The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points

American Involvment in Middle East Peace

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 6/16/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,681 times Debate No: 8668
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




I believe that American involvement in any Middle East Peace deal is more harmful than helpful. As we all know the majority of Arabic leaders in the Middle East want nothing to do with America. Most Arab leaders already have feelings against Israel and adding America to the mix only makes things worse. It seems to me that Israeli's need no assistance in taking care of the situation themselves. The financing and brains for the response comes from their own people. Americans have no experience in dealing with the kind of situation Israel has been in for the last 60 years of its existance. We are not under constant stress of suicide bombings and other miscellaneous acts of terror at regular intervals. We live in relative calm over here in the United States so how can we explain to Israel how to coordinate a peace effort. They are doing the only thing they can do - defending themselves. Look at our mess in Iraq. What peace did we create? We have caused more problems then anything there. Destroyed their military - sent all military home (talk about job loss - what do you think that did for their economy/ job rate), dismantled their sanitary systems... the place is in chaos. Then we want to go to Israel and tell them how to have peace. What a joke.
Then you have US media trying to have a pity party for the Arabs whenever Israel does respond to a current attack! Oh, those poor woman and children who were in the area when Israel attacked. Look at all the killing of innocent civilians Israel does - Stop them! Why don't we ever hear about the thousands of men, woman and children that have died in Israel at the hands of terrorists. The monthly, weekly, and sometimes daily attacks that they have to live through. And that is the key, you have to 'live' through it. We don't step out our door everyday and wonder if it is going to be our last. How could I presume to tell anyone in Israel how to handle a situation like that?


I feel honored to be your first opponent.

I will first start by attacking my opponent's claims:

My Opponent: "As we all know the majority of Arabic leaders in the Middle East want nothing to do with America. Most Arab leaders already have feelings against Israel and adding America to the mix only makes things worse."

Okay, I do agree with you that most Arabic leaders do not want an American presence in the Middle East. However, think about this: Did Hitler want an American presence in Europe during WWII? I think that we can agree that the answer would be no, he did not. So why did we intervene? The U.S. intervened in WWII because Hitler was an evil man who was killing millions of his on people. This is eerily similar to the acts of Saddam Hussein. Does the word "Kurds" ring a bell? Kurds are an ethnic minority that live in the northern part of Iraq. Throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and up into the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the government of Iraq was supporting efforts to genocide these people. This is why we had to intervene. You see, America has a place in this world as the only superpower to ensure that people throughout the world are treated with dignity.

My Opponent: "It seems to me that Israeli's need no assistance in taking care of the situation themselves."

However, should they have to take care of the situation? The answer is no, no government/country/person should ever have to witness terrorism in their front yard. That is why we are there ridding the region of terrorists.

My Opponent: "Americans have no experience in dealing with the kind of situation Israel has been in for the last 60 years of its existence."

America has and will always take the brunt of any political thug. Look at the type of speech overflowing from the mouths of the leaders of North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. They are clearly anti-American. The only reason more Americans don't die at the hands of these thugs is because we have a strong military and strong leaders. So, if America hasn't be through the same situation as Israel due to there high levels of military strength, then it is our moral right to expand our military all around the globe to try to share this security. Since you voted for Obama you must like the "Spread the wealth around" principle, what's wrong with a "Spread the security around" principle?

My Opponent: Look at our mess in Iraq. What peace did we create? We have caused more problems then anything there. Destroyed their military, dismantled their sanitary systems...the place is in chaos.

My opponent has just provided the excellent reason to stay in Iraq. We came into Iraq in 2003 with the goal of dismantling Saddam Husein's evil regime. The government of Iraq feel in early 2004. We accomplished our main goal. However, in the process of completing that goal we severely damaged Iraqi infrastructure (utilities, schools, hospitals, roads, etc). Even worse, Iraq did not have a government to oversee a repair of the infrastructure. So, in 2005 we implemented operation Iraqi Freedom. The three main goals of Iraqi Freedom were to set up a democratic government in Iraq, protect that government from terrorist insurgents, and to assist that government in rebuilding critical infrastructure. You see, after Operation Iraqi Freedom our soldiers were no longer soldiers, they were police and engineers. Their two main jobs were to enforce the laws and build schools, hospitals, roads, and provide utilities. So, the Iraq War is over it lasted from '03 to '04. Now, Iraq is just a law enforcement issue. Now to the reason to stay. Like you said, we messed up Iraq, there's no avoiding that. So, to leave now would be responsible. Why, we would only be putting the burden of rebuilding a nation on the new and fragile government of Iraq who is having to fight off those who wish to overthrow it. Like I said, spread the security around.

