Pro War Anti War show

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:48 am

Hi all..

I'm having trouble acquiring a guest to tackle the antiwar.com people about war and the US' current campaign in Iraq. The show will the 29th @ 8PM ET. That's this Friday.

I'm looking for a someone to debate the case for war in Iraq. I'd like Saitou to appear but I believe he questions my ability to moderate fairly.

I hope someone can help out here. The few Republican message boards I have been on have been pretty rude to me and are deleting my posts. Feel free to contact others that you know of that would like to participate in this crossfire style discussion.

The Topic:

The Iraq War: Worth the Cost?

Scott Horton of antiwar.com will be the opponent.

Thanks.

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:10 am

Thanks for thinking of me even if as a last resort but I'm really not interested. I can hardly bring myself to debate the Iraq war issue in text and I'd imagine that a live talk environment would be even worse.

I've read some of Scott's articles after reading your invitation to debate him and he's not the kind of person I'm interesting in getting into this issue with. It looks like he's the type that believes "Bush lied" when most evidence shows differently. He might separate Iraq from being a legitimate part of the war against radical Islam (aka WOT) despite the elements we are fighting in Iraq thinking it is. He suggests Bush and Cheney are "stupid".

His most recent article is titled, "Could Bush Start Another War?". It is debatable that Bush "started" this one. If the Iraq war is a legitimate part of the WOT then 9/11 or prior declarations (and acts) of war against the US from groups like al-qaeda predate our entry into the Iraq war. If we were to agree the Iraq war is not a part of the WOT then there's still the violations made by Saddam of the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf war in the 90s. There's also the fact that Bush is our elected president and congress did authorize him to use force (the modern equivalent of a declaration of war but with a cowardly twist) so he didn't do anything alone.

At any rate, the most anyone is likely to get from me is a text based debate and even then if the other participants get ugly I'm likely to blow my top, say something nasty, and go elsewhere.

It's easy to make a case against an unpopular war and it's much more difficult to make a case if a war is worth it when it's still ongoing and the results are not yet known. Was the revolutionary war worth it? Many people would say yes but not if they were asked less than halfway through it and after the side they support has suffered setbacks. Same thing with WWI or WW2.

Not only would I start with a host hostile to my position but I'd have an opponent armed with popular "talking points" both real and imagined. I'd likely be forced to defend the president and the administration and any decisions they made which in hindsight were less than ideal.

The president and the administration aren't given a fair shake or even taken on rationally--I don't think I'd get any better treatment.

Good luck in finding someone.

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:02 pm

Saitou,
Don't worry, I agree with you, I thought the Scott was a retard, for lack of a better word. I couldn't even finish the show.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore