WALKS V. DRILLER50

...and he goes down hard!

We had quite a treat tonight in Mainstream, as walksthedesert1 took on Driller50 in a 15-round title fight. The topic was: "Why did the US go into Iraq, and was it justified?" It will come as no surprise to our readers that this reporter already agrees with walks, but let's see how the debate shaked out.

Driller50's mic was fritzing, but he trotted out a few of the favorite talking points of the wingnuts. He started out by noting that several prominent Democrats have said negative things about Saddam and Iraq in the past. This is silly for two reasons. One, the situation with Iraq changed over time, so those statements were often made with imperfect knowledge, and were conditional: IF Saddam did such-and-such, THEN we should respond, etc. Second, none of those Dems were advocating full scale invasion and occupation. Hell, Clinton dealt with it by dropping a few million tons of ordnance on Saddam in 1998. The bulk of Driller's arguments were after-the-fact justifications, like gassing the kurds, graft, etc. Driller, you need to focus here: none of those reasons were good enough for a full scale invasion. Not even close.

walks played it much more conservatively, limiting himself to discussion of the prewar claims about WMD. The supposedly imminent threat posed by Saddam has been proven to be exaggerated and based on false claims, and walks established that definitively. All the rest of Driller's arguments needed no rebuttal. walks correctly noted over and over, as if teaching a hyperactive child, that unless there were WMDs, the war could not be justified.

In the end, out of about 80 people, 22 voted walks the winner, 2 abstained, and 56 were masturbating on cam in the gay rooms. So, just like normal, then.

JC