Iraq - Part 2

Here are the latest posts in my debate about Iraq. I'd love your opinions/feedback! Be sure to read my previous post (Iraq - Part 1) or this won't make any sense:

Scott Hounsell:
1.I didn’t say the public can’t be adequately informed by “the media”.

"Regarding the press, I don’t pretend to believe the press does a good job of informing everyone of everything nor did I even mention our press being reliable."

2. I addressed all of the sources you posted and they did not show that we were not lied to. The weapons that were found were not a direct threat to the US.... See More

When did I say that the WMDs were only a threat to the US? When did the US say that the WMDs were only a threat to the US? Again...nice attempt to shift...but Bush and the rest of them said over and over again that Saddam and his weapons were a threat to the region. Thus, weapons of mass destruction were found, and the media did withhold information from us. Non-disclosure of a material fact is a form a misrepresentation aka LYING...

3. I said that EVEYONE should be outraged (conservatives included)

"Aside from defending the previous administration I don’t see any reason why conservatives should not be outraged that we were lied to" No everyone in that sentence...

4. I don’t have a subscription to cable and have never watched any of the people you mentioned. I listen to various sources of news, but primarily NPR news which does not have opinion based shows like either Fox, CNBC or any of the other ridiculously biased cable and television channels. I’m not saying NPR is completely free of bias, because nothing is, but at least they don’t have opinion based programs with the likes of Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, or Couric.

Point conceeded...The fact that you would say that you never watched any of the people I mentioned...i find that slightly hard to believe...but okay...so you get your news from NPR....perhaps you should diverisify....

5.I will continue to support what I said, which is that the weapons that were found were not the kinds of WMDs that were a serious threat to the US. “Mass destruction” is a relative term. Explosives made with household products can destroy a building. Is that “mass destruction”? Maybe, but every country with materials available to make explosives is an immediate threat to the US. Particularly when that country is on the other side of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

Since "chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear" fall under the definition, and Iraq did indeed possess those weapons....ergo....Iraw had WMDs....

6.I confess that I haven’t studied debate and am not familiar with terms like “case shift” but I also know that isn’t what I did. You haven’t disproved a single one of my arguments and I haven’t changed my position. You did successfully accuse me of things that have no basis like being liberal and watching cable television. I’m doing my best not to make any assumptions about who you are and simply state my opinion on the topics at hand which I’m pretty sure is the idea of debate. In a juried debate I don’t think one gets very far making personal accusations and not addressing the questions that have been asked.

I believe that I have argued all your points directly. Matthew Beimford? What say ye? Do you believe I have adequately responded to all points he has thrown at me?

Matt Beimford:
I'm going to have to agree with Scott. he did hit all of your points. And nothing against you Adrian, but he did however provide lots of evidence to back his claims. But I know that no matter how much evidence is given, your opinion won't be changed.

Adrian Haurat:
1. “The press” or “the media” does not inform all people of all things. That doesn’t mean we can’t be ADEQUATELY informed. That’s my whole point. The press isn’t perfect, but an intelligent person can still be informed if they are willing to hear what both sides have to say and use judgment in choosing sources.

2. True, you didn’t say that WMDs were only a threat to the US. However, when we invaded Iraq, that was the claim coming from the administration (or at least the implication). We were lead to believe Iraq was a threat to America, not just the region. If the American people did not feel Iraq was a threat to our security, things would have been different.

Also, regarding your statement: “the media did withhold information from us”.

You keep referring to the media and the press as a whole. It is not a whole. It is a network of individuals and agencies. Assuming Fox news, CNN, and websites like military.com are part of the media, by citing them to support your WMD argument you showed that some people in the media did disclose the facts. I only say “some people” because it doesn’t make sense to say what “the media” as a whole did or didn’t report because some obviously reported while others did not.

3. No, the word “everyone” is not in that sentence, but you didn’t quote my whole sentence:

“Aside from defending the previous administration I don’t see any reason why conservatives should not be outraged that we were lied to (or at the very least that our leaders were incompetent and we went into horrific debt to fight a needless battle).”

Firstly, this sentence was part of a paragraph in which my whole point was to say that conservatives and liberals alike should be able to agree on this matter. Secondly, mistrust of the government and frowning upon unnecessary debt are conservative principles which is why I included the word “conservative” and not “everyone” in the sentence.

4. “I listen to VARIOUS sources of news, but primarily NPR news”. I actually like the Washington Post as well, so apparently we have that in common. Matt can attest to the fact that I don’t have cable. In fact, the only thing I watch on tv is Lost. But I’d like to think my sources are diverse enough…

5. Point conceded that by Wikipedia’s definition Iraq had WMDs. Of course, ingredients for WMDs by that definition would include things like gasoline, Styrofoam, soap, etc. since they can be used to make napalm. But my point from before is unchanged:

“Here’s what it really comes down to: What is a good reason to invade a country? Unless you believe it's a good idea to invade every country that has any materials which could be used for any kind of bomb or chemical weapon your argument just doesn't hold water.”

Also:

“Mass destruction” is a relative term. Explosives made with household products can destroy a building. Is that “mass destruction”? Maybe, but every country with materials available to make explosives is [not] an immediate threat to the US. Particularly when that country is on the other side of the world.”

*I inserted the word “not” because I missed that word in my original post. Sorry for the typo, but I think it’s clear what I meant to say.

6. You say that you’ve argued my points directly, but you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked you. They were noted with “?” Here are a few of them:

“Are you saying that we shouldn’t be informed? Or that we can’t be informed for some reason?” “Do you agree that an informed public is central to any kind of democracy or do we have different definitions of democracy?”
“Or is it that you simply don’t think democracy is the best system?”
“Why is it a partisan issue?” (referring to whether or not going into Iraq was justified).

Our whole conversation began with you stating “This crap about being an "informed" people is just ridiculous.” Are you are saying that you’re okay with us not being informed by our government and the press (ie you trust our leaders to make the right decisions)? Or are you trying to say that (the American) people are not informed and so they should not be trusted to make decisions. The reason I keep asking is to see if we have a fundamental difference on the idea of democracy. I absolutely feel the American people can and should be the decision makers, even if we don’t vote on everything (pure democracy). As a Republic, at the very least we should hold our elected representatives accountable and we should try to influence their decisions. Considering your accusations of me just being liberal I feel like that’s a pretty conservative position. I don’t want there to be a few powerful people who get to make all of the decisions!

As for Matt, I love him but he wouldn’t be my choice for the jury of this debate (for obvious reasons). After all, I replied to his initial post because we disagree on this issue. I won’t list all of the questions and issues I brought up that he didn’t address.

It’s true you provided evidence to support your claim (the links you posted) and I addressed that evidence. I don’t feel like I need to cite evidence to the contrary because you already conceded that the majority (or much) of the media/press does not feel that we found WMDs which warranted invasion (though I will note the fact that you attribute that to liberal media bias). Unfortunately, just because you can find a source that agrees with you doesn’t make you right. Same goes for me so I won’t waste my time getting into a sources battle.

Lastly, I decided to put our whole discussion on my blog so that hopefully we can get some outside opinions. Scott, if you want to do the same then maybe we can get opinions other than Matt’s. I also want to say that I appreciate the civility in your last post (I’ll overlook the comment about diversifying my sources).