I will agree that the UN needs some work and some changes, but going to war on the POSSIBILITY of a threat should not be allowed. We THINK he had WMD. We THINK he could attack an ally. We didn't KNOW any of this. There's no PROOF. Weapons inspectors were not allowed enough time to inspect before they were called out so that the US could invade.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

Once again, it's the POSSIBILITY of weapons. There still has been no PROOF.

The UNMOVIC report has some interesting points, but it is nothing that I didn't already know. However, even if it is all true; even if Iraq does have WMD; we still need to go back to UNSCR 1441. There is nothing that authorizes military action. The resolution states that the council will remain informed and will issue new resolutions as necessary.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

The UN had already been undermining their own policy for years, read my last post regarding the disarmament policy violations.

What about the Al Samoud 2 missiles which were not all destroyed like had to be done yet constituted as completely violating the regulations reguarding balistic missiles in Resolution 1441?

I think military occupation was authorized through the UN's OWN policy. the failure to upholdtheir own policy forced the US to do so, for now which the UN is screaming "Atrocity!"

And as I said, it should then be brought before the security council and given full consideration, which it was, and it was determined that military action was not the answer.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

Again, I can't think of any way to prove the the war was "legal". I merely feel that these laws which are used against the US are unjust and written by hypocrites who refuse to defend their own laws until it is seen as fit to benefit them and them alone. A theory known as individualism.

I ADMIT IT! SADDAM IS A LYING, DECITFUL, ROTTEN MAN AND HONESTLY, THE WORLD IS PROBABLY BETTER WITH HIM OUT OF POWER. However, the US and UK did not go through the proper channels with this. According to the UN charter, article 41:
Yes, there has been a material breach of the UN resolutions, but nonmilitary means of enforcement have not been exahausted, and no resolution has authorized military force.

If the US is allowed to invade Iraq because of Iraq's violation of UN resolutions, then look at the other wars that could soon take place:
- Russia could claim the right to invade Israel
- France could claim the right to invade Turkey
- Great Britain could claim the right to invade Morocco
This according to Foreign Policy in Focus, click here to read the entire document.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

Though I knew it would continue for awhile, may I request a break? How about same time tomarrow night? I must sleep, must go to school. You're lucky you don't have school.... Grr..


But anyways, I shall be back tomarrow to make an attempt at refuting your points once again. Though the battle looks weary from my point of view and I have fallen behind, I shall return tomarrow.

Thanks for giving me something to think about tomarrow. I bid you a good sleep. Goodnight, for now.

Actually I do have school, and my mom is not happy I stayed up this late. Same time tomorrow night sounds great.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

as a judge, umm...when do we decide when i get to decide? I posted some recommendations in another thread, but you've blown past them already. If you both agree, I can decide now if you want.

__________________
[URL=http://dsadevil.blogspot.com]The Debate Link[/URL]

Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

Respicio Per Virtutus Solus

If it's okay with Divest, I would say let's restart tonight with the 9 post idea that dsa suggested in the 'rules' thread. Then dsa can judge it whenever.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

Well, Divest never came back tonight. If he doesn't come back again tomorrow, then I say we should let dsa judge it and end the debate.

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

Sorry for not coming back last night, problems came up.

Anyways, I think this debate should be judged right now. I think we've more than covered this debate to it's prime.

I would love to start another debate on another topic though. I'll post the topic in the other thread and I'll be accepting the challenge from anyone.

Judging it now is fine with me too then.

Dsa, what's the verdict?

__________________
--Jim

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

This was interesting to judge. I'll address each debater in turn.
Divest:
Wow! Incredible amount of research. You know the topic cold, and provide some compelling argumentation all throughout. Make sure your arguments are topical though (I'll get to that in the RFD)
WJim:
You looked like you were on your heels at times, but good job holding him to the topic. You only won one issue, but it was key.
Reason for Decision:
I vote for WJim. Basically, Divest makes compelling points on why Iraq is bad, why it is dangerous, why it is evil, why international law sucks and even why the war is necessary. Great. That has nothing to do with legality, and Divest doesn't really make any point on what DOES make the war legal, especially with regards to the UN charter obligations. He claims that int'l law doesn't apply, but
1) WJim correctly points out why it does (we don't obey laws simply because we choose to) and
2) Divest doesn't provide any alternative standard for judging the legality of the action, so I have to go with the one presented to me.
The debate comes down to who won what the debate topic told us to debate. Though Divest won a half-dozen periphery issues, WJim is the only one to really address the key issue of legality.

Hope that helps! and next time PLEASE follow the posting guidelines! This alot to read!
-DSAdevil
(insert flourished signature here)

__________________
[URL=http://dsadevil.blogspot.com]The Debate Link[/URL]

Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

Respicio Per Virtutus Solus