I look forward to your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your response – I will now reply to your claims.

You have stated that America has a place in the world to ensure that people throughout the world are treated with dignity. We fought Hitler for this reason. We ‘saved' the Kurds.

America has, from 1492 until this present day, planned genocide for the Native American peoples on our own land. To get their land, oil, gold, forests, and whatever else our government coveted from these mistreated citizens. It is a known fact that our government purposely donated blankets and clothing infested with small pox to kill off Natives in many areas. An early case of biological genocide. America has from the arrival of the first boatload of African (American) slaves never learned how to treat our black brothers equally and with dignity. I am with Teddy Rollek, long time mayor of Jerusalem, who said – "When you learn how to get along side by side with your black citizens, then come and teach us how to get along side by side with Palestinians." (Not an exact quote.)

You have stated that no group or person needs to be subjected to terrorism. We are there to help.

The problem with American policies in the Middle East is that they follow a course of ‘selective' rescue. (As did the policies of the French and British before them.) If America was truly a defender of innocent people from terrorism, where were they when Israeli villages were being totally wiped out by Arabs from their very inception until now? This is not a recent problem. The U.S. is not an altruistic defender; it is a ‘selective' defender. That helps only when they gain. America set up Saddam in Iraq. He didn't follow their program. Now he's a terrorist. Same thing in Vietnam, same thing in Korea, same thing in Cuba, same thing in India and the same thing in several small countries of Africa. The whole world sees it. The Middle East doesn't need us. It resents our intrusion. We don't know who to treat our own citizens, let alone theirs. There will be less bloodshed if America stays out.

You have stated that America needs to ‘spread the security around' – expand our military around the globe for security of all.

If indeed the American government did protect others out of high moral standards – the whole world would cheer. This is not, in fact, what is happening. The whole world hates and criticizes Americans. Since Bush's two terms, it is not safe for Americans to travel abroad in many areas of the world. This is because the world sees we are in other countries for our own gain. To rip off oil or other benefits – not to help defenseless citizens. Our real motives are being exposed everyday. We don't belong in the Middle East. Many anti-American statements (unfortunately) have a legitimate basis. Due to our government policies – many, many times our troops have been angels of destruction, not angels of redemption.

You have stated that the present chaos in Iraq is why we cannot leave now.

Americans are raised with very ethnocentric ideals. That is – we think our way is best and best for everyone. It is not. The first main goal of Iraqi Freedom is flawed. Democracy, as we know it, is not the most workable, best-case scenario in all parts of the world. Americans need to live with the fact that other forms of government may work better in certain situations. I'm not condoning malicious despotism, but you can't suddenly change a whole culture, government and mind-set of a nation just because you think they need your form of government. You can adjust, alter, and advise for improvement. This is centuries old practice being tossed out as no-good. They may not want something new. They may not need it. We tell Middle Eastern countries they need women's rights. There is hardly a country there that has not had at least one-woman head of state. American has never had it. What about that? Are they behind, or are we?

As for protecting the new government from insurgents – this would not be necessary if Americans were not trying to foist their own system onto an unwilling recipient. The so-called insurgents are ordinary people like Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, and Benjamin Franklin who don't like a colonialist, imperialistic, big bully nation telling them what to do, and they will fight at whatever cost to free themselves from it.

We totally destroyed Iraq while playing with and experimenting with new weapons. Iraq was a test-field for our new military inventions. On that you are correct. We need to rebuild the whole country for free – no strings attached. Then leave.

Awaiting your response.


Thank you for responding...this is perhaps one of my best debates so far...

My opponent believes that since the history of this country was filled with hate towards Native Americans and African Americans, America has no place in the world to protect other individual's civil rights.

Umm, that was how many years ago? No one born in America since 1865 has ever been subjected slavery. No Native Americans alive today are subject to having their lands deprived of them (in fact due to the large Casino industry they are doing quite well). See, America, ultimately, got it right. We granted AA's rights in the 1860s and 1960s. We gave Indians the right to live anywhere they wanted to in the early 20th century (I think). Why must you live in the past? When I look towards the future, I see one filled with respect and justice for every citizen on the planet. I see America as having a big part in that equality amongst citizens. I mean we are only the world's only superpower. Doesn't that give us the responsibility to ensure that nobody on Earth is treated as less of a human than somebody else? As for claims that African Americans and Native Americans are treated any less well in America today, that is simply nonsense, the U.S. government doesn't endorse discrimination among either party.

