Trajan Octavian Titus

Furthermore; according to a CENTCOM report Water Supply in 14 of 27 key cities water supply is already at or above prewar levels.

Quote:

The Iraqi people are stepping up so that our soldiers can step down the Iraqi security and miltary forces are gaining strenth exponentially:

While the Iraqi people are stepping up our troops are stepping down.

U.S. troop levels reached their peak during the January 2005 elections at 165,000, Donald Rumsfeld reports that the troop levels are now down to approximately 132,000, and Fox News reports that Military officials have reported that depending on the ground situation troop levels may reach only 100,000 by the end of this year.

My opponent claims that there is an unprecedented loss of life going on in Iraq both suffered by Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians. To bolster this claim he makes the outlandish assertion that between 80 and 100 casualties are hitting the morgues daily. By his figures that would put the Iraqi casualty rate at between 85,440 and 106,800 again this just doesn't add up even anti-war sites put the casualty rate between a minimum of 34,711 and a maximum of 38,861. While every loss of life is tragic we must, also, take care to put this into perspective for example during World War Two in the battle of Okinawa alone 18,900 American soldiers were killed, as well as, 100,000 dead Japanese.

My opponent, also, makes the claim that the Iraqi government is not in charge of their own oil. Well if that were the case then why is it that the Iraqi oil contracts couldn't be signed until after the elections? While it is true that the Iraqi oil fields were nationalized during the reign of Saddam, we must understand what that actually means. The nationalization of the oil industry simply means that the oil production and distribution was under the control of the state. But what did that state consist of? Answer: one man, Saddam Hussein, he was the state, he not the Iraqi people, recieived the benefits from the Iraqi oil profits this can be seen in the fact that he built lavish palaces while the Iraqi people slowly starved to death. Now with the formation of the Iraqi unity government it will indeed be the elected representatives of the Iraqi people who will decide whether or not to continue the policy of a state controlled economy or if they will open up their economy to foriegn investment and free market reforms for the betterment not only of the Iraqi people but of the entire world. This brings me to my next and final topic.


In April 2006 the Iraqi government made a historical breakthrough when they decided on the make up of their new unity government. In this ground breaking achievment after four months of deadlocke the Iraqi parliament elected several high-ranking officials, including its president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, who in turn named Jawad al Maliki, a Shiite, as President. This is a definite sign of encouragement that the Iraqi people are willing to put aside their sectarian differences in order to ensure a brighter future for Iraq.

The war in Iraq is a war we must win, we can win, and we will win and in the future just as in Japan and Germany 50 years before we will look back through the 20/20 hindsight of history to set eyes on a free, progressive, and successful Iraq to say with certainty that it was indeed the right war, at the right time, and at the right place.

tecoyah

Moderator Question:

What is your perception of the long term goals we should strive for in this conflict, and indeed in the encompassing struggle against terror we have created? Also, At what point in accomplishing these goals, do you feel the end would justify the means?

Trajan Octavian Titus goes first

Trajan Octavian Titus

First of all the ends have already justified the means we have removed a brutal tyrant from power and stopped the genocide of the Iraqi people while fostering a blossoming Democracy in the heart of the Middle East and every family of every soldier who has fallen to bring this about should be proud of the sacrifice their loved ones have made.

The goal right now in Iraq is to insure that our troops have what they need to get the job done but we must also insure that the troops are taken care of when this conflict is over it is not enough that they have what they need to win the war and the peace in Iraq we must, also, insure that our brave young men and women have what they need when they get back home to deal with the physical and psychological scars of war that is why if it were up to me every soldier including reservists returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would be granted full military benefits.

Since the end of major combat operations weeks after the invasion the goals right now in order to win the peace in Iraq must be to repair the Iraqi infrastructure, improve the Iraqi economy to a self sustaining level, and to train Iraqi security and military forces to fill the rolls now assumed by Coalition soldiers.

Furthermore; I resent the assertion that the United States or anyone else has created these terrorists the innocent blood they spill is on no-ones hands but their own. The fact of the matter is that the terrrorists were already there in Iraq long before the Coalition forces set foot on Iraqi soil. This can be seen in the fact that Saddam Hussein was training thousands of radical Islamic terrorists at Salmon Pak.

