The Instigator
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Jackthemarine86
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Here's How I Think George Bush Jr. Could've Handled Iraq Better

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 46711
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

bubbatheclown

Pro

War in Iraq:
We invaded Iraq, took out Saddam Hussein, and then had our forces stay in the country for almost 10 years. It cost us trillions upon trillions of dollars to do this. Instead, We could've:

1. Eliminate Hussein and his regime
2. Establish a permanent military base somewhere near Iraq to do drone strikes on Iraqi extremists if we ever need to do so
3. Feed the Iraqi people lots of propaganda telling them that they can form their own democratic free nation, and also that they need to fight against any Muslim terrorists who want to establish a theocracy
4. Withdraw from the country, having stayed in Iraq no later than January, 2005. We could either just leave or have another nation send their soldiers to take the place of ours.

This would've cost us a lot less money, and if we had another country carry on the occupation in our place the result would've been the same. And with the assistance of heavy propaganda we could get them to not accept Al-Qaeda's rule. As everybody knows, Al-Qaeda's making a comeback in Iraq.

I look forward to an interesting debate with whoever accepts this challenge.
Jackthemarine86

Con

I cannot say that I agree with your solutions. I'm a Veteran of the Iraq War, and I've heard a slew of arguments regarding the how the Iraq War was conducted. Most started notably with, "We should have..."

But lets review yours suggestions and my observations to them:

1. Eliminate Hussein and his regime -

I believe this was accomplished for the most part. In the latter years of the actual war, the majority of our fighting was against Islamic radicals.

2. Establish a permanent military base somewhere near Iraq to do drone strikes on Iraqi extremists if we ever need to do so

- Keep in mind this is the Middle East we're talking about. A place crawling with Islamic fanatics intent on destroying the influence of the "Infidels" and Western culture in their country. There's also another consideration to take in mind: These radicals don't stay in their own country. They go where the "Infidels" are. September 11th is a prime example. When I was in Iraq, more than half of the actual insurgents we picked up were not even native to Iraq. They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc,. . We establish a permanent military base near Iraq, and we're essentially inviting extremists to come into that host country and cause chaos in their neighborhood. Now we're fighting two battles. This strains our relationship with the host country.

- As far as drone strikes go - We're talking about more potential civilian casualties. This, in turn, gets broadcast all over CNN for the rest of the world to see. The majority of Americans I've spoken to have a problem with drones, and are very skeptical concerning their uses and the potential for future abuse. I'm sure our host nation (whatever it may be) and neighboring countries of Iraq would have a similar problem and paranoia.

3. Feed the Iraqi people lots of propaganda telling them that they can form their own democratic free nation, and also that they need to fight against any Muslim terrorists who want to establish a theocracy

- We did. They did. They weren't ready. Look who runs the country now.

4. Withdraw from the country, having stayed in Iraq no later than January, 2005. We could either just leave or have another nation send their soldiers to take the place of ours.

- And concrete the opinion of the rest of the world regarding America. We go in, blow segments of the country to hell, then leave the responsibility of rebuilding, establishing a government, etc., to the masses of the country. Or we hand it off to some other country, and say, "Hey, take over." In other words, relinquish responsibility for our actions. As a service-member that idea simply eats at the core of who I am as a person, and what we're taught in the military concerning responsibility for actions. So when we "ended the war" in Iraq, it was no surprise to me that Al-Qaeda took over again. They weren't ready, and we dropped our responsibility too soon. I read somewhere that it takes 3 - 10 seconds to tell a lie, and then it takes 10 minutes to dissect the lie and make it explode. I think Government leadership might have learned something from that, and applied that logic to the time period needed to maintain stability in a place like Iraq, following the years when major combat operations were still being conducted.

-Incidentally, what country do you think would have taken over for us?

This would've cost us a lot less money, and if we had another country carry on the occupation in our place the result would've been the same. And with the assistance of heavy propaganda we could get them to not accept Al-Qaeda's rule. As everybody knows, Al-Qaeda's making a comeback in Iraq.

-I already covered this.
Debate Round No. 1
bubbatheclown

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for his service to his country as a soldier in our armed forces, for fighting in a country oversees to secure our freedom here in the US.