You also stated that America is somewhat of a 'selective defender' in the Middle East.

You cite our lack of involvement in Israel as proof of such. Actually, the American government pays millions if not billions of American taxpayer dollars to the Israeli military. This contradicts your claim that America is simply "leaving Israel out to dry". Just because we do not use our military to intervene doesn't mean we aren't intervening. And I thought you were against American involvement in the region? This selective defensiveness you have stated is bad. So your solution to the problem is to leave? Replace selective defensiveness with no defense at all? If anything this an argument for an escalation of American involvement in the Middle East. And one of the reasons America did not widen our presence in the Middle East under the previous administration is because public opinion was widely against it. Unfortunately, American politics is run more like a poll that what is right and wrong.

My opponent believes American military involvement is only for our own gain.

So the fall of the evil government of Iraq had no good effects? The collapse of a terrorist government in Afghanistan was for our own good? I beg to disagree. America has certainly helped the world more than hurt it. Unfortunately, you fall in the very small percentage of people who believe the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq is nothing more than an oil grab. Do you remember? Do you remember September 11, 2001? Where 2,998 of our own people died because they were Americans? You see these terrorist do not matter if were rich or poor, white or black, a high school drop out or a Rhodes Scholar they will kill you simply because you are an American. If that can't unify us, than nothing will. America had no other choice, we couldn't let our own people become widows and orphans. Intervention was almost mandatory. By doing this, and eliminating as much terrorists as possible, we make the world a safer place. I am willing to stay in Iraq until 2050 if it means in the long run my children and grandchildren will have a safer world to call home.

You have stated the insurgents in Iraq are actually the "Paul Reveres" of the region.

Actually they are the children of Osama Bin Laden (hypothetically speaking). These are not freedom fighters they are hate mongers. They are terrorists. They want us to leave so they can get a hold in Iraq and turn it into a terrorist heaven. In this terrorist haven children would be handed guns instead of textbooks. They would not be given clean food and water, instead they will be forced to strap bombs onto themselves and walk into the very bazaar where that food would come from. They would be preached hate instead of equality and respect. Is that what we came to do? To leave now would to put all of the soldiers who died in Iraq would die in vain. They would die for no cause. Iraq would only become a center of terrorism. Is that what you want? That question isn't hypothetical, answer it.

I look froward to your rebuttals. God Bless America.
Debate Round No. 2


leah886 forfeited this round.


All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you again for your response. I also am enjoying the debate…

You have stated that since 1865 no one has been subjected to slavery and that Native Americans today are not subject to losing their lands.

The Civil War ended the legal use of slavery. One law, one piece of paper signed by a president, could not change the mind set and behavior of an entire nation, or section of a nation, instantaneously. The Reconstruction years after The Civil War and all the way up to the present (cases such as Rodney King) are filled with instances of not only discrimination, but hangings and other severe abuse. If this were not the case, there would have been no need, in the 60's, for a March to Washington or for leaders such as King, Malcolm X etc., to defend their black brothers.

As for Native Americans, there is legislation at this very moment, in Washington D.C., to deprive Natives of more land, to shrink their reservations, to take away the beautiful forests (that Natives are so careful to preserve) and chop them down. The government covets these resources. Income from casinos in't, in every case, the answer to the economic plight of Natives. It is tantamount to a black man from Harlem winning the lottery. Neither has been trained how to use the money wisely. Both Natives and Black Americans had their cultures ripped away from them by the white majority. They previously had very decent, very dignified, very disciplined cultures. The U.S. government now wants to solve a few centuries of deprivation and disaster by handing them a few bucks by way of Casino rights or ghetto housing projects. It doesn't quite do the trick.

As individuals, you (and many others) hope for the day when everyone is treated equally, fairly and with dignity. We hope our country can lead the way showing other countries as well. Children copy their parent's behavior. If parents set a bad example, the children learn the wrong behavior. If America treats its own citizens poorly – how can we expect to train others?

