The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Sweatingjojo
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points

A history lesson from then for now.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,202 times Debate No: 4574
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (21)
Votes (18)

 

sadolite

Pro

An unpopular opinion these days...

SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II .. MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD, NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2008.
This is an EXCELLENT essay. Well thought out and presented.
Please read it all and think seriously about our future here on earth. It is critical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Historical Significance
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, who had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.
Together, Japan and Germany! had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe.
America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.
The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks, because they didn't have guns, and cars with 'tank' painted on the doors, because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war, when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).
Actually, Belgium surrendered after one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.
Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of! its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany, only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brit's were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . .. 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brit's, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world
The Jihadist, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadist, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.
The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadist. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims, who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there, we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a 'whimper' in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17-year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . a 27-year war.
WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
Sweatingjojo

Con

Although its likely that everyone was effected by the second world war, it obviously was influential on some lives more than others, when asked by a reporter how the war had effected her, a Detroit woman responded "well I had to give up nylons." [damn it to hell I can't find the source.]

But anyway, I'm just gonna ramble along, refuting points here and there in the essay, we'll see if what I say is more sensible than what you've said.

Well first, Congress declared war upon Japan only on December 8th. If you read FDR's "Infamy Speech" he makes no mention of Germany of Italy.
Germany and Italy declared war upon America on the 11th, and Congress reciprocated the declarations.

The person who wrote this essay must have overlooked the fact that the main objective of that Japanese was to sink our 3 carriers stationed there. The problem was, all 3 of those carriers were out for maintenance.

Something that was also forgotten was the fact that the Americans had the greatest production capacity out of any country at the time. The person who MASTERMINDED THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK, Isoruku Yamamoto said "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve."

It wasn't as dicey as the author would like to make us think back then, it was pretty much either attack Japan and Germany, or be owned later on. We picked the first one.

Anyway, on to the good stuff..

First and foremost, I find it rather odd that the author makes no mention at all in the essay of the actual HOT WAR between the Sunni and Shi'ite sects of Islam, a battle that has been going on for about a millenia or so. This is very important to note because it makes the threat of "Islamofascism" less severe, because the two sides are also working against each other, just as it makes the potential for "Reformed" Islam less likely, for the previously stated reason. Think Catholics and Protestants (only times 1000), their battle isn't over yet, just look and Ireland and North Ireland; in recent memory there has been violence between the different Christian groups.

Also, I'd like to contend that the "rational Saudi of today" is probably more entrenched in fundementalist Islam than an "educated" Muslim of any other country. Their Constitution IS the dreadfully feared Sharia law. They don't take a woman's testimony in court, they don't let women drive, they have no sense of due process what so ever, they can arrest you for being a member of a political party, they don't give a Flying F**k about slavery and human trafficking (State Department-Country whose government does not fully comply with the minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to do so), and if you aren't a Sunni Muslim who adheres to Wahabi teachings, you can expect to never be treated fair by the government on any matter.
The Economist Magazine's Democracy Index, which rates nations' on a scale of 1 to 10 on how democratic they are, places Saudi Arabia at 159th, which is 9 places before dead last, North Korea. For comparative purposes, Iran is 139th, Russia is 102nd, Israel is 47th, the UK is 23, the US is 17th, and Sweden is first.
The point of all that I've said is that "Jihad" is already in Saudi Arabia. This all brings me to my biggest point, which is that Iraq is the wrong place for "western society to defend itself."
I'd like to start that Iraq had no connection with Al-queda, and needs to be recognized, as that was used as a selling point to get us into the current conflict. All of the attackers were born in, you guessed it, Saudi Arabia.
Yes, Saddam was a despot, but is that the only justification to take him out?
I hope not, because then we're being terribly unfair to that other 30 or so dictators of various nations, as they're killing off his own citizens just as good, and just can't wait to be owned by the United States.

I take serious issue with bringing up the Iran-Iraq war casualties as a justification to go into Iraq for the United States because WE FUNDED IRAN AND IRAQ AT THE SAME MOTHER F*CKING TIME. We wanted them to kill eachother, so we'd give some intel to the Iraqis, and then some American artillery to the Iranians.

I agree, taking out high level targets is important in destabilizing terrorist movements, however, we have to look at what cost it is.
Over a million Iraqi civilians have died so far since we have gone into that country. I believe that is not only a humanitarian problem, but also a security issue. Every Iraqi father, uncle, mother, brother, aunt, sister, and cousin who dies because of violence will leave someone behind. And when the people who are left behind think of their loved one's death, they'll think of the violence that caused it, and when they think of that, they'll remember what got all of the violence started, the United States invasion.

By going into Iraq, we may have given millions of young boys and even girls reason to dislike the US from the start. Al-Queda recruiters are great at getting people who are disenchanted with the US to join their organization, and so I fear greatly the long term repercussions of such a careless war.

Going on..
The author then immideately compares Iraq war costs to 9/11 costs using fuzzy math. IRAQ AND AL-QUEDA WERE NOT CONNECTED, GIVING THE IRAQ WAR NO JUSTIFICATION.

As I stated before, in 15 to 20 years, Iraq will become hostile to the United States, no matter what, because of what we are doing today.