"Keep in mind this is the Middle East we're talking about. A place crawling with Islamic fanatics intent on destroying the influence of the "Infidels" and Western culture in their country. There's also another consideration to take in mind: These radicals don't stay in their own country. They go where the "Infidels" are. September 11th is a prime example. When I was in Iraq, more than half of the actual insurgents we picked up were not even native to Iraq. They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc,. . We establish a permanent military base near Iraq, and we're essentially inviting extremists to come into that host country and cause chaos in their neighborhood. Now we're fighting two battles. This strains our relationship with the host country."

Perhaps it could be a base in Iraq then, or maybe a naval base on an aircraft carrier.

"As far as drone strikes go - We're talking about more potential civilian casualties. This, in turn, gets broadcast all over CNN for the rest of the world to see. The majority of Americans I've spoken to have a problem with drones, and are very skeptical concerning their uses and the potential for future abuse. I'm sure our host nation (whatever it may be) and neighboring countries of Iraq would have a similar problem and paranoia."

The US could strike at the terrorists when there are no civilians around. But if they're constantly surrounded by civilians, then it's pretty much a hostage situation, and it's the terrorists' faults for the civilian deaths, not the US's fault. But I agree that the American public stands very much opposed to this.

"We did. They did. They weren't ready. Look who runs the country now."

I think I have to give you this one.

"And concrete the opinion of the rest of the world regarding America. We go in, blow segments of the country to hell, then leave the responsibility of rebuilding, establishing a government, etc., to the masses of the country. Or we hand it off to some other country, and say, "Hey, take over." In other words, relinquish responsibility for our actions. As a service-member that idea simply eats at the core of who I am as a person, and what we're taught in the military concerning responsibility for actions. So when we "ended the war" in Iraq, it was no surprise to me that Al-Qaeda took over again. They weren't ready, and we dropped our responsibility too soon. I read somewhere that it takes 3 - 10 seconds to tell a lie, and then it takes 10 minutes to dissect the lie and make it explode. I think Government leadership might have learned something from that, and applied that logic to the time period needed to maintain stability in a place like Iraq, following the years when major combat operations were still being conducted."

As for the morality of this plan, if the Iraqi government grows strong enough to fend off terrorists, then it's probably another dictatorship. So it seems that no matter what you do the Muslim-Majority countries will end up with either a dictatorship or a theocracy. This isn't a region where secular democracies last long. Muslims seem to like theocracy, so it seems to me they'd be happy with Al-Qaeda in charge.
Plus, the US stayed for almost 10 years and they're taking over the country anyway. Since both plans have the same outcome, we might as well select the plan that is more economical.

"Incidentally, what country do you think would have taken over for us?"

A European Coalition, China, or even another Middle Eastern Dictatorship. Iran would probably enjoy being able to occupy the nation that attacked them several decades ago. The main purpose of the war was to remove Hussein's WMDs, and the second the US toppled his government this goal was easily accomplished.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Jackthemarine86

Con

Perhaps it could be a base in Iraq then, or maybe a naval base on an aircraft carrier.

- Actually, we had permanent bases in Iraq. A couple major ones, in fact. One in Baghdad and another at Al Assad Air Base. By proposing this, you essentially contradict your original argument and subsequent arguments concerning money - Futhermore permanent bases and operations require funding to sustain, funding to rotate personnel, funding for security, and funding to maintain, replenish, and utilize weaponry.

-Naval bases are not on aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers come from Naval Bases. When the conflict in Syria arose, we sent a few Naval warships to the Persian Gulf, and this made Russia get a little antsy. As a result, they sent a Naval warship to keep an eye on us. Prolonged presence in a small sea will eventually be protested. It raises eyebrows and makes surrounding countries of Iraq question the limits of our operations and influence.

The US could strike at the terrorists when there are no civilians around. But if they're constantly surrounded by civilians, then it's pretty much a hostage situation, and it's the terrorists' faults for the civilian deaths, not the US's fault. But I agree that the American public stands very much opposed to this.

- Not a justifiable argument. Terrorists have civilian families which are considered non-combatants according the rules for the Law of War. Furthermore, the majority of terrorists are cowards who routinely blend in with the local populace and utilize innocent civilians in order to further their agenda. Let's use your logic, though. If you're in a bank and it commences to being robbed by a group of notorious, well-known bank robbers, more than likely you become a hostage in that scenario. Pretty much a hostage situation. Now if action is taken to subdue the bank robbers, and in the process civilians are killed by law enforcement personnel, by your logic the responsibility of those lost lives is on the bank robbers..not the action taken by law enforcement personnel. Really? No, absolutely not.

