The Instigator
ILoveCheese
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Gulf war II was just

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  
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: 6/20/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 4459
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

ILoveCheese

Pro

Gulf war II was a continuation of our policy to maintain strategic assets. In this case it was oil in SA.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Gulf War II: Current war in Iraq
Just: being what is merited (Merriam-Webster)

So the statement for PRO says that the current war in Iraq was merited, or necessary.

I vehemently disagree! In Iraq, more people die each month on average than Americans in 9/11. The death of 40000+ per year is not merited. We came in and took out the stabilizing force in Iraq, whether that was our objective or not, we screwed Iraq over, and that is not just, good, or merited.

Opponent's case: "Gulf war II was a continuation of our policy to maintain strategic assets. In this case it was oil in SA."

You know oil costs a whole lot more now than it did before. Anyways, oil being a SA does not justify the Iraq war, as it assumes that that policy was just in the first place. Finally, the policy itself may be just, but the means of doing so weren't, as the ends did not justify them.
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveCheese

Pro

Ultimately, I think this debate will degenerate to whether or not it is just to fight for resources.

But to where we are now, these are the events as I see them:

1. US defines a relationship with Saudi Arabia (SA). The provide oil, we provide protection.

2. Saddam threatens SA. Gulf war I is fought and Iraq is pushed out of Kuwait.

3. No fly zones are instituted and a permanent military presence is established in the middle east.

4. Al Queda wants US out of SA. The SA government kicks OBL out of SA. Al Queda attacks US.

5. In order to remove US presence in the middle east and decrease tensions, Gulf II is fought to remove the cause of the military presence.

Specifically the US fought Gulf II to get our forces out of the region.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Well you can just extend all my points across as none were addressed.

"5. In order to remove US presence in the middle east and decrease tensions, Gulf II is fought to remove the cause of the military presence.

Specifically the US fought Gulf II to get our forces out of the region."

No evidence of this first off, and secondly, this makes no logical sense. We all knew that we would have to maintain a presence in the Middle East for a long time if we were to start the Iraq War. Anyways, we won't have to have a presence in 5 years or so when the oil runs dry, and we'll be stuck in Iraq for longer than that. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and because of that, the invasion was unjust.
Debate Round No. 2
ILoveCheese

Pro

"I vehemently disagree! In Iraq, more people die each month on average than Americans in 9/11. The death of 40000+ per year is not merited. We came in and took out the stabilizing force in Iraq, whether that was our objective or not, we screwed Iraq over, and that is not just, good, or merited."

The deaths you mention are the result of sectarian violence, not the war. It is not Americans that are dividing up the country and creating security problems, it is the people of Iraq.

"You know oil costs a whole lot more now than it did before. Anyways, oil being a SA does not justify the Iraq war, as it assumes that that policy was just in the first place. Finally, the policy itself may be just, but the means of doing so weren't, as the ends did not justify them."

I am not arguing whether or not the policy is effective. I am arguing that it was just. The means you are referring to is war. War is the use of force to achieve political objectives. It worked brilliantly and with very loss of life to both allied forces and the people of Iraq.

"No evidence of this first off, and secondly, this makes no logical sense. We all knew that we would have to maintain a presence in the Middle East for a long time if we were to start the Iraq War. Anyways, we won't have to have a presence in 5 years or so when the oil runs dry, and we'll be stuck in Iraq for longer than that. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and because of that, the invasion was unjust."

We did not 'know' we would have to be there for an extended period of time. It was anticipated that there wouldn't be sectarian violence. Thus the small force that was sent and the lack of planning after.

The reason is as I posted above. Securing resources is the ultimate reason and the risk to those resources were Saddam. Saddam forced a US military presence on Saudi soil. This led to the chain of events that led to Al Queda attacking the two towers. Air and naval bases were established in the region after the first gulf war and the imposition of no fly zones.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"I am not arguing whether or not the policy is effective. I am arguing that it was just. The means you are referring to is war. War is the use of force to achieve political objectives. It worked brilliantly and with very [little] loss of life to both allied forces and the people of Iraq."

First, an ineffective policy is not just, so you fail on that point, second, you already dropped this point, third 1 million deaths is not "very [little] loss of life" as you put it. I see it worked "brilliantly though" I mean, it's only like the third longest war we've ever been in. I don't think you win this point.

"We did not 'know' we would have to be there for an extended period of time. It was anticipated that there wouldn't be sectarian violence. Thus the small force that was sent and the lack of planning after."

It was pretty obvious that that would happen, I mean it has only been going on for over 1000 years. It was gross negligence to invade the powder keg we call Iraq. That's not justice.

"The reason is as I posted above. Securing resources is the ultimate reason and the risk to those resources were Saddam. Saddam forced a US military presence on Saudi soil. This led to the chain of events that led to Al Queda attacking the two towers. Air and naval bases were established in the region after the first gulf war and the imposition of no fly zones."

It is not a legitimate reason, see the (dropped) arguments I made in R2.

Finally, extend all my R2 arguments across, they were dropped.
Debate Round No. 3
ILoveCheese

Pro

Most of your points were previously addressed.

"First, an ineffective policy is not just, so you fail on that point, second, you already dropped this point, third 1 million deaths is not "very [little] loss of life" as you put it. I see it worked "brilliantly though" I mean, it's only like the third longest war we've ever been in. I don't think you win this point."

Your first sentence is inconsistent with your argument of ends justifying the means. Whether or not it worked, does not logically determine whether or not it was just.

Again, you can make that figure 20 million and it will still not be because of Allied forces.

