Tags: print
Oct. 24, 2002
Teachers debate war on Iraq
Computer science teacher Dennis Heidler and US history teacher George Vlasits debated the issue of "war on Iraq" on Wednesday, October 23.
The debate was organized by new Blair club Republicans United, which is sponsored by Heidler, who took a pro-war stance in the debate. Vlasits, sponsor of Students for Global Responsibility, argued against war on Iraq.
The debate began at 3:15 in a packed room 314. The debate used a format that featured seven-minute opening statements from both speakers, three-minute rebuttals and a question-answer period.
Heidler started the debate by telling the audience he wanted to change their perspective on the issue. In his opening remarks he said that he did not encourage war without international support, but that he felt Iraq is a threat that might need to be eliminated. Heidler said that Saddam Hussein is a "scholar of Stalin" and that "Saddam dreams of a world in which the United States does not exist."
Vlasits said the United States should not engage in war with Iraq. He cited a lack of clear evidence connecting Iraq with terrorism, the lack of direct threat Iraq poses to the United States, the violation of the preemptive doctrine an invasion would cause, and the infringement of sovereignty that a regime change would result in as major reasons the United States should not go to war with Iraq.
In his rebuttal, Vlasits stated that a former UN chief weapon inspector for Iraq, Scott Ritter, claimed that weapons of mass destruction from Iraq were not a problem. Vlasits also said that Ritter asserted that Iraq lacked the infrastructure and facilities to develop serious weapons of mass destruction.
Heidler refuted Vlasits’ contention that Iraq is not a threat. Heidler presented arguments that Ritter "is on the payroll of Iraq" and that the only way the United States can be completely knowledgeable of the threat Iraq presents is to be granted completely unrestricted weapons inspections.
The remaining portion of the debate was used to field questions from the audience. There was time for 11 questions, which ranged from queries about what the debaters thought about UN approval to parallels with the Cold War.
Both teachers agreed the debate was successful. Vlasits said that he was glad "most of the issues and ideas got out" and thought "people asked excellent questions."
Heidler also thought the output of ideas added a lot to the debate. "I believe that no matter what your viewpoint was, you got to clearly see the other viewpoint," he said.
Junior Gordon Su, co-founder of Republicans United, also considered the debate to be successful. "There was a huge turnout and I think that people got a rare opportunity to see both sides presented on the war on Iraq."
The debate was organized by new Blair club Republicans United, which is sponsored by Heidler, who took a pro-war stance in the debate. Vlasits, sponsor of Students for Global Responsibility, argued against war on Iraq.
The debate began at 3:15 in a packed room 314. The debate used a format that featured seven-minute opening statements from both speakers, three-minute rebuttals and a question-answer period.
Heidler started the debate by telling the audience he wanted to change their perspective on the issue. In his opening remarks he said that he did not encourage war without international support, but that he felt Iraq is a threat that might need to be eliminated. Heidler said that Saddam Hussein is a "scholar of Stalin" and that "Saddam dreams of a world in which the United States does not exist."
Vlasits said the United States should not engage in war with Iraq. He cited a lack of clear evidence connecting Iraq with terrorism, the lack of direct threat Iraq poses to the United States, the violation of the preemptive doctrine an invasion would cause, and the infringement of sovereignty that a regime change would result in as major reasons the United States should not go to war with Iraq.
In his rebuttal, Vlasits stated that a former UN chief weapon inspector for Iraq, Scott Ritter, claimed that weapons of mass destruction from Iraq were not a problem. Vlasits also said that Ritter asserted that Iraq lacked the infrastructure and facilities to develop serious weapons of mass destruction.
Heidler refuted Vlasits’ contention that Iraq is not a threat. Heidler presented arguments that Ritter "is on the payroll of Iraq" and that the only way the United States can be completely knowledgeable of the threat Iraq presents is to be granted completely unrestricted weapons inspections.
The remaining portion of the debate was used to field questions from the audience. There was time for 11 questions, which ranged from queries about what the debaters thought about UN approval to parallels with the Cold War.
Both teachers agreed the debate was successful. Vlasits said that he was glad "most of the issues and ideas got out" and thought "people asked excellent questions."
Heidler also thought the output of ideas added a lot to the debate. "I believe that no matter what your viewpoint was, you got to clearly see the other viewpoint," he said.
Junior Gordon Su, co-founder of Republicans United, also considered the debate to be successful. "There was a huge turnout and I think that people got a rare opportunity to see both sides presented on the war on Iraq."
Discuss this Article
And for the most part it would be a very one sided war. They will be trying to defend thier lands while the US is slaughtering thier people. sure they may win once or twice with a "terrorist" attack here and there... but who are the REAL terrorists?!?!
So who (of the debaters) had the stronger argument???? Republicans United seems quite uh conservative, but hey... you never know.
There's no economic interest in attacking Iraq. The money is better spent here on technology than there on killing people. There may be a self-defense interest, but I haven't seen strong enough evidence for it. Face it, many countries have nukes, and many are probably capable of a biological attack. If we ever see evidence that this is going to be used against us, we should do something about it. But a pre-emptive strike against a country that is really just trying to make itself equal to others doesn't make much sense.
We should instead use international deterrance and mutually-assured destruction. We get the U.N. to say, "Okay Iraq, you can develop these weapons all you like, but if you use them, if you EVER DARE USE THEM, we are going to pound your country into the ground." And we'd stay true to our word. If Iraq tried anything, I calculate 20 nuclear bombs ought to be enough to basically level that country and kill everyone in it. Is that a deterrance or what?
Face the facts, the US wouldn't give a damn about Iraq otherwise. There are many other countries with dictators and no democracy. Why Iraq? For purely economic reasons.
And if there are more reasons, it'd only be for political reasons. It's cuz Bush wants to promote himself even more. 9/11 did it for him before, why not a war?
Also, L-chan: Of course there are political reasons for going to war. The whole point of war is a difference of political perspectives.
And HJ: I agree with some of what you said, but overall your comment is in the wrong place. Basically everyone on this forum is *against* the war and Bush and American hypocrisy. Sure that's great that you can pout and get angry at us, but your comments are directed at the wrong people.
--->>>DRILL IN ALASKA!!!<<<---
Despite what everyone thinks about the whole "you'll harm the environment" find out what really happens to the land (practically nothing) and how much of it is barren (curiously enough that's where they want to drill {sarcasm} for the oil)
One last thing.
--->>>STOP DISSING BUSH!!!<<<---