It is not the war on terror that is creating terrorists but rather it is a hateful ideology which is an abomanable mixture between the teachings of Adolf Hitler and Wahhabism that has created and is continuing to create these terrorists. These people have one goal and one goal only and that is to bring down every secular government in the Middle East and indeed the world and replace them with a theorcratic fascist pan-Islamic empire. Sayyid Qutb one of the founders of the Islamic Brotherhood which is the for runner to all modern terrorist organizations preached a philosophy of jahiliyya in which he claimed that the world was divided into two camps one of the faithful Muslims and the one of those in a state of jahiliyya (ignorance prior to the revelations of Mohammad) he claimed that those in this state of Jahillya specifically the west were seducing the faithful Muslims through the decadence and amenities enjoyed throughout the west, and that the only way to combat this was to destroy every non-theocratic regime the world over.

For too long now we have treated the threat of global terrorism as a police action for to many years have we allowed this malignant cancer on the world to fester, multiply, and gain in strength. For too long have we allowed this enemy to attack us with impunity giving credance to their assertions that the United States was nothing more than a paper tiger.

This war on terror must be won, because unlike conflicts of the past this enemy will follow us home to attack us where we live and the only way to defeat this enemy is to take the fight to them while engaging in a policy of Middle Eastern Democratization, because if history has taught us anything it's that Democracies do not attack one another and that the appeasment of tyrants only promotes more conflict.

Billo_Really

I would like to start by saying, you cannot have a war against an "Ideology!" Terror is a tactic in war, it is not a specific enemy. They didn't call World War II the "War on Blitzkrieg". So this whole war on terror issue is a mis-nomer. Because there is no definitive enemy. Nor is there any definitive ending. I have asked this question to every pro-war supporter and 100% of them couldn't give me an answer. So for the reader, in order to make my point, I will ask it again.What will have to happen for us to have our VE or VJ day? It doesn't take long to realize that we are in a perpetual state of war with no end in sight. And no way to predict an ending. I must also note that the same people that are executing this war on terror are the same idealogs that executed the war on crime and the war on drugs not long ago. And we all know how well they did there.

What we need to do is break this problem down to the causal level. What is driving this hatred that makes people want to fly planes into our buildings? One of these root causes has to do with our foreign policy in the ME. If we stop bombing these countries and meddling in their internal affairs, we would eliminate one of the factors that creates this anger.

My esteemed opponant seems to care more about the effects of the anger, than the cause of that anger. He brought up the issue with the discovered DOCEX documents that indicated a Saddam military officer met with al Qeada. Which the CIA has determined to be a mix up in Iraqi names.

According to the CIA operatives familiar with the case, the al-Qaida associate who met with hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawar al Hazmi in Kula Lampur, Malaysia, was Ahmad Hikmat Shakir al-Azzawi. However, Iraqi military officer mentioned in the documents was Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad. Furthermore, it should be pointed out the the Aministration released these 40 documents without any statement or claims as to their validity or authenticity.

As far as the ends justifying the means, I will let the reader decide. The "means" as defined in this case is:

• Leaving 10,000 un-exploded cluster bombs and bomblets strewn about all over Iraq.
• The use of depleted uranium munitions that, if it was to contaminate the water table, would surely increase the risk of certain cancers.
• The use of White Phosphorus (a napalm-like substance) during battle. Which is a violation of International Law.
• The invasion itself was a violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter which gives only two reasons that justify an armed attack by one nation on another, 1) that nation is attacked militarily with a significant force thereby having the right of self-defense or, 2) it receives UN SC authorization. The US had niether.

If we are to have any concience as a nation, or more simply as responsible adults, then we need to realize that our problems are never 100% all "THEM" and not "US". I have said many times we (the United States) are not completely to blame for terrorism in the world, but we are not completely innocent either. We have to clean our own house before we can start on someone elses. And the sooner we realize this, the sooner we will solve the problem.

As an example, we are required as an occupying force to ensure the safety of the innocent civilians living in or near the areas of conflict. According to Amnesty International, we have failed miserably at this.

My esteemed opponant made mention of the fact that the Iraqi economy was "nationalized" under Hussein, but it was "privatized" under the CPA with their debt being restructured by James A. Baker III. Incidently, it is worth mentioning that Mr. Baker is part of the Houston based law firm Baker-Botts which is presently defending Saudi Arabia AGAINST the families that lost loved ones on 9/11.

I would also like to point out in closing that last month (April) marked an increase in soldier (69) and civilian (1,100) deaths. And for the first time in 5 months, fatalities rose.

So the question is what should our goal be?

For the short term...For the long term...

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

tecoyah

Moderator Question:

Given the current threat status of several other nations, and the ongiong hostilities in Iraq. What do you see as a viable next step for the United States, if we intend to remove the threat of terrorism from the world?

