Debate Invitation

I've been accused of being so far gone in my hatred of Bush that it isn't worth debating with me, and I think PART of the problem is that there are so very many items with which I have issue right now. I've covered elsewhere that I do not hate Bush, I hate what I perceive he is doing to the country.

So let's try an experiment. I'd like to have a debate on a single topic. I'd like to debate the Iraq war. This is, admittedly, a somewhat broad topic, but it is one which has been around for a while, so we've all had time to develop our opinions and justify our arguments. There are fewer "open questions" that are still developing for us to get trapped by differing assumptions as to what the end result will show.

To that end, I think we should have a structured, step-wise debate. The first step, I think, is to identify the list of objectives (justifications) for the Iraq war. I'll start by listing what I see as the objectives, and whoever steps up to engage in this debate with me can add any they think I've missed.

Once someone takes up the gauntlet and we come to an agreed list of the objectives, we can then debate whether these objectives: 1) Could reasonably have been expected to be met by this war, 2) Whether these objectives HAVE been met by the war (leaving out as best we can arguments over who gets credit/blame), and 3) Whether those which are Yes to 1 and No to 2 can reasonably still be expected to be met through continued operations there.

So, to start out, I believe the objectives for the Iraq war were as follows:

1) To protect America from Iraq's stockpile of WMDs.

2) To make America safer from future terrorist attacks.

3) To promote democracy in the region (believing that this would make for a more stable, safer region).


Now, I'm going to omit several others, unless whoever takes up the gauntlet argues in favor of including them. Among them:

1) To remove Saddam Hussein from power. I believe that as a goal by itself, this would never have been considered justification by the American public to go to war. Removing Saddam Hussein from power had to be a means to an end (removing a threat to the United States, for example). Thus, I do not think it stands as a goal in its own right.

2) Although I believe there were a lot of additional justifications for the war, they are not America's justifications, they are President Bush's, Vice President Cheney's and a number of other high powered people's, all behaving in their own self interest or the interest of their friends, not the American public. While I do believe these objectives were part of the reason we actually went there, the point of this debate is to debate America's objectives.

So, the next step would be for one of the Pro-Bush people who always accuse me of being unwilling to engage in a true debate (while never actually offering one) to step up and say "Yes, let's have this debate". Tell me whether you agree with my list of three objectives, or if not, how you feel the list should read. Once we agree on that, we can start an honest debate on the merits of each, and the merits of the Iraq war in achieving any of them.

Thanks,

Liam.