The Instigator
The_Riddler
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Every soldier who dies in Iraq, dies in vein

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2009 Category: News
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,067 times Debate No: 7030
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

The_Riddler

Pro

I'd like to start by saying, I have the utmost respect for the soldiers who risk there lives in combat, and this is not an attack on them or our armed forces, just the fact that our attack on Iraq was unjust and under qualified. Also, I'd like to welcome anyone who is willing to take on this debate. I will take the affirmation stance.

1. There were no "WMD's" in Iraq
Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
-http://www.cnn.com...

2. Al Qaeda is not based or from Iraq
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq ...The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United State
-http://www.washingtonpost.com...

3. Iran has the most ties to Al Qaeda and therefore should have been the target of our so called "war on terror"
While it found no operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network had long-running contacts with Iraq's neighbor and historic foe, Iran ... The Sept. 11 panel's findings on Iran have been eclipsed by the continuing political debate over Iraq, which the commission said had not developed a "collaborative relationship" with al Qaeda despite limited contacts in the 1990s. That appeared to conflict with previous characterizations made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials in their justifications for launching the war against Saddam Hussein.

In relation to Iran, commission investigators said intelligence "showed far greater potential for collaboration between Hezbollah and al Qaeda than many had previously thought." Iran is a primary sponsor of Hezbollah, or Party of God, the Lebanon-based anti-Israel group that has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States.
-http://www.washingtonpost.com...
RoyLatham

Con

Pro obviously means "in vain" not "in vein." Pro gave no definition. A dictionary definition http://www.answers.com... is:

"To no avail; without success: Our labor was in vain."

To consider the resolution we must establish what the objectives were and then whether or not any success has been attained in achieving the objectives. For the resolution to be affirmed all objectives must have completely failed to meet the definition of "no success." Pro made no explicit claim as to what the objectives were in the Iraq war. Our first task, therefore, is to try to deduce from his arguments what the objectives were. He seems to think there were two objectives: (1) to discover and destroy Saddam's WMDs, and (2) to fight al Qaeda. He supposes there were no other objectives. Saddam's brutal regime was ended, Saddam's belligerence based on his hoax of having WMDs was ended, Saddam's threat to the stability of the region was ended, Iraq was removed as untouchable safe haven for terrorists, and the US showed it would demand compliance with the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Perhaps most significant, the US proved it was not a paper tiger.

It certainly was believed that Saddam had WMDs. The evidence included the independent assessments of the British, French, German, Russian, and Israeli intelligence organizations, and each of the dozen US intelligence agencies. Hans Blix, the UN agent responsible for inspections, said in his book that he believed Saddam had WMDs. President Clinton believed Saddam had WMDs. Then Senator Obama believed that Saddam had WMDs, but opposed the war based upon Saddam's not having used them against the US; he was opposed to preemption. Before Saddam's execution FBI agent George Piro "made friends" with Saddam, and Saddam revealed that he deliberately gave the impression that he had WMDs. http://www.cbsnews.com... Saddam was concerned with deterring Iran, and felt the U.S. would not intervene, no matter what. Journalist Carl Bernstein, famous for uncovering Watergate, investigated the decision-making process in the White House leading up to the Iraq War and concluded that all the right questions were asked by Bush, and the intel agencies were not pressured.

The related objective of the War was to find out whether or not Saddam had WMDs. The assessment was that the risk of Saddam having WMDs was too high too ignore, even though there was less than certainty that Saddam had them. Since Saddam was an absolute ruler who wanted the world to believe he had WMDs, it should not be surprising that his efforts succeeded. Even Saddam's own generals believed they existed. The formal objective was to enforce the agreement obtained after the first Gulf War by which inspections were to take place. Saddam had failed to cooperate. The objective was to enforce the agreement and to find out whether or not Saddam had WMDs. That objective was achieved.

The Administration claimed that Saddam supported terrorism, and there is no question that Saddam was supporting Palestinian terrorists. Links to al Qaeda were also alleged. It was not alleged by the Bush Administration that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

The objectives of the Iraq War are revealed in the Iraq War Resolution that gave the reasons for the use of military force. These were (a) Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors; (b) Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."; (c) Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."; (d) Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"; (e) Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War; (f) Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."; (g) Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations; (h) The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them; (i) The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. (j) Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. http://en.wikipedia.org....