Billo goes first

Billo_Really

We need to stop our own brand of terrorism with these acts of aggression on sovereign nations that have done us no harm. Iraq didn't attack the United States. Yet we conducted a bombing campaign a full nine months before Congress gave authorization to the Executive branch to use military action. Not only was this an act of war, it was an impeachable offense by our President. "Only Congress" can start a war. And whether they like it or not, they [Congress]cannot delegate this responsibility.

After dropping that much ordinance (see link above) under the cover of 'no-fly zone' enforcement, it is not hard to see why many in the world hate America. There is a veil of hypocrisy here that many Americans are refusing to acknowledge. That is why my esteemed opponent can say things are getting better in Iraq while our military is increasing air strikes. If things are so good, why are we still conducting bombing runs? Why can't some Americans see what is so obvious?

But Iraqis can see it. Iraqis in Bagdad see it every day across the Tigris River as we build the largest embassy in the world. At a time when most Iraqis do not have electrical power (despite what my worthy opponent has stated, Iraqis do not have electrical services back to pre-war levels), and they see this embassy as a slap in the face. Especially since it is being built by foreign (Kuwaiti) workers while there is major un-employment in the city.

To answer the question...

The best way to end terrorism against Americans, is to diffuse the hatred of America. The best way to diffuse the hatred of America, is to end the atrocities that are being committed in our name. The best way to end atrocities being committed in our name, is to have a better, more transparent and accountable government. And finally, the only way to have a better government, is to be a better nation. And to bring this all home, to be a better nation, each and every one of us has to be a better person.

Our government is merely a reflection of us. If there is corruption in government, it is because their is corruption in each and every one of us. Instead of being a more conscious American voter, we are marred in these little battles drawing lines in the sand between liberalism and conservatism. There are some issues that are not about sides. Ending terror on innocent people is one of those issues. And, as I stated before, we are not going to solve this until we address the things we have done to exacerbate the problem:

• Military aggression
• Intolerance of other cultures
• Blind allegiance to our leaders
• Hypocrisy in our foreign policy
• Our rate of consumption of the worlds natural resources

All these factors are playing a role in the increase in of hatred and animosity toward the US by many in the third world.

Although we are far from the "Great Satan" as many Muslim's claim, there is room for improvement on our side of the ledger. None of what I stated above should be construed as "appeasing the enemy". That would be doing nothing after we were attacked (much like what we expect of the Iraqi insurgency). The US is more than capable of answering any threat militarily. It is because of this, that I don't consider a country of goat herders a threat. But attacking that country (Iraq), has made us one. And not in a good way.

If we work with the United Nations in dealing with rogue nations (like Iran), then we act in concert with the rest of the world. When we use our military with UN SC authorization, then no one can accuse us of aggression and visions of empire. If we think of ourselves more as members of the human race, instead of this arrogant, narcissistic attitude many Americans harbor, then we can be a better nation and eventually have a better government, which in turn will lead to a more judicious and diplomatic foreign policy that will result in the United States being less of a target.

There will still be dangers we need to look out for and deal with. But at least then, we will know that we did everything we could on our end to help end the problem of terrorism. We cleaned our own house (without sacrificing our national security). And then, at that point, instead of saying we are the best nation on earth, we will be once again, acting like it.

Trajan Octavian Titus

My opponent is the quintesential personfication of the blame the victim mantality that is so prevalent throughout the new left. In my opponents opinion acts of terrorism are not the fault of despotic Middle Eastern governments who foster a climate of intolerance by spreading a hateful ideology through the relentless indoctrination of their youth to hate the west so as to deflect attention from their own corrupt institutions nor is it the fault of the terrorists themselves, rather it's the United States fault for daring to purchase their natural resources, promote open markets, and engage in free trade.

My opponent claims that the Iraqi electrical output does not meet or surpass pre-war levels and to prove this he cites a dubious source from 6 months ago. I on the other hand provided you with USAID reports as well as a quote from the Iraqi minister of electricity himself proving that they are in fact meeting and surpassing pre-war electrical output. So I ask the readers who are you going to believe "truthout," or the Iraqi minister of electricity?

Furthermore; my opponent cites claims that I have never made and then goes on to disprove those imagined claims . . . for instance my opponent said that I made the assertion that a "Saddam military officer met with al Qeada," when in fact what I said was that "Saddam Hussein was training thousands of radical Islamic terrorists at Salmon Pak."