"It was pretty obvious that that would happen, I mean it has only been going on for over 1000 years. It was gross negligence to invade the powder keg we call Iraq. That's not justice."

Again this is their freedom to self rule. It is their choice to kill each other. It is not the Allied forces killing millions or forcing people to move out of Shiite or Sunni zones.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"Your first sentence is inconsistent with your argument of ends justifying the means. Whether or not it worked, does not logically determine whether or not it was just."

An ineffective policy achieves a bad end, and that is bad whether the ends justify the means or not,a bad end is always bad. It's not inconsistent.

"Again, you can make that figure 20 million and it will still not be because of Allied forces."

It's the fault of our government, we took away the stability, and created a situation that was the perfect storm for chaos, if we had not invaded, this would not have happened. If someone invaded the US, took out our government, and failed to restore order, all chaos would be the fault of the invaders.

"Again this is their freedom to self rule. It is their choice to kill each other. It is not the Allied forces killing millions or forcing people to move out of Shiite or Sunni zones."

It didn't happen until we came in and took out the stabilizing force that prevented civil war, we removed the dam holding back the conflict.
Debate Round No. 4
ILoveCheese

Pro

Your entire argument boils down to: The Iraqi people should not have self determination.

I disagree.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"Your entire argument boils down to: The Iraqi people should not have self determination.

I disagree."

No it doesn't, I am saying that we set off a powder keg of ethnic conflict that only needed a spark to set it off. The result was very predictable, and we should not have done an action that we knew would cause this bad end. The PROs of invading Iraq are far outweighed by the CONs.

Also, "I disagree" is not an adequate rebuttal to my arguments, so you just dropped them, so we can just extend them all across.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
Uhh LR4, don't you support McCain, who said we could be in Iraq for a hundred years "if necessary?" just wondering.
Posted by kamaz 8 years ago
kamaz
This war can be somehow justified in the eyes of USA, but it'll be never justified in the eyes of the rest of the world. WHY???
Several factors for USA:
1.Saddam Hussein and his policies - global and domestic were just wrong and evil.
2.With USA economy - biggest economy in the world, you need a LOT of energy, it's a well known fact that USA had only 10-15 years until it would use its oil resources thus getting more from an evil regime seems right for the future of the country and its population. On top of that, with the latest discovery of the largest oil deposits in the world that were made in Iraq just last month (we can assume it was actually made long time before this war started and this is the actual reason this war began and NOT the weapons of mass destruction), you can be assured that this war saved US economy in the longer run, thus saving the way of life of the Americans.
3.US military machine must be present in as many places as possible to keep control over the world, coz whether you like it or not that's the situation at the moment – USA controls the world.
Posted by kamaz 8 years ago
kamaz
Now, factors against USA and 2nd Gulf War:
forgets too often too soon that playing GOD will be judged and at the end there will be consequences, and that's what American government and people who elect that government must realize before it's all too late. Because then it is USA that will be evil and corrupt in the eyes of the rest of the WORLD, and by the way it is already happening.
2.This war was never supported globally because all countries or governments rather of those countries, did not believe the intentions of the USA to save the world from evil person with huge arsenal of horrible weapons of mass destruction, but the shortest way to the energy source, and on top of that US government simply didn't want to share spoils of this war with the rest of the world, thus not sharing the power, thus getting even more grip on the world affairs, and that simply smells like an Imperialism to me.
3.It is a sad fact, that because of US world affairs more people die of starvation, bombs and US produced weapons than 10 Saddams could ever kill during their regime together.
Conclusion:
So, to conclude: was it right to remove Saddam's regime? ABSOLUTELY!!!
Is it right to dictate the rest of the world what to do? NO!!!
USA and the rest of the world must work together on building prosperous and free life for all its earth citizens and not only some chosen ones, because at the end of story we are all brothers and sisters.
Posted by WarPig 8 years ago
WarPig
LR4N6FTW4EVA implies that its the end of the story. Just a modest example according to the latest issue of Readers Digest, Currently there is a reservist General in charge of all the detention centers in Iraq, he as revamped the entire system by separating the obvious extremists who reject anything western from the Iraqi citizens who joined resistence factions just to feed their kids. Then he tought them to read and do math. Then he gave them jobs around the prison compounds making money if they show good behavior. then he releases them now with an education and a newfound sense of worth. The re-capture rate of these insurgence has dropped some 75% according to the article (don't quote me on the exact percentage, I read it 2 days ago and I have alot of other miniscule facts in my brain that I have to deal with on a regular basis). The point is that the people of Iraq will eventually stabilize their nation and the violence will subside, which would never have happened under Saddam Husseins regime. I have heard it argued many times that the middle eastern people, particularly those of Arab descent cant embrace democracy. Well, what about Quwait, what about Jordan? these nations have lived quite peacfully with a nice mix of monarchy and parlaimentary democracies. Are they as free as us? I don't know I have never been there. But I know we don't here so much about them dealing with domestic terror. Why? because they have a government that at least loosely keeps an economy inwhich their citizens can thrive and have some form of individual autonomy. Iraq,by the end of the story WILL do the same if we as the liberating force stick to our committment and help them rebuild rather than abandon them just because it seemed a little rough for a time.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I'll post tomorrow, I need some sleep tonight.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by CommonSenseAmerican 8 years ago
CommonSenseAmerican
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 
Vote Placed by sccrplyr40 8 years ago
sccrplyr40
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:03 
Vote Placed by kamaz 8 years ago
kamaz
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:03 
Vote Placed by WarPig 8 years ago
WarPig
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:03