?) resolutions against him leading up to resolution 1440 which claimed that he needed to disarm completely, immedietely and OPENLY or else suffer serious consequences.

This resolution was agreed to by all 15 members of the Security Council. Even freaking SYRIA voted in favor of it. What did they thing serious consequeces entailed? A trip out for ice cream? No one denied that serious consequences meant war. There is no evidence that Saddam then disarmed. Might he have? Well, I suppose it's *possible* but it is also irrational. He also gave NO evidence that he had disarmed prior to this date. So the United States had no choice but to act. What was the harm if we were wrong~ which I'm not yet willing to concede~ on the issue of WMD? On the other hand, if we didn't act thinking that maybe he did get rid of the WMD's, what is the harm if we are wrong then?

I mean, in the former situation, at least Saddam is whooped, other dictators are scared and Iraqis are free. In the latter situation, the United States of America is hit by dirty bomb killing a million people! Which one would you bet on? Then, given this practical reality, Bush's chosen general, Tommy Franks, devised a strategy which toppled a country with 15 Million people that had been controlled by the same tyrant for 25 years in less than a month? I don't believe we should go around toppling nations willy nilly but there was a clear and present danger in Iraq. At one time, even France agreed with this. The leftists are just being revisionists now!

Good luck on your trip!

[patriciaruth]

A Japanese Assyrian goes to pre-war Iraq and finds people whispering that they want the Americans to Come, "I was wrong"

[William Tell]

I can imagine reading a statement as part of the initial presentation which would outline the following:

Support for surprise attacks killing thousands of Americans.

Unprovoked military aggression against numerous neighboring nations, resulting in the deaths of many tens of thousands of people.

Hostile occupation of foreign nations requiring massive world response.

Programs to develop chemical weapons and the use of them on civilian populations.

Mass executions of whole populations in an effort to put down popular resistance.

Mistreatment resulting in deaths for thousands of opposition troops.

Directing of national resources to military purposes at the expense of domestic welfare.

Establishment of a military elite whose standing is superior to civilian rule.

Government dominated by a single powerful individual whose authority may not be challenged.

Is this Iraq in 2003? Or are we describing Japan in 1941? Who questions the world's response to Japanese aggression in World War II? And who is so naive as to believe that Saddam was not on this same path?

[ArneFufkin]

Also ...

Study these Bush Speeches and press conferences outlining the case for war: the State of the Union Speech , his March 7 Press Conference , his and the March 19 'It's ON!' speech for the EXACT verbiage the President used when making the case for deposing the Hussein regime and disarming Iraq.

Don't let the lefties establish false premises from which to frame the debate.

Good luck. Drop debate Daisy Cutters on their soft, empty heads. Make the cute young liberal girls cry with your superior intellect and skillsets, then go console them as the tender Alpha-male you are. ;^)

[patriciaruth]

Poll of Iraqis, want U.S. to stay for now

[patriciaruth]

I used this line a few weeks ago, and it seems to be making the rounds, but it is still true in regard to the WMD.

We haven't found Saddam Hussein yet either. Does that mean he doesn't exist?