My opponents says that the United States engaged in a bombing campaign against Iraq under the cover of the no fly zone apparently, because he thinks that the U.S. just enjoys killing innocent Iraqi's. Well my friends this too is a blatant false hood, Saddam Hussein continuously violated the No-Fly zone and fired on our aircraft who were there in order to protect the Kurdish population in the North and the Shi'ite population in the South from the wrath of Hussein's vengeance for having dared to rise up against him following the Gulf War.

My opponent claims that we were never granted authorization from the U.N. prior to the Iraq war to disprove this false claim I direct you to United Nations resolution 1441 which states that it is quote "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," and that failure to comply will result in "serious consequences," perhaps my opponent feels that those "serious consequences" would be for the U.N. to give Saddam yet another warning.

My opponent asserts that in order to win the global war on terror that we must: "respect the intrinsict rights of soveriegn nations," well I ask you whose intrinisic rights is he talking about? Is he talking about the rights of Saddam Hussein? Because, he certainly can't be talking about the intrinsic rights of the Iraqi people who Saddam Hussein and his two delinquent sons were murdering in mass on the slightest whim. Let's be honest with eachother for a moment here, soveriegnty is much kinder to tyrants than it is to Democracies, Democracies are bound by the will of the people yet tyrants are bound by nothing and no-one, Saddam Hussein took power by force, he maintained that power through force, so who is my opponent to say that it is not the right of a foriegn power to remove him by force.

My opponent says that we need to respect the will of the U.N. but I ask you is this the same U.N. that was making back alley treaties with Saddam Hussein in the infamous oil for food program? Is this the same U.N. that is so corrupt that it put the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission therby making the Sudan ineligable for investigation by the same body that they are now a part of? Is this the same U.N. that is now dominated by the same corrupt, despotic, and tyrannical institutions whose very existence the U.N. was intended to eliminate? Again let's be honest with eachother for a moment does anyone really believe that the United States should have to ask permission from this corrupt Supra-national system before we can act in our own defense?

My opponents two solutions for combating emerging threats to the United States appear to be following the lead of the corrupt U.N. which is dominated by tyrants and despots and/or retreating from the rest of the world. This is not the way to victory this is the way to defeat, we have two paths before us from which to choose: either we can retreat from the rest of the world and allow despotic regimes to fill the power vacuum until one day their ambition supercedes their intelligence and they once again decide to attack us on our shores, or we can continue to lead the world by promoting open markets, free trade, and Democracy while simultaneously engaging those Governments which seek to do us harm.

tecoyah

Moderator Question:

Taking into account the situation arising in Iran, and the ability of that country to influence the future of Iraq, please give your opinion on the right direction the United States needs to take to avoid a worst case scenario.


ToT goes first

Trajan Octavian Titus

Let me first begin by saying that Iran indeed poses a very real and a very serious threat to the stability of the Middle East. Recently the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making some very troubling threats against Israel; such as, "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," as well as, "Israel must be wiped off the map," now one can easily dismiss these comments as the bolsterings of a politician, however, the lesson of World War 2 and Adolf Hitler is that sometimes politicians mean exactly what they say.

What makes these threats additionally troubling is the fact that the State Department now lists Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism:

The State Department, also, confirms the ongoing attempts of the Iranian Government to develop nuclear weapons:

Taken together these three elements paint a very troubling picture and one which can not be ignored, however, as of today Iran is surrounded on both sides by the full force of the United States military and while we can not leave the option of military intervention off the table I feel that as it stands the best course of action would be to pressure the Iranian government by the use of sanctions while simultaneously supporting pro-Democratic forces within Iran itself. While this is indeed a grave situation we do have one thing going for us and that is that Iran has the youngest population on the planet. Over 75% of all Iranians are under the age of 25, they are well educated in that 79.4% of the population over the age of 15 can read and right, the Iranian youth is pro-Democratic reform, and they are largely opposed to the strict rule of the clerics. If ever there was a country ripe for Democratic revolution it is Iran.

Billo_Really

Before I begin, I would like to respond to comments my astute opponent has made in his rebuttal on the last topic.

The issue of me not finding fault with terrorists for their acts of terrorism, I invite the reader to go back to any of my posts and find where I said they were without blame. People that commit crimes of terrorism must be caught and held responsible for their actions. If this means the authority having jurisdiction decides to remove them from society for the rest of their lives, then I feel they have lost that right and should be locked up until dead. No where have I said (or inferred) they should go unpunished. My point was the old adage, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. We cannot condemn what we do ourselves. For that is hypocrisy on a global scale.