Each reason for the War translates to an objective of removing that complaint through military force. Four of the objectives were clearly met: (a) compliance with the 1991 ceasefire was achieved; (c) Saddam's brutal repression was stopped; (e) the firing on coalition aircraft was stopped; and (j) removal of Saddam and promotion of a democratic regime. These accomplishments are all significant. Therefore Pro's contention that all of the soldier's efforts were in vain is untrue, and the resolution fails.

The objective (b) to find WMDs failed, but the objective to remove the threat succeeded. Saddam was using the threat of WMDs to gain leverage and influence; that ability to threaten was ended. With respect to the other objectives, the results are unclear but contain considerable promise for success. Whatever al Qaeda's original presence in Iraq, they entered the conflict in force, and now seem to have been defeated. Iraq is not providing aid to terrorists in Palestine or elsewhere. If it transpires that a stable democratic regime endures in Iraq, that would be tremendous defeat for terrorism.

Pro's argument that Drumheller should have been believed and the all world's intel organizations not believed is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution asserts that all the objectives failed completely. Faulty intelligence planted by a dictator does not obviate the brutal nature of the regime, his failure to comply with the ceasefire agreement, or that his interests were contrary to those of the US. Another intelligence failure was the Saddam's stockpile of one billion tons of conventional arms was unknown to the US. That posed a threat to the US and its allies, and to the stability of the region. Had it been known, there would have been another valid objective to remove them.

Pro's argument that the military would have been better deployed fighting Iran is irrelevant. If it were better, it would not mean that the Iraq War accomplished nothing. Iran was a much more powerful country and the moral case against Saddam was abundantly clear. One important accomplishment of the Iraq War was to demonstrate that the U.S. has limits beyond which we will follow through with military action. A clean record of always caving to dictators would make negotiations with Iran and North Korea pointless; those countries could be confident that the US would never do anything. Now they have to worry. That alone is proof that allied soldiers did not die in vain.

Pro bears the burden of proving not only that no objective of the Iraq War was met, but that none will be met and that no other worthy achievement is possible. If it happens, as now seems likely, that the first democratic Muslim regime is established and endures in the Middle East, that would be an extraordinary victory in the war against terrorism. It would further validate the soldier's sacrifices. Pro must prove there is no hope of that to establish the truth of the resolution. He cannot prove that.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Riddler

Pro

The_Riddler forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

I cite Pro for bad conduct in forfeiting the round.

Arguments are continued.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Riddler

Pro

The_Riddler forfeited this round.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro again showed bad conduct by forfeiting.

"In vain" means "without success." The successes of the Iraq War included removing Saddam as a belligerent force, ending Saddam's oppression and genocide, enforcing compliance with the 1991 ceasefire agreement, and facilitating the establishment of the first democracy in the Arab world. It established that the US was not a paper tiger, which adds substance to the US negotiating position with other terrorist-supporting nations. Pro made no argument that they these accomplishments did not happen or that they did not constitute successes.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
Wow. I am really amazed that somebody from America especially would post this about our troops. Why in the world would they die in VAIN if they die serving our free country knowing that everything they are doing over there is making the United States a better place to call home? I would want to die that way, knowing that you died in an honorable way.
Posted by lordjosh 8 years ago
lordjosh
I think The_Riddler gave up because he couldn't find anymore news reports to "cut and Paste" as his arguments. I think he is out of his league on this site.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
All votes to CON. Even though PRO had decent S&G, there is no reason for why he should've won this debate if he forfeits everything but his opening round.
Posted by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
You spelled vain wrong. it's 'VAIN,' not 'VEIN.' Judas, can't you spell right?
Posted by Amphibian 8 years ago
Amphibian
You are going to die eventually, I would rather die serving my country.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Yuanti 8 years ago
Yuanti
The_RiddlerRoyLathamTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
The_RiddlerRoyLathamTied
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 Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
The_RiddlerRoyLathamTied
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 lordjosh 8 years ago
lordjosh
The_RiddlerRoyLathamTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
The_RiddlerRoyLathamTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The_RiddlerRoyLathamTied
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