You have stated that America sends millions, possibly billions to the Israeli military and that we do indeed intervene, if without actual military presence (which might be against public opinion). Let me restate the issue. My promise is not that we do not help at all or that we need a military presence to actually be of help. My main criticism is that our help or aid, almost always has strings attached. Whether Israel or anywhere else we ‘use' aid or defense as a lever to gain what we want; sometimes without the request or approval of the recipient country. We step in to ‘help' for reasons of our own and with our own hidden agenda. This is what causes the friction. Additionally, in the middle of a dispute or conflict, our American government may switch sides and cause even more upheaval, if they find it to their advantage. ‘True help' has no strings attached and can actually be beneficial to both sides in a conflict. We shouldn't hate Natives, African Americans or Arabs. We should, as you suggest, promote peace among all people. (You may be surprised to know that there are areas in Iraq/Iran where Jews are being treated better than many Western nations have treated them.) It has been a blight on the reputation of the West that they are known for entering a region and pitting one group against another for their own purposes. They did it in the French and Indian War, with Native American tribes, in India with Hindus and Muslims, in the Middle East with Jews and Arabs. Is it any wonder foreign nations are leery of Western ‘help'?

You have stated that terrorists will overrun Iraq and create a haven for terrorists if U.S. troops leave. Every nation has true terrorists, misfits and radicals. Iraq may have more than its share. Does that justify the whole U.S. Army taking possession of the country and blowing most of it to pieces along with hundreds of civilians and millions of dollars worth of property and businesses? Saddam himself did not wreak this kind of damage on his country. Something is dreadfully wrong here. Again – if we had a motive of helping against terrorists we could have volunteered a small task force of special agents to help. The whole country is not terrorists. I still maintain that most of those labeled ‘insurgents' are simply those rejecting the American presence.

You have stated that to leave Iraq now would mean that those soldiers who have died there have died in vain. What did they die for? Do they know? And is that why army suicides are at an all-time high? Because they, more than anyone, know we don't belong there? Do not interpret my comments to mean I am anti-American or Anti-Government. I love my country, my Americans in uniform – but our own government is leading us down the wrong path.

Please respond.

God Bless America with Change!


I will start by rebutting my opponent's claims...

My opponent stands by her claim that since America treats some of its ethnic minorities unfairly, we have no place in this world to promote justice and equality.

However, simply because we have problems doesn't mean we have no place to help. Just because I am a fat lazy person who sits on his couch eating McDonald's everyday doesn't mean I don't have any place to not promote healthy lifestyle choices and exercise to other people. Why? Because making healthy lifestyle choices and exercising are good, they are essential to your health. Similarly, just because one nation doesn't always give its citizens justice and equality doesn't mean that it shouldn't promote justice and equality throughout the world, especially if they have the military muscle to do so. It might make us look hypocritical, but it doesn't make justice any less just or equality any less equal.

My opponent claims that American involvement in the Middle East has "strings attached".

My opponent basically claims that the American military came into the region to cause friction between Jews and Arabs.

However, conflict between Jews and Arabs in this region of the world has been going on for thousands of year (long before America was even around!). Americans came into the region to ride the world of terrorists, the "friction" my opponent speaks of is nothing more than malicious anti-war Media bias. The only reason this "friction" is happening now is because video cameras are there to capture it. It was there before the cameras got there, and hopefully it will be gone when they leave.

Question to my opponent: If the United States Government is only trying to promote its interests, than why don't they launch massive propaganda to swing the American public to favor of the War? After all, if the public was on our side I'm sure the war would work much better.

My opponent claims that if America was truly trying to help ride the region of terrorist they would offer a small task force to help the Iraqi government.

I explained in Round 1 about the Iraq War. Don't make me do it again. The Iraq War came in two parts, the part where we overthrew the government and the part where we rebuilt the nation. The part where we overthrew the government was when all the damage happened, I mean its kind of hard to overthrow a government if you try to preserve there infrastructure, isn't it? What we are doing in Iraq now is rebuilding the nation and government, and ensuring that terrorist do not capture this new government. Our presence is completely justified.

My opponent believes that our soldiers are dying in vain as we speak.

So establishing a democratic government in Iraq is not a noble cause?


Once America establishes a democratic government in Iraq, the people of the Middle East will demand freedom and justice. This will spread like wild fire throughout the region, and pretty soon it will be brimming with wealth and opportunity. Since terrorism is the result of failed nations, terrorist would fail to exist because no failed nations would exist. The prevention of terrorism will prevent the loss of life, in America and the Middle East. That is why we must stay.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by philosphical 8 years ago
good debate..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
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 studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by ldebaterpatel 8 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03