The issue of me citing a claim he did not make. I believe I said “he brought up the issue of the DOCEX documents in which it was stated…” This Iraqi official is one of the main points of contention that is being used to validate these documents as authentic. And my point for bringing it up was to bring light to the fact that the CIA has already debunked this story as false. Once again, it must be noted, that the officials that released these documents made a point to say they were doing so without any claims to their authenticity or accuracy. So I never said, “TOT said…”

The issue of the bombing campaign and my alleged statement that “…the US enjoys the bombing of innocent Iraqis.” And then, in the words of my impassioned adversary, “goes on to refute claims I did not make”. The source I provided is irrefutable evidence that the US was doing one thing, and telling the world we were doing the other. In this case, we deliberately increased the spikes of activity with all the bombing while telling the world we were just conducting ‘no-fly’ zone enforcement. Enforcing a ‘no-fly’ zone, entails interception Iraqi jets that fly into this zone. Then by contacting the offending jet and informing them they must get out of this zone or suffer the consequences. Which in this case, is by being shot down. No where in this scenario allows for over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets. That is definitely not ‘no-fly’ zone enforcement. Furthermore, the particular source for this information is Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley, the commander of the actual air squadron that was conducting the sorties. You can’t get a more credible witness than the very man whose job was to oversee these missions.

The issue of electrical service (or lack thereof) to Iraqi homes and businesses. The source quoted to prove electrical service has increased since the war, was UNSAID. In this UNSAID article, the only thing that was listed as an accomplishment, was the generation of electrical power. And anyone that has studied the theory of electricity knows that you have to have a “closed loop” for current to flow. And without current flowing, there will be no end utilization of that power. In a nutshell, no electricity in the home. Power generation is just one part of the system that brings the electrical service to average Iraqi homes. Once you generate the power, you have to distribute it to the end users. The UNSAID article freely admits to persistent problems with transmission lines being sabotaged and damaged due to the conflict. So my worthy opponent has fallen far short of proving the average Iraqi citizens have seen an increase in electrical services.

The issue of UN SC Resolution 1441 being used as proof of authorization to invade Iraq. When the UN SC decides to authorize member states to use military action (as in Resolution 678), it uses the terms such as “all necessary means” in the specific document. These words are no where to be found in 1441. In fact, when viewing the 1441 link I have provided, I direct the reader to Items #8 through 11 which ask all member states to cooperate with UNMOVIC inspectors and to report to the UN SC of any actions by Iraq that are not in compliant with the Resolution. It also states the “UN remains seized on the matter” which basically means that they still are in control of any decisions that are to be made on this issue. And as we all remember, Bush unilaterally decided for the UN SC and told the inspectors that he “…couldn’t guarantee their safety.” That does sound like cooperation to me as requested in 1441’s Item #8. If that is not enough to convince the reader that the US was not acting in accordance with 1441, I offer the statement by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan saying, “…the invasion was not in concert, nor in the spirit of…” the above-mentioned resolution.

The issue of “…whose sovereign rights…” am I referring too, I will merely refer to the Principles stated in Article 2 of the UN Charter which states, “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." And since our Congress has ratified this document, we are duty bound to honor it. Not make up reasons to compromise it.

The issue of the UN making “back alley deals…” in the Oil For Food Program, which conspicuously failed to mention that the US knew for years where the money was being spent and said nothing about it until it was clear that the UN SC would not give President Bush authorization to attack. I would like to remind anyone that chooses to forget, the United States is a permanent member of the UN SC. And of such, we are privy to all the documents and decisions that are brought to the council’s attention. I would also like to note that 51% of that money went to a Houston based businessman.

The issue of "...another despotic regime attacking us on our shores." I would like to ask the question, “Who was the first?” What despotic regime attacked us before? Japan? They're our ally. Germany? Not on our shore. Not Iraq, nor Afghanistan, attacked us on our shores, according to the the 911 Commission.

In closing, my opponent has made several statements regarding the fact that we should not tolerate tyrannical regimes and infers that we are within our rights to remove them from power. With this in mind, why then did we wait over 20 years to address the Hussein regime? We new back in the early eighties what kind of person Hussein was when we were selling arms to him to fight the Iranians that were gassing his Kurds. Whom he did not treat any better, either. So this whole argument, “he was a bad guy so we had to take him out” doesn’t wash. He was a bad guy many years ago when he was our ally. Not to mention that China has just as brutal a regime that is as oppressive as the Baathists, and yet they enjoy Favored Nation trading status. Now how does one explain the hypocrisy in that?

So I would like to end my brief rebuttal by reminding the reader that my pro-war opponent has not made any attempts to tell us how it will all end. When specifically, do we know this war on terror, is over? I challenge anyone to give us this answer.

<<CONTINUED>>