If by Barbarians, the author means Iranians, the author is making a brave assumption that they are trying to get a nuke, (despite all US intel saying otherwise) and that they'd be dumb enough to use it against Israel, which has Nukes, and a vastly superior armed forces or the United States, which has even more nukes, and an even better force.
If the author is implying that the Iranians will give a nuke to Al-queda, obviously he has forgotten again about the major split between Sunnis and Shi'ite groups, Iran is Shi'ite, Al-queda is Sunni. They don't get along at all, not even for a common cause.

I find it odd that the author implies that Iran is the most oppressed nation on earth, while it certainly is bad, at least women can drive, at least women can testify in court, at least other religions are permitted to exist, at least they allow politics, in fact, they are a theocratic republic, where people are voted for to national assembly, and a president is voted for as well.

On to the finale,
The author acts like Iraq is the only country that had a bad human rights record.
If we're going to invade Iraq because of their domestic actions, then we must invade every country, otherwise we're being hypocrites.

This brings me to my final point, and that is that the Iraq war was fought for oil.
If we wanted Al-queda so bad, we would have doubled up in Afganistan, or attacked Saudi Arabia [Which would never, ever, happen, because they give us so much oil its not even funny.]

Oil, aka. money, makes the world go round, and so oil is why we have gone into Iraq and not Saudi Arabia.

It is detestable to call out some countries for being terrible, when their neighbors are just as terrible, only they provide us with oil.

Although it sure would be a lot less bad if the goverment just said it like it is.
"We need oil, Saudi Arabia gives us lots of oil, Iraq doesn't, let's get 'em."

Thank you sadolite for giving me a chance to express my opinions.
Debate Round No. 1
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
One more thing, the US is 11th in the world for most proven oil reserves, at 21 billion barrels. That is plenty of oil, BUT, at our current production rate, we have 12 years until we run dry.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Well, actually, we DO get tons of oil from Saudi Arabia,
8% of our total is quite a lot of oil, 543,508,000 barrels in 2007 to be precise. But, it needs to be known that Saudi Arabia holds 22% of the worlds proven oil reserves, which is 260 billion barrels left, more than any other country by 90 million barrels.

Thats a hella lot of oil, and it is wise for any country to be friendly with a country that has it.

Iraq also has 115 billion barrels, which is 4th in the world for proven reserves.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
This is complete nonsense. We do NOT get tons of oil from Saudi Arabia. We get more from Canada than from Saudi. The vast vast largest supplier of U.S. oil comes from right here in the USA. And we get as much from Venezuela as we do S.A. Nearly as much from Mexico.

In fact. Let's break it down so the uninformed know where our oil REALLY comes from:

USA: 41%
Canada: 9%
Saudi Arabia: 8%
Venezuela: 8%
Mexico: 7%
Nigeria: 5%
Iraq: 4%
Norway: 1.7%
Angola: 1.7%
Columbia: 1.7%
Kuwait: 1.3%
Other: 11% (this is a consortium of countries none of whom we receive greater than 1.3% of our oil from individually)

let's see...we get as much oil from Venezuela as we do from S.A. Do you see us kissing Chavez's butt? Do you expect we'll be invading Canada any time soon? Being as how more than twice as much of our oil comes from there as from Iraq, I mean. Let's see..we get 4% from Iraq and only 1.3% from Kuwait. Hmmm....didn't we save Kuwait FROM Iraq and basically cripple Iraqs production abilities in the process? Why would we do that if it were all about oil?
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
The reason we point out the faith of people in al-quida is because they are committing their acts because of their professed beliefs.

If Osama Bin-laden was the leader of just a thuggish crime syndicate, that committed acts for monetary gain, his being a Muslim wouldn't matter.

If a devoutly Christian man went to a Mosque and started randomly shooting people, it would be noted that the man was christian. (Although it would never receive as much press as a muslim shooting up a church. but that's another issue.)
Posted by sonofzapp 9 years ago
sonofzapp
sry 4got 2 finish: we dont call him a cristian massmurderer. we just call him a murderer. PERIOD! So how come when we are reffering to muslim killers we must always point out the fact that theyr muslim as if that fact stands out above all the rest?! Im a muslim and, I dont advocate murdering christians, americans, or infidels. Hell, I love most of the christian ppl I meet! [most, but not all] So could we plz stop singling out islam above all else. I mean goodness, ppl are bashing muslims more often then they are satan woshipers!
Posted by sonofzapp 9 years ago
sonofzapp
dude! why the f*ck do they always have to point out the word muslim or islam when refering to alquida, or religious insergents. Though religion is [flasely] the insparation for their war that doesnt give us the right to go around saying "the muslim terrorists are evil" or things of the sort. Though those bastards are evil, people act as if the only clear connection they can make to thosejerks is the fact that their muslim. I mean if a crazy white boy goes shooting us a highschool full of students we dont call him a "christian"
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Also Sadolite, no more 1 round debates please.
Rebuttal is what makes debate actual debate.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
I'm not saying that Sweden is economically perfect, but it is the most democratic country as far as the Economist's rating says. So I guess the people over there enjoy their high taxes and mediocrity, because they are seemingly most empowered to alter it.

And if you agree with it 100% then it would be as if I debated your ideas with mine.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Sweat, I didn't say any of this, it is some one elses words I just agree with them 100%
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Ive been to Sweden, My wife is from Sweden. It's OK if you don't mind high taxes and mediocrity. It is very hard to become rich in that country unless you are born into it.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TomTom 9 years ago
TomTom
sadoliteSweatingjojoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30