-If we blame the killing of innocents with drone strikes on terrorists, simply by the mere fact that they were around terrorists, it's preposterous to think the local populace, let alone the world, will find that an acceptable or justifiable. On top of that, we defeat ourselves. One minute we're telling the people of Iraq we are there to liberate them, help them establish a new government, and new way of life. While the words are coming out of our mouth, we're killing innocent people in their country with drones. Actions speak louder than words, and the bad actions always drown out any good we accomplish.

As for the morality of this plan, if the Iraqi government grows strong enough to fend off terrorists, then it's probably another dictatorship. So it seems that no matter what you do the Muslim-Majority countries will end up with either a dictatorship or a theocracy. This isn't a region where secular democracies last long. Muslims seem to like theocracy, so it seems to me they'd be happy with Al-Qaeda in charge.
Plus, the US stayed for almost 10 years and they're taking over the country anyway. Since both plans have the same outcome, we might as well select the plan that is more economical.

- So it comes down to money, and not morality or purpose in your eyes.

-Your proposal in starting this debate was what we could have done in the Iraq War.
With each point you make, I'm showing you the answers and solutions are not that simple. Everyone has opinions, but those opinions are limited to the scope of information provided. The majority of Americans only have knowledge of the Iraq War based off what they saw on the Unless you had boots on the ground (and even then, that's not necessarily enough) or were in a position to see the "whole pie", you're making suggestions based on limited knowledge.

When it comes morality, regardless of how the country ends up, failure to act in the present is not necessarily based upon what the common or theorized outcome will be. However, if you think the overall outcome is failure, why even present a alternative course of action? Why is this even a discussion for debate?

-I have an idea of what's not moral, though - Proposing limitations of how we do / do not act on the behalf of others based on what's most economical.

A European Coalition, China, or even another Middle Eastern Dictatorship. Iran would probably enjoy being able to occupy the nation that attacked them several decades ago. The main purpose of the war was to remove Hussein's WMDs, and the second the US toppled his government this goal was easily accomplished.

- The European Coalition would probably not want the headache. I can't say much about China, other than I can see them having more influnce in removing American dollar as the universal standard for buying and selling oil. They have recently proposed the idea. If it happens, the value of the dollar drops substantially. You get another Middle Eastern Dictatorship, then so much for the propoganda you proposed we share with them. Lastly, Amercian lives are intentionally sacrificed with the over-all idea of willingly handing over a country to another dictatorship. No. No. And No.
Debate Round No. 2
bubbatheclown

Pro

"Actually, we had permanent bases in Iraq. A couple major ones, in fact. One in Baghdad and another at Al Assad Air Base. By proposing this, you essentially contradict your original argument and subsequent arguments concerning money - Futhermore permanent bases and operations require funding to sustain, funding to rotate personnel, funding for security, and funding to maintain, replenish, and utilize weaponry.
Naval bases are not on aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers come from Naval Bases. When the conflict in Syria arose, we sent a few Naval warships to the Persian Gulf, and this made Russia get a little antsy. As a result, they sent a Naval warship to keep an eye on us. Prolonged presence in a small sea will eventually be protested. It raises eyebrows and makes surrounding countries of Iraq question the limits of our operations and influence."

I have to give you this one.

"Not a justifiable argument. Terrorists have civilian families which are considered non-combatants according the rules for the Law of War. Furthermore, the majority of terrorists are cowards who routinely blend in with the local populace and utilize innocent civilians in order to further their agenda. Let's use your logic, though. If you're in a bank and it commences to being robbed by a group of notorious, well-known bank robbers, more than likely you become a hostage in that scenario. Pretty much a hostage situation. Now if action is taken to subdue the bank robbers, and in the process civilians are killed by law enforcement personnel, by your logic the responsibility of those lost lives is on the bank robbers..not the action taken by law enforcement personnel. Really? No, absolutely not.
If we blame the killing of innocents with drone strikes on terrorists, simply by the mere fact that they were around terrorists, it's preposterous to think the local populace, let alone the world, will find that an acceptable or justifiable. On top of that, we defeat ourselves. One minute we're telling the people of Iraq we are there to liberate them, help them establish a new government, and new way of life. While the words are coming out of our mouth, we're killing innocent people in their country with drones. Actions speak louder than words, and the bad actions always drown out any good we accomplish."

Let's just say a murderer on the loose is running from the police. Suddenly he grabs a hostage, a young woman, and uses her as a shield. The police fire a shot, hoping to get lucky and hit the murderer instead of the hostage. However, the young woman gets hit. The policemen in this scenario would be doing what they have to do to get to the murderer, who, if they let him live, might murder more people.
This may sound cold, but if you refuse to kill a certain terrorist because you'd also be killing 4 other people, and later that terrorist does a car bombing that kills 10 people, you should've killed him along with the 4 other people. The 9/11 Perpetrators killed 3000 people. I don't remember how many of them there were, so I'll just say there were 10 of them. Let's say that we could've prevented the September 11 Terror Attacks by drone striking each one of those terrorists, but four extra people, or even ten extra people, would be killed for each one of those ten terrorists. You end up killing 100 civilians in the process, but the deaths of 3000 people is prevented in doing so. I'd say this is the right thing to do, or at least a necessary evil.
As for what the world community thinks, the world community hates Israel with a passion and yet Israel's still alive. I don't give a heck whether a bunch of Middle Eastern dictators guilty of mass murder think that we're inhumane.

"So it comes down to money, and not morality or purpose in your eyes.
Your proposal in starting this debate was what we could have done in the Iraq War.
With each point you make, I'm showing you the answers and solutions are not that simple. Everyone has opinions, but those opinions are limited to the scope of information provided. The majority of Americans only have knowledge of the Iraq War based off what they saw on the Unless you had boots on the ground (and even then, that's not necessarily enough) or were in a position to see the "whole pie", you're making suggestions based on limited knowledge.
When it comes morality, regardless of how the country ends up, failure to act in the present is not necessarily based upon what the common or theorized outcome will be. However, if you think the overall outcome is failure, why even present a alternative course of action? Why is this even a discussion for debate?
I have an idea of what's not moral, though--Proposing limitations of how we do / do not act on the behalf of others based on what's most economical."

The truth is, if we did what I suggest, Iraq would've fallen to Al-Qaeda. We did it the "right way" that cost trillions of dollars, and guess what: Iraq's still going to fall to Al-Qaeda. Staying in Iraq after Hussein was defeated was a waste of money that accomplished little. The only thing that truly lasted was the removal of all WMDS from Iraq, Millions of lives are saved from potential biological and nuclear weapon attacks that would've been perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.

"The European Coalition would probably not want the headache. I can't say much about China, other than I can see them having more influnce in removing American dollar as the universal standard for buying and selling oil. They have recently proposed the idea. If it happens, the value of the dollar drops substantially. You get another Middle Eastern Dictatorship, then so much for the propoganda you proposed we share with them. Lastly, Amercian lives are intentionally sacrificed with the over-all idea of willingly handing over a country to another dictatorship. No. No. And No."

All right then, I admit that letting Iran handle Iraq would be a bad idea. But Russia could, and would, because Russia's notorious for intervening in the Middle East. And even with their poor human rights record, they pay more attention to the international community and human rights these days than they did 20 years ago.

Thank you for this debate, Jackthemarine86, and may the better debater win.
Jackthemarine86

Con

Let's just say a murderer on the loose is running from the police. Suddenly he grabs a hostage, a young woman, and uses her as a shield. The police fire a shot, hoping to get lucky and hit the murderer instead of the hostage. However, the young woman gets hit. The policemen in this scenario would be doing what they have to do to get to the murderer, who, if they let him live, might murder more people.
This may sound cold, but if you refuse to kill a certain terrorist because you'd also be killing 4 other people, and later that terrorist does a car bombing that kills 10 people, you should've killed him along with the 4 other people. The 9/11 Perpetrators killed 3000 people. I don't remember how many of them there were, so I'll just say there were 10 of them. Let's say that we could've prevented the September 11 Terror Attacks by drone striking each one of those terrorists, but four extra people, or even ten extra people, would be killed for each one of those ten terrorists. You end up killing 100 civilians in the process, but the deaths of 3000 people is prevented in doing so. I'd say this is the right thing to do, or at least a necessary evil.
As for what the world community thinks, the world community hates Israel with a passion and yet Israel's still alive. I don't give a heck whether a bunch of Middle Eastern dictators guilty of mass murder think that we're inhumane.

-A little info about myself outside this debate, but relevant given your example. I'm a Marine, but my job in the Marine Corps is Military Police. There are two sides to this job - One is Garrison (Squad cars, badges, traffic enforcement, response to emergencies, writing tickets, etc.,.). The other is Field Side (Relatively capable of performing the same functions as infantry, but specializing in the handling of enemy detainees, prisoners of war, convoy security, and forward operating base security).

-I worked as a Garrison Military Policemen at Camp Pendleton, California for about three years. What's unique is about our job is that we enforce not only the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Base Regluations, but state law as well. While working at Pendleton, I responded to a variety of calls ranging from homicide (being the worst) to the "The neighbor's dog won't stop barking." In other words, you have to receive a specific set of training in order to perform this function.

-With that being said, I find it HIGHLY unlikely - and do not know any police department which would condone firing at a murderer who has an innocent bystander hostage as a shield. Such actions get department heads thrown in prison, and departements to include the city sued.

-The hypothesis of preventing 9/11 is irrelevant, simply because terrorism was a distant thought at the time. Also, drones were rarely, if ever, utilized to conduct the same operations taking place in the present. This debate is circling around what we "could have" done in Iraq.

-We are not just concerned with what Middle-Eastern countries think about our actions. Our actions get broadcasted all over the world. How we conduct ourselves during warfare, and the nature of our warfare makes or breaks potential realtionships and current relationships we possess with other nations. Refer to my previous argument about saying one thing, and doing something contrary to what we are trying to accomplish. The bad gets highlighted regardless of the good achieved.

-Your logic somewhat reminds me of "The needs of the Many outweight the needs of the Few, or the One." This isn't Star Trek, and you aren't Mr. Spock... I think. Needless to say, that logic is not concrete as we are subject to emotions and empathy, and that's what makes us human. We don't deal with absolutes on most occasions when it comes to relationships - friends or foes. Only one time in our history as a nation have we used that thinking and put it in action: The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Even then, it wasn't an easy choice. However, the only reason it worked it, was because it was isolated to a specific country. There's is a difference between fighting a country, and fighting a radical belief spread out over many countries.

The truth is, if we did what I suggest, Iraq would've fallen to Al-Qaeda. We did it the "right way" that cost trillions of dollars, and guess what: Iraq's still going to fall to Al-Qaeda. Staying in Iraq after Hussein was defeated was a waste of money that accomplished little. The only thing that truly lasted was the removal of all WMDS from Iraq, Millions of lives are saved from potential biological and nuclear weapon attacks that would've been perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.

-I disagree. If we did what you suggested, the country of Iraq would not have been as stable as long as it was before falling back into Al-Qaeda's hands. We would have been the tyrants of the world, and alienated what allies we do have because of our brutish methods. Our occupation was key following the war in preventing lawlessness in a country that had lost a government which dictated its laws. The only reason it fell back into the hands of Al-Qaeda was because we did not stay there longer. America did not achieve its military might, security, or government overnight. It was a gradual progression of changes and policies that occured with time, and with the assistance of allies. Why would Iraq be any different?

-All right then, I admit that letting Iran handle Iraq would be a bad idea. But Russia could, and would, because Russia's notorious for intervening in the Middle East. And even with their poor human rights record, they pay more attention to the international community and human rights these days than they did 20 years ago.

-Russia has a great track record with Muslim countries. You should read about their war with Afghanistan. Why would a country that does not want Muslims in their country be interested in running a Muslim country? Why would we agree to them taking over? I would predict genocide and eventual abandonment in the future with that course of action.

-I think the whole debate, as interesting as it may be, is futile. I hear a lot of people criticize the war, and why we went to war. They still debate and argue about it today. Why we went, how we conducted the war, and the products of it are not going to change. What we should really be debating is what we learned from it, and how we apply what we learned in future engagements.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
No, I wasn't, nor was I in any armed conflict or any military organization. Since you have, you're probably an expert on this subject.
Posted by Jackthemarine86 3 years ago
Jackthemarine86
Bubba, were you in Iraq?
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
If you accept, you are to tell me what's wrong with my plan and provide an alternative.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
And/or
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
Do or want us to argue what is wrong with what you said, or other ideas of how Bush could have handled it better?
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
In been saying this for years.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
bubbatheclownJackthemarine86Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Tying this one up, as I think both sides evened up each others argument.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
bubbatheclownJackthemarine86Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: There are a ton of ways that Bush Jr couldve handled Iraq better, but what pro proposed is definitely not one of those things. Proposing that Iran could have simply handled Iraq was really where he shot himself in the foot, and when he wasnt suggesting other dumb ideas he was conceding con's arguments